10-Feb-2019, 22:36
austinpop does a product review and reports that a particular streamer sounds great, is better than some other streamers in certain ways, and then does a thought dump on what he thinks may be producing the benefits he hears without doing anything to test whether the things he says are contributing to the differences actually are contributing. The listening comments have value because they tell us one person's experience, the thought dump on what's causing the benefits isn't much use.
Archimago ignores the listening comments, doesn't do any listening of his own, and spends his time pulling the thought dump to pieces. He may be right about the thought dump but that has no implications for the listening comments austinpop made. They could be a totally accurate report of the products actual performance.
Back in 1903 there was argument about whether powered heavier than air flight was possible. There was scientific dispute and no proven theory. The Wright brothers made an airplane and flew it as a proof of concept. The how's and why's of how it worked were not established or accepted at the time it took to the air. Respected scientists, on hearing about the flight, took to print with elegant scientific proofs of why the flight was impossible and claims that it was a hoax. They didn't bother to go and see whether the plane could do the things it was claimed to have done, they just spent their time demolishing the reasons given for how and why the thing worked.
Do you see a parallel?
The review isn't brilliant and contains more supposition than observations. The critique isn't brilliant and contains nothing more than criticism of suppositions and that criticism has no relevance at all to the correctness or other of the listening observations. Neither austinpop nor Archimago produced a really useful or informative document in my view. austinpop's suppositions tell us nothing useful and Archimago's demolition of them is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether the streamer works as claimed. There's too many wasted words in both articles and the only one with any actual observations is austinpop's. Those observations need verification to be accepted.
What scientists said about powered flight before the Wright brothers succeeded didn't mean it couldn't be done, and pulling the accounts about how and why the flight worked apart after the event didn't prove that the flight hadn't happened.
Too many errors on both sides in my view.
Archimago ignores the listening comments, doesn't do any listening of his own, and spends his time pulling the thought dump to pieces. He may be right about the thought dump but that has no implications for the listening comments austinpop made. They could be a totally accurate report of the products actual performance.
Back in 1903 there was argument about whether powered heavier than air flight was possible. There was scientific dispute and no proven theory. The Wright brothers made an airplane and flew it as a proof of concept. The how's and why's of how it worked were not established or accepted at the time it took to the air. Respected scientists, on hearing about the flight, took to print with elegant scientific proofs of why the flight was impossible and claims that it was a hoax. They didn't bother to go and see whether the plane could do the things it was claimed to have done, they just spent their time demolishing the reasons given for how and why the thing worked.
Do you see a parallel?
The review isn't brilliant and contains more supposition than observations. The critique isn't brilliant and contains nothing more than criticism of suppositions and that criticism has no relevance at all to the correctness or other of the listening observations. Neither austinpop nor Archimago produced a really useful or informative document in my view. austinpop's suppositions tell us nothing useful and Archimago's demolition of them is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether the streamer works as claimed. There's too many wasted words in both articles and the only one with any actual observations is austinpop's. Those observations need verification to be accepted.
What scientists said about powered flight before the Wright brothers succeeded didn't mean it couldn't be done, and pulling the accounts about how and why the flight worked apart after the event didn't prove that the flight hadn't happened.
Too many errors on both sides in my view.
Roon Nucleus+, Devilalet Expert 140 Pro CI, Focal Sopra 2, PS Audio P12, Keces P8 LPS, Uptone Audio EtherREGEN with optical fibre link to my router, Shunyata Alpha NR and Sigma NR power cables, Shunyata Sigma ethernet cables, Shunyata Alpha V2 speaker cables, Grand Prix Audio Monaco rack, RealTRAPS acoustic treatment.
Brisbane, Qld, Australia
