In Reply to: RE: Six Years Ago - me too posted by Dawnrazor on April 26, 2012 at 12:56:44:
> What I reject is that one can know apriori how things sound.
You have repeated the same idea over and over without addressing anything I have said. I said that I did not find cics's explanations convincing. I did comment on some claims years ago, but I have not for quite a long time. I have not commented on how such a system sounds.
If I comment on a claim that cics or someone else using his approach makes, his words and my comments should stand on their merits.
Maybe knowledge, logic, experiment and measurement don't matter to you as an audiophile. They are essential to me as a consumer and they are part of my pleasure in being an audiophile.
> That is why I find these posts so frustrating.
Well, as long as fmak is around, you will find his posts frustrating.
You can convince me if you meet the knowledge and logic in my posts with better quality knowledge and logic of your own.
> What have you actually tested of cics theories?
In the sentence you quoted, I said "Checking the logic and the math AND devising repeatable experiments ..." You ignored the part about logic and math.
You are the one urging other people to adopt the cics approach. I think that you should be asking and answering these questions: "Can I explain credibly why the claims are valid?" and "What repeatable experiments have I done to verify those claims?"
Bill
my blog: http://carsmusicandnature.blogspot.com/
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Old Listener 16:49:41 04/28/12 (3)
- RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Dawnrazor 22:41:09 04/28/12 (2)
- RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Tony Lauck 10:17:28 04/29/12 (1)
- RE: Six Years Ago - me too - Dawnrazor 11:23:33 04/29/12 (0)