In Reply to: RE: You won't accept evidence that contradicts your preconceived notion posted by tomservo on November 17, 2022 at 07:02:56:
I'm not proposing something new to science, as you say. Whatever gave you that idea? Do you consider yourself informed of everything in science, is the real question. I'm beginning to think so.I am under no obligation to present engineering proof, as you say, or proof of any kind or even evidence. This is not a peer review forum, in case you haven't heard.
By the way, I never said directionality is real because some people claim to hear it. Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? (You are very adept at using pseudo skeptic arguments.)
Because systems can sometimes have errors and peoples' listening skills are often unreliable, negative results of a test for directionality are meaningless. Even if the test is a controlled blind test. Meaningful results start to emerge after many tests on many systems with many test subjects. Repeatability and transferability are the key.
You keep trying to argue that only niche audiophiles are concerned about directionality. That's true but it doesn't mean it's not real. You can follow that logic, right? That's another pseudo skeptic argument.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Oh, brother, it's getting deep around here - geoffkait 11/17/2209:44:21 11/17/22 (4)
- RE: Oh, brother, it's getting deep around here - Tre' 18:53:38 12/18/22 (1)
- Reading comprehension issues! - geoffkait 15:15:16 12/19/22 (0)
- RE: Oh, brother, it's getting deep around here - Ugly 09:45:30 11/19/22 (1)
- Negative vs positive results - geoffkait 15:52:44 11/19/22 (0)