Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Advice from Axiom Owners A MUST READ Personal STORY: Newbies Must Know

"folks who think they're scientists" ...

What is it with your disdain of scientists?

You are 100% correct that the article chesseroo linked was not science. It was one guy's rant on his findings about the audio marketplace BASED ON the complete disconnect of marketing from actual scientific evidence. You are perfectly within your right not to give a rats a$$ (happy tomtuttle? ) about that scientific research, but it doesn't make the linked rant's conclusions any less true.

KC, I certainly did not mean to insult you, only to disagree with you. We're talking about sound equipment here, and a bit of philosophy of science, not religion. Peace.

B.J., if i may call you that, correct me if i'm wrong, but you don't even have axioms yet?? if i'm correct, what will you be once you have taken possession (sp)?
dan

In reply to:

---

I see, like the stickleback fish, when confronted with argument, folks who think they're scientists talk about food.

---

Well, i AM a scientist. Based on what i just read, and I really don't know much about your background of course or even if you are referring to the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) or the ninespine stickleback (Pungitius pungitus (Linnaeus)) but here's a clue from Grade 2 science class, FISH CANNOT TALK.

I guess that is just my OPINION.

he'll be one happy MoFo

^billy

wow, this has gone from bad to worse..

2dan- when i said i was an addict, i was referring to my posts(over 300).. just one of those stupid goals i was going for while bored at work today. to be honest, once i get my AXIOMS home and set up my HT, i hopefully can be called a 'believer'.. i am buying these speakers sight unseen, and sound unheard. rest assured, there is a certain amount of uncertanity in my mind.. i hope that floats away with the sounds coming out of my new speakers.

bigjohn

2x6, I've met you and know you to be a more than decent fellow, but I think it is a lost cause to try and convince the "science club" that they should fork out huge bucks for dubious products. I, for one, will keep my money in my pocket.

Hi BigWill, I had the great pleasure of your hospitality, but I am a committed believer in quality on-the-cheap. I paid about $70 for my Mapleshade Clearview speaker cables - came with a problem, they were nice enough to upgrade me to a pair of Mapleshade Clearview Double Golden Helix Plus speaker wires. I love 'em. Someday, you'll come by my place and let me demo some cool stuff for you. There are some amps I like very much - I have a Yamaha M-80, and a Kenwood KA9100. Paid a total of a bit over $100 for the two of them and they are in mint condition. I am also proud of my big Onk - an Onkyo M504. I did go a bit crazy and paid $300 for that one. One of my favorite amplifier scores however is the Onkyo M282 a 120 watt x 2 amp with a very rich sound quality. They list for about $300 each, but you can grab them off ubid.com for under $100 every now and again.

I also love my Axiom and Michaura speakers - they outperform speakers which cost my friends many, many times the price of my Canadian beauties.

I think the idea here is quality at a price. Anyone can throw megabucks at the problem of sound reproduction and come away with a pretty nice system. The challenge is, putting together a system which sounds as good and costs WAY less.

My favorite great system on-the-cheap is my garage system - a mint Kenwood KA9100 solid state amp (cost me $20, the seller and I thought it was broken, turned out it was just the jumpers), a pair of Dahlquist DQM-905s ($50) and a ($10 garage sale item) JVC XL504 6 disc changer (sounds substantially better than a Cambridge D500SE I bought and then sold).

I picked up a 2 channel Kenwood THX amp rated at 200 wpc, thought I would love it - hated it. The KA9100 sounds better, so does the big Onk, I've had other amps whose sound I did not like. I bought them thinking I would. Placebo effect? It's all in the sounds boys and girls, not the price, and they don't all sound the same.

PMB,
Thanks for the reply.
I'm not a 'science doubter' in any sense of the word- and I agree with you about double-blind tests and was very pro-double-blind tests in my post.

My issue, and I'd guess that you're sympathetic to this, is with people who extrapolate a little too far from scientific results and/or who call on science "as a drunk uses a lightpost- for support, not illumination". In professional scientific journals, published results of experiments always seem very tentative and limited in scope- I'd say proper science is usually rather tentative.

This guy (and I enjoyed the read, kcarlile- thanks) struck me as not tentative, step-by-step, objective, citing other literature, and 'scientific', but informal and informative. There's definitely a need for information like this, but the article was definitely not 'scientific' though he tries to come off as a scientist.

He does make a lot of good points, but he doesn't come off as what he says he is. He's saying "I'm a scientist" to back up his claims, yet not being scientific, and that's a little bothersome.

So, I really enjoyed the read, and I think he's right on more points than not. But it's only a collection of assertions, not proof of something.

Good night guys,

Mike

In reply to:

---

the "science club"

---

I think that's a misleading label... it's not science versus voodoo, there are basic fundamentals of electricity, physics and engineering at work here. We're not talking about guys in lab coats stuck far away from the real world, we're talking about technicians - guys who do this day-in, day-out for 20+ years.

You're comparing a holistic healer to a biomed student when you should be comparing the shaman to an ER attending physician. It's all about the ratio of theory to practice and how that compares to blind faith and sensory perception.

Bren R.