[bfreedma]

Focusing intently on the details can lead to missing the bigger picture.

Finally! - an audiophile cable design individualized to the owner’s face. Better patent that before someone in the Cables, Power tweaks, and Unicorns section of the forum finds this and beats you to market…

 

[sunjam]

What he's demonstrated so far was that:
His persona thinks very highly of itself.
He can be top poster of the day on Headfi with messages that, upon scrutiny, have no content.

End of list.

He didn't address any legitimate point made against his Don Quixote narratives. I looked a little and could not find one instance. IMO, he's a hot air balloon.

1. Thanks for your input

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion. Please do share more. It does help a lot for our discussion

I love to see comments like the quoted one above as it triggers me to think more. It also helps me to demonstrate how critical thinking can help a person to avoid getting into an unnecessary embarrasing situation that he created himself.

The more comments like that, the more examples I could have for demonstrating the power of critical thinking (and the lacking of it). Thanks again for your comment.

ok, let's go back to your comment.

2. My feedback

"His persona thinks very highly of itself." <== I wouldn't disagree this statement. Most of my friend have similar comments. Meanwhile, I love to see more people who can thinks very highly of himself too.

To me, I think that a person must have something that is good, e.g. knowledge, analytical thinking skill, good learning technique, etc.... (at least that's what he feels) to make him to have such feeling. I'd be very interested to find out more from him what he is good at as he may be a good teacher for me to learn my missing knowledge.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying I am very smart, very knowledgeable, nor very intellegent. No, I didn't say that. If you feel that, that's your personal own feeling. I am not going to argue with you about your own feelings. Similarly, I would not argue with you that "you should not hear it" or "you really hear it"

I just want to say that I am not stupid or dumb. People would have a hard time if they want to BS me with tons of jargon or technical stuffs or trick me into believing any psuedo science claim. I have enough knowledge and sharp critial thinking skill to debunk all these.

So, I agreed that your statement stated a fact (i.e. you expressed your opinion about my persona) unless you have any hidden message in it that no other people can see. (I will explain later below with the example of "He wrote that in 2012" regarding what's hidden message)

By the way, do you really want to deliver a hidden message other than your personal opinion that "His persona thinks very highly of itself"?

Sorry for my poor communication skill, I don't see any hidden message in your mesage (even with my critical thinking skill). Please let me know explicitly if you want to say something more. Otherwise, I will assume you don't have any hidden messsage in it.

If you worry that your message would be too straight and I would be feeling unease or offended because of that, I can guarantee that I won't.

Please deliver your message as bluntly as possible. Of couse, if you feel unease to express yourself bluntly, feel free not to do it. I respect people's choice.

3. No content?

"He can be top poster of the day on Headfi with messages that, upon scrutiny, have no content." <== I agree that I may be a top poster of the day on Headfi.
Regarding the other descriptions "with messages that, upon scrutiny, have no content", that is your personal feeling/experience/opinion (unless you claim it is a fact with supporting evidence).

For personal feeling/experience/opinion, I would not say you are correct or wrong as it is your own feeling, it is something like "I can hear it" or "I cannot hear it". I would not argue with that.

"have no content"? <=== I understand the general public cannot understand Quantum Physics and General Relativity easily so they would see articles on these topics as "no content" (as they cannot get it). I believe these articles are written for the people who are capable to read it. Is it a fact that these articles are "no content"? People can find out the answer themselves with their analytical thinking (if they are willing to apply).

In fact, I am pretty surprised to find out that people who use the term "confirmation bias" a lot in their comments would have a wrong understanding of the true meaning of the term. The true meaning of the term (i.e. the definition) is easily available on wikipedia for someone who is willing to find it out. Did they apply the concept of "corret but not absolutely" when they mis-use the term for their own benefits? For this, I am not sure. Only they would know the real answer.

I truely believed that "we all have the ability to think analytically" (the belief). Most people don't apply it just because they are lazy.
However, after various discussions recently on different forums, I doubt the belief now... ...

I could be wrong regarding the belief as there are many supporting facts to indicate that the belief is wrong. I am very disappointed to see that.

p.s. Feel free not to read any article on Quantum Physics or General Relativity if anyone found these articles as "no content". We are living in a free world. People have free will to pick what they want to read or not.

==========

4. Hot Air Ballon?

" IMO, he's a hot air balloon" <=== I understand why you have such feeling. As I highlighted earlier using the example of Quantum Physics and General Relativity articles, a hot air balloon to someone could be a piles of gold to other. I understand fully why some people would consider a piles of gold to be a hot air ballon.

If people don't know what is gold, they would just consider these are just some shinny yellow color metallic rubbish.

From your comment ("He didn't address ...."), it looks me that you want to highlight that I didn't address something you asked before. Correct? If there is any, please let me know, as I thought I did address all your questions.

==============

5. Hidden Message

By the way, I notice that you may want to avoid my question I asked earlier as shown below. (It was my mistake if you are too busy and just overlooked my question)

If you don't mind, could you elaborate more what's the hidden message in your reply? What do you want to say with "He wrote that in 2012"?

Of couse, feel free not to answer if you feel unease about it.

-He wrote that in 2012.

'He wrote that in 2012' <=== I am confused. It may be a fact that he wrote that in 2012 (as I didn't check) but how this 'fact" is related to our discussion here? Do you want to say that his writing could be incorrect because it was more than 10 years old? Or you want to say that his writing should be right as it was written more than 10 year ago. Sorry for my ignorance, I really didn't get what you want to say about 2012.

Cheers

 

[sunjam]

Focusing intently on the details can lead to missing the bigger picture.

Thanks for the picture. It is very interesting.

Are you saying that we should see the illusion..... or not?

I think someone (a visual illusion expert here) said that it is just an illusion, we should not see it (am I correct?)

Oh...Man... I am very confused now... Should I see it or should I not see it.

I am very confused about the word "bigger picture" now.

Seeing it or not seeing it? That's the question...

May I ask.... what do you mean "bigger picture"?

Answer A: "bigger picture": means I should zoom in (and make the picture bigger to see the circles)?
Answer B: "bigger picture": means I should zoom out (and make the picture smaller to see the lady)?

 

[theveterans]

I cater to both ways of listening, bigger picture and nitpicking on details. Great sound is an art of balance (to your preferences) between the two: too incisive and detail focused can easily fatigue while losing incisiveness for smooth sound becomes boring quickly. A balance between the incisiveness and tonal balance provides non-fatiguing listening where your brain doesn't need to strain in enjoying music and it surprises you with sheer clarity and detail when the track calls for it

 

[BS5711]

Thanks for the picture. It is very interesting.

Are you saying that we should see the illusion..... or not?


I think someone (a visual illusion expert here) said that it is just an illustion, we should not see it (am I correct?)

Oh...Man... I am very confused now... Should I see it or should I not see it.

I am very confused about the word "bigger picture" now.

Seeing it or not seeing it? That's the question...

May I ask.... what do you mean "bigger picture"?

Answer A: "bigger picture": means I should zoom in (and make the picture bigger to see the circles)?
Answer B: "bigger picture": means I should zoom out (and make the picture smaller to see the lady)?

It was what well adjusted people call a joke. A little play on your use of an optical illusion in an attempt to make a point and my assertion that you are looking at the minutiae but missing the bigger picture insofar as all this is premised around something that you haven't even established to be true. You appear to be basing all this on your impressions from normal listening just like every other 'audiophile' who thinks they have hearing perceptions that science doesn't have an explanation for.

I ask again .....

" Do you not see the utter disconnect between claiming to have a psychology background and not having the awareness to assess how your own psychology may be influencing what you hear (CD versus Hi Res) when you must know it can have a massive effect ? "

Would you be so kind as to respond to that question in bold italics ?

As I see it that is the crux of all this and the one thing that you won't address.

A simple few words in response would be sufficient if you would humor me.

 

[sunjam]

I cater to both ways of listening, bigger picture and nitpicking on details. Great sound is an art of balance (to your preferences) between the two: too incisive and detail focused can easily fatigue while losing incisiveness for smooth sound becomes boring quickly. A balance between the incisiveness and tonal balance provides non-fatiguing listening where your brain doesn't need to strain in enjoying music and it surprises you with sheer clarity and detail when the track calls for it

Yes, balance is the keyword here.

Why we have to go to the extremes of the spectrum?

one extreme: "You should not see / hear it. Science proved that" (notes: the word "proved" here is questionable)
other extreme: "I can really hear it. I swear it. I can hear it"

Why we have to brainwash all the people to have them to say "Yes, I cannot hear it" to conform with your groupthink's belief?

Like the visual illusion above, it is perfectly fine if someone can see the lady and someone cannot see the lady.

I think what we can do is to remind the people to zoom in and out and let them experience more themselves.

 

[sunjam]

" Do you not see the utter disconnect between claiming to have a psychology background and not having the awareness to assess how your own psychology may be influencing what you hear (CD versus Hi Res) when you must know it can have a massive effect ? "

Did I say "I have no confirmation bias"? No, I didnt say that. I do have confirmation bias. I know pretty clear how it affects my thinking / behaviour.

Let me emphasize: I DO HAVE CONFIRMATION BIAS. <=== is it something you want to show?
In fact, all the people who can think logically HAVE CONFIRMATION BIAS.

In short, we ALL DO. If you don't think so, check the definition of confirmation bias again and ask yourself if you have any belief or any values in your mind.

Only new born baby has no confirmation bias as he has no belief and no value in his mind (unless you belief that he bring his beliefs or values from his "before life"). Agree?

Do you know what's the root cause of confirmation bias? It is our education. It is our knowledge. All these form beliefs and values in our mind. All our confirmation bias are because of our beliefs / values.

Let's see the definition one more time:

Confirmation bias is NOT a bad thing in general. It is not like "virus". It helps us to make a lot of quick and correct decision.
Confirmation bias is A BAD thing if you didn't realize how it affects you.

I believe YOU HAVE CONFIRMATION BIAS
because I believe YOU ARE WELL EDUCATED

The only thing is that most people try to deny they have confirmation bias (because they think it is a bad thing like virus?)

Now, do you think you have confirmation bias? It is up to you.

I got my Psychology education after I obtained the qualifications for other subjects. It helps me to see clearly what I missed. Confirmation bias, visual illusion, human perception, pseudo science are the major study areas in Psychology.

p.s.: I am not sure if my reply is short enough. If not, please feel free to give me Yes/No type questions if you think that's easiler.

 

[sunjam]

It was what well adjusted people call a joke. A little play on your use of an optical illusion in an attempt to make a point and my assertion that you are looking at the minutiae but missing the bigger picture insofar as all this is premised around something that you haven't even established to be true. You appear to be basing all this on your impressions from normal listening just like every other 'audiophile' who thinks they have hearing perceptions that science doesn't have an explanation for.

I ask again .....

" Do you not see the utter disconnect between claiming to have a psychology background and not having the awareness to assess how your own psychology may be influencing what you hear (CD versus Hi Res) when you must know it can have a massive effect ? "

Would you be so kind as to respond to that question in bold italics ?

As I see it that is the crux of all this and the one thing that you won't address.

A simple few words in response would be sufficient if you would humor me.

Sorry for the not so short reply above.

Did I address all your concerns / questions? If not, please let me know. To be honest, I really enjoy the discussion with you as I see you do have very strong logical mind.

May I suggest you to remove me/sunjam in your thinking process. Just focus on the contents I mentioned. Imagine someone you trust were telling you the same things I was telling you. Forget about who's right and who's wrong for now. No you or me. Just the contents.

I am not here to prove that I am right and you are wrong. No, I could be wrong and you could be right. It has nothing to do with the contents. Hope this help. Cheers.

 

[BS5711]

Skirting around the question yet again.

We aren't talking about me, we are talking about you and your assertion that you think you hear something then go looking to confirm what you think you hear, that is the very definition of confirmation bias.

A critical thinker, as you claim to be, would not go looking for confirmation as the first step, they would test to check if they do actually hear something with rigorous tests.

If you haven't confirmed that what you believe you hear is real and isn't perception created entirely by expectation bias how do you know you are not looking for an explanation for something that isn't real.

 

[sunjam]

Skirting around the question yet again.

We aren't talking about me, we are talking about you and your assertion that you think you hear something then go looking to confirm what you think you hear, that is the very definition of confirmation bias.

A critical thinker, as you claim to be, would not go looking for confirmation as the first step, they would test to check if they do actually hear something with rigorous tests.

If you haven't confirmed that what you believe you hear is real and isn't perception created entirely by expectation bias how do you know you are not looking for an explanation for something that isn't real.

Sorry for my poor communication skill. Is your reply a statement of your feeling/opinion? Or is it a question for me to address?

From my understanding, it is a statement to show your personal opinion rather than a question for me. In the case, I am not going to comment on your opinion. Enjoy

 

[BS5711]

You know full well it is a question.

You don't want to answer it because you are fully aware that all your talk about the technical aspects of CD versus high res audio is utterly pointless unless you have definitively confirmed that you can actually hear a difference and you haven't confirmed that.

 

[sunjam]

You know full well it is a question.

You don't want to answer it because you are fully aware that all your talk about the technical aspects of CD versus high res audio is utterly pointless unless you have definitively confirmed that you can actually hear a difference.

Let's look at your previous reply as below:

Skirting around the question yet again.

We aren't talking about me, we are talking about you and your assertion that you think you hear something then go looking to confirm what you think you hear, that is the very definition of confirmation bias.

A critical thinker, as you claim to be, would not go looking for confirmation as the first step, they would test to check if they do actually hear something with rigorous tests.

If you haven't confirmed that what you believe you hear is real and isn't perception created entirely by expectation bias how do you know you are not looking for an explanation for something that isn't real.

I did an objective experiement on your reply quoted above by searching for a question mark "?".
The result of my objective experiement on your comment above shows zero appearance of the question mark "?"
According to my logical thinking, your comment above is not a question.

Why you keep saying there is a question but an objective experiment proved that it is not the case?
Do you see an illusion? Is your brain fooling you into seeing a question in your comment quoted above that no one else can see?

All the above are my questions but feel free not to answer them.

 

[BS5711]

I posted this four pages back, it had a clear question mark that indicates it was a presented as a question.


" Have you proven in robust testing that you can reliably differentiate between CD and Hi Res ?

Answer A = yes I have so I am looking into the science behind it.

Answer B = no, I hear it in normal sighted listening and I consider that adequate evidence for my purposes. "


You saw the question because you replied to it with a smart arse response that skirted around the question and you think made yourself look clever.

 

[sunjam]

I posted this four pages back, it had a clear question mark that indicates it was a presented as a question.


" Have you proven in robust testing that you can reliably differentiate between CD and Hi Res ?

Answer A = yes I have so I am looking into the science behind it.

Answer B = no, I hear it in normal sighted listening and I consider that adequate evidence for my purposes. "


You saw the question because you replied to it with a smart arse response that skirted around the question and you think made yourself look clever.

I thought I did that a few pages back too with my reply <== detailed reply

In short: Answer C = I am looking into the science behind it and I would like to do more experiments out of it but I don't have the required equipments.

p.s.: By the way, please don't claim I avoid to answer the question as it is not factual. Thanks.

 

[BS5711]

I thought I did that a few pages back too with my reply <== detailed reply

In short: Answer C = I am looking into the science behind it and I would like to do more experiments out of it but I don't have the required equipments.

p.s.: By the way, please don't claim I avoid to answer the question as it is not factual. Thanks.

It is entirely factual, you won't answer the question because you know the truthful answer shows you haven't done the basic background work before you venture into the technical details which is a very long way from the critical thinking that you proclaim you are exercising.

Giving several paragraphs of deflection isn't an answer.

The premise behind all this, as stated on your blog, was that you hear a difference so you are looking into the technicalities to discover/prove why that is and why hi res isn't pointless. Please don't debate the tiny nuances, that is the essence of your blog, your own words demonstrate that.

At least you are honest enough to not just lie about your lack of basic work to establish the premise, I will give you that much.

You are obviously not interested in a genuine conversation so I will leave you to your petty game playing. Please spare me one of your typical condescending replies that you think make you look clever.