🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1173378645.133159.264920@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
Karl Winkler <karlwinkler66@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 8, 9:31 am, phi...@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg) wrote:
>> In article <1173369680.866857.202...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Karl Winkler <karlwinkle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >However, they could discuss the way the gear is set up, i.e. speaker
>> >placement, acoustical treatments, etc.
>>
>> How you expect that to work? "Where do I place speakers in my almost, but
>> not quite square room?"
>>
>Why not?

Okay, please tell me.

>> >But instead, they talk mostly
>> >about the gear from the standpoint of religious fanaticism. Just like
>> >with politics. I think it's interesting that religion, politics and
>> >brands are often discussed with the same level of fervor.
>>
>> So you think that talking about speaker placement or acoustical treatments
>> is much better use of ones time then talking about minute difference between
>> hifi equipment?
>>
>Not necessarily - only that it's interesting in that the discussions
>are so lopsided in favor of minutiae rather than information and
>discussions most people can use.

For discussion, people have to disagree. For FAQs, it is much better to have 
web-site.

>> No, just pointing a photo camera and pressing the button is much less
>> work than listing the rather heavy high-end hifi equipment.
>>
>I assume you meant "lifting"? Sure it's easier. But what of it? Is it
>easier to create a photograph that people would want to look at than
>to just turn on your audio system?

So? Most people think their pictures are great (especially if they have
high-end cameras). 

So taking pictures is slightly more difficult than playing a record, but
not much (in some sense, properly adjusting a turntable takes a lot more
technical knowledge than just pressing the shutter release on an
auto-everything camera).

>> But how does that help? In talking about selecting hifi equipment or
>> about photography is is hard work to come up with general principles, and
>> most of those are already covered in books about the subject.
>
>Perhaps, but the drawback of books is that in terms of the technology,
>they are usually out of date. 

What revolution in speaker placement did I miss?

>But discussions are
>different because they are interactive and there may be the
>opportunity to hear from someone who has encountered your specific
>situation or knows about what you are trying to accomplish.

If a photography technique problem is common enough that other people
already solved it, there is a very good chance that some textbook will
provide the hints you need to solve it.

Of course, expert can critique other people pictures. But that doesn't work
very well for various reasons.

In comparison, discussing equipment is much easier, so that is what people
do. (If you are an expert in photography, you are probably out taking
pictures, instead of looking at pictures that contain loads of mistakes that
are mentioned in every textbook.

>> "What I did to take this picture", or "the hifi equipment I had in the past",
>> just isn't likely to stimulate discussion.
>
>Maybe not - but that's the core of this thread isn't it? Why aren't
>those topics likely to generate discussion?

Because most people don't care as much. And you need a very good author (who
is also an accomplished photographer) to get something worth reading about the 
background of his photos. So most people can't really participate.

>> Just saying 'brand X' is best, is guaranteed to generate fireworks.
>
>Of course, but why?

Because my car is better than you car. That's just the it works.


-- 
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
	-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency