strong positions can cause more reactions. agreeing and disagreeing. someone did something to start the process.
who quibbled with Peter about Sublime Sound? no one. then he used Natural and aligned with ddk. and here we are. you explain it.
Someone did not do something to 'start the process'. Agreeing or disagreeing was a reaction to a point of view.
First, taking a point of view, offering a perspective, stating the values one has or uses is, imo, a good thing. We should relish the fact that some are capable of cogent articulation of what they think and believe. What I see as response to such is largely claims about 'preaching' or 'tribes' or 'toxicity' - basically 'how dare you arrogate the words "natural sound" to what you're seeking or doing. What I do not see are artilculate responses to the actual subject matter or an offering of alternative perspectives - instead responses are largely about meta issues. Those seem continuous to this day.
After this went on for some time, I"m coming to the conclusion that either a) people never really thought about their basis of preference or about what guides them in building and assessing what they want, and/or b) they are frustrated at their inability to artilculate and gain traction for their own point of view (if they have one), so they don't try and find it easier simply to object via those meta issues -- something that takes little effort.
"Well, don't you think I want a natural sound too?" comes the response. That is simply a reactionary question as if they feel insulted that someone else has laid out a perspective; it does nothing to move the discussion forward, it does nothing to suggest an alternative. Tell us what you want; if you think natural sound or good sound or optimal sound is something else, then spell it out. Focusing on the word 'natural' is simple misdirection.
@PeterA could have spoken of "Organic Sound" or "Realistic Sound" or "Concert Sound" or whatever, and I suspect the same lazy grievances would issue forth.
I say we need more positive contributions about what should guide the building and assessing of an audio system - more than simply describing a component - and not just positive contributions, but also well written contributions. If that is something you're not up to, don't crab at the people who can. Whether you like or dislike what Peter has written, give him credit for taking the risk to describe his audio journey in a readable series of posts. That he drew on advice from David - an acknowledged expert - tells me he is open to learning from the point where he stood with his previous system.
