Just to be fair

[kexodusc]

Since DBT's and ABX talk aren't permitted in the other forums, does that mean subjective, non-empirical, opinion based claims not supported by a standardized DBT are forbidden here?

[ericl]

I'm asking for self restraint:

"This forum is for discussing experiences from a hobbyists perspective. We feel that challenging forum participants to always back up their experiences with scientific "proof" stifles discussion and defeats the purpose of the forums. Since "scientific proof" is hard to come by in a typical hobbyists home, we ask that those who wish to discuss to discuss DBT's and lab results refrain from bothering those who wish to talk about their listening experiences.

That said, we recognize that technical discussions are often a relevant aspect of discussion, and don't wish to ban it outright. We do wish to prevent people from using the pretense of "science" to mock or abuse a person, their experiences, or opinions. "

What this means is that it is ok to discuss it in other places, just don't butt it into other peoples discussions, or use it to be disruptive, or a jerk.

[Resident Loser]

..."Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere"

jimHJJ(...no further text...)

[kexodusc]

So let's be clear on this:
If a newbie asks: "How does such and such Yamaha receiver sound?", AND

I reply: "Boo, they sound "bright!!!" (which I do not believe per se, don't flame me!), AND

another poster replies to the original poster/newbie: "There is no empirical evidence suggesting Yamaha's sound bright, or that any amps sound different provided they are used withing their design parameters, yadda yadda...."AND

All this takes place in the Amps/Preamps forum...

Would that be okay? Or would you I be angering the AR.com gods?

[ericl]

Its a judgement call. It depends on context. There's no hard and fast unchangeable rule to use.

IF someone comes along and says, "no, my EXPERIENCE is different, they sound quite sweet, i really like the sound.." then i'll ask that mr empirical evidence geek refrain from saying "prove it" or "your experience is meaningless" or any of this crap that kills the conversation. ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with a product will trump "empirical evidence".

-Eric

[Resident Loser]

...move over so I can talk to the guy next to you...

FYI major-domo...Observation(actual experience) IS empirical evidence...

jimHJJ(...and THIS is a moderator!!!...)

[E-Stat]

Since DBT's and ABX talk aren't permitted in the other forums, does that mean subjective, non-empirical, opinion based claims not supported by a standardized DBT are forbidden here?

It makes perfect sense to me that those who wish to glean information from "The Science Lab" desire that kind of proof. Mtry should feel quite at home here. On the other hand, I believe it is reasonable to ask for specifics of said tests so that they can be understood and placed into context. I remember well the title of my college statistics course, "How to Lie With Statistics".

rw

[ericl]

Kexodusc and e-Stat, you guys are right. People are perfectly free to demand "proof" in this forum..

[Quagmire]

I know that I'm not suppose to do this, but since these are such unusual times, perhaps Eric will allow me this one minor transgression. This is a reply that I posted on the general forum under the "Hi Everybody" thread...


"...that ANYTHING that has any effect on audio reproduction is a distortion of the original signal and is open to debate, scrutiny and further examination/dissection?"

He has taken the discussion away from the debate over the changes and nature of the forum and towards the specific debate for the objective examination of differences in audio reproduction; which he describes as distortion. The only key point that I think he missed is whether such differences, assuming that they do exist, are audible.

ToddB responded by saying...

"You are including some actual listening somewhere in this rigorous evaluation, correct?"

As far as I'm concerned, they've just entered into the classic argument which we sometimes refer to as the "objectivist -vs- subjectivist" or "naysayer -vs- yeasayer" debate. Now I don't say that they shouldn't have this discussion, just the opposite: I would like to see them argue this point if that's what they wish to do. If you see how easily they slipped into this mode on this thread, perhaps unintentionally even, then you can't tell me there is not ample material for discussion to justify having a board dedicated to this topic.

So I ask all of you members, respectfully and sincerely, where is the big rub in asking them to have this debate on the newly created "Science Lab" board instead? What difference does it make that the name of the board is "Science Lab" instead of "General Forum" except that the discussion they want to have would be less of a disruption if it took place on the board which is intended to cater to this very debate? The only other qualifier or constraint is that they have this debate in a reasonably civil manner -- not resorting to personal attacks. That these two posts are somewhat off topic to the rest of the discussion which was taking place here is no big deal. They are only two of over fifty threads. But anyone who is being honest, knows that this classic debate can often, has often, completely overrun a thread -- what I call hijacking a thread or what WmAx calls threadjacking. (I like his term better. Hope you don't mind that I borrowed it Chris?)

The old adage rings true... "Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it." I find it very ironic that the group of people who have demonstrated the greatest desire to have this debate have raised such a vocal protest to finally being given a legitimate platform from which to do so. I didn't bring it up before, but I was a little disturbed in Skeptic's reply to me on this thread, that he took such pride in his achievement of running Jon Risch off of this forum. Is that really the goal? To aleinate people from this forum? To have only one side of an argument heard? I thought that was the objection to censorship which was so vehemently decried before. Skep shouldn't want Jon gone; he should want Jon back here so that he can take him on issue by issue. After all, who better than Jon to represent the most "left wing" element of the subjectivist camp? Jon is the perfect embodiment of those subjective ideals which Skep can contrast against his own -- to help make his most effective case for the merits of the objectivist's point of view. By the way, I hadn't brought it up yet, but for the record I am sorry to see Skeptic go. I realize that I'm opening myself up for a lot of criticism, but this is honestly my point of view and before we see yet another mass exodus, I ask that you at least consider what I have to say. Thank you.>

Q

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

Unlike subjectivists, they don't want to talk among themselves, they want someone to lecture.

If you invited 12 objectivists to a party what would have? Conversation? Think again...

Without another viewpoint to bounce off of a objectivist forum would become a ghost town.

MikE

[Quagmire]

Resident Loser,

Let me share a little story with you. A college student is sitting in a philosophy class on the first day of school. The professor introduces himself and begins to lay out some of what will be discussed in his class throughout the course of the semester. As part of his introductory speach he make the statement, "...there are no absolutes". From the back of the room, a hand is raised. The professor, looking a little bit bothered that someone had nerve to interrupt his speach reluctantly acknowledges the student. "Yes, what is it?" he says. The student stands up and asks, "I just wanted to know, sir... did you mean that last statement, absolutely?".

How can the professor answer? If he answers Yes to defend his position then he has just provided evidence to contradict the statement that he has made. But If he answers No, then he has just disavowed the very point he was trying to make and abandoned his position. His premise is an untenable position.

I think this Objectivist/Subjectivist thing is kind of like the professor and the student: It's a conundrum. From the Objectivist point of view, the Subjectivist places himself in an undefendable position... "There are no absolutes, everything is relative and subjective." However, it would be a huge mistake for the student to conclude that because the professor's position wasn't tenable, this proved that the polar opposite was true --- that EVERYTHING is absolute. Where I think both of these groups make their biggest mistake is to take the most extreme position within their philosophy. The Objectivist can defend the statement "There ARE absolutes", but he cannot defend the statement "EVERYTHING is absolute. Likewise, the Subjectivist can't defend the statement "There are NO absolutes" but he can defend the statement that "SOME THINGS are not absolute".

As this story relates to the audio enthusiasts who post here, IMHO the more polarized their positions are within their philosophy, the more untenable their arguments become. It's no wonder that there always exists this impasse between the two groups: because as the positions become more extreme they also become less credible. Unfortunately, due to human nature they become less civil too.

Just some food for thought.

Q

[kexodusc]

As this story relates to the audio enthusiasts who post here, IMHO the more polarized their positions are within their philosophy, the more untenable their arguments become. It's no wonder that there always exists this impasse between the two groups: because as the positions become more extreme they also become less credible. Unfortunately, due to human nature they become less civil too.

Just some food for thought.

Q

Great post, Q!!!

Here's an "absolute truth":
These forums use to provide stimulating conversation about equipment and sound, heavily involving both ends of the objective/subjective spectrum, and the SILENT MAJORITY (myself included) who just haven't made up their minds one way or another and may never do so!!!

Threads here use to employ two trains of thought, and years of unique experiences and knowledge to discuss AUDIO EQUIPMENT. Now they provide pages of *****ing about cyber-principles and philosophical warfare.

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz....BORING!!!

c'mon guys, couldn't we all just get along?

[E-Stat]

Great post, Q!!!

Amen.

c'mon guys, couldn't we all just get along?

Those who left apparently thought otherwise.

rw

[Resident Loser]

"...the board which is intended to cater to this very debate?..."

Sorry pal, it marginalizes the information that might be otherwise provided in situ and removes any chance for debate where it will do any good.

It's like cleanin' up Boston or NYC for the convention...smoke and mirrors...

Oh lookee were givin' you your own place...yeah, just like the Cherokee...

jimHJJ(...BFD...)

[Resident Loser]

...All I said is "Everybody knows this is nowhere"...as it pertains to the issues that have been ripe topics for years...

So from that you determine I am in need of some allegorical, cornball lecture...

I couldn't be more of a centrist, it's the outside catalysts that provoke me to be otherwise...the misleading half-truths, factoids and outright bull masquerading as something otherwise brought me to where I am today...It's the all the little folks with their hands on their ears, loudly going "la-la-la I can't hear you" who have created this "ghetto" in order to isolate their little "mutual admiration society" from the Big, Bad spectre of doubt, those are the one's who need your stories...

jimHJJ(...garbanzo beans...)

[theaudiohobby]

The professor introduces himself and begins to lay out some of what will be discussed in his class throughout the course of the semester. As part of his introductory speach he make the statement, "...there are no absolutes". From the back of the room, a hand is raised. The professor, looking a little bit bothered that someone had nerve to interrupt his speach reluctantly acknowledges the student. "Yes, what is it?" he says. The student stands up and asks, "I just wanted to know, sir... did you mean that last statement, absolutely?".

A great allegory... one for keeps..

[Mash]

I spent many visits to NY with Julius Futterman in the 70's, and he did many things in his lab that would simply horrify the Audiopurists - and especially the tubehead-types. He did prove that tubes are a lot tougher than one would ever think..... Lord knows he made me sweat once with that one. But everything he did was always more than OK- everything was always perfect from the man who invented the OTL tube amp. Perfect and Simple. But there is not so much money in Perfect and Simple. Inscruitable Mystery and Complication often pay much better.

Another thing I learned from Mr. F. that agreed with the EE textbooks was to not worry about fancy power cords.... an electrically-sufficient power cord is good enough. Yet there is a six-page thread here debating the need for "special" power cords. Mr F. sold me a new Stereo-60 PLUS two new Mono-100 amps for $800. Clearly Mr F. was not into the Audiopile Boutique Scene........and there is more money in the Audiopile Boutique Scene.

I think the driver here is advertising revenues. Get the site traffic up, keep the enviroment friendly for ALL advertisers, and so on. Commercial mags do the same thing- everyone wants to make a buck. At least here no one has to buy a subscription. In time this site will find its own level... Alexa showed site trafic here down quite a bit in Sept - Oct, but the traffic appears to be back to what it was in Skeptic's Days....AKA the "Skeptic Tank text archives"? (Apologies to the Skeptics' Society) But for certain, things are not so very interesting here anymore.... unless you wish to discuss subjects like wire akin to the discussions enjoyed by wine connoisseurs.....

AH-HA - AR should produce "The Wire Connoisseur's Handbook" .......(Adapted from The Wine Connoisseur's Handbook, with more apologies.... )


"Wire Connoisseur's Handbook "
Table of Contents:
Section One: Serving Wire
Section Two: Sampling the Wire
Section Three: Sampling Etiquette
Section Four: Wire In-Use Positioning
Section Five: Wire Storage Temperatures
Section Six: Wire Storage Positioning
Section Seven: Wire Definition Basics
Section Eight: Wire Glossary

[magictooth]

As far as I'm concerned, they've just entered into the classic argument which we sometimes refer to as the "objectivist -vs- subjectivist" or "naysayer -vs- yeasayer" debate. Now I don't say that they shouldn't have this discussion, just the opposite: I would like to see them argue this point if that's what they wish to do. If you see how easily they slipped into this mode on this thread, perhaps unintentionally even, then you can't tell me there is not ample material for discussion to justify having a board dedicated to this topic.

So I ask all of you members, respectfully and sincerely, where is the big rub in asking them to have this debate on the newly created "Science Lab" board instead? What difference does it make that the name of the board is "Science Lab" instead of "General Forum" except that the discussion they want to have would be less of a disruption if it took place on the board which is intended to cater to this very debate? The only other qualifier or constraint is that they have this debate in a reasonably civil manner -- not resorting to personal attacks. That these two posts are somewhat off topic to the rest of the discussion which was taking place here is no big deal. They are only two of over fifty threads. But anyone who is being honest, knows that this classic debate can often, has often, completely overrun a thread -- what I call hijacking a thread or what WmAx calls threadjacking. (I like his term better. Hope you don't mind that I borrowed it Chris?)

The old adage rings true... "Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it." I find it very ironic that the group of people who have demonstrated the greatest desire to have this debate have raised such a vocal protest to finally being given a legitimate platform from which to do so. I didn't bring it up before, but I was a little disturbed in Skeptic's reply to me on this thread, that he took such pride in his achievement of running Jon Risch off of this forum. Is that really the goal? To aleinate people from this forum? To have only one side of an argument heard? I thought that was the objection to censorship which was so vehemently decried before. Skep shouldn't want Jon gone; he should want Jon back here so that he can take him on issue by issue. After all, who better than Jon to represent the most "left wing" element of the subjectivist camp? Jon is the perfect embodiment of those subjective ideals which Skep can contrast against his own -- to help make his most effective case for the merits of the objectivist's point of view. By the way, I hadn't brought it up yet, but for the record I am sorry to see Skeptic go. I realize that I'm opening myself up for a lot of criticism, but this is honestly my point of view and before we see yet another mass exodus, I ask that you at least consider what I have to say. Thank you.>

Q

Sorry, but I need to disagree most vigourously with this post. This line of reasoning is extremely POORLY thought out. To say that it is OK to marginalize one side of the debate by exiling the discussions to the Science Lab is absolutely ridiculous. And make no bones about it, marginalization of the objectivist point of view is what has happened. A rough parallel in the real world would be if a TV station liked one political party, but didn't like what another political party was saying. During the election campaign, they would play the the first party's ads in prime time, and then play the other party's ads at 3AM. You can say that this is a fair shake and that they are getting equal treatment because the total time the ads are shown are the same, but in fact the total exposure isn't even remotely the same.

I'm sure that eric has all the traffic stats for this site, and he could say without a doubt that page views in the Science Lab are WAY less than say General, Cables, or HT. By putting discussions of objectivist cable theory in this forum, they effectively neuter this POV. I had a suggestion when the new changes were first instituted: why not have free reign in all the other fora, and make not just one new forum, but rather have two new fora. The first the Science Lab for the objectivist crowd; the second the Subjectivist Lab or some such name for the subjectivist crowd. This way both points of view get equal coverage and debate. I'm not sure if the powers above decreed it otherwise due to advertiser pressure or what not, but this is by far the most equitable way of dealing with the situation.

I know that I'm not really a high profile member of these groups, but ever since the changes to forum policy, I've visited this site a lot less than I used to. A number of other more well respected members have left permanently, although they may still lurk about once in a while. This is both sad and terrible.

Let me state that for my part, I am not really naysayer nor yeasayer. I don't believe anything that either group says until I test it out for myself. However, the only thing that I strongly believe in is the BLIND TEST. To do anything other than blind testing is to do practically nothing.

E-Stat, I made some points in the power cable discussion that you didn't reply to so I will repeat myself here in hopes that somebody in the subjectivist camp replies:

Sighted testing is such a bogus load of crap that I find it absolutely mind boggling that people still do and believe in it. Case(s) in point. I had a patient today tell me that this "magical" cold medication worked wonders. They could only buy it in the US so they stocked up on it last time they were down. They said that Neo-Citran (the Canadian brand) didn't do a thing, but that this US brand fixed them up in no time. Looking at the label, the product was Neo-Citran rebranded for the US. Exactly the same manufacturer and exactly the same formulation. Probably came from the same plant. In the same vein, I can't tell you how many times I've had people tell me that Advil works great for them, but Motrin doesn't touch the pain at all. It's really amazing how the mind can trick the body.

Goethe once pointed out that, "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." It's surprising that some people who seem so well informed just absolutely refuse to even contemplate trying a new or different testing methodology. They say, "I know what I know, and I know what I hear so why bother listening to what others may have to say about a subject."