What would it take to get this board moving again?

[musicoverall]

What does anyone think? No fair saying we go back to the other various forums. Technical and scientific issues are here for good, it seems.

Obviously, everyone has lost interest in the Audio Lab. Can it ever be revived and, if so, how?

[Geoffcin]

What does anyone think? No fair saying we go back to the other various forums. Technical and scientific issues are here for good, it seems.

Obviously, everyone has lost interest in the Audio Lab. Can it ever be revived and, if so, how?

Just get Jneutron to put as much time into this forum as he spends complaining about how bad the moderators/moderating is.

[jneutron]

Just get Jneutron to put as much time into this forum as he spends complaining about how bad the moderators/moderating is.

Now THAT was funny..


Warn me next time...my keyboard's a mess.....coffee all over it..

John

[Resident Loser]

What does anyone think? No fair saying we go back to the other various forums. Technical and scientific issues are here for good, it seems.

Obviously, everyone has lost interest in the Audio Lab. Can it ever be revived and, if so, how?

...may be interested, can read through the first few threads spawned in this Brave New World of the dread "Audio Lab" shortly after it's inception...

And Geoffcin should pay attention to this part, in light of his recent remarks re: jneutron in the Site Feedback forum.

The short form: It's a ghetto that no noob will voluntarily come to...The following is a generalization: (a)they're too lazy to do simple legwork to become even remotely acquainted with the hobby or it's jargon, (b) too lazy or too stoooopid to read an owners manual (c) expect easy answers (d) simply want validation for their choices and sometimes argue against contrary opinions.

This results in unfettered, unsubstantiated, anecdotal, opinionating in the responses...to which there can be no reasonable alternative objective POV posted without running the risk of some sort of censure...

If someone posts: you need a $400 bubinga-wood volume control knob or hospital-grade 20amp outlets, how many (noobs or otherwise) will make the trek to the "Lab" for the requisite rebuttal to such fol-de-rol?

Forty-eight threads since Aug. 2004...it's a joke...but it's just what the powers-that-be wanted, a warm and fuzzy, advert-friendly place where BS runs rampant with little or no opposing voices...

jimHJJ(...and try as I might...)

[hermanv]

Why bother? Only controversial subjects belong here and one will be instantly attacked by "the earth is the center of the solar system" types (It is, just look up). If I wanted to research a full white paper to defend a position why would I bother to publish here?

Vitrol and psuedo science but mainly mean spirited crap have permanently destroyed this thread and much of this forum as a place for thoughtful discussion.

[westcott]

I have to admit, this is the first time I have gotten this far down on the Forum list to respond to questions.

I would suggest that some permanent reference material be posted here like white papers from different manufacturers and credible acoustic consultants. Topics like room modes, mode calculators, speaker setup, acoustic theory, mode overlap, bass solutions, acoustic treatments, proper speaker placement, determining optimal viewing and listening distances, a myth buster section (snake oil vendors), speaker sensitivity, different driver technologies and the pros and cons of each, DIY projects pros and cons, video calibration, audio calibration, bass management, etc.

I could keep on going but if all of this was in one place, this thread would get more hits than all of the other forums put together.

A page with topics like this would be a good start IMO.

AV tech tips and data (http://www.audioholics.com/education)

[Resident Loser]

I have to admit, this is the first time I have gotten this far down on the Forum list to respond to questions...

...understand why the LAB exists...

Prior to it's inception, issues were addressed on a case-by-case, thread-by-thread basis in situ...Some debates became heated. Some challenges to what can only be described as anecdotal comments were viewed as harrassment and to be perfectly honest there was certainly more than a grain of truth to that claim...The mere mention of DBTs in the main forum was, shall we say, frowned upon...This site is a subsidiary of a marketing firm and too many firefights disputing untenable and downright fallacious claims by potential advertisers does not make for good business. Poof! and we are banished to Bogey-land...Consequently, many of the knowledgable, longtime users left the site rather than be relegated to second-class citizenry of life in the LAB.

The few of us remaining have done what we can, but it's really a no-mans land...I mean how many folks have actually read the thread showing the contents of a hi-zoot wireworks mfr. terminating network? Not many...nobody comes to the LAB, because like the lab in school you might actually have to think.

But, that's OK...The site is what it is, and we can pass around the pablum to the noobs and poke fun at the rest of it, each in our own way...

jimHJJ(...besides, some of the questions cause me to ask myself questions and off I go a-surfin' for some real answers...)

[westcott]

So my suggestion to change how the lab is used and how content is presented is not an option?

[Resident Loser]

So my suggestion to change how the lab is used and how content is presented is not an option?

...that's not the case, just providing some historical perspective...

With regard to some of your suggestions, there is already the DIY forum and the other mentioned facets of the hobby are low-key enough to be included in the main, more trafficked forums.

Re: mfr. "whitepapers"...most of what I've read are jam packed with factoids and psuedo-science, simply in support of the respective mfrs. particular brand of snake-oil...

Even turning it into a place where stickies or FAQs reside probably won't work, as nearly every poster thinks of their problem/question as unique...Yeah, that's never happened before...

jimHJJ(...just my .02...)

[E-Stat]

So my suggestion to change how the lab is used and how content is presented is not an option?
It is an option. The Lab was created for those who wish to discuss / debate scientific data. For some reason, such matters were not discussed in a civil way previously in the other forums.

rw

[Resident Loser]

It is an option. The Lab was created for those who wish to discuss / debate scientific data. For some reason, such matters were not discussed in a civil way previously in the other forums.

rw

...it takes two to tango...mtry always brought up DBTs as a response to the anecdotal and another member would then refer to him as a chihuahua...

Fact trumps tall tales and no insults were sourced in simply questioning biases, no matter how much of a harrangue some might perceive the act to be...

jimHJJ(...some folks just get offensive when confronted with reality...)

[E-Stat]

...it takes two to tango...mtry always brought up DBTs as a response to the anecdotal and another member would then refer to him as a chihuahua...
A chihuahua? Well, I'll have to say that isn't the strongest language I've seen here. :)


Fact trumps tall tales and no insults were sourced in simply questioning biases,...
Indeed. I pointed that out to mtry on more than one occasion.

Limited tests (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=46757&postcount=72)

Forty minutes later, he still didn't understand his logical fallacy

Missing the point (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=46932&postcount=74)

rw

[shokhead]

Some on this forum just cant be wrong,even when they are.

[Resident Loser]

A chihuahua? Well, I'll have to say that isn't the strongest language I've seen here. :)


Indeed. I pointed that out to mtry on more than one occasion.

Limited tests (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=46757&postcount=72)

Forty minutes later, he still didn't understand his logical fallacy

Missing the point (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=46932&postcount=74)

rw

...one could always surmise that the dearth of newer studies on the subject might be a direct result of not wanting to "bite the hand that feeds". '83? The timeframe seems about right to me. Perhaps no one in the industry wishes to do that, after all we're all makin' money, right...So we leave it to folks like Roger Russell, Rod Elliot and a few others or mfrs. like Klipsch who grudgingly add "bi-wire capability" at the markets' behest.

And for some reason, I thought the burden of proof was, and still is, on the party(ies) making the claim...I can't prove what I don't hear ergo...

jimHJJ(...Which goes 'round and 'round and ends up nowhere...)

[E-Stat]

...one could always surmise that the dearth of newer studies on the subject might be a direct result of not wanting to "bite the hand that feeds". '83?
Why the nefarious motivation? I think the answer is far simpler for every kind of audio component. It is expensive to conduct truly scientifically valid tests and to what end? If $10,000 amplifiers are truly no better than a $200 pro amp, then why don't the low end companies "prove" that once and for all and increase their sales? Why doesn't Blue Jeans cable compare their stuff to Nordost Valhalla, prove theirs is just as good and end up owning the business? Or Bose with their deep pockets prove that the Wave Radio outperforms multi-thousand dollar systems? Out of hundreds, if not thousands, of audio companies producing all sorts of components, I rarely - if ever see mention of the results of DB testing to promote their products.

Why are DBTs considered unimportant as selling tools by the entire industry?


...like Klipsch who grudgingly add "bi-wire capability" at the markets' behest.

Speaking of proof, what is the proof of this assertion?

rw

[mlsstl]

> Why are DBTs considered unimportant as selling tools by the entire industry?

Probably because they've never been very effective at producing sales results.

Good DBT's are very hard to set up when you start trying to address all potential parameters. However, at its most basic, a goal of a valid DBT is at odds with sales marketing. In an ideal scientific test, no result is "bad." It is just as valid to disprove something as it is to prove it. Either way you've gained useful knowledge - you know you've got something solid that is worth pursuing further or you know you need to start working in a different direction.

Also, among the high-end segment of the audio market, the ones an outsider might think would be interested in DBT results, there is actually the opposite reaction. In following various hi-fi forums for sometime now, there is an anti-DBT sentiment that actually gets stronger as the equipment gets pricier and more esoteric. A companion to that is the increased tendency to buy into novel or pseudo-scientific marketing pitches as the price goes up. I guess on one level we should all be grateful that some of these companies are making audio equipment and not aircraft parts. <g>

[Dusty Chalk]

A chihuahua? Well, I'll have to say that isn't the strongest language I've seen here. :)I don't know -- I hate chihuahuas...

[StevenSurprenant]

The theory that wires are wires is valid according the types of tests that we perform on them. There is no valid scientific reasoning to support the concept that wires do sound different. However, I and, as far as I can tell, most people that have tried different wires hear differences to varying degrees. The wire is wire crowd claims these differences are in our minds brought on by expectations, marketing, and so on.

The double blind test is flawed in many ways. It changes the conditions on every level. The environment is changed, the stereo is changed the wires are changed, etc... Everyone who makes these claims do so, usually at home in with their system that they are intimately familiar with. To have them go somewhere else with new equipment changes all the conditions, all at once. This is not good science.

When I have proposed different ways to prove the claim that wire is wire, I was ignored. It seems that the only valid test for the wire is wire crowd in the DBT. Again, it is not good science. A theory is only valid if it can stand up to rigorous testing by any means devised, as long as the test is valid.

I'm sure that many people here can devise different ways to support their stance other than the DBT. It seems that only one testing method is validity enough for them. One test is not good science, period!

This is why people scoff at the claims that wire is wire.

I want to know if you are right, but I will not support a DBT because of its inherent flaws.

I spend eleven years in the chemical industry developing products with new properties that were based on existing products. We didn't do a complete reformulation, we modified one aspect of the process and measured the results. This is good science.

Well, best wishes to eveyone.

Have fun picking this apart...

[Resident Loser]

Why the nefarious motivation? I think the answer is far simpler for every kind of audio component. It is expensive to conduct truly scientifically valid tests and to what end? If $10,000 amplifiers are truly no better than a $200 pro amp, then why don't the low end companies "prove" that once and for all and increase their sales? Why doesn't Blue Jeans cable compare their stuff to Nordost Valhalla, prove theirs is just as good and end up owning the business? Or Bose with their deep pockets prove that the Wave Radio outperforms multi-thousand dollar systems? Out of hundreds, if not thousands, of audio companies producing all sorts of components, I rarely - if ever see mention of the results of DB testing to promote their products.

...the circle...be unbroken? I guess not, eh?

Is that $10K amp fifty times better than the $200 model? In a recent thread Krell was brought up. An integrated amp rated @200W into 8 Ohms or 400W into a 4ohm load (unfortunately nowhere in their literature can I determine if that's a per channel number or combined output)...Now doubling the power rating is impressive these days. but my trusty, vintage HK Citation 19 does the same thing, it's MSRP was around one quarter the price AND it has an ultra-wide bandwidth, something the Krell does not. I haven't had any complaints...with good software, I hear what can only be described with the usual audiophilic jargon re: depth, detail ad nauseum...And insofar as value, what exactly comprises value?...as an integrated the Krell falls short on what I consider important features: No pre-out/power-in facilities (their theater throughput notwithstanding, it may be remote accessible but 't'aint the same), limited record/copy jacks/switching, no phono pre-, no tone controls (and as previously stated, not all software is created equal). So, while the power may be remarkable, the unit is of no value to me...

Blue Jeans vs. Nordost? Has the former compared themself to the latter? I plead ignorance. Not in the market...still p!ssed at the Polk Cobras I bought a lifetime ago and I'm perfectly content with both my Discwasher ICs and 10gauge...From what I seen, BJ claims to be made of stout stuff at a reasonable price...while some hi-zoot wire companies remove the "made in China" labels or have their wonderous terminating networks revealed to be potted, run-of-the-mill caps and resistors...Insofar as Nordost is concerned, I recall Eyespy, who claimed to use that mfrs. wire, say he heard no difference, but used them in his system simply because he was expected to...plus they looked good...

And Bose? Well, we are all cogniscent of their marketing...and I'm curious, perhaps I'm incorrect, but aren't those cost/performance statements from reviewers or customers. Is the Wave Radio's performance far beyond what much of the general public is normally subjected to vis a' vis audio?...And while they (Bose) are ultimately responsible for what appears in their ads, it's really no different than any of the "unsolicited" accolades seen in much of the high-end marketing hype...Can wires provide more bass? Can they improve the soundstage or depth? Are they really an outgrowth of technologies that sent men to the moon? I've seen those claims also...

Which marketeering ploy should be subject of closer scrutiny?


Speaking of proof, what is the proof of this assertion? rw

To answer that, we'd have to go back to those thrilling days of yesteryear...of Eyespy, Monstrous Mike, mtrycrafts...somewhere in the archives, there are transcripts of a few e-mails between one of the then members and Klipsch regarding the subject...

jimHJJ(...as always, interesting...)

[E-Stat]

So, while the power may be remarkable, the unit is of no value to me...
So, why doesn't Panasonic capitalize on the shortcomings you mention? Our $200 XR receiver is just as good as the high priced Krell spread? They don't. No one has ever tried to exploit the "facts".


...still p!ssed at the Polk Cobras I bought a lifetime ago...
They did cause quite a firestorm with the unhappy results on many amps with their extremely high capacitance. Blew up quite a few they did.


Jbut used them in his system simply because he was expected to...plus they looked good...
Expected to? By whom?


I'm curious, perhaps I'm incorrect, but aren't those cost/performance statements from reviewers or customers.
Exactly. Why not prove their case with DBTs?


Can they improve the soundstage or depth?
Improve? No. In my experience, some can retain more of the signal's cues that provide such.


somewhere in the archives, there are transcripts of a few e-mails between one of the then members and Klipsch regarding the subject...
So someone spoke with an engineer at Klipsch and was told we "begrudgingly" added biwiring capability?

rw

[Resident Loser]

So, why doesn't Panasonic capitalize on the shortcomings you mention? Our $200 XR receiver is just as good as the high priced Krell spread? They don't. No one has ever tried to exploit the "facts".

IM oft-voiced O, the HT inanity has killed the market/need for these things....Mfrs. like Panasonic et al, simply provide the consumer what they have been told they want...You too can be just like Steven Spielberg with our $600 HTIB...And for the record "just as good"? Who said that? As far as I'm concerned the Marantz PM-7001 is way better than the Krell for my needs...unfortunately my niche group seems to be an anachronism and the Marantz is a rare bird...The high-end stuff? It's like a Caddy or Porsche SUV...why?


They did cause quite a firestorm with the unhappy results on many amps with their extremely high capacitance. Blew up quite a few they did.

Yep, my Pioneer SA-9100 integrated couldn't cope...worked great after the repairs with zip however...Stiil used as a pre-amp...bless it's connectable little heart...

Expected to? By whom?

You would have to ask him...Supposedly got them on the cheap, may have been in the audio biz? He played his cards close to the vest...

Exactly. Why not prove their case with DBTs?

Is someone asking them (I'll assume Bose) to do so? Why doesn't Shuyata or Tara or Nordost or whoever silence their critics with appropriate testing?...What about the hardware mfrs.? Are tube units more accurate or do they sound more euphonic to some? Are certain CDPs using off-the-shelf transports really "better" because the mfr. applies their particular sonic sig in the analog stages? Or puts them into some bits of industrial sculpture?

Improve? No. In my experience, some can retain more of the signal's cues that provide such.

Those are your thoughts on the matter, that isn't the point...I've seen those claims (anecdotal and otherwise) on many a mfrs. website (including the NASA connection) and in forum threads. And again (and again)...given the multiple mono, stereo simulation of a great deal of software, many of those "cues" are fabricated and never existed in nature. I for one refuse to limit my program material to "specialty" recordings...Been there, done that with the vinyl DtDs...

So someone spoke with an engineer at Klipsch and was told we "begrudgingly" added biwiring capability?

From what I recall it was e-mails and the words were something like catering to market demands...doesn't sound particulary gruntled to me...

jimHJJ(...shades of difference...)

[E-Stat]

IM oft-voiced O, the HT inanity has killed the market/need for these things....
Agreed. That does not explain, however, the past four or five decades.


The high-end stuff? It's like a Caddy or Porsche SUV...why?
I wouldn't use Cadillac as an example because there's no danger in confusing most Caddies with anything concerning performance. Most folks are quite content with Taurus levels of handling, acceleration, and braking. Others, however, desire the higher performance envelope of a BMW.


And again (and again)...given the multiple mono, stereo simulation of a great deal of software, many of those "cues" are fabricated and never existed in nature.
I don't limit my musical choices to only the best sounding ones either. There is more subtle information on recordings that most folks are aware of.

rw