Hi Everybody!! [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Hi Everybody!!



ericl
08-11-2004, 10:25 AM
HI EVERYBODY!!

My name is Eric and I am the new site administrator for AudioREVIEW.com! I am very excited to be here, and I'm sure you're all just overcome with joy as well! :D

A brief bit about myself, I'm a twenty-something audio geek with a professional background in tech. I've been a frequent "lurker" on audio boards around the web for many years now - I don't post much but I'm on all the time. Up to now my main interest has been two channel and vinyl, but a new surround system is just around the corner for me. You all know the routine. I'll divulge more details about myself and my system as time passes.

I've got big plans for the site, and look forward to working with all of you improve the site and make it as cool a place as possible. Now I don't mean to be a downer, but part of those changes will be some new rules about posting, discussion, and how to behave in general. I'm leaning toward a somewhat tough stand on making this a safe place for friendly, subjective discussion about all kinds of audio. There will be a special forum for those of you who wish to discuss lab results, double blind testing, or think that there is no difference between different types of cables or equipment, etc. I also plan on adding some new forums, such as a computer/mp3 audio board, perhaps a forum for vintage equipment. I'd like your input on that.

To enforce these new rules, we will FINALLY be implementing a real moderator program. We'll get into this more later as well. If you're interested in being a moderator, check out <a href="http://www.audioreview.com/moderatorprogramcrx.aspx">this link</a>, and feel free to apply (if you've already applied, please apply again, as we've lost many of our old applications in the transition).

There will be other exciting developements, coming soon. I'll be attending the CEDIA expo in September armed with a digital camera and the objective of schmoozing and checking out as much cool new stuff as possible. I'll be report back to you guys with photos and details on all the cool new stuff coming out. I'm looking forward to serving you guys!

-Eric

WmAx
08-11-2004, 12:06 PM
HI EVERYBODY!!

My name is Eric and I am the new site administrator for AudioREVIEW.com! I am very excited to be here, and I'm sure you're all just overcome with joy as well! :D
Greetings.


Now I don't mean to be a downer, but part of those changes will be some new rules about posting, discussion, and how to behave in general. I'm leaning toward a somewhat tough stand on making this a safe place for friendly, subjective discussion about all kinds of audio. There will be a special forum for those of you who wish to discuss lab results, double blind testing, or think that there is no difference between different types of cables or equipment, etc.
Are you implying something similar to AUdio Ayslum? DIsallowing any challlenge to unsubstantiated claims from people? I certainly hope you don't mean something like that.

-Chris

Woochifer
08-11-2004, 12:17 PM
Welcome to the group! First thing I gotta ask about -- where did the link to the galleries go? If you can clarify that, you'll definitely be on my good side ... well, until the next crisis! :)

ericl
08-11-2004, 12:22 PM
Thanks!

The galleries link is a little hidden, we'll have to find a more prominent place to display it.

http://gallery.audioreview.com/
it can be found on the "Community & Events" page.

-Eric

pwh03
08-11-2004, 01:39 PM
yes welcome and good luck

but I also hope that your new direction isn't to agressive even hometheaterforum.com is a little too restrictive in my opinion. I think most of us are old enough to take the occasional knock on our egos

thanks
Ph

ericl
08-12-2004, 08:57 AM
Greetings.


Are you implying something similar to AUdio Ayslum? DIsallowing any challlenge to unsubstantiated claims from people? I certainly hope you don't mean something like that.

-Chris

Something like that. But don't worry, you'll have your very own forums. There will be a special forum(s) for "challenging" other people, but otherwise I want to make it a more friendly environment for newcomers, and others who want share experiences and enthusiasm for audio rather than lab results and skepticism. I know some of you may not like it, but I think it will increase and diversify participation on the board.

Cheers
Eric

WmAx
08-12-2004, 09:29 AM
Something like that. But don't worry, you'll have your very own forums.

Yes, I've seen the result of these 'dedicated forums' like Prop Head at AA.


but otherwise I want to make it a more friendly environment for newcomers, and others who want share experiences and enthusiasm for audio rather than lab results and skepticism. I know some of you may not like it, but I think it will increase and diversify participation on the board.
I understand what I believe is your motivation. Increase the hits of the site. That is primary concern. Remove the requirment to back up claims as is enforced by many posters here, and you turn this into just another subjectivist watering hole full of fairytales.

-Chris

ericl
08-12-2004, 10:05 AM
Yes, I've seen the result of these 'dedicated forums' like Prop Head at AA.


I understand what I believe is your motivation. Increase the hits of the site. That is primary concern. Remove the requirment to back up claims as is enforced by many posters here, and you turn this into just another subjectivist watering hole full of fairytales.

-Chris

I guess i can infer that you'll be one of the ones who won't like it. ;) Any conversation outside of a science lab can be labeled "subjectivist". I'm perfectly comfortable with a "subjectivist watering hole" as it will be much more friendly to the newcomer and the typical hobbyist, since they're generally not interested in lab measurements and dbx, which seems to stifle good conversation anyway. But I understand that there is a group of people who wish to discuss lab results and dbt, abx etc, and there will be a place for that.

Eric

topspeed
08-12-2004, 02:18 PM
Welcome aboard, Eric.

I'm looking forward to the board becoming a more interesting place for people to share ideas. There's entirely too much squabbling here, imo.

Hopefully you can get the board thriving again.

Good luck.

JSE
08-12-2004, 03:06 PM
Hello Eric,

I think some new fresh ideas and maybe a little shaking up of the boards in general would be a good thing. It's become a little stale around here lately. I pretty much know who will answer what questions and how they will answer. I am sure others can say the same about me. The fact is, we need more people to contribute. This is not to take away from our current members. There are some very good people here who really know what they are talking about and a lot members that myself and others like going back and forth with. We just need more people. Hopefully you can help make that happen. I have really cut back on my participation in recent months and I think a lot of others have as well due to the above mentioned reasons. A little shakin up could be just the thing to spark more interest.

JSE

ericl
08-12-2004, 03:34 PM
Hello Eric,

I think some new fresh ideas and maybe a little shaking up of the boards in general would be a good thing. It's become a little stale around here lately. I pretty much know who will answer what questions and how they will answer. I am sure others can say the same about me. The fact is, we need more people to contribute. This is not to take away from our current members. There are some very good people here who really know what they are talking about and a lot members that myself and others like going back and forth with. We just need more people. Hopefully you can help make that happen. I have really cut back on my participation in recent months and I think a lot of others have as well due to the above mentioned reasons. A little shakin up could be just the thing to spark more interest.

JSE

I hear what you're saying, JSE. This is why I want to diversify the boards a little.

I'm still learning the way the site is put together and I'm sort of in a brainstorming phase.
Like I said I am going to be doing CEDIA Expo and other trade show coverage, and I am considering doing some equipment reviews. Once I've got a better grasp on the construction of the site I'll start making some changes.

Please let me know if you guys have any other ideas to spruce up the forums and the site in general, I'd love to hear them.

Thanks,
Eric

DMK
08-12-2004, 06:37 PM
HI EVERYBODY!!

My name is Eric and I am the new site administrator for AudioREVIEW.com! I am very excited to be here, and I'm sure you're all just overcome with joy as well! :D

A brief bit about myself, I'm a twenty-something audio geek with a professional background in tech. I've been a frequent "lurker" on audio boards around the web for many years now - I don't post much but I'm on all the time. Up to now my main interest has been two channel and vinyl, but a new surround system is just around the corner for me. You all know the routine. I'll divulge more details about myself and my system as time passes.

I've got big plans for the site, and look forward to working with all of you improve the site and make it as cool a place as possible. Now I don't mean to be a downer, but part of those changes will be some new rules about posting, discussion, and how to behave in general. I'm leaning toward a somewhat tough stand on making this a safe place for friendly, subjective discussion about all kinds of audio. There will be a special forum for those of you who wish to discuss lab results, double blind testing, or think that there is no difference between different types of cables or equipment, etc. I also plan on adding some new forums, such as a computer/mp3 audio board, perhaps a forum for vintage equipment. I'd like your input on that.

To enforce these new rules, we will FINALLY be implementing a real moderator program. We'll get into this more later as well. If you're interested in being a moderator, check out <a href="http://www.audioreview.com/moderatorprogramcrx.aspx">this link</a>, and feel free to apply (if you've already applied, please apply again, as we've lost many of our old applications in the transition).

There will be other exciting developements, coming soon. I'll be attending the CEDIA expo in September armed with a digital camera and the objective of schmoozing and checking out as much cool new stuff as possible. I'll be report back to you guys with photos and details on all the cool new stuff coming out. I'm looking forward to serving you guys!

-Eric

Greetings, Eric!

I can certainly appreciate what you're trying to do by separating the so-called "yeasayers" from the "naysayers". At least, I appreciate it from a business perspective. However, it's quite like separating the democrats and republicans or any two groups of people with differing views. It's doubtful much will be learned without direct interaction of the two groups. While I appreciate what you're trying to do, it doesn't sound like the place for me. Best of luck in your new endeavor.

Rockwell
08-12-2004, 08:56 PM
I guess i can infer that you'll be one of the ones who won't like it. ;) Any conversation outside of a science lab can be labeled "subjectivist". I'm perfectly comfortable with a "subjectivist watering hole" as it will be much more friendly to the newcomer and the typical hobbyist, since they're generally not interested in lab measurements and dbx, which seems to stifle good conversation anyway. But I understand that there is a group of people who wish to discuss lab results and dbt, abx etc, and there will be a place for that.

Eric

How can you determine what a someone will be interested in? Maybe they haven't been exposed to those ideas.

ericl
08-12-2004, 11:24 PM
Greetings, Eric!

I can certainly appreciate what you're trying to do by separating the so-called "yeasayers" from the "naysayers". At least, I appreciate it from a business perspective. However, it's quite like separating the democrats and republicans or any two groups of people with differing views. It's doubtful much will be learned without direct interaction of the two groups. While I appreciate what you're trying to do, it doesn't sound like the place for me. Best of luck in your new endeavor.

Hey Guys, I guess I came on a little strong. Sorry about that. We're here to have fun right?!

I see it like this:

I recognize that there are at least two "factions" of audio guys with differing views. Thats great. I'm starting to question all of my assumptions the more I get into the debate, and I'm learning a lot. I'm all for the debate, I'm all for the conversation. I really think it is great. Yet even though you guys having opposing views, you have to recognize that you are both quite advanced in this hobby. In fact, you guys are way beyond the advanced stage, and beyond the 'hobby' too. I see you guys, on both sides, as audio philosophers. I want you to have your very own Audio Think Tank (can you tell I'm experimenting with forum names here?).

The problem is with the many people who don't fall into those categories, or don't care about the debate, the methods, the philosophy, the frequency response charts, or any of that. Newbies, vintage guys, home theater guys, kids, or god forbid, someone who's just interested in MUSIC and wants to get good sound out their collection (remember that? Music!). They walk into this debate and it is pretty intimidating, to say the least, and they walk away confused and still don't know which receiver they should buy!

I want them to be able to have a "safe space" to discuss the basics without getting dragged into the debate and through the mud. And I promise I don't want to marginalize anybody.

OK?

Cheers,
Eric

skeptic
08-13-2004, 03:53 AM
This board has been a success for the four years I've been coming here BECAUSE it has been open to the discussion which the PARTICIPANTS want to engage in. Within the reasonable bounds of civility, everything has been allowed even if it has strayed from the topic of a particular category. If a discussion goes in an unusual direction, the people who post here take it where it is going and those not interested in it move on.

"Now I don't mean to be a downer, but part of those changes will be some new rules about posting, discussion, and how to behave in general. I'm leaning toward a somewhat tough stand on making this a safe place for friendly, subjective discussion about all kinds of audio. There will be a special forum for those of you who wish to discuss lab results, double blind testing, or think that there is no difference between different types of cables or equipment, etc"

Any attempt to censor the discussions here whether because they stray off topic, or they violate some mind control rule arbitrarily imposed such as the anti DBT rule at Cable Asylum, or they put certain advertisers here in a less than flattering light and I'm out of here in a heartbeat. I'm sure half the people who regularly post here feel the same way. This is exactly how we started out when Chris became the moderator and he caught on quickly. I'm not interested in being part of an advertising billboard boosting any companies or cottage industries such as the audiophile cable industry.

"To enforce these new rules, we will FINALLY be implementing a real moderator program."

We've always had a real moderator. He did his job with a minimum of interference. That's how most of us like it. If you're a moderator, then restrict your activities to moderating, not censoring. You can be a participant if you like but your claims and statements may be discussed and challenged just like anyone elses including by people with more knowledge and experience than you have. That's the way it's always been around here. If you want to become a dictator, I'm out the door in one step. Nobody tells me what I can say or can't say as long as I remain civil and show reasonable respect for other people posting here. And if I choose to call someone who moderates on another board a Nazi mind control dictator as I have in the past, that had better be OK too. BTW, if your posting means that some of this place is to be dumbed down, I'm outta here too.

For now I will suspend judgement to wait and see what develops.

Resident Loser
08-13-2004, 08:05 AM
...some form of "AA Light"...

I think you will see the only inhabitants @ this site who would like to have free dialog curtailed in some way, are those who have such a shaky belief system that it will not stand up to scrutiny...

Newbies can ask all the questions they choose to...there are those among us who have such a high opinion of themselves, they toss out recommendations(very many high-ticket ones to boot) based on lord-knows-what, in an effort to impress the impressionable; based on the misplaced "philosophy" that throwing money at a "problem"(real OR imagined) is the answer to all. As long as that kind of response is tolerated, there MUST be counterpoint to it. Any segregation of a dialoge in response to such posts, only re-inforces the mythology that surrounds the audio community.

Anyone with half a brain can manage to sift through it all and get some sort of feel for what is real and what isn't, it ain't rocket science!

jimHJJ(...like Skep, I too will reserve judgement...)

DMK
08-13-2004, 01:42 PM
Hey Guys, I guess I came on a little strong. Sorry about that. We're here to have fun right?!

I see it like this:

I recognize that there are at least two "factions" of audio guys with differing views. Thats great. I'm starting to question all of my assumptions the more I get into the debate, and I'm learning a lot. I'm all for the debate, I'm all for the conversation. I really think it is great. Yet even though you guys having opposing views, you have to recognize that you are both quite advanced in this hobby. In fact, you guys are way beyond the advanced stage, and beyond the 'hobby' too. I see you guys, on both sides, as audio philosophers. I want you to have your very own Audio Think Tank (can you tell I'm experimenting with forum names here?).

The problem is with the many people who don't fall into those categories, or don't care about the debate, the methods, the philosophy, the frequency response charts, or any of that. Newbies, vintage guys, home theater guys, kids, or god forbid, someone who's just interested in MUSIC and wants to get good sound out their collection (remember that? Music!). They walk into this debate and it is pretty intimidating, to say the least, and they walk away confused and still don't know which receiver they should buy!

I want them to be able to have a "safe space" to discuss the basics without getting dragged into the debate and through the mud. And I promise I don't want to marginalize anybody.

OK?

Cheers,
Eric

See Skeptic's post below. He speaks for a lot of us. OUCH! Hadda pinch myself and yes, I'm awake and yes, I agree with Skeptic. LOOK... UP IN THE SKY! Are those... FLYING PIGS???

Kidding, Skep, kidding! :) But Eric, that's an example of what I mean. Skeptic and I are diametrically opposed on a lot of things and still I've learned a lot of useful info from him. Had I chosen to steer clear of him, I never would have given myself the opportunity.

For those that don't want to get into the debate, they're free to ignore whatever posts they choose. Those that want to debate are free to do so. But what about the people that only hear one side of the issue and have no clue? All they'll hear is the party line to which they've stumbled upon. Fun is great but learning new things is fun, no?

Ultimately it's your forum and you can do what you want, but there's already Audio Asylum for those that choose not to see both sides. A/R is better because it's a place for the free exchange of ideas and is not subject to censorship.

Steve1000
08-14-2004, 10:18 AM
I agree. This does not sound good. I'm looking for a new place already. If anyone finds anything could you please PM me or post here?


Ultimately it's your forum and you can do what you want, but there's already Audio Asylum for those that choose not to see both sides. A/R is better because it's a place for the free exchange of ideas and is not subject to censorship.

TinHere
08-14-2004, 10:53 AM
Hi Eric,

There are many audio sites that enforce the constraints you are considering where members can preach to the choir. AR has always had the distinction of upholding the freedom to question claims, which has allowed for thought provoking debate and an introduction to "newbies" that all that is claimed is not fact. IMHO the restrictions you want to impose will lead to the further migration of knowlegable posters from AR. Perhaps a seperate new forum with a title like "Fantasy Findings" might be more acceptable to the stalwarts who have maintained a presence here over the years and allow for unchallenged subjective discussions. That way "newbies" would be given the message that all that they read of subjective claims is not necessarily accepted as undisbuted fact as is often pointed out by some members, and maybe create a bastion for unchallenged discussions for those who wish to partake. I don't think the solution is censoring factual information of an entire side of debatable issues as if they don't exist.

Anyway, good luck with all that.

Quagmire
08-14-2004, 02:25 PM
Hi Eric,

Welcome. I'll be a voice of dissention from most of the replies you have received so far. I think what you're proposing is a good idea and doesn't amount to censorship as others here have suggested. It isn't as though you are saying that these "debates" can't take place; just that they will be more confined to a dedicated board for those who are most interested in them. I also don't believe (from what you've said so far) that it means that some level of healthy debate can't take place on the other boards; just that you don't intend to let the discussion deteriorate to the point that DBT's and the like become the primary focus for all of the other boards.

I've been coming here for quite awhile, and used to post often. I can tell you that this forum is only a shell of its former self. We used to have more action on just one board than we do on the entire forum nowadays, and I think this issue and management's lack of providing some kind of useful response to it has been the primary factor in the overall decline of the forum. It is no secret that we've lost a lot of really knowledgeable people who were regular contributors to these boards. Frankly, I think folks just got tired of having so many threads "hijacked" by this group, to the point that nearly all discussion degenerated to being about this one topic. On more than one occation, I made the argument that this is suppose to be a "hobbyist" forum and not a laboratory. Granted, the scientific aspects of the hobby are just as valid, but not everyone wants to have this discussion and especially not be forced into it. I recall many times that someon who posted a simple question would get totally ignored - no helpful or practical advice given at all - while the "audibility debates" completely overtook the thread. It is sad but true that if people don't practice a little self restraint, eventually someone has to step in and do it for them. Here we have a case where management has ignored this problem for so long that the ship is almost sunk before they begin to do anything about it. Eventually, there is no need to worry about whether something qualifies as censorship or not because there is no longer any discussion to supposedly censor anyway.

You would think that this group would be thrilled to have their own board. But as you are now finding out, that is not the case. They will allege that restricting this topic to a dedicated board amounts to censorship. However, I would suggest that in the past, because of a lack of self restraint and managment's unresponsiveness, all that we had was this one board - in essence they turned the entire forum into a board dedicated to this one topic. As I said already, I think that was the reason for the mass exodus that we saw, as people just got feed up. Having a dedicated board provides an outlet for those who are truly interested in this subject. Perhaps more importantly, it unfetters the remaining boards so that discussions there can expand beyond the parameters of this one debate. I fail to see how this qualifies as censorship when we finally get to talk about more that one thing. I know that there are plenty of people who will disagree with me... that's perfectly fine. I would just respond by saying that although for some, it may be hard to distinguish between the two, freedom and anarchy are not the same thing. Freedom will always attract people while anarchy will drive them away. One need only look at what has happened to this forum to discern which we have had more of around here. I'll get off of my soapbox now.

Q

WmAx
08-14-2004, 02:46 PM
Hi Eric,

It isn't as though you are saying that these "debates" can't take place; just that they will be more confined to a dedicated board for those who are most interested in them. I also don't believe (from what you've said so far) that it means that some level of healthy debate can't take place on the other boards; just that you don't intend to let the discussion deteriorate to the point that DBT's and the like become the primary focus for all of the other boards.I strongly disagree. Forcing such discussion into the single forum will remove any form of checks/balances on claims, since little to no people will post in this 'special' forum.



Frankly, I think folks just got tired of having so many threads "hijacked" by this group, to the point that nearly all discussion degenerated to being about this one topic. On more than one occation, I made the argument that this is suppose to be a "hobbyist" forum and not a laboratory.


However, I would suggest that in the past, because of a lack of self restraint and managment's unresponsiveness, all that we had was this one board - in essence they turned the entire forum into a board dedicated to this one topic.

Freedom will always attract people while anarchy will drive them away. One need only look at what has happened to this forum to discern which we have had more of around here. I'll get off of my soapbox now.Q[/QUOTE]It may seem ironic, but I strongly agree with most of what you say in direct regard to 'self restratint' and 'management's unresponsiveness'. I am a guilty threadjacker, with not much self-restraint on some threads IMO. But, it's hard to just stop discussing something that is ongoing in a thread. Some tangents(threadjacking) make be productive in certain cases, and should be allowed but as can be seen in some threads(recently), some of these tangents can be destructive and just confuse/distort the original topic to the point where it's unrecognizable. I believe a moderator should be active on these boards, to an extent, policing the threads for some of the more destructive behaviour. I am not promoting any sort of dictatorship or banning of topics/debate; just an eforcement of some basic rules of behaviour.

-Chris

skeptic
08-14-2004, 03:21 PM
You are entitled to your opinion but in my view your posting is pure rubbish. There isn't one scintilla of truth in it. I don't think you can point to even one actively running thread right now where DBTs have even been mentioned let alone have "become the primary focus for all of the other boards" or any thread on any board. I challenge you to mention just one.

" We used to have more action on just one board than we do on the entire forum nowadays"

That was before people were required to register at all. You just chose a moniker and could say whatever you wanted. That changed about two years ago.

"It is no secret that we've lost a lot of really knowledgeable people who were regular contributors to these boards."

The only one I can think of that could conceivably fit that discription in anyone's mind but only in the most warped way was Jon Risch. And he left not after I took him to task for being a "Nazi mind control gestapo" at CA for denying others the intellectual freedom he was granted in order to get an education but only after I demoloshed every one of his crackpot technical arguements about audio cables. And I used his own quotes from his own website for much of it.

"On more than one occation, I made the argument that this is suppose to be a "hobbyist" forum and not a laboratory."

We often discuss the technical performance of equipment and how it relates to its audible performance because that is the basic nature of electronic equipment. It's unavoidable. I don't recall anybody refusing to explain a technical statement that he made when someone else said they didn't understand it. If you remove the technical disucssions from any of these boards, they will be dumbed down to the point where only the least knowledgable participants will be interested in them.

"I think that was the reason for the mass exodus that we saw, as people just got feed up."

Judging from the fact that there are sometimes more than a thousand participants who view an individaul thread, this board seems to have very good participation. Especially when a debate heats up.

"I recall many times that someon who posted a simple question would get totally ignored - no helpful or practical advice given at all "

You were here, you said so yourself right at the beginning. Why didn't you volunteer to help? Not enough technical knowledge to contribute?

Actually, lots of people come here even for the first time and get tons of sound practical advice. Here are just a sample of a few threads running right now where advice is being given;

This Guy has just asked for advice about buying a subwoofer and already 5 other participants have responded.

brian_tr has asked for advice on a problem with his Yamaha receiver and has gotten responses from 4 participants

grampi has asked for advice on the best way to connect his television set and has gotten replies from two participants.

cam and phw03 asked for advice about projection tv and got advice from woodman who knows as much about television as anyone I've met on any board.

Lord Nikon asked for advice on the best receiver under $600 and got many responses.

IRG asked for advice on a 26"/27" TV monitor and got many responses.

r.bowen asked for advice on his Paradigm speakers and got a response from topspeed.

saul asked for advice on selecting between two Yamaha receivers and got many responses.

Lord Nikon asked for advice on a cd player for under $600 and got many replies.

And that's just a partial list of what's currently running on the HT board. I think only one request didn't get a response and that was about a computer monitor. Probably nobody knew the answer.
Just about every other board on this website is filled with these kinds of requests and replies.

"I would just respond by saying that although for some, it may be hard to distinguish between the two, freedom and anarchy are not the same thing."

We have never had anarchy here. Even before the registration and change in format several years ago, people who were abusive beyond reason were warned and if they didn't change, were thrown out. Censorship, trying to steer discussions to one side or another by limiting the intellectual freedom to explore ideas, to challenge statements, to not allow a drift in the topic because that is where the participants want to take it is unacceptable. It is the mark of a totalitarian dictatorship usually because the points of view being favored can't stand up to the rigors of evidence or intellectual challenge. This is exactly why the anti DBT rule exists at CA IMO. They do not want their sponsors products or the rationale behind them maligned because they have absolutely no defense to the arguement that there is no scientific basis for them.

If censorship of this kind happens here, I will leave and for once, I will use whatever influence I have with people who ask me for advice to steer them away from the products advertised on this site.

Pat D
08-14-2004, 05:43 PM
HI EVERYBODY!!

My name is Eric and I am the new site administrator for AudioREVIEW.com! I am very excited to be here, and I'm sure you're all just overcome with joy as well! :D

A brief bit about myself, I'm a twenty-something audio geek with a professional background in tech. I've been a frequent "lurker" on audio boards around the web for many years now - I don't post much but I'm on all the time. Up to now my main interest has been two channel and vinyl, but a new surround system is just around the corner for me. You all know the routine. I'll divulge more details about myself and my system as time passes.

I've got big plans for the site, and look forward to working with all of you improve the site and make it as cool a place as possible. Now I don't mean to be a downer, but part of those changes will be some new rules about posting, discussion, and how to behave in general. I'm leaning toward a somewhat tough stand on making this a safe place for friendly, subjective discussion about all kinds of audio. There will be a special forum for those of you who wish to discuss lab results, double blind testing, or think that there is no difference between different types of cables or equipment, etc. I also plan on adding some new forums, such as a computer/mp3 audio board, perhaps a forum for vintage equipment. I'd like your input on that.

To enforce these new rules, we will FINALLY be implementing a real moderator program. We'll get into this more later as well. If you're interested in being a moderator, check out this link (http://www.audioreview.com/moderatorprogramcrx.aspx), and feel free to apply (if you've already applied, please apply again, as we've lost many of our old applications in the transition).

There will be other exciting developements, coming soon. I'll be attending the CEDIA expo in September armed with a digital camera and the objective of schmoozing and checking out as much cool new stuff as possible. I'll be report back to you guys with photos and details on all the cool new stuff coming out. I'm looking forward to serving you guys!

-Eric
Welcome and I hope you can do great things for the site.

As for your remarks on changing the rules of discusion, Eric, I'm with skeptic, DMK, and a number of others on this one. We should be able to discuss all the relevant issues and audibility is certainly one of them, as are technical issues and measurements. The rationalist types seldom have any thing against free speech kept within the limits of civility and neither do many on the subjectivist end of the spectrum. But some find talk about technical matters threatening and references to DBTs positively insulting, and I really think that is their problem. Cable Asylum is just as acrimonious as ever and mention of DBTs is ostensibly forbidden. I certainly don't agree to segregrate discussions on audibility and technical matters. It isn't working that well at Prop Head and Tech Square at AA, so why do it here?

I was away on a trip from early December to the end of April helping my wife deal with a family crisis. So I didn't post as much for a while, having to depend on computers in public libraries a lot. But I have been pretty regular for quite a while, since at least 1999--I know AA was already in existence when I started. But if we can't discuss the real issues then there my participation will be curtailed considerably, possibly limited mostly to Rave Recordings, where my main interest is in so-called 'classical music,' although I read and learn from many of the other discussions.

I have volunteered a couple of times for moderation in the past and received a polite acknowledgment but nothing more. Will anything more happen now? I know it's hardly your fault, but ho-hum.

And the reviews certainly need looking at. I believe that is one of the reasons many in the general public would visit this site, but perhaps you have data. There are many which say nothing, a good many multiple reviews, some reviews of another product instead of the correct one, some which simply make a complaint about service (usually very vague!), and I dare say, some which seem to show no actual knowledge of the product though it is hard to be sure. I'm not talking about a product from an obvious spoof manufacturer that has been part of audio humor for quite some time and offers an opportunity for creative and very funny writing.

Quagmire
08-15-2004, 09:36 AM
Skeptic,

"You are entitled to your opinion but in my view your posting is pure rubbish."

Really? You can find nothing constructive within my comments at all, huh? That's too bad.

"I don't think you can point to even one actively running thread right now where DBTs have even been mentioned let alone have "become the primary focus for all of the other boards"..."

You're probably right. I haven't bothered to look, but that is because as far as I'm concerned, the damage has already been done. As I said in my original post, I think management has waited until the boat is nearly sunk. Much of what I commented on has to do with the past and only relates to the present in terms of how the forum can be revived - asuming it can be revived - but I'm not entirely convinced that it can be.

"I challenge you to mention just one."

I'm sorry... did I make a testable claim? Man does this sound familiar!

"That was before people were required to register at all. You just chose a moniker and could say whatever you wanted. That changed about two years ago."

And why was that necessary? Isn't this requirement to register censorship too? The presence of rules, guidelines and organization doesn't automatically equate to censorship. What is in question is the degree to which these things are necessary. I'm all for a "hands off" approach with as little "government intervention" as possible. But the level of intervention needed is determined by the conduct of the participants. In the past, the track record was not good and many folks got feed up and left as managment did little to address the situation.

"We often discuss the technical performance of equipment and how it relates to its audible performance because that is the basic nature of electronic equipment. ...If you remove the technical disucssions from any of these boards, they will be dumbed down to the point where only the least knowledgable participants will be interested in them."

Discussing technical perfomance is fine, especially when that was the point of the thread to begin with. But what occured frequently in the past, and what was objected to by many was the that ANY statement made regarding audible performance was met with a barrage of challenges from the so called naysayer camp that a "testable claim" had been made and then "proof" was demanded. This wasn't casual, it was confrontational and obtrusive. Like I said before, this is suppose to be a hobbyist board where people can come for practical advice based on personal experience. IMO the demand for white paper support for every so called "claim" takes the discussion out of that realm. I am fully aware that unchecked, audio myth can also run rampant. A certain amount of skepticism, Mr. Skeptic, is a good thing and should be encouraged. What is needed is BALANCE. I don't think there HAS to be a naysayer yeasayer board for these discussion, but at one time I think it would have been a very useful thing and may have prevented the decline of the forum.

"You were here, you said so yourself right at the beginning. Why didn't you volunteer to help?..."

When I saw one of these hijacked threads, I often times replied to the original poster to answer their question rather than join in the fray. And actually, I was nominated by several people to be a moderator on these boards; I just simply didn't have the time.

"...Not enough technical knowledge to contribute?"

Now, that wouldn't be a cheap shot, would it? A little goading perhaps? No thanks. I don't want to argue with you. I will let others decide whether I have enough technical knowledge to contribute. All I will say in that regard is that when I posted more often in the past, I believe I earned a reputation for offering practical technical advice which belonged neither in the yeasayer or naysayer camp.

"We have never had anarchy here."

I respectfully disagree.

"Censorship, trying to steer discussions to one side or another by limiting the intellectual freedom to explore ideas, to challenge statements, to not allow a drift in the topic because that is where the participants want to take it is unacceptable."

And what if the participants don't want to take the discussion in a certain direction over and over again? What if a small group of people continually decide to "steer the discussion" back to one topic even when the thread had nothing to do with that topic to begin with - what I have called hijacking a thread? Much of the language that you use to define censorship could instead be used to define "harassment" which is how many folks viewed the repeated insertion of these topics into existing threads.

"It is the mark of a totalitarian dictatorship..."

Seems a little dramatic, but in fairness, I did introduce the subjects of freedom and anarchy so I suppose it's fair game. However, so far Eric seems level headed and "undictator" like to me. If that changes and it appears that he is merely pandering to the sponsors you will likely find a very vocal ally in me.

Q

skeptic
08-15-2004, 09:45 AM
"And what if the participants don't want to take the discussion in a certain direction over and over again?"

Then they ignore statement which steered it in that direction and continue on with what they were trying to discuss in the first place. If they've exhausted their points, then they should let other people who still want to discuss them take the conversation where it leads them.

"so far Eric seems level headed and "undictator" like to me."

He's been here less that two weeks, has less than ten postings and has already deleted one of my threads. What would you call that?

ericl
08-15-2004, 09:51 AM
Hi Skeptic,

As I mentioned in my private message to you, insults and threats and threats will not never be tolerated, regardless of how justified you feel in making them. I don't want an antagonistic relationship with anyone, but how else does one respond to insults and threats?

-Eric

Quagmire
08-15-2004, 10:41 AM
Chris,

You can probably see my reply to Skeptic in response to many of your concerns. As to a few of your comments...

"I strongly disagree. Forcing such discussion into the single forum will remove any form of checks/balances on claims, since little to no people will post in this 'special' forum."

I don't believe that ALL such discussion has to be pushed to a single forum, merely that the yeasayer naysayer debate not be allowed to run rampant on the rest of the boards which used to be quite common. In a sense, it needed it's own set of checks and balances because in had become completely pervasive. My feeling is that if this topic were so important and interesting to a select few then they should have their own dedicated board where they can argue these points to infinity. I agree with you... it's very likely that few people would post in this "special" forum, but doesn't that say something to you? I think the point could be made that if these topics have not enough interest and energy to stand on their own then they should not be allowed free reign to permeate the other boards. If this is an admitedly limited viewpoint from a select few then why should it be allowed to monopolize and become the central issue of the boards - which is what I believe happened and why so many were turned off and eventually left. What I have really always been calling for is BALANCE which I had hoped could come from voluntary self restraint and failing that, some limited but effective intervention from management. Sadly, neither happened.

"I am a guilty threadjacker, with not much self-restraint on some threads IMO. But, it's hard to just stop discussing something that is ongoing in a thread."

Yes, it's difficult to exercise that self restraint and that is why, unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary to have someone else do it for us. But this person doesn't have to be a dictator just because he/she has some authority. As I said to Skeptic, I believe what is in question is the degree to which such authority needs to be exercised. I am not saying that we have to have a dedicated naysayer yeasayer board right now. But I do believe that it would have been a useful tool in the past and could be useful in the future. I for one, would be willing to support it, if only on a temporary trial basis. It could surprise us all and be quite successful on its own merits.

"I believe a moderator should be active on these boards, to an extent, policing the threads for some of the more destructive behaviour. I am not promoting any sort of dictatorship or banning of topics/debate; just an eforcement of some basic rules of behaviour."

Sounds very reasonable to me. If everyone who came here were as sensible as you this probably wouldn't have become a problem. To me, Eric sound levelheaded too. I'm willing to support him in hopes that he can lead the forum forward in a positive direction. I hope the mere mention of a possible "naysayer yeasayer" board doesn't prevent others from getting behind the guy too.

Q

skeptic
08-15-2004, 11:10 AM
After thousands of postings under the moniker "Skeptic" and under the moniker "itellitlikeitis" under the old blue letter format, this will be my last posting on the AR message board.

Farewell to all of those I have exchanged ideas and argued with over some of life's least important issues. Conditions for my continued participation on this board have become unacceptable to me. The privelege of posting on a message board is of no value if the messages that are posted are restricted beyond the bounds of reasonable civility, bounds I have not crossed.

The right to call an atrocity for what it is and to pin an appropriate nametag on it is one I will not give up. The thread I initiated today had to be deleted by the new moderator because it was unacceptable to him but could not be refuted. Although the terms I used are identical to those I used in the past about the same subject and were never an issue with previous moderators, this one has taken strong exception to it. I have received two private warnings from him. Whether he institutes the kind of rules at Cable Asylum I have always spoken out against, now, later, or never, he apparantly reserves the right to do so.

The deletion of this posting, should it happen will only serve to further prove my point. To those who read it while it is still here, I wish you all the best of luck.

Goodbye

Skeptic

Quagmire
08-15-2004, 11:40 AM
Skeptic,

You said...

"Then they ignore statement which steered it in that direction and continue on with what they were trying to discuss in the first place. If they've exhausted their points, then they should let other people who still want to discuss them take the conversation where it leads them."

Yes, it would be nice if all sides could practice this kind of self restraint - something which I referred to before. But admittedly, the antagonistic nature of these threads makes that very difficult for many/most to do: I'll include myself in that group, although I think I had a somewhat better track record in that regard than many. If the ensuing debate lead in a practical manner towards actually addressing the poster's question, then so be it. But most of the time the debate was self serving of the regular group that would argue these point endlessly, with no practical value to the poster. That may be a free speech issue to you but to me it's just rude. If this stuff is so damned important to you then start your own thread addressing the falacies that you believe were inherent in the other thread. Then you and whomever wants to join you can argue as long as you like. That might even be a productive thread in and of itself.

"He's been here less that two weeks, has less than ten postings and has already deleted one of my threads. What would you call that?"

Maybe justified, maybe not. That depends on what you said - on your conduct. Freedom doesn't mean the absence of laws or rules, that is anarchy my friend. I made this point before. To conclude that Eric behaved like a dictator just because he deleted your thread infers that there is never a time when it is appropriate to delete a thread. Certainly there must be a time when it is okay to delete a thread or else we have anarchy in place of freedom. I don't know what was said and so I don't know if the deletion was justified or not. Perhaps more importantly, you should consider what you said and honestly evaluate if the deletion was justified. Up to this point, I don't think anything that has been said between the two of us in our threads has been particularly threatening or unkind, and I certainly don't intend to start. I disagree with you about some things, but there is no maliciousness on my part nor any animosity towards you. If I have offended you, please accept my sincere apologies.

Q

WmAx
08-15-2004, 12:29 PM
My feeling is that if this topic were so important and interesting to a select few then they should have their own dedicated board where they can argue these points to infinity. I agree with you... it's very likely that few people would post in this "special" forum, but doesn't that say something to you? I think the point could be made that if these topics have not enough interest and energy to stand on their own then they should not be allowed free reign to permeate the other boards.It appears taht these assertions could be confusing popularity with objectivity, in smoe sense. Because something is or is not popular, has no bearing on the correctness of such. However, it probably does have alot to do with basic ratings -- since this does correlate with popularity. But you did clearly state this was your 'feelings'. And if the point is ratings, then again, your feelings of what should be done may very well increase the ratings.



If this is an admitedly limited viewpoint from a select few then why should it be allowed to monopolize and become the central issue of the boards - which is what I believe happened and why so many were turned off and eventually leftDo you want to give up objectivity as a price for popularity?



What I have really always been calling for is BALANCE which I had hoped could come from voluntary self restraint and failing that, some limited but effective intervention from management. Sadly, neither happened.
So, without ever trying an active management of policies, you would like to go straight to removing the balance all together?


I am not saying that we have to have a dedicated naysayer yeasayer board right now. But I do believe that it would have been a useful tool in the past and could be useful in the future. I for one, would be willing to support it, if only on a temporary trial basis. It could surprise us all and be quite successful on its own merits.Merits? THis certainly do not include objectivity as one of them.


Sounds very reasonable to me. If everyone who came here were as sensible as you this probably wouldn't have become a problem. To me, Eric sound levelheaded tooWell, except the part about possibly creating a special forum for objectivity --- but his primary motivation as I suggested in my first reply -- maybe purely site hits. He has not yet stated his primary motivation that I have noticed.

-Chris

DMK
08-15-2004, 02:06 PM
and under the moniker "itellitlikeitis" under the old blue letter format,


Hmmm... I remember him! Didn't know that was you.

Once again, I disagree with you. Music is hardly one of "life's least important issues". OTOH, amps, cables and CD players are and that's probably what you meant.

Sayonara. My best to you. I probably won't be far behind you in your decision.

Quagmire
08-15-2004, 03:20 PM
Chris,

You said...

"It appears taht these assertions could be confusing popularity with objectivity, in smoe sense. Because something is or is not popular, has no bearing on the correctness of such."

No, I wouldn't call it popularity, I would call it enjoyability. As I said before, this is suppose to be a hobbyist forum and as such, people should be able to come here and enjoy posting without feeling that they are being harassed by those who would demand "scientific verification" as though they had offered up the latest scientific theory when all they had really done was answer someones question based on their experience. That doesn't mean that all objectivity goes out the door, and it also doesn't mean that you guys have a corner on objectivity either. Not every opinion offered up by those outside of your camp is "smoke and mirror" or "snake oil".

"But you did clearly state this was your 'feelings'. And if the point is ratings, then again, your feelings of what should be done may very well increase the ratings."

I don't care about ratings. I just enjoyed the site much more when we had more activity and a larger group of regulars, many who were very knowledgeable.

"Do you want to give up objectivity as a price for popularity?"

As I clarified already, I'm interested in the enjoyability of the site and I don't see this as being exclussive of objectivity. You don't have to give up one to get the other, but you generally do have to be courteous and use some self restraint. For those who are extremely interested in white papers and quoting citations, I see room on this forum for those debates to take place, but it may well be that those debates should be confined to a dedicated board rather than spilling over onto all of the other boards.

"So, without ever trying an active management of policies, you would like to go straight to removing the balance all together?"

You can't remove what you don't have. I believe Eric's intent is to structure the forum so that balance is inherent to the boards. For those who really want to get into the yeasayer naysayer debates... have at 'er. You will have all the room you want on that board. That doesn't mean that all objectivity is lost on the other boards just because this argument moved elsewhere. Like I said already, you guys don't have a corner on objectivity.

"Merits? THis certainly do not include objectivity as one of them."

By that I only mean that this special board might be successful, even though you and I have stated that we don't think it will get posted on very much. We could be wrong.

"Well, except the part about possibly creating a special forum for objectivity..."

Once again... objectivity is not your exclussive domain and moving this never ending debate to a seperate board isn't the equivilant of sucking the objectivity out of the other boards.

Q

brulaha
08-15-2004, 05:35 PM
Hi Eric,

There are many audio sites that enforce the constraints you are considering where members can preach to the choir. AR has always had the distinction of upholding the freedom to question claims, which has allowed for thought provoking debate and an introduction to "newbies" that all that is claimed is not fact. IMHO the restrictions you want to impose will lead to the further migration of knowlegable posters from AR. Perhaps a seperate new forum with a title like "Fantasy Findings" might be more acceptable to the stalwarts who have maintained a presence here over the years and allow for unchallenged subjective discussions. That way "newbies" would be given the message that all that they read of subjective claims is not necessarily accepted as undisbuted fact as is often pointed out by some members, and maybe create a bastion for unchallenged discussions for those who wish to partake. I don't think the solution is censoring factual information of an entire side of debatable issues as if they don't exist.

Anyway, good luck with all that.

Hmmmm...I recognize that name from somewhere. Where could it be??? Possibly a CD exchange group of some kind? How are you buddy? I have been paroosing here for about a month again...good to see your still around.

WmAx
08-15-2004, 06:32 PM
No, I wouldn't call it popularity, I would call it enjoyability.
I suppose this could be true, since people are more likely to gravitate to an enjoyable place(thus making it popular -- in effect what I was implying).


As I said before, this is suppose to be a hobbyist forum and as such, people should be able to come here and enjoy posting without feeling that they are being harassed by those who would demand "scientific verification" as though they had offered up the latest scientific theory when all they had really done was answer someones question based on their experience.
Tyically, when someone clearly states it's their opinion or perception of how something sounds, that they will not be harrassed. I certainly would not contend this opinion and require evidence. I don't care about opinions. When such opinion is stated as fact when it is not established as such it is challenged -- as it should be -- especially when this opinion is offered to someone as fact when they inquire about something.


That doesn't mean that all objectivity goes out the door, and it also doesn't mean that you guys have a corner on objectivity either. Not every opinion offered up by those outside of your camp is "smoke and mirror" or "snake oil".
So, how do you have a policy that prevents challenge of claims, but retain 'objectivity'? Don't refer to 'that dedicated forum' again -- that is just a method to remove objectivity from the rest of the forum.


As I clarified already, I'm interested in the enjoyability of the site and I don't see this as being exclussive of objectivity. You don't have to give up one to get the other, but you generally do have to be courteous and use some self restraint
Hmm. Tell me if you object to entity X in this following simulation:



Entity A: Hi, Bob, I have a Brand T cables for the same speaker you use. Before I was using a generic 12 AWG zip speaker wire, but with these the soundstage widened and the sound jut opened up. It's no small difference, either. You should buy a pair of these. They really make a difference.

Entity X.: Hi, A. How do these cables, specifically, allow for an audible change in the signal? Do they have some extreme LCR parmeters that in effect, cause a non linear transfer function?

Entity A: Hi, X. No, I'm not ware of the LCR parameters, but I know this is a 12 AWG stranded wire, standard side by side configuration, 3meters each, with silver plating and teflon insulation. I listed to the wires, switching them in/out in just a few seconds each. The sound really was better!

Entity X: A, their is no valid reason that I am aware that the LCR parameters would be signficantly different to an audible effect, in this configuration, which closely resembles the configuration of the standard 12AWG cable you wre using before. An uncontrolled, sighted listening test as you implied above, will leave psychological bias as a significant factor in perception. However, if you are happy with the change whetehr it is a true audible one or a psychological one, that is your decision. A DBT or ABX tst, level matched, would be required to find real audible differences. Alternaively, measurments demonstrating JNDs tht are within known human ability are another reasonble method to determine this issue.


. For those who are extremely interested in white papers and quoting citations, I see room on this forum for those debates to take place, but it may well be that those debates should be confined to a dedicated board rather than spilling over onto all of the other boards.
Please be clear. Your use of the word 'may' is not definitive here. Do you think such issues(as in the simulation above) should be isolated only to the 'special' forum?


You can't remove what you don't have.
Actually, I'm not sure what you mean. However, if you notice, people such as me rarely set a foot into the analog room. Do you mean you want a 50/50 or approximate proportion of posts that are objective vs. subjective(without requirement for proof)? I don't see how such a thing can exist unless the so-called objectivists are a small minority and can not handle the 'case load'. It's like this in a forum called head-fi.org. While they have no anti-dbt or debate rules in the main forums, their are so few people around to instill logic, that the place is stiill primarily full of unsupportable claims spread around as if they are fact. They do seem to enjoy themselves, though. Is this what you envision here?


For those who really want to get into the yeasayer naysayer debates... have at 'er. You will have all the room you want on that board. That doesn't mean that all objectivity is lost on the other boards just because this argument moved elsewhere
By basic logic -- if you prohibit challenging of claims in an area -- that area will run rampant with all sorts of claims(and no way to challenge their worth).


Once again... objectivity is not your exclussive domain and moving this never ending debate to a seperate board isn't the equivilant of sucking the objectivity out of the other boards.
Yes, it is. Don't you see this? If you 'prohibit' challenge to claims this = sucking the objectivity out of the board you apply this rule to. In this case, entity X as exampled above would have been in violation of forum policy. So, Entity A would remain unchecked and spreading his opinion as if it's a fact.

-Chris

TinHere
08-15-2004, 06:38 PM
Hmmmm...I recognize that name from somewhere. Where could it be??? Possibly a CD exchange group of some kind? How are you buddy? I have been paroosing here for about a month again...good to see your still around.

Hey Brulaha! Good to see ya. Shoot me a PM and let me know what's doing with ya.

Quagmire
08-15-2004, 11:51 PM
Chris,

"I suppose this could be true, since people are more likely to gravitate to an enjoyable place(thus making it popular -- in effect what I was implying)."

Not the same thing and not what you were implying: The goal as far as I'm concerned as a participant is that the forum be enjoyable and informative. If it is popular in the process, so be it. What you are implying through your choice of words is that my position amounts to a sell out - the popularity of the forum at the cost of its intergrity. Sounds very noble when you frame it that way, but as I've pointed out the enjoyability and objectivity of the forum don't have to be at odds with one another. Also, the site doesn't need to be completely or solely objective to be of value anyway. Often times people come here for subjective input or advice, even if that rubs you the wrong way it's true. A litmus test is objective, but it isn't very interesting or fun. There is much good about the forum which can be and should be subjective. Dragging such subjective discussion into the "laboratory" of scientific scrutiny is not always called for, necessary or welcomed.

"Tyically, when someone clearly states it's their opinion or perception of how something sounds, that they will not be harrassed. I certainly would not contend this opinion and require evidence."

But when one is anxious to have this debate -- once again -- it is easy to construe many statements as being a "testable claim". Anecdotal information has little value or place in a lab setting, but once again, this isn't a lab. However, anecdotal information is appropriate on a hobbyist board and need not be subjected to the rigors of scientific testing, scrutiny, or verification. That doesn't mean that there isn't some level of objectivity, as experienced audio enthusiasts can always step forward and say, "I think statement "X" is BS and here is why". But there is no need to drag all anecdotal statements into the familiar debate arena of "You made a testable claim -- now prove it". That the forum can't be seen as a completely objective source of information may seem like a weakness to you, but it has value that can't be obtained through strictly objective sources.

"I don't care about opinions."

Precisely. Then why are you here? Perhaps you are in the wrong setting? Maybe you need to find an arena which is purely objective so that you can engage in the types of discussions you obviously want to have. I know this is blunt, and I don't mean to be rude, but... if you don't care about opinions then don't bother expressing any either. Please respect the fact that others do care about opinions and that is a major factor in why people come here. Although it may be appropriate in another setting to accept nothing but scientifically tested data, that degree of rigor is simply misplaced in this environment.

"Hmm. Tell me if you object to entity X in this following simulation:"

Yes I do, and I'll tell you why. It is obvious that entity X asked the question rhetorically. He doesn't believe entity A's "claim" and only asked the question so that he can proceed with his next paragraph which of course is just the jumping off point for the debate to ensue. This is only a more polite way of saying, "You made a testable claim -- now prove it.". I wouldn't mind if entity X came straight out and said, "Bob and entity A, if you're interested...[their is no valid reason that I am aware that the LCR parameters would be signficantly different to an audible effect, in this configuration, which closely resembles the configuration of the standard 12AWG cable you wre using before. etc...] That would be an honest way of providing the information to those parties if they were interested, but if, in the end, this approach is just being used as another way to entice "the debate" then that isn't really being honest, is it.

"Please be clear. Your use of the word 'may' is not definitive here."

Not an accidental use of the word. It accurately conveys my belief that this is only one possibility, not the only answer, and perhaps not a solution at all.

"Do you think such issues(as in the simulation above) should be isolated only to the 'special' forum?"

If the intent is merely to bait others into this same old agrument, then yes, I think this might be an appropriate outlet for that debate to take place. I don't know why you insist on calling it a "special" forum as though there is some negative connotation associated with it -- like all of the objectivist have been banished to the "special" board. I've used the term "dedicated" board in the same sence that we have other dedicated boards on the forum like the "Rave Recordings" board or the "Home Theater" board that relate to topics of specific interests. There is nothing "bad" about discussing great recordings, but if someone continually does this on the Home Theater board, it seems perfectly reasonable to redirect him or her to the Rave Recording board instead. If your main interest is the debate over scientific data -vs- prevalent audio "mythology" then why not have a board dedicated to these discussions? I only propose that this is one possible solution.

"Actually, I'm not sure what you mean. However, if you notice, people such as me rarely set a foot into the analog room. Do you mean you want a 50/50 or approximate proportion of posts that are objective vs. subjective(without requirement for proof)?"

What I mean is that the so called objectivist stop demanding that all posts meet their criteria for objectivity, demanding proof for information that is meant to be anecdotal from its inception. (This would be the self restraint I have spoken of before.) That if their primary interest is to engage in this objectivist -vs- subjectivist debate they can do so on a board dedicated to just such a topic. (This would be management's proposed method of mediating between the two groups.)

"Yes, it is. Don't you see this? If you 'prohibit' challenge to claims this = sucking the objectivity out of the board you apply this rule to. In this case, entity X as exampled above would have been in violation of forum policy. So, Entity A would remain unchecked and spreading his opinion as if it's a fact."

Lions, tigers and bears... oh my! First of all, I don't think we are talking about "prohibiting" someone from challenging any or all claims. Maybe encouraging folks to use a little more discretion in terms of what they deem to have been a testable claim especially if the real purpose is merely to hijack a thread solely to engage in this debate again. As far as entity A spreading his opinion, that is part of what the forum is for. Once again, this is not a research facility, it's a hobbyist board which is never going to be a source of completely objective information. And I would suggest that at least some of what you believe to be fact is merely what is currently supported or not refuted by the data at hand but that could change at some point. None of us can be completely objective sources for these boards -- even if that is our intention.

If I don't get around to replying to you for awhile, please don't take it as a cop out or disinterest in what you have to say. I have spent MUCH more time than I usually allot myself to posting here and I really have to move on. I have enjoyed the discussion -- even if we don't necessarily agree.

Q

ToddB
08-16-2004, 01:25 AM
Things definitely look encouraging at AR. With a new moderator who's intent on implementing some very constructive changes, and the support of management to make those changes, the future of this board seems to be more promising than it's been for a very long time.

The reason changes need to be made in the forums is because the tone here long ago devolved into a state that is short-sighted, antagonistic, and destructive, and it happened primarily because the naysayers have been allowed virtually unchecked freedom to harass people who make comments of an anecdotal or experiential nature. The thing is, those anecdotal and experiential comments are exactly what should be posted here. It's been a real shame to watch most of the people making such comments drift away to other websites when they got tired of the endless invective that was directed at them. When people can't take home a new component, or make a new cable, or try a new product, and come here and share the experience of how that item sounded to them, without having to risk incurring the wrath of a gang of pseudo-scientists for whom no listening experience outside of a DBT is valid, then there's a problem. AR definitely has a very big problem.

Hopefully, that problem will be coming to an end very shortly. I know that previous moderators have made noises about improving the state of the forums, and nothing much has resulted, but Eric is not kidding about making some significant changes here. In fact, I'm fairly certain that the only reason he's willing to create and try an objectivist forum is because I suggested the idea to him. Believe me, when it's to the point that I'm defending the objectivists, their cause is in pretty bad shape. I don't have a problem with discussions about DBTs, per se, but I do have a problem with the topic of DBTs being inserted into discussions inappropriately. Scientific validations are certainly one aspect of audio, but they are only ONE aspect of audio, not the totality of it.

Ultimately, the audio hobby is reliant upon the hearing ability of those involved in it, regardless of how imperfect that reliance may be, and regardless of the ability for science to explain and quantify every consideration about the hearing experience. For the naysayers who want to continue posting here, they would do well to either accept this reality, or temper their comments with better discretion, because I don't think that you're going to want Eric to temper your comments for you.

46minaudio
08-16-2004, 06:06 AM
I can now go in the cable bussiness..Maybe even start selling those green markers that make cds sound better..

WmAx
08-16-2004, 08:45 AM
Not the same thing and not what you were implying: The goal as far as I'm concerned as a participant is that the forum be enjoyable and informative.

but as I've pointed out the enjoyability and objectivity of the forum don't have to be at odds with one another.
I'm just curious as to how you can allow objectivity(that is not crippled in some way) and at the same time have an unfettered subjective view of the same things simultaneously. I don't see a plausible method introduced to achieve this yet.



Anecdotal information has little value or place in a lab setting, but once again, this isn't a lab. However, anecdotal information is appropriate on a hobbyist board and need not be subjected to the rigors of scientific testing, scrutiny, or verification.
I don't see anyone trying to turn this into a 'lab', this is seemingly a phrase used to exaggerate the situation. But, when a hobbyist comes hear and asks for what is relevant to performance, etc.; why should he only hear one side of the coin? So, then enters the person challenging the person claiming this unsupported claim to demonstrate that the claim has not basis in logic.


That doesn't mean that there isn't some level of objectivity, as experienced audio enthusiasts can always step forward and say, "I think statement "X" is BS and here is why".
Ah, but this leads to an explanatin as to why, which leads into coverseation about stuff like DBT, etc...


is blunt, and I don't mean to be rude, but... if you don't care about opinions then don't bother expressing any either. Please respect the fact that others do care about opinions and that is a major factor in why people come here.
That's not my issue. I don't normally argue with opinions, I argue with claims made as facts. Though, it's rare that I share opinions, sometimes I do and they are carefully stated as such.


Yes I do, and I'll tell you why. It is obvious that entity X asked the question rhetorically. He doesn't believe entity A's "claim" and only asked the question so that he can proceed with his next paragraph which of course is just the jumping off point for the debate to ensue. This is only a more polite way of saying, "You made a testable claim -- now prove it.".
Entity X is challenging Entity A because he is mistaken that hearing a difference is all their is too the situation. X is only trying to inform A of this and at teh same time help Bob realize this, too, instead of possibly bein persuaded to waste $$$ on nothing more then placebo.


I wouldn't mind if entity X came straight out and said, "Bob and entity A, if you're interested...[their is no valid reason that I am aware that the LCR parameters would be signficantly different to an audible effect, in this configuration, which closely resembles the configuration of the standard 12AWG cable you wre using before. etc...]
But that would seem more like an usupported opinion. When in fact, X can be more informative and provide the basic requirements to determine actual audbility differences.


If the intent is merely to bait others into this same old agrument, then yes, I think this might be an appropriate outlet for that debate to take place.
You can't know what the intent is -- where is the evidence that 'everyone' that requires verification of claims is just looking for a debate? Actually, the underlying intent for me, is to save Bob's money from being blown on things that have no substantiable evidence supporting them as being effective.


I don't know why you insist on calling it a "special" forum as though there is some negative connotation associated with it -- like all of the objectivist have been banished to the "special" board.

I've used the term "dedicated" board in the same sence that we have other dedicated boards on the forum like the "Rave Recordings" board or the "Home Theater" board that relate to topics of specific interests.
THe problem with this idea: it's not applicable in teh same sense you imply. 'Objectivity' is not the subject of these forums, but an applied principle, that can be applied to many subjects such as amplifiers, cables, cd players, etc. So, we should have 'Objectivity Corner' or 'DBT/ABX Disccusion", etc. forum? This would nt make much sense unless the objective was to discuss objectivity 'itself' or DBT tests 'themselves', etc.. The application of objectivity as discussed here is not this, but the act of applying objectivity to product considerations and advice that is given. So, Entity X is limited to Objectivity Corner, but over in Cables forum, Entity A is costing many people their money through his ignorant claims and spreading misinformation...


As far as entity A spreading his opinion, that is part of what the forum is for.
Then, entity A only has to say it's his opinion, not spread his opinion around like it's some sort of fact(with lots of reassurance it's a fact fellow people doing the very same).


And I would suggest that at least some of what you believe to be fact is merely what is currently supported or not refuted by the data at hand but that could change at some point.
This is irrevelant, and a baisc misunderstanding of the scientific principle. The issue is that all information to be conveyed as fact must be substantiated. This is to prevent the spread of misinformation. What is probable is different from what is possible.

-Chris

Steve1000
08-16-2004, 09:10 AM
The fact that anything is possible is no excuse for thinking foolishly.

-- John Maynard Keynes, The Makings of the Peace, Volume II (basically predicting World War II).

E-Stat
08-16-2004, 01:01 PM
The reason changes need to be made in the forums is because the tone here long ago devolved into a state that is short-sighted, antagonistic, and destructive, and it happened primarily because the naysayers have been allowed virtually unchecked freedom to harass people who make comments of an anecdotal or experiential nature. The thing is, those anecdotal and experiential comments are exactly what should be posted here. It's been a real shame to watch most of the people making such comments drift away to other websites when they got tired of the endless invective that was directed at them. When people can't take home a new component, or make a new cable, or try a new product, and come here and share the experience of how that item sounded to them, without having to risk incurring the wrath of a gang of pseudo-scientists for whom no listening experience outside of a DBT is valid, then there's a problem. AR definitely has a very big problem.

Hopefully, that problem will be coming to an end very shortly. I know that previous moderators have made noises about improving the state of the forums, and nothing much has resulted, but Eric is not kidding about making some significant changes here. In fact, I'm fairly certain that the only reason he's willing to create and try an objectivist forum is because I suggested the idea to him. Believe me, when it's to the point that I'm defending the objectivists, their cause is in pretty bad shape. I don't have a problem with discussions about DBTs, per se, but I do have a problem with the topic of DBTs being inserted into discussions inappropriately. Scientific validations are certainly one aspect of audio, but they are only ONE aspect of audio, not the totality of it.

Ultimately, the audio hobby is reliant upon the hearing ability of those involved in it, regardless of how imperfect that reliance may be, and regardless of the ability for science to explain and quantify every consideration about the hearing experience. For the naysayers who want to continue posting here, they would do well to either accept this reality, or temper their comments with better discretion, because I don't think that you're going to want Eric to temper your comments for you.
Amen. I think there is a place for both. Not all observationalists are flakes as is often asserted. Perhaps I too can tone done my sarcasm with one individual in particular and take up your offer.

rw

Quagmire
08-16-2004, 03:00 PM
Chris,

I got back to you, but I can't spend as much time this go around.

"I'm just curious as to how you can allow objectivity(that is not crippled in some way) and at the same time have an unfettered subjective view of the same things simultaneously."

Your assumption here is that there isn't an element of objectivity inherent to the boards to begin with; as though you and your crowd are the only purveyors of objectivity. Like I've said before, you don't have a corner on objectivity.

"I don't see anyone trying to turn this into a 'lab',..."

When a select group tries to hold the rest of the forum to a standard that only objective information has any value; that anecdotal information lacks any validity or logic, then I say they are trying to change the nature of this hobbyist board. You mention that it is okay for folks to express an opinion so long as they qualify their statement as being opinion. I say that because this is a hobbyist board, no such qualification is necessary. If this were a lab setting then it would be necessary to qualify opinion or anecdotal information from fact or raw data. Applying that same standard to a hobbyist board is unwarranted and unwelcomed.

"Entity X is challenging Entity A because he is mistaken..."

That is your assumption. This just verifies what I said in my previous post; that entity X asked his question rhetorically and for the purpose of introducing the same old themes that have been heard over and over. He never believed entity A had any legitimate point of view to share, even though he asked the question as though he did. Entity X doesn't seek what he believes to be any valid information from entity A, he only seeks a platform from which to preach his own beliefs regarding audibility issue and is using entity A's thread to do so. If that's what entity X really wants then let him start his own thread dedicated to this subject. Then it won't be necessary to hijack someone elses thread.

"But that would seem more like an usupported opinion."

I used your exact statements via cut-n-paste, shortened it a bit for the sake of space, and added the "etc..." at the end to denote that the rest of the your statement should follow.

"You can't know what the intent is -- where is the evidence that 'everyone' that requires verification of claims is just looking for a debate?"

It's in the history. Not difficult to find if one is able to go back through all of the various evolutions of this forum. The very fact that this thread exist is evidence that it has historically been a problem which the current moderator deems serious enough to address.

"Actually, the underlying intent for me, is to save Bob's money from being blown on things that have no substantiable evidence supporting them as being effective."

Bob's a big boy and is responsible for himself. Your assumption is that Bob is too stupid to decide for himself how best to spend his money. Also, if Bob came here he might very well be looking for the kind of subjective anecdotal information that is specific to these boards and he might value entity A's personal experience, even if you do not. Bob is also free to seek out other more objective sources of information elsewhere as part of his overall decision making process if he is so inclined. If not, he takes risks with his own money. It is a falacy of yours to assume that all who come here believe this to be an iron clad source of totally objective information. Any reasonable person would know better than that. Bottom line... Bob is responsible for Bob.

"THe problem with this idea: it's not applicable in teh same sense you imply. 'Objectivity' is not the subject of these forums, but an applied principle, that can be applied to many subjects..."

Neither is "subjectivity". As I've spoken previously, you and your group are not the sole proprietors of objectivity on this forum and as such are not the only ones applying this principle -- even though you would assume that you are. And as I've made the point before, the application of personal experience and anecdotal information is expected, appropriate and just as valid in the format of a hobbyist board. Your repeated attempts to challenge and debunk all such anecdotal information on this forum is a misplaced effort. Look for souces that claim to be completely objective to begin with and if they don't live up to that standard, debunk them. If you don't agree with what "Consumer Reports" is publishing, then by all means, debunk them. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the "naysayer -vs- yeasayer", "objectivist -vs- subjectivist" debate is a specific topic and can exist in a dedicated forum. The arguments that have been made on both side of these issues are so well known that I could quote them in my sleep. They don't have to be applied to a specific thread to be debated; that is why so often, the original poster is forgotten in the hijacked thread; sadly the importance of his or her question pales in comparison to the importance placed on these hotly debated issues.

"Then, entity A only has to say it's his opinion, not spread his opinion around like it's some sort of fact(with lots of reassurance it's a fact fellow people doing the very same)."

The conclussion that entity A came to was obviously based on his experience, relating a subjective method and were clearly presented as a subjective evaluation. There was no deception on his part. It isn't like he said, "Hey Bob! Based on this report I found at WmAx.com I have irrefutable evidence that these cables will make your speakers sound better. Buy some now". So my point is (and I've made it before) that entity A shouldn't have to qualify his statements as opinion when they most obviously are AND he his presenting them here, on a hobbyist board where the exchange of such information is expected. Likewise, Bob should not expect that the information provided by entity A, on a hobbyist board, should rise to the level of irrefutable fact that he might find on a place such as WmAx.com.

"Entity A is costing many people their money through his ignorant claims and spreading misinformation..."

That is your preconception having never heard his speakers or his cables -- also that he is "ignorant" -- a nice touch on your part which should go a long way towards promoting civility. Additionally, those who would spend extravagant amounts of money based solely on his subjective evaluation of the cables bear the responsibility for their own decisions.

"This is irrevelant, and a baisc misunderstanding of the scientific principle. The issue is that all information to be conveyed as fact must be substantiated."

And what facts did entity A convey? Exactly what did he claim was fact which he did not clearly state was based on his subjective personal experience (listening)? As I said earlier, where is the deception on his part? To paraphrase what he said, "Based on my listening experience, these cables improved the sound of my speakers.". As long as he presents the information as he did, I have no problem with what entity A said -- even though I may not agree with it.

Q

ericl
08-16-2004, 03:03 PM
Quagmire,

You sum up my position perfectly.

-Eric

Quagmire
08-16-2004, 03:14 PM
Thanks Eric and once again, welcome.

Q

WmAx
08-16-2004, 04:02 PM
Chris,

I got back to you, but I can't spend as much time this go around. That's okay, I realize the internet is not a primary priority. Before I begin, let me thank you for taking the time to reply: Thank you.


Your assumption here is that there isn't an element of objectivity inherent to the boards to begin with; as though you and your crowd are the only purveyors of objectivity. Like I've said before, you don't have a corner on objectivity. I'm not fully aware of your perspective. I am discussing objective viewpoint, itself, not some allocated groups. Because anamolies may occur in any one group, with varying ratio of subjective : objective proportions to any given person. But, I am discussing an objective viewpoint itself.


When a select group tries to hold the rest of the forum to a standard that only objective information has any value; that anecdotal information lacks any validity or logic, then I say they are trying to change the nature of this hobbyist board. I can't comment on this, specifically, because the very 'nature' of this board is another debate in itself. I should make it clear I am not giving any weighting to a specific 'nature' of the board, but only the principles of value of information that are discussed.


You mention that it is okay for folks to express an opinion so long as they qualify their statement as being opinion. I say that because this is a hobbyist board, no such qualification is necessary. [1]THis is a viwepoint based on the gramamtical structure and it's logical meaning. It can not be debated if the sentence "Product X is audibly different from Product Z." is stated as a fact. By grammatical rule it is stated as absolute. Do you mean that people have reason to be so lazy as to not have to make at least basicly proper statements refleting the realisism of the situation? Every statement should automaticly assumed to be a misconstructed sentence? Well, I believe that most of these people also legitimately believe what they 'percieved' is real, and that they require a reminder of proper objectivity in finding the 'real' difference that was percieved. Perhaps this is misguided on my part -- I should let ignorance run rampant -- after all, it's not my business, right? But no, I feel some responsibility to insert a glimmer of objectivity where it seemingly did not exist beforehand.


pplying that same standard to a hobbyist board is unwarranted and unwelcomed. I don't doubt this is true. Most peolple, by nature, do not like to be told they did anything wrong.


That is your assumption. This just verifies what I said in my previous post; that entity X asked his question rhetorically and for the purpose of introducing the same old themes that have been heard over and over. He never believed entity A had any legitimate point of view to share, even though he asked the question as though he did. Not true, their are some cable/amp/speaker combinations that can result in audibly different performance by way of the LCR parameters. It coudl have been tht A had chagned the parmaters to result in a difference that was within known human JNDs.


he only seeks a platform from which to preach his own beliefs regarding audibility issue and is using entity A's thread to do so. If that's what entity X really wants then let him start his own thread dedicated to this subject. Then it won't be necessary to hijack someone elses thread. The point was not to hijack the thread, but to inform A of the proper evalution procedure(s) to confirm true audible differences.


I used your exact statements via cut-n-paste, shortened it a bit for the sake of space, and added the "etc..." at the end to denote that the rest of the your statement should follow. Yes, but you removed the rest of it was very importnat. That was what I meant. The rest of the statement informed of varoius methods and why certain methods of evaluation are not reliable.


It's in the history. Not difficult to find if one is able to go back through all of the various evolutions of this forum. You may have a point, statistically speaking. :-)


Bob's a big boy and is responsible for himself. Your assumption is that Bob is too stupid to decide for himself how best to spend his money. INdeed, it is true that I make such an assumption. IN my obsevations, people demonstrate very little objectivity in searching for specific items. They seem to primarily believe the unsubstantiated claims put forth by other 'hobbyists'. Bob may be a big boy.. but is it wrong for me to try and steer Bob in a more objective direction?


Also, if Bob came here he might very well be looking for the kind of subjective anecdotal information that is specific to these boards and he might value entity A's personal experience, even if you do not Very true! If this was apparent, I woud not even bother talking too Bob, unless he in turn was propgating opions as fact to others...


Bob is also free to seek out other more objective sources of information elsewhere as part of his overall decision making process if he is so inclined. Really? The majority of reviews and forums dedicated to the subject are already primarily based on un-controlled sighted testing(the most unrelilable method, psychologically). This is(or was) one of the last big forums that was primarily objective.


It is a falacy of yours to assume that all who come here believe this to be an iron clad source of totally objective information. Any reasonable person would know better than that. True. Howver, with so many people singing the priases of exensive products that are not demonstrated to be better then cheaper versions, Bob is likely to cave in to peer pressure/influence.



Neither is "subjectivity". As I've spoken previously, you and your group are not the sole proprietors of objectivity on this forum and as such are not the only ones applying this principle -- even though you would assume that you are. Again, I don't really like the idea of trying to seperate this into groups, when it's a principle you are talking about. Objectivity is objecitivity. If you deonstrate it, y ou are objective. HOw can you not be objective if y ou are objective?


that is why so often, the original poster is forgotten in the hijacked thread; sadly the importance of his or her question pales in comparison to the importance placed on these hotly debated issues.
I am 'for' regulating a thread for to keep it on topic or at least a very relevant tangent to that topic. I outlined this is the first reply to you, I beleive.


The conclussion that entity A came to was obviously based on his experience, relating a subjective method and were clearly presented as a subjective evaluation I addressed this in [1]


So my point is (and I've made it before) that entity A shouldn't have to qualify his statements as opinion when they most obviously are AND he his presenting them here, on a hobbyist board where the exchange of such information is expected. From what you say, it appears you want a comfortable board that is for the most part, void of the pressures of heaviily objectified discussion. I understand the desire to have a specific type of environment, as I addressed in my first reply to you. However, this is not something that can be debated, I believe. It's either one kind of place or another kind of place -- certain people like a certain type of place. Primarily objective or primarily subjective. You know which side my vote goes to...


That is your preconception having never heard his speakers or his cables -- Do you believe I would nescarrily believe something that I heard in uncontrolled conditions? NO, I hold myself to the same rigorous standards.


also that he is "ignorant" -- a nice touch on your part which should go a long way towards promoting civility. It was an accurate use of the word in that case. If he believes he can determine an audible differnce that is real based on only sighted testing, that is ignorant. It's not an insult, it's a proper use of the word per webster.


To paraphrase what he said, "Based on my listening experience, these cables improved the sound of my speakers.". As long as he presents the information as he did, I have no problem with what entity A said -- even though I may not agree with it. All that X did was to inform him of the value of his 'listening experience'.

-Chris

E-Stat
08-16-2004, 04:14 PM
Chris,

I got back to you, but I can't spend as much time this go around.

"I'm just curious as to how you can allow objectivity(that is not crippled in some way) and at the same time have an unfettered subjective view of the same things simultaneously."

Your assumption here is that there isn't an element of objectivity inherent to the boards to begin with; as though you and your crowd are the only purveyors of objectivity. Like I've said before, you don't have a corner on objectivity.

"I don't see anyone trying to turn this into a 'lab',..."

When a select group tries to hold the rest of the forum to a standard that only objective information has any value; that anecdotal information lacks any validity or logic, then I say they are trying to change the nature of this hobbyist board. You mention that it is okay for folks to express an opinion so long as they qualify their statement as being opinion. I say that because this is a hobbyist board, no such qualification is necessary. If this were a lab setting then it would be necessary to qualify opinion or anecdotal information from fact or raw data. Applying that same standard to a hobbyist board is unwarranted and unwelcomed.

"Entity X is challenging Entity A because he is mistaken..."

That is your assumption. This just verifies what I said in my previous post; that entity X asked his question rhetorically and for the purpose of introducing the same old themes that have been heard over and over. He never believed entity A had any legitimate point of view to share, even though he asked the question as though he did. Entity X doesn't seek what he believes to be any valid information from entity A, he only seeks a platform from which to preach his own beliefs regarding audibility issue and is using entity A's thread to do so. If that's what entity X really wants then let him start his own thread dedicated to this subject. Then it won't be necessary to hijack someone elses thread.

"But that would seem more like an usupported opinion."

I used your exact statements via cut-n-paste, shortened it a bit for the sake of space, and added the "etc..." at the end to denote that the rest of the your statement should follow.

"You can't know what the intent is -- where is the evidence that 'everyone' that requires verification of claims is just looking for a debate?"

It's in the history. Not difficult to find if one is able to go back through all of the various evolutions of this forum. The very fact that this thread exist is evidence that it has historically been a problem which the current moderator deems serious enough to address.

"Actually, the underlying intent for me, is to save Bob's money from being blown on things that have no substantiable evidence supporting them as being effective."

Bob's a big boy and is responsible for himself. Your assumption is that Bob is too stupid to decide for himself how best to spend his money. Also, if Bob came here he might very well be looking for the kind of subjective anecdotal information that is specific to these boards and he might value entity A's personal experience, even if you do not. Bob is also free to seek out other more objective sources of information elsewhere as part of his overall decision making process if he is so inclined. If not, he takes risks with his own money. It is a falacy of yours to assume that all who come here believe this to be an iron clad source of totally objective information. Any reasonable person would know better than that. Bottom line... Bob is responsible for Bob.

"THe problem with this idea: it's not applicable in teh same sense you imply. 'Objectivity' is not the subject of these forums, but an applied principle, that can be applied to many subjects..."

Neither is "subjectivity". As I've spoken previously, you and your group are not the sole proprietors of objectivity on this forum and as such are not the only ones applying this principle -- even though you would assume that you are. And as I've made the point before, the application of personal experience and anecdotal information is expected, appropriate and just as valid in the format of a hobbyist board. Your repeated attempts to challenge and debunk all such anecdotal information on this forum is a misplaced effort. Look for souces that claim to be completely objective to begin with and if they don't live up to that standard, debunk them. If you don't agree with what "Consumer Reports" is publishing, then by all means, debunk them. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the "naysayer -vs- yeasayer", "objectivist -vs- subjectivist" debate is a specific topic and can exist in a dedicated forum. The arguments that have been made on both side of these issues are so well known that I could quote them in my sleep. They don't have to be applied to a specific thread to be debated; that is why so often, the original poster is forgotten in the hijacked thread; sadly the importance of his or her question pales in comparison to the importance placed on these hotly debated issues.

"Then, entity A only has to say it's his opinion, not spread his opinion around like it's some sort of fact(with lots of reassurance it's a fact fellow people doing the very same)."

The conclussion that entity A came to was obviously based on his experience, relating a subjective method and were clearly presented as a subjective evaluation. There was no deception on his part. It isn't like he said, "Hey Bob! Based on this report I found at WmAx.com I have irrefutable evidence that these cables will make your speakers sound better. Buy some now". So my point is (and I've made it before) that entity A shouldn't have to qualify his statements as opinion when they most obviously are AND he his presenting them here, on a hobbyist board where the exchange of such information is expected. Likewise, Bob should not expect that the information provided by entity A, on a hobbyist board, should rise to the level of irrefutable fact that he might find on a place such as WmAx.com.

"Entity A is costing many people their money through his ignorant claims and spreading misinformation..."

That is your preconception having never heard his speakers or his cables -- also that he is "ignorant" -- a nice touch on your part which should go a long way towards promoting civility. Additionally, those who would spend extravagant amounts of money based solely on his subjective evaluation of the cables bear the responsibility for their own decisions.

"This is irrevelant, and a baisc misunderstanding of the scientific principle. The issue is that all information to be conveyed as fact must be substantiated."

And what facts did entity A convey? Exactly what did he claim was fact which he did not clearly state was based on his subjective personal experience (listening)? As I said earlier, where is the deception on his part? To paraphrase what he said, "Based on my listening experience, these cables improved the sound of my speakers.". As long as he presents the information as he did, I have no problem with what entity A said -- even though I may not agree with it.

Q
Usually I find no need to quote an entire post. This is a notable exception. Very well written.

rw

Quagmire
08-16-2004, 09:58 PM
Chris,

You said...

"I can't comment on this, specifically, because the very 'nature' of this board is another debate in itself."

This is at the very heart of the issue. The nature of the forum IS the debate, starting with the changes that Eric proposed to make.

"[1]THis is a viwepoint based on the gramamtical structure and it's logical meaning. It can not be debated if the sentence "Product X is audibly different from Product Z." is stated as a fact. By grammatical rule it is stated as absolute."

So in examining entity A's statements, "...but with these the soundstage widened and the sound jut opened up." and "I listed to the wires, switching them in/out in just a few seconds each. The sound really was better!" he clearly states that he came to his conclusions via subjective means (listening) which is apparent to the reader if he or she bothers to read it. The statement by its very structure is subjective, opinion, anecdotal... he offers up no other supporting "proof", only conveying what his experience was.

"By grammatical rule it is stated as absolute. Do you mean that people have reason to be so lazy as to not have to make at least basicly proper statements refleting the realisism of the situation?"

No. I'm saying that it isn't necessary for some to be so anal as to "insist" that everything which is said on a hobbyist board be held to the rigors of scientific scrutiny as though it were to be published in an audio sciences journal: And that those who come here simply accept that this is a reality. I've said it over and over in this thread; there is nothing wrong with those rigorous standards when applied in the proper setting, just as there is nothing wrong with subjective anecdotal offerings in this setting.

"Every statement should automaticly assumed to be a misconstructed sentence?"

Or perhaps the sentence is constructed properly for what it is meant to convey -- a conclusion derived by subjective method -- but the reader is so motivated by his or her own "biases" and a desire to engage in the naysayer -vs- yeasayer debate yet again that they do not read the post carefully enough to discern this.

"I don't doubt this is true. Most peolple, by nature, do not like to be told they did anything wrong."

Very revealing of your position. If the author of the post meant to offer an opinion of a product based on their subjective experience and that is what they post, I fail to see that they have done anything wrong. Once again, I believe what is really happening is that an inappropriate standard is being applied to evaluate his statements.

"Not true, their are some cable/amp/speaker combinations that can result in audibly different performance by way of the LCR parameters."..."The point was not to hijack the thread, but to inform A of the proper evalution procedure(s) to confirm true audible differences."

I don't know you or your posting history well enough to say that this is true or not. I know that in a previous post I recognized that you seem to be a sensible member among the objectivist group. But I also pointed out that historically, this forum has been full of posters whos goal is to hijack threads. I and others urged self restraint; a request which went mostly unheeded. Absent that self restraint the moderator is now proposing some restructuring of the board so as to make that restraint inherent to the format.

"INdeed, it is true that I make such an assumption. IN my obsevations, people demonstrate very little objectivity in searching for specific items. They seem to primarily believe the unsubstantiated claims put forth by other 'hobbyists'. Bob may be a big boy.. but is it wrong for me to try and steer Bob in a more objective direction?"

Thank you for that admission. For some that is all they need to hear. I don't think it's wrong for you to try to steer Bob in a more objective direction, so long as he is a willing participant. What I do object to is that you "insist" that not only "Bob" but the whole forum community rise to the level that only objective information is acceptable and that all other sources of information (subjective, anecdotal) are ridiculed.

"Really? The majority of reviews and forums dedicated to the subject are already primarily based on un-controlled sighted testing..."

You seem to have found an ample supply of objective material. If this type of information is desired by people I'm sure they can find it too.

"True. Howver, with so many people singing the priases of exensive products that are not demonstrated to be better then cheaper versions, Bob is likely to cave in to peer pressure/influence."

Poor Bob.

"Again, I don't really like the idea of trying to seperate this into groups, when it's a principle you are talking about."

No. It's a very specific, predictable, and ongoing argument that I'm talking about. Your position continues to be that to manage this argument removes all objectivity from the boards; which is not surprising given your estimation of people in your last post. You and I simply disagree in that regard.

"From what you say, it appears you want a comfortable board that is for the most part, void of the pressures of heaviily objectified discussion."

Oh I don't know... I haven't shied away from this discussion with you. There again, I didn't have to hijack anyone's thread or bait them into this debate in order to have it. This thread was about the nature of the forum and proposed changes and you and I have heartily yet civilly debated this issue without disrupting anyone... except maybe "Bob". ;-)

"I understand the desire to have a specific type of environment, as I addressed in my first reply to you. However, this is not something that can be debated, I believe. It's either one kind of place or another kind of place..."

I believe this is a forum that through the practice of some self restraint could have been enjoyable and informative with a higher level of objectivity than many other forums have. But because calls for restraint went unheeded, the forum obviously declined. For those who don't go back far enough, the degree of this decline may not be as apparent as it is to some of us old timers.

"All that X did was to inform him of the value of his 'listening experience'."

The word "value" is a relative term. As such, you cannot determine the value of his listening experience for him as that is completely subjective to entity A. If he values it, it has value to him. It may not have value to you or to others, and it certainly isn't suitable to be submitted as evidence subject to serious scientific scrutiny, but that's not the context nor the purpose for which he presented it, is it?

I've really enjoyed this, Chris. I just don't know how much more time I can devote to it. If you don't mind, I'll give you the last word on this subject if you want it. I think by now we pretty much understand each other's position -- even if we don't exactly see eye to eye. Peace brudda.

Q

ToddB
08-17-2004, 12:39 AM
Amen. I think there is a place for both. In theory I would tend to agree, but a lengthy history of harassment is quite justifiably forcing the decision to the other extreme. If the naysayers end up not liking the solution that's imposed upon them, they'll have no one but themselves to blame for it.


Not all observationalists are flakes as is often asserted. I would think not, since that term would seem to describe most normal people who manage to successfully negotiate their daily lives by constantly making observations about their environment. That some people insist those same observational skills suddenly become feeble and fraught with endless uncertainty while listening to audio reproduction is just ridiculous.


Perhaps I too can tone done my sarcasm with one individual in particular and take up your offer. Maybe, but your frustration is certainly understandable. You've taken quite a bit of abuse from those afflicted with Objective-Compulsive Disorder, and I'm really not sure why you've continued to post here instead of bailing for the relative peace of AA. I doubt that you're receiving as much personal benefit from posting here as others are from reading your posts, so I have to assume that you've remained because you're trying to help other people. If that's the case, then being a moderator would allow you a better position from which to do that. We sure could use the help.

Steve1000
08-17-2004, 04:37 AM
Eric --

This site generally reads like a superb audio magazine. The people here are much more knowledgeable than those at other boards (with the notable exception of hydgrogen audio as it applies to its area of expertise, audio data compression).

From your quote below, I can only conclude that you either have very little understanding of audio or that you intend to disregard what you know to be true in running this site.

My guess is the former, and that you will understand as you get older. This will not be one of your prouder moments as you look back. You are choking off one of the last truly knowledgeable areas of open discussion about audio on the internet.

People who truly understand audio will not be overcome with joy by your arrival, I assure you.


HI EVERYBODY!!

My name is Eric and I am the new site administrator for AudioREVIEW.com! I am very excited to be here, and I'm sure you're all just overcome with joy as well! :D

A brief bit about myself, I'm a twenty-something audio geek with a professional background in tech...

There will be a special forum for those of you who... think that there is no difference between different types of cables...-Eric

Resident Loser
08-17-2004, 04:59 AM
...field this one...

I personally take strong offense at the use of the characterization of we objectivists(BTW, that's the proper term) as a group who are "...afflicted with Objective-Compulsive Disorder..."...I find it off-putting, demeaning and generally insulting...

So...watcha' gonna' do about it? If you intend to police the area and remove ANYTHING that ANYONE feels is an insult, you're sure gonna' be one busy little boy...

jimHJJ(...very, very busy...)

Addendum: I sense that you see yourself as some twenty-something mover and shaker. As someone who owns ties older than you are, I am equally ill at ease with your "kiddie" comment, so why don't you go censure yourself!!!

P.S. Don't let the join date fool ya', I go back to the days of Norb as do many of us.

E-Stat
08-17-2004, 06:45 AM
People who truly understand audio will not be overcome with joy by your arrival, I assure you.
Would you be so kind as to define your perspective of those "who truly understand audio"?

rw

Steve1000
08-17-2004, 07:01 AM
Ah, the joys of censorship.

I can't define my perspective of those "who truly understand audio" without violating the new forum policies. Maybe when the new forum for those who "think that there is no difference between different types of cables" is set up, we can have a discussion in that special little place. :D


Would you be so kind as to define your perspective of those "who truly understand audio"?

rw

Bryan
08-17-2004, 08:34 AM
Censorship? No.

However, having been on the board for several years I've seen many people come and go. Sadly, some of the best regulars departed long ago. People such as Tyson and Marbles, to name a couple.

Why did they leave? Trolls attacking a company, where the products were made, and the way those products looked rather than the way they sounded. Do a search on 'nOrh' in the old forums and you will quickly see what I mean. 'Slave labor.' Come to think of it, mostly the attacks were due to the speakers being made in Thailand. Big deal. A lot of speakers are made in China now. Pray tell, what's the difference and why does it matter? The end results are those citizens have a higher standard of living now and we get a more affordable product.

The way they look? Well, they are not meant for everyone. However, they are only one of a myriad of options yet were singled out for things other than their sound. That truly was a tragedy.

Moderators would have quickly been able to put an end to that garbage. Too much can be a bad thing. None at all can be far worse. When necessary it is up to people here to report those posts that attack a person. The person's ideas, thoughts, and opinions are one thing. To attack the individual is another and should be unacceptable.

It is also the responsibility of a moderator to keep threads on track and in the forum where they belong. Future moderators here need to learn that art.

How do we keep people here and increase our numbers? Simply by taking lessons from other successful sites, such as HTF or AudioCircle.

Attack the ideas, thoughts, and opinions all you want for they are fair game. The person, OTOH, should rightfully be off limits.

WmAx
08-17-2004, 10:23 AM
Chris,

You said...


Thank you for the enjoyable chat, also. However, I will not be responding to the ongoing inssues since the new policy was just posted. I was debating in the thread for the purpose of public notice, to put things into logical perspective in the hope of enough supporteers to prevent the change. Now that the policy has ben enacted, their is no point to continuing the debate.

-Chris

E-Stat
08-17-2004, 10:31 AM
Maybe when the new forum for those who "think that there is no difference between different types of cables" is set up, we can have a discussion in that special little place. :D
I'll tell you what. You understand audio. I understand how musical reproduction is affected by audio in varying ways. Happy?

rw

Resident Loser
08-17-2004, 10:55 AM
...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?

jimHJJ(...or can't I say that here?...)

rb122
08-17-2004, 01:03 PM
[QUOTE=Resident Loser If you intend to police the area and remove ANYTHING that ANYONE feels is an insult, you're sure gonna' be one busy little boy...QUOTE]

Excellent point. Does Eric intend to remove posts that HE finds insulting or those that someone else points out to him as insulting?

Moderating in this manner is going to be a huge job. I could not handle it.

Quagmire
08-17-2004, 01:39 PM
Fair enough Chris. I did have a couple of thoughts to sort of cap off my comments. From my perspective, when one begins talking about "objectivist" and "subjectivist" it is important to distinguish that these are people; not the abstract principles of objectivity and subjectivity themselves. The objectivist is a person who believes in and espouses an objective point of view while the subjectivist is a person who believes in and espouses a subjective point of view. Having an objectivist -vs- subjectivist type of board doesn't mean the removal of these principles from the other boards, it only provides a setting for those who wish to have that specific debate on the merits of their respective points of view. I do not see it as banishment of one particular group of people or as censorship. Remember it takes two opposing sides to have a debate so if these principles are going to be debated, the subjectivist are going to have to go there too. For instance: Using the hypthetical post you began earlier; entity X might respond to entity A as he initially did with a question, followed up with the same explanation of why there is no scientifically valid reason that the new cables should sound any different than the original zip cable did, BUT then close with an invitation such as, "...if you'd like to learn more about the science and this point of view, you might want to join us on the "obj/sub" board. This would allow you to express yourself, exposing him to the objectivist point of view, yet keep the thread in some kind of order. LIkewise, if a thread really did get hijacked it would allow the moderator to step in and say, "okay guys, why don't you take this argument to the "obj/sub" board". I really don't think this has to be as bad as people are making it out to be. Like I said in earlier posts, I think part of what is going on now relates to just how much authority the moderator will need to exercise, but a large part of that is the up to the members themselves. With a little cooperation, this could be a positive thing and I think the members have more to do with that than the moderator does. I realize that you may not care to hear this stuff with what has transpired, but I just thought I'd put it out there for you to consider. Thanks again.

Q

ToddB
08-17-2004, 07:03 PM
I personally take strong offense at the use of the characterization of we objectivists(BTW, that's the proper term) as a group who are "...afflicted with Objective-Compulsive Disorder..."...I find it off-putting, demeaning and generally insulting...
Well I think it was funny, and I KNOW it's an accurate characterization of the past behavior of many naysayers on this board.

Since you found that comment so objectionable, I probably shouldn't tell you that I've heard such significant differences between audio cables that I think anyone who can't hear them must be suffering some kind of near-deaf experience. If I were to actually tell you something like that, who knows how much it might irritate you.


P.S. Don't let the join date fool ya', I go back to the days of Norb as do many of us. As do I. The current fad of fond rememberence for Norb's moderating ability is some creative reframing, indeed.

ToddB
08-17-2004, 07:15 PM
...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? You are including some actual listening somewhere in this rigorous evaluation, correct?

LOL.

Quagmire
08-18-2004, 12:20 AM
Resident Loser said...

"...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

ToddB
08-18-2004, 02:17 AM
Quagmire, please don't cross post anymore. I understand why you did it, but because you did it, I've had to reply to you over here: http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?p=47333#post47333 instead of in this thread, which is going to make this thread incomplete. I appreciate your participation in this thread, and the sincerity of your question, but please consider how easy it would be for a thread to become garbled through not maintaining it's continuity.

Resident Loser
08-18-2004, 04:57 AM
...what have they wrought...a populace who hasn't a clue as to conceptual continuity...

Actually, the subjectivist POV is based somewhat on misrepresentation, so deconstruction, in the form of contextual subterfuge, is their chief tool...

To both Q and T, generally speaking, the quote you have taken issue with is not a "highjacking", it is a questioning response to E-stat when, in response to Steve 1000, he posted the following, to wit:

"...You understand audio. I understand how musical reproduction is affected by audio in varying ways..."

Perhaps you should switch to another display mode in order to follow the ins and outs of the threads as they flow inexorably to the Sea of Useless Chatter...

You should notice(and I pray you do a better job of subjective evaluation than you do with the bloody obvious) it is the simple ebb and flow of internet chit-chat...Am I to take issue with a statement made HERE to yet another forum, because it seems to put a burr under your saddle?..Is that the intent of the new "boss"?

And Todd...oh, Todd, "actual listening"(empirical evidence) has already been addressed by E-stat, hasn't it?...Is it required that I be redundant? Am I not allowed to be in need of further clarification? Perhaps a simpler subject might be more in keeping with your cognitive abilities...and I don't mean that as an insult, but surely anyone who might profess possession of seemingly singular abilities to appreciate and quantify subtle nuances in reproduced sound, certainly then needs to put forth the appearance of having a some foundation as a keen and accurate observationist. In a nutshell: consider the source.

jimHJJ(...and from Sgt. Pepper "...it's getting very near the end...")

rb122
08-18-2004, 05:03 AM
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?
Q

The rub is that Todd will not be posting on the Science Lab board. Resident Loser will. They won't be interacting. Todd (and please excuse my use of names as I'm speaking in generalities rather than dictating to these particular two) will be among those with like minds. RL will be FORCED to be among those with like minds or be forced to change his presentation. Do you see? It's a form of segregation. Without the give and take of actual disagreements within the same board or thread, the topic has little meaning except for those that are already convinced.

Take the case of myself; I'm a subjectivist by nature, a musician, and I know little to nothing of science. It would be quite simple and comfortable for me to stay in a room full of other subjectivists and we can pat ourselves on the back for our wonderful hearing and the ability to discern cables (BTW, ToddB, put me down as being near-deaf as you mentioned in your post to RL. Being so and a musician certainly poses problems in my trade, although there are those such as Evelyn Glennie that get along fine... and now as Sir Terrence would say, I'm turning my sarcasm off) and amps, etc. Without folks such as Mtrycrafts, Robot Czar and RL, I may have continued along that path. Perhaps I will anyway. But at least I've been exposed to differing ideas such as bias controls and measurements. The new direction this forum is taking will do nothing IMHO except segregate one set of "theories" and another. However, if the objective is friendliness and hobby discussion, fine. But I cannot see this forum as a place to learn new things any longer... unless the new things are which new cable sounds "better" or the practice of using cones instead of footers. For those who appreciate those things, I salute you, but this isn't the place for me.

Mwalsdor_cscc_edu
08-18-2004, 06:53 AM
While I haven't spent much time of late on these forums I'm no stranger to the discussion or the regulars [present and former] who frequent AR [hello Dan, Jim]. While I agree with aspects of some points made my thoughts on this subject [need for moderation] parallel those most closely of Quagmire.


MikE

Quagmire
08-18-2004, 07:34 AM
RL,

"To both Q and T, generally speaking, the quote you have taken issue with is not a "highjacking", it is a questioning response to E-stat when, in response to Steve 1000, he posted the following, to wit:"

Perhaps you didn't read this part of my thread...

"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..."

My point being that this "edd and flow" has started along the lines of these same old debates but does not qualify as hijacking a thread. I don't accuse you of that nor do I believe that this is the case. But I end with the point that this "hijacking" behavior does take place, which everyone is aware of and if the ratio of "debate" type threads to "forum format" type threads became reversed then the thread would have effectively become hijacked. I merely wanted to use this mild example to demonstrate how this takes place. If you and ToddB really wanted to continue on with this discussion, as opposed to the discussion over the new rules and format of the forum, you could do so to your heart's content on the Science Lab board. If you don't want to have that discussion, as in... don't want to have it at all, then why clutter up this thread with it? Once again, just to make it very clear, I'm not saying that you are cluttering it up now or accusing you of anything, just that historically that IS what takes place.

"Am I to take issue with a statement made HERE to yet another forum, because it seems to put a burr under your saddle?.."

Only if it escalates out of control and completely overruns the thread to the point that the thread is no longer recognizable in the context of what was originally posted. Not because it "puts a burr under my saddle, but because it is disruptive to the thread, is rude, and has historically been at least partly responsible for the migration of members away from this forum. And... because there is now a legitimate place to take this argument, if it is truly desired, without creating the aforementioned problems.

I may be wrong, but to me you seem to have chosen to take issue with something that I didn't accuse you (or ToddB) of and have not responded to the core issues that I have raised. If you're interested in doing that, I'd be glad to hear what you have to say. I fully accept that I could be dead wrong about all this stuff, but as an objectivist should appreciate, I'd like to know why based on some applicable information.

Q

E-Stat
08-18-2004, 08:05 AM
... the quote you have taken issue with is not a "highjacking", it is a questioning response to E-stat ...
You faked me out, RL. While I don't object to others answering a question directed specifically to someone else, I didn't realize you were responding to me.



...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?
Sure. Where I believe we differ is that I have found no compelling evidence to accept the supposition that today's current suite of measurements fully characterizes all such audible alterations to the signal including time and phase errors. Why do well recorded voices extend out in my listening room with my VTL amps and not as much so with my Threshold Stasis? The published specifications of those units would lead some to concluding the reverse.

In all fairness, however, I am comparing a current technology unit to that of one designed two decades ago. Nelson Pass has advanced his designs considerably in those years, yet - guess what? The published specifications are worse! Worse? You be the judge.

1981 Stasis - THD / IM distortion < 0.1 % full output, output noise < 200 uV unweighted, DF=60

2004 XA - Distortion 1 % at full output, output noise < 300 uV unweighted, DF=30

While I cannot comment directly on the newer Pass Labs amp, trusted ears support the notion that the newer amp is clearly more accurate. I'd love to borrow an XA for a weekend.

rw

Resident Loser
08-18-2004, 08:07 AM
The direct accusation:

"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..."

Your opinion:

"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..."

Your conclusion:

"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"

Anyone with half a brain sees your intent...you are justifying the "WALL" with inuendo...some will see it for what it is, others will see it as fact.

You have created a non-existent debate, when all I did was respond to E-stat...you tried to build a mountain from a molehill in an effort to support YOUR POV.

Your premise is faulty, as is your evidence and conclusion. Period.

jimHJJ(...NFD is required, I'm sick of weasel-words...)

Resident Loser
08-18-2004, 08:14 AM
...all I can say is, you are now guilty of being complicit in a "highjacking" by addressing an issue in a thread not related to the subject matter...it is verboten...take it outside...shame on you, bad boy...

Question is, will anyone take issue with it?

jimHJJ(...and that's why the "ghetto" fails...)

E-Stat
08-18-2004, 08:17 AM
...all I can say is, you are now guilty of being complicit in a "highjacking" by addressing an issue in a thread not related to the subject matter...it is verboten...take it outside...shame on you, bad boy...
Guilty as charged. If you wish a follow up to my post (and some edits), then by all means open a new thread. I'll respond.

rw