If it ain't broke don't fix it...

[Resident Loser]

...it seems as though the "new" holding pen is broken...tried posting there and it's either that or the nearly subliminal message I recieved would seem to indicate each message is being gone over with a fine-tooth comb...

jimHJJ(...what was that phrase about a certain national socialist leader?...)

[ericl]

I'll check the settings. There shouldn't be any restrictions on it.

-Eric(whats that drink that goes well with cheese?) :)

[ericl]

default setting was off

[Resident Loser]

to your question "...whats that drink that goes well with cheese?..." BTW, you forot the apostrophe...

I don't fancy myself as an effete arbiter of good taste...

jimHJJ(...besides, I don't drink...)

[ericl]

You forgot the G in "forot"!

ha!
:D

[Resident Loser]

and a few extra...

gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggg

...you should have plenty of time to count 'em while moderating your ghost town...

jimHJJ(...hey skep, hey Rockwell...wait up...)

[dmb_fan]

Yowza!

I thought this place cleared out fast during the great troll wars of 2002! If I didn't love this place so much, I'd actually be eager to watch hilarity ensue as Eric continues to alienate longtime members.

I registered at audiokarma.org yesterday for the first time. It's really picked up since the last time I checked in over there (which was probably months or years ago). A couple of the old fellas from the P&B greeted me.

This new nonsense might just be the last nail in this old site's coffin. Bummer.

-Adam

[ToddB]

...you should have plenty of time to count 'em while moderating your ghost town...
While AR IS a ghost town, relative to it's activity several years ago, it's not because of anything Eric's done. It's happened because the people who want to talk about the sound of audio equipment have, to an alarming degree, been chased away by the naysayers who want to argue about whether audio equipment has any sound at all. Now that the naysayers' antics are no longer going to be tolerated, hopefully a sizable portion of the former membership will return.

[markw]

While AR IS a ghost town, relative to it's activity several years ago, it's not because of anything Eric's done.

No, he's just putting the chain on the gate. Once this site achieves it's goal of emulating the asylum as far as it's one sided politics, it will become redundant.

[rb122]

While AR IS a ghost town, relative to it's activity several years ago, it's not because of anything Eric's done. It's happened because the people who want to talk about the sound of audio equipment have, to an alarming degree, been chased away by the naysayers who want to argue about whether audio equipment has any sound at all. Now that the naysayers' antics are no longer going to be tolerated, hopefully a sizable portion of the former membership will return.

Ah, I get the picture now. It's now time to chase away the naysayers! Well, perhaps that's the thing to do. Apparently, the "people who want to talk about the sound of audio equipment" have neither the cojones nor the strength of convictions to fight their own battles... with the exception of the supremely wonderful posts of E-Stat.

I wish Eric and the surviving posters well in their kinder, gentler version of A/R, which could best be called Audio Review Lite. My best to you all!

[ToddB]

No, he's just putting the chain on the gate. Once this site achieves it's goal of emulating the asylum as far as it's one sided politics, it will become redundant.
Ah, the politics of hearing. I actually hadn't conceptualized it as such before. I guess that would explain why there exists a group of people who insist on the "politically correct" approach of hearing only what external authorities say they are allowed to hear. Oh well, I've never been very impressed with political correctness.

This site is intended to let people talk about the sound of audio equipment, not to emulate other sites.

I disagree about this site becoming redundant. Most of the discussion at AA involves mid-fi/hi-fi gear, and consequently, much of the equipment being discussed is probably beyond the price range that newbies to the hobby will be willing to spend. I think AR can probably evolve to serve the home theater/low-fi/mid-fi segments quite nicely.

[ToddB]

Ah, I get the picture now. It's now time to chase away the naysayers! Well, perhaps that's the thing to do. The naysayer tendency to try and interject their orthodoxy into every discussion is not going to be tolerated anymore. Since they don't seem to want to talk about much else, yeah, they'll probably leave.


Apparently, the "people who want to talk about the sound of audio equipment" have neither the cojones nor the strength of convictions to fight their own battles This site is for people who enjoy talking about the sound of audio equipment. It's not for juvenile bickering about what other people are allowed to hear. Since you apparently didn't notice, when other audio sites arose that didn't allow the juvenile bickering, people abandoned AR in droves. Maybe that's because it shouldn't be necessary for normal, reasonable, MATURE people to feel the need to display their "cojones", or to have their "strength of convictions" insulted, when they're simply trying to share their hearing experiences with others.

[markw]

The naysayer tendency to try and interject their orthodoxy into every discussion is not going to be tolerated anymore. ....It seems that what you label an orthodoxy" is most likely a differing opinion which, being based on solid. verifiable facts, is one you and this forum choose to ignore.



This site is for people who enjoy talking about the sound of audio equipment. It's not for juvenile bickering about what other people are allowed to hear. Again, you presuppose that everything has a sound. And yet again, the possibility that there may be none is vehemently rejected for whatever reason.

Then again, I wouldn't want to try to inject science into this other site either.

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/

Bigfoot... In spite of a lack of real proof, believe or be gone!

Cable sonics, same way?

[rb122]

This site is for people who enjoy talking about the sound of audio equipment. It's not for juvenile bickering about what other people are allowed to hear. Since you apparently didn't notice, when other audio sites arose that didn't allow the juvenile bickering, people abandoned AR in droves. Maybe that's because it shouldn't be necessary for normal, reasonable, MATURE people to feel the need to display their "cojones", or to have their "strength of convictions" insulted, when they're simply trying to share their hearing experiences with others.

Then by all means, continue to hide your heads in the sand and ignore logic and science. I now see why Mtrycrafts compares audio beliefs to UFO sightings and holistic healing.

It's sad that you view the introduction of facts and their deviation from some people's experiences as "juvenile bickering". Certainly when confronted with other potential truths, many folks initially revolt. There's nothing wrong with that. But "normal, reasonable, MATURE" people eventually explore things such as bias control unless their goal is to spoon-feed their belief system. Please enjoy your new forum.

[E-Stat]

Then by all means, continue to hide your heads in the sand and ignore logic and science. I now see why Mtrycrafts compares audio beliefs to UFO sightings and holistic healing.
First and foremost, this is a forum. What does that mean? Here's one definition:

A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program.

What I find interesting about this whole debate as to moving the "demands" for statistical proof of an individual's opinion to a dedicated forum is that only with audio have I found individuals with a total disregard for observational data. Spend a moment in either of the sister forums dedicated to photography or automobiles. Requests for opinions abound and they are not immediately challenged for veracity.

I even checked out a ham radio forum (Zapped, you out there?) which should have a similar mix of adherents. I still don't find the dismissal of observational data. Here's one where a respondent actually revealed (gasp) specific brand names of what he uses and his opinion on said.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/hamradioonline/messages?msg=719.1

rw

[rb122]

First and foremost, this is a forum. What does that mean? Here's one definition:

A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program.

What I find interesting about this whole debate as to moving the "demands" for statistical proof of an individual's opinion to a dedicated forum is that only with audio have I found individuals with a total disregard for observational data. Spend a moment in either of the sister forums dedicated to photography or automobiles. Requests for opinions abound and they are not immediately challenged for veracity.

I even checked out a ham radio forum (Zapped, you out there?) which should have a similar mix of adherents. I still don't find the dismissal of observational data. Here's one where a respondent actually revealed (gasp) specific brand names of what he uses and his opinion on said.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/hamradioonline/messages?msg=719.1

rw

I'd certainly be one of the last people on this forum to dismiss observational data outright. I also cannot dismiss scientific data. Hence, I'd like both, preferably within the same thread. One side of the story simply doesn't work for me. You of all people must understand that, since your arguments have elicited some very exciting and informational activity on this board. Will you have that same fire if you're discussions center ONLY around observational data? I wonder.

[E-Stat]

You of all people must understand that, since your arguments have elicited some very exciting and informational activity on this board. Will you have that same fire if you're discussions center ONLY around observational data? I wonder.
I appreciate the kind words.

The answer to your question is a resounding no. It will, however, make it a bit easier not having to point out to some objectivists that no testing has ever been performed on a wide range of components discussed. My lifelong passion is for musical reproduction and I cannot imagine toning down my enthusiasm for said. Conversely, I still strive to understand the other viewpoint and you will find a response to RL's manifesto over in the Science Lab.

rw

[ToddB]

It seems that what you label an orthodoxy" is most likely a differing opinion orthodox - conforming to established doctrine

No, I got it right.


which, being based on solid. verifiable facts, is one you and this forum choose to ignore.
Solid verifiable facts as determined within the limitations of current understanding, you mean. After all, jitter was a fact before anyone realized it was there and figured out how to quantify it, right?


Again, you presuppose that everything has a sound. And yet again, the possibility that there may be none is vehemently rejected for whatever reason.
I am presupposing that, but the point is whether or not people can HEAR the sound qualities of the equipment, and the only way to determine that is to LISTEN to the equipment.


Then again, I wouldn't want to try to inject science into this other site either.

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/

Bigfoot... In spite of a lack of real proof, believe or be gone!
IME, people resort to silly analogies when they're having trouble supporting their position.


Cable sonics, same way?
Nope, no requirement for "belief" of any kind. It would be nice if people would actually listen to cables before forming an opinion about them, but I realize that solution might not be melodramatic enough for some. ;)

[ToddB]

It's sad that you view the introduction of facts and their deviation from some people's experiences as "juvenile bickering".
The fact is that science is limited by current knowledge. Our observational abilities are not.


But "normal, reasonable, MATURE" people eventually explore things such as bias control unless their goal is to spoon-feed their belief system.
That's your opinion, and your opinion doesn't mesh with my experience.

[markw]

orthodox - conforming to established doctrine;)Such as requiring that one believe cables make a significant, audiable difference? ..Sounds like the established doctrine here if you ask me.

...it's ironic that you would label those who oppose it as the orthodoxy


Solid verifiable facts as determined within the limitations of current understanding, you mean. After all, jitter was a fact before anyone realized it was there and figured out how to quantify it, right?;)... If something is believed, only research can determine if it's real. Not blind allegiance. A lot of virgins were sacrificed to the gods before they realized their sacrifice had no bearing at all on the following year's crops.



...the only way to determine that is to LISTEN to the equipment.;)... and again, you presuppose that others have NOT listened to a goodly amount of equipment. I'd say that there's a good chance that some here have been listening to equipment since you were merely a wet dream and, after years of experience, simply have other opinions, which are disallowed here.



IME, people resort to silly analogies when they're having trouble supporting their position.;)Sometimes those "silly analogies" are so spot on that it's lost on those who it was used against. They have on recourse except to call them silly in order to (attempt to) dismiss the parallel.


Nope, no requirement for "belief" of any kind. It would be nice if people would actually listen to cables before forming an opinion about them, but I realize that solution might not be melodramatic enough for some. ;)... again, you know not of what you speak here. You're actually talknig to the first "maysayer" who allowed for the possibility for audible differences. When a little restraint is applied, YOU might actually be the one disappointed because a lot of those differences can he based on solid science, not mumbo jumbo techno babble.

FWIW, there ARE sites where these issues are explored with an open mind. If anyone would care to read for themselves in a true open forum, I would recommend http://www.audioholics.com and search for any posts by one J Neutron.

Reality is relative. Talk to an Alzheimer's patient.

[rb122]

That's your opinion, and your opinion doesn't mesh with my experience.

You don't believe there is anything beyond your perceptions, that they can't be biased, that it's possible your brain "told" you to hear something that wasn't there?????

[rb122]

I appreciate the kind words.

The answer to your question is a resounding no. It will, however, make it a bit easier not having to point out to some objectivists that no testing has ever been performed on a wide range of components discussed. My lifelong passion is for musical reproduction and I cannot imagine toning down my enthusiasm for said. Conversely, I still strive to understand the other viewpoint and you will find a response to RL's manifesto over in the Science Lab.

rw

E-Stat,

Over the course of the year+ that I've posted on A/R, I have lurked over and participated in many interesting discussions. Notable was the Sir Terrence vs the objectivists regarding SACD vs RBCD and the numerous interchanges you have had with a multitude of our measurement friends on the audibility of various components. All such posts have been wonderful debates, full of twists and turns, points and counterpoints, with both sides scoring. To me, it's this debate that fosters knowledge as well as experimentation.

My fear is that this kind of interaction will cease with the segregationist policies of our new moderator. You see, you're sort of a model for the subjectivist camp. You're one of the very few that doesn't tremble and falter when presented with the scientific arguments. You don't wallow in the same old "I know what I heard" quicksand. You don't attack with the tired "you can't hear" drivel. You present intelligent, coherent arguments from the observationalist side. It makes for a much more enjoyable visit to A/R that a discussion of batteries on an interconnect or the latest solid state power amp.

It's the new moderators site but I can't help but feel as if the new forum, while kind and friendly, will become extremely boring and not at all worth my time (I do, of course, understand that opinions vary). And in case you're wondering, I'm a subjectivist at heart. Give me vinyl and a turntable, tubes and a CD player only if absolutely necessary and I'm happy with what I observe. I'm just not totally sold on the validity of those observations from an absolute standpoint and that's where the objectivists arguments are hard to ignore. A little scepticism is a good thing; there's nothing wrong with hearing both sides of any issue.

I believe I've said all I can dream up. Hopefully, you'll continue to post both here and on the Audio Lab. Ciao, and above all, happy listening!

[pctower]

and a few extra...

gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggg

...you should have plenty of time to count 'em while moderating your ghost town...

jimHJJ(...hey skep, hey Rockwell...wait up...)

Hey, what about me? Don't leave without me. I'm in no mood to hang around with this Jon Risch wannabee clown at the helm.

[Swerd]

Hey, what about me? Don't leave without me. I'm in no mood to hang around with this Jon Risch wannabee clown at the helm.
Hey pct

I know you must feel like half of a Tom & Jerry cartoon without skeptic around. Don't worry too much. Various roles around here will likely shift, and you may find yourself tangling with someone quite different than your old adversary. Imagine pct vs. ToddB (or fill in some other poster) - round 1 :D

I personally wonder if the new site admin and his posse are the result of a management coup, or if he is simply excercising the will of the owners of audioreview.com. Afterall, they are a company that makes a living collecting and selling marketing data. In memory of our departed friend, I might take a new moniker - Cynic.

[Resident Loser]

...not quite gone yet, although "it's just a matter of time"(Brook Benton with a cover by Randy Travis)...there is much left to do, many seeds to sew...

Watch that loose talk, it'll get you whacked on the pee-pee fer sure...the delete key is a fave 'round here...

jimHJJ(...PM me if you have a mind to...)

[Monstrous Mike]

Yeasayer

- has heard audible cable differences
- does not allow for the possibility that they are imagined
- claims science has not yet caught up
- feels that ears are better instruments that electronic ones
- dislikes and distrusts DBT testing
- states non-believers have either deficient hearing or deficient equipment
- in general, has a strong desire for the ultimate sound system


Naysayer/Maysayer

- has not heard audible cable differences or has heard differences that can be explained
- has a science or engineering background
- still allows for the possibility of cable differences
- asserts that DBT testing is only real bias-free control test for differences
- believes room acoustics, speakers and speaker placement are the main factors in audio sound
- enjoys good music and good sound


I believe I have represented both sides accurately here. So print this out, take it to a reasonable person who has no interest in audio reproduction whatsoever and ask him/her what they think of these two camps.

[E-Stat]

E-Stat,

My fear is that this kind of interaction will cease with the segregationist policies of our new moderator. You see, you're sort of a model for the subjectivist camp. You're one of the very few that doesn't tremble and falter when presented with the scientific arguments. You don't wallow in the same old "I know what I heard" quicksand. You don't attack with the tired "you can't hear" drivel. You present intelligent, coherent arguments from the observationalist side. It makes for a much more enjoyable visit to A/R that a discussion of batteries on an interconnect or the latest solid state power amp.
If anything, I will be more present after accepting a position as moderator. I too, hope that the other camp will not pack up and leave completely.


And in case you're wondering, I'm a subjectivist at heart. Give me vinyl and a turntable, tubes and a CD player only if absolutely necessary and I'm happy with what I observe. I'm just not totally sold on the validity of those observations from an absolute standpoint and that's where the objectivists arguments are hard to ignore.
Thanks for sharing. You may be surprised that while I may argue that RBCD is not perfect, I still listen to CDs more frequently than my vinyl. Likewise while I find my tube amps capable of beautifully coveying the emotion of music as found primarily in the midrange, they are certainly not the equal of better SS designs at the frequency extremes. Life is full of choices and compromises.

Happy listening to you as well.

rw

[E-Stat]

Yeasayer

- has heard audible cable differences
- does not allow for the possibility that they are imagined
- claims science has not yet caught up with human perception
- feels that ears are better instruments that electronic ones
- dislikes and distrusts DBT testing
- states non-believers have either deficient hearing or deficient equipment
- in general, has a strong desire for the ultimate sound system


Naysayer/Maysayer

- has not heard audible cable differences or has heard differences that can be explained
- has a science or engineering background
- still allows for the possibility of cable differences
- asserts that DBT testing is only real bias-free control test for differences
- believes room acoustics, speakers and speaker placement are the main factors in audio sound
- enjoys good music and good sound


I believe I have represented both sides accurately here. So print this out, take it to a reasonable person who has no interest in audio reproduction whatsoever and ask him/her what they think of these two camps.
I have a few suggested edits.

Yeasayer

- has heard audible cable differences in some systems
- believes extensive listening experience nullifies possibility for imagined outcomes
- feels that the human mind is more discerning than instruments for detecting musical differences
- distrusts the lack of scope with current DBT testing
- believes all aspects of a system contribute to the final result
- enjoys music and desires better sound systems


Naysayer/Maysayer

- has not heard audible cable differences or has heard differences that can be explained
- has a science or engineering background
- still allows for the possibility of cable differences
- asserts that DBT testing is only real bias-free control test for differences
- believes room acoustics, speakers and speaker placement are the main factors in audio sound
- enjoys good music and good sound

rw