I have a problem here . . . [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : I have a problem here . . .



Swerd
08-17-2004, 01:15 PM
with the selection of 996turbo to be the moderator of the Cables and Amp/Preamp forums. I don't believe he has an open mind or the proper understanding of various points of the view on these subjects.

To illustrate my objections read this thread from last April:
http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=4098

What do you think?

pwh03
08-17-2004, 01:56 PM
hmm thats the only thread I have read of his, but I would have to say labeling someone you know little about an idiot isn't exactly the what Ilook for in a moderator.

ph

markw
08-17-2004, 02:06 PM
...time will tell how even handedly these rules are applied. One of the more recent postings...

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=6293

ericl
08-17-2004, 02:39 PM
It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.

***
Forgiveness is the economy of the heart . . . Forgiveness saves expense of anger, the cost of hatred, the waste of spirits.
- Hannah More
***
As long as you don't forgive, who and whatever it is will occupy rent-free space in your mind.
- Isabelle Holland
***
Surely it is much more generous to forgive and remember, than to forgive and forget.
- Maria Edgeworth
***
It can go on and on, or someone must write 'The End' to it. I have concluded that only I can do that. And if I can, I must.(Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon for Watergate)
- Gerald Ford
***
What power has love but forgiveness?
- William Carlos Williams
***
The heart of a mother is a deep abyss at the bottom of which you will always find forgiveness.
- Honoré de Balzac
***
To err is human, to forgive, divine
- Alexander Pope
***
There is no revenge so complete as forgiveness.
- Josh Billings

:)

dmb_fan
08-17-2004, 02:40 PM
with the selection of 996turbo to be the moderator of the Cables and Amp/Preamp forums. I don't believe he has an open mind or the proper understanding of various points of the view on these subjects.

To illustrate my objections read this thread from last April:
http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=4098

What do you think?

I'd like to point out that the post in question is nearly two years old. Perhaps 996turbo has matured since then. Let's hope so!

But I agree with you that the post in question demonstrates absolutely NONE of the qualities I would seek in a forum moderator. Perhaps 996turbo's first job as a moderator will be to go through and delete all of his existing innappropriate posts.

-Adam

dmb_fan
08-17-2004, 02:43 PM
It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.

***
Forgiveness is the economy of the heart . . . Forgiveness saves expense of anger, the cost of hatred, the waste of spirits.
- Hannah More
***
etc... etc...

:)

In my opinion, these quotes do not appropriatealy address the complaint at hand.

-Adam

JSE
08-17-2004, 04:31 PM
I'd like to point out that the post in question is nearly two years old. Perhaps 996turbo has matured since then. Let's hope so!

But I agree with you that the post in question demonstrates absolutely NONE of the qualities I would seek in a forum moderator. Perhaps 996turbo's first job as a moderator will be to go through and delete all of his existing innappropriate posts.

-Adam

Not that I care but, the post in question was only 4 months ago. Where did you get 2 years?

I say, give him a chance.


I'm much more concerned about Sir TT. Does he actually know anything? :D :D :D

JSE

dmb_fan
08-17-2004, 05:33 PM
Not that I care but, the post in question was only 4 months ago. Where did you get 2 years?

I say, give him a chance.


I'm much more concerned about Sir TT. Does he actually know anything? :D :D :D

JSE

Good eye, JSE! I mistook the poster's join date--November 2002--for the date of the post in April of this year.

Wow. Four months changes things significantly! That's exactly what we need! Moderators who--totally unprovoked--recently flamed longtime members!

This whole situation is a real shame.

-Adam

ToddB
08-17-2004, 06:16 PM
I have a problem here with the selection of 996turbo to be the moderator of the Cables and Amp/Preamp forums. I don't believe he has an open mind or the proper understanding of various points of the view on these subjects.

What do you think?
I think that --

he is open-minded enough to trust his hearing
he properly understands that what he hears is the point of view that matters
he has a notable amount of experience with audiophile equipment
he'll make a good moderator

ToddB
08-17-2004, 06:29 PM
I say, give him a chance.
Oh really?

Is that why in this post: http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=30205&postcount=9
you told him to go away?

Karma can be so funny sometimes.

:)

topspeed
08-17-2004, 06:48 PM
A "moderator" isn't God. They are more like a baby sitter making sure the kids don't bite each other's ears off, that's all. In fact, a good moderator won't be seen as a moderator at all, just another poster. While I agree that particular post wouldn't be something I'd put in my resume, I don't think 996 will be a problem.

Besides, how bad could a Porchephile be ;)?

JSE
08-18-2004, 06:30 AM
Oh really?

Is that why in this post: http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=30205&postcount=9
you told him to go away?

Karma can be so funny sometimes.

:)


I just said give him a chance. He actions will speak for him from this point forward. Do I have reservations? Sure, I guess? Although, I don't really care who is a moderator. If any moderator becomes a problem then I am confident that our new Administrator will pull the plug on him/her. In a perfect world that is.

Everyone just needs to chill out and let time determine if 996Turbo will be a good moderator and if this these boards will be better or worse than before under new management.

JSE

ericl
08-18-2004, 07:08 AM
Don't worry guys, moderators will be subject to the rules as well.. They won't be able to abuse their powers or other people.

-Eric

FLZapped
08-18-2004, 07:39 AM
A "moderator" isn't God.

Maybe you should ask some of the poeple here about Jon Risch, who moderates the Cable Asylum. Although he may not literally be God, he sure acts like it.

-Bruce

FLZapped
08-18-2004, 07:48 AM
with the selection of 996turbo to be the moderator of the Cables and Amp/Preamp forums. I don't believe he has an open mind or the proper understanding of various points of the view on these subjects.

To illustrate my objections read this thread from last April:
http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=4098

What do you think?

I agree, he entirely unqualified for this position, in my opinion. However, should we be shocked considering the "Science Lab" was originally called "Naysayer Lab"(or something similar, the naysayer part is all I clearly remember because of it's blatently ad hominem nature). It's clear that those in charge here want to turn this place into another AA, full of fairy tales without the opportunity for dissention.

-Bruce
("Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams)

topspeed
08-18-2004, 10:11 AM
Maybe you should ask some of the poeple here about Jon Risch, who moderates the Cable Asylum. Although he may not literally be God, he sure acts like it.

-Bruce.....

Woochifer
08-18-2004, 10:46 AM
I just said give him a chance. He actions will speak for him from this point forward. Do I have reservations? Sure, I guess? Although, I don't really care who is a moderator. If any moderator becomes a problem then I am confident that our new Administrator will pull the plug on him/her. In a perfect world that is.

Everyone just needs to chill out and let time determine if 996Turbo will be a good moderator and if this these boards will be better or worse than before under new management.

JSE

You nailed my sentiments exactly. If the new moderators do their job, then that can improve the quality of the board if it facilitates topical discussions and keeps the excesses and BS from taking over.

There have been many instances on this board where some moderation would have helped immensely, like when the trolls rolled in a couple of years ago and pretty much drove half of the regulars off the board. Those were cases where a moderator even loosely enforcing the rules would have helped keep the discussions focused on topic rather than letting trolls hijack every thread and hurl insults right and left.

I'm willing to see if the new approach works, but I'm also leery of seeing this site turned into a clone of other boards where any and every ridiculous claim goes, and meaningful challenges or technical discussions get censored. If not for this board, I would not have done my own experiments with room treatments and subwoofer tuning. I much appreciate that perspective (which is not only technically sound, but based on real world improvements that are both measurable and audible), because on other boards I probably would have been handed the usual "upgrade to expensive cables, go with outboard DACs, and double your amp wattage" money pit approach. If the new rules mean that I can no longer suggest that a $16 box of acoustic ceiling panels will do more for sound quality than a $7,500 battery-powered interconnect ever will, then that would be an immense disservice to everybody who comes onto this board to get some pointers on how to get more enjoyment out of their system.

Woochifer
08-18-2004, 11:10 AM
A "moderator" isn't God. They are more like a baby sitter making sure the kids don't bite each other's ears off, that's all. In fact, a good moderator won't be seen as a moderator at all, just another poster. While I agree that particular post wouldn't be something I'd put in my resume, I don't think 996 will be a problem.

Besides, how bad could a Porchephile be ;)?

TS -

Thanx for injecting some perspective into the discussion. Much appreciated.

BTW, I was in your neck of the woods last week (Hanford and Fresno), and discovered a decent high end audio room over in Fresno. It's actually in the back room of the Bananas Hi-Fi car audio showroom (albeit a high end one -- they're currently fabricating an audio rig for a Ferrari Enzo, which does not provide space for an audio system). They're a dealer for Krell, PSB, Meridian, EchoBusters, and Vienna Acoustics, among others. They got one showroom open to the public, and their higher end stuff is by appointment only. The owner of the place was telling me that Meridian's self-powered digital tower speakers (these have the DACs built into the speaker, so the input signal is digital) pretty much blow away anything he's ever heard. If you're looking for some audition time, that might be a good challenge for you!

kexodusc
08-18-2004, 11:13 AM
If the new rules mean that I can no longer suggest that a $16 box of acoustic ceiling panels will do more for sound quality than a $7,500 battery-powered interconnect ever will, then that would be an immense disservice to everybody who comes onto this board to get some pointers on how to get more enjoyment out of their system.

Ahh, but Wooch, you have to have really high-end equipment to be able to hear the benefits such an interconnect can deliver.
And what kind of acoustic ceiling panels are you using? Polyvinyl? Acrylic? You should be using genuine Hungarian gopher skin....$142 per square ft.

46minaudio
08-18-2004, 12:56 PM
with the selection of 996turbo to be the moderator of the Cables and Amp/Preamp forums. I don't believe he has an open mind or the proper understanding of various points of the view on these subjects.

To illustrate my objections read this thread from last April:
http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=4098

What do you think?
996turbo is the wrong person as moderator for these forums..

ToddB
08-19-2004, 01:03 AM
I'm willing to see if the new approach works, but I'm also leery of seeing this site turned into a clone of other boards where any and every ridiculous claim goes, and meaningful challenges or technical discussions get censored.
I see. So, if someone tries something that you haven't tried, or hears something that you haven't heard, then what they say about the resulting sound is a "ridiculous claim"? And you will then feel the need to pose "meaningful challenges" to what that person has to say about what they heard, as if you are the arbiter of someone else's hearing ability? If so, then your approach is tantamount to calling that person a liar, and that's not going to be acceptable.


on other boards I probably would have been handed the usual "upgrade to expensive cables, go with outboard DACs, and double your amp wattage" money pit approach.
On other boards, in addition to the examples you gave, I also frequently see suggestions regarding relatively inexpensive DIY solutions, or for products from mail-order/hobbyist-business shops that cost less than competing, more commercial offerings. The range of recommendations is good, as it gives people more options to decide from. Just because you don't happen to like some of the options, doesn't mean that those options are bad.


If the new rules mean that I can no longer suggest that a $16 box of acoustic ceiling panels will do more for sound quality than a $7,500 battery-powered interconnect ever will, then that would be an immense disservice to everybody who comes onto this board to get some pointers on how to get more enjoyment out of their system.
If you have the experience of hearing that cable, and the effects it had in a system in comparison to the effects that ceiling panels had, then your comments on the subject would be very welcome. However, I get the impression that this is just an extreme hypothetical example you've invented, and that you haven't actually had this experience.

46minaudio
08-19-2004, 08:24 AM
Oh really?

Is that why in this post: http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=30205&postcount=9
you told him to go away?

Karma can be so funny sometimes.

:)
This post is negitive and asks for proof..Eric please delete this post by ToddB

E-Stat
08-19-2004, 08:42 AM
This post is negitive and asks for proof..Eric please delete this post by ToddB
You may or not be aware that I have, after initially having declined the offfer, volunteered to join the ranks of moderators here.

I do not concur that this post "asks for proof". Unlike the poster's question, demands for proof cannot be answered with a simple "yes" or "no".

rw

topspeed
08-19-2004, 09:49 AM
BTW, I was in your neck of the woods last week (Hanford and Fresno), and discovered a decent high end audio room over in Fresno. It's actually in the back room of the Bananas Hi-Fi car audio showroom (albeit a high end one -- they're currently fabricating an audio rig for a Ferrari Enzo, which does not provide space for an audio system). They're a dealer for Krell, PSB, Meridian, EchoBusters, and Vienna Acoustics, among others. They got one showroom open to the public, and their higher end stuff is by appointment only. The owner of the place was telling me that Meridian's self-powered digital tower speakers (these have the DACs built into the speaker, so the input signal is digital) pretty much blow away anything he's ever heard. If you're looking for some audition time, that might be a good challenge for you!Thanks for the head's up Wooch. I've heard of that place. They used to carry Proceed (when it was in existence) if I remember right. I'm pretty well focused on upgrading my TV and STB to HD right now so from an audio standpoint, I'm pretty well set. More importantly, I'm ordering my new 4 wheeled toy next month and hey, we must have our priorities! I'd didn't choose "Topspeed" for nothin' ;)!

Next time your in the neighborhood, PM me a few days in advance and I'll buy you lunch. If you have time, there's a guy in Sanger with the most ridiculous HT rooms you've every seen. He's got three...in his house...no kidding. His main rig consists if the Infinity IRS system, you know with the line source ribbons and bass towers, and Bass Shakers in the seats. Maybe I could bug him for a demo.

Feanor
08-19-2004, 11:53 AM
... to forgive devine. Since I'm human, I don't always forgive."
- Bill Bailey


...
To err is human, to forgive, divine
- Alexander Pope
***
...:)

Woochifer
08-19-2004, 12:00 PM
I see. So, if someone tries something that you haven't tried, or hears something that you haven't heard, then what they say about the resulting sound is a "ridiculous claim"? And you will then feel the need to pose "meaningful challenges" to what that person has to say about what they heard, as if you are the arbiter of someone else's hearing ability? If so, then your approach is tantamount to calling that person a liar, and that's not going to be acceptable.

No, I'm simply trying to keep the approach real and to make sure that common sense responses are not tossed out with the excesses. All too often, I see posts on other audio boards where people are claiming "night and day" differences between things like cables and transports. If I never observed those "night and day" differences in my own listenings (notice that I'm NOT demanding measurements, DBTs, and other procedures that are outside the rhelm of an amateur hobbyist), and feel that they are ridiculous for the price relative to what other upgrades to the room acoustics and speakers will produce, are you then saying that I should just shut up and keep such opinions to myself? I would hope that your approach to board administration is not to just reinforce your perspective and bias at the expense of all others.


On other boards, in addition to the examples you gave, I also frequently see suggestions regarding relatively inexpensive DIY solutions, or for products from mail-order/hobbyist-business shops that cost less than competing, more commercial offerings. The range of recommendations is good, as it gives people more options to decide from. Just because you don't happen to like some of the options, doesn't mean that those options are bad.

I'm fine with a wide range of options, but in my observations on plenty of other boards, the dominant mode of thinking is to suggest expensive component upgrades for every topic.

System sounds too bright? Upgrade the cables and CD player, and buy separates!

Bass is too boomy? Upgrade the cables, buy separates, a one year old receiver/processor is obsolete!

Do I REALLY need to upgrade my 5.1 setup to 7.1? YES, YES, YES, under ALL circumstances you NEED SEVEN!

Is it then a violation of rules for me to point out that for those types of maladies, room treatments and/or proper 5.1 system calibration are a far more effective approach? If not for this board, I very well might have bought into a lot of those money burning approaches. Through a lot of current and former board regulars, I learned first hand that common sense approaches like properly calibrating the system, and using inexpensive room treatments make for very audible improvements that are also based on sound technical principles. Some of them took me to task on things that I posted, and I put their approaches to the test on my own system, and in most cases they were right. I rightfully acknowledged that on the board and now make those exact suggestions that those former contributors used to give me a much needed wake up call. It was exactly this kind of balance that I found sadly lacking on a lot of other boards, which is why I choose to contribute here.


If you have the experience of hearing that cable, and the effects it had in a system in comparison to the effects that ceiling panels had, then your comments on the subject would be very welcome. However, I get the impression that this is just an extreme hypothetical example you've invented, and that you haven't actually had this experience.

Of course it's an extreme example precisely because it's so ridiculous! I've done enough cable tests over the years to rule out their value for myself once they cross over certain basic thresholds (i.e. sufficient shielding in the connectors to reduce interference, reasonably wide gauge in the speaker cables, etc.). Every interconnect and speaker cable I've ever tried out, including a couple that went well into the four-figure price range, made maybe a SUBTLE difference, if even that. In my room, a $16 box of acoustic ceiling panels produced an OBVIOUS difference that was not only perceptible with music sources, but verifiable using test tones and SPL measurements. Now, when considering the price difference -- $16 for an obvious, perceptible, measureable, and verifiable improvement, or $7,500 or $2,000 (which I have heard first hand) for a marginally audible difference -- I will call a spade for what it is. If the new rules mean that I cannot voice that perspective and must bite my tongue and let slide any posts that my personal experiences and technical readings tell me are flatout nonsense, then we might as well start prescribing pixie dust.

Quagmire
08-19-2004, 02:07 PM
Woochifer,

I've been pretty involved on this subject so far. I appreciate your open mind and moderate tone regarding these issues. I understand your desire for a more objective forum than you've found elsewhere and I know that those who have been following the posts on this may find it hard to believe, but I do as well. I just think that the degree and tone of the "challenging for proof" needs to be kept to a reasonable level. As I've said over and over again, if people would just practive a degree self restraint none of this stuff would be an issue. I don't have a problem with someone challenging that which they believe to be untrue. Some folks have suggested that any challenge or objective viewpoint that is put forward will not be allowed. I don't think there is any evidence to support that and I certainly don't want to see that happen -- for the record, I won't support it either. But when it gets to the level of what I've termed "hijacking a thread" then lacking that self restraint, I'm in support of the administrator stepping in to bring it under control -- even to the point of providing a dedicated board for these familiar debates to take place. I believe so far, many people are taking the most extreme stance on this that they can which is almost a guarantee that it will not be as productive as it could be. I think that if people would just tone down the rhetoric and try to be part of making this a better more balanced board instead of jumping ship at the first sign of change, we might all be pleasantly surprised by what could be accomplished. I wanted to single you out because I think you represent one of the more rational voices which have been heard so far and I'd like to suggest that others consider following your example. I hope you don't mind.

Q

E-Stat
08-19-2004, 02:20 PM
Is it then a violation of rules for me to point out that for those types of maladies, room treatments and/or proper 5.1 system calibration are a far more effective approach? If not for this board, I very well might have bought into a lot of those money burning approaches. Through a lot of current and former board regulars, I learned first hand that common sense approaches like properly calibrating the system, and using inexpensive room treatments make for very audible improvements that are also based on sound technical principles
IMHO, there are no absolute answers to your hypothetical questions. I will be the first to agree, however, that using cables as tone controls is not good practice. My approach has been to promote the benefits of the enhancements I find most beneficial without villifying others.

Once I was taken to task with the (incorrect) assumption that I do not believe in the value of room treatments. I responded with a discussion and picture of the multiple (all inexpensive DIY) room treatment strategies that I employ in my listening room. I was most surprised that the inquisitor himself apparently hadn't applied any. I could only wonder then how it was he was sure that approach was better than others.

rw

Woochifer
08-19-2004, 03:31 PM
Woochifer,

I've been pretty involved on this subject so far. I appreciate your open mind and moderate tone regarding these issues. I understand your desire for a more objective forum than you've found elsewhere and I know that those who have been following the posts on this may find it hard to believe, but I do as well. I just think that the degree and tone of the "challenging for proof" needs to be kept to a reasonable level. As I've said over and over again, if people would just practive a degree self restraint none of this stuff would be an issue. I don't have a problem with someone challenging that which they believe to be untrue. Some folks have suggested that any challenge or objective viewpoint that is put forward will not be allowed. I don't think there is any evidence to support that and I certainly don't want to see that happen -- for the record, I won't support it either. But when it gets to the level of what I've termed "hijacking a thread" then lacking that self restraint, I'm in support of the administrator stepping in to bring it under control -- even to the point of providing a dedicated board for these familiar debates to take place. I believe so far, many people are taking the most extreme stance on this that they can which is almost a guarantee that it will not be as productive as it could be. I think that if people would just tone down the rhetoric and try to be part of making this a better more balanced board instead of jumping ship at the first sign of change, we might all be pleasantly surprised by what could be accomplished. I wanted to single you out because I think you represent one of the more rational voices which have been heard so far and I'd like to suggest that others consider following your example. I hope you don't mind.

Q


Q -

Much appreciate your voice of reason on this subject. I think that yes, some moderation is needed basically to keep the threads from turning into flame wars and from trolls taking over like they did a couple of years ago. But, my concern is that dissenting opinions do not begin equating to rule violations. I understand the DBT discussion bans, since just about every other audio board has a similar rule in place. But, if that gets extended to all other types of technical discussion, then I'm not down with that at all.

I've seen boards where technical discussion has basically been purged, and it ain't a pretty sight. The last thing I want to see is this board turn into yet another safe haven for all varieties of nonsensical claims. There has to be a line drawn between making the board more inviting for observational inferences, versus eliminating any technical discussion that might reveal the need for a more rigorous approach to drawing conclusions from those kinds of inferences.

I mean, if somebody tells me that rooms don't matter because a certain speaker that they heard subjectively sounds the same in all the rooms that they've tried, am I supposed to just sit around and not respond to something that fallacious? IMO, if an objectivist response has direct bearing on the subject and can shed some light on subjective inferences, then I would call that a productive discussion. Constantly berating hobbyists and laymen for proof, DBTs, and lab results is not a productive discussion and not the only kind of objectivist approach available. It's that type of nonsense that I hope gets reduced with minimal moderation, because that indeed does bring a forum down. But, if relegating any kind of objectivist discussion to the "Science Lab" and purging technical discussion from the other forums is the new operating procedure, then that would be a disservice to everybody. I mean, even Stereophile includes lab measurements with their reviews.

Woochifer
08-19-2004, 03:56 PM
IMHO, there are no absolute answers to your hypothetical questions. I will be the first to agree, however, that using cables as tone controls is not good practice. My approach has been to promote the benefits of the enhancements I find most beneficial without villifying others.

And I'm not saying that my responses are absolute answers, just offering up an example of the more nonsensical extreme of the subjectivist perspective that I've seen on other boards. I have seen subwoofer discussions on another board where people are suggesting that swapping out to an exotic subwoofer cable will eliminate boominess. Never mind the room acoustics, the crossover settings, the phase position, the placement of the sub, parametric equalization, room treatments, or the fact that they're talking about a cable that costs more than the subwoofer itself! I would hope that under the new rules, those kinds of subjects (that also have real world applicability) aren't now suddenly off-limits.


Once I was taken to task with the (incorrect) assumption that I do not believe in the value of room treatments. I responded with a discussion and picture of the multiple (all inexpensive DIY) room treatment strategies that I employ in my listening room. I was most surprised that the inquisitor himself apparently hadn't applied any. I could only wonder then how it was he was sure that approach was better than others.

rw

Yeah, I have noticed that kind of "do as I say, not as I do" kind of inquisition on these boards. Sort of like constantly bringing up DBTs to cut somebody down, yet never actually participating in any DBTs first hand and/or reporting the findings (oh, but you can't prove the null hypothesis). If that hypocrisy get purged, I would not mind one bit.

Quagmire
08-19-2004, 04:50 PM
I hear what you're saying, Wooch. And I agree. I believe you understand the problem and see both sides of this issue. You voice your concerns reasonably and I believe if everyone did the same, in a non-combative manner, this would open the way to finding that balance that everyone could live with. Instead they are just opening the door to leave.

"...if an objectivist response has direct bearing on the subject and can shed some light on subjective inferences, then I would call that a productive discussion. Constantly berating hobbyists and laymen for proof, DBTs, and lab results is not a productive discussion and not the only kind of objectivist approach available. It's that type of nonsense that I hope gets reduced with minimal moderation, because that indeed does bring a forum down. But, if relegating any kind of objectivist discussion to the "Science Lab" and relegating any kind of objectivist discussion to the "Science Lab" is the new operating procedure, then that would be a disservice to everybody."

Like I said you see both sides of the issue and state your concerns well. To me the key is in how you interpret the part of your post which talks about "...relegating any kind of objectivist discussion to the "Science Lab" and "purging technical discussion from the other forums". If it is assumed that the conditional wording of "ANY KIND of objectivist discussion" really means ALL objectivist discussion, and that PURGING means the COMPLETE REMOVAL of all technical discussion absolutely WILL HAPPEN, then no -- I don't support that either. But it seems to me that many/most are assuming the most extreme interpretation of these conditional statements. Why? Simply because they choose to, so far as I can tell. I don't believe that Eric came out swinging and I don't believe that he has thus far stated that these things will be imposed to the most extreme degree that they can be. Yet the responses seem to be ratcheted up to the most extreme level -- as in "I'm leaving". I don't understand how people expect to be treated reasonably when they take the most extreme posture of defense in response to first sign of change. Thanks again for letting me use your post as an example.

Q

ToddB
08-20-2004, 12:29 AM
Woochifer, I'm going to use you as an example, because what you're doing is indicative of one of the larger problems on this board. I promise to be as kind as possible. :)

Your posts provided me with this response, because you said this --

"where any and every ridiculous claim goes"
"money pit approach"
"I'm simply trying to keep the approach real"
"yet another safe haven for all varieties of nonsensical claims"

after you said this --

"if it facilitates topical discussions and keeps the excesses and BS from taking over"

Because of my experiences with audio, I could classify your set of characterizations as excesses and BS. If I tell somebody that I've frozen CDs and it made them sound better, does that mean my claim is ridiculous just because you might say so? If I tell somebody that I think upgrading a component would be wise, does that mean I'm promoting a "money pit" approach just because you might say so? If I tell someone that in my system cable A sounds much better than cable B, does that mean my approach is less real than yours, just because you might say so?

Do you see where I'm going with this? The problem appears to be that you (and you are by no means the only one doing this) see fit to denigrate perspectives and experiences that do not agree with your own. That is the kind of antagonism we are trying to get rid of. If you have a contrary experience, then say what yours is. If you disagree with an approach, then say what yours would be. If you have a differing opinion, then say what yours is. Nobody is trying to force you to keep quiet about experiences you don't share, or approaches you think are wasteful, or opinions with which you disagree. But, you are going to have to find a way to coexist with all of those things, and allow people to exercise their own discretion in deciding which course of action they think is best for them.

What we are trying to do is to stop people from being attacked by those who do not share their perspective. Such behavior has driven untold numbers of former and potential members from this site. As difficult as it may be, people here are going to have to accept that not everyone else is going to share their world view regarding audio.

You also said, "I'm fine with a wide range of options". Well, here's your chance to prove it.

Quagmire
08-20-2004, 01:06 AM
I posted this on the new Audio Lab board. I'm going to post it here too because the arguments are the same and I think this applies.

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

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

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

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

Just some food for thought.

Q

46minaudio
08-20-2004, 06:29 AM
Woochifer, I'm going to use you as an example, because what you're doing is indicative of one of the larger problems on this board. I promise to be as kind as possible. :)

Your posts provided me with this response, because you said this --

"where any and every ridiculous claim goes"
"money pit approach"
"I'm simply trying to keep the approach real"
"yet another safe haven for all varieties of nonsensical claims"

after you said this --

"if it facilitates topical discussions and keeps the excesses and BS from taking over"

Because of my experiences with audio, I could classify your set of characterizations as excesses and BS. If I tell somebody that I've frozen CDs and it made them sound better, does that mean my claim is ridiculous just because you might say so? If I tell somebody that I think upgrading a component would be wise, does that mean I'm promoting a "money pit" approach just because you might say so? If I tell someone that in my system cable A sounds much better than cable B, does that mean my approach is less real than yours, just because you might say so?

Do you see where I'm going with this? The problem appears to be that you (and you are by no means the only one doing this) see fit to denigrate perspectives and experiences that do not agree with your own. That is the kind of antagonism we are trying to get rid of. If you have a contrary experience, then say what yours is. If you disagree with an approach, then say what yours would be. If you have a differing opinion, then say what yours is. Nobody is trying to force you to keep quiet about experiences you don't share, or approaches you think are wasteful, or opinions with which you disagree. But, you are going to have to find a way to coexist with all of those things, and allow people to exercise their own discretion in deciding which course of action they think is best for them.

What we are trying to do is to stop people from being attacked by those who do not share their perspective. Such behavior has driven untold numbers of former and potential members from this site. As difficult as it may be, people here are going to have to accept that not everyone else is going to share their world view regarding audio.

You also said, "I'm fine with a wide range of options". Well, here's your chance to prove it.
This is the way I see it..If a newbe is looking for help because he wants to correct boomy bass from his sub and gets a responce to buy a pair of 200$ cables then it is ridiculous.Woochifer can give real information to correct the problem.Somtimes this information costs the newbe nothing .This board is also about HELPING PEOPLE.Throwing money into expensive cables will not help this problem Period.We have lost two of the best on this board lets not lose any more...

E-Stat
08-20-2004, 06:48 AM
This is the way I see it..If a newbe is looking for help because he wants to correct boomy bass from his sub and gets a responce to buy a pair of 200$ cables then it is ridiculous.
Is it required to label that hypothetical responder a "believer in alien abductions" prior to making better suggestions yourself?

rw

46minaudio
08-20-2004, 07:08 AM
Is it required to label that hypothetical responder a "believer in alien abductions" prior to making better suggestions yourself?

rw
No its not...

kexodusc
08-20-2004, 07:16 AM
WTF is wrong with having everyone give their 2 cents worth? Geez, are you guys all so bloody sure that even the dumbest newbie who has a $500 HT system is going to spend $200 on a cable even IF it gets suggested without thinking twice about it?

I say let all the suggestion come...the $200 sub cables, Wooch's room treatments and parametric EQ's, Mtrycraft's advice on perception and bias, HiFi Tommy's years of experience with tons of gear, etc...and let the POSTER decide which option they take...In the end it's their responsibility anyway.

Chances are poster is going to consider heavily all suggestions made. The solutions that are free or very cheap to do are likely to be done first. If they still don't get what they're after, and a new amp or $300 dollar cable is suggested next, they're might try that. If the subjective advice was good, the poster is happy, if the objective advice was good, same thing.

What needs to be filtered out, and I believe what everyone agrees on, are the repetitive battles that happen (ie: Threadjacking)...Hifi Tommy vs, mtrycraft, Sir Terrence vs. WmAx version's 1 & 2, RGA vs. Woochifer, etc, etc, etc...They drag on, and generally are responsible for the worst statements ever being made. In defending positions, everyone eventually slips up in their language and gets called out on it...then ideas are misconstrued, people made angry...and revenge is sought. The cycle continues.

Posters (even newbies) have a duty to themselves to decipher fact from fiction. If they need help doing this they can always ask, but let them be exposed to all ideas, not just the purely subjective, or the purely objective ones. No promises are being made here, advice is only worth exactly what you pay for it, sometimes less. But as long as it's free, you might as well get as much as you can.

Enough crying about all this already...get back to talking about all things audio. If the powers-that-be screw this site up, then leave, and never come back if that's what you want...but don't make the place even worse than it may or may not be by constantly bickering about the forum rules and operations.

Resident Loser
08-20-2004, 07:24 AM
..."you made your bed, now lie in it"...

"...don't make the place even worse than it may or may not be by constantly bickering about the forum rules and operations..."

Just look at it as a new topic of conversation...

jimHJJ(...personally I think it's funny...)

kexodusc
08-20-2004, 07:42 AM
Hi Jim,
Sorry, I'm familiar with the saying, not sure I understand it in the context you're using it in...

Maybe the arguments are funny, but like every good joke they go stale with age...quite frankly, the forum's have been a bit dead the last little while because too many (myself included) have been diverted to these discussions or have left for parts unknown.

This is more detrimental than the obviously bogus and inconsistent rules that have been introduced.

Woochifer
08-20-2004, 08:13 AM
Woochifer, I'm going to use you as an example, because what you're doing is indicative of one of the larger problems on this board. I promise to be as kind as possible. :)

Your posts provided me with this response, because you said this --

"where any and every ridiculous claim goes"
"money pit approach"
"I'm simply trying to keep the approach real"
"yet another safe haven for all varieties of nonsensical claims"

after you said this --

"if it facilitates topical discussions and keeps the excesses and BS from taking over"

Because of my experiences with audio, I could classify your set of characterizations as excesses and BS. If I tell somebody that I've frozen CDs and it made them sound better, does that mean my claim is ridiculous just because you might say so? If I tell somebody that I think upgrading a component would be wise, does that mean I'm promoting a "money pit" approach just because you might say so? If I tell someone that in my system cable A sounds much better than cable B, does that mean my approach is less real than yours, just because you might say so?

Do you see where I'm going with this? The problem appears to be that you (and you are by no means the only one doing this) see fit to denigrate perspectives and experiences that do not agree with your own. That is the kind of antagonism we are trying to get rid of. If you have a contrary experience, then say what yours is. If you disagree with an approach, then say what yours would be. If you have a differing opinion, then say what yours is. Nobody is trying to force you to keep quiet about experiences you don't share, or approaches you think are wasteful, or opinions with which you disagree. But, you are going to have to find a way to coexist with all of those things, and allow people to exercise their own discretion in deciding which course of action they think is best for them.

What we are trying to do is to stop people from being attacked by those who do not share their perspective. Such behavior has driven untold numbers of former and potential members from this site. As difficult as it may be, people here are going to have to accept that not everyone else is going to share their world view regarding audio.

You also said, "I'm fine with a wide range of options". Well, here's your chance to prove it.

What I'm doing is indiciative of one of the larger problems on the board?! Are you kidding me? My approch has always been about keeping things in perspective, and sharing things that I've tried for myself.

If you think what I post is BS and excess, FINE, tell me why and suggest an alternate approach; and I will stand corrected if I find that freezing CDs does produce an audible change. I think you're trying to throw my concerns in with the same pit with some of the naysayer approaches of asking everybody to prove their observations, and that's a big mistake.

I'm sorry, but if somebody posts something that I have never observed in my own listenings or I feel is grossly exaggerated or I feel is flatout wrong, I will tell people why and I will suggest alternate approaches. I'm not condoning the oft-told naysayer approach of hiding behind the DBT and "can't prove a null hypothesis" response, and shifting the burden of proof. I'm simply saying that if somebody goes on here and starts spouting off a bunch of what I regard as BS that I've never been able to verify in my tests and listenings, I will let my opinion be known. If I think it's a waste of money to opt for a $200 subwoofer cable over a $100 parametric equalizer to remedy room-induced issues, I will state that, tell the poster why, and I link to my website where I've done my own measurements. You can't tell me that the subwoofer cable suggestion has equal merit, and all the polite civility in the world isn't going to make that type of suggestion any less wrong than it is. Like I said, I'm open to options, but when I see a spade, that's what I'll call it. If suggesting to people what I regard as more pragmatic, budget conscious, real world approaches is "indicative of one of the larger problems" with this board, then the priority of the new regime is obviously not to help the end user.

Resident Loser
08-20-2004, 08:48 AM
...personally...

Just remarking about what hath been wrought by the powers that be...especially in light of the "have fun" exhortation delivered by the "new boss"...

jimHJJ(...are we having fun yet?...)

Resident Loser
08-20-2004, 09:08 AM
...it's a gentler, kinder place where, like in those dancing schools, all the little kiddie-winkies get a big blue ribbon with a nice shiny gold star, even if they fell on their @$$...

jimHJJ(...why, there's no difference between landing on the moon and puttin' a bone in yer nose...)

muziekfreak
08-20-2004, 09:37 AM
with the selection of 996turbo to be the moderator of the Cables and Amp/Preamp forums. I don't believe he has an open mind or the proper understanding of various points of the view on these subjects.

To illustrate my objections read this thread from last April:
http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=4098

What do you think?

DIn't you learn from your mistakes made in the past?? I suggest you do think this way iff we look back at this topic 2 years from now ;)

Woochifer
08-20-2004, 07:46 PM
Thanks for the head's up Wooch. I've heard of that place. They used to carry Proceed (when it was in existence) if I remember right. I'm pretty well focused on upgrading my TV and STB to HD right now so from an audio standpoint, I'm pretty well set. More importantly, I'm ordering my new 4 wheeled toy next month and hey, we must have our priorities! I'd didn't choose "Topspeed" for nothin' ;)!

Next time your in the neighborhood, PM me a few days in advance and I'll buy you lunch. If you have time, there's a guy in Sanger with the most ridiculous HT rooms you've every seen. He's got three...in his house...no kidding. His main rig consists if the Infinity IRS system, you know with the line source ribbons and bass towers, and Bass Shakers in the seats. Maybe I could bug him for a demo.

I totally hear you on the priorities. Didn't know that you had a car in the works as well!

I'll definitely let you know when I make it down there again. This last go round I was pretty much traveling the whole time between Fresno, Coalinga, and Hanford, so it was a LOT of time spent in a rental car. I'm working on a project down in Porterville right now, but I haven't had to make a trip down there yet.

I've seen gallery pics of that Sanger system that you're talking about, man oh man is that thing ever the most insane looking system I've ever seen (if not tops, definitely in the top 10!). Those huge Infinity IRS speakers have a way of distorting the scale of things. I heard the IRS several years ago at a hi-fi show and was pretty floored by how good the overall sound on that system was. It's got a big sound, but it's appropriately toned down when it needs to be. If I can arrange the time, a demo would definitely be in order!

Just for fun, I just looked it up and posted a link below in case anybody else wants to see what 2,500 lbs of audio system overkill looks like!

http://gallery.avsforum.com/showphoto.php?photo=1549&size=big&sort=1&cat=500

http://gallery.avsforum.com/data/503/26446Front_-_Screen_Up.jpg

topspeed
08-20-2004, 10:31 PM
I've seen gallery pics of that Sanger system that you're talking about, man oh man is that thing ever the most insane looking system I've ever seen (if not tops, definitely in the top 10!). Those huge Infinity IRS speakers have a way of distorting the scale of things. I heard the IRS several years ago at a hi-fi show and was pretty floored by how good the overall sound on that system was. It's got a big sound, but it's appropriately toned down when it needs to be. If I can arrange the time, a demo would definitely be in order!

Just for fun, I just looked it up and posted a link below in case anybody else wants to see what 2,500 lbs of audio system overkill looks like!

http://gallery.avsforum.com/showphoto.php?photo=1549&size=big&sort=1&cat=500

http://gallery.avsforum.com/data/503/26446Front_-_Screen_Up.jpg
The owner's a produce broker, not that we have many of those in the Central Valley :rolleyes:, so he's a tad on the busy side right now. It might be easier to hear his equipment as we move out of the peak season. It'd be a helluva lotta fun! Certainly more fun than this thread is. Geez, can't we all just get along?

nusiclover
08-20-2004, 11:08 PM
i think he might have had to build the house around the system. yikes 2,500 lbs? thats like having a car in your living room. Hopefully this sytem is on the first level. dunno if id trust it upstairs. if he cashed in he probably could get a nice condo in maui.

ToddB
08-21-2004, 03:10 AM
Woochifer, if you'll take a deep breath, calm down, and reread my post, I think you'll see that we're largely in agreement. The concern is how opposing viewpoints are characterized. Your perspective on cables is vastly different than mine, and it shouldn't be necessary for either of us to denigrate or insult the other to give our respective opinions on the matter. THAT'S the problem which has been all too common on this board.

Your comments "every ridiculous claim goes", "money pit approach", "trying to keep the approach real", and "nonsensical claims" aren't very constructive, and are inflammatory to the extent that they could well incite a flame war. For the purposes of making a point in another thread, I stated that people who can't hear differences between cables are suffering a near-deaf experience. That comment could be considered just as unconstructive as yours, because none of our statements really provide an avenue for productive exchange, they're basically insults. If everyone on this board would agree to simply give their respective opinions on various matters, and agree to disagree with those who hold opposing viewpoints without having to attack or insult them, that would be the ideal discourse.

I honestly don't understand why you can't hear what, to me, are obvious differences between cables. But, I have no reason to believe that you're lying, and I assume that your statements regarding the subject are your honest impressions, however much I might disagree with those impressions. Similarly, I expect you to allow that what I have to say about cables are my honest impressions, however much you might disagree with those impressions.

Helping other people certainly is a goal of this board, and if we all can provide our respective viewpoints with a degree of civility, it will help to give others more options from which to choose how to pursue maximizing the enjoyment they receive from their audio systems. That, I believe, is something we all want.

shaemus
08-21-2004, 12:53 PM
I agree with much of what Woochifer and ToddB have said regarding maintaining orderly discussion and avoiding rudeness.

As a new member of this site I may have a limited perspective but for what it's worth I feel that alot of this is much ado about nothing. Not that your viewpoints aren't valid, I just feel that much of the posts seem like overreactions to what seems to be a fairly sensible administrative adjustment. It seems to be simply an effort to keep threads/posts non-abusive and focussed on the posted questions. I haven't read anything by Eric that suggests censoring dissenting oppinions.

Why would I want to post here if I feel like someone is going to be a jerk to me. I don't mind receiving conflicting opinions on a given topic or being told that you disagree with me. It certainly does get tiring if the thread stops being about the question/comment and becomes a pissing contest between two or more posters who are so focussed on being right, insulting one another and having the last word that they can't just agree to disagree and let their opinions stand on their own. Don't take things personally if people don't agree with you and don't attack another's character with whom you disagree.

I welcome a skeptical or critical viewpoint. Eric I don't get the sense that you are trying to stop this and I would hope that these perspectives will continue to be welcome.

It doesn't seem useful to run away from a forum/site you have enjoyed for so long because of what MIGHT happen. Give it a chance for pete's sake.

Woochifer
08-21-2004, 05:31 PM
Woochifer, if you'll take a deep breath, calm down, and reread my post, I think you'll see that we're largely in agreement. The concern is how opposing viewpoints are characterized. Your perspective on cables is vastly different than mine, and it shouldn't be necessary for either of us to denigrate or insult the other to give our respective opinions on the matter. THAT'S the problem which has been all too common on this board.

Your comments "every ridiculous claim goes", "money pit approach", "trying to keep the approach real", and "nonsensical claims" aren't very constructive, and are inflammatory to the extent that they could well incite a flame war. For the purposes of making a point in another thread, I stated that people who can't hear differences between cables are suffering a near-deaf experience. That comment could be considered just as unconstructive as yours, because none of our statements really provide an avenue for productive exchange, they're basically insults. If everyone on this board would agree to simply give their respective opinions on various matters, and agree to disagree with those who hold opposing viewpoints without having to attack or insult them, that would be the ideal discourse.

I honestly don't understand why you can't hear what, to me, are obvious differences between cables. But, I have no reason to believe that you're lying, and I assume that your statements regarding the subject are your honest impressions, however much I might disagree with those impressions. Similarly, I expect you to allow that what I have to say about cables are my honest impressions, however much you might disagree with those impressions.

Helping other people certainly is a goal of this board, and if we all can provide our respective viewpoints with a degree of civility, it will help to give others more options from which to choose how to pursue maximizing the enjoyment they receive from their audio systems. That, I believe, is something we all want.

Believe me, I see the point about wanting to keep the discourse at a civil level and keep things from devolving into flame wars. But, on the other hand, I think that you have pulled a lot of quotes out of context and severely mischaracterized my concerns about ensuring that legitimate technical arguments not be censored. You've also made the presumption that my disagreements are with what people observe. No, my disagreements are with how people generalize those personal observations. If I'm going to disagree with what somebody posts, you've somehow construed that to mean that I'm calling somebody a liar. And yet, you're telling me that I need to calm down and take a step back.

You see, I take no issue with your or anybody else's observation that there are differences between cables. However, if you or anybody else wants to generalize those differences to further conclude that for example upgrading cables will do more for eliminating subwoofer boominess than room treatments and parametric equalization will typically give you, then I will call it how I see it. If the theory, consensus among professionals, and my own real world observations contradict the cable conclusion, I'm not going to sit here and tell someone that their conclusion is equally valid and that I respectfully disagree. And if I think that it makes no sense to spend as much on a cable as on the subwoofer itself, I will make that opinion known as well.

My concern is that you will use the moderator role to enforce a particular bias at the expense of all others. And the proof of how you serve in that capacity will obviously come about as the discussions roll along. I'm here to learn something and share real world advice, and if you legitimately facilitate that function on this board, then I take no issue with that. But, you're here to one-sidedly and artitrarily eliminate perspectives that you disagree with, then that would make you no better than any troll or forum killing naysayer that's blown through here.

hifitommy
08-21-2004, 06:55 PM
BUT turbo needed to pierce the balloon. its unfortunate that he needed to use the word IDIOT but sometimes you have to get noticed first and understood later.

good job turbo. there isnt enough breath available to adequately quash the BT4Ds (blind tests for dummies) crap that has been shoved down our throats here for YEARS. i challenge anybody to recruit enough people to properly conduct a dbt ONCE let alone the number of times its been parroted here to any one individual.

for a pair of cables that costs less than $100, i am not even motivated to ask one other person prior to purchase. for more aggressive purchases, i demand a trial period which most dealers are OK with.

the same with any other component. unless you have negotiated some KILLER price, the dealer should be willing for this.

and HEY, i'm in this for the music, 4k LPs, 1.5k CDs, 40-50 SACDs, 200 open reel tape titles, innumerable commercial and home made cassettes, FM on the air and the net. right now i am listening to a cd on the comp of jean-michel pilc, originally heard on BETjazz channel.

and i am cheeeeep! $169 for the dvd/cd/sacd player, a bit more for the rest:

http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/588.html (http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/588.html)

so evolution has come to AR. we will see improvements, even if some 'valued' posters go off in the direction of sour grapes. lets roll with the punches and try to improve our demeanor. its about time.

hifitommy
08-21-2004, 07:03 PM
I see. So, if someone tries something that you haven't tried, or hears something that you haven't heard, then what they say about the resulting sound is a "ridiculous claim"? And you will then feel the need to pose "meaningful challenges" to what that person has to say about what they heard, as if you are the arbiter of someone else's hearing ability? If so, then your approach is tantamount to calling that person a liar, and that's not going to be acceptable.


On other boards, in addition to the examples you gave, I also frequently see suggestions regarding relatively inexpensive DIY solutions, or for products from mail-order/hobbyist-business shops that cost less than competing, more commercial offerings. The range of recommendations is good, as it gives people more options to decide from. Just because you don't happen to like some of the options, doesn't mean that those options are bad.


If you have the experience of hearing that cable, and the effects it had in a system in comparison to the effects that ceiling panels had, then your comments on the subject would be very welcome. However, I get the impression that this is just an extreme hypothetical example you've invented, and that you haven't actually had this experience.
it can have PROFOUND effects on the sound and be more cost effective than wires or equip changes. my room suffers a lot from echoes, soon to be addressed. i am not disagreeing that wires can have positive effect on the system, but to negate room treatment is not wise.

ToddB
08-23-2004, 02:24 AM
Woochifer, you seem to be trying to form as extreme an interpretation of my comments as you can. I'm not sure why, and I don't know how I can be any clearer about what I've said. But, I don't want to keep taking time to try and hash it out with you, so I'll trust that your better judgement will prevail.

Also, I did review our exchange, and I don't think that I've taken your comments out of context at all. I do get the impression that you don't like being told that you have to play nicely with others, however, so if that becomes a problem in the future, we'll have to deal with it.

Your comment about "consensus among professionals", though, is an interesting consideration in it's own right. A page on Shunyata's website, here: http://www.shunyata.com/Default.aspx?linkkey=Applications links to lists of recording studios and professionals, and audiophile equipment manufacturers, who have purchased Shunyata power conditioning, power cord, interconnect, and speaker cable products. Now, it's probably safe to assume that the people and organizations listed on those pages have spent some amount of time optimizing the rooms they work in, and the equipment they work with. Nevertheless, they apparently saw the need to invest in Shunyata's products. Why would they have done that? Could it be that they observed Shunyata's products were capable of solving problems that room treatments, speaker positioning, and equalizing weren't? Doesn't their purchase of Shunyata's products somewhat go against the current "consensus among professionals"? Hmm...

As for this:

"My concern is that you will use the moderator role to enforce a particular bias at the expense of all others."

my bias is to make sure that everyone feels free to have their say. If someone has a problem with subwoofer boominess, I have no problem if they get, for example, five responses about subwoofer repositioning and one response about replacing their interconnect. Since repositioning the sub is free, they'll probably try that first, anyway. However, if they're not happy with the results, I want the person who recommended replacing the IC to have felt free to give that advice, because it will provide the questioner another option to consider as they try to solve their problem. Maybe that person has heard the IC in question, and thinks it has too much bass for the questioner's system. In any event, the questioner is free to decide for themselves how applicable and valid the various advice is, and to make decisions accordingly. If you have a take on the subject that's different than someone else's, then state your case. No one's going to be allowed to attack you for your opinion, either.

ToddB
08-23-2004, 02:39 AM
it can have PROFOUND effects on the sound and be more cost effective than wires or equip changes. my room suffers a lot from echoes, soon to be addressed. i am not disagreeing that wires can have positive effect on the system, but to negate room treatment is not wise. Of course it's not wise. I never said to negate room treatment, nor did I say that room treatment was less cost-effective. What I said was that there are inevitably going to be people who have a different opinion on the matter, and they should know that they can voice that opinion here without being attacked or belittled for it. If those people can't handle having others disagree with them, then they shouldn't participate. But by choosing to participate, that certainly doesn't mean that they should also have to accept being insulted.

hifitommy
08-23-2004, 05:57 AM
all factors should be considered, some will truly surprise us at times.

Resident Loser
08-23-2004, 07:11 AM
"...that certainly doesn't mean that they should also have to accept being insulted..."

So that means there will be equal intolerance of things such as:

You're deaf...

You don't know what to listen for...

What do you expect, listening to that lousy mid-fi junk...

Still believe the world is flat?...

You know, that sort of personal insult.

The phrase "there are also people who believe in..."is a general statement. Such statements about the existence of a group of people who believe in UFOs, Bigfoot etc. are somehow equated to these types of direct personal insults in your mind? In MY experience, I can't recall anyone ever saying "you sit in a tree-stand waiting for Sasquatch or ET, whichever comes first". Point one out. Seen alot of "deaf' remarks however...There may be people who claim the framed 8x10 glossy of "Fatty" Arbuckle improves their systems' imaging...and the(to avoid the word "scientific") reasonable, rational explanation is?

Kindly notice the recipients of the "deaf" remarks did little or no p!$$!ng and moaning about them...just kept trudging along with the same message, the same can't be said for others...

He!!, trading barbs was what made this place INTERESTING...it was even funny for the most part...of course one had to be adept at the artform...

jimHJJ(...maybe that's the problem...)

Woochifer
08-24-2004, 09:48 AM
Woochifer, you seem to be trying to form as extreme an interpretation of my comments as you can. I'm not sure why, and I don't know how I can be any clearer about what I've said. But, I don't want to keep taking time to try and hash it out with you, so I'll trust that your better judgement will prevail.

Also, I did review our exchange, and I don't think that I've taken your comments out of context at all. I do get the impression that you don't like being told that you have to play nicely with others, however, so if that becomes a problem in the future, we'll have to deal with it.

I frankly think that you have chosen to focus on a few pointed quotes and disregard the rest of my concerns on this thread. If you want an example of "one of the larger problems on this board" then just look at how you've focused on out of context quotes and then drawn a whole set of presumptions around that. My whole approach is to play fair, and if that's fine with you, then we won't have any problems.


Your comment about "consensus among professionals", though, is an interesting consideration in it's own right. A page on Shunyata's website, here: http://www.shunyata.com/Default.aspx?linkkey=Applications links to lists of recording studios and professionals, and audiophile equipment manufacturers, who have purchased Shunyata power conditioning, power cord, interconnect, and speaker cable products. Now, it's probably safe to assume that the people and organizations listed on those pages have spent some amount of time optimizing the rooms they work in, and the equipment they work with. Nevertheless, they apparently saw the need to invest in Shunyata's products. Why would they have done that? Could it be that they observed Shunyata's products were capable of solving problems that room treatments, speaker positioning, and equalizing weren't? Doesn't their purchase of Shunyata's products somewhat go against the current "consensus among professionals"? Hmm...

First off, all that I said is that room acoustics are a far more important issue than cables when dealing with boominess in subwoofers. If you disagree with that, then make your case. I don't think you disagree with my room treatment position, and have just offered up a contrarian position. I don't take issue with that, but are you offering up that list of professionals who use Shunyata products as some kind of support for the notion that cables are just as important as room acoustics? It doesn't say anything to that effect, and none of the people I've ever met who've worked in professional capacities will agree with that either.

You're more than welcome to believe that a list of studios and organizations that have invested in Shunyata products somehow supports a contrary position, but when somebody comes onto this board with an issue with boominess, are you then saying that the Shunyata products can better deal directly with this issue?

What I mean by professional consensus is that every article I've ever read about the causes and effects of boominess and their remedies point to the room acoustics. There's plenty of disagreement on what solutions are most effective (tube traps, corner prisms, parametric equalization, various placements, etc.), but I've yet to see any discussion by people who've actually addressed low frequency boominess issues that indicated the cables as the most effective solution, or even an effective solution at all. This is because subjective interpretations of boominess follow very basic science about things like room modes and standing waves, and how those correlate to changes to the frequency response. Unless the cable can actually change the frequency response and attenuate the most severe peaks in a specific room (which in my room were 10 db+), then they are ineffective for dealing with boominess.

My position on cables is very simple. If you believe they make a difference, fine spend your money on them. If you've already made your investment in the room acoustics, front end equipment, and speaker upgrades, then cables might be the next step. But, if you believe that the cable upgrades should come before all others, then I will disagree and point to any number of reasons why.


As for this:

"My concern is that you will use the moderator role to enforce a particular bias at the expense of all others."

my bias is to make sure that everyone feels free to have their say. If someone has a problem with subwoofer boominess, I have no problem if they get, for example, five responses about subwoofer repositioning and one response about replacing their interconnect. Since repositioning the sub is free, they'll probably try that first, anyway. However, if they're not happy with the results, I want the person who recommended replacing the IC to have felt free to give that advice, because it will provide the questioner another option to consider as they try to solve their problem. Maybe that person has heard the IC in question, and thinks it has too much bass for the questioner's system. In any event, the questioner is free to decide for themselves how applicable and valid the various advice is, and to make decisions accordingly. If you have a take on the subject that's different than someone else's, then state your case. No one's going to be allowed to attack you for your opinion, either.

If that's how you intend to moderate the board, then I have no issue with that. But, if you start to enforce a particular bias under the pretense of civility, then I think that speaks volumes for itself. I hope you do a good job and want to make this all work, but I suggest that you read your own posts if you're seeking out examples.

ToddB
08-25-2004, 03:14 AM
I frankly think that you have chosen to focus on a few pointed quotes and disregard the rest of my concerns on this thread. If you want an example of "one of the larger problems on this board" then just look at how you've focused on out of context quotes and then drawn a whole set of presumptions around that. I think the conclusions I drew from your comments were justified. You obviously disagree. We'll leave it at that.


My whole approach is to play fair, and if that's fine with you, then we won't have any problems. As long as you understand that "fair" is going to include allowing people to voice opinions that may not necessarily agree with yours, then no, we won't have any problems.


First off, all that I said is that room acoustics are a far more important issue than cables when dealing with boominess in subwoofers. If you disagree with that, then make your case. I don't think you disagree with my room treatment position, and have just offered up a contrarian position. I don't take issue with that, but are you offering up that list of professionals who use Shunyata products as some kind of support for the notion that cables are just as important as room acoustics? It doesn't say anything to that effect, and none of the people I've ever met who've worked in professional capacities will agree with that either.

You're more than welcome to believe that a list of studios and organizations that have invested in Shunyata products somehow supports a contrary position, but when somebody comes onto this board with an issue with boominess, are you then saying that the Shunyata products can better deal directly with this issue?

What I mean by professional consensus is that every article I've ever read about the causes and effects of boominess and their remedies point to the room acoustics. There's plenty of disagreement on what solutions are most effective (tube traps, corner prisms, parametric equalization, various placements, etc.), but I've yet to see any discussion by people who've actually addressed low frequency boominess issues that indicated the cables as the most effective solution, or even an effective solution at all. This is because subjective interpretations of boominess follow very basic science about things like room modes and standing waves, and how those correlate to changes to the frequency response. Unless the cable can actually change the frequency response and attenuate the most severe peaks in a specific room (which in my room were 10 db+), then they are ineffective for dealing with boominess.

My position on cables is very simple. If you believe they make a difference, fine spend your money on them. If you've already made your investment in the room acoustics, front end equipment, and speaker upgrades, then cables might be the next step. But, if you believe that the cable upgrades should come before all others, then I will disagree and point to any number of reasons why. I think you're getting so caught up in the minutiae of this particular example that you're missing my larger point. I was trying to illustrate how there will likely be more than one approach to resolving any given problem, and other people may well weigh the validity of those approaches differently. Some people might weigh the approaches based on the current scientific understanding of the problem, while others might weigh the approaches based on their listening observations of the problem. I included the Shunyata example because you mentioned "consensus among professionals", and I wanted to illustrate that not even professionals are in uniform agreement on all audio issues.

However, since my abstractions about this apparently aren't making my point, here's a specific example for you. Every Radio Shack Gold interconnect I've heard sounds like it has a bulge in the bass. I didn't realize this, though, when I first used one, so at the time I assumed that I had a room node that was causing my subwoofer to be slightly boomy, even though I had the LPF on the sub set to where it should be properly intersecting with the bass rolloff from my speakers. I could kinda sorta get rid of the boom by moving the sub out farther into the room, but then I would lose an unacceptable amount of frequency extension, and the sub would be encroaching on the walkway at that point, so I just left the sub back near the wall.

What ended up getting rid of the boominess was replacing that $8 Radio Shack Gold IC with a $27 XLO IC. Not only did the XLO get rid of the boominess, it deepened the bass extension, which by itself should have exacerbated the boominess issue if a room node had been the real problem. Now, there may be $27 worth of DIY room treatments that might have helped address this problem, but I didn't have to resort to trying them. All I had to do was change the cable.


If that's how you intend to moderate the board, then I have no issue with that. But, if you start to enforce a particular bias under the pretense of civility, then I think that speaks volumes for itself. I hope you do a good job and want to make this all work, but I suggest that you read your own posts if you're seeking out examples. I have absolutely no problem with people listening for themselves to any example I give, or any component I comment on, or any cable whose sound I characterize, and coming to entirely different conclusions about how it sounds, or whether it has any sound at all. What I do have a problem with is people getting browbeaten on this board with the suggestion that they don't need to listen to anything for themselves, using the pretense that current scientific understanding says that they don't. I want people to listen to things for themselves, decide about them for themselves, and then feel free to come here and relate their experience. Despite your not so subtle digs, I don't believe I've suggested that any other goal was being pursued.

Monstrous Mike
08-25-2004, 09:07 AM
The problem appears to be that you (and you are by no means the only one doing this) see fit to denigrate perspectives and experiences that do not agree with your own.
Ironically, this is exactly what you are doing and many others like you as well. My experience is that I have never heard any cable differences and I have been laced with:

- poor hearing
- low-fi system
- head in the sand
- in denial
- engineering degree out of CrackerJacks
- full of hot air
- in denial

And further, you equate "denigrate" with "disagree" and "attack" with "provide an opinion". Just because I don't believe there is a difference between cables doesn't mean I am calling you a liar. I once posted 14 different reasons (other than actual cable differences) where a person could perceive a sonic difference. Frankly, until you eliminate those possibilities, being certain that differences were due to cables is both unscientific and illogical.

If you want to see real denigrations and real attacks, visit rec.audio.opinion on Google. From what I last read, there were lawsuits, restraining orders and accusations of pedophilia.

Monstrous Mike
08-25-2004, 09:12 AM
I see. So, if someone tries something that you haven't tried, or hears something that you haven't heard, then what they say about the resulting sound is a "ridiculous claim"? And you will then feel the need to pose "meaningful challenges" to what that person has to say about what they heard, as if you are the arbiter of someone else's hearing ability?
Just the other day, I jumped off of our 20 storey office building, flapped my arms and landed safely near the front door. It was quite exhilarating.

If you haven't already done so, why don't you try it? And if you haven't already do so or tried it, then I expect you to behave as you say and not comment on my claim, ridiculous as it may seem to you.

ToddB
08-25-2004, 09:44 PM
Just the other day, I jumped off of our 20 storey office building, flapped my arms and landed safely near the front door. It was quite exhilarating.

If you haven't already done so, why don't you try it? And if you haven't already do so or tried it, then I expect you to behave as you say and not comment on my claim, ridiculous as it may seem to you.I see no need to comment on your claim. I think it speaks for itself quite well, and also bookends nicely with your previous post.

kexodusc
08-26-2004, 03:37 AM
I see no need to comment on your claim. I think it speaks for itself quite well, and also bookends nicely with your previous post.

Where on earth did you snarff that from? :)

Resident Loser
08-26-2004, 05:00 AM
...of the left hand technique...

jimHJJ(...he must be very good at "it"...)

Bill L
08-26-2004, 07:52 AM
illustrate quite nicely how the sheer weight of the naysayers has dominated the board. It's the same dogpile tactic so often used to stifle the yeasayer here. You have my thanks and support. Good job! - Bill L.

Resident Loser
08-26-2004, 08:07 AM
...eight or so posts from three or four avowed "objectivists", in a thread of over sixty, illustrates the "shear"(now cut that out!) weight that has "dominated" the board?...get real!

And if you want to comment on "gangpile" tactics(whatever the he!! that is), howzabout all the recent posters who have been absent from this place, who have again seen fit to grace us with their pin-head comments, because they deem it to be open season as dictated by the anything-but-moderate moderators...oh, yeah...that's OK...

jimHJJ(...pffft!...)

Bill L
08-26-2004, 11:46 AM
Nice post RL. I found your ending it with the sound of escaping gas quite appropriate.

Monstrous Mike
08-26-2004, 01:09 PM
I see no need to comment on your claim. I think it speaks for itself quite well, and also bookends nicely with your previous post.
Thank you. Now you know how I feel when I hear claims of wires improving the sound of an audio system. I suppose that is some progress.

Woochifer
08-26-2004, 01:35 PM
I think you're getting so caught up in the minutiae of this particular example that you're missing my larger point. I was trying to illustrate how there will likely be more than one approach to resolving any given problem, and other people may well weigh the validity of those approaches differently. Some people might weigh the approaches based on the current scientific understanding of the problem, while others might weigh the approaches based on their listening observations of the problem. I included the Shunyata example because you mentioned "consensus among professionals", and I wanted to illustrate that not even professionals are in uniform agreement on all audio issues.

However, since my abstractions about this apparently aren't making my point, here's a specific example for you. Every Radio Shack Gold interconnect I've heard sounds like it has a bulge in the bass. I didn't realize this, though, when I first used one, so at the time I assumed that I had a room node that was causing my subwoofer to be slightly boomy, even though I had the LPF on the sub set to where it should be properly intersecting with the bass rolloff from my speakers. I could kinda sorta get rid of the boom by moving the sub out farther into the room, but then I would lose an unacceptable amount of frequency extension, and the sub would be encroaching on the walkway at that point, so I just left the sub back near the wall.

What ended up getting rid of the boominess was replacing that $8 Radio Shack Gold IC with a $27 XLO IC. Not only did the XLO get rid of the boominess, it deepened the bass extension, which by itself should have exacerbated the boominess issue if a room node had been the real problem. Now, there may be $27 worth of DIY room treatments that might have helped address this problem, but I didn't have to resort to trying them. All I had to do was change the cable.

And I think you're illustrating yet another common issue in how interactions on this disintegrate -- by focusing on one aspect of my comment, ignoring the context and the original meaning, and then impugning it to mean something entirely different. My point does not exclude other approaches, but I do make a point on my opinion as to the most effective approach.

Your responses assume that I'm somehow denigrating your approach. No, I'm merely pointing out that for the specific issue that I brought up, the room acoustics are where the solutions need to focus. If you showed some kind of improvement by swapping out the cables, I'm not disputing that. My example is simply an illustration that cables do not address room modes or specific frequency peaks nearly as effectively as parametric equalizers and room treatments do. I've done cable tests and I've experimented with room treatments and parametric equalizers, and to me it's no contest as to which approach is more effective. Your example of swaping out cables to eliminate boominess does not address my assertion as to which approach is more effective because you obviously have not tried the room treatment and equalization approach. As a control measurement, I did a cable swap out when I hooked up my subwoofer. Two different interconnects had zero measureable difference in the levels.

My point is that room acoustic corrections are far more effective than cables in dealing with low frequency boominess issues, and I've made this point countless times on the board. In my room and at my listening position, I have a +14 db peak at 88 Hz, and a +10 db peak at 32 Hz. The only way that a cable can be more effective than the room correction that I've done is if they can directly attenuate that exact amplitude at those exact frequencies and do so with no more than 1/6 octave bandwidth. This is not just theoretical minutae, this is a real world approach that has audible benefits to my everyday listening, and only cost me $100 to implement. If someone wants to state the opposite, then I can and will bring up many points and my own real world listenings that directly contradict that assertion. If pointing this out is somehow a violation of the rules, then this board is in very serious trouble.


I have absolutely no problem with people listening for themselves to any example I give, or any component I comment on, or any cable whose sound I characterize, and coming to entirely different conclusions about how it sounds, or whether it has any sound at all. What I do have a problem with is people getting browbeaten on this board with the suggestion that they don't need to listen to anything for themselves, using the pretense that current scientific understanding says that they don't. I want people to listen to things for themselves, decide about them for themselves, and then feel free to come here and relate their experience. Despite your not so subtle digs, I don't believe I've suggested that any other goal was being pursued.

And that's where I think you've been barking up the wrong tree in this thread. Somehow, you've attributed the browbeating approach and the "read don't listen" approach to something that I'm guilty of. That's the danger of singling out someone as an example, because if you read through any of the countless contributions I've made to this board over the years, you'll find few examples of me harassing people with challenges for proof, and telling them that they don't need to listen. My posts to this thread certainly don't support the BS that you're purportedly trying to minimize through your approach to board moderation, although it seems that you've somehow read into the posts enough to make that presumption. You've obviously taken issue with a specific type of interaction on this board, but trying to pin the ills of this board to how I've addressed things on this thread frankly shows more of a soapbox rant on your part than anything constructive related to how I've conducted myself.

Quagmire
08-27-2004, 12:37 AM
"...if you read through any of the countless contributions I've made to this board over the years, you'll find few examples of me harassing people with challenges for proof, and telling them that they don't need to listen."

Amen. That's the reason I chose to use you as an example earlier in this thread. I've been around long enough to know that what you say in the above sentence is true. It's in the history; which is a point I made very early on in this debate over the most recent changes to the forum; but at that time I was pointing to the historical record to establish the practice by some to engage in harassment and hijacking of threads. Here is an example of how the historical record will exonerate you of these same practices. I'd also like to point out that so far I haven't seen any knee-jerk reaction from the moderator to intervene in the post between you and ToddB. I suspect this is at least partially due to the fact that even though you two disagree about some things, you're not being "disagreeable" and resorting to personal attacks on one another. Credit you two and the moderator for this example of how self restraint and some common sense can rule the day if given the chance.

Q

ToddB
08-28-2004, 02:48 AM
Where on earth did you snarff that from? :)
Search engines can be very useful. ;)

I really wanted to use this band, but the file is too large:

markw
08-28-2004, 03:41 AM
...eight or so posts from three or four avowed "objectivists", in a thread of over sixty, illustrates the "shear"(now cut that out!) weight that has "dominated" the board?...get real!jimHJJ(...pffft!...)

As usual, that one will scurry into the fray, kick someone in the side and then run away.

This soon will be like that other site, where never is heard a disagreeing word... A voice of disagreement is seen as blasphemy.

Yep, some want another cable asylum, replete with the moderator's tacit support of selective gang banging. Wonder how long it will take? Bets anyone?

ToddB
08-28-2004, 03:50 AM
illustrate quite nicely how the sheer weight of the naysayers has dominated the board. It's the same dogpile tactic so often used to stifle the yeasayer here. You have my thanks and support. Good job! - Bill L.
Well, this thread is nothing in comparison to some in the past. All of the moderators are trying to restore some semblance of sanity to this board, so it's nice to know that our efforts are appreciated. Thank you.

hifitommy
08-28-2004, 08:31 AM
we all stray from the rules now and again, someone needs to remind us of them.

markw
08-28-2004, 09:20 AM
Well, this thread is nothing in comparison to some in the past. All of the moderators are trying to restore some semblance of sanity to this board, so it's nice to know that our efforts are appreciated. Thank you.We'll see how even handedly it's applied in here. So far, it seems that it's permissable for the yeasayers to gang bang any that mightr disagree.

Somehow, I'm not getting my hopes up.

Anyone for audioholics or audiokarma where science and reason are the guide and opinions are only that?

E-Stat
08-28-2004, 12:08 PM
Anyone for audioholics or audiokarma where science and reason are the guide and opinions are only that?
Great source for HT receiver reviews.

rw

ToddB
08-29-2004, 11:53 PM
And I think you're illustrating yet another common issue in how interactions on this disintegrate -- by focusing on one aspect of my comment, ignoring the context and the original meaning, and then impugning it to mean something entirely different. If you have a problem with my taking issue with your subtle insults, even when they occur in the midst of a larger truism, then stop making the subtle insults. It's pretty easy to do.


Your responses assume that I'm somehow denigrating your approach. You made the comments, you get to live with them.


No, I'm merely pointing out that for the specific issue that I brought up, the room acoustics are where the solutions need to focus. This is your OPINION. I gave you a specific example that differed from your opinion, and yet solved the problem. People are going to have different experiences that lead them to have different opinions. GET OVER IT.


...ad nauseum opinions about boominess... You're really not getting this, are you? I took advantage of your raising the point about boominess to illustrate the general principle of how there will more than likely be differing opinions about every subject that gets brought up here, and that everyone should be able to express their opinion and experience without getting belittled for it. I'm not interested in having a navel-gazingly specific discourse with you about the subject of boominess in this thread, because the subject of boominess is not the point, the principle of people being allowed to relate their experience is the point. If you weren't so busy trying to find things to argue about, you might have realized that.


Your example of swaping out cables to eliminate boominess does not address my assertion as to which approach is more effective because you obviously have not tried the room treatment and equalization approach. So what? Since my $27 cable got rid of the boominess, there was no need to try any other approach. If you think that there are $27 worth of room treatments (and now apparently also equalizers) that would work better, well, good for you.


And that's where I think you've been barking up the wrong tree in this thread. Somehow, you've attributed the browbeating approach and the "read don't listen" approach to something that I'm guilty of. That's the danger of singling out someone as an example, because if you read through any of the countless contributions I've made to this board over the years, you'll find few examples of me harassing people with challenges for proof, and telling them that they don't need to listen. I explained why I singled you out. Try reading the explanation again, and this time try to read what I actually wrote. Also, I read plenty of your posts when I was looking for moderator candidates, and I'm well aware of what you've said in the past.


My posts to this thread certainly don't support the BS that you're purportedly trying to minimize through your approach to board moderation... We've already been over this, and no matter how many times you say it, I'm not going to agree with you.


You've obviously taken issue with a specific type of interaction on this board, but trying to pin the ills of this board to how I've addressed things on this thread frankly shows more of a soapbox rant on your part than anything constructive related to how I've conducted myself. The problem is that you don't seem to be content with giving your side of an issue, without also being allowed to insult sides that disagree with you. Like I said, it's pretty easy to avoid doing this.

Norm Strong
08-30-2004, 11:41 AM
"You're really not getting this, are you? I took advantage of your raising the point about boominess to illustrate the general principle of how there will more than likely be differing opinions about every subject that gets brought up here, and that everyone should be able to express their opinion and experience without getting belittled for it. I'm not interested in having a navel-gazingly specific discourse with you about the subject of boominess in this thread, because the subject of boominess is not the point, the principle of people being allowed to relate their experience is the point. If you weren't so busy trying to find things to argue about, you might have realized that."

I'm sorry, but anyone that posts an opinion in this forum--or any other forum--must be prepared for belittlement. It's the nature of the internet. Outright vicious personal attacks are also routine. If my skin was so thin that I couldn't bear up under such attacks, I wouldn't post here in the first place.

Woochifer
08-30-2004, 03:39 PM
If you have a problem with my taking issue with your subtle insults, even when they occur in the midst of a larger truism, then stop making the subtle insults. It's pretty easy to do.

You made the comments, you get to live with them.

Subtle insults? You're the one that's been making some rather long presumptions and trying to use my posts as examples of larger problems on this board, even ones that are completely unrelated to what I've posted on this thread and maladies that are far from how I interact on this board. Building someone up as a straw man is a not-so-subtle insult in its own right, so if you want to set yourself up as an example of what's right on this board and how we ought to conduct ourselves, then maybe you should try a more diplomatic and constructive approach next time.


This is your OPINION. I gave you a specific example that differed from your opinion, and yet solved the problem. People are going to have different experiences that lead them to have different opinions. GET OVER IT.

And I'm simply pointing out how your example does not suddenly contradict the point that I had made. People can and do have their opinions, and I have mine and I will give them.


You're really not getting this, are you? I took advantage of your raising the point about boominess to illustrate the general principle of how there will more than likely be differing opinions about every subject that gets brought up here, and that everyone should be able to express their opinion and experience without getting belittled for it. I'm not interested in having a navel-gazingly specific discourse with you about the subject of boominess in this thread, because the subject of boominess is not the point, the principle of people being allowed to relate their experience is the point. If you weren't so busy trying to find things to argue about, you might have realized that.

And I don't think that you understand that the point that you brought up is unrelated to my example. You wonder how threads spin out of control? Misinterpreting and/or deliberately spinning a subject to one's particular bias, without addressing the main point is a pretty common way that it happens. It would be like me saying that a whale is bigger than a dog, and someone responding that a dog is big. What they say might be true in their view, but it doesn't address the main point, and I don't think it would be an insult to point out that saying a dog is big says nothing about how it compares to the whale.

Nowhere did I belittle your example or insult you for bringing it up, so I don't see how my response would be out of line in a normal discussion. I used the cable/room acoustics example because IMO the magnitude of difference between the two approaches is not even close -- whether you're talking about listening or measuring. Pointing that out and supporting my perspective with listenings, articles, and measurements does not equate to an insult or uncivil behavior. If someone has tried and understands both approaches and says that cables work better, then I don't take issue with that. But, if someone wants to just respond that room acoustics don't matter and only cables do, and their opinion was formed without having tried the room acoustic correction approach, how does that help the discussion, and why should I not point out that rather important omission? If not for people on this board like Doc Greene and Terrence pointing out how and why correlations between the acoustical science and real world listening observations far outweigh whatever can typically be discerned through cable swaps, I very well might have never tried the room correction approaches. I put their suggestions to the test, they were right, and it made for a better overall sounding system. They pointed out the flaws in the cable arguments in comparison to the room acoustics, I did my own tests, and they were right. If this board is to serve as a useful resource, that kind of exchange should not be omitted and stifled.


So what? Since my $27 cable got rid of the boominess, there was no need to try any other approach. If you think that there are $27 worth of room treatments (and now apparently also equalizers) that would work better, well, good for you.

Equalizers are a form of room correction, along with the other treatments like bass traps and acoustic panels. I used my example because I've tried both approaches and read articles on this subject and am familiar with the basic science of how low frequency waves interact with rooms. Your response only reflects the cable half of the discussion, and it would not constitute an affront or an insult for me to point this out, since the room corrections are what I suggest as having the greatest causal effect and your response does not account for that.


The problem is that you don't seem to be content with giving your side of an issue, without also being allowed to insult sides that disagree with you. Like I said, it's pretty easy to avoid doing this.

I don't see how you equate disagreement, bringing up some very basic science, and bringing my own experiences into the discussion to an insult. If I feel that someone's observations don't account for alternate causal variables, why shouldn't I be able to point that out if I'm not resorting to belittling language and personal insults?

ToddB
08-31-2004, 12:18 AM
I'm sorry, but anyone that posts an opinion in this forum--or any other forum--must be prepared for belittlement. It's the nature of the internet. Outright vicious personal attacks are also routine. If my skin was so thin that I couldn't bear up under such attacks, I wouldn't post here in the first place.
That's certainly one philosophy. AR has decided to go with another.

ToddB
08-31-2004, 12:28 AM
...more of the same...Well, this is getting nowhere, and I'm tired of trying to connect the dots for you. The posting policy is up, and if a moderator decides that you've violated the policy, you'll hear about it, whether or not you agree with their decision.

FLZapped
08-31-2004, 07:34 AM
.....


I'll go any damned place I please.

-Bruce