Hi Everybody!!

[WmAx]

My feeling is that if this topic were so important and interesting to a select few then they should have their own dedicated board where they can argue these points to infinity. I agree with you... it's very likely that few people would post in this "special" forum, but doesn't that say something to you? I think the point could be made that if these topics have not enough interest and energy to stand on their own then they should not be allowed free reign to permeate the other boards.

It appears taht these assertions could be confusing popularity with objectivity, in smoe sense. Because something is or is not popular, has no bearing on the correctness of such. However, it probably does have alot to do with basic ratings -- since this does correlate with popularity. But you did clearly state this was your 'feelings'. And if the point is ratings, then again, your feelings of what should be done may very well increase the ratings.

If this is an admitedly limited viewpoint from a select few then why should it be allowed to monopolize and become the central issue of the boards - which is what I believe happened and why so many were turned off and eventually left

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

What I have really always been calling for is BALANCE which I had hoped could come from voluntary self restraint and failing that, some limited but effective intervention from management. Sadly, neither happened.

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

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

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

Sounds very reasonable to me. If everyone who came here were as sensible as you this probably wouldn't have become a problem. To me, Eric sound levelheaded too

Well, except the part about possibly creating a special forum for objectivity --- but his primary motivation as I suggested in my first reply -- maybe purely site hits. He has not yet stated his primary motivation that I have noticed.

-Chris

[Quagmire]

Chris,

You said...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q

[WmAx]

No, I wouldn't call it popularity, I would call it enjoyability.

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

As I said before, this is suppose to be a hobbyist forum and as such, people should be able to come here and enjoy posting without feeling that they are being harassed by those who would demand "scientific verification" as though they had offered up the latest scientific theory when all they had really done was answer someones question based on their experience.

Tyically, when someone clearly states it's their opinion or perception of how something sounds, that they will not be harrassed. I certainly would not contend this opinion and require evidence. I don't care about opinions. When such opinion is stated as fact when it is not established as such it is challenged -- as it should be -- especially when this opinion is offered to someone as fact when they inquire about something.

That doesn't mean that all objectivity goes out the door, and it also doesn't mean that you guys have a corner on objectivity either. Not every opinion offered up by those outside of your camp is "smoke and mirror" or "snake oil".

So, how do you have a policy that prevents challenge of claims, but retain 'objectivity'? Don't refer to 'that dedicated forum' again -- that is just a method to remove objectivity from the rest of the forum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

. For those who are extremely interested in white papers and quoting citations, I see room on this forum for those debates to take place, but it may well be that those debates should be confined to a dedicated board rather than spilling over onto all of the other boards.

Please be clear. Your use of the word 'may' is not definitive here. Do you think such issues(as in the simulation above) should be isolated only to the 'special' forum?

You can't remove what you don't have.

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

For those who really want to get into the yeasayer naysayer debates... have at 'er. You will have all the room you want on that board. That doesn't mean that all objectivity is lost on the other boards just because this argument moved elsewhere

By basic logic -- if you prohibit challenging of claims in an area -- that area will run rampant with all sorts of claims(and no way to challenge their worth).

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

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

-Chris

[Quagmire]

Chris,

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

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

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

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

"I don't care about opinions."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q

[WmAx]

Not the same thing and not what you were implying: The goal as far as I'm concerned as a participant is that the forum be enjoyable and informative.

but as I've pointed out the enjoyability and objectivity of the forum don't have to be at odds with one another.

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

Anecdotal information has little value or place in a lab setting, but once again, this isn't a lab. However, anecdotal information is appropriate on a hobbyist board and need not be subjected to the rigors of scientific testing, scrutiny, or verification.

I don't see anyone trying to turn this into a 'lab', this is seemingly a phrase used to exaggerate the situation. But, when a hobbyist comes hear and asks for what is relevant to performance, etc.; why should he only hear one side of the coin? So, then enters the person challenging the person claiming this unsupported claim to demonstrate that the claim has not basis in logic.

That doesn't mean that there isn't some level of objectivity, as experienced audio enthusiasts can always step forward and say, "I think statement "X" is BS and here is why".

Ah, but this leads to an explanatin as to why, which leads into coverseation about stuff like DBT, etc...

is blunt, and I don't mean to be rude, but... if you don't care about opinions then don't bother expressing any either. Please respect the fact that others do care about opinions and that is a major factor in why people come here.

That's not my issue. I don't normally argue with opinions, I argue with claims made as facts. Though, it's rare that I share opinions, sometimes I do and they are carefully stated as such.

Yes I do, and I'll tell you why. It is obvious that entity X asked the question rhetorically. He doesn't believe entity A's "claim" and only asked the question so that he can proceed with his next paragraph which of course is just the jumping off point for the debate to ensue. This is only a more polite way of saying, "You made a testable claim -- now prove it.".

Entity X is challenging Entity A because he is mistaken that hearing a difference is all their is too the situation. X is only trying to inform A of this and at teh same time help Bob realize this, too, instead of possibly bein persuaded to waste $$$ on nothing more then placebo.

I wouldn't mind if entity X came straight out and said, "Bob and entity A, if you're interested...[their is no valid reason that I am aware that the LCR parameters would be signficantly different to an audible effect, in this configuration, which closely resembles the configuration of the standard 12AWG cable you wre using before. etc...]

But that would seem more like an usupported opinion. When in fact, X can be more informative and provide the basic requirements to determine actual audbility differences.

If the intent is merely to bait others into this same old agrument, then yes, I think this might be an appropriate outlet for that debate to take place.

You can't know what the intent is -- where is the evidence that 'everyone' that requires verification of claims is just looking for a debate? Actually, the underlying intent for me, is to save Bob's money from being blown on things that have no substantiable evidence supporting them as being effective.

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

I've used the term "dedicated" board in the same sence that we have other dedicated boards on the forum like the "Rave Recordings" board or the "Home Theater" board that relate to topics of specific interests.

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

As far as entity A spreading his opinion, that is part of what the forum is for.

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

And I would suggest that at least some of what you believe to be fact is merely what is currently supported or not refuted by the data at hand but that could change at some point.

This is irrevelant, and a baisc misunderstanding of the scientific principle. The issue is that all information to be conveyed as fact must be substantiated. This is to prevent the spread of misinformation. What is probable is different from what is possible.

-Chris

[Steve1000]

The fact that anything is possible is no excuse for thinking foolishly.

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

[Quagmire]

Chris,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q

[ericl]

Quagmire,

You sum up my position perfectly.

-Eric

[WmAx]

Chris,

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

That's okay, I realize the internet is not a primary priority. Before I begin, let me thank you for taking the time to reply: Thank you.

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

I'm not fully aware of your perspective. I am discussing objective viewpoint, itself, not some allocated groups. Because anamolies may occur in any one group, with varying ratio of subjective : objective proportions to any given person. But, I am discussing an objective viewpoint itself.

When a select group tries to hold the rest of the forum to a standard that only objective information has any value; that anecdotal information lacks any validity or logic, then I say they are trying to change the nature of this hobbyist board.

I can't comment on this, specifically, because the very 'nature' of this board is another debate in itself. I should make it clear I am not giving any weighting to a specific 'nature' of the board, but only the principles of value of information that are discussed.

You mention that it is okay for folks to express an opinion so long as they qualify their statement as being opinion. I say that because this is a hobbyist board, no such qualification is necessary.

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

pplying that same standard to a hobbyist board is unwarranted and unwelcomed.

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

That is your assumption. This just verifies what I said in my previous post; that entity X asked his question rhetorically and for the purpose of introducing the same old themes that have been heard over and over. He never believed entity A had any legitimate point of view to share, even though he asked the question as though he did.

Not true, their are some cable/amp/speaker combinations that can result in audibly different performance by way of the LCR parameters. It coudl have been tht A had chagned the parmaters to result in a difference that was within known human JNDs.

he only seeks a platform from which to preach his own beliefs regarding audibility issue and is using entity A's thread to do so. If that's what entity X really wants then let him start his own thread dedicated to this subject. Then it won't be necessary to hijack someone elses thread.

The point was not to hijack the thread, but to inform A of the proper evalution procedure(s) to confirm true audible differences.

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

Yes, but you removed the rest of it was very importnat. That was what I meant. The rest of the statement informed of varoius methods and why certain methods of evaluation are not reliable.

It's in the history. Not difficult to find if one is able to go back through all of the various evolutions of this forum.

You may have a point, statistically speaking. :-)

Bob's a big boy and is responsible for himself. Your assumption is that Bob is too stupid to decide for himself how best to spend his money.

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

Also, if Bob came here he might very well be looking for the kind of subjective anecdotal information that is specific to these boards and he might value entity A's personal experience, even if you do not

Very true! If this was apparent, I woud not even bother talking too Bob, unless he in turn was propgating opions as fact to others...

Bob is also free to seek out other more objective sources of information elsewhere as part of his overall decision making process if he is so inclined.

Really? The majority of reviews and forums dedicated to the subject are already primarily based on un-controlled sighted testing(the most unrelilable method, psychologically). This is(or was) one of the last big forums that was primarily objective.

It is a falacy of yours to assume that all who come here believe this to be an iron clad source of totally objective information. Any reasonable person would know better than that.

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

Neither is "subjectivity". As I've spoken previously, you and your group are not the sole proprietors of objectivity on this forum and as such are not the only ones applying this principle -- even though you would assume that you are.

Again, I don't really like the idea of trying to seperate this into groups, when it's a principle you are talking about. Objectivity is objecitivity. If you deonstrate it, y ou are objective. HOw can you not be objective if y ou are objective?

that is why so often, the original poster is forgotten in the hijacked thread; sadly the importance of his or her question pales in comparison to the importance placed on these hotly debated issues.

I am 'for' regulating a thread for to keep it on topic or at least a very relevant tangent to that topic. I outlined this is the first reply to you, I beleive.

The conclussion that entity A came to was obviously based on his experience, relating a subjective method and were clearly presented as a subjective evaluation

I addressed this in [1]

So my point is (and I've made it before) that entity A shouldn't have to qualify his statements as opinion when they most obviously are AND he his presenting them here, on a hobbyist board where the exchange of such information is expected.

From what you say, it appears you want a comfortable board that is for the most part, void of the pressures of heaviily objectified discussion. I understand the desire to have a specific type of environment, as I addressed in my first reply to you. However, this is not something that can be debated, I believe. It's either one kind of place or another kind of place -- certain people like a certain type of place. Primarily objective or primarily subjective. You know which side my vote goes to...

That is your preconception having never heard his speakers or his cables --

Do you believe I would nescarrily believe something that I heard in uncontrolled conditions? NO, I hold myself to the same rigorous standards.

also that he is "ignorant" -- a nice touch on your part which should go a long way towards promoting civility.

It was an accurate use of the word in that case. If he believes he can determine an audible differnce that is real based on only sighted testing, that is ignorant. It's not an insult, it's a proper use of the word per webster.

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

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

-Chris

[E-Stat]

Chris,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q

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

rw