Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 70

Thread: Hi Everybody!!

  1. #26
    nerd ericl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    908
    Hi Skeptic,

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

    -Eric

  2. #27
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    223
    Chris,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Q

  3. #28
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188

    Skeptic's final posting on AR

    After thousands of postings under the moniker "Skeptic" and under the moniker "itellitlikeitis" under the old blue letter format, this will be my last posting on the AR message board.

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

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

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

    Goodbye

    Skeptic

  4. #29
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    223
    Skeptic,

    You said...

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

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

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

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

    Q

  5. #30
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Quagmire

    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

  6. #31
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    and under the moniker "itellitlikeitis" under the old blue letter format,
    Hmmm... I remember him! Didn't know that was you.

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

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

  7. #32
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    223
    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

  8. #33
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    101

    Hi Tinhere

    Quote Originally Posted by TinHere
    Hi Eric,

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

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

  9. #34
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    236
    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

  10. #35
    Forum Regular TinHere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    L.I., NY
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by brulaha
    Hmmmm...I recognize that name from somewhere. Where could it be??? Possibly a CD exchange group of some kind? How are you buddy? I have been paroosing here for about a month again...good to see your still around.
    Hey Brulaha! Good to see ya. Shoot me a PM and let me know what's doing with ya.
    TinHere

    Enjoying a virtual life.

  11. #36
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    223
    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

  12. #37
    Veg-O-Matic ToddB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    222
    Things definitely look encouraging at AR. With a new moderator who's intent on implementing some very constructive changes, and the support of management to make those changes, the future of this board seems to be more promising than it's been for a very long time.

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

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

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

  13. #38
    Forum Regular 46minaudio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    290

    The good news is>>>

    I can now go in the cable bussiness..Maybe even start selling those green markers that make cds sound better..

  14. #39
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Quagmire

    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

  15. #40
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    16
    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).
    Last edited by Steve1000; 08-16-2004 at 09:36 AM.

  16. #41
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddB
    The reason changes need to be made in the forums is because the tone here long ago devolved into a state that is short-sighted, antagonistic, and destructive, and it happened primarily because the naysayers have been allowed virtually unchecked freedom to harass people who make comments of an anecdotal or experiential nature. The thing is, those anecdotal and experiential comments are exactly what should be posted here. It's been a real shame to watch most of the people making such comments drift away to other websites when they got tired of the endless invective that was directed at them. When people can't take home a new component, or make a new cable, or try a new product, and come here and share the experience of how that item sounded to them, without having to risk incurring the wrath of a gang of pseudo-scientists for whom no listening experience outside of a DBT is valid, then there's a problem. AR definitely has a very big problem.

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

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

    rw

  17. #42
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    223
    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

  18. #43
    nerd ericl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    908
    Quagmire,

    You sum up my position perfectly.

    -Eric

  19. #44
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    223
    Thanks Eric and once again, welcome.

    Q

  20. #45
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Quagmire
    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

  21. #46
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    Usually I find no need to quote an entire post. This is a notable exception. Very well written.

    rw

  22. #47
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    223
    Chris,

    You said...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Poor Bob.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Q

  23. #48
    Veg-O-Matic ToddB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Amen. I think there is a place for both.
    In theory I would tend to agree, but a lengthy history of harassment is quite justifiably forcing the decision to the other extreme. If the naysayers end up not liking the solution that's imposed upon them, they'll have no one but themselves to blame for it.

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

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

  24. #49
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    16
    Eric --

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

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ericl
    HI EVERYBODY!!

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

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

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

  25. #50
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    OK, Eric!

    ...field this one...

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

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

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

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

    P.S. Don't let the join date fool ya', I go back to the days of Norb as do many of us.
    Last edited by Resident Loser; 08-17-2004 at 05:16 AM. Reason: Addendum

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •