Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 70 of 70

Thread: Hi Everybody!!

  1. #51
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve1000
    People who truly understand audio will not be overcome with joy by your arrival, I assure you.
    Would you be so kind as to define your perspective of those "who truly understand audio"?

    rw

  2. #52
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    16
    Ah, the joys of censorship.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Would you be so kind as to define your perspective of those "who truly understand audio"?

    rw
    Last edited by Steve1000; 08-17-2004 at 07:15 AM.

  3. #53
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    515
    Censorship? No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Attack the ideas, thoughts, and opinions all you want for they are fair game. The person, OTOH, should rightfully be off limits.
    Last edited by Bryan; 08-17-2004 at 08:45 AM.

  4. #54
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Quagmire
    Chris,

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

    -Chris

  5. #55
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve1000
    Maybe when the new forum for those who "think that there is no difference between different types of cables" is set up, we can have a discussion in that special little place.
    I'll tell you what. You understand audio. I understand how musical reproduction is affected by audio in varying ways. Happy?

    rw

  6. #56
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    So then you understand...

    ...that ANYTHING that has any effect on audio reproduction is a distortion of the original signal and is open to debate, scrutiny and further examination/dissection?

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

  7. #57
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    [QUOTE=Resident Loser If you intend to police the area and remove ANYTHING that ANYONE feels is an insult, you're sure gonna' be one busy little boy...QUOTE]

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

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

  8. #58
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    223
    Fair enough Chris. I did have a couple of thoughts to sort of cap off my comments. From my perspective, when one begins talking about "objectivist" and "subjectivist" it is important to distinguish that these are people; not the abstract principles of objectivity and subjectivity themselves. The objectivist is a person who believes in and espouses an objective point of view while the subjectivist is a person who believes in and espouses a subjective point of view. Having an objectivist -vs- subjectivist type of board doesn't mean the removal of these principles from the other boards, it only provides a setting for those who wish to have that specific debate on the merits of their respective points of view. I do not see it as banishment of one particular group of people or as censorship. Remember it takes two opposing sides to have a debate so if these principles are going to be debated, the subjectivist are going to have to go there too. For instance: Using the hypthetical post you began earlier; entity X might respond to entity A as he initially did with a question, followed up with the same explanation of why there is no scientifically valid reason that the new cables should sound any different than the original zip cable did, BUT then close with an invitation such as, "...if you'd like to learn more about the science and this point of view, you might want to join us on the "obj/sub" board. This would allow you to express yourself, exposing him to the objectivist point of view, yet keep the thread in some kind of order. LIkewise, if a thread really did get hijacked it would allow the moderator to step in and say, "okay guys, why don't you take this argument to the "obj/sub" board". I really don't think this has to be as bad as people are making it out to be. Like I said in earlier posts, I think part of what is going on now relates to just how much authority the moderator will need to exercise, but a large part of that is the up to the members themselves. With a little cooperation, this could be a positive thing and I think the members have more to do with that than the moderator does. I realize that you may not care to hear this stuff with what has transpired, but I just thought I'd put it out there for you to consider. Thanks again.

    Q

  9. #59
    Veg-O-Matic ToddB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    I personally take strong offense at the use of the characterization of we objectivists(BTW, that's the proper term) as a group who are "...afflicted with Objective-Compulsive Disorder..."...I find it off-putting, demeaning and generally insulting...
    Well I think it was funny, and I KNOW it's an accurate characterization of the past behavior of many naysayers on this board.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    P.S. Don't let the join date fool ya', I go back to the days of Norb as do many of us.
    As do I. The current fad of fond rememberence for Norb's moderating ability is some creative reframing, indeed.
    "Reality supercedes science."
    -- badman, 9/3/02, AudioAsylum.com

  10. #60
    Veg-O-Matic ToddB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    ...that ANYTHING that has any effect on audio reproduction is a distortion of the original signal and is open to debate, scrutiny and further examination/dissection?
    You are including some actual listening somewhere in this rigorous evaluation, correct?

    LOL.
    "Reality supercedes science."
    -- badman, 9/3/02, AudioAsylum.com

  11. #61
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    223
    Resident Loser said...

    "...that ANYTHING that has any effect on audio reproduction is a distortion of the original signal and is open to debate, scrutiny and further examination/dissection?"

    He has taken the discussion away from the debate over the changes and nature of the forum and towards the specific debate for the objective examination of differences in audio reproduction; which he describes as distortion. The only key point that I think he missed is whether such differences, assuming that they do exist, are audible.

    ToddB responded by saying...

    "You are including some actual listening somewhere in this rigorous evaluation, correct?"

    As far as I'm concerned, they've just entered into the classic argument which we sometimes refer to as the "objectivist -vs- subjectivist" or "naysayer -vs- yeasayer" debate. Now I don't say that they shouldn't have this discussion, just the opposite: I would like to see them argue this point if that's what they wish to do. If you see how easily they slipped into this mode on this thread, perhaps unintentionally even, then you can't tell me there is not ample material for discussion to justify having a board dedicated to this topic.

    So I ask all of you members, respectfully and sincerely, where is the big rub in asking them to have this debate on the newly created "Science Lab" board instead? What difference does it make that the name of the board is "Science Lab" instead of "General Forum" except that the discussion they want to have would be less of a disruption if it took place on the board which is intended to cater to this very debate? The only other qualifier or constraint is that they have this debate in a reasonably civil manner -- not resorting to personal attacks. That these two posts are somewhat off topic to the rest of the discussion which was taking place here is no big deal. They are only two of over fifty threads. But anyone who is being honest, knows that this classic debate can often, has often, completely overrun a thread -- what I call hijacking a thread or what WmAx calls threadjacking. (I like his term better. Hope you don't mind that I borrowed it Chris?)

    The old adage rings true... "Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it." I find it very ironic that the group of people who have demonstrated the greatest desire to have this debate have raised such a vocal protest to finally being given a legitimate platform from which to do so. I didn't bring it up before, but I was a little disturbed in Skeptic's reply to me on this thread, that he took such pride in his achievement of running Jon Risch off of this forum. Is that really the goal? To aleinate people from this forum? To have only one side of an argument heard? I thought that was the objection to censorship which was so vehemently decried before. Skep shouldn't want Jon gone; he should want Jon back here so that he can take him on issue by issue. After all, who better than Jon to represent the most "left wing" element of the subjectivist camp? Jon is the perfect embodiment of those subjective ideals which Skep can contrast against his own -- to help make his most effective case for the merits of the objectivist's point of view. By the way, I hadn't brought it up yet, but for the record I am sorry to see Skeptic go. I realize that I'm opening myself up for a lot of criticism, but this is honestly my point of view and before we see yet another mass exodus, I ask that you at least consider what I have to say. Thank you.

    Q

  12. #62
    Veg-O-Matic ToddB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    222
    Quagmire, please don't cross post anymore. I understand why you did it, but because you did it, I've had to reply to you over here: http://forums.audioreview.com/showth...7333#post47333 instead of in this thread, which is going to make this thread incomplete. I appreciate your participation in this thread, and the sincerity of your question, but please consider how easy it would be for a thread to become garbled through not maintaining it's continuity.
    "Reality supercedes science."
    -- badman, 9/3/02, AudioAsylum.com

  13. #63
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Ah, soundbites, soundbites...

    ...what have they wrought...a populace who hasn't a clue as to conceptual continuity...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  14. #64
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Quagmire


    So I ask all of you members, respectfully and sincerely, where is the big rub in asking them to have this debate on the newly created "Science Lab" board instead? What difference does it make that the name of the board is "Science Lab" instead of "General Forum" except that the discussion they want to have would be less of a disruption if it took place on the board which is intended to cater to this very debate?
    Q
    The rub is that Todd will not be posting on the Science Lab board. Resident Loser will. They won't be interacting. Todd (and please excuse my use of names as I'm speaking in generalities rather than dictating to these particular two) will be among those with like minds. RL will be FORCED to be among those with like minds or be forced to change his presentation. Do you see? It's a form of segregation. Without the give and take of actual disagreements within the same board or thread, the topic has little meaning except for those that are already convinced.

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

  15. #65
    Forum Regular Mwalsdor_cscc_edu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Columbus
    Posts
    106
    While I haven't spent much time of late on these forums I'm no stranger to the discussion or the regulars [present and former] who frequent AR [hello Dan, Jim]. While I agree with aspects of some points made my thoughts on this subject [need for moderation] parallel those most closely of Quagmire.


    MikE

  16. #66
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    223
    RL,

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

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

    "They are only two of over fifty threads. But anyone who is being honest, knows that this classic debate can often, has often, completely overrun a thread -- what I call hijacking a thread..."

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

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

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

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

    Q

  17. #67
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462

    Moi?

    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    ... the quote you have taken issue with is not a "highjacking", it is a questioning response to E-stat ...
    You faked me out, RL. While I don't object to others answering a question directed specifically to someone else, I didn't realize you were responding to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    ...that ANYTHING that has any effect on audio reproduction is a distortion of the original signal and is open to debate, scrutiny and further examination/dissection?
    Sure. Where I believe we differ is that I have found no compelling evidence to accept the supposition that today's current suite of measurements fully characterizes all such audible alterations to the signal including time and phase errors. Why do well recorded voices extend out in my listening room with my VTL amps and not as much so with my Threshold Stasis? The published specifications of those units would lead some to concluding the reverse.

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

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

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

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

    rw
    Last edited by E-Stat; 08-18-2004 at 08:19 AM.

  18. #68
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Explain then ..

    The direct accusation:

    "He has taken the discussion away from the debate over the changes and nature of the forum and towards the specific debate for the objective examination of differences in audio reproduction..."

    Your opinion:

    "As far as I'm concerned, they've just entered into the classic argument which we sometimes refer to as the "objectivist -vs- subjectivist" or "naysayer -vs- yeasayer" debate. Now I don't say that they shouldn't have this discussion, just the opposite: I would like to see them argue this point if that's what they wish to do. If you see how easily they slipped into this mode on this thread, perhaps unintentionally even, then you can't tell me there is not ample material for discussion to justify having a board dedicated to this topic..."

    Your conclusion:

    "But anyone who is being honest, knows that this classic debate can often, has often, completely overrun a thread -- what I call hijacking a thread"

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

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

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

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

  19. #69
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Well (in an attempt at specificity)E-Stat...

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

    Question is, will anyone take issue with it?

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

  20. #70
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    ...all I can say is, you are now guilty of being complicit in a "highjacking" by addressing an issue in a thread not related to the subject matter...it is verboten...take it outside...shame on you, bad boy...
    Guilty as charged. If you wish a follow up to my post (and some edits), then by all means open a new thread. I'll respond.

    rw

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

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
  •