Hi Everybody!!

Printable View

  • 08-11-2004, 10:25 AM
    ericl
    Hi Everybody!!
    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! :D

    A brief bit about myself, I'm a twenty-something audio geek with a professional background in tech. I've been a frequent "lurker" on audio boards around the web for many years now - I don't post much but I'm on all the time. Up to now my main interest has been two channel and vinyl, but a new surround system is just around the corner for me. You all know the routine. I'll divulge more details about myself and my system as time passes.

    I've got big plans for the site, and look forward to working with all of you improve the site and make it as cool a place as possible. Now I don't mean to be a downer, but part of those changes will be some new rules about posting, discussion, and how to behave in general. I'm leaning toward a somewhat tough stand on making this a safe place for friendly, subjective discussion about all kinds of audio. There will be a special forum for those of you who wish to discuss lab results, double blind testing, or think that there is no difference between different types of cables or equipment, etc. I also plan on adding some new forums, such as a computer/mp3 audio board, perhaps a forum for vintage equipment. I'd like your input on that.

    To enforce these new rules, we will FINALLY be implementing a real moderator program. We'll get into this more later as well. If you're interested in being a moderator, check out <a href="http://www.audioreview.com/moderatorprogramcrx.aspx">this link</a>, and feel free to apply (if you've already applied, please apply again, as we've lost many of our old applications in the transition).

    There will be other exciting developements, coming soon. I'll be attending the CEDIA expo in September armed with a digital camera and the objective of schmoozing and checking out as much cool new stuff as possible. I'll be report back to you guys with photos and details on all the cool new stuff coming out. I'm looking forward to serving you guys!

    -Eric
  • 08-11-2004, 12:06 PM
    WmAx
    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! :D

    Greetings.

    Quote:

    Now I don't mean to be a downer, but part of those changes will be some new rules about posting, discussion, and how to behave in general. I'm leaning toward a somewhat tough stand on making this a safe place for friendly, subjective discussion about all kinds of audio. There will be a special forum for those of you who wish to discuss lab results, double blind testing, or think that there is no difference between different types of cables or equipment, etc.
    Are you implying something similar to AUdio Ayslum? DIsallowing any challlenge to unsubstantiated claims from people? I certainly hope you don't mean something like that.

    -Chris
  • 08-11-2004, 12:17 PM
    Woochifer
    Welcome to the group! First thing I gotta ask about -- where did the link to the galleries go? If you can clarify that, you'll definitely be on my good side ... well, until the next crisis! :)
  • 08-11-2004, 12:22 PM
    ericl
    Thanks!

    The galleries link is a little hidden, we'll have to find a more prominent place to display it.

    http://gallery.audioreview.com/
    it can be found on the "Community & Events" page.

    -Eric
  • 08-11-2004, 01:39 PM
    pwh03
    yes welcome and good luck

    but I also hope that your new direction isn't to agressive even hometheaterforum.com is a little too restrictive in my opinion. I think most of us are old enough to take the occasional knock on our egos

    thanks
    Ph
  • 08-12-2004, 08:57 AM
    ericl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by WmAx
    Greetings.


    Are you implying something similar to AUdio Ayslum? DIsallowing any challlenge to unsubstantiated claims from people? I certainly hope you don't mean something like that.

    -Chris

    Something like that. But don't worry, you'll have your very own forums. There will be a special forum(s) for "challenging" other people, but otherwise I want to make it a more friendly environment for newcomers, and others who want share experiences and enthusiasm for audio rather than lab results and skepticism. I know some of you may not like it, but I think it will increase and diversify participation on the board.

    Cheers
    Eric
  • 08-12-2004, 09:29 AM
    WmAx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ericl
    Something like that. But don't worry, you'll have your very own forums.

    Yes, I've seen the result of these 'dedicated forums' like Prop Head at AA.

    Quote:

    but otherwise I want to make it a more friendly environment for newcomers, and others who want share experiences and enthusiasm for audio rather than lab results and skepticism. I know some of you may not like it, but I think it will increase and diversify participation on the board.
    I understand what I believe is your motivation. Increase the hits of the site. That is primary concern. Remove the requirment to back up claims as is enforced by many posters here, and you turn this into just another subjectivist watering hole full of fairytales.

    -Chris
  • 08-12-2004, 10:05 AM
    ericl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by WmAx
    Yes, I've seen the result of these 'dedicated forums' like Prop Head at AA.


    I understand what I believe is your motivation. Increase the hits of the site. That is primary concern. Remove the requirment to back up claims as is enforced by many posters here, and you turn this into just another subjectivist watering hole full of fairytales.

    -Chris

    I guess i can infer that you'll be one of the ones who won't like it. ;) Any conversation outside of a science lab can be labeled "subjectivist". I'm perfectly comfortable with a "subjectivist watering hole" as it will be much more friendly to the newcomer and the typical hobbyist, since they're generally not interested in lab measurements and dbx, which seems to stifle good conversation anyway. But I understand that there is a group of people who wish to discuss lab results and dbt, abx etc, and there will be a place for that.

    Eric
  • 08-12-2004, 02:18 PM
    topspeed
    Welcome aboard, Eric.

    I'm looking forward to the board becoming a more interesting place for people to share ideas. There's entirely too much squabbling here, imo.

    Hopefully you can get the board thriving again.

    Good luck.
  • 08-12-2004, 03:06 PM
    JSE
    Hello Eric,

    I think some new fresh ideas and maybe a little shaking up of the boards in general would be a good thing. It's become a little stale around here lately. I pretty much know who will answer what questions and how they will answer. I am sure others can say the same about me. The fact is, we need more people to contribute. This is not to take away from our current members. There are some very good people here who really know what they are talking about and a lot members that myself and others like going back and forth with. We just need more people. Hopefully you can help make that happen. I have really cut back on my participation in recent months and I think a lot of others have as well due to the above mentioned reasons. A little shakin up could be just the thing to spark more interest.

    JSE
  • 08-12-2004, 03:34 PM
    ericl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JSE
    Hello Eric,

    I think some new fresh ideas and maybe a little shaking up of the boards in general would be a good thing. It's become a little stale around here lately. I pretty much know who will answer what questions and how they will answer. I am sure others can say the same about me. The fact is, we need more people to contribute. This is not to take away from our current members. There are some very good people here who really know what they are talking about and a lot members that myself and others like going back and forth with. We just need more people. Hopefully you can help make that happen. I have really cut back on my participation in recent months and I think a lot of others have as well due to the above mentioned reasons. A little shakin up could be just the thing to spark more interest.

    JSE

    I hear what you're saying, JSE. This is why I want to diversify the boards a little.

    I'm still learning the way the site is put together and I'm sort of in a brainstorming phase.
    Like I said I am going to be doing CEDIA Expo and other trade show coverage, and I am considering doing some equipment reviews. Once I've got a better grasp on the construction of the site I'll start making some changes.

    Please let me know if you guys have any other ideas to spruce up the forums and the site in general, I'd love to hear them.

    Thanks,
    Eric
  • 08-12-2004, 06:37 PM
    DMK
    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! :D

    A brief bit about myself, I'm a twenty-something audio geek with a professional background in tech. I've been a frequent "lurker" on audio boards around the web for many years now - I don't post much but I'm on all the time. Up to now my main interest has been two channel and vinyl, but a new surround system is just around the corner for me. You all know the routine. I'll divulge more details about myself and my system as time passes.

    I've got big plans for the site, and look forward to working with all of you improve the site and make it as cool a place as possible. Now I don't mean to be a downer, but part of those changes will be some new rules about posting, discussion, and how to behave in general. I'm leaning toward a somewhat tough stand on making this a safe place for friendly, subjective discussion about all kinds of audio. There will be a special forum for those of you who wish to discuss lab results, double blind testing, or think that there is no difference between different types of cables or equipment, etc. I also plan on adding some new forums, such as a computer/mp3 audio board, perhaps a forum for vintage equipment. I'd like your input on that.

    To enforce these new rules, we will FINALLY be implementing a real moderator program. We'll get into this more later as well. If you're interested in being a moderator, check out <a href="http://www.audioreview.com/moderatorprogramcrx.aspx">this link</a>, and feel free to apply (if you've already applied, please apply again, as we've lost many of our old applications in the transition).

    There will be other exciting developements, coming soon. I'll be attending the CEDIA expo in September armed with a digital camera and the objective of schmoozing and checking out as much cool new stuff as possible. I'll be report back to you guys with photos and details on all the cool new stuff coming out. I'm looking forward to serving you guys!

    -Eric

    Greetings, Eric!

    I can certainly appreciate what you're trying to do by separating the so-called "yeasayers" from the "naysayers". At least, I appreciate it from a business perspective. However, it's quite like separating the democrats and republicans or any two groups of people with differing views. It's doubtful much will be learned without direct interaction of the two groups. While I appreciate what you're trying to do, it doesn't sound like the place for me. Best of luck in your new endeavor.
  • 08-12-2004, 08:56 PM
    Rockwell
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ericl
    I guess i can infer that you'll be one of the ones who won't like it. ;) Any conversation outside of a science lab can be labeled "subjectivist". I'm perfectly comfortable with a "subjectivist watering hole" as it will be much more friendly to the newcomer and the typical hobbyist, since they're generally not interested in lab measurements and dbx, which seems to stifle good conversation anyway. But I understand that there is a group of people who wish to discuss lab results and dbt, abx etc, and there will be a place for that.

    Eric

    How can you determine what a someone will be interested in? Maybe they haven't been exposed to those ideas.
  • 08-12-2004, 11:24 PM
    ericl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DMK
    Greetings, Eric!

    I can certainly appreciate what you're trying to do by separating the so-called "yeasayers" from the "naysayers". At least, I appreciate it from a business perspective. However, it's quite like separating the democrats and republicans or any two groups of people with differing views. It's doubtful much will be learned without direct interaction of the two groups. While I appreciate what you're trying to do, it doesn't sound like the place for me. Best of luck in your new endeavor.

    Hey Guys, I guess I came on a little strong. Sorry about that. We're here to have fun right?!

    I see it like this:

    I recognize that there are at least two "factions" of audio guys with differing views. Thats great. I'm starting to question all of my assumptions the more I get into the debate, and I'm learning a lot. I'm all for the debate, I'm all for the conversation. I really think it is great. Yet even though you guys having opposing views, you have to recognize that you are both quite advanced in this hobby. In fact, you guys are way beyond the advanced stage, and beyond the 'hobby' too. I see you guys, on both sides, as audio philosophers. I want you to have your very own Audio Think Tank (can you tell I'm experimenting with forum names here?).

    The problem is with the many people who don't fall into those categories, or don't care about the debate, the methods, the philosophy, the frequency response charts, or any of that. Newbies, vintage guys, home theater guys, kids, or god forbid, someone who's just interested in MUSIC and wants to get good sound out their collection (remember that? Music!). They walk into this debate and it is pretty intimidating, to say the least, and they walk away confused and still don't know which receiver they should buy!

    I want them to be able to have a "safe space" to discuss the basics without getting dragged into the debate and through the mud. And I promise I don't want to marginalize anybody.

    OK?

    Cheers,
    Eric
  • 08-13-2004, 03:53 AM
    skeptic
    Since you're the new guy here.....
    This board has been a success for the four years I've been coming here BECAUSE it has been open to the discussion which the PARTICIPANTS want to engage in. Within the reasonable bounds of civility, everything has been allowed even if it has strayed from the topic of a particular category. If a discussion goes in an unusual direction, the people who post here take it where it is going and those not interested in it move on.

    "Now I don't mean to be a downer, but part of those changes will be some new rules about posting, discussion, and how to behave in general. I'm leaning toward a somewhat tough stand on making this a safe place for friendly, subjective discussion about all kinds of audio. There will be a special forum for those of you who wish to discuss lab results, double blind testing, or think that there is no difference between different types of cables or equipment, etc"

    Any attempt to censor the discussions here whether because they stray off topic, or they violate some mind control rule arbitrarily imposed such as the anti DBT rule at Cable Asylum, or they put certain advertisers here in a less than flattering light and I'm out of here in a heartbeat. I'm sure half the people who regularly post here feel the same way. This is exactly how we started out when Chris became the moderator and he caught on quickly. I'm not interested in being part of an advertising billboard boosting any companies or cottage industries such as the audiophile cable industry.

    "To enforce these new rules, we will FINALLY be implementing a real moderator program."

    We've always had a real moderator. He did his job with a minimum of interference. That's how most of us like it. If you're a moderator, then restrict your activities to moderating, not censoring. You can be a participant if you like but your claims and statements may be discussed and challenged just like anyone elses including by people with more knowledge and experience than you have. That's the way it's always been around here. If you want to become a dictator, I'm out the door in one step. Nobody tells me what I can say or can't say as long as I remain civil and show reasonable respect for other people posting here. And if I choose to call someone who moderates on another board a Nazi mind control dictator as I have in the past, that had better be OK too. BTW, if your posting means that some of this place is to be dumbed down, I'm outta here too.

    For now I will suspend judgement to wait and see what develops.
  • 08-13-2004, 08:05 AM
    Resident Loser
    Definitely not into...
    ...some form of "AA Light"...

    I think you will see the only inhabitants @ this site who would like to have free dialog curtailed in some way, are those who have such a shaky belief system that it will not stand up to scrutiny...

    Newbies can ask all the questions they choose to...there are those among us who have such a high opinion of themselves, they toss out recommendations(very many high-ticket ones to boot) based on lord-knows-what, in an effort to impress the impressionable; based on the misplaced "philosophy" that throwing money at a "problem"(real OR imagined) is the answer to all. As long as that kind of response is tolerated, there MUST be counterpoint to it. Any segregation of a dialoge in response to such posts, only re-inforces the mythology that surrounds the audio community.

    Anyone with half a brain can manage to sift through it all and get some sort of feel for what is real and what isn't, it ain't rocket science!

    jimHJJ(...like Skep, I too will reserve judgement...)
  • 08-13-2004, 01:42 PM
    DMK
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ericl
    Hey Guys, I guess I came on a little strong. Sorry about that. We're here to have fun right?!

    I see it like this:

    I recognize that there are at least two "factions" of audio guys with differing views. Thats great. I'm starting to question all of my assumptions the more I get into the debate, and I'm learning a lot. I'm all for the debate, I'm all for the conversation. I really think it is great. Yet even though you guys having opposing views, you have to recognize that you are both quite advanced in this hobby. In fact, you guys are way beyond the advanced stage, and beyond the 'hobby' too. I see you guys, on both sides, as audio philosophers. I want you to have your very own Audio Think Tank (can you tell I'm experimenting with forum names here?).

    The problem is with the many people who don't fall into those categories, or don't care about the debate, the methods, the philosophy, the frequency response charts, or any of that. Newbies, vintage guys, home theater guys, kids, or god forbid, someone who's just interested in MUSIC and wants to get good sound out their collection (remember that? Music!). They walk into this debate and it is pretty intimidating, to say the least, and they walk away confused and still don't know which receiver they should buy!

    I want them to be able to have a "safe space" to discuss the basics without getting dragged into the debate and through the mud. And I promise I don't want to marginalize anybody.

    OK?

    Cheers,
    Eric

    See Skeptic's post below. He speaks for a lot of us. OUCH! Hadda pinch myself and yes, I'm awake and yes, I agree with Skeptic. LOOK... UP IN THE SKY! Are those... FLYING PIGS???

    Kidding, Skep, kidding! :) But Eric, that's an example of what I mean. Skeptic and I are diametrically opposed on a lot of things and still I've learned a lot of useful info from him. Had I chosen to steer clear of him, I never would have given myself the opportunity.

    For those that don't want to get into the debate, they're free to ignore whatever posts they choose. Those that want to debate are free to do so. But what about the people that only hear one side of the issue and have no clue? All they'll hear is the party line to which they've stumbled upon. Fun is great but learning new things is fun, no?

    Ultimately it's your forum and you can do what you want, but there's already Audio Asylum for those that choose not to see both sides. A/R is better because it's a place for the free exchange of ideas and is not subject to censorship.
  • 08-14-2004, 10:18 AM
    Steve1000
    I agree. This does not sound good. I'm looking for a new place already. If anyone finds anything could you please PM me or post here?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DMK
    Ultimately it's your forum and you can do what you want, but there's already Audio Asylum for those that choose not to see both sides. A/R is better because it's a place for the free exchange of ideas and is not subject to censorship.

  • 08-14-2004, 10:53 AM
    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.
  • 08-14-2004, 02:25 PM
    Quagmire
    Hi Eric,

    Welcome. I'll be a voice of dissention from most of the replies you have received so far. I think what you're proposing is a good idea and doesn't amount to censorship as others here have suggested. It isn't as though you are saying that these "debates" can't take place; just that they will be more confined to a dedicated board for those who are most interested in them. I also don't believe (from what you've said so far) that it means that some level of healthy debate can't take place on the other boards; just that you don't intend to let the discussion deteriorate to the point that DBT's and the like become the primary focus for all of the other boards.

    I've been coming here for quite awhile, and used to post often. I can tell you that this forum is only a shell of its former self. We used to have more action on just one board than we do on the entire forum nowadays, and I think this issue and management's lack of providing some kind of useful response to it has been the primary factor in the overall decline of the forum. It is no secret that we've lost a lot of really knowledgeable people who were regular contributors to these boards. Frankly, I think folks just got tired of having so many threads "hijacked" by this group, to the point that nearly all discussion degenerated to being about this one topic. On more than one occation, I made the argument that this is suppose to be a "hobbyist" forum and not a laboratory. Granted, the scientific aspects of the hobby are just as valid, but not everyone wants to have this discussion and especially not be forced into it. I recall many times that someon who posted a simple question would get totally ignored - no helpful or practical advice given at all - while the "audibility debates" completely overtook the thread. It is sad but true that if people don't practice a little self restraint, eventually someone has to step in and do it for them. Here we have a case where management has ignored this problem for so long that the ship is almost sunk before they begin to do anything about it. Eventually, there is no need to worry about whether something qualifies as censorship or not because there is no longer any discussion to supposedly censor anyway.

    You would think that this group would be thrilled to have their own board. But as you are now finding out, that is not the case. They will allege that restricting this topic to a dedicated board amounts to censorship. However, I would suggest that in the past, because of a lack of self restraint and managment's unresponsiveness, all that we had was this one board - in essence they turned the entire forum into a board dedicated to this one topic. As I said already, I think that was the reason for the mass exodus that we saw, as people just got feed up. Having a dedicated board provides an outlet for those who are truly interested in this subject. Perhaps more importantly, it unfetters the remaining boards so that discussions there can expand beyond the parameters of this one debate. I fail to see how this qualifies as censorship when we finally get to talk about more that one thing. I know that there are plenty of people who will disagree with me... that's perfectly fine. I would just respond by saying that although for some, it may be hard to distinguish between the two, freedom and anarchy are not the same thing. Freedom will always attract people while anarchy will drive them away. One need only look at what has happened to this forum to discern which we have had more of around here. I'll get off of my soapbox now.

    Q
  • 08-14-2004, 02:46 PM
    WmAx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Quagmire
    Hi Eric,

    It isn't as though you are saying that these "debates" can't take place; just that they will be more confined to a dedicated board for those who are most interested in them. I also don't believe (from what you've said so far) that it means that some level of healthy debate can't take place on the other boards; just that you don't intend to let the discussion deteriorate to the point that DBT's and the like become the primary focus for all of the other boards.

    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.

    Quote:

    Frankly, I think folks just got tired of having so many threads "hijacked" by this group, to the point that nearly all discussion degenerated to being about this one topic. On more than one occation, I made the argument that this is suppose to be a "hobbyist" forum and not a laboratory.
    Quote:

    However, I would suggest that in the past, because of a lack of self restraint and managment's unresponsiveness, all that we had was this one board - in essence they turned the entire forum into a board dedicated to this one topic.
    Quote:

    Freedom will always attract people while anarchy will drive them away. One need only look at what has happened to this forum to discern which we have had more of around here. I'll get off of my soapbox now.
    Q[/QUOTE]It may seem ironic, but I strongly agree with most of what you say in direct regard to 'self restratint' and 'management's unresponsiveness'. 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. Some tangents(threadjacking) make be productive in certain cases, and should be allowed but as can be seen in some threads(recently), some of these tangents can be destructive and just confuse/distort the original topic to the point where it's unrecognizable. 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.

    -Chris
  • 08-14-2004, 03:21 PM
    skeptic
    You are entitled to your opinion but in my view your posting is pure rubbish. There isn't one scintilla of truth in it. I don't think you can point to even one actively running thread right now where DBTs have even been mentioned let alone have "become the primary focus for all of the other boards" or any thread on any board. I challenge you to mention just one.

    " We used to have more action on just one board than we do on the entire forum nowadays"

    That was before people were required to register at all. You just chose a moniker and could say whatever you wanted. That changed about two years ago.

    "It is no secret that we've lost a lot of really knowledgeable people who were regular contributors to these boards."

    The only one I can think of that could conceivably fit that discription in anyone's mind but only in the most warped way was Jon Risch. And he left not after I took him to task for being a "Nazi mind control gestapo" at CA for denying others the intellectual freedom he was granted in order to get an education but only after I demoloshed every one of his crackpot technical arguements about audio cables. And I used his own quotes from his own website for much of it.

    "On more than one occation, I made the argument that this is suppose to be a "hobbyist" forum and not a laboratory."

    We often discuss the technical performance of equipment and how it relates to its audible performance because that is the basic nature of electronic equipment. It's unavoidable. I don't recall anybody refusing to explain a technical statement that he made when someone else said they didn't understand it. If you remove the technical disucssions from any of these boards, they will be dumbed down to the point where only the least knowledgable participants will be interested in them.

    "I think that was the reason for the mass exodus that we saw, as people just got feed up."

    Judging from the fact that there are sometimes more than a thousand participants who view an individaul thread, this board seems to have very good participation. Especially when a debate heats up.

    "I recall many times that someon who posted a simple question would get totally ignored - no helpful or practical advice given at all "

    You were here, you said so yourself right at the beginning. Why didn't you volunteer to help? Not enough technical knowledge to contribute?

    Actually, lots of people come here even for the first time and get tons of sound practical advice. Here are just a sample of a few threads running right now where advice is being given;

    This Guy has just asked for advice about buying a subwoofer and already 5 other participants have responded.

    brian_tr has asked for advice on a problem with his Yamaha receiver and has gotten responses from 4 participants

    grampi has asked for advice on the best way to connect his television set and has gotten replies from two participants.

    cam and phw03 asked for advice about projection tv and got advice from woodman who knows as much about television as anyone I've met on any board.

    Lord Nikon asked for advice on the best receiver under $600 and got many responses.

    IRG asked for advice on a 26"/27" TV monitor and got many responses.

    r.bowen asked for advice on his Paradigm speakers and got a response from topspeed.

    saul asked for advice on selecting between two Yamaha receivers and got many responses.

    Lord Nikon asked for advice on a cd player for under $600 and got many replies.

    And that's just a partial list of what's currently running on the HT board. I think only one request didn't get a response and that was about a computer monitor. Probably nobody knew the answer.
    Just about every other board on this website is filled with these kinds of requests and replies.

    "I would just respond by saying that although for some, it may be hard to distinguish between the two, freedom and anarchy are not the same thing."

    We have never had anarchy here. Even before the registration and change in format several years ago, people who were abusive beyond reason were warned and if they didn't change, were thrown out. Censorship, trying to steer discussions to one side or another by limiting the intellectual freedom to explore ideas, to challenge statements, to not allow a drift in the topic because that is where the participants want to take it is unacceptable. It is the mark of a totalitarian dictatorship usually because the points of view being favored can't stand up to the rigors of evidence or intellectual challenge. This is exactly why the anti DBT rule exists at CA IMO. They do not want their sponsors products or the rationale behind them maligned because they have absolutely no defense to the arguement that there is no scientific basis for them.

    If censorship of this kind happens here, I will leave and for once, I will use whatever influence I have with people who ask me for advice to steer them away from the products advertised on this site.
  • 08-14-2004, 05:43 PM
    Pat D
    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! :D

    A brief bit about myself, I'm a twenty-something audio geek with a professional background in tech. I've been a frequent "lurker" on audio boards around the web for many years now - I don't post much but I'm on all the time. Up to now my main interest has been two channel and vinyl, but a new surround system is just around the corner for me. You all know the routine. I'll divulge more details about myself and my system as time passes.

    I've got big plans for the site, and look forward to working with all of you improve the site and make it as cool a place as possible. Now I don't mean to be a downer, but part of those changes will be some new rules about posting, discussion, and how to behave in general. I'm leaning toward a somewhat tough stand on making this a safe place for friendly, subjective discussion about all kinds of audio. There will be a special forum for those of you who wish to discuss lab results, double blind testing, or think that there is no difference between different types of cables or equipment, etc. I also plan on adding some new forums, such as a computer/mp3 audio board, perhaps a forum for vintage equipment. I'd like your input on that.

    To enforce these new rules, we will FINALLY be implementing a real moderator program. We'll get into this more later as well. If you're interested in being a moderator, check out this link, and feel free to apply (if you've already applied, please apply again, as we've lost many of our old applications in the transition).

    There will be other exciting developements, coming soon. I'll be attending the CEDIA expo in September armed with a digital camera and the objective of schmoozing and checking out as much cool new stuff as possible. I'll be report back to you guys with photos and details on all the cool new stuff coming out. I'm looking forward to serving you guys!

    -Eric

    Welcome and I hope you can do great things for the site.

    As for your remarks on changing the rules of discusion, Eric, I'm with skeptic, DMK, and a number of others on this one. We should be able to discuss all the relevant issues and audibility is certainly one of them, as are technical issues and measurements. The rationalist types seldom have any thing against free speech kept within the limits of civility and neither do many on the subjectivist end of the spectrum. But some find talk about technical matters threatening and references to DBTs positively insulting, and I really think that is their problem. Cable Asylum is just as acrimonious as ever and mention of DBTs is ostensibly forbidden. I certainly don't agree to segregrate discussions on audibility and technical matters. It isn't working that well at Prop Head and Tech Square at AA, so why do it here?

    I was away on a trip from early December to the end of April helping my wife deal with a family crisis. So I didn't post as much for a while, having to depend on computers in public libraries a lot. But I have been pretty regular for quite a while, since at least 1999--I know AA was already in existence when I started. But if we can't discuss the real issues then there my participation will be curtailed considerably, possibly limited mostly to Rave Recordings, where my main interest is in so-called 'classical music,' although I read and learn from many of the other discussions.

    I have volunteered a couple of times for moderation in the past and received a polite acknowledgment but nothing more. Will anything more happen now? I know it's hardly your fault, but ho-hum.

    And the reviews certainly need looking at. I believe that is one of the reasons many in the general public would visit this site, but perhaps you have data. There are many which say nothing, a good many multiple reviews, some reviews of another product instead of the correct one, some which simply make a complaint about service (usually very vague!), and I dare say, some which seem to show no actual knowledge of the product though it is hard to be sure. I'm not talking about a product from an obvious spoof manufacturer that has been part of audio humor for quite some time and offers an opportunity for creative and very funny writing.
  • 08-15-2004, 09:36 AM
    Quagmire
    Skeptic,

    "You are entitled to your opinion but in my view your posting is pure rubbish."

    Really? You can find nothing constructive within my comments at all, huh? That's too bad.

    "I don't think you can point to even one actively running thread right now where DBTs have even been mentioned let alone have "become the primary focus for all of the other boards"..."

    You're probably right. I haven't bothered to look, but that is because as far as I'm concerned, the damage has already been done. As I said in my original post, I think management has waited until the boat is nearly sunk. Much of what I commented on has to do with the past and only relates to the present in terms of how the forum can be revived - asuming it can be revived - but I'm not entirely convinced that it can be.

    "I challenge you to mention just one."

    I'm sorry... did I make a testable claim? Man does this sound familiar!

    "That was before people were required to register at all. You just chose a moniker and could say whatever you wanted. That changed about two years ago."

    And why was that necessary? Isn't this requirement to register censorship too? The presence of rules, guidelines and organization doesn't automatically equate to censorship. What is in question is the degree to which these things are necessary. I'm all for a "hands off" approach with as little "government intervention" as possible. But the level of intervention needed is determined by the conduct of the participants. In the past, the track record was not good and many folks got feed up and left as managment did little to address the situation.

    "We often discuss the technical performance of equipment and how it relates to its audible performance because that is the basic nature of electronic equipment. ...If you remove the technical disucssions from any of these boards, they will be dumbed down to the point where only the least knowledgable participants will be interested in them."

    Discussing technical perfomance is fine, especially when that was the point of the thread to begin with. But what occured frequently in the past, and what was objected to by many was the that ANY statement made regarding audible performance was met with a barrage of challenges from the so called naysayer camp that a "testable claim" had been made and then "proof" was demanded. This wasn't casual, it was confrontational and obtrusive. Like I said before, this is suppose to be a hobbyist board where people can come for practical advice based on personal experience. IMO the demand for white paper support for every so called "claim" takes the discussion out of that realm. I am fully aware that unchecked, audio myth can also run rampant. A certain amount of skepticism, Mr. Skeptic, is a good thing and should be encouraged. What is needed is BALANCE. I don't think there HAS to be a naysayer yeasayer board for these discussion, but at one time I think it would have been a very useful thing and may have prevented the decline of the forum.

    "You were here, you said so yourself right at the beginning. Why didn't you volunteer to help?..."

    When I saw one of these hijacked threads, I often times replied to the original poster to answer their question rather than join in the fray. And actually, I was nominated by several people to be a moderator on these boards; I just simply didn't have the time.

    "...Not enough technical knowledge to contribute?"

    Now, that wouldn't be a cheap shot, would it? A little goading perhaps? No thanks. I don't want to argue with you. I will let others decide whether I have enough technical knowledge to contribute. All I will say in that regard is that when I posted more often in the past, I believe I earned a reputation for offering practical technical advice which belonged neither in the yeasayer or naysayer camp.

    "We have never had anarchy here."

    I respectfully disagree.

    "Censorship, trying to steer discussions to one side or another by limiting the intellectual freedom to explore ideas, to challenge statements, to not allow a drift in the topic because that is where the participants want to take it is unacceptable."

    And what if the participants don't want to take the discussion in a certain direction over and over again? What if a small group of people continually decide to "steer the discussion" back to one topic even when the thread had nothing to do with that topic to begin with - what I have called hijacking a thread? Much of the language that you use to define censorship could instead be used to define "harassment" which is how many folks viewed the repeated insertion of these topics into existing threads.

    "It is the mark of a totalitarian dictatorship..."

    Seems a little dramatic, but in fairness, I did introduce the subjects of freedom and anarchy so I suppose it's fair game. However, so far Eric seems level headed and "undictator" like to me. If that changes and it appears that he is merely pandering to the sponsors you will likely find a very vocal ally in me.

    Q
  • 08-15-2004, 09:45 AM
    skeptic
    "And what if the participants don't want to take the discussion in a certain direction over and over again?"

    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.

    "so far Eric seems level headed and "undictator" like to me."

    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?
  • 08-15-2004, 09:51 AM
    ericl
    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
  • 08-15-2004, 10:41 AM
    Quagmire
    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
  • 08-15-2004, 11:10 AM
    skeptic
    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
  • 08-15-2004, 11:40 AM
    Quagmire
    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
  • 08-15-2004, 12:29 PM
    WmAx
    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.


    Quote:

    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?

    Quote:

    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?

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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
  • 08-15-2004, 02:06 PM
    DMK
    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.
  • 08-15-2004, 03:20 PM
    Quagmire
    Chris,

    You said...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Q
  • 08-15-2004, 05:35 PM
    brulaha
    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.
  • 08-15-2004, 06:32 PM
    WmAx
    Quote:

    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).

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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:

    Quote:

    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.
    Quote:

    . 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?

    Quote:

    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?

    Quote:

    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).

    Quote:

    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
  • 08-15-2004, 06:38 PM
    TinHere
    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.
  • 08-15-2004, 11:51 PM
    Quagmire
    Chris,

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

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

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

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

    "I don't care about opinions."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Q
  • 08-16-2004, 01:25 AM
    ToddB
    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.
  • 08-16-2004, 06:06 AM
    46minaudio
    The good news is>>>
    I can now go in the cable bussiness..Maybe even start selling those green markers that make cds sound better..
  • 08-16-2004, 08:45 AM
    WmAx
    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.

    Quote:

    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.


    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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...

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.

    Quote:

    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.
    Quote:

    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...

    Quote:

    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).

    Quote:

    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
  • 08-16-2004, 09:10 AM
    Steve1000
    The fact that anything is possible is no excuse for thinking foolishly.

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