I have a problem here . . .

[Woochifer]

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

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

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

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

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

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 Upgrade the cables, buy separates, a one year old receiver/processor is obsolete!

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

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

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

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

[Quagmire]

Woochifer,

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

Q

[E-Stat]

Is it then a violation of rules for me to point out that for those types of maladies, room treatments and/or proper 5.1 system calibration are a far more effective approach? If not for this board, I very well might have bought into a lot of those money burning approaches. Through a lot of current and former board regulars, I learned first hand that common sense approaches like properly calibrating the system, and using inexpensive room treatments make for very audible improvements that are also based on sound technical principles

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

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

rw

[Woochifer]

Woochifer,

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

Q

Q -

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

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

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

[Woochifer]

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

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

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

rw

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

[Quagmire]

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

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

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

Q

[ToddB]

Woochifer, I'm going to use you as an example, because what you're doing is indicative of one of the larger problems on this board. I promise to be as kind as possible.

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

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

after you said this --

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

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

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

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

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

[Quagmire]

I posted this on the new Audio Lab board. I'm going to post it here too because the arguments are the same and I think this applies.

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

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

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

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

Just some food for thought.

Q

[46minaudio]

Woochifer, I'm going to use you as an example, because what you're doing is indicative of one of the larger problems on this board. I promise to be as kind as possible.

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

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

after you said this --

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

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

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

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

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

This is the way I see it..If a newbe is looking for help because he wants to correct boomy bass from his sub and gets a responce to buy a pair of 200$ cables then it is ridiculous.Woochifer can give real information to correct the problem.Somtimes this information costs the newbe nothing .This board is also about HELPING PEOPLE.Throwing money into expensive cables will not help this problem Period.We have lost two of the best on this board lets not lose any more...

[E-Stat]

This is the way I see it..If a newbe is looking for help because he wants to correct boomy bass from his sub and gets a responce to buy a pair of 200$ cables then it is ridiculous.

Is it required to label that hypothetical responder a "believer in alien abductions" prior to making better suggestions yourself?

rw

[46minaudio]

Is it required to label that hypothetical responder a "believer in alien abductions" prior to making better suggestions yourself?

rw

No its not...

[kexodusc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Resident Loser]

..."you made your bed, now lie in it"...

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

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

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

[kexodusc]

Hi Jim,
Sorry, I'm familiar with the saying, not sure I understand it in the context you're using it in...

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

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

[Woochifer]

Woochifer, I'm going to use you as an example, because what you're doing is indicative of one of the larger problems on this board. I promise to be as kind as possible.

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

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

after you said this --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Resident Loser]

...personally...

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

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

[Resident Loser]

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

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

[muziekfreak]

with the selection of 996turbo to be the moderator of the Cables and Amp/Preamp forums. I don't believe he has an open mind or the proper understanding of various points of the view on these subjects.

To illustrate my objections read this thread from last April:
Mytrcraft is an idiot.

What do you think?

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

[Woochifer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://gallery.avsforum.com/showphot...sort=1&cat=500

[topspeed]

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

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

http://gallery.avsforum.com/showphot...sort=1&cat=500

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

[nusiclover]

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

[ToddB]

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

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

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

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

[shaemus]

I agree with much of what Woochifer and ToddB have said regarding maintaining orderly discussion and avoiding rudeness.

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

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

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

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

[Woochifer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hifitommy]

BUT turbo needed to pierce the balloon. its unfortunate that he needed to use the word IDIOT but sometimes you have to get noticed first and understood later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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