Audiophile Style State of the Union

I give up.  I struggled through pages and pages of sophomoric ramblings about subjective and objective foolishness that I completely failed to discover how and why mansr was so egregiously hurt that he had no other option than to move on. 
 

I could use a reddit tl/dr over here. Throw a brother a bone, people. Please don’t tell me this is all about USB cables......

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

You are really on a roll, Chris. Pretty soon you will not need the Objectify forum with nobody left to post there. Problem solved, I guess.

Indeed! It’s been an interesting trip, but it is time to bid Tot Ziens! Chris, you can remove me from the forum as well. Best wishes to all.

I am an human first and an engineer second.  I hear things that I cannot understand how they could make a difference.  I believe there is a lot we do not know how or what to measure.  I have also seen confirmation bias in my own observations so I have started studying some of the human factors in the perception of sound. There is a lot more to learn.

When I write something here it is from my heart and my love of music.    Over the last six months I have had to turn off monitoring many subjects on the forums!  The latest and loudest syndrome is part of it. Another part of it is ego.   The Grinch tried to stop Christmas because of the noise!

When the music sounds good, I feel good.  I want the same feeling when I come here to read and learn.

When my oldest son was deployed to Afghanistan we did not watch the news for a very long time.  My youngest son was in a car accident and to this day the sound of the ambulance siren causes me distress.  I cannot watch most of the news these days or even the late nite comedy because of the content on the state of our politics and parts of our society. 

I hope that the change Chris is making here will stop the sirens in my head when I visit here.

bob

Thank you very much for this addition.  Honestly, the bickering really made step back for a while.  I am here for the music.  The sweet, sweet music.  The gear is only a means to that end.  When the opinions and facts start flying, I think all would be best served by just....maybe go listen to some music.

How quickly some people forget whose bat and ball this is.    
 

Chris’s livelihood, Chris’s rules.    He can run his business/hobby anyway he deams fit.    Don’t like it?   Shop up the road.

Everyone has the total freedom to start their own version of AS or Headfi.   

Regards Cazzesman

38 minutes ago, bobfa said:

I am an human first and an engineer second.  I hear things that I cannot understand how they could make a difference.  I believe there is a lot we do not know how or what to measure.  I have also seen confirmation bias in my own observations so I have started studying some of the human factors in the perception of sound. There is a lot more to learn.

There are far too few who think like you do ... I've been doing things "my way" for decades, and I'm still way down on understanding everything that's going on - a lot of the time, one just does it "that way", because it works ... as simple as that. Knowing and fully understanding every last ounce of it is a great goal, but in the meantime using the best techniques you know to get one over the line sounds pretty good to me, 🙂.

On 2/17/2020 at 12:33 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Nothing is off topic here on AS. But, there is a right place and time for everything. I don't see why you should care if people like to talk amongst others who have the same passions and beliefs. 

Well @marce apparently was off topic here and got banned. That really disturbs me Chris. Of course he’s a crusty old Brit, but a true expert and a bass guitarist, so I would bend over backwards to tolerate him. I’ve learned a lot from his comments. What gives? 

4 hours ago, Teresa said:

I thought most subjectivists also disliked MQA and are fearful of future music being contaminated by MQA. I don't believe this is an objectivist only position. That being the case how can it be a win for MQA.

If you remove  the "objective" analysis, all that's left is the listening tests/experiences.  The thing about listening tests/experiences is that they always leave some wiggle room.  Wiggle room is where MQA lives. Can anyone say psychoacoustics?

17 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Well @marce apparently was off topic here and got banned. That really disturbs me Chris. Of course he’s a crusty old Brit, but a true expert and a bass guitarist, so I would bend over backwards to tolerate him. I’ve learned a lot from his comments. What gives? 

Off topic and banned have nothing to do with each other. Let's also get the timeline straight. he was only banned after telling me he was gone.

I won't bend over backward for someone who can't follow the rules and has zero interest in making this hobby better for anyone. 

Even if he was an expert, if the best player on a team is cancerous in the locker room, the team ain't going anywhere. 

To be honest, his talent at bass is neither here nor there with respect to this discussion. 

To quote Marce's own words

12 hours ago, marce said:

Don't worry Chris I will be moving on

3 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

If you remove  the "objective" analysis, all that's left is the listening tests/experiences.  The thing about listening tests/experiences is that they always leave some wiggle room.  Wiggle room is where MQA lives. Can anyone say psychoacoustics?

If my aunt was a man it wold be my uncle. That's a big if that can't happen because it's over. 

You discount all the other negative aspects of MQA because they aren't black & white and easy to bullet point. I wouldn't do such a thing. 

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

To be honest, his talent at bass is neither here nor there with respect to this discussion. 

 I use my own criteria! People who actually produce music love music not just electronics 😉 I also think it really cool that a certain USB expert makes tube guitar amps 😉

Yeah if someone threatens to leave they can come back at will. Banned: not so much. Did the punishment fit the crime?

On 2/17/2020 at 2:25 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

You look at it as banished, I look at it as being given your own space. As I said in the article, audio is inherently a subjective pursuit. The vast majority of comments are subjective, unless one is at Hydrogen Audio.

 

I'm going by the analytics as well. The tail shouldn't wag the dog. 

I think this is the simplest, clearest, and most honest description of the situation - I just wish Chris would be more up-front and consistent in acknowledging what he is actually saying and doing here.

It is Chris' forum and he can do as he wishes based on his judgment as to what's best for the site.

But let's be clear about what Chris is doing, based on his own words. He believes "audio is inherently a subjective pursuit," and that "the vast majority of comments are subjective." Subjectivism is the dog and objectivism is the tail as he sees it (and apparently the analytics back this up). On that basis, he is giving objectivists "their own space."

The message is clear: Subjectivists are the majority, objectivists are the minority, so objectivists get a subforum, and subjectivists get... everywhere else. Want to talk about Music Servers? Go to the Music Server subforum - unless you're an objectivist, in which case you need to go to the Objective-fi subforum. Same for Networking, DACs, and pretty much every other topic - and maybe even Q&A(!).

And Chris' answer to objections to this is, "I look at it as being given your own space." He repeatedly is telling the objectivists that they are being given their own separate area where they don't have to deal with subjectivists, even though it's abundantly clear that this is a "benefit" the objectivists don't actually want. I will not resort to melodramatic analogies, but I have to note that giving a small group its own space and telling them that it will be better for them that way and that if they don't want to be disruptive and counter-productive then they should welcome this new space, reflects a seriously blinkered understanding of the fundamentals of human discourse and interaction.

I believe this problem was inevitable, because this site always has represented the coming-together of two very different cultures, encapsulated in the original name: "Computer" and "Audiophile." In the old days, as has been remarked by others, a lot of help, advice, and exploration were needed just to get computer-based home-audio streaming setups together. Now the industry has matured and appliances and audio components have largely displaced home-brew setups with actual computers in them. The market has shifted upwards and more firmly into "audiophile" territory and away from "computer" territory. 

So Chris' change here seems to reflect that shift, and in that sense it makes sense to me even though I don't like it. But please, Chris, consider stopping trying to convince folks that this change is something other than what it is. I am not making any insinuations about money or business motives - I'm simply pointing out that you have clearly restructured the forum and its rules to serve a subjectivist majority, and there's no point in pretending you have done otherwise.

More firmly moderating - or flat-out banning - bad, consistently uncivil actors is something I would support, wholeheartedly. But it is inaccurate and misleading for anyone to claim that this change will do that in any direct, consistent, or even-handed manner.

3 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

I think this is the simplest, clearest, and most honest description of the situation - I just wish Chris would be more up-front and consistent in acknowledging what he is actually saying and doing here.

 

It is Chris' forum and he can do as he wishes based on his judgment as to what's best for the site.

 

But let's be clear about what Chris is doing, based on his own words. He believes "audio is inherently a subjective pursuit," and that "the vast majority of comments are subjective." Subjectivism is the dog and objectivism is the tail as he sees it (and apparently the analytics back this up). On that basis, he is giving objectivists "their own space."

 

The message is clear: Subjectivists are the majority, objectivists are the minority, so objectivists get a subforum, and subjectivists get... everywhere else. Want to talk about Music Servers? Go to the Music Server subforum - unless you're an objectivist, in which case you need to go to the Objective-fi subforum. Same for Networking, DACs, and pretty much every other topic - and maybe even Q&A(!).

 

And Chris' answer to objections to this is, "I look at it as being given your own space." He repeatedly is telling the objectivists that they are being given their own separate area where they don't have to deal with subjectivists, even though it's abundantly clear that this is a "benefit" the objectivists don't actually want. I will not resort to melodramatic analogies, but I have to note that giving a small group its own space and telling them that it will be better for them that way and that if they don't want to be disruptive and counter-productive then they should welcome this new space, reflects a seriously blinkered understanding of the fundamentals of human discourse and interaction.

 

I believe this problem was inevitable, because this site always has represented the coming-together of two very different cultures, encapsulated in the original name: "Computer" and "Audiophile." In the old days, as has been remarked by others, a lot of help, advice, and exploration were needed just to get computer-based home-audio streaming setups together. Now the industry has matured and appliances and audio components have largely displaced home-brew setups with actual computers in them. The market has shifted upwards and more firmly into "audiophile" territory and away from "computer" territory. 

 

So Chris' change here seems to reflect that shift, and in that sense it makes sense to me even though I don't like it. But please, Chris, consider stopping trying to convince folks that this change is something other than what it is. I am not making any insinuations about money or business motives - I'm simply pointing out that you have clearly restructured the forum and its rules to serve a subjectivist majority, and there's no point in pretending you have done otherwise.

 

 

Thoughtfully said, but I disagree with much of it. I’ve given countless explanations of what’s changed and why. You selected the one piece that fits your view of this world and chose to elaborate on it and make it into the sole reason. Fine, I can live with that. 
 

It does seem a bit more “high horsey” than your usual posts, as if your breaking some news to save people from something. That’s just the sense I get from a first read through. Far different from your usual comments. 
 

10 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

My main point was that science is good, and the reliance on science good, but science is just a creation of humans and is ever evolving as we figure out new places to look and new ways of measuring, and we just haven't got there with audio related networking yet, and may never get there in relation to the complexities of the human ear/brain interaction and human listening. 

Thirty years ago, many believed the sheer volume of knowledge and information the Internet and greater computing power provided us would resolve all kinds of scientific and other disputes.  Instead, the more we learn, the better we understand how little we actually know.  

We can choose to embrace that complexity and uncertainty and be glad that no matter how little we do completely and definitively understand we (and by that I very much include many of the contributions made on this site) have nonetheless made great forward strides in our ability to produce and enjoy musical fidelity.  

Maybe each time we post here we ought to ask whether we are:  a) contributing new and important information to that ongoing enjoyment of musical fidelity? or b) just trying to convince someone that I am right and they are wrong?  

18 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thoughtfully said, but I disagree with much of it. I’ve given countless explanations of what’s changed and why. You selected the one piece that fits your view of this world and chose to elaborate on it and make it into the sole reason. Fine, I can live with that. 
 

It does seem a bit more “high horsey” than your usual posts, as if your breaking some news to save people from something. That’s just the sense I get from a first read through. Far different from your usual comments. 
 

 

Chris, I appreciate your reply and your kind words. I would respectfully suggest - and it appears from some prior comments I am not alone in this perception - that it might be your current (understandable) state of mind rather than the tone of my commentary that is different at this moment.

To repeat, I am not associating myself with - in fact, will explicitly disassociate myself from - claims that you are doing this for "money" or purely for business reasons. I am not questioning your motives, nor do I feel I am attributing secret reasons to your move or "reading between the lines." I chose to quote that specific comment of yours not because it fits my view, but rather because it most clearly shows the circle you can't square. You believe - by your own words clear as day - that subjectivism is the majority perspective and experience in hi-fi. You believe - in your own words - that you are giving the objectivist minority "their own space." You believe - by your own words in many other comments in this thread, not just that one - that having their own space is something objectivists should welcome, and that if they object to it then they are not actually interested in good-faith objectivist discussion but rather only in it for the fighting and arguing.

My point is that you are fully within your rights to do this, and neither I nor anyone else has to like it - we are free to go elsewhere if we don't. I accept that fully. But if you do this and also at the same time claim that this is not what you are actually saying and doing, then I am going to point that out and object to it unless or until I am informed that I am violating forum behavioral rules.

Respectfully, the only thing that's different about my commentary this time is that I don't agree with your argument in support of your action here (even though I fully respect your prerogative to take that action).

21 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

I think this is the simplest, clearest, and most honest description of the situation - I just wish Chris would be more up-front and consistent in acknowledging what he is actually saying and doing here.

 

It is Chris' forum and he can do as he wishes based on his judgment as to what's best for the site.

 

But let's be clear about what Chris is doing, based on his own words. He believes "audio is inherently a subjective pursuit," and that "the vast majority of comments are subjective." Subjectivism is the dog and objectivism is the tail as he sees it (and apparently the analytics back this up). On that basis, he is giving objectivists "their own space."

 

The message is clear: Subjectivists are the majority, objectivists are the minority, so objectivists get a subforum, and subjectivists get... everywhere else. Want to talk about Music Servers? Go to the Music Server subforum - unless you're an objectivist, in which case you need to go to the Objective-fi subforum. Same for Networking, DACs, and pretty much every other topic - and maybe even Q&A(!).

 

And Chris' answer to objections to this is, "I look at it as being given your own space." He repeatedly is telling the objectivists that they are being given their own separate area where they don't have to deal with subjectivists, even though it's abundantly clear that this is a "benefit" the objectivists don't actually want. I will not resort to melodramatic analogies, but I have to note that giving a small group its own space and telling them that it will be better for them that way and that if they don't want to be disruptive and counter-productive then they should welcome this new space, reflects a seriously blinkered understanding of the fundamentals of human discourse and interaction.

 

I believe this problem was inevitable, because this site always has represented the coming-together of two very different cultures, encapsulated in the original name: "Computer" and "Audiophile." In the old days, as has been remarked by others, a lot of help, advice, and exploration were needed just to get computer-based home-audio streaming setups together. Now the industry has matured and appliances and audio components have largely displaced home-brew setups with actual computers in them. The market has shifted upwards and more firmly into "audiophile" territory and away from "computer" territory. 

 

So Chris' change here seems to reflect that shift, and in that sense it makes sense to me even though I don't like it. But please, Chris, consider stopping trying to convince folks that this change is something other than what it is. I am not making any insinuations about money or business motives - I'm simply pointing out that you have clearly restructured the forum and its rules to serve a subjectivist majority, and there's no point in pretending you have done otherwise.

 

More firmly moderating - or flat-out banning - bad, consistently uncivil actors is something I would support, wholeheartedly. But it is inaccurate and misleading for anyone to claim that this change will do that in any direct, consistent, or even-handed manner.

 

 

Superb post here. 

40 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

I think this is the simplest, clearest, and most honest description of the situation

Firstly, I'd like to thank you not only for this post but for many others over the years, including one that I was unable to reply to in another now closed thread just today.

40 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

The message is clear: Subjectivists are the majority, objectivists are the minority, so objectivists get a subforum, and subjectivists get... everywhere else. Want to talk about Music Servers? Go to the Music Server subforum - unless you're an objectivist, in which case you need to go to the Objective-fi subforum. Same for Networking, DACs, and pretty much every other topic - and maybe even Q&A(!).

 

This I'm not so sure of, I said in another thread today that not everything need be so black and white, subjective vs. objective, with absolutely no middle ground to occupy in between. I do not consider myself a subjectivist or objectivist, rather somewhere in the middle. I neither fully reject nor embrace the stance of either camp, nor do I think everyone should be so quick to choose which tribe they will occupy, then fight to the death while flying that flag. I for one belong to no tribe.

There is a large middle ground, one that I believe both you and I occupy, and many other members here too. Those members should be, and are indeed free to post in either place, as long as they don't attack the opinions of others. If I'm wrong, it's because I've paid relatively little strict attention to the new rules of the road, as I expect they might need polishing and or clarification as we move along. I do however sympathize with any objectivist who might feel they have been have been ostracized or pushed into a corner.

40 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

I believe this problem was inevitable, because this site always has represented the coming-together of two very different cultures, encapsulated in the original name: "Computer" and "Audiophile." In the old days, as has been remarked by others, a lot of help, advice, and exploration were needed just to get computer-based home-audio streaming setups together. Now the industry has matured and appliances and audio components have largely displaced home-brew setups with actual computers in them. The market has shifted upwards and more firmly into "audiophile" territory and away from "computer" territory. 

Well said, and with that an inevitable polarization of sorts. It is my observation/opinion that the divide has been more strictly pushed by the objective camp, I see the subjective side more ready and able to digest a dissenting stance, but the objective side not so agreeable to anything but their own dogma. I accept that others may see it differently, but the objectivist side in my view tends to be less accepting of alternative findings or beliefs, and has more readily devolved the discourse into sheer mockery. I say that coming again from what I consider to be the middle ground.

I substantiate the claim of a large middle ground already occupied by the likes of me (and likely you too) by the very existence and ongoing popularity of the MQA Vaporware thread. I see an interesting dichotomy there in that the majority of anti-MQA posts are decidedly from the objective camp, but not entirely so. There are both subjectivists there of a like mind, and a still larger contingent (including myself) occupying a middle ground, not on MQA of course, but on all things audio. I think many of the objectivists that post there might be surprised to find out just how many of the members there agreeing with them 100% on the topic of MQA are either subjectivists, or occupying the middle ground like me.

That thread then is sort of proof positive that not everything need be so black and white, choose a side, but only one, there is no middle ground. I do beg to differ, and in that sense perhaps this revamp of site rules will warrant another look by CC at some point down the road, sooner or later.

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’m pretty worn out today, in bed now just about to shut down for the night. I want to respond to every sentence but don’t have the brain power right now. 
 

Fine if you don’t agree with my argument, but you’re picking and choosing which argument with which to disagree. I guess I’m not sure how you have me simultaneously saying two things, when everything I’ve said is here for all of us to see. 
 

You use an example of me saying I’ve given objectivists a space. Yes, that’s right I have. Now where’s the counter example of a circle I can’t square or where I claim this isn’t happening? Everything I said in the original article and comments is true. 
 

Please help me find what you believe is wrong with it. 

You've given objectivist commentary a space - a subforum. And, gray areas notwithstanding, the granting of that one space is simultaneous with the removal of objectivist commentary from the entire rest of the forum. So the space for objectivist commentary is being reorganized and significantly shrunken, so that the majority-subjectivist experience can proceed without interruption and pushback, enabling "audiophiles to be audiophiles" as I believe you've written in one or more prior comments here.

I can totally get why you feel this is necessary, and I even get why you feel this might not be a bad development even for objectivists (even though I don't agree). But I cannot understand how you or anyone else, regardless of their view of this change, could disagree that this is in fact the change you have made.

So as I see it, the circle you can't square is that you are doing what I have described above (again based very closely on your own words), but you are - for reasons I cannot understand - denying that this is what you're doing.

I don't get the point of declaring that subjectivism is the majority and the tail can't wag the dog, and then objecting when someone points out that you are restructuring the forum and rules because... you believe subjectivism is the majority and the tail can't wag the dog.

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

I'm simply pointing out that you have clearly restructured the forum and its rules to serve a subjectivist majority

I restructured things to serve everyone. Certainly everyone doesn’t like it, but pleasing everyone is impossible. It has never been acceptable for objectivists to question everything and confront all people who discuss things they believe are purely BS. This isn’t the HiFi police station. Live and let live. Nothing has abated this behavior in the past. 
 

Now I’m moving such posts into an objective area for such discussion to continue. Take one thread and split it into two. Sub can continue their discussion and obj can continue theirs. Nothing else has worked, but I’m not going to give up trying.