Audiophile Style State of the Union

22 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Yes Sir,  that is censorship in its worst form, to ban the process of critical thinking.

You had a comment in a thread that you wanted Qobuz to do an app for Linux. I gave you a link to a guide for installing the Qobuz app in Linux, and then answered several more questions you had about the subject.

I personally use Audirvana to play Qobuz. So perhaps I ought to have given you a piece of my mind and told you to forget all about Linux and use Windows or Mac to run Audirvana instead, because that's what I feel is the best way to do things.

But I didn't substitute my judgment for yours and tell you what I thought was best. I gave you the information I knew you wanted instead. It's called being considerate and helpful, you should try it.

7 minutes ago, One and a half said:

 Kind of confused as to understanding the purpose of that site.

Very simple, finding the best performing/measuring components minus any non-verifiable BS. 

In search of real High Fidelity.

23 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Don't know what this means, but it doesn't appear to be an answer to a simple, direct yes/no question. Gray area, I guess? 

You’re looking for a mythical black & white world where none exists. Policing is easy, in a police state. This isn’t one. Things can be murky. However, I believe 95% of people who are here to enjoy audio will have no problem working through the adjustment. 

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Absolutely false. Read an "objective" review of a product that Amir doesn't like. It's all gussied up with subjective sauce talking about cheapness of the chassis etc... 

By "objective", I do not mean "unbiased". I mean he measures, but rarely listens. When he does deign to listen, it's only through a pair of HD 650 headphones. Headphones are a piss poor way to evaluate hi-fi, since they have no soundstaging capability, and the HD 650 is quite coloured. 

But I was not just talking about Amir's "reviews" I was referencing  the mindset on that website. Go to ASR, post about the cables you use and see what kind of reception you get.

[sarcasm] You need to sell all of your ridiculous audiophile cables immediately, and buy Mogami and Belden, you poor deluded sap. [/sarcasm]

27 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Very simple, finding the best performing/measuring components minus any non-verifiable BS. 

In search of real High Fidelity.

Why is there support for MQA there? 

I just can't understand: how hard is it to simply respect another person and have some common courtesy in a hobby meant for enjoyment?

I've never seen a car enthusiast that goes demanding for DBT or measurements when someone claims that a car "handles better". 

If a person doesn't have measurements, he is not the enemy. I repeat, HE IS NOT THE ENEMY. He is just another consumer, just like you and I and anyone here. If one insists on measurements, then send him test equipment.

John Doe wants absolute high fidelity. His audio has to measure exceptional, using the ideal scientific methodology. Listening tests have to be DBT. If he sees another person talking about subjective observations, he is curious and tries to ask and find out more, understand the limitations and the possible data he can extract from it. John then also tries to repeat the test and measures them to find correlation.

Jack Smith also wants high fidelity but also looking for other things that sounds good TO HIM as well (sound stage, tube bloom, airiness, and other subjective parameters etc). Jack understands the science behind audio, but if scientific data are not available it's no big deal. He likes to try tweaks and expensive cables that he can afford. He will do his own listening and determine what he likes and share this information for others to determine for themselves. If challenged to provide measurements for his observations, he politely welcomes any measurements to find the correlation of what he hears with scientific data.

John and Jack are also best buddies, respects each others, and does not try to be snarky or sarcastic to each other. They understand the other person's preferences and point of view, and agree to disagree without ill will or anger. They do not try to "school" each other claiming that they know it all and that the other person "needs to be saved" or "some things are unmeasurable". They can laugh at themselves and laugh together.

John and Jack do not exist. A**holes do.

How ironic to see so many offenders presenting themselves as victims! And the demands for clarity show a sad ignorance of the concept of good judgment, the exercise of which seldom, if ever, attracts criticism.

As ones of those who simply stopped posting when the noise started to exceed the signal, I'm not encouraged by the response to Chris' change.  The problem is mostly a lack of self control.  Most abusers know who they are and will behave badly until punished severely enough to briefly get them to start behaving better.  But who wants to run a site where you have to spend a huge amount of your time "getting abusive children to behave?" 

The problem neither this site, nor any website I know of, has been able to fix is that "controversy sells."  if you want lots of web traffic, create controversy.  A friendly helpful site is great, but boring.  I bet a quick analysis would show that heated arguments here get 3X to 5X the number of responses as non-controversial topics.  If you can fix that, you will change the world.

Here's hoping you can! 😉 

@The Computer Audiophile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No_Asshole_Rule

Maybe the best way to state clearly is The No A**h*** Rule, regardless of objectivist or subjectivist.

If a person is being rude, snarky, trolling, and generally irritating to others in a thread, they eat the ban hammer.

Maybe we should come up with some kind of social scoring for members: members with too many posts reported would have their avatars changed to a troll image and have a red flashing warning sign above all their posts.

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I was just looking for an answer, since this is your site and your announced policy change. Gray it is, then.

No. It is not gray. It just means DON'T BE AN A**H*** to another member and stop irritating others even if their opinions are very different from yours and might not be proven. A baby seal didn't die every time a person posts a subjectivist claim. If a person has to keep pressing what defines being an a**h***, he probably is one.

21 minutes ago, sdolezalek said:

As ones of those who simply stopped posting when the noise started to exceed the signal, I'm not encouraged by the response to Chris' change.  The problem is mostly a lack of self control.  Most abusers know who they are and will behave badly until punished severely enough to briefly get them to start behaving better.  But who wants to run a site where you have to spend a huge amount of your time "getting abusive children to behave?" 

 

The problem neither this site, nor any website I know of, has been able to fix is that "controversy sells."  if you want lots of web traffic, create controversy.  A friendly helpful site is great, but boring.  I bet a quick analysis would show that heated arguments here get 3X to 5X the number of responses as non-controversial topics.  If you can fix that, you will change the world.

 

Here's hoping you can! 😉 

 

 

I agree that many lack self control and go off the rails screaming when someone points out that simple physics proves they are hearing confirmation bias, not sound.

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I agree that many lack self control and go off the rails screaming when someone points out that simple physics proves they are hearing confirmation bias, not sound.

They go off the rails because guys like you can’t stand other people enjoying themselves. 

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

you have me confused with someone else

 

 

Absolutely not. Do a self assessment please and look at all your posts. Do they add much value or do you just like snark and comments that serve to derail discussion? A huge % of your posts have zero to do with helping anyone get more enjoyment out of HiFi. 

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

you define enjoyment differently that I do - falseness doesn't count in my book

 

I suggest that YOU do a self-assessment, and think hard about your "livelihood" vs. claims of creating an "enjoyment space" for the deluded, as you have several times posted about these disparate issues.

Ralf, I believe it’s time for you to move on. If you consider the members of this community deluded and have no common interest, there’s no constructive purpose to be here. 

7 hours ago, mansr said:

And when the reverse happens? Oh, don't bother answering. I know you'll continue to let that slide like you always have.

Didn't Chris give Plissken control over his ER "objective" thread? I agree there is some of the "subjectivist pissing" on that thread, and Plissken has the right to remove it if he wants to. 

We can only hope that Chris will do the same splitting of threads, etc., if it happens in other threads. If not, you will have a legit cause for complaint. 

4 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Because HiFi is short for High Fidelity. The persuit of HiFi has since the very beginning been accomplished via the use of measurements and the advancement of the engineering community learning to apply scientific principles towards an ever improving SOTA.  The human weaknesses toward sighted, known DUT, expectation bias used as a tool has been discounted for every scientific path from chemistry to medicine.  If your only interest in this "hobby" is to assemble a system that produces a pleasing sound for you, that's fine. But if your interest is to follow a path that will bring you closer to the artist/producer/engineers intent, you need to take a verifiable path that insures your hearing resembles that which is your desire,  High Fidelity.

That's one point of view and unfortunately for you, not the only one. Some people don't call it HiFi, they call it "audiophilia", which means something else. Lots of people in the hobby don't view it as you do. Deal with it.
They aren't "wrong", they have a different goal than you.

3 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Very simple, finding the best performing/measuring components minus any non-verifiable BS. 

In search of real High Fidelity.

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Why is there support for MQA there? 

Yeah if you criticize MQA or point out that Bob and company are less than honest Amir lectures you about what an award winning engineer BS is and how that answers all doubts about MQA. Talk about non-verifiable BS...What?