Audiophile Style State of the Union

2 hours 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.

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with what you wrote, but one thing that changed at the site in recent times is a simple lack of respect for others - and it cuts both ways - subjectivist and objectivist, or whatever you want to call it. Many people seemed only interested in their agenda and not in conducting a DISCUSSION. As has been  remarked, if a post asks about using Qobuz with Linux, don't answer by telling the person not to do it. Answer the question, and then make an additional suggestion if you want. Your agenda that Linux sucks isn't relevant. 

If the person asks about a $500 DAC, don't tell him that it sucks and he should get a $1000 or $2000 model. Offer him a response about the DAC if you actually know something about it, or  an alternative in his price category. 

Not doing the above is simply arrogant and off putting. And I won't write again about how to answer a thread where the person says, "I want to compare various items in X category and don't want to be told it's impossible for them to make a difference"; or if a person says, "I listened and don't think changing 'XX' makes any difference", then don't start telling him his ears suck, his system sucks, etc. 

Chris tried through persuasion to get some posters to see this, but was unsuccessful.It prevented many participants from having what they saw as a useful exchange of ideas.  If people want to act like small children and abuse an existing system, then a different system has to get put into place. 

I do think Plissken's attempt to critique the EtherRegen without blowing up the other ER threads was appropriate, and I think that's how it should be done. I wish more people had followed that lead on their own.

His thread also shouldn't have been a target for those whose only response was, essentially,  "in my sighted listening in  my system....", or "you can't hear it b/c your system sucks" because that is an irrelevant response to his OP. 

But apparently many people can't behave with thoughtfulness or restraint in today's culture.

A big thank you to @The Computer Audiophile for creating the Objecti-fi forum. Rather than embrace the concept, dissenters would rather continue with their discussions of terse and one liners as they were or nothing. Well the nothing worked well, their loss.

With the snarks departures, I hope that others who were driven away from their antics start to return. This site is for mutual chatter of a hobby, some place to hang out with people of similar ideas and interests, not to statistically record listening tests, blindfolded, yuck, too much like work!

As for MQA, it has no voice here, no sympathy, don't understand why the likes of Scoggins would return...? That's a bygone era, far as I'm concerned.

31 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Chris forced people out and banned a number for disagreeing. Mansr was banned. He said that he didn’t ask to be removed. A bit trigger happy, aren’t you @The Computer Audiophile?
 

Must be that gray area that lets you make up the rules as you go. Hey, as others have said, this is your site, but it doesn’t make it right.

I fully expect to be banned shortly.

It's just a point of view, but I don't think this is fair - I mean the "trigger happy" bit. As I see things the reverse is true. Things have been chaotic for a while and the bubble had to burst (like it does in any human scenario when tensions are rising). I imagine many might think that CC let the bubble expand too far.

Honestly I wish we could all just get along. Call me an idealist (but not anything else please). My recent posts demonstrate that if we had been a bit sharper - as a crowd of people *WITH SOMETHING IN COMMON* - we could have accommodated "objective" perspectives (without undue snark) and happy unfettered audiophiles - all scratching each other's backs in one happy bathtub.

Think what a platform that could have been for causes. A platform of ostensible unity.

It's the impolite imposition of personal will on others that's the root cause of all human problems according to one point of view. We only have to think about our personal lives and our personal histories (whether we have been at fault or whether we have been treated poorly). From my own perspective, things wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as bad as they did without the toxic influence of just one or two truly deadbeat ringleaders. OK maybe even just one.

Nothing wrong with a bit of fun, irony, teasing - whatever. We all know how to build relationships with those assets. That's not what happened here. Gotta feel for Chris. It's hardly his fault.

13 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

While I think the whole "objectivist/subjectivist" trope is just intellectual laziness taken to extremes, the changes Chris has made are a win for MQA because their proxies (Atkinson, Quint, Austin, Scoggins, et. al.) will feel no restraint to push the MQA lies with full confidence that they will not be challenged here in any way.  After all, we have to be civil to the Elders, don't we?  This is what they have demanded (just look at Quint's last 10 posts), and Chris has granted it to them with no conditions.  The forum now has no place for dissent.  Chris has been unequivocal: if you don't like it, leave!

 

 

Can we please just leave the MQA conspiracy alone? There appears to be an overwhelming majority against it here, including CC.

Although I understand why objective only people feel like they are being put on the back of the bus, but I think many are taking it as a slight when I really don't think CC intend it as such. TBH, if he had any interest in quelling objective conversation, he would have done it long ago. To me at least, it is apparent that he tried solve this in other ways, and in all honesty I have debated on leaving this forum because of some of these issues. I came here to learn and share, not get chided or snarked because I asked a stupid question, didn't ABX or don't understand.

If I am to step back, CC is pretty correct in doing it this way and it has taken me 24 hrs to wrap my mind around it.

Audio is largely a subjective pursuit and engineering a largely an objective one. Oh certainly there is crossover and middling mingling, but when it is all said and done the goals are the same and yet the path differs greatly. "Not all those who wander are lost" comes to mind. If some poor fool wants to spend all of their money on a new USB cable, so be it. They are free to think or say that the heavens opened and God spoke to them. Anyone is free to disagree, and perhaps they were actually staring into the eyes of hell? If I get what CC is asking for is that stating they are butt stupid (for whatever reasoning) or that they need to prove their observation empirically is not acceptable. The former is just not allowed thankfully, and the latter needs to be spun off to a section where people can discuss whether something is real or not and have to back up their statements.

And so we have the "judgement free" regular section and when ob fodder is warranted/required, that gets spun off into a sub forum. I  think it is a bit ingenious actually. It is sad that people are taking it as if there are winners or losers. It seems more like a win win to me. All the info with less of the strife.

Perhaps if the objective only crowd saw the sub forum as not the back of the bus, but as an engineer's woo woo free skunk works or haven it would be more palatable?

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

I didn't make this up, this came from Mans directly. I assume he knows better if he wanted to close his account or not. 

Perhaps then there has been a misunderstanding? It would seem as if some pushed back too hard and things went awry quickly. I for one am sad to see Mans and Marce leave even though I didn't care for the snark. Both had a tremendous amount to offer, just like you.

7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I respect your point of view. And I agree that things could be much better if everyone was trying a bit harder to get along.

 

I've no problem with trying to address this and have suggested multiple ways. Chris ignored or declined all reasonable suggestions, claiming they've been tried or he doesn't think they'll work. Instead, he went for the one solution designed to divide the community even further. The result is pretty obvious, and may be achieving the peace that Chris wants, but not without cost. That cost being interesting conversations, difference of opinion, technical discussions of why and how things might work, and contribution of some very expert members. Despite all the heat being generated on the old CA, I found the discussions very illuminating. I often learned from both sides of the discussion, sometimes jumping in and being beat up by one or both  Maybe it's just my imagination, but things have gone down hill since this became AS.

 

Achieving harmony at the cost of diversity is what I really struggle with, as did others who have left, been forced out or outright banned.

 

I don't think the CA/AS switch caused anything. What's in a name. It's the "community" dynamic that was at work. All our different energies.

A particular member thought himself something of a psychologist. Well I'll tell you for nothing (as someone very probably more qualified) that some people LOVE to escalate drama until there's a relationship explosion. There's an *unhealthy* way to manage that - which is to react and participate in the escalation of the drama. We ALL know that that's what "Don't feed the trolls" is all about. There are only two *healthy* ways to manage a difficult person. One - the easy one - is to disengage. The other - which takes enviable maturity - is to stay in the situation (as we feel compelled to do in our families even when things feel dreadful) exercising only relentless courtesy. CC has done that in spades. He's a better man than me.

I'm relatively new around here. But I can see there have been explosions here before (after arguably more questionable behaviour) - and the healing that follows in the wake of them. So let's watch this space with hope.

Most of us are good guys really. CC is an exceptionally measured man imho.

2 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

I don't think the CA/AS switch caused anything. What's in a name. It's the "community" dynamic that was at work. All our different energies.

 

A particular member thought himself something of a psychologist. Well I'll tell you for nothing (as someone very probably more qualified) that some people LOVE to escalate drama until there's a relationship explosion. There's an *unhealthy* way to manage that - which is to react and participate in the escalation of the drama. We ALL know that that's what "Don't feed the trolls" is all about. There are only two *healthy* ways to manage a difficult person. One - the easy one - is to disengage. The other - which takes enviable maturity - is to stay in the situation (as we feel compelled to do in our families even when things feel dreadful) exercising only relentless courtesy. CC has done that in spades. He's a better man than me.

 

I'm relatively new around here. But I can see there have been explosions here before (after arguably more questionable behaviour) - and the healing that follows in the wake of them. So let's watch this space with hope.

 

Most of us are good guys really. CC is an exceptionally measured man imho.

I'm sure everyone means well. All I can do is share how this change affects me and some others, whose opinion and contribution I value. Chris makes the rules, so that's all I can do.

4 hours ago, firedog said:

I'm not sure I agree with what you wrote, but one thing that changed at the site in recent times is a simple lack of respect for others - and it cuts both ways - subjectivist and objectivist, or whatever you want to call it.

Well said

5 hours ago, firedog said:

tmtomh said:

I believe this problem was inevitable, because this site always has represented the coming-together of two very different cultures,

I understand your main point but I will wait and see how this pans out. I wish it didn't have to be this way, but if I can go to the sub forum and follow technical discussions and advice without having to wade through pages of snark and repetition of fixed positions then this will be appreciated by myself and I imagine many others too.

I tried visiting the quoted example of ASR as a source of info and quickly found it an appalling place. DIYaudio is a fine example. Lets see if this is recipe for a happy marriage or even a happy divorce. 

15 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Why don't you share it. Mans says he can't get to his PMs since the account has been terminated. He's ok with you doing so.

Mans said in public that he published his last post, asked me via PM to delete all his posts, and insisted I delete them or he’d get a court order to have them blocked in Europe. 

To me, that means he wants all ties to AS severed and it made me want to severe all ties and solidify that he would follow through with his word of it being his final post. Leaving the account open doesn’t allow us to remove traces of his personal identifying information and leaves us exposed to him participating in other ways that I don’t want him participating (votes, PMs). 
 

Given that the UK isn’t in the EU, I’m unsure how his threatened ban would work, but I still don’t believe AS is required to follow all laws globally (from GDPR to Sharia Law). 
 

I offered to anonymize his content, but not to delete it. This paragraph sums up the AS point of view with respect to deleting content. 
 

Not my text below:

“Earlier this year, the Internet lawyer Arnoud Engelfriet wrote a blog post about exactly this topic. As it is written in Dutch, I will summarize it here:

As you also said, deleting posts breaks the flow of the archived conversation and it makes your archive incomplete. This is a problem for the freedom of expression and information. But Art. 17(3) GDPR includes an exception to the right of erasure for this situation. So posts do not need to be deleted.
 

However, profiles are not included in this exception. So they must be removed, but they can be pseudonymized. For example replace the username with user89432, and remove all details from the profile.

If other posts contain the nick of the author of an anonymized post, that is considered an journalistic, academic artistic or literary expression, so Art. 85 GDPR would apply, so the right of erasure does not apply to that.

Bottom line: you only have to pseudonymize the account, if that person wants to be removed from the forum.”

Oh goodness, whats with all the drama 🙄  How old are most of the people here - is it really that difficult to have a conversation about audio? 

Civility, zero social skills and people skills is what I see.  Some approach forums / hobbies like a full time job, almost to justify themselves and some think way to highly of themselves.

This whole ordeal is a way bigger then any group of individuals on this or any other forum.  It's really about self accountability and acting like a adult with the ability to carry on a conversation without acting like a petulant child.  Move on, scroll on if you cant conduct an ADULT CONVERSATION or disagreement. 

There is a certain level of intelligence on how converse, talk to people of varying levels of personalities.
Self-awareness.
Self-regulation.
Motivation
Empathy
Social skills

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/emotional-intelligence

Most/many here are educated, family people (probably) and how they conduct themselves simply boggles the mind at times.  You don't agree with a viewpoint, put them on ignore and or keep scrolling OR offer viewpoints with some manner of intelligence

It appears that Mans feels his past contributions are priceless. I guess he expected us to question our future existence without his superior knowledge and guidance.

All of this is really more entertaining than his posts 😀

1 hour ago, tapatrick said:

I tried visiting the quoted example of ASR as a source of info and quickly found it an appalling place. DIYaudio is a fine example.

My sentiments exactly, and that's not to say DIYaudio has been 100% free of heated discussion or even banned members over the years, but it doesn't even begin to resemble the other place you mention above which many others including myself also find appalling.

The members at DIYaudio tend to be very technically astute, and also very willing to provide help to those that aren't as qualified as they are. AS/CA has been and can be moving forward that very same sort of thing, where ASR as currently constituted simply cannot, not even close.

9 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Where have I disagreed?

 

Link please. 
 

 

Link please. 

Chris, I'm not trying to be evasive - truly - but I can't respond to "link please" because the "link" is the very comment of yours that I was responding to.

I don't want to add unduly to the static you are getting, so I will try this - here is what I wrote about the change you have made:

"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."

Let me just ask: Do you view this summary as basically accurate or not? If you view it as more or less accurate, then I think we are on the same page. If you do not, then I think we can agree to disagree and, at least for the moment, call it day.

Thank you.

1 minute ago, tmtomh said:

 

Chris, I'm not trying to be evasive - truly - but I can't respond to "link please" because the "link" is the very comment of yours that I was responding to.

 

I don't want to add unduly to the static you are getting, so I will try this - here is what I wrote about the change you have made:

 

"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."

 

Let me just ask: Do you view this summary as basically accurate or not? If you view it as more or less accurate, then I think we are on the same page. If you do not, then I think we can agree to disagree and, at least for the moment, call it day.

 

Thank you.

Thanks for the follow up and purposeful or not, the refreshing delay, giving me time to sleep on it :~) I have a feeling you and I could discuss this over a beverage and have a really interesting conversation, followed by a lot of fun listening to music. Be that as it may, we are here in the virtual world and must use the tools at our disposal to communicate as best we can. 

I certainly see your point and how you arrived at it, but I'm not OK with the wording and characterization. There is much gray area with this and everything in life. Perhaps I can offer an example or two of how I see this working.

I also don't believe the description of "significantly shrunken" is appropriate because the Objective-Fi forum could technically contain 10x the quantity of  posts in all other areas. It comes down to usability and aesthetics. I don't want 50 sub-forums for people to weed through, hemming and hawing over which one is the appropriate place to post etc...

I really like your comment, "so that the majority-subjectivist experience can proceed without interruption and pushback." Yes, this should be the case for all conversations when the adults involved want it to be this way. I'm guessing you don't derive pleasure from entering a cigar bar and yelling, "You're all gonna die and here's why!" On the flip side of that coin is the space for Objective-Fi discussions where you probably wouldn't derive pleasure from yelling, "Trust your ears you nerds with crappy systems!" 

Example 1: USB Cable Experience Thread

This is clearly for those who wish to discuss their listening experience with USB cables. Now, when someone can't help themself from interjecting an objective argument against people's claims, I will just move it to the Objective-Fi forum and include a link in the newly created thread to reference the subjective thread. This separation is the next step after asking people for years to police themselves and stop disrupting grown adult's enjoyment. 

Example 2: UPnP / DLNA Questions Thread

As we saw in the first comment to this article, offering objective information about how UPnP / DLNA works was the perfect answer to the OP's question. The information doesn't need to be moved into the Objective-Fi area because it doesn't make sense to do so. I believe this is common sense, but I also realize we all have different backgrounds and cultural experiences that influence our common sense. 

Example 3: Bit Identical Files Can't Sound Different Thread

In this example, the post should be created in the Objective-Fi forum because it's the best place to have the technical discussion without any belligerence from the far wing fo the Subjective party. It's very simple to point to the sign on the door stating, subjectivity isn't allowed in this one. Such a thread can be referenced forever by anyone who wishes to rehash the old debate again, and again, and again. It's hopefully educational rather than a pissing match. 

We must also keep in mind that many roads lead to Rome and everyone has an opinion. Many of the people complaining haven't tried to be part of the solution, but some have. I am grateful for feedback and potential solutions, but people must also realize that this is what I do all day, every day, every year ... I don't know everything, but I have a good idea what hasn't worked and what has the best chance of working.