Audiophile Style State of the Union

15 hours ago, tmtomh said:

Now, it is true that some objectivist members here seem to have confused or conflated (1) the opportunity or lack thereof for participating freely in all discussions and (2) the need for baseline civility. So when they are called on their incivility, they react as if they are being restricted in the arguments they can make or when and where they can make them.

15 hours ago, tmtomh said:

But I see too many folks responding to this conflation with a mirror-image error: When objectivists now complain about how they feel their ability to participate here is being restricted, the reaction is that they just need to be more civil. This is why @pkane2001 has gone 12 rounds with Chris about the "grey area" issue: if the answer to "why is objectivism restricted to a single subforum" is, "because we all need to be civil and emotionally intelligent," then naturally pkane and many others are going to ask the logical next question: "So how can I know if a comment I want to make or an argument I want to put forward is civil enough to remain in a thread, or if it will get removed and put into the Objective-fi subforum?" 

If there is genuine concern about whether the tone of posting, by the poster, is civil enough this situation would surely not have arisen in the first place. The attention itself would have curtailed the problem and CC would not have had to take such measures

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

This aspect of the input of some objectivists is what disturbs people ... all that is being asked for is that some self-discipline be applied at the time of making the post, ensuring that the tone is not unnecessarily aggressive.

I would hope it was clear from my comment that I agree with this.

But at the risk of repeating myself, I have to reiterate that responding to this problem by creating an objective-fi subforum is an indirect and inequitable solution - unless one believes that objectivist members are the sole source of this problem here, which is most certainly not the case.

15 hours ago, tmtomh said:

Finally, it has to be said that this sort of approach to argument and interaction traditionally is a male-dominated thing, too.

too true.. in this approach 'irrational' and 'rational' thought are often quoted as some kind of hard definition, another questionable terminology. To be concrete, to me it is pretty clear that arrogance is a product of irrational thought.

11 hours ago, nugget said:

 

My experience is 100% the opposite of what you report.  I think you've fallen victim to the false consensus effect.  You lost me at "...and also to most audiophiles" which is something you can't possibly know.

 

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

Except for the first sentence, where you state your personal experience, everything you have said is nearly a personal attack on someone who shares an opinion you don't. You could have just stopped at the first point. But you wouldn't want to. Since you incite pleasure by upholding your ego and trying to find as much random references to fit in to your argument.

I'd honestly name the other forum cocoon fi, boomer-fi, or condoscend-fi. Objective fi is rather generous for the level of brickwall they build upon their arguments. They always bank on one big statement - "it <should not be> audible". I'm sorry mate science studies do show humans can discern a time precision way above what a 48khz sampling rate can reliably capture (5micro seconds is what I remember, check some MIT studies and stuff). That forms the essence of you actually being able to locate objects in space using just sound even with your eyes closed. Just because the rest of your chain filters those out in a way that the change is un noticed doesn't mean a change is not there. I really doubt they have a basic understanding of a coverage metric either. For example, A headphone amplifier in practice drives a load that is in a magnetic field (almost like a motor). They actually do work against the magnet's force and that is in essence how they push the thing and make sound. How they come to claim it's the same as a resistance is beyond me, not even an inductor on top of it. And I don't think I've come across a model of a motor that has been described as a LTI system, let alone a minimum phase system. If you want to cite one popular persons "objective" measurements, he rarely even measures the precision of reconstruction filter and its bandwidth. It's quite easy to fake low thd in low frequencies by inhibiting harmonics (ie a pig fat low pass). Sorry it smears transients in an audible way. And I don't think these guys who think cables don't change anything learnt anything about transmission lines, foundry rules from fab/manufactuer, or even the fact that companies that produce usb to i2s converters have patents on packet loss masking. Bit is bit. What a joke. If that were the case you'd have had 1000Ghz CPU by now and you'd be able to put one core in one room and another core in another room connected by USB.

I'm all in for objectivity if it has enough coverage metric. Else it's just some random manipulated squiggle. Even then there still are aspects that just can't be objectified (everyones ear canals are different and the peaks and nulls change). There have been so many instances where things that have been considered placebo for a long time have actually been later proven to be true. Micro stutters is a good example. Didnt we just have the episodes of spectre and meltdown (and who knows what other potential disaster is hiding). Heck, it was believed sun revolved around the earth, earth was flat, classical physics explains everything, atom is the smallest particle, all of which have been overridden by further explorations. Trying to cockblock a discussion on a topic is not going to help it.

11 hours ago, nugget said:

 

My experience is 100% the opposite of what you report.  I think you've fallen victim to the false consensus effect.  You lost me at "...and also to most audiophiles" which is something you can't possibly know.

 

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

Not sure if @nugget still here, but also for others who've become involved:

Nugget called me out based on "false consensus". Maybe I should have said "IMO, most audiophiles believe USB cables sound different", but it's a post on an audio forum, not an engineering white paper. Most audiophile publications have tested USB cables and heard differences, most audiophiles (IMO), read the audiophile press, who are opinion leaders, therefore I believe most audiophiles share the opinion. USB cable threads on this site show a pretty clear majority for believers, IMO. (If you disagree, feel free to count the pro & anti responses in the currently running USB cable threads.) The audiophiles I know locally share my opinion on USB cables, none disagree.

I have no wish to be involved in yet another cable death spiral. I can't convince Nugget, he won't convince me. I'm interested in tests and measurements, and appreciate solid engineering. I read about audio daily. I listen to both sides of the arguments, then do my own listening tests; ABX blind where possible, which is not often. IME, extended listening in my own system is by far the most telling method, blind or not. I hear clear differences in USB cables, my tests showed no differences in ethernet cables. I do not argue with people who say that ethernet cables affect SQ. 

A few people on this board generate most of the conflict with what they call "rational" views. I say they're close-minded. As a general group, objectivists believe that all competently designed amps and CD players sound the same, cables and tweaks are audiophile nonsense. I call them anti-audiophiles, which will no doubt cause a reaction, but they are outside the hobby AFAIC.

I've discussed audio on the internet for as long as it's been possible to do so. I've heard all the arguments. I don't want to have to conduct market research or scour the web to support my findings whenever I post an opinion. I come here to learn, discuss audio and share what I can. Chris' analogy of "pissing in the punch bowl" perfectly describes how I feel about the people who've left or been pushed out in the past few days. Yes, it takes two to tango, and we can all do better.

I have great hopes that the Objectivist Forum will succeed. I will definitely follow the content and contribute if/when I can. So far it is being misused to ridicule audiophiles and gripe about policy, but a few mature and rational people could change the tone and content. If its only role is to clean up the other boards, it will call it a success, but it can be a great resource.

Audiophile Style is the best and most knowledgeable website to learn about and discuss computer audio. That's why I was disappointed with the name change. Having Computer in the name had more potential to attract audiophiles who are interested in this newish and exponentially growing field. An hospitable environment is key, and I strongly support @The Computer Audiophile  in his attempts to dial down the conflict and rhetoric.

9 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

Except for the first sentence, where you state your personal experience, everything you have said is nearly a personal attack on someone who shares an opinion you don't. You could have just stopped at the first point. But you wouldn't want to. Since you incite pleasure by upholding your ego and trying to find as much random references to fit in to your argument.

 

I'd honestly name the other forum cocoon fi, boomer-fi, or condoscend-fi. Objective fi is rather generous for the level of brickwall they build upon their arguments. They always bank on one big statement - "it <should not be> audible". I'm sorry mate science studies do show humans can discern a time precision way above what a 48khz sampling rate can reliably capture (5micro seconds is what I remember, check some MIT studies and stuff). That forms the essence of you actually being able to locate objects in space using just sound even with your eyes closed. Just because the rest of your chain filters those out in a way that the change is un noticed doesn't mean a change is not there. I really doubt they have a basic understanding of a coverage metric either. For example, A headphone amplifier in practice drives a load that is in a magnetic field (almost like a motor). They actually do work against the magnet's force and that is in essence how they push the thing and make sound. How they come to claim it's the same as a resistance is beyond me, not even an inductor on top of it. And I don't think I've come across a model of a motor that has been described as a LTI system, let alone a minimum phase system. If you want to cite one popular persons "objective" measurements, he rarely even measures the precision of reconstruction filter and its bandwidth. It's quite easy to fake low thd in low frequencies by inhibiting harmonics (ie a pig fat low pass). Sorry it smears transients in an audible way.

 

I'm an Engineer and I'm all in for objectivity if it has enough coverage metric. Else it's just some random manipulated squiggle. Even then there still are aspects that just can't be objectified (everyones ear canals are different and the peaks and nulls change). There have been so many instances where things that have been considered placebo for a long time have actually been later proven to be true. Micro stutters is a good example. Heck, it was believed sun revolved around the earth, earth was flat, classical physics explains everything, atom is the smallest particle, all of which have been overridden by further explorations. Trying to cockblock a discussion on a topic is not going to help it.

You are making mistakes in your technical arguments, showing only a layman's understanding of timing, sampling, transients, etc., not to mention a personal attack on the original poster: "you incite pleasure by upholding your ego and trying to find as much random references to fit in to your argument." 

Despite what you just said about random references, every single example you used had absolutely nothing to do with the original post. You are making a straw-man argument against all of objectivism,  but disguising it as chastising this one individual. Civility? Hardly.

17 hours ago, audiobomber said:

I don't accept your analogy. USB cables sound different in my system, and also to most audiophiles.

Your comment raises an interesting question. The part of your claim that I have bolded is a claim about subjective impressions, but it is a factual and therefore objective claim about those impressions. 

I would hope that @The Computer Audiophile would agree that it is perfectly acceptable to question this claim, and further to point out that there is no evidence to support this claim, that "most audiophiles" hear differences between USB cables. Chris, am I correct that a civil statement to this effect would not be moved into the Objective-fi subforum?

To be clear, I am not talking about questioning whether anyone really is hearing a difference - I'm talking specifically about the part of audiobomber's comment that I have bolded above.

42 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

Except for the first sentence, where you state your personal experience, everything you have said is nearly a personal attack on someone who shares an opinion you don't. You could have just stopped at the first point. But you wouldn't want to. Since you incite pleasure by upholding your ego and trying to find as much random references to fit in to your argument.

 

I'd honestly name the other forum cocoon fi, boomer-fi, or condoscend-fi. Objective fi is rather generous for the level of brickwall they build upon their arguments. They always bank on one big statement - "it <should not be> audible". I'm sorry mate science studies do show humans can discern a time precision way above what a 48khz sampling rate can reliably capture (5micro seconds is what I remember, check some MIT studies and stuff). That forms the essence of you actually being able to locate objects in space using just sound even with your eyes closed. Just because the rest of your chain filters those out in a way that the change is un noticed doesn't mean a change is not there. I really doubt they have a basic understanding of a coverage metric either. For example, A headphone amplifier in practice drives a load that is in a magnetic field (almost like a motor). They actually do work against the magnet's force and that is in essence how they push the thing and make sound. How they come to claim it's the same as a resistance is beyond me, not even an inductor on top of it. And I don't think I've come across a model of a motor that has been described as a LTI system, let alone a minimum phase system. If you want to cite one popular persons "objective" measurements, he rarely even measures the precision of reconstruction filter and its bandwidth. It's quite easy to fake low thd in low frequencies by inhibiting harmonics (ie a pig fat low pass). Sorry it smears transients in an audible way. And I don't think these guys who think cables don't change anything learnt anything about transmission lines, foundry rules from fab/manufactuer, or even the fact that companies that produce usb to i2s converters have patents on packet loss masking. Bit is bit. What a joke. If that were the case you'd have had 1000Ghz CPU by now and you'd be able to put one core in one room and another core in another room connected by USB.

 

I'm all in for objectivity if it has enough coverage metric. Else it's just some random manipulated squiggle. Even then there still are aspects that just can't be objectified (everyones ear canals are different and the peaks and nulls change). There have been so many instances where things that have been considered placebo for a long time have actually been later proven to be true. Micro stutters is a good example. Didnt we just have the episodes of spectre and meltdown (and who knows what other potential disaster is hiding). Heck, it was believed sun revolved around the earth, earth was flat, classical physics explains everything, atom is the smallest particle, all of which have been overridden by further explorations. Trying to cockblock a discussion on a topic is not going to help it.

Your technical references etc., aren't correct or accurate. Either study up so you know what you are talking about, or don't use them. The 48khz reference is totally confused and wrong, for example....

7 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

Your comment raises an interesting question. The part of your claim that I have bolded is a claim about subjective impressions, but it is a factual and therefore objective claim about those impressions. 

 

I would hope that @The Computer Audiophile would agree that it is perfectly acceptable to question this claim, and further to point out that there is no evidence to support this claim, that "most audiophiles" hear differences between USB cables. Chris, am I correct that a civil statement to this effect would not be moved into the Objective-fi subforum?

 

To be clear, I am not talking about questioning whether anyone really is hearing a difference - I'm talking specifically about the part of audiobomber's comment that I have bolded above.

First, I'm losing my patience. I'm human, it happens. I see much of this as people not trying to be part of the solution but rather displaying their distaste for my decision in numerous ways. I'm struggling to see your question as one that you would really ask, rather than one that is being asked just to be a pest. I know you aren't a pest but give the last several days, I'm just running thin on patience. 

Please consider the spirit of the changes I made. Don't put on a rage against the machine playlist at a classical music party. 

In this specific example, you're reading into his post and would like to challenge him. Why? Why can't you or anyone else just let it be? Does the fact that he said something make it "factual and therefore objective?" People don't come here to be questioned by the HiFi police. They come here to express opinions and thoughts and have a good time. Nobody is using his claim of "most audiophiles" in the next Presidential debate. 

A civil statement challenging him should be in the objective-fi forum because you'd be looking for some objective information to disprove what he said. All I'm asking is for people to use some common sense. Does it seem like the person posting wants to be challenged? Is the person just here to have fun and share experiences? Is your proposed challenge likely to turn into a fight? Based on this type of stuff, use some judgement and try to keep the place enjoyable. 

I'm close to locking this comment section. If anyone wants to talk about being part of a solution, please PM me. Otherwise this back and forth is getting nowhere we haven't already been.

13 minutes ago, firedog said:

The 48khz reference is totally confused and wrong, for example....

Assuming he's referring to the time period of a 48kHz wavelength, I'm guessing that's a reference to Kunchur. His stuff is somewhat controversial because the noticeable time period he found is shorter than that found in experiments by others. And the relevance for digital audio is also a matter for discussion (for example, it doesn't mean a 48kHz sample rate is required for accurate reproduction).

3 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

Thank you for that clarification. I saw that in your prior comment. With respect, I don't think adding "IMO" remedies the problem.

 

The issue there is that that you didn't clarify that you were expressing an opinion. The issue is that you were not in fact expressing an opinion, at least not in the sent that you appear to be using the term. A factual claim is a factual claim, and as such it requires evidence. The fact that you personally believe that factual claim does not transform that claim into an opinion.

We are here to have fun. Please stop acting like the debate coach.

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

First, I'm losing my patience. I'm human, it happens. I see much of this as people not trying to be part of the solution but rather displaying their distaste for my decision in numerous ways. I'm struggling to see your question as one that you would really ask, rather than one that is being asked just to be a pest. I know you aren't a pest but give the last several days, I'm just running thin on patience. 

 

Please consider the spirit of the changes I made. Don't put on a rage against the machine playlist at a classical music party. 

 

In this specific example, you're reading into his post and would like to challenge him. Why? Why can't you or anyone else just let it be? Does the fact that he said something make it "factual and therefore objective?" People don't come here to be questioned by the HiFi police. They come here to express opinions and thoughts and have a good time. Nobody is using his claim of "most audiophiles" in the next Presidential debate. 

 

A civil statement challenging him should be in the objective-fi forum because you'd be looking for some objective information to disprove what he said. All I'm asking is for people to use some common sense. Does it seem like the person posting wants to be challenged? Is the person just here to have fun and share experiences? Is your proposed challenge likely to turn into a fight? Based on this type of stuff, use some judgement and try to keep the place enjoyable. 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your reply, Chris. I'm sorry you feeling so thin on patience and I certainly can understand why you are feeling that way. I also am sorry to have contributed to that.

I will say, however, that this response is not what I was hoping for. I could let audiobomber's claim be, but I don't want to, because I'm a member here too, and this is not a thread about USB cables (I consciously considered what kind of thread I was about to post my reply in, because I have listened and tried to be attentive to what you're trying to accomplish here).

But if a polite, civil comment about the fact-opinion distinction, in a non-subjectivist thread, is considered to be hi-fi policing, then I'm inclined to withdraw from most discussion moving forward. Not going to throw a tantrum or ask for my account to be deleted. Just calmly saying it's not a set of parameters that contributes to my enjoyment of our shared hobby.

22 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’ve yet to see a better solution. 

That's pretty much the key. Better solution, otherwise live with the bronze bullet, however flawed.

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Assuming he's referring to the time period of a 48kHz wavelength, I'm guessing that's a reference to Kunchur. His stuff is somewhat controversial because the noticeable time period he found is shorter than that found in experiments by others. And the relevance for digital audio is also a matter for discussion (for example, it doesn't mean a 48kHz sample rate is required for accurate reproduction).

You are correct. So does this post have to be quarantined to prevent spoiling the fun of the poster you were responding to?

43 minutes ago, esldude said:

You are correct. So does this post have to be quarantined to prevent spoiling the fun of the poster you were responding to?

Using my judgment, I'd say the OP didn't seem to have reacted with great pleasure to what @firedog was saying, firstly. Second, this type of discussion does seem to me to be suited, in an entirely good way, for an objective forum. I would like to discuss academic papers such as Kunchur's in a place where objective factual evidence, academic research, etc., are highly valued.

I would also invite the OP to the discussion, provided, of course, he would wish and agree to abide by the tone of the objective part of the forum. I think that's part of being helpful, but of course it only helps the OP (and anyone else who might look in) if they want to be helped.

Once again, not an ideal solution, but it seems to me it's up to us to suggest something better. (In my day job, when we provide a response, it is never just to say "This is bad," since that tends not to work very often or very well. Rather, we always say "Here is something we think is better," which seems to work out more often.)