Article: Become a CA Subscriber Today!

[bdiament]

Hi Richard,

 

A very similar pattern here. M and I married on City Island (on your side of the river), also on private ground, where we planned it and ran it ourselves. It was '76. (That's the spirit!) No photos with me as I type but my hair was longer (and darker) then too. ;-}

 

Our "music server" as an AR XB (slightly modified by yours truly), with an ADC XLM cartridge (later a Grado) feeding Dynaco electronics and speakers. "Playlists" were achieved by getting up and changing records after each song. "Networking" to the next room was achieved by turning up the volume. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

Hi Chris,

 

...what irritated me about your post about polls was the off hand way you dismissed all of them. Well, I think there is information to be gained from some of them...

 

What I said was I'm not a "poll taker". There was no dismissal (sorry if I miscommunicated) and sorry if the way I feel about most polls upsets you; I was merely pointing out that I don't find most of them of interest and others seems structured to "guide" the response. So I tend to bypass most of them.

 

I understand you have a different perspectives.

 

By the way, in another post you mentioned a lot of "negative assumptions". Please consider the impact of your words before blaming others for reading (and responding to) them.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[REShaman]

Hi Richard,

 

A very similar pattern here. M and I married on City Island (on your side of the river), also on private ground, where we planned it and ran it ourselves. It was '76. (That's the spirit!) No photos with me as I type but my hair was longer (and darker) then too. ;-}

 

Our "music server" as an AR XB (slightly modified by yours truly), with an ADC XLM cartridge (later a Grado) feeding Dynaco electronics and speakers. "Playlists" were achieved by getting up and changing records after each song. "Networking" to the next room was achieved by turning up the volume. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

 

Yes, so many similarities. One of our friends at the time had a electronics repair business (Andy Tanner but I can not remember the name of his business); and he conducted for many years an authorized repair service for several of the large companies, i.e., Onkyo, Nad etc. He brought everything we needed including commercial outdoor speakers on huge stands and a very fine cassette deck and amp etc. (can not remember the manufacturer) with tons of my pre-recorded or personally recorded cassettes and some created by other friends and acquaintances specifically for the occasion for non-stop music before and after the ceremony. So there we were on the grounds of a farm in Pomona with a huge yellow stripped tent, glasses, china, silverware (all rented) catered food, cases of wine and champagne including gourmet desserts by Marie's colleague's wife who sold her desserts commercially. Non-stop music surrounded by forrest. Best wedding I had ever attended. Everything was as we wanted it including the music. We paid for the entire wedding so we would not feel beholding to anyone's decisions made on our behalf but perhaps different from what we would have done. Mr. Blackmun from The Coach House on Waverly Street in the Village kept the celebration running as smooth as could be in the woods and brought Hors d'oeuvre from the Coach House. Even the weather for the beginning of the month of May cooperated with the sun appearing out of the clouds just before the vows were exchanged. Of course, we wrote our own vows and our ceremony was conducted by non-traditional but licensed ordained minister and the ceremony was (non religious) Spiritual in observation (there's someone bigger than Murray as Mel Brooks would say). The photograph I put up at CA is one of us in our wedding Native American leathers made by a well-known costumier in NYC who made them for rock groups. I am carrying on about this.

 

PS I made a mistake and ask your pardon. I had second thoughts about printing a certain referenced name in my earlier post. It is after the fact, but I will not do that again. Please excuse my carelessness in not listening to my inner voice.

 

And thank you for sharing your experiences which I enjoy learning about especially as in experiencing music, remembering and reliving our special ceremonies and time spent in pursuits that touch our Hearts and Souls and attach to vibrations that attune us to feelings which give deep pleasure, peace, empowerment and are sacred.

 

Richard

[REShaman]

Barry, the name just popped into my head. It should not mean anything to you. But just because I am a little compulsive especially about sorting by information (doesn't pay for me to even try to work on this, because that's one of the ways I sort). Andy Tanner's business was called Midtown Audio with different locations off 5th Avenue around 20th Street and ultimately 72 Street between Columbus and Broadway. Then out of business. I left out that he drove us to the airport at 5:00 AM the next morning so we could fly to Little Dix Bay at the Rock Resort on Virgin Gorda where we spent 7 fun filled days. But that's another story where art and one's surroundings are the same and even if no music is playing, it's all like music because Living has a rhythm.

Best,

Richard

[manisandher]

Thanks guys. You've helped me understand why a subscriber-only forum might actually be useful ;-)

 

Mani.

[Jud]

Thanks guys. You've helped me understand why a subscriber-only forum might actually be useful ;-)

 

Mani.

 

Not quite sure how to take that....

 

Do I want to know? ;-)

[Paul R]

Jeez guys, try reading the words, not just you Paul, but the earlier ones I responded to also. So many negative assumptions. Just because one can construe something as negative doesn't make it so.

 

Of course I've considered that possibility, do I need to spell it out? In fact, that was my point about Chris' possible advisers.

 

And no, I have no idea of some people forming an elite. I never said that, implied that or thought that, and besides it would just be an idea in the "elites" head, so it also wouldn't concern me. What I did say is that someone might have advised Chris that people would like the idea of an elite and would therefore sign up. If that is actually the case, I don't know, and as I said, I would understand if Chris C didn't disclose that to us.

 

-Chris

 

Well, I am relieved to hear that!

 

I don't have to understand you to respect your point of view, even when I disagree. But it helps.

 

-Paul

[Jud]

Stubborn or disingenuous? I also added or some secret reason.

 

I'm guessing you think I meant he was lying when I used the term disingenuous.** That's not at all what I meant. I think he's just not telling us (me) something. I'm not saying he's lying as to anything he said.

 

Specifically why I used disingenuous. Because he seems to think segregated topics are important (he refuses to eliminate them even though quite a few members say they would subscribe if he did), but he downplays their importance when making specific responses to people. So, to me it appears he's not telling us something (which is his right of course).

 

When I wrote the original post it was more or less just a feeling, but now I have a thought of what it might be. When setting up the subscriber's thing he got input from "advisers" that it was important to have a segregated topics area for subscribers because it gives said an elite or special club feeling. Since this is one of the things that some would be subscribers and non-subscribers don't appreciate I could see why Chris C wouldn't mention it.

 

Again, the subscriber's topic area doesn't make sense to me (unless it's the above just mentioned). I used the stubborn or disingenuous or secret reason tag because of that. Chris has refused to address why he created the area, which is his privilege, but also begs for speculation as it goes against what people here wanted before subscribers, and only makes the situation worse--less organized.

 

By the way, I could care less about the subscribers area for myself, that's not why I'm writing all this. I won't become a member except for a month or two at a time, if/when I determine that the sell function seems worthwhile. I'm just interested in the site, it's well being and this issue and would like to see it expand and get more people more involved. I think the subscriber's only topic area goes against the long term well being of the forum. I could be wrong, I was once before.

 

-Chris

 

**If that's not the case you better explain because I don't think that Chris C. is lying, and I don't understand where you think I said that.

 

From an online thesaurus, for the word "disingenous:" The definition is given as "insincere." Synonyms listed are as follows: artful, crooked, cunning, deceitful, designing, dishonest, duplicitous, false, feigned, foxy, guileful, indirect, insidious, mendacious, oblique, shifty, sly, tricky, two-faced, uncandid, underhanded, unfair, unfrank, wily.

 

Gosh, don't know how I could get the idea you were calling Chris C dishonest, given the above (ahem).

 

Now you say you didn't intend to call Chris dishonest. Then you follow that with this:

 

Specifically why I used disingenuous. Because he seems to think segregated topics are important (he refuses to eliminate them even though quite a few members say they would subscribe if he did), but he downplays their importance when making specific responses to people. So, to me it appears he's not telling us something (which is his right of course).

 

So in your opinion he's saying something ("he downplays their importance when making specific responses to people") he doesn't believe is true ("he seems to think segregated topics are important;" "he refuses to eliminate them..."). That seems to me to be the very definition of lying. Help me here - why should I understand your words differently than their plain meaning?

 

By the way, let me say again: To me this is quite definitely not about whether subscriber topics are "important" or "unimportant." They're important enough to have for subscribers, absolutely. Two other things are also true in my opinion at the very same time: (1) No one in the other forums is being prevented from posting a single thing in those forums that they could have posted before the subscriber forums existed; (2) The subscriber topics are not, in Chris C's words, part of the "core content" of the site.

 

So one more time: Rather than generalities like "important," can someone point out to me any of the subscriber topics where the characteristics of audio equipment or music are being discussed, and from which non-subscribers are barred?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Jud - If you consider my Chihuahuas' barking musical then the pictures of them posted in the new thread titled Pet Pics may be considered core content :~)

 

Only kidding of course.

[bdiament]

Hi Richard,

 

...I made a mistake and ask your pardon....

 

No harm, no foul.

 

It is wonderful to hear what you have to say and to know of our common experiences - particularly of our joy in our relationships with our brides.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[Jud]

Hey, Chris C -

 

I do want to get mildly serious here for a minute, and just discuss the lay of the land a bit.

 

You're having to perform a balancing act, which you knew when you took this step. To make a success of subscriptions, you had to make becoming a subscriber attractive. To keep your advertising base, *not* being a subscriber had to remain attractive.

 

Allowing only subscribers to post about having equipment for sale was pretty much a no-brainer, one that I think has been pretty well accepted by everyone (especially since you made the change to allow non-subscribers to participate as buyers).

 

Having other subscriber-only topics, non-"core" as they are, was always going to be a bit of a touchy thing, and I think you probably anticipated that as well. Much as no one - you, subscribers, non-subscribers - wants to feel this way, whenever there's a "fenced-off" area it feels like some damage is done to the sense of everyone being part of one community.

 

For that reason (and I think I am probably preaching to the converted here), you are going to want to keep a sensitive ear to what is going on here, with (in my opinion) a view toward moving some subscriber forum topics to the general forum, at least on a contingent basis. Even - perhaps especially - the off topic forum might be something to try. If it's a success, that's more people having a feeling of community and friendship; if it degenerates, what better argument for moving it back to the subscriber forum permanently?

 

Meanwhile, I hope you are such a roaring success that perks such as discounts expand to the point that subscriber-only forums are no longer felt to be necessary as an attraction.

 

Just my free unsolicited advice, worth every penny, I'm sure. ;-)

[crisnee]

From an online thesaurus, for the word "disingenous:" The definition is given as "insincere." Synonyms listed are as follows: artful, crooked, cunning, deceitful, designing, dishonest, duplicitous, false, feigned, foxy, guileful, indirect, insidious, mendacious, oblique, shifty, sly, tricky, two-faced, uncandid, underhanded, unfair, unfrank, wily.

 

Gosh, don't know how I could get the idea you were calling Chris C dishonest, given the above (ahem).

 

 

Gosh, you should know better than to use a thesaurus for this sort of thing. Dictionary is what you want. You might want to look up the difference between the two, I don't feel like writing a tedious explanation.

 

And by the way, according to Merriam Webster Collegiate dictionary, 10th edition: lacking in candor : also giving a false appearance of simple frankness. That's the whole definition (yes all of it) in said high quality dictionary. And "lacking in candor" is exactly what I meant. I used that word intentionally, because I didn't mean that he was lying. I was suggesting that he was not telling us something, that is all; and that is certainly his right and possibly the smart thing to do.

 

Not only did I not mean it as a mark of dishonor or an insult, but I would do the same if for instance I was told by advisers that forum members would buy into an "elite," area (especially after reading responses here).

 

You guys (Barry, Paul, Jud others I can't think of at the moment) are so pc and on your high horses that you can't see what could have been an interesting discussion as to subscriber issues, not to mention poll issues.

 

Barry says I raised negative assumptions or some such twaddle. I was just trying to raise possible issues and open them for discussion. Negative, positive, neutral, whatever. I have nothing at stake here, I just think it's very interesting (or could have been if you all weren't such duds re this topic and so closed minded). I personally just want to know, or speculate as to what's what.

 

I'm not going to respond to the other stuff in your post Jud, because I already have in earlier posts and I'm tired of this. If you took off your pc glasses you'd see a whole 'nother world and the same goes for Barry and Paul.

 

I'll just say one more time, I was just exploring. It's true that what started me out was a bit of a negative feeling re the segregated topics and I said so clearly at the time. But that's long since past, as I realized that in reality the elite thing is in one's head not in the forum. Nevertheless, I was curious about why etc. etc. and about meta issues, nothing more, nothing less.

 

I did get frustrated that almost every response was defensive and questioned me. Apparently it's okay to imply that I'm lying and being nasty. So, I'm through with this topic, to everyone's delight I'm sure.

 

-Chris

[bdiament]

Hi Chris,

 

...You guys (Barry, Paul, Jud others I can't think of at the moment) are so pc and on your high horses that you can't see what could have been an interesting discussion as to subscriber issues, not to mention poll issues...

 

PC is BS. A discussion is one thing; attacking someone's character (intentionally or not, aware of it or not) is another. The responses you got aren't "pc", they are trying to point something out to you that you apparently refuse to see. (No need to defend what you said. It isn't the readers that have missed the point.) Now you cast aspersions on those who tried to point this out to you.

 

Perhaps if you looked at your own posts, you might consider the idea that there was another way to make your point, referring to how *you* feel and what *you* think and not to what you might believe someone else is doing or saying or not doing or not saying. And without being so critical of folks who tried to point this out to you.

 

 

...I did get frustrated that almost every response was defensive and questioned me. Apparently it's okay to imply that I'm lying and being nasty. So, I'm through with this topic, to everyone's delight I'm sure...

 

I wish you could see it wasn't the responses to you that were defensive; it was your responses to those responses. With a bit of self reflection based on that feedback, this might have gone another way.

 

Maybe everyone here is wrong. I'll never say that's impossible.

Or maybe there was something to be heard in the feedback. That's not impossible either.

 

I think your posts are otherwise interesting and I'm sorry when this stuff gets in the way of what could be meaningful communication.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[mwheelerk]

Hi Chris,

 

 

 

PC is BS. A discussion is one thing; attacking someone's character (intentionally or not, aware of it or not) is another. The responses you got aren't "pc", they are trying to point something out to you that you apparently refuse to see. (No need to defend what you said. It isn't the readers that have missed the point.) Now you cast aspersions on those who tried to point this out to you.

 

Perhaps if you looked at your own posts, you might consider the idea that there was another way to make your point, referring to how *you* feel and what *you* think and not to what you might believe someone else is doing or saying or not doing or not saying. And without being so critical of folks who tried to point this out to you.

 

 

 

 

I wish you could see it wasn't the responses to you that were defensive; it was your responses to those responses. With a bit of self reflection based on that feedback, this might have gone another way.

 

Maybe everyone here is wrong. I'll never say that's impossible.

Or maybe there was something to be heard in the feedback. That's not impossible either.

 

I think your posts are otherwise interesting and I'm sorry when this stuff gets in the way of what could be meaningful communication.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

 

Simply and totally agree.

[Paul R]

Hi Chris-

 

I am very rarely accused of being PC, so I'll give you my opinion straight.

 

Rubbish.

 

I have not, nor has anyone else been attacking you, even though I seriously disagree not only with your propositions, but with way you are putting them forward.

 

So no PC B.S.- I am trying hard to understand what you are saying and why, but it all keeps boiling down to you don't like the idea of subscriptions or paying for any access to C.A. Okay, I can accept that, but you need to accept that a lot of ther people, including me, are willing to.

 

Does that take away anthing at all from you or any other person here, subscriber or not?

 

No.

 

If I want to spend $5 a month to chat about gun control, post pictures of pets and other off topic stuff with people I consider friends (all be it, friends I have not had the opportunity to meet yet) that's cool. If you don't, then we talk only about audio subjects, and that is cool too.

 

Probably the vast majority of people here only want to talk about audio, and that is the prime focus of the site. If I want to use the site for something a little different, don't you think I should pay for that priviledge, and respect the other members by keeping off topic dscussions separate?

 

Paul

 

Gosh, you should know better than to use a thesaurus for this sort of thing. Dictionary is what you want. You might want to look up the difference between the two, I don't feel like writing a tedious explanation.

 

And by the way, according to Merriam Webster Collegiate dictionary, 10th edition: lacking in candor : also giving a false appearance of simple frankness. That's the whole definition (yes all of it) in said high quality dictionary. And "lacking in candor" is exactly what I meant. I used that word intentionally, because I didn't mean that he was lying. I was suggesting that he was not telling us something, that is all; and that is certainly his right and possibly the smart thing to do.

 

Not only did I not mean it as a mark of dishonor or an insult, but I would do the same if for instance I was told by advisers that forum members would buy into an "elite," area (especially after reading responses here).

 

You guys (Barry, Paul, Jud others I can't think of at the moment) are so pc and on your high horses that you can't see what could have been an interesting discussion as to subscriber issues, not to mention poll issues.

 

Barry says I raised negative assumptions or some such twaddle. I was just trying to raise possible issues and open them for discussion. Negative, positive, neutral, whatever. I have nothing at stake here, I just think it's very interesting (or could have been if you all weren't such duds re this topic and so closed minded). I personally just want to know, or speculate as to what's what.

 

I'm not going to respond to the other stuff in your post Jud, because I already have in earlier posts and I'm tired of this. If you took off your pc glasses you'd see a whole 'nother world and the same goes for Barry and Paul.

 

I'll just say one more time, I was just exploring. It's true that what started me out was a bit of a negative feeling re the segregated topics and I said so clearly at the time. But that's long since past, as I realized that in reality the elite thing is in one's head not in the forum. Nevertheless, I was curious about why etc. etc. and about meta issues, nothing more, nothing less.

 

I did get frustrated that almost every response was defensive and questioned me. Apparently it's okay to imply that I'm lying and being nasty. So, I'm through with this topic, to everyone's delight I'm sure.

 

-Chris

[mwheelerk]

Ahhh... But equally why shout how brilliant this move is on Chris' part until you have seen what effect it has...

 

Eloise

 

First, I have made no statements as to "how brilliant" anything is and secondly my post stated "making declarations of any nature".

[Jud]

I was suggesting that he was not telling us something, that is all; and that is certainly his right and possibly the smart thing to do.

 

Not only did I not mean it as a mark of dishonor or an insult, but I would do the same if for instance I was told by advisers that forum members would buy into an "elite," area (especially after reading responses here).

 

-Chris

 

Lest this thing veer off totally into meta-argument about how other folks are making their points (I'm fully as much to blame as anyone for that), I think we should maybe talk simply about what we like and don't like, instead of projecting histories and motivations behind all this onto Chris C. We've been "informed" in this thread that Chris C already makes plenty of money from the site, but wants to make even more; that "advisers" may have told him forum members would like an "elite" area, and this is something Chris C might be smart to hide from us (did this take place in a smoke filled room? did the "advisers" have cigars? that would really give the thing that noir atmosphere); and various other speculations that are really, to me, beside the point.

 

The primary point appears to be that subscriber-only forums (other than only subscribers having the right to offer items for sale - that doesn't seem to have come in for a lot of criticism, at least so far) just don't feel right to a lot of folks. I empathize and agree to the extent that I'd like to see as many subscriber-only topics as possible find their way into the forums accessible to all, so we can all feel equally part of the same community.

 

Anyone got anything else?

[Jay192]

regarding the promotional emails received after subscribing:

 

If you Paypal'd using your better-half's paypal (like me), then they will receive the promotional emails in their PayPal name to their PayPal linked email address. I'm quite sure that only applies to Channel Classics and B&W as all the others are via here on PM

[Daudio]

Anyone got anything else?

 

Yes.

The 'Off-Topic' (Anything But CA)section should NOT be subscriber only. It is necessary for all members to help prevent thread drift and hijacking, and to enhance/expand the CA community.

 

The 'About the Forums' (Questions, Comments, Concerns About CA) section should NOT be subscriber only. It is necessary to help all members use the forum, and collect feedback on the community, structure and functionality.

 

These sections are very common on other established forums, and usually collected under a "Community" category. We should have them too, for all members, to grow and enhance the CA community.

 

I have no problem with other things being subscriber-only, just not these important sections. Nor do I think it fosters an 'elite' thing, but is an interesting experiment. I also don't have any problem with Chris C. using the CA site for his livelihood, or how much he makes from it.

 

I support the expansion of the site/forum, and the CA community, and that's why I would like to see the policy change on these two sections to make CA a more professional, popular, and successful place on the Internet !

 

 

BTW, this whole thread should be in the 'About the Forums' section

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - JRiver has just come onboard with 10 and 20 percent discounts for subscribers. This one will also be retroactive so users already subscribed get the benefits as well.

[thotdoc]

Hi Guys - JRiver has just come onboard with 10 and 20 percent discounts for subscribers. This one will also be retroactive so users already subscribed get the benefits as well.

 

I learned that no good idea goes unpunished when I stood in front of my staff at work and told everyone that we were giving everyone a $100.00 raise (this is about 15 years ago). Instead of thanks, I got a set of complaints and questions: Why is everyone getting the same amount of money? If we could afford $100.00, could we afford $150.00, since everyone was working so hard. Etc. I learned that I needed to do what I needed to do and let people have their say....but never expect that most people would think it was a good idea, or even say 'thanks'.

 

As always, you are a pioneer and I wish you the best. I'll be subscribing.

 

BTW, the only thing free about the internet is the free time we invest in our projects on the 'net. Reminds me of the '60's...music should be free people would tell us...like the free instruments we paid for and the free food we ate and the free studio time, and the free gas and truck repairs.

 

Best,

[Mercman]

I just signed up for a year. Well worth the money!

 

Keep up the great work Chris.

[Boris75]

I personally find the subscription fee quite high, in relative terms. For the same price I can subscribe to a full-fledged music magazine in both paper and iPad form. CA is nice and I like it a lot, but I personally find much more value added in a full magazine written by a team of journalists. The proposition might be different, and more attractive, for US residents who can enjoy the associated discounts. But these coupons are not worth very much to me in (continental) Europe.

 

Besides, I was surprised by the selling point that "

Subscriber only forums help keep spammers and unscrupulous marketers out." I accept that a subscription fee keeps spammers away - but when it comes to marketers, I don't understand: marketers have a budget. I'd be surprised that paying ~$5 a month could stop them.

 

But, above all, many thanks to Chris for setting up this fantastic place.

[Mercman]

Since subscribing for a year, I have gotten $72 worth of music free from Blue Coast Records, and a free title from Channel Classic Records that was $21.68. Not to mention the 20% off my next HDtracks purchase and the other deals.

 

I think this is a great offer!

[jky999]

I guess the value to everyone will reflect how they use the site. Without factoring into account any of the other goodies, if you can create a viable buy/sell section that actually generates sales, this is a very reasonable amount to pay compared to Audiogon. Head-fi has free buy/sell ads, but it's a much different experience than Audiogon. Audio Asylum also has free buy/sell ads and, like Head-Fi, it just isn't the place to be if you want to sell anything expensive. When Audiogon introduced a beta product in a production environment, it was a disaster. If I could sell a multi-thousand dollar item on this site, I'd readily subscribe.