Computer Audiophile is all about increasing our enjoyment of this wonderful hobby

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - I've been watching the Civility thread closely and followed the Amazing Cable thread until its demise. Here is my response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are truly some brilliant minds contributing to the CA forums. The vast array and depth of knowledge and experience here is far greater than I ever thought possible. Everyone of us has something to learn from everyone else.

 

 

 

 

Julf I'm quite positive your technical ability far outstrips many of us and you've likely forgot more engineering information than I'll ever learn. I have no doubt your comments and analysis of high resolution downloads here on CA has contributed to better products for us all.

 

 

Prof. Scott I am always amazed by your contributions when you use your knowledge as a powerful tool to explain incredibly difficult concepts. For example Quantum-mechanical tunneling. You really add to the site by giving readers information with which they can digest and do with it what they like. Your sense of humor is also terrific.

 

 

Jud your level headedness and willingness to share your years of experiences in this wonderful hobby are a continued source of great enjoyment for me and hopefully many others. Our conversation at Stereo Exchange in NYC was what high end audio is all about, sharing our passion for quality music reproduction.

 

 

Barry as one of the few respected professionals to contribute here on CA you bring a knowledgable perspective that most of use simply can't. Your contributions to CA have helped so many speculative armchair engineers understand what really happens in the studio, why certain selections (software & hardware) are made, and countless other items. Not many people can begin a forum response with "The CD masters I created in 1990 for the 13 original Bob Marley & The Wailers albums were also from the original analog mix masters..."

 

 

sandyk perhaps the most subjective person on the forum, but a diligent seeker of answers to explain what you've heard. If you've heard things or experienced something in your system the chances are also very high that other people have as well. Your willingness to post your thoughts and subject yourself to possible ridicule is laudable.

 

 

Computer Audiophile is a community that's only as good as the contributing members. I am forever grateful for all the time and effort CA readers put into this site on a daily basis. This is a community that will grow as large as Head-Fi and continue to gain greater influence in the audio industry. There is unlimited potential here and some of my roles are to steer the ship, channel the power of you all, and make the whole much greater than the some of its parts. We as a community shouldn't be split into two factions of objectivists and subjectivists. Separate but equal has been tried throughout history and failed miserably. We've all managed to say things over the years that is seen as civil or uncivil, tactful or tactless, respectful or disrespectful. Despite our language or appearance the commonality between us is that we care about the subject or entity about which we talk. When people don't care they don't spend valuable time on such disposable topics.

 

 

Computer Audiophile is all about increasing our enjoyment of this wonderful hobby. For some people that means faithful reproduction of recorded music using a computer source while for others that means using EQ to create sonic bliss and for many it means something in between the two. How one arrives at the goal doesn't matter. It's the common goal of increasing our enjoyment of this wonderful hobby. Please take a moment to think about this statement in the context of your comments here on the site, "Computer Audiophile is all about increasing our enjoyment of this wonderful hobby." Ask yourself if your comments contribute to this goal. Going forward please ask yourself this question before leaving a comment or posting a new thread.

 

 

It may help to think about the aforementioned statement in the context of Priaptor's original post titled Amazing New Product. Within this thread all comments claiming BS don't contribute to Priaptor increasing his enjoyment of this hobby. Sure we could use six degrees of separation in any way we wish to justify in some way Priaptor could increase his enjoyment of he spent less on cables because they don't matter and spent more on music etc… But that's missing the point completely. Continuing with this example, I highly recommend those calling BS start a new thread, about the cables in question, in which the discussion will help those calling BS increase their level of enjoyment of this wonderful hobby. In such a thread leaving a comment that the cables are amazing based solely on a subjective listening experience will not increase the level of enjoyment of this hobby. Now the subjective person would be the one calling BS. A thread discussing how great a cable sounds may be filled with people suggesting completely opposite views about how it sounds. These discussions are helpful to people. Those seeking scientific answers will be helped by the other discussion about the science of it all.

 

 

This may seem like a separate but equal approach but in fact it isn't. By splitting the two different discussions both threads can remain on topic and likely teach people who read the threads something that could increase their enjoyment of this hobby. In addition people will actually read the threads because the discussion will remain civilized. A respectful thread no matter how off the wall shouldn't cause headaches or cause one to defend an opposing idea to the death.

 

 

I always encourage comments that call BS, but always at the appropriate place and time. In Priaptor's original thread a good idea would have been to link to the new thread that discusses why people think the Company's claims are against scientific theory. Also, it would be tremendously helpful for those calling BS to use their knowledge as a tool to explain why they think what they do. Simply stating "That's BS" or "That goes against all Quantum-mechanical tunneling" doesn't really help people learn. Suggesting that the claims go against Quantum-mechanical tunneling theory because … or by posting information like Prof. Scott did on his CA Blog has tremendous power to teach people who want to learn.

 

 

 

 

The Computer Audiophile community is overflowing with talented and experienced individuals in all realms of science and high end audio. The community as a whole has a limitless future as long as all the individuals think about the community as something larger than themselves. CA isn't about me or Subscribers, or anyone else. We are all contributors building the CA community. We are neither saving babies or killing puppies. This is fun stuff that's meant relax people and increase enjoyment. There has ever been a better time to enjoy computer based audio. To that end Computer Audiophile is all about increasing our enjoyment of this wonderful hobby.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.S. I realize we all come from very different backgrounds and may need more specifics than "Computer Audiophile is all about increasing our enjoyment of this wonderful hobby." "Ask yourself if your comments contribute to this goal. Going forward please ask yourself this question before leaving a comment or posting a new thread." To that end please consider the following before leaving comments on the site. This list may expand as those with a vested interest find loopholes.

 

 

 

 

Please don't comment if your purpose is:

 

 

 

• To save someone from spending "too much" money.
  
• To save anyone from anything
  

[Encore]

Great, Chris. Thanks. I'm fully behind this.

[Julf]

Chris,

 

While I understand your desire to split out "subjective" and "scientific" discussions from each other, I would appreciate guidance on a couple of not-so-clear-cut cases.

 

Firstly, in this thread, the OP reports an effect he observed subjectively, and refers to an idea propagated by a journalist in a "high-end" publication (" async units like the Bridge have a lighter, more detailed sound, while adaptive units tend to sound weightier and more present"), asking if other forum members have similar experiences, but possibly implying an interest in subjective experiences rather than factual/scientific ones.

 

Is it, in a case like that, appropriate or inappropriate to offer a suggestion for a technical/scientific reason for the effect he describes?

 

Secondly, in this posting, newbie Alice Wonder (in what seems to be the 3rd posting in total by that user), in a posting that starts with "My personal opinion is...", stated "I believe in double blind tests. I have yet to find a "high resolution" audio that I can distinguish from 16bit 44.1kHz downsample. Maybe it is just me, but I've not seen ABX tests that others have done either. Doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I haven't seen them. So why waste the disc space for extra sampling and higher bit rate if my ears don't benefit?" (this was in the High-def-Video Big Success Hires Audio Not So Much How Come?" thread). He/she/it then followed up with "That's possible, none of my cables cost over $3,000 so maybe I'm just not properly equipped to hear the difference. In which case, again, why pay for what I can't hear?"

 

For some reason, that statement caused this response from user wdw:

 

Chris,

 

Here's the latest one. Dumb as a horse but shooting for bear. It seem that is now a weekly event.

 

Dear Cousin Alice,

 

Are you eighteen? Is most of your musical catalogue stolen off the web? Do you walk down the street looking at your iPhone while we are all obligated to step aside?

 

So my question is whether the postings by Alice Wonder, being based on facts but even then clearly labelled as personal opinions, inappropriate in this thread? Should the user have started a new thread?

 

Somehow I don't think that the fundamental problem here is somebody wantonly injecting objectivism into a subjective thread...

[firedog]

Paul-

 

Got to say I don't agree with you about the use of pseudonyms (obviously). My reasons:

 

1, This is the web, and I personally don't want anyone who uses Google to have the ability to track everything I do. An online name keeps info here or on other forums from being tied to my "real" identity - work and home.

 

2. In addition, basically everyone I know in my daily life who isn't an audiophile (read that as EVERYONE I know and interact with daily) would think the sums I spend on audio prove that I'm certifiably insane, and I don't particularly feel like giving them what they'd see as proof, or barring that, fodder for gossip.

 

3. For reasons having nothing to do with this forum, when using my real name and location online, I've found myself attacked and harassed based on nothing other than others' prejudice. So I generally keep those things to myself online.

 

All of that said, I'm perfectly willing to give out that info to any regular forum member who PM's me.

[Audio_ELF]

If members were required to use their real names, there would be far less issues with this kind of problem. Note that I agree with you that the posting you pointed out was inappropriate - as a public comment. I think it would have been perfectly appropriate as a PM to Chris.

With respect Paul, how are you planning to "require" members to use their real name? Having said that - a suggestion to Chris may be for him to add to the "profile" a Real Name field - that way people have the opportunity to choose how much they wish to share.

 

I agree with those who comment having a first name with which to communicate is a nice idea and makes the place friendlier.

 

I see firedog agrees with me...

 

Eloise

 

[Encore]

While I understand your desire to split out "subjective" and "scientific" discussions from each other, I would appreciate guidance on a couple of not-so-clear-cut cases.

 

Some measure of judgement is still required. I think a useful approach could to ask oneself what the OP would want. If the OP describes a cable that he really likes, it probably doesn't make much sense to (once again) tell him that he is victim to self suggestion. If the OP has started a discussion on how measurements can used to develop good audio components, it probably doesn't make much sense to post anything if one doesn't believe in measurements at all.

[Encore]

I really think anonymous names are a very bad idea here, and open the system here to many attacks that would otherwise be laughed off.

 

Well, Paul--although I seem to side with you in matters on DBT's and so on, I don't side with you when it comes to how you answer your opponents. Using your real name doesn't seem to prevent you from using rather harsh language.

 

As for my anonymity--it's really very simple. My real name is a little too recognizable, and I don't want to advertise to thieves what they can find if they brake in to my home.

[Garf]

Great post Chris!

 

I find it ironic that within 6 replies we have gone completely off topic from the original post.

 

This is simple stuff. If your post is off topic, put it somewhere else. If it doesn't contribute to the original thread, then put it somewhere else. If you absolutely must post something, do it in a civil way, perhaps linking to your counter argument thread.

 

We are very fortunate that we do not have numerous moderators policing the forums here on CA. What moderation Chris does do is typically required to "maintain the peace" of the forums. We are all adults here, we should be show some self control, moderate ourselves (before someone else does it), and get along.

 

Writing this while the propeller on top of my head spins, and my bag fills with gas,

 

Gary

 

(Oh, and Elf, that is one of my most favorite cartoons of all time!)

[4est]

Well, Paul--although I seem to side with you in matters on DBT's and so on, I don't side with you when it comes to how you answer your opponents. Using your real name doesn't seem to prevent you from using rather harsh language.

 

As for my anonymity--it's really very simple. My real name is a little too recognizable, and I don't want to advertise to thieves what they can find if they brake in to my home.

 

I just have to wonder what the crime rate is in Copenhagen.

 

Although I do not have an issue with anonymity, if someone is looking here for information about you(one, not you in particular Encore), then you most likely are already in trouble. They know too much about you to not be capable of hurting you if they so choose.

[Encore]

I just have to wonder what the crime rate is in Copenhagen.

 

Break-ins have sky-rocketed in recent years. Not kidding ... And insurance companies have started to refuse to pay compensation if they find that you have advertised the goodies of your home a little too much on social media. I would agree that CA probably isn't the first go-to site for wannabe burglars, but I also have a presence on Danish fora, so it's simply a matter of consistency.

[Paul R]

Hi Eloise -

 

I mean at registration time, not necessarily in the forums. Just some record of who they really are recorded in the registration is fine with me. And I think that using a real first name or nickname in the forums for conversation purposes is just plan politeness.

 

I honestly don't think that many people would go to the effort of trying to track down any of us. More, those that would, having a real name and address for them would be greatly advisable.

 

Of course, that is just opinion, and I understand other's do not agree.

 

 

(Julf- I see your points, but don't have time to write an appropriate reply at this point. Just let it go that I don't totally disagree with most of your points. And yes, that was certainly me. Surprised you didn't find the really early stuff from Arpanet. )

 

 

With respect Paul, how are you planning to "require" members to use their real name? Having said that - a suggestion to Chris may be for him to add to the "profile" a Real Name field - that way people have the opportunity to choose how much they wish to share.

 

I agree with those who comment having a first name with which to communicate is a nice idea and makes the place friendlier.

 

I see firedog agrees with me...

 

Eloise

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2109[/ATTACH]

[Audio_ELF]

I mean at registration time, not necessarily in the forums. Just some record of who they really are recorded in the registration is fine with me. And I think that using a real first name or nickname in the forums for conversation purposes is just plan politeness.

 

I guess we pretty much agree then Paul... if the registration form just asked for "User/Nick name" and separately "Real name". No forcing people to put in their real name nor any form of checking, but just requesting it.

 

People can put First name, or Full name or whatever they want then. And it then shows on their profile perhaps?

 

Is that the kind of thing you were meaning?

 

Eloise

[Paul R]

Well, Paul--although I seem to side with you in matters on DBT's and so on, I don't side with you when it comes to how you answer your opponents. Using your real name doesn't seem to prevent you from using rather harsh language.

 

(grin) I get that.

 

But is there any doubt at all in your mind that I am a real person with real opinions, and not some shill for NAD?

 

I honestly don't have any problems with people wanting to protect their identify online, and even agree, at least in part. But again, I was unclear- I really meant when registering on the system, and not necessarily public knowledge.

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

Hi Eloise -

 

I think that is a better idea than what I was thinking, but I would have some form of mandatory private verification during the registration process. More than recording the IP address and such. Not perhaps so much as NYTimes requires, but even that is not onerous to me.

 

I would think an option to have your name, or perhaps, just your first name, included with postings would be civil and a very polite thing to do.

 

For example, there would have been no question that 'Julf" was a nickname and not the acronym JULF.

 

-Paul

 

(I fogot to include the quote- this is in reply to message number 14.

[Jud]

Hi Eloise -

 

I think that is a better idea than what I was thinking, but I would have some form of mandatory private verification during the registration process. More than recording the IP address and such.

 

- I really don't see how you could be sure that people were using their real identities rather than pseudonyms.

 

- Nor do I wish to have to reveal more information than necessary (to be stored where? with what measures to keep the information secure? with what assurances that no one anywhere in the world would wish to make a concerted effort to hack into a database containing identifying information of thousands of individuals worldwide considerably wealthier than the median?) just in order to have a good time chatting and learning about a hobby.

 

- And finally, what level of information about someone would really assure their good behavior? I think you're just going to have to rely on my winning personality (and Chris's dropping the ban hammer, which he thank goodness almost never has to do), because I'm not providing enough information that there would be some chance of individual consequences at my job or in my social circle if I acted badly.

 

I've tried to be direct above for purposes of brevity and clarity. Please don't take it as a sign of anger or pique. I just wanted to quickly say I don't think there's a way to enforce a "real identity" policy, and I don't think it would work to get us to the very laudable goal of folks being friendly and respectful (more than they otherwise would be absent such a policy).

[Nocompression]

Chris,

 

Great suggestions, I don't see how your requests could be anymore straightforward then they were, but I would like to add to them if I may.

 

* Unless information is specifically posed in the form of a question please refrain from "educating" everyone. While many posters here are incredibly knowledgeable due to their engineering backgrounds threads are quickly "high jacked" by this "public education". As hard as it might be to believe, a few of us, may not be particularly interested in changing the focus of the discussion at hand for the sake of new found knowledge.

 

That is about all I had to say for the time being. I would think that most people would recognize this as "not trying to save anyone from anything" but given some of the posting witnessed following Chris's opening post I felt it could'nt hurt to be a bit more specific. As they say "we shall see"

 

Have a great day,

Steve

[Jay192]

Great post Chris!

 

I find it ironic that within 6 replies we have gone completely off topic from the original post.

 

 

Good point! One would have thought that the concept would have been quite easy to grasp and a new thread created!

[NOMBEDES]

Jud sez: - Nor do I wish to have to reveal more information than necessary (to be stored where? with what measures to keep the information secure? with what assurances that no one anywhere in the world would wish to make a concerted effort to hack into a database containing identifying information of thousands of individuals worldwide considerably wealthier than the median?) just in order to have a good time chatting and learning about a hobby.

 

X1.

 

This is one of the more civil sites I have seen. You should look at the Yahoo comments sometimes. No supervision, hate, racial invective, the list goes on. Anyway, I vote for no true names. As we all know, a good hacker can get just about anything.

[Nocompression]

Jud sez: - Nor do I wish to have to reveal more information than necessary (to be stored where? with what measures to keep the information secure? with what assurances that no one anywhere in the world would wish to make a concerted effort to hack into a database containing identifying information of thousands of individuals worldwide considerably wealthier than the median?) just in order to have a good time chatting and learning about a hobby.

 

X1.

 

This is one of the more civil sites I have seen. You should look at the Yahoo comments sometimes. No supervision, hate, racial invective, the list goes on. Anyway, I vote for no true names. As we all know, a good hacker can get just about anything.

I've often wondered ; Why on earth would anyone bother to leave a comment along side of all the nonsensical ramblings already present on these sites. It boggles the mind that someone would actually care to associate with some of these (Ahem!) "intellectuals"

 

Yes, this is a very good place to come by a huge margin !

[mayhem13]

There's IMO a healthy balance here of objectively critical and subjectively passionate people here on CA.

 

Neither group enjoys music more than the other. Both would like to enjoy the highest level of performance possible from their gear and both groups have joined CA just for that purpose. Whether it's sound quality, convenience, or reliability....computers can give it all. Simply reviewing some of WgScotts Polls shows a healthy balance

 

Besides being involved in some of these heavily debated tech subjects, I take my time to respond to other posters asking for assistance. Anyone who may have read some of these responses can see that I try to respond in the most responsible way, and always refrain from simply suggesting a product without talking about the intended purpose first.

 

On the flip side of the coin, i didn't join CA to be sold anything either. I equally ignore threads where a member gushes over the virtue of a new purchase or audition. There's simply no value there for me. And honestly speaking, there's not a lot of that going on here either. Threads don't often read like audiophile review pages but when they do, I simply pass on by.

 

So I say, leave well enough alone...or If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Paul R]

- I really don't see how you could be sure that people were using their real identities rather than pseudonyms.

 

Obviously so but you can have better confidence that an account is backed by an actual person, and that a single person is not using mulitple accounts on the system to steer conversations, opinions, or even reviews in a particular directions. Exactly what level of confidence is comfortable will vary between individuals.

 

- Nor do I wish to have to reveal more information than necessary (to be stored where? with what measures to keep the information secure? with what assurances that no one anywhere in the world would wish to make a concerted effort to hack into a database containing identifying information of thousands of individuals worldwide considerably wealthier than the median?) just in order to have a good time chatting and learning about a hobby.[/Quote]

 

Well, that is difficult to disagree with. But we give out real names, e-mail and street addresses, telephone numbers, and even credit card numbers to magazines when we subscribe online. I'm not sure that a real name, street address, and email address being required to register and post on the system is a bad thing, or too much information to give. So long as one can control the dissemination of that information.

 

A hacking attack on this system is always possible, but even modest precautions tend to make it more of challenge than "kiddie hackers" are willing to deal with. And there just isn't any real profit here for the people with the real capabilities to hack in. The threat assessment is low.

 

Now, I could see where someone might try to gain a hold on someone like you personally, to influence an important case you are working on or something like that. In that case, yes, CA would be one of the targets someone would attack. I judge it to be unlikely, but possible. (Other folks may have different opinions.) I am fairly sure you could call on rather comprehensive resources in a case like that. From a personal point of view, you would certainly be able to depend on whatever small assistance I might be able to render.

 

 

- And finally, what level of information about someone would really assure their good behavior? I think you're just going to have to rely on my winning personality (and Chris's dropping the ban hammer, which he thank goodness almost never has to do), because I'm not providing enough information that there would be some chance of individual consequences at my job or in my social circle if I acted badly.[/Quote]

 

Have to think more about that one. A significant chunk of my "social circle" keeps in contact with each other online. That has a lot to do with us all being scattered all over the country and beyond. And it is one reason why I rather consistently use my real name where I might "run into" in friends. I also limit the number of places I post or contribute to online for job reasons.

 

[Quick]I've tried to be direct above for purposes of brevity and clarity. Please don't take it as a sign of anger or pique. I just wanted to quickly say I don't think there's a way to enforce a "real identity" policy, and I don't think it would work to get us to the very laudable goal of folks being friendly and respectful (more than they otherwise would be absent such a policy).

 

I didn't take that as pique or anger, just looks like good clear plain thinking to me. Not sure I agree with all of it though.

 

-Paul

[The Computer Audiophile]

Chris,

While I understand your desire to split out "subjective" and "scientific" discussions from each other, I would appreciate guidance on a couple of not-so-clear-cut cases.

 

That isn't my desire. I will respond the same way I responded to you in the Civility thread.

 

Please take a moment to think about this statement in the context of your comments here on the site, "Computer Audiophile is all about increasing our enjoyment of this wonderful hobby." Ask yourself if your comments contribute to this goal.

 

In some cases this means separating conversations and sharing experiences from people seeking debate from people only seeking objective evidence from people seeking astrological guidance on an audio system.

 

CA is a relaxed site without the rigid rules of Hydrogen Audio that govern every sentence on the site. Some people need such rules while others can use common sense. I realize common sense isn't so common and it's different for many people, but 99% of the people here at CA seem to share the basic tenets of common sense and can use the goals of CA as a guideline. Some people will have a problem without being told exactly what they can and can't say in every possible scenario. Unfortunately CA may not be the best community for them. Fortunately the Internet is full of other communities that will accept like minded people. No judgment, it's just life.

[Julf]

That isn't my desire. I will respond the same way I responded to you in the Civility thread.

 

And as I responded in that thread, I hear and understand. Many thanks!

[Richard Dale]

 

The Computer Audiophile community is overflowing with talented and experienced individuals in all realms of science and high end audio. The community as a whole has a limitless future as long as all the individuals think about the community as something larger than themselves. CA isn't about me or Subscribers, or anyone else. We are all contributors building the CA community. We are neither saving babies or killing puppies. This is fun stuff that's meant relax people and increase enjoyment. There has ever been a better time to enjoy computer based audio. To that end Computer Audiophile is all about increasing our enjoyment of this wonderful hobby.

 

...

 

P.S. I realize we all come from very different backgrounds and may need more specifics than "Computer Audiophile is all about increasing our enjoyment of this wonderful hobby." "Ask yourself if your comments contribute to this goal. Going forward please ask yourself this question before leaving a comment or posting a new thread." To that end please consider the following before leaving comments on the site. This list may expand as those with a vested interest find loopholes.

 

...

 

Please don't comment if your purpose is:

 

• To save someone from spending "too much" money.
  
• To save anyone from anything
  

 

I agree with your comments. Yes, we can build the Computer Audiophile community by being more polite, and I hope I haven't personally said anything that others would regard as 'trollish'.

 

A big concern of mine is that the Audiophile community is seen as 'elitist' in that most of the equipment you read about at American Audio Fairs costs a huge amount of money. What I would like us to do is to make high resolution audio more popular, as I think there is a lot of equipment which sounds great and doesn't cost a lot (eg Peachtree or Rega amongst many others). There has never been a better time to buy great sounding relatively cheap audio gear, whether you want to listen to vinyl or digital music. I am in no way against anyone spending 100000 dollars on an audio system or 3000 dollars on cables if they have the money. I don't want to give them lectures on their purchasing decisions as some people seem to want to do on this forum.

 

I think it is important that we are 'outward looking' and take notice of how we are perceived in the world outside our hobby. I feel we need to encourage more people to think that iTunes 256k AAC isn't good enough, and that we need something better. One of the reasons I don't like the Hydrogen Audio perspective is that they think 256k AAC or Red Book CD is 'good enough' and 'scientifically proven' to be within the limits of human hearing and so on. They are making it very hard for subjectivists to say the a lot of cheap gear is great, and that there is no reason why digital formats with better resolution than 16/44k are needed. They are so busy being rude about audiophiles and 'subjectivism' that it makes it harder for a subjectivist such as myself to advocate buying cheap but good gear like Peachtree and Rega and advocate hi-res digital formats.

 

So yes, lets be more civil in our discussions, so that this site is more enjoyable. But I feel that it should be our collective responsibility to make hi-res digital formats more popular, and the associated affordable audio systems more popular. All this uninformative bickering that I have been reading lately, doesn't achieve that aim, and it doesn't do the Computer Audiophile site much good either.

[usblues]

I agree with your comments. Yes, we can build the Computer Audiophile community by being more polite, and I hope I haven't personally said anything that others would regard as 'trollish'.

 

A big concern of mine is that the Audiophile community is seen as 'elitist' in that most of the equipment you read about at American Audio Fairs costs a huge amount of money. What I would like us to do is to make high resolution audio more popular, as I think there is a lot of equipment which sounds great and doesn't cost a lot (eg Peachtree or Rega amongst many others). There has never been a better time to buy great sounding relatively cheap audio gear, whether you want to listen to vinyl or digital music. I am in no way against anyone spending 100000 dollars on an audio system or 3000 dollars on cables if they have the money. I don't want to give them lectures on their purchasing decisions as some people seem to want to do on this forum.

 

I think it is important that we are 'outward looking' and take notice of how we are perceived in the world outside our hobby. I feel we need to encourage more people to think that iTunes 256k AAC isn't good enough, and that we need something better. One of the reasons I don't like the Hydrogen Audio perspective is that they think 256k AAC or Red Book CD is 'good enough' and 'scientifically proven' to be within the limits of human hearing and so on. They are making it very hard for subjectivists to say the a lot of cheap gear is great, and that there is no reason why digital formats with better resolution than 16/44k are needed. They are so busy being rude about audiophiles and 'subjectivism' that it makes it harder for a subjectivist such as myself to advocate buying cheap but good gear like Peachtree and Rega and advocate hi-res digital formats.

 

So yes, lets be more civil in our discussions, so that this site is more enjoyable. But I feel that it should be our collective responsibility to make hi-res digital formats more popular, and the associated affordable audio systems more popular. All this uninformative bickering that I have been reading lately, doesn't achieve that aim, and it doesn't do the Computer Audiophile site much good either.

 

one of the best sites around.The expertise shown here by the members and Chris is top shelf regardless of personal computer skills.Thanks again men,cheers,Bob