Jump to content
IGNORED

Fear and loathing not required


NOMBEDES

Recommended Posts

A Code of Conduct for Computer Audiophiles.

 

Its all music ~ B. Dylan

Its the same song ~ N. Young

Why can’t we all get along ~ R. King

 

Objective v. Subjective: The Great Debate

 

I am concerned that recent postings regarding the great debate between the Subjective and Objective camps have led to hurt feelings, unbridled snark, name calling and a general decline in the level of discussion which, for the most part, has made this site a haven from the darker regions of the internet.

 

For the Subjectives: You are truly blessed. You can take great comfort in that you are able to hear differences in the various modifications that all hobbyists enjoy. Replace a cable, change software settings, compare and contrast DACs, is that not what the hobbyist does?

 

For the Objectiveist: Measurement. Science. How lucky you are to have the education, the dedication, and the mental capacity to follow dispassionate scientific method in the advancement of your hobby. Indeed, there is nothing as soothing as a good chart that proves the square wave is square.

 

Now, I submit that both camps are interested in the same outcome, the best possible reproduction of source material.

 

The proposed Code of Conduct would be that in future discussions each group should note that the opposite camp has a different take on the hobby and that each opposing opinion is valid in the context of the person who has the opinion.

 

In short, there is no right or wrong in the hobby context. Even if a posting flys in the face of logic, so what? If the poster believes that a white room sounds different than a red room who cares? Respectfully disagree and move on. Elevate the discussion!

 

 

(Please note the poster pumps his computer music files over SONOS (wireless) or through USB to a hum-rich tube amp, further, he suffers from tinnitus, so he has no ability to judge any audio equipment or high resolution file.)

In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake ~ Sayre's Law

Link to comment

Do facts matter? Is rational inquiry legitimate? If the answer is no, I am not clear how a "Code of Conduct" could even be constructed, let alone enforced.

 

What is the evidence (assuming evidence matters) that what we have now is something other than a healthy discussion?

Link to comment
A Code of Conduct for Computer Audiophiles.

 

Its all music ~ B. Dylan

Its the same song ~ N. Young

Why can’t we all get along ~ R. King

 

Objective v. Subjective: The Great Debate

 

I am concerned that recent postings regarding the great debate between the Subjective and Objective camps have led to hurt feelings, unbridled snark, name calling and a general decline in the level of discussion which, for the most part, has made this site a haven from the darker regions of the internet.

 

For the Subjectives: You are truly blessed. You can take great comfort in that you are able to hear differences in the various modifications that all hobbyists enjoy. Replace a cable, change software settings, compare and contrast DACs, is that not what the hobbyist does?

 

For the Objectiveist: Measurement. Science. How lucky you are to have the education, the dedication, and the mental capacity to follow dispassionate scientific method in the advancement of your hobby. Indeed, there is nothing as soothing as a good chart that proves the square wave is square.

 

Now, I submit that both camps are interested in the same outcome, the best possible reproduction of source material.

 

The proposed Code of Conduct would be that in future discussions each group should note that the opposite camp has a different take on the hobby and that each opposing opinion is valid in the context of the person who has the opinion.

 

In short, there is no right or wrong in the hobby context. Even if a posting flys in the face of logic, so what? If the poster believes that a white room sounds different than a red room who cares? Respectfully disagree and move on. Elevate the discussion!

 

 

(Please note the poster pumps his computer music files over SONOS (wireless) or through USB to a hum-rich tube amp, further, he suffers from tinnitus, so he has no ability to judge any audio equipment or high resolution file.)

 

 

You are, of course, correct. I for one am going to try very hard to dispassionately give my opinions, back them with facts (where possible) and all the time keep mindful of the idea that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and all posters deserve respect as human beings, even if their opinions are often not based on any particular knowledge of the subject at hand. IOW, I promise no name calling, no personal rancor, just the facts, ma'am. I plan to also try to refrain from endlessly repeating my, by now, well known opinions about cables, mains cords, and other (to me) dubious audiophile tweaks. We can all get along, I'm sure of it. Like Nombedes says, we are all in pursuit of the same goals - we just take different paths to get there.

George

Link to comment

Bad choice of topic. It is just going to devolve into a stage for people to complain about how they have all the facts on their side... no matter who the other side might be. Just read a few of the humor-free posts ahead of this one.

 

(*sigh*)

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

As I have been told, in the high end audiophile world opinion trumps fact every time. Believe it!

 

So how do you reconcile facts with non-facts on equal ground? I don't know.

 

If the facts are all on your side, how is that a bad thing?

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Take comfort that I WILL NOT be posting in this thread. Lol.

 

May it die the quick death it deserves.

 

 

Well, the choice of a user name does color both how one wants to be seen and how one is perceived.

 

That said, I think Nombedes suggestion is a good one -- even if it might not come to fruition.

The idea of tolerance, that your answer -- or my answer -- isn't the absolute truth is a better way to live.

 

I fail at that daily.

But I yearn for it both within myself and others.

 

Dave, who has elements of both the objective and subjective in his perception of audio gizmos and their effect on his music so to put it in black-and-white saying one side has the truth and other has mere belief is really inaccurate

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Music is love, made audible.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Link to comment

The typical issues- selective facts, incorrect conclusions drawn from inconplete or misunderstood information, accusations of people not knowing what they are talking about because they don't agree with someone's selective set of facts. All the typical nonsense that has been used by rabble rousers and troublmakers everywhere.

 

It is a very old set of tactics.

 

 

 

As I have been told, in the high end audiophile world opinion trumps fact every time. Believe it!

 

So how do you reconcile facts with non-facts on equal ground? I don't know.

 

If the facts are all on your side, how is that a bad thing?

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
You are, of course, correct. I for one am going to try very hard to dispassionately give my opinions, back them with facts (where possible) and all the time keep mindful of the idea that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and all posters deserve respect as human beings, even if their opinions are often not based on any particular knowledge of the subject at hand. IOW, I promise no name calling, no personal rancor, just the facts, ma'am. I plan to also try to refrain from endlessly repeating my, by now, well known opinions about cables, mains cords, and other (to me) dubious audiophile tweaks. We can all get along, I'm sure of it. Like Nombedes says, we are all in pursuit of the same goals - we just take different paths to get there.

 

What a great post! Thanks.

1070957250_Imprimatur.NihilObstatSepia3Crop(2).jpg.2162a44365e84a5df7d456bf8026ed67.jpg

 

Link to comment
As I have been told, in the high end audiophile world opinion trumps fact every time. Believe it!

 

So how do you reconcile facts with non-facts on equal ground? I don't know.

 

If the facts are all on your side, how is that a bad thing?

 

 

If a few members here had their way, they would "Nuke" a whole Audio industry that dares to provide software and hardware for anything higher in resolution than 16/44.1.

If these people had their way, there would be no more HDTracks, no more BluRay Audio discs, no more Barry Diament recordings, no more DSD DLs from Blue Coast (Cookie Marenco) and others. SACD and even the new DSD DACs would disappear, because according to them 16/44.1 is all that is needed for perfect Audio reproduction.

 

See Is the dynamic range of CD sufficient?

 

Read for a while and you will see a few familiar names trying to discredit everything higher resolution than 16/44.1.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

Gotta hand it to you, Diogenes, you've just picked one of the worst examples of belief that I can think of. We are in complete agreement on that. Here's what might be the real challenge for you: pick the worst example of "fact" you can find, and pit it against the best example of belief you can find. Otherwise, what you're doing is just a polemical exercise, and not really a challenge for someone of your apparent intelligence.

1070957250_Imprimatur.NihilObstatSepia3Crop(2).jpg.2162a44365e84a5df7d456bf8026ed67.jpg

 

Link to comment
If a few members here had their way, they would "Nuke" a whole Audio industry that dares to provide software and hardware for anything higher in resolution than 16/44.1.

If these people had their way, there would be no more HDTracks, no more BluRay Audio discs, no more Barry Diament recordings, no more DSD DLs from Blue Coast (Cookie Marenco) and others. SACD and even the new DSD DACs would disappear, because according to them 16/44.1 is all that is needed for perfect Audio reproduction.

 

See Is the dynamic range of CD sufficient?

 

Read for a while and you will see a few familiar names trying to discredit everything higher resolution than 16/44.1.

 

 

StrangeloveRipper1.jpg

 

Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake? Children's ice cream!...You know when fluoridation began?...1946. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

Link to comment
A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice.

 

Have you been recycling your urine by any chance ?

 

BTW, the only real use for 24 bits according to some, is for use with Digital Room EQ software.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
If a few members here had their way, they would "Nuke" a whole Audio industry that dares to provide software and hardware for anything higher in resolution than 16/44.1.

If these people had their way, there would be no more HDTracks, no more BluRay Audio discs, no more Barry Diament recordings, no more DSD DLs from Blue Coast (Cookie Marenco) and others. SACD and even the new DSD DACs would disappear, because according to them 16/44.1 is all that is needed for perfect Audio reproduction.

 

See Is the dynamic range of CD sufficient?

 

Read for a while and you will see a few familiar names trying to discredit everything higher resolution than 16/44.1.

 

.........................................

Link to comment

Come out of the closet, mayhem13.

Do YOU also personally believe that anything more than well recorded 16/44.1 is pointless ?

Has a whole industry lost it's way ?

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Every time a controlled double blind study on high rez vs redbook is done, its shows people make the right pick (is it high rez or redbook) 50% of the time. In other words, no one can tell the difference. You're free to believe what you want and pay money to companies that are more than willing to profit from your belief.

 

Yeah, but that is an unfair test, given the high percentage of high res that is merely up-sampled redbook.

 

;-) <--- winkie of absolution

Link to comment
Yeah, but that is an unfair test, given the high percentage of high res that is merely up-sampled redbook.

 

;-) <--- winkie of absolution

 

You know that is garbage you are spreading. If that were true, the bleeding ears of the audiophiles buying such fraudulent merchandise would have made big news. And those companies would have either went belly up or mended their ways. No way could such a thing have happened. No matter how many facts you wish to bring, I have it on good authority people the world over buy these without complaint. There are those that can't even stand to listen to a 16 bit source. Obviously they would be complaining too.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
How did you get that? (The first half of your sentence is right.)

 

I think he means if you sell upsampled redbook as hirez and charge more or you sell genuine hirez and charge more, both are actually fraud if simple listening is incapable of uncovering the difference.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Oh. I actually disagree with that. You are getting more data (if it isn't faked upsampled stuff). If you are incapable of processing the data such that it makes a difference, it isn't the seller's fault your ears or equipment or dog is defective. (You could make a similar argument for lossless redbook vs. 320 kb/sec).

 

Fraud implies what is in the package is inferior to what is on the label, and that the deceptive packaging is deliberate.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...