MQA is Vaporware

[jbwhite]

Actually, that is not a fault (but the most would agree). Where you go wrong is with your definition of "civil" - which boils down to not disagreeing with you to any real extant. Real disagreement = "uncivil" to you, and you take it personally. It's ok, it is quite natural and something we all wrestle with...

 

This may be a crazy idea, but maybe we should at least glance at the conclusions presented in the refereed academic journal article. The study's authors and the reviewers who critiqued it and finally decided to publish it might know a little more than we do. (Or than Witchdoctor knows about Ted Smith). We can then have a sensible debate based on facts and the body of research cited in the article, the research methodology, etc. I believe that was the whole point of the article.

 

Conclusion

 

Online communication and discussion of new topics such as emerging technologies has the potential to enrich public deliberation. Nevertheless, this study's findings show that online incivility may impede this democratic goal. Much in the same way that watching uncivil politicians argue on television causes polarization among individuals, impolite and incensed blog comments can polarize online users based on value predispositions utilized as heuristics when processing the blog's information. The effects of online, user-to-user incivility on perceptions towards emerging technologies may prove especially troublesome for science experts and communicators that rely on public acceptance of their information. The effects of online incivility may be even stronger for more well-known and contentious science issues such as the evolution vs. intelligent design debate or climate change. Future research may explore these issues to gain a better understanding of the formation of risk perceptions for controversial political or science topics in the context of user-generated online comments.

[Michael Lavorgna]

Wait: You mean you want me to produce hard #'s and evidence? Wooo that is indeed rich coming from you.

 

If you can 'choose' to be 100% subjective in your evaluations of Ethernet cables and provide nothing of the sort that you just asked of me... I believe I will avail myself of the reciprocal and tell you it's all about the 'feels'.

 

I feel something therefore it is.

 

It can't get any more fair than that.

Thank you. You make claims of "fact" that you cannot support with any relevant facts.

 

A review of Ethernet cables where I very clearly communicate my methods and conclusions is not, in any way, the same.

[The Computer Audiophile]

So, if I call you a hack, a coward, and a shill for MQA, we're cool. Right?

 

;-)

 

Damn, you got me.

 

Only kidding.

 

I don't like personal attacks here on CA. However, if someone can prove something, for example that I'm a shill for MQA, and lays out the evidence, it may be OK. Overall, personal attacks aren't allow here.

[jbwhite]

Highly religious readers, the study revealed, were more likely to see nanotechnology as risky when exposed to rude comments compared to less religious readers, Brossard notes.

 

That's an aspiring Ph.D students dissertation right there.

 

Really??? That's not what their bios say. Are you accusing them of fabricating their credentials?

[Michael Lavorgna]

If you have a basis for it your golden. Heck, I'm a *bitch* and a *buttercup*.

 

Both you and Chris have reputations that proceed them.

 

Children say things like "You are poopy head." That does not make someone a poopy head.

 

You say I'm a coward and hack which in reality means you *think* I'm a coward and a hack. Which is fine by me.

 

The idea that you appear to not understand the difference is where we disconnect.

[plissken]

Thank you. You make claims of "fact" that you cannot support with any relevant facts.

 

A review of Ethernet cables where I very clearly communicate my methods and conclusions is not, in any way, the same.

 

You have your interpretation and I have mine.

 

A vote of hands from anyone here that thinks Archimago was banned @Audiostream for 'incivility'.

 

I'm not buying that for a second.

[Michael Lavorgna]

Damn, you got me.

 

Only kidding.

 

I don't like personal attacks here on CA. However, if someone can prove something, for example that I'm a shill for MQA, and lays out the evidence, it may be OK. Overall, personal attacks aren't allow here.

 

How would someone prove that you are a shill for MQA (or anyone else)?

[The Computer Audiophile]

How would someone prove that you are a shill for MQA (or anyone else)?

 

Perhaps hacked emails :~)

[Vincent1234]

your a subjectivist all the way, I lean towards an "objectivist" understanding, etc.

 

If you do lean towards an "objectivist" understanding I think you should really have more affinity with "proof" than you have displayed in this thread. I would say you have a strong tendency to prefer assumptions above proof.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[crenca]

Fair enough. But not really. You see, we're talking about my job and reputation. If I was here as an anonymous hobbyist, I'd enjoy the game as well.

 

That is just it - the "truth" does not care about your job and reputation, and so when "an anonymous hobbyist" disagrees it is an existential threat (you said it). What your running into is the difference the communication and information the *open* internet allows and the fact that the model that your "job and reputation" is built on becoming less influential....your quite literally losing control and that has to be frightening.

 

True story: my father was managing a car dealer in the mid 90's. During a sales meeting, the topic of the (then brand new) phenomenon of the customer walking in with the actual dealer cost (invoice + hold backs) and negotiating with that knowledge came up. Someone asked "where are they getting this information?" "The internet" someone answered. "How do we stop them from getting it?" was the reply.

 

The WWW and "the forums" are most certainly a disruptive development for all sorts of folks...

[Michael Lavorgna]

You have your interpretation and I have mine.

 

A vote of hands from anyone here that thinks Archimago was banned @Audiostream for 'incivility'.

 

I'm not buying that for a second.

 

Since you have no idea why he was banned, your basis for "buying" anything is all in your imagination.

 

Archimago repeadely made the false claim that the content on AudioStream was written to support our advertisers. I asked him, in emails, to refrain from making this fasle claim and simply stick to the facts at hand.

 

He was unable to follow this simple request so he was banned.

[jbwhite]

Digging deeper into this study I found some interesting comments by the authors. If comments sway perception, this is good. It's a two sided story rather than a single minister of information approach.

 

 

"Highly religious readers, the study revealed, were more likely to see nanotechnology as risky when exposed to rude comments compared to less religious readers, Brossard notes.

 

 

What you're citing is references to past research, not the research under discussion. A research review is required to submit an article to a scientific journal article. It in no way suggests that the authors agree or disagree with the previous research cited.

You call this digging deeper?

[Michael Lavorgna]

That is just it - the "truth" does not care about your job and reputation, and so when "an anonymous hobbyist" disagrees it is an existential threat (you said it). What your running into is the difference the communication and information the *open* internet allows and the fact that the model that your "job and reputation" is built on becoming less influential....your quite literally losing control and that has to be frightening.

 

True story: my father was managing a car dealer in the mid 90's. During a sales meeting, the topic of the (then brand new) phenomenon of the customer walking in with the actual dealer cost (invoice + hold backs) and negotiating with that knowledge came up. Someone asked "where are they getting this information?" "The internet" someone answered. "How do we stop them from getting it?" was the reply.

 

The WWW and "the forums" are most certainly a disruptive development for all sorts of folks...

 

Sure. But you, crenca, say things as if they are true when they are not true. You made the claim that I am a shill for MQA (repeatedly). I am not a shill for MQA. You view this as confrontation when all it is is you thinking you can create a narrative by repeating falsehoods.

[crenca]

This may be a crazy idea, but maybe we should at least glance at the conclusions presented in the refereed academic journal article. The study's authors and the reviewers who critiqued it finally decided to publish it might know a little more than we do. (Or than Witchdoctor knows about Ted Smith). We can then have a sensible debate based on facts and the body of research cited in the article, the research methodology, etc. I believe that was the whole point of the article.

 

Conclusion

 

Online communication and discussion of new topics such as emerging technologies has the potential to enrich public deliberation. Nevertheless, this study's findings show that online incivility may impede this democratic goal. Much in the same way that watching uncivil politicians argue on television causes polarization among individuals, impolite and incensed blog comments can polarize online users based on value predispositions utilized as heuristics when processing the blog's information. The effects of online, user-to-user incivility on perceptions towards emerging technologies may prove especially troublesome for science experts and communicators that rely on public acceptance of their information. The effects of online incivility may be even stronger for more well-known and contentious science issues such as the evolution vs. intelligent design debate or climate change. Future research may explore these issues to gain a better understanding of the formation of risk perceptions for controversial political or science topics in the context of user-generated online comments.

 

None of this speaks to the point I made, which is all of this is well and good (I agree with "the conclusion", such as it is) up until the point where one man's "uncivility" becomes simply his term for "I don't like what you are saying - and I take it personally" and then it all becomes a mechanism (and justification) to control the conversation with an agenda of one type or another...

[The Computer Audiophile]

What you're citing is references to past research, not the research under discussion. A research review is required to submit an article to a scientific journal article. It in no way suggests that the authors agree or disagree with the previous research cited.

You call this digging deeper?

Trolls win: Rude comments dim the allure of science online

[Michael Lavorgna]

Perhaps hacked emails :~)

 

 

Oh shit. You know Comey?

 

;-)

[Tintinabulum]

Not a lot of talk about hifi going on here these days...It turns the innocents off you know.

[Michael Lavorgna]

Not a lot of talk about hifi going on here these days...It turns the innocents off you know.

I'd be happy to talk about MQA. If you have not heard it, I'd recommend signing up for a free Tidal HiFi account and listening for yourself. That is the only way to know if its worth your time.

[Ralf11]

Ask not what you can do to MQA

Ask what MQA can do for you

[jbwhite]

Trolls win: Rude comments dim the allure of science online

Thank you. We're getting closer to having something to discuss. It's reassuring to know I was wrong.

[crenca]

Sure. But you, crenca, say things as if they are true when they are not true. You made the claim that I am a shill for MQA (repeatedly). I am not a shill for MQA. You view this as confrontation when all it is is you thinking you can create a narrative by repeating falsehoods.

 

You understate the claim I made - I am saying that you *and the overwhelming majority of your entire industry* (i.e. the "Audiophile Press") are de facto "shills" for MQA. I stand by this claim - it is not "a falsehood" and I have presented (many times) my evidence. You might not like this characterization, but it is meaningful and "true" and I have said why many times. Is it a "personal" judgement upon you and your character and person? Not really, you are in the business you are in and it does (obviously) have real limitations on how it views "the industry" and most importantly here, how it sees things from a consumer perspective (i.e. it has very little consumer perspective).

 

Your mission, should you accept it, is to try to understand *from a consumer standpoint* the digital ecosystem and what MQA means for it. Then you can "prove" me wrong

[mansr]

Since you have no idea why he was banned, your basis for "buying" anything is all in your imagination.

 

Archimago repeadely made the false claim that the content on AudioStream was written to support our advertisers. I asked him, in emails, to refrain from making this fasle claim and simply stick to the facts at hand.

 

He was unable to follow this simple request so he was banned.

 

Are you implying it's not? The website of The Enthusiast Network, conveniently not linked to from its brand sites, makes it blatantly obvious that it exists to sell ad space. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but insisting it ain't so looks rather dishonest.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Not a lot of talk about hifi going on here these days...It turns the innocents off you know.

 

This is one of hundreds of active threads here. I admit there might be a "car crash" effect going on here: Even disinterested people will slow down and gawk.

 

But I'm not buying that this back-and-forth is really offensive to the delicate sensibilities of some here. If it was spilling into other threads, I would understand. I think a lot of the complaints of incivility (excepting of course the principals in the debate, which I am not one :-) are proxies for something else.

[Michael Lavorgna]

You understate the claim I made - I am saying that you *and the overwhelming majority of your entire industry* (i.e. the "Audiophile Press") are de facto "shills" for MQA. I stand by this claim - it is not "a falsehood" and I have presented (many times) my evidence. You might not like this characterization, but it is meaningful and "true" and I have said why many times. Is it a "personal" judgement upon you and your character and person? Not really, you are in the business you are in and it does (obviously) have real limitations on how it views "the industry" and most importantly here, how it sees things from a consumer perspective (i.e. it has very little consumer perspective).

 

Your mission, should you accept it, is to try to understand *from a consumer standpoint* the digital ecosystem and what MQA means for it. Then you can "prove" me wrong

We disagree. I do not agree with you. This does not make me a shill.

 

" you are in the business you are in and it does (obviously) have real limitations on how it views "the industry" and most importantly here, how it sees things from a consumer perspective (i.e. it has very little consumer perspective)."

 

Please describe how this works, in detail. You see, I know you are wrong so I'm interested in understanding how you think these things work.

[Ralf11]

Thank you. We're getting closer to having something to discuss.

 

That is just part of the War on Science. The very highly paid PR firms that the tobacco industry hired was re-hired by the Oil&Gas industry to attack scientists. Add in the attacks by the chemical industry on scientists (e.g. Monsanto's attacks on Dr. Tyrone Hayes*) and some others, and there you are.

 

 

* A Valuable Reputation - The New Yorker