Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[Jud]

Seen a lot of this lately, so just wonderin’.

[Jud]

12 minutes ago, Speedskater said:

I remember when audiophiles were interested in obtaining good sound by using good engineering practices and investigating how and why things unexpectedly sounded the same or sound different.

Now audiophiles can write any kind of unsupported statement and they are complemented for it.

The more fantasy science is involved, the more audiophiles like it.

 

A bunch of audiophiles are still interested in better sound through good engineering practices.  On the other hand, I don’t think people (audiophiles or anyone else) take kindly to folks telling them they’re idiots who sorely need educating.

 

Good information is a great thing, and there’s an audience here with a fair level of technical curiosity.  As long as the presentation isn’t offputting, some reasonable number of people will be interested.

[Jud]

8 minutes ago, esldude said:

Because when you can't even get across that a music file is recorded in monophonic sound when someone insists they hear imaging well what is left you could usefully discuss without someone uselessly disagreeing because "they hear"?

 

There will always be people who adhere to the plainly ridiculous.  Other than putting in a couple of words to prevent plain misinformation going uncorrected, drawn out arguments with these folks just give them an excuse to continue.

 

So why dwell on them?  Is that what you’d tend to do at a local bar or club?  I think you and just about all the rest of us would gravitate toward friendly chats with folks we like, or best of all, folks we like who can teach us about stuff we want to learn.

[Jud]

8 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Hi, not the subject of the OP's post.

 

It’s all good.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

Many times it is choice of language:

 

a) you are an idiot 

vs

b) I disagree with your idea for the following reasons

 

I think that, probably, folks intend to disagree with an idea, an approach or even a way of thinking but instead attack a person (an audiophile)

 

Thats more common than, for example, certain people who denigrate audiophiles as "suckers" as a way to make themselves appear more "on the know" -- that's less common

 

So I strongly think that if we could all avoid personal attacks, this behavior would diminish

 

Helpful, yes.  I do think there’s been a proliferation of the “audiophiles are suckers” meme lately.

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, jabbr said:

What I've also seen is that certain folks who are industry experts have been aggressively chased off the site -- is this related?

 

Yeah, I think so.

[Jud]

12 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

In my experience, people like this soon move on so perhaps I just filter them out...

 

 

I need more of your patience.

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, Daudio said:

Worth a 1000 of the usual CA rif raf

 

Gee thanks!

[Jud]

3 hours ago, wgscott said:

There does seem to be an overall degradation of the quality of discourse, at least in the US.  There is far too much emphasis on identifying with a team (or political party) and scoring cheap shots, and far too little honest deliberative discourse.  I would much rather learn something new, rather than be right about some trivial point.  There was a grain of truth in my earlier snarky comment -- those guys won't learn anything from each other because they are all in agreement.  If you can learn something new and different from someone who has an opposite point of view, it seems like everyone comes out better for it.  But you don't get that unless you have an honest exchange of viewpoints.  Disagreements about facts are fine.  Disagreements that come down to partisan identity BS gets us nowhere. That's why I find labels like "objectivist" or "subjectivist" counterproductive.

 

If I could like this 20 times under the forum rules, I would.  Nailed it (here *and* elsewhere).

[Jud]

10 hours ago, esldude said:

My complaint is not that there are people who disagree or have another opinion.  My complaint is when a large enough number of people simply retreat to "I hear" and nothing you can say, do or demonstrate trumps the craziest of ideas, then there is no area of common ground left.

 

So sure if at local bar or club I would end up chatting with people who would be interesting to be around.

 

On the other hand, going into a country and western themed bar knowing how much I generally abhor country music might not be a smart choice as to where to go.  Going into a  bar where most of the patrons wish to drink, and get into a refreshing bar fight before the night ends also is not a wise choice (for me).  Either of those could still have some worthwhile people in them.  Just not a high probability of being happy with either of them.   So if you end up in such a place it probably is wise to recognize the kind of place it is and mosey on down the road to a different place.

 

Interesting that after a recently locked thread, I heard from "objectivists" who talked about how much the thread was veering off the rails into fantasy-land, and "subjectivists" who felt folks who wanted to give some credence to anecdotal listening impressions were really getting it in the neck in that thread.

 

This is what happens when, instead of offering up information for those who might choose to take it in, we treat posts as "first downs" or "scores" for the "other team."  If you look at things that way, there are plenty of folks on both sides and neither side is ever going to win, so you're doomed to dissatisfaction.  On the other hand, it also means there are plenty of folks who *are* ready to listen to you.

 

Face it folks, there are going to be precious few if any Road to Damascus moments here, where someone drops to his or her electronic knees and types "The scales have fallen from mine eyes!"  It doesn't work like that here, and hardly ever does anywhere.  More often, people slowly come to understand that you may have something worthwhile to say, if you try to be factual (whether that is about your anecdotal experience or engineering or scientific facts), respectful, and even possibly helpful.  (Sometimes folks can try to be helpful in a less than respectful way, then wonder why their suggestions aren't taken up more readily, which reminds me of Mark Twain's remarks about the missionaries who brought civilization to the savages of the Hawaiian Islands, thus helping them to see the disadvantages of running around in a perfect climate nearly naked, versus the advantages of wearing dark wool suits and dress shoes.)  There was at least one recent thread about grounding methods where I was very grateful that @Speedskater chimed in to help keep people from experimenting in such a way as to possibly fry themselves.  Some people may have taken this as raining on their experimental parade, but I reckon a live experimenting audiophile is better than a dead 'un.

[Jud]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

I put two of the more aggressive offenders on my ignore list, and I have to say that I now have a much more enjoyable and peaceful time reading CA forums. I highly recommend this feature!

 

Yup, that works - oh wait, maybe you're not seeing this.... 

 

I have very few people on my ignore list and always regret putting folks there, in contrast to @wgscott, who takes a savage personal glee in it! 

[Jud]

16 minutes ago, mansr said:

I find the nastiest language coming from "true believers" belittling those of us who favour a scientific/engineering approach to obtaining good sound. I'm talking about the "you're just jealous because you can't afford the fancy cables," "if you can't hear it your system, your ears, and your dog are rubbish," etc.

 

I would guess that both overall and among the more frequent posters, more people on the site would identify toward the "subjectivist" than the "objectivist" end of the spectrum.  So I do think it's especially incumbent on the subjectivist folks not to turn defensive when posts they feel are "objectivist" are put up.

 

But for all of us, becoming defensive simply means we become two camps lobbing arguments at each other over the castle walls, not people having a discussion that can result in folks learning things they didn't know before.  Having helpful facts is important, but presentation is as well.  There are folks who've been here a long time who have quite a sardonic sense of humor, and if they suddenly changed that I'd wonder if something was wrong.  But not everyone can bring that off.

[Jud]

28 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

And as I've said 1000 times,

 

And in only 182 posts!    

 

28 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

none of those folks know the meaning of that word. Otherwise, there could be no arguments, which is all about objective claims.

A "subjectivist" would not care one whit what the item costs, the purity of materials its made of, how much lower or higher distortion or jitter or whatever electro-acoustic parameter it creates.

The only thing that would matter is that is pleases them more, whether or not is "sounds" different or not, because sound has a dictionary meaning. One does not have to stare at, know about and fondle something for a week or months to determine sound. No "test" is required to determine if one likes the thing or not.

There can be no conflict between true subjectivity and objective facts. Only between those who don't know what they are.

 

That's certainly one way to look at it.   

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Daudio said:

 

Perhaps that is because you are part of the problem, and can't recognize the water you swim in ?

I see it, and a strong look in a miiror might do you some good.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

Every post of yours that I saw before Ignoring you (and some later by accident, as here), has been toxic and mean-spirited, taking every opportunity to denigrate anything, and anyone, related to listening rather then measuring.

 

I consider your postings here on CA to be a insidious danger to the CA community as a whole, with no redeeming social (or technical) value.

 

Sorry but I call it like I see it !

 

And you are very germane to the topic of this thread. Where did you come from ? Arriving right after the big contentious Obj/Sub thread got shut down, and not alone either, as a few other new, vocal, blindly 'objective' members appeared about then too.

 

So, are you a terrorist agent sent from Hydro Audio, or some other den of 'righteous' thinkers ? 

 

 

I see someone has taken the suggestion not to get personal about this to heart.

[Jud]

46 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

I knew there was something about you that I liked ! Great quote

 

 

 

I remember that situation playing out on these pages years ago. and it revolved around a posted picture of him. I can't say I know everything about it, but my strong take-away from back then is he descended into an almost pathological fit of paranoia (I was shocked), talking all kinds of wild 'what-if's', and refusing to let it go, which is probably why that myth still hangs around 

 

 

 

 

I am very familiar with the situation, and it is no myth at all.  Nor was any paranoia involved.

 

The only other parallel situation I recall is when some idiot decided that arguing with Paul R (who used to use his full name on the forum, but not after this) should involve Googling personal information about him and splashing it around the forum.  Chris banned him promptly.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

That there might be collateral damage, perceived or real

 

“Collateral damage” is a bothersome term to me, since it bespeaks devaluation of things or people harmed.

[Jud]

8 hours ago, plissken said:

 

It's an attempt to answer Jud's initial question as to the why. It's one of many. If you don't want soft targets then some fundamentally impossible positions about how computer audio DOESN'T work could be made verboten here.

 

Not thinking of folks as “targets” might help for a start.

[Jud]

5 hours ago, jabbr said:

Thanks for answering honestly. Seriously. Although I don't dra w the same conclusions from your experiences, I belieive that if people can honestly share the reasons why they believe what they believe that we might collectively be able to more honestly see where people are coming from. I do think that we each should respect the different reasons why each of us have come to our own conclusions and if we wish to convince others of our viewpoint, this should be done respectfully.

 

And this should be so normal it doesn’t need repeating - but who am I kidding, this is the Internet.

 

It’s why an overall sense of community is important, it seems to me.  Otherwise, the unfortunate tradition on the WWW is to treat it like the WWE.

[Jud]

14 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

But that's not what I said. I said

I'm clearly saying while I might poke fun of beliefs, that, by extension to the person holding the belief, is a matter of their perception. Folks often can't discern between the argument and the arguer. Criticizing or poking fun at an argument is not the same as criticizing or poking fun of a person

 

Just my own thoughts, which no one else, including you, needs to agree with:

 

I see a couple of potential difficulties with this formulation.  First, I can't see many people taking "You're a swell person, but what you say is ridiculous" as a compliment or joke; possibly as a joke if you know them quite well, but I don't think you know any of us that well.  Second, if the person can't perform the difficult or impossible feat of not being bothered about having their ideas called wrong or silly, you disclaim any responsibility for putting them in that difficult situation by saying it's just "a matter of their perception."

 

Not that we need to tread on eggshells, but just for the purpose of having a more effective discussion that doesn't devolve into mere unproductive back-and-forth, I think there are better tactics.  There is putting forth an argument of your own, rather than explicitly calling out someone else's as silly or wrong, which can be done in the same thread or in a separate thread.  (I think a separate thread is especially appropriate, for example, where all someone wants is advice on how best to break in an amp.  Unlike discussions of grounding, there's no danger to be averted.  It is, as the Hitchhiker's Guide says of Earth, "mostly harmless.")  Or there is a tactic I favor and employed very effectively by @esldude in @wgscott's recent long thread, discussing the specific rather than the general.  esldude pointed out that audio presented by another commenter had been done with a single microphone, so the qualities the commenter heard couldn't have been in the audio but rather had to be present in the commenter's mind.  It was simple, quite specific, factual, and was not objected to by the commenter.  This told me far more than the pages of argumentative back-and-forth surrounding it.

[Jud]

17 hours ago, Daudio said:

What else would you have me do ? Shut up and let the antisocial behavior continue to drag this forum down, stifling speech*, and inhibiting traffic ???

 

I think not, but what say you ?

 

 

17 hours ago, rickca said:

I'm so glad someone is here to protect us from the meanies. 

 

Daudio, a fair question.

 

rickca, this isn't about protecting anyone, of course.

 

Daudio, can you point out to me a thread where writing personal comments about someone else stopped the antisocial behavior you're concerned about, rather than having it continue unabated or even worsen?  I agree we'd like a better quality of discussion; I just seriously doubt personal remarks are an effective way to get there.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Thought you might. Do you now see your thread title is a loaded question fallacy? That you fallaciously presumed "People" as guilty of your charge, then asked why 'they" are here?

 

Nothing so philosophical.  I felt this had occurred.  Other folks in the thread have already said they didn't think it had.  All very fine.

 

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Ok, now on to your next charge.

If I make the general statement that loosening screws on the chassis of a component to improve "sound" is absurd (a very real belief for some audiophiles) and said audiophile reading the general statement is deeply insulted (aka "collateral damage"), you're saying my act of criticism of the belief is unwarranted and unwanted on this forum?

 

I'm saying there are various ways to make known your thinking that this is absurd.  Some of them are more effective for you than others, if your object is to persuade those reading that you have something cogent and credible to say on the subject.  Some of them are better for my goals in reading this forum than others.  My general goal is to be able to learn.  This I feel is aided by specific goals, such as trying to have friendly discussions that hopefully feature various users providing what they believe to be supporting information, which I'm then able to evaluate as I like.  Heated arguments that approach infinite length reduce the signal to noise ratio below that which makes it convenient for me to find what might be interesting and worth a further look.

[Jud]

By the way: When I suggested starting one's own thread, that can work for both people who want to have subjective discussions and those who want to keep things objective.  It's a big, big forum.  There have been various successful long threads where the OP has suggested keeping discussions along certain lines and that's been respected.  On the other hand, there have been threads started by both subjectivists and objectivists where people just could not keep themselves from diving in and spoiling the type of discussion the OP wanted to have.  (There's the recent amp break-in thread I've already mentioned, as well as a couple of @esldude's threads I can think of, the mere existence of which various subjectivists decided to treat as a personal affront.  @wgscott's recent thread can also be fairly seen, I think, as a request to answer an objective question that became hopelessly embroiled in useless argument.)

[Jud]

27 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Shouldn't everyone own the same $350 Sony DAC?

 

My DAC cost $375.  Maybe that was $25 too much?

 

I'm interested in lots of things, particularly in knowledge that can help me get better sound for less (or no) money.  

 

So while I tend to pay attention to people with subjective preferences that match many of mine, I also pay close attention to people who provide objective knowledge that can help me attain that better-sound-for-less goal.  For example, I'm planning to get a calibrated mic and use it to help set up the listening space in my new home that's currently being built.  The mic and a stand together might cost me less than $100, and the software to use with it is free.  I've also already purchased an isolation transformer used for not a lot of money (2.4kVA for $400) for the new home, and had extensive information on its proper wiring ready to provide the electrical sub when he asked.  These things wouldn't have happened without several members thought of as "objectivists."

 

It's so much easier to get information I appreciate from the folks here when I don't restrict my attention in accordance with subjectivist or objectivist labels.

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Not too far fetched at all, maybe a difference in a constrained layer damping type effect, depending on the actual materials in use for the chassis, cover/lid/feet, even the screws themselves. Stiffness/density/anodized/painted etc... potential variables in the materials used that could produce an audible result if screws were loosened or tightened. Not voodoo pseudo science, just a difference in the way vibration is transmitted (or not).

 

Could be audible as better or worse, unless one requires reams of empirical data to arrive at indisputable measured proof of the audibility (otherwise it certainly cannot exist). In that case it isn't audible to them.

 

I know that Demian Martin, designer of some Spectral and Constellation equipment, did write about concerns regarding vibration when he used to hang out here, and he was never one for fantasies.

 

On the other hand, @mansr could well be right.

[Jud]

12 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

WWJD = What Would Jud Do?

 

I was born in Bethlehem.