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

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, Northern_Canuck said:

I have been following CA for years and have learned a lot from many of the posters - thank you!

 

BTW - Does CA offer a filter to block specific users posts? Now that would be very useful addition to create your own "Troll Filter"

 

We've had this for many years. Now you can even ignore certain topics / threads. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Well said @sdolezalek

 

It's a constant balance.

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, Daudio said:

unconstitutional in the USA

 

The constitution has nothing to do with a private forum. The 1st Amendment only protects you from the Government. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

Jud, I've honestly witnessed more flagrant attacking of proven principals of how NRTOS based computer audio works than there should remotely be.

 

I've the threads to prove it. For me it started years ago where I showed the proposed experts that they were talking out their ass, to have people actually try and debate a proven fact, to have Jim Hillegrass from JRiver back me up 100% and then have someone that runs a company that makes, IMO, the industry leading media player, also be attacked.

 

Then we have threads were the audiophiles start posting white papers and honest to goodness research articles that they have no idea how to properly interpret and attack me and others, again, for using said papers to point out their lack of technical ability to comprehend what they are talking about.

 

You want to know why? The hardcore subjective audiophile is a soft target and it's much funner to play with mice than something with real teeth. CA, for whatever reason, provides for an abundance of such idiocy but it's also a source for showing such idiocy in stark contrast and actually make a point that have honestly helped some people out that have skills to critically evaluate all sides.  That's a win for fell CA'ers here that are looking for some absolute truths in this hobby. Not everything matters.

 

 

 

You have a lot to offer many of us who are always looking for more information. However, "playing" with "soft targets" has no place here. 

 

I encourage you to offer information to those of us interested in such information and to ignore those who would like you to ignore them. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

I took Jud's OP to be asking, - why do anti-audiophiles come on audiophile website & attack audiophiles? I see this as a very valid question.

 

Agreed.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

What defines one as an 'anti-audiophile'? Those who believe in measurements? Or those who believe in listening? Or those who don't agree with long term evaluations, or those who only accept blind testing? Objectivists or subjectivists? Digital cable affects SQ or it doesn't? Grounding boxes work or they don't? Climate change is real or fake? Or maybe it's simply someone that doesn't agree with me (and, of course, I know that I am an audiophile)?

 

I'm genuinely interested in how one would define an 'anti-audiophile'. 

 

That's a tough question. For me an anti-audiophile is someone who makes negative comments about the whole group of people who consider themselves audiophiles. For example, "audiophiles have more money than sense and they don't like music." I've seen those comments many times and they say more about the person leaving the comment that about the target of the comment. 

 

Perhaps a little leeway and attempt at understanding all sides would help.

[The Computer Audiophile]

The guy also called Paul's work I believe.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Guilty as charged...Though precisely because I can immediately see things like loaded questions, I can also separate the person from the "argument". So indeed, I do tend to poke a wee bit of fun at beliefs. That there might be collateral damage, perceived or real, is another matter entirely and most likely based on the eye of the beholder.

Or believer in this case.

 

This comment escaped me the first go around. 

 

I love to have fun and use humor, even at my own expense. Often we take this hobby too seriously and a little fun can put things into perspective. 

 

However, causing "collateral damage" serious. I get a bad taste in my mouth after reading your comment. CA is my business, and it supports my family. Anyone coming here and causing collateral damage with a smirk, and the ability to take a jab and leave without any repercussions, concerns me greatly. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Irony and hypocrisy all in a single thread. What do you know, we are all human. We all make mistakes and misjudgments. 

 

I highly recommend we all take ourselves a bit less seriously and I'm 100% certain we need to take this wonderful hobby of ours a lot less serious. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"No one here on the internet knows if they are typing notes to a dog"

 

I love that sentence. Gave me a good chuckle. So true. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

PM from Daudio:

Yeah, that reputation.

 

Thanks for posting mansr. He's gone now. That shit isn't tolerated at CA.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

So then you accept the sensory perceptions of millions of bracelet wearers too I hope

 

Life isn't black or white / all or nothing. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I agree, but some consistency is nice. Especially when accepting/dismissing perceptions.

 

I agree consistency is nice. However, consider all the scientists and engineers who also believe in a higher power or god(s). Very inconsistent belief, but we don't throw out all their beliefs because of one belief. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

Sometimes it is.

 

Yes, some things are black and white, such as my first television. A 12" black & white.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

That's not a position you want to pass on to others as a rational approach to High Fidelity.

What part of that do you find so difficult to understand?

 

Sal, you seem to be playing Big Brother / Minister of Information when it comes to how people should think and what they should believe. I don't know you personally, but you strike me as the type of guy who prefers to live and let live. Something doesn't add up. 

 

What am I missing?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

The problem occurs when folks report their subjective, fallible evaluations to others that take it as gospel. Especially bad when this is done by equipment manufacturers. 

 

You're trying to save people from themselves. Live and let live. 

 

Provide information on what you believe, and move on. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

With you and Teresa I'm batting 0 and 2.

But I'm hoping for a better result with others more rational.

 

Ah, I get it. Get in line with Sal of you're irrational.

 

I couldn't resist taking a friendly jab :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

No, I'm trying to improve S/N ratio on these forums. Somewhat unsuccessfully, I might add  so the suggestion to move on is perhaps appropriate.

 

 

You have a laudable goal, but are actually accomplishing the opposite. The S/N ratio only goes up when people get into arguments like this. Simply stating one's opinion and any data to back up the opinion, works much better in the long run. 

 

Think about it from your own perspective. Do you tend to listen to people who attempt to jam something down your throat and persist despite a no-win situation? It works the same for both sides. Be pleasant, state your piece.

 

I appreciate what you're trying to do. Honestly. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Why do you always react as the debate is one sided?

Your input here has been only to call the objectivists unreasonable all the while the subjectives attempt to shout us down.

A bit of a bias showing IMHO

 

Hi Sal - That's too bad I came across as one-sided. Perhaps that's my fault. I specifically added the sentence, "It works the same for both sides." In order to get across that it does work both ways. 

 

Like everything in life, audio beliefs are on a continuum from crazy objectivist to crazy subjectivist. The polar ends are equally responsible for acting very similar, but with different beliefs and objectives. I'm not suggesting anyone here is in the crazy camp, just using this as an illustration that this is definitely a two-sided issue. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

47 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

The fact that there was a person who couldn't conduct themselves in a acceptable manner shows no relationship to my post.

But good try in any case barrister.

 

It was you that initially stirred this pot so don't go all innocent here.  LOL

 

Interesting response. 

 

You claimed I was being one-sided. He pointed to evidence of how I wasn't being one-sided. You responded with this? He showed you the "measurements" and now you are getting subjective. 

 

Hmmmm. :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

23 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Reality is full of traps for believers, because they are blissfully unaware of so many technical issues when they carry on their "hearing" sessions (aka "tests, listening, etc").

 

Nothing like talking to potential customers like they are idiots. Glad to see you design speakers without listening, contrary to the best designers in the industry. I'll stick with my TAD CR1s that Andrew designed first by measurements and finally be ear. Oh that terrible thing called the ear can produce such crazy results when used in conjunction with measurements. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

The below amp is still a $6K Recommended Component.

 

I believe every component that's written about in Stereophile makes it to the recommended lists. There are so many classes and categories that need to be filled. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Not quite but we do not choose what to review randomly.  I will not review anything that does not have promise. Although that may constitute a selection bias, not all live up to that hope.

 

Ah thanks for the clarification. I thought everything made it to the list, just in  different category.

[The Computer Audiophile]

18 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

There are other opinions why the "Recommended Component" list has grown to what it is today.

Some very good ones IMO

http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html#REC

 

Holy crap, that guy has some serious time on his hands and serious issues with Stereophile and its personnel. Life is short, perhaps he should stop reading the magazine he now hates and do something he enjoys. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Wow, you've listened to every amp, with honesty controls (no peeking, etc. and "Just listening, trusting ears") in place.

Where can one find the details of this?

To be honest, this comment is so sophomoric.