Is It Time For Moderators?

[4est]

12 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I have believed since the seventies that it takes a combination of objective measurements and listening to achieve the best results. So same hobby. 

 

Yes I would be using the word transparency. In the audio context I learned it from Techtronix engineers in seventies and used it when I was consulting in the broadcasting industry.

 

One of Harry’s failings was not to recognize that most of his readers didn’t and don’t listen listen to unamplified music. A simple business concept understand your customers and your environment.

 

Sorry no trolling or calling attention to myself.

A failing to suggest that we use real sounds as a reference point to understand  if we are tonally accurate? He'd have not gotten as far as he did despite his foibles if many weren't in agreement with this. It is not at all that he didn't listen to amplified source material. Shoot, he turned me on to Aimee Mann!

[jabbr]

17 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

 

Defining "how it works" is the issue. What is the goal? Do we want audio equipment because the measurements are pristine, or because the sound is pristine? I believe that is the fundamental divide between objective and subjective.

 

There was a fellow on another forum who recommend Chromecast Audio as a DAC, because Audio Science Review said its measurements were great, better than a Yggdrasil. I don't have a Yggy, but I have CCA, and it sounds pretty bad, forget the measurements.

 

You shouldn't equate "how it works" with a blind faith in (limited) measurements.

 

Both listening and measurements are observations.

 

Understanding "how it works" requires a theoretical framework and this is very mature for electronics. What isn't known, in general, is the full network of connections including parasitics, side effects etc...

 

Also just because a particular measurement of a DAC doesn't predict SQ doesn't mean anything. For example the color of a food (which can be measured with great precision) doesn't always predict what it tastes like. That doesn't mean that we don't understand how the molecular receptors in the olfactory system work ...

 

But offtopic for the issues of moderation ... sorry

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, 4est said:

A failing to suggest that we use real sounds as a reference point to understand  if we are tonally accurate? He'd have not gotten as far as he did despite his foibles if many weren't in agreement with this. It is not at all that he didn't listen to amplified source material. Shoot, he turned me on to Aimee Mann!

 

As with many things, there is truth both in your response and what you responded to.

 

Yes, acoustic instruments as a reference are a good idea, since amplification adds more variables. But might he have increased readership with more writing about Beatles or Pink Floyd albums instead of talking about The Weavers at Carnegie Hall for the umpteenth time? Very possibly.

 

I just liked him in the early days because very nearly nothing pleased him much back when the mag took no advertising.  After they did start taking advertising to stay afloat and he became HP, that flipped 180 degrees and the publication was no longer a refreshing change from the rest.

[davide256]

15 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

Maybe the OP could hide the questionable posts (rather than delete them), and the person whose contribution has been hidden could have the option of modifying it, or to appeal the decision.

 

What worries me about the post deletion form of moderation is you sometimes throw out the baby with the bath-water.

I have no desire to police my threads every day against the same bad behavior from 4 or 5 individuals that frequent this site using bullying and legal white paper tactics to suppress discussion they "believe" is wrong. The ability to block  saboteurs from further posts after failure to heed a warning is a privilege I'd work hard at keeping ?

 

[4est]

11 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

As with many things, there is truth both in your response and what you responded to.

 

Yes, acoustic instruments as a reference are a good idea, since amplification adds more variables. But might he have increased readership with more writing about Beatles or Pink Floyd albums instead of talking about The Weavers at Carnegie Hall for the umpteenth time? Very possibly.

 

I just liked him in the early days because very nearly nothing pleased him much back when the mag took no advertising.  After they did start taking advertising to stay afloat and he became HP, that flipped 180 degrees and the publication was no longer a refreshing change from the rest.

I completely agree with this. I just felt the need tohave his back. He really helped change my direction back in the eighties. I went from apt holman to dynaco tubes...

[4est]

11 minutes ago, 4est said:

I completely agree with this. I just felt the need tohave his back. He really helped change my direction back in the eighties. I went from apt holman to dynaco tubes...

Not to quote myself, but this is the beginnings of my accepting subjectivity vs objectivity blindly. The Holman designed pre was technically superior to the Dyna PAS in every way, but the Dyna blew it out of the water sonically. Let the flames burn my heathen rear...

[feelingears]

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Thank you for posting this.

 

For those who don't know: Taz777 is the OP of the Coax cable thread which has been mentioned regularly as the example in this "Moderator" thread and also the reason why this thread emerged (Chris will know for sure, but that's my perception of it).

 

This is why we need moderators. Threads are cluttered with the same arguments ad nauseam (oops, no liberal arts latin!), I mean, the same un-winnable arguments over and over, blah blah blah. Because I want to spend time with my son and listen to music, I don't want to wade through all. that. blah. blah. blah. blah.

 

Having recently gone through a refinement of my coax cable as well, that coax thread is one I was very interested in reading. Related to the NUC and Massive... threads, I think (perhaps wrongly) that by avoiding USB I avoid the spaghetti mess of hardware and (more!) cables.

 

But, as soon as the cable-haters rolled in, I opted to go my own way–such a pain in the rear to wade through the dross. My loss, and yours too Peter as we corresponded about one of your coax cables (actually two since we were talking about the Lush^2 as well).

 

@Taz I'm glad you got your system tuned! I may have to go back and see if you documented your comparisons as that is what I enjoy about talking with other audiophiles.

 

And again, how about moderators who dispense strikes to offending posts? A group of moderators provide oversight. A kind of supreme court (ha ha). Then maybe people will pay attention and think about the reactions to their posts. Low impact on the content, maybe big impact on behavior!

 

 

 

[audiobomber]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

You shouldn't equate "how it works" with a blind faith in (limited) measurements.

Both listening and measurements are observations.

 

But offtopic for the issues of moderation ... sorry

Listening is a useless measure according to objectivists here, unless it is conducted blind and with statistical analysis. I am interested in technical specs, but listening is more important to me. 

 

I disagree that this subject is off topic, because 99% of the arguments and hard feelings on this board are due to objectivist vs. subjectivist, listening vs. measurement. It is certainly closer to topic than a discussion of Harry Pearson's TAS.

 

Here goes my off-topic contribution; American stereo magazines and TAS in particular were clueless about great sound in the 70's and 80's. Brit mags set the standard (Hi-Fi News, Hi-Fi World, Hi-Fi Choice, Hi-Fi+, not What Hi-Fi.)

[wgscott]

18 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

Listening is a useless measure according to objectivists here

 

That is not a fair or accurate characterization.

[audiobomber]

13 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

That is not a fair or accurate characterization.

Listening is a useless measure according to most objectivists here, unless it is conducted blind and with statistical analysis.

 

Happy now?

[Boy Howdy]

IF the decision is made to have moderators, I suggest a list of qualities that we would like to see in our discussions as well as a list of community values.  These could be nominated and discussed (probably not without some discord) and then have every member re-join CA and agree to adhere to the values and qualities.  Finally I would suggest procedures for administering the moderating, such as, either a moderator or a member who feels that a post violates a quality or value can initiate a private response to the poster indicating what/where and have the original respond/clarify his/her intent.   This kind of open-minded intervention can be tracked through a member database and it will become clear if someone is discordant.  The moderator (perhaps with Chris’ cuncurance) gives that individual a “time-out” for a short period of time.  Then three strikes and a longer period of posting banishment followed by permanent site exile.   

 

Moderating is dangerous and I would like to believe that (IF that is decided) we could make it less onerous all around with some civilized, out-of-the-spotlight small conversations with the moderator as an anonymizer who links specific qualities/values we all agreed to at the outset.  

 

Vive les differences (mais doucement)!

Mike

[marce]

17 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

Listening is a useless measure according to most objectivists here, unless it is conducted blind and with statistical analysis.

 

Happy now?

So sad and untrue.

[Allan F]

Based on the on-topic posts, in the interests of fairness,  it seems to me that an "appeal court" of some type would be necessary to provide a way to challenge decisions of a moderator if a number of the broad powers suggested by some were granted to one.

 

The line between moderation and censorship can become a thin one if discretion is not exercised wisely.

[marce]

To re iterate, i believe the forum works. There seam to be a few who want not moderation but censorship of any viewpoint or point of discussion that goes against their own. Discussion does need some opposite views on a audio website, otherwise the threads become a stale endless regurgitation of the same views with no conclusions.

Sorry if it seams a harsh viewpoint, but as I have said I read every response to a comment I have mad or when reading a thread. The opposing viewpoints are more likely to prompt me to further research or to try something.  But when I do try something it has to be methodical, if possible I will perform a double blind, if not I will use both sighted short and long term listening, the problem being I know sighted is flawed and blind tests are hard to perform on your own... I also look for an EE or physics based mechanism causing the perceived change.

[Ralf11]

I think phone posting should be banned

[esldude]

23 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I think phone posting should be banned

I disagree as my posts the last few days have all been from a phone from the hospital. 

 

What next? Posting from desktops and not laptops?

 

BTW, I finally decided and voted (from the phone). My vote was NO.

[Ralf11]

ees joke, senor

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

I think phone posting should be banned

 

The above post is anything but the product of thinking.

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, 4est said:

Not to quote myself, but this is the beginnings of my accepting subjectivity vs objectivity blindly. The Holman designed pre was technically superior to the Dyna PAS in every way, but the Dyna blew it out of the water sonically. Let the flames burn my heathen rear...

4est

 IIRC though , your Valve amplifier is of a type that already had way lower distortion than most typical valve amplifiers due to the topology used, thus making the differences way more obvious.

Is that correct ?

 

Alex

[4est]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

4est

 IIRC though , your Valve amplifier is of a type that already had way lower distortion than most typical valve amplifiers due to the topology used, thus making the differences way more obvious.

Is that correct ?

 

Alex

Did I hear that right Alex, you suggesting a valve amp might be lower distortion for any reason? LOL Don't take that hard, I just know that you hate tubes and am having some fun.

 

I dunno what it was, that was thirty years ago, and I am long past it. Dynaco were cheap tube kits known for a good midrange and did wonders with my Magnepans. The Apt Holman pres were technically advanced for their time. Perhaps still are in some manner with adjustable phono loadings and variable gain instead of the traditional volume pots. It was no contest and not "bias" or simple euphonics as it gets described often here. More palpable and 3D for starters. That was the main draw. From there it was trying to get my highs and bass back with regulated power supplies and new passive components! Anyone who knows Dynakit knows what I am talking about. Ive still got that PAS and Stereo 70 around somewheres.

[fas42]

11 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

In the end the subjects are not you and me, but the two camps as a whole. You are too special because it is just your work and indeed the "electron speed" levels - I am a sort of special because I sure am the objectivist with clear subjectivist behavior. No need to further elaborate that both camps as a whole should be ready to accept the moderation that could come forward from this (if at all, of course).

 

Peter, there are very few people who are willing to hear the differences, in SQ - note I didn't say, "can hear" - who also have the ability to investigate from a technical perspective, and engineer better solutions. You being one are extremely valuable, because you bridge that great chasm in thinking, between the sides - this is where the real movements forward come from.

 

Those that are "too proud" to acknowledge that they "don't know everything" are the losers - and a key reason for the divide continuing to flourish.

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, 4est said:

Did I hear that right Alex, you suggesting a valve amp might be lower distortion for any reason?

 

 Grounded Grid topology is capable of very low distortion figures comparable with many Solid State amplifiers, but without a surfeit of even order harmonics, which many may not like.

 Grounded grid operation  is often used in Amateur Radio Linear power amplifiers for this reason.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, marce said:

 But when I do try something it has to be methodical, if possible I will perform a double blind, if not I will use both sighted short and long term listening, the problem being I know sighted is flawed and blind tests are hard to perform on your own... I also look for an EE or physics based mechanism causing the perceived change.

 

Where the objectivists get it wrong, and why the ugliness erupts, is because of the rigid thinking employed for the latter exercise ... if you're driving your car, and you become aware of a rattle you haven't heard before, do you decide you need to go for a hearing test, or that you need to thoroughly read through the workshop manual for that model? Or, perhaps consider that the nasty pothole you went over a short while ago may have shifted something in the cabin so that it's touching something else, "inappropriately". IME, a hell of a lot of the things that degrade the end quality of a playback chain fall into the latter category of causes - no magic answers needed, just a bit of common sense ...

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Or, perhaps consider that the nasty pothole you went over a short while ago may have shifted something in the cabin

 

 Or the Jack in the boot, or something else in the boot that is stashed there.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Hi Ajax,

a very interesting post

 

7 hours ago, Ajax said:

On a business level, as CEO of Computer Audiophile your time should be spent where it is most constructive - growing your business and keeping your sponsors and customers (us) happy. There is no better business than repeat business.

 

This stood out to me. I agree. Just some further thoughts. If sponsors are Audiophile manufacturers and customers include those that buy their products and which CC reviews, one can only imagine how anti-audiophile sentiment would be received. The problem gets compounded if new members get 'educated' as to the fraudulent voodoo being perpetrated upon them. So, from a purely business perspective contempt for audiophiles and high-end audio must be bad for business, one would think?

 

Then again, in order to be perceived as fair, non-biased and open minded CC needs to receptive to all views. To be perceived otherwise would be bad for business rendering his equipment reviews useless.

 

I have little doubt that CC has considered all of this and I have to agree with him that for the most part, new members are hopefully smart enough to sort through the anti-audiophile posts. I do wonder though if all the sponsors would agree.

 

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Ajax said:

If I were in your shoes I would go back to your business plan and ascertain where you can best spend your time. I would be very surprised if it was to baby sit some precious and boring egos.

 

I can't help but agree you. That's what I would do too. As said, Chris is however more than capable of making up his own mind.

 

 

7 hours ago, Ajax said:

 

On a personal level it is simply not healthy for you to be continually putting out fires and playing judge and jury. It's draining. You didn't study law so why are you now a judge? Also it is really important (vital) that you get the family / work / fun / sport / hobby balance right if you are going to be good at any of them so please get a moderator asap. You little girl needs you and so does your business.

 

My 2 cents.

 

All the best

 

Ajax

 

 

Well intentioned and well said.