Article: Audiophile Style State of the Union

[tmtomh]

On 2/17/2020 at 2:25 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

You look at it as banished, I look at it as being given your own space. As I said in the article, audio is inherently a subjective pursuit. The vast majority of comments are subjective, unless one is at Hydrogen Audio.

 

I'm going by the analytics as well. The tail shouldn't wag the dog. 

 

I think this is the simplest, clearest, and most honest description of the situation - I just wish Chris would be more up-front and consistent in acknowledging what he is actually saying and doing here.

 

It is Chris' forum and he can do as he wishes based on his judgment as to what's best for the site.

 

But let's be clear about what Chris is doing, based on his own words. He believes "audio is inherently a subjective pursuit," and that "the vast majority of comments are subjective." Subjectivism is the dog and objectivism is the tail as he sees it (and apparently the analytics back this up). On that basis, he is giving objectivists "their own space."

 

The message is clear: Subjectivists are the majority, objectivists are the minority, so objectivists get a subforum, and subjectivists get... everywhere else. Want to talk about Music Servers? Go to the Music Server subforum - unless you're an objectivist, in which case you need to go to the Objective-fi subforum. Same for Networking, DACs, and pretty much every other topic - and maybe even Q&A(!).

 

And Chris' answer to objections to this is, "I look at it as being given your own space." He repeatedly is telling the objectivists that they are being given their own separate area where they don't have to deal with subjectivists, even though it's abundantly clear that this is a "benefit" the objectivists don't actually want. I will not resort to melodramatic analogies, but I have to note that giving a small group its own space and telling them that it will be better for them that way and that if they don't want to be disruptive and counter-productive then they should welcome this new space, reflects a seriously blinkered understanding of the fundamentals of human discourse and interaction.

 

I believe this problem was inevitable, because this site always has represented the coming-together of two very different cultures, encapsulated in the original name: "Computer" and "Audiophile." In the old days, as has been remarked by others, a lot of help, advice, and exploration were needed just to get computer-based home-audio streaming setups together. Now the industry has matured and appliances and audio components have largely displaced home-brew setups with actual computers in them. The market has shifted upwards and more firmly into "audiophile" territory and away from "computer" territory. 

 

So Chris' change here seems to reflect that shift, and in that sense it makes sense to me even though I don't like it. But please, Chris, consider stopping trying to convince folks that this change is something other than what it is. I am not making any insinuations about money or business motives - I'm simply pointing out that you have clearly restructured the forum and its rules to serve a subjectivist majority, and there's no point in pretending you have done otherwise.

 

More firmly moderating - or flat-out banning - bad, consistently uncivil actors is something I would support, wholeheartedly. But it is inaccurate and misleading for anyone to claim that this change will do that in any direct, consistent, or even-handed manner.

 

 

[tmtomh]

18 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thoughtfully said, but I disagree with much of it. I’ve given countless explanations of what’s changed and why. You selected the one piece that fits your view of this world and chose to elaborate on it and make it into the sole reason. Fine, I can live with that. 
 

It does seem a bit more “high horsey” than your usual posts, as if your breaking some news to save people from something. That’s just the sense I get from a first read through. Far different from your usual comments. 
 

 

 

Chris, I appreciate your reply and your kind words. I would respectfully suggest - and it appears from some prior comments I am not alone in this perception - that it might be your current (understandable) state of mind rather than the tone of my commentary that is different at this moment.

 

To repeat, I am not associating myself with - in fact, will explicitly disassociate myself from - claims that you are doing this for "money" or purely for business reasons. I am not questioning your motives, nor do I feel I am attributing secret reasons to your move or "reading between the lines." I chose to quote that specific comment of yours not because it fits my view, but rather because it most clearly shows the circle you can't square. You believe - by your own words clear as day - that subjectivism is the majority perspective and experience in hi-fi. You believe - in your own words - that you are giving the objectivist minority "their own space." You believe - by your own words in many other comments in this thread, not just that one - that having their own space is something objectivists should welcome, and that if they object to it then they are not actually interested in good-faith objectivist discussion but rather only in it for the fighting and arguing.

 

My point is that you are fully within your rights to do this, and neither I nor anyone else has to like it - we are free to go elsewhere if we don't. I accept that fully. But if you do this and also at the same time claim that this is not what you are actually saying and doing, then I am going to point that out and object to it unless or until I am informed that I am violating forum behavioral rules.

 

Respectfully, the only thing that's different about my commentary this time is that I don't agree with your argument in support of your action here (even though I fully respect your prerogative to take that action).

[tmtomh]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’m pretty worn out today, in bed now just about to shut down for the night. I want to respond to every sentence but don’t have the brain power right now. 
 

Fine if you don’t agree with my argument, but you’re picking and choosing which argument with which to disagree. I guess I’m not sure how you have me simultaneously saying two things, when everything I’ve said is here for all of us to see. 
 

You use an example of me saying I’ve given objectivists a space. Yes, that’s right I have. Now where’s the counter example of a circle I can’t square or where I claim this isn’t happening? Everything I said in the original article and comments is true. 
 

Please help me find what you believe is wrong with it. 

 

You've given objectivist commentary a space - a subforum. And, gray areas notwithstanding, the granting of that one space is simultaneous with the removal of objectivist commentary from the entire rest of the forum. So the space for objectivist commentary is being reorganized and significantly shrunken, so that the majority-subjectivist experience can proceed without interruption and pushback, enabling "audiophiles to be audiophiles" as I believe you've written in one or more prior comments here.

 

I can totally get why you feel this is necessary, and I even get why you feel this might not be a bad development even for objectivists (even though I don't agree). But I cannot understand how you or anyone else, regardless of their view of this change, could disagree that this is in fact the change you have made.

 

So as I see it, the circle you can't square is that you are doing what I have described above (again based very closely on your own words), but you are - for reasons I cannot understand - denying that this is what you're doing.

 

I don't get the point of declaring that subjectivism is the majority and the tail can't wag the dog, and then objecting when someone points out that you are restructuring the forum and rules because... you believe subjectivism is the majority and the tail can't wag the dog.

[tmtomh]

9 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Where have I disagreed?

 

Link please. 
 

 

Link please. 

 

Chris, I'm not trying to be evasive - truly - but I can't respond to "link please" because the "link" is the very comment of yours that I was responding to.

 

I don't want to add unduly to the static you are getting, so I will try this - here is what I wrote about the change you have made:

 

"You've given objectivist commentary a space - a subforum. And, gray areas notwithstanding, the granting of that one space is simultaneous with the removal of objectivist commentary from the entire rest of the forum. So the space for objectivist commentary is being reorganized and significantly shrunken, so that the majority-subjectivist experience can proceed without interruption and pushback, enabling "audiophiles to be audiophiles" as I believe you've written in one or more prior comments here."

 

Let me just ask: Do you view this summary as basically accurate or not? If you view it as more or less accurate, then I think we are on the same page. If you do not, then I think we can agree to disagree and, at least for the moment, call it day.

 

Thank you.

[tmtomh]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thanks for the follow up and purposeful or not, the refreshing delay, giving me time to sleep on it :~) I have a feeling you and I could discuss this over a beverage and have a really interesting conversation, followed by a lot of fun listening to music. Be that as it may, we are here in the virtual world and must use the tools at our disposal to communicate as best we can. 

 

I certainly see your point and how you arrived at it, but I'm not OK with the wording and characterization. There is much gray area with this and everything in life. Perhaps I can offer an example or two of how I see this working.

 

I also don't believe the description of "significantly shrunken" is appropriate because the Objective-Fi forum could technically contain 10x the quantity of  posts in all other areas. It comes down to usability and aesthetics. I don't want 50 sub-forums for people to weed through, hemming and hawing over which one is the appropriate place to post etc...

 

I really like your comment, "so that the majority-subjectivist experience can proceed without interruption and pushback." Yes, this should be the case for all conversations when the adults involved want it to be this way. I'm guessing you don't derive pleasure from entering a cigar bar and yelling, "You're all gonna die and here's why!" On the flip side of that coin is the space for Objective-Fi discussions where you probably wouldn't derive pleasure from yelling, "Trust your ears you nerds with crappy systems!" 

 

 

 

Example 1: USB Cable Experience Thread

 

This is clearly for those who wish to discuss their listening experience with USB cables. Now, when someone can't help themself from interjecting an objective argument against people's claims, I will just move it to the Objective-Fi forum and include a link in the newly created thread to reference the subjective thread. This separation is the next step after asking people for years to police themselves and stop disrupting grown adult's enjoyment. 

 

 

Example 2: UPnP / DLNA Questions Thread

 

As we saw in the first comment to this article, offering objective information about how UPnP / DLNA works was the perfect answer to the OP's question. The information doesn't need to be moved into the Objective-Fi area because it doesn't make sense to do so. I believe this is common sense, but I also realize we all have different backgrounds and cultural experiences that influence our common sense. 

 

 

Example 3: Bit Identical Files Can't Sound Different Thread

 

In this example, the post should be created in the Objective-Fi forum because it's the best place to have the technical discussion without any belligerence from the far wing fo the Subjective party. It's very simple to point to the sign on the door stating, subjectivity isn't allowed in this one. Such a thread can be referenced forever by anyone who wishes to rehash the old debate again, and again, and again. It's hopefully educational rather than a pissing match. 

 

 

 

We must also keep in mind that many roads lead to Rome and everyone has an opinion. Many of the people complaining haven't tried to be part of the solution, but some have. I am grateful for feedback and potential solutions, but people must also realize that this is what I do all day, every day, every year ... I don't know everything, but I have a good idea what hasn't worked and what has the best chance of working. 

 

 

 

Thank you for the thoughtful and detailed reply, Chris - informative and much appreciated. (And I too am confident that we'd have lots to talk about in real life 🙂.)

[tmtomh]

3 hours ago, bluesman said:

I applaud your use of Goleman's Emotional Intelligence as a framework for your post and thoughts, Foggie.  It's a wonderful book that's relevant today (and will be tomorrow) even though it's 25 years old - I strongly suggest that everyone read it before throwing more fuel on this fire.  I see his concept of an emotional IQ as a kind of social equivalent to a handicap in golf.  No matter how great the disparities among people's knowledge, beliefs, and personalities, they can all interact enjoyably and productively if their EIQs are sufficiently high.

 

His basic premise that we do best in life when we learn to temper the rational with the emotional (and vice versa) is a perpetual key to success on many levels.  If everybody took Goleman's approach to heart and developed the sensitivities embodied in EI, the world (which includes AS and every other internet forum) would be a much more pleasant and productive place.  Perhaps the best reason to adopt it is that it helps people who differ greatly on issues get along better and more productively.  I'm paraphrasing Goleman to illustrate your bullet points in what I hope may be a more obvious and inspirational way:

• Self-awareness: understanding personal moods, emotions & drives, and their effect on others.
  •  manifests as appropriate self-confidence, realistic self-assessment, sense of humor about yourself, knowing & controlling your own emotions.
• Self-regulation: managing disruptive impulses and moods, suspending judgment, thinking before acting.
  •  manifests as trustworthiness, integrity, comfort with ambiguity and being open to change.
• Internal motivation: being driven by passions that go beyond money and status, by the joy of learning and doing.
  •  manifests as drive to achieve, true optimism, and ability to commit to ideas and efforts.
• Social awareness: sensing and understanding the emotions of others, and interacting appropriately to achieve the best outcome
  • manifests as empathy and awareness of / respect for the hierarchy of relationships in groups & organizations
• Social skills: managing relationships, finding common ground, building rapport.
  •  manifests as ability to lead change by persuasion and intelligent discourse rather than brute force.

This great discussion around EI in the Harvard Business Review that says it very well "Don’t shortchange your development as a leader by assuming that EI is all about being sweet and chipper, or that your EI is perfect if you are — or, even worse, assume that EI can’t help you excel..."  (not that sweet and chipper wouldn't go a long way toward smoothing some of our most contentious posts and threads 👁️ )   A high emotional IQ can help students learn and teachers teach. Those here with sound knowledge of a subject can be mentors, coaches and inspiring leaders for us all by adopting Goleman's approach to relationship management rather than berating those who don't agree with them.

 

There may be a key to a kinder gentler AS in this simple approach: present your opinion, support it with what you think is the best available evidence, welcome dissent, and be sensitive to emotional cues that suggest the need to back off and/or take a different approach.   Whether you think the best available evidence is objective or subjective doesn't matter - there's room in the world for us all, and there is no winning or losing.  Believe what you wish, support it as best you can, and live with it.  If your emotional IQ is high enough, you'll always be open to change if presented with new evidence you accept - and you'll be better able to convince others of the wisdom of your own opinions.

 

I think this is a great comment - as is the comment from @Foggie that spurred it.

 

Given the aspect of this situation that my comments have focused on in the past day or so, I would like to clarify that I wholeheartedly support greater civility, and I echo Bluesman's point that civility does not mean narrow or fake or relentless politeness, but rather good faith, generosity of spirit, and an attempt to make others feel seen and heard and even when - especially when - we disagree. I hope the aggregate collection of my comments here shows that I try to practice that. (And no one banged the drum harder or more often to get someone like Brinkman, for example, out of here on civility grounds, even though I usually agreed with the gist of his arguments.)

 

And I will concede that some of my fellow objectivists here have rather consistently rejected the idea that calls for civility could be anything other than a method of policing their discourse. There is a point of view that values the rough-and-tumble aspect of arguing as something that guarantees and maintains the health of free speech and sharpness of ides. This point of view also tends to value the use of humor - sarcasm, snark, and mild trolling - as a time-honored rhetorical technique to illustrate hypocrisy, weak arguments, self-righteousness, etc among those one disagrees with. I mostly do not share that view, but it is a valid view, and it tends to be especially prevalent on the internet. I've noticed that it's also more prevalent and accepted in some cultures than others, which is significant since we are an international community here. Finally, it has to be said that this sort of approach to argument and interaction traditionally is a male-dominated thing, too.

 

At any rate, I think that some folks feel that this kind of agonistic interaction should be part of any healthy discussion community, and I respect that view - and I would urge the handful of self-identified subjectivists who've been gloating at the departure of mansr and others to take a seat on that issue and not descend into hypocrisy in your behavior here.

 

I also feel compelled to point out that the question of civility is not the same as the question of how the forum is organized and what impact that organization might have on whether or not people with differing views feel they have an equal opportunity to participate in all the threads and subforums moving forward. As I noted in a previous comment, I think it is a mistake to assume that both objectivists and subjectivists here want the same thing. Objectivists do not, on the whole, desire to be "free of" those who disagree with them or to be "left alone" the way many subjectivists here apparently do. (This is not a slam on subjectivists; it is meant as an observation only.)

 

Now, it is true that some objectivist members here seem to have confused or conflated (1) the opportunity or lack thereof for participating freely in all discussions and (2) the need for baseline civility. So when they are called on their incivility, they react as if they are being restricted in the arguments they can make or when and where they can make them.

 

But I see too many folks responding to this conflation with a mirror-image error: When objectivists now complain about how they feel their ability to participate here is being restricted, the reaction is that they just need to be more civil. This is why @pkane2001 has gone 12 rounds with Chris about the "grey area" issue: if the answer to "why is objectivism restricted to a single subforum" is, "because we all need to be civil and emotionally intelligent," then naturally pkane and many others are going to ask the logical next question: "So how can I know if a comment I want to make or an argument I want to put forward is civil enough to remain in a thread, or if it will get removed and put into the Objective-fi subforum?" 

 

I can understand why Chris cannot provide a black-and-white answer to this question. But I'm sure (or at least I hope) folks can understand why pkane and others find that worrisome.

[tmtomh]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

This aspect of the input of some objectivists is what disturbs people ... all that is being asked for is that some self-discipline be applied at the time of making the post, ensuring that the tone is not unnecessarily aggressive.

 

I would hope it was clear from my comment that I agree with this.

 

But at the risk of repeating myself, I have to reiterate that responding to this problem by creating an objective-fi subforum is an indirect and inequitable solution - unless one believes that objectivist members are the sole source of this problem here, which is most certainly not the case.

[tmtomh]

17 hours ago, audiobomber said:

I don't accept your analogy. USB cables sound different in my system, and also to most audiophiles.

 

Your comment raises an interesting question. The part of your claim that I have bolded is a claim about subjective impressions, but it is a factual and therefore objective claim about those impressions. 

 

I would hope that @The Computer Audiophile would agree that it is perfectly acceptable to question this claim, and further to point out that there is no evidence to support this claim, that "most audiophiles" hear differences between USB cables. Chris, am I correct that a civil statement to this effect would not be moved into the Objective-fi subforum?

 

To be clear, I am not talking about questioning whether anyone really is hearing a difference - I'm talking specifically about the part of audiobomber's comment that I have bolded above.

[tmtomh]

13 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

Which I defended, two post above yours.

 

Thank you for that clarification. I saw that in your prior comment. With respect, I don't think adding "IMO" remedies the problem.

 

The issue there is that that you didn't clarify that you were expressing an opinion. The issue is that you were not in fact expressing an opinion, at least not in the sent that you appear to be using the term. A factual claim is a factual claim, and as such it requires evidence. The fact that you personally believe that factual claim does not transform that claim into an opinion.

[tmtomh]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

First, I'm losing my patience. I'm human, it happens. I see much of this as people not trying to be part of the solution but rather displaying their distaste for my decision in numerous ways. I'm struggling to see your question as one that you would really ask, rather than one that is being asked just to be a pest. I know you aren't a pest but give the last several days, I'm just running thin on patience. 

 

Please consider the spirit of the changes I made. Don't put on a rage against the machine playlist at a classical music party. 

 

In this specific example, you're reading into his post and would like to challenge him. Why? Why can't you or anyone else just let it be? Does the fact that he said something make it "factual and therefore objective?" People don't come here to be questioned by the HiFi police. They come here to express opinions and thoughts and have a good time. Nobody is using his claim of "most audiophiles" in the next Presidential debate. 

 

A civil statement challenging him should be in the objective-fi forum because you'd be looking for some objective information to disprove what he said. All I'm asking is for people to use some common sense. Does it seem like the person posting wants to be challenged? Is the person just here to have fun and share experiences? Is your proposed challenge likely to turn into a fight? Based on this type of stuff, use some judgement and try to keep the place enjoyable. 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your reply, Chris. I'm sorry you feeling so thin on patience and I certainly can understand why you are feeling that way. I also am sorry to have contributed to that.

 

I will say, however, that this response is not what I was hoping for. I could let audiobomber's claim be, but I don't want to, because I'm a member here too, and this is not a thread about USB cables (I consciously considered what kind of thread I was about to post my reply in, because I have listened and tried to be attentive to what you're trying to accomplish here).

 

But if a polite, civil comment about the fact-opinion distinction, in a non-subjectivist thread, is considered to be hi-fi policing, then I'm inclined to withdraw from most discussion moving forward. Not going to throw a tantrum or ask for my account to be deleted. Just calmly saying it's not a set of parameters that contributes to my enjoyment of our shared hobby.

[tmtomh]

5 hours ago, audiobomber said:

You are welcome to it, @MikePM. Audio Science Review Forum is a cesspool.

 

This is an extreme, highly disparaging statement, and such statements require some evidence if they are to be taken seriously and not be viewed as bad forum behavior. So too does the placing of the word reviews in scare-quotes require some explanation or justification if it s not to be considered gratuitous nastiness with no substance behind it.

 

I would encourage anyone reading this thread who does not already have a strong opinion about ASR to visit the site and decide for themselves.