Article: Audiophile Style State of the Union

[firedog]

People need to realize there's a difference between a thread (like the DLNA thread referenced above) where the OP asks for info/opinion and is clearly asking for all points of view, or a thread  where the OP says something like, "do you think USB cables can make a difference?", as opposed to a thread where the topic is "USB cable comparisons". In the latter, the OP clearly isn't asking to be told that there isn't a difference between cables and cables can't possibly make a difference.
 

In the first type of thread all points of view are welcome, in the second the objectivists clearly aren't welcome, especially if they want to be snarky. I don't really think this is rocket science.

[firedog]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

I agree.

 

Perhaps there just needs to be a better way for those starting threads to indicate what kinds of opinions they welcome.

The obvious solution would be for people to just clearly state it in the opening post.

In the past that hasn't worked: I remember a couple of threads where the OP specifically made such a plea and was ignored, sometimes even when asking a second time.

[firedog]

7 hours ago, mansr said:

And when the reverse happens? Oh, don't bother answering. I know you'll continue to let that slide like you always have.

Didn't Chris give Plissken control over his ER "objective" thread? I agree there is some of the "subjectivist pissing" on that thread, and Plissken has the right to remove it if he wants to. 

We can only hope that Chris will do the same splitting of threads, etc., if it happens in other threads. If not, you will have a legit cause for complaint. 

[firedog]

4 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Because HiFi is short for High Fidelity. The persuit of HiFi has since the very beginning been accomplished via the use of measurements and the advancement of the engineering community learning to apply scientific principles towards an ever improving SOTA.  The human weaknesses toward sighted, known DUT, expectation bias used as a tool has been discounted for every scientific path from chemistry to medicine.  If your only interest in this "hobby" is to assemble a system that produces a pleasing sound for you, that's fine. But if your interest is to follow a path that will bring you closer to the artist/producer/engineers intent, you need to take a verifiable path that insures your hearing resembles that which is your desire,  High Fidelity.

That's one point of view and unfortunately for you, not the only one. Some people don't call it HiFi, they call it "audiophilia", which means something else. Lots of people in the hobby don't view it as you do. Deal with it.
They aren't "wrong", they have a different goal than you.

[firedog]

3 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Very simple, finding the best performing/measuring components minus any non-verifiable BS. 

In search of real High Fidelity.

 

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Why is there support for MQA there? 

Yeah if you criticize MQA or point out that Bob and company are less than honest Amir lectures you about what an award winning engineer BS is and how that answers all doubts about MQA. Talk about non-verifiable BS...What?

[firedog]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

They are wrong because they want to silence a difference of opinion not because their opinion or goal is different.

No, they don't want to silence you. They just want to be able to have a discussion without being interrupted and told how wrong they are.

Outside of the forum do you just walk up to other people having a conversation, interrupt, and tell them they are wrong?

Why not? Don't you want to expose them to the truth and prevent them from believing in "unscientific" ideas? 

 

I'm sure "they" are perfectly happy for you discuss your ideas in objectivist or other threads designed to be all inclusive, such as a  "what do you guys think about...." thread.

[firedog]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I don't walk up to anyone here or on the street to force my opinion on them. When I think I have an answer or something to contribute, based on experience or something I learned or discovered through study, I want to be able to share it. I get shouted down here, just like many others. 

 

 

You may think that's what you are doing, and that may be your intent, but it isn't what you are actually doing.

If the OT is "USB Cable Comparisons" and you join in to tell them the whole discussion is baseless and anti-scientific and is a waste of time b/c USB cables can't sound different, you aren't actually contributing, or sharing, or helping them. You are simply interrupting their conversation and pushing it to what they see as off topic and insulting.

 

Such a topic isn't a "newbie" topic and is almost always populated by experienced hobbyists who are paying not insignificant amounts for their setup and all their tweaks you find pointless. Sorry, but it's incredibly arrogant of you to think that with your "objectivist" posts at such a thread your "contributing to their knowledge from your study and experience":
Seriously, why would you assume such people aren't already aware of your arguments? They've also studied and have experience. They are aware of your arguments and have started a thread purposely designed NOT to discuss your position, which they've already considered and rejected. So when you enter such a thread, you ARE essentially just "walking up and forcing your opinion" on them. 

 

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. But it is apparently just the reason that Chris' new rules need to be implemented, as apparently some people have trouble making this distinction. 

 

And again, if it's a newbie thread or a thread where the OT is obviously open ended, then please contribute from your ideas and study. 

[firedog]

12 minutes ago, marce said:

????? This is (or was) an open forum, not just some random conversation in the street...

Again its down to not upsetting beliefs or challenging them if incorrect.

See my previous post, your understanding of what the discussions on the forum often are about and who is often conducting them seems to be lacking. 

 

[firedog]

26 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Firedog, I'm not your 'strawman' objectivist, so stop painting me as one. I don't jump in to a thread to be arrogant or to say everyone else is wrong. When I join a USB cable comparisons thread, I actually contribute from my own experience. I've measured, built, and listened to many USB cables, using multiple DACs and multiple source formats, headphones, speakers. So you are telling me I should stop posting because this ruins the 'high' for others?  Because I approach the evaluation of these things methodically, and try to be rational in my approach?

 

Here are some examples of my contributions on USB cable related threads. I've stayed out of these more recently. There are others.

 

 

Sorry, shouldn't have made it sound like you were my typical example, I'm really talking about some of the posts over at the "USB cable comparisons" thread and others of the ilk. But your above examples aren't really relevant of the problem we are talking about: your own thread that's an open one, a bits is bits thread, and one responding to a review where the discussion was about measurements.

And so, no I'm not tellingyou you should stop posting. I specifically said you should post in the appropriate threads. You didn't see that?

[firedog]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

'Appropriate threads' is the thing that Chris has yet to define, and I asked repeatedly. According to him, it's a 'gray area', so my posts are subject to removal from any thread (other than in Objective Fi, I assume), with no way for me to judge ahead of time if I'm going to be booted or tolerated, and what logic will be used to make this decision. That's what I have a problem with.

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Look at the OP and the context of the thread before you post, and it shouldn't be so difficult to decide what's appropriate to post. Over time it should be pretty obvious what is correct. On the vast majority of threads it won't be an issue at all.
If it really doesn't work, Chris will cancel the setup.

[firedog]

2 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

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.

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with what you wrote, but one thing that changed at the site in recent times is a simple lack of respect for others - and it cuts both ways - subjectivist and objectivist, or whatever you want to call it. Many people seemed only interested in their agenda and not in conducting a DISCUSSION. As has been  remarked, if a post asks about using Qobuz with Linux, don't answer by telling the person not to do it. Answer the question, and then make an additional suggestion if you want. Your agenda that Linux sucks isn't relevant. 

If the person asks about a $500 DAC, don't tell him that it sucks and he should get a $1000 or $2000 model. Offer him a response about the DAC if you actually know something about it, or  an alternative in his price category. 

 

Not doing the above is simply arrogant and off putting. And I won't write again about how to answer a thread where the person says, "I want to compare various items in X category and don't want to be told it's impossible for them to make a difference"; or if a person says, "I listened and don't think changing 'XX' makes any difference", then don't start telling him his ears suck, his system sucks, etc. 

 

Chris tried through persuasion to get some posters to see this, but was unsuccessful.It prevented many participants from having what they saw as a useful exchange of ideas.  If people want to act like small children and abuse an existing system, then a different system has to get put into place. 

I do think Plissken's attempt to critique the EtherRegen without blowing up the other ER threads was appropriate, and I think that's how it should be done. I wish more people had followed that lead on their own.

His thread also shouldn't have been a target for those whose only response was, essentially,  "in my sighted listening in  my system....", or "you can't hear it b/c your system sucks" because that is an irrelevant response to his OP. 

But apparently many people can't behave with thoughtfulness or restraint in today's culture.

[firedog]

34 minutes 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.

The problem with internet forums in this context are that: a) it's anonymous, therefore no real accountability; and b) we are missing face to face interaction and visual clues, which leads to less ability to properly understand the other person and also a weakening of social restraints which we generally employ in face to face contact in order to minimize conflict. 

Makes it more difficult to employ EIQ, and apparently some people don't have enough for this context. 

[firedog]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Are you interested in discussing the topic objectively? If so, I highly encourage you to post in the Objective-Fi sub-forum. 

 

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I asked a question. 
 

If you want to be a jerk about it, there are other forums more welcoming to jerks. 

Have to say, Chris, I think you are going overboard here, and it's not the first time I've thought that n the past couple of days. Maybe you need to step away from the whole thing for a day and stop suggesting that every person who writes something you don't like find another forum to post to. I know that's not literally what you are doing, but it's starting to seem that way. 

 

Nugget wasn't nasty. The guy did post a subjective opinion, disagreeing with a previous subjective post, that projected it's author's individual experience to the general audiophile population. He posted a link to Wikipedia dealing with false attribution of ones own opinion to the majority.

It's no different than someone responding to a post saying it's an ad hominem attack or an appeal to authority which doesn't really back up a position. Are those ideas also now only able to be posted in the "objective" thread?

 

How does that statement make it an "objectivist only" post?  

 

Even in a "subjective" thread, an intelligent discussion would include arguing logically and not using false props to back up what you are saying. One's personal experience with audio doesn't logically apply across the board, or even to anyone else. That's one of the problems objectivists have with the subjectivist point of view, but it's also a problem anyone who wants to engage in intelligent discussion has.

Each audiophile can subjectively report what he has experienced or perceived. Projecting one's own experiences/perceptions to the general population, without any proof that it's so, isn't a legitimate argument.  Are you now saying that intelligent debate of all kinds is only in the realm of" objecif-fi"? How can a topic be discussed if each individual report of each poster is assumed to apply to everyone else and can't itself be put into context:  I report that USB cable X made Y change in my system. Another poster says, no, in my system that isn't so.
Somehow that discussion is now unacceptable? That makes no sense.

 

If that's your new definition of "discussion" this place is going to be nothing more than a set of navel contemplating self perceptions by each audiophile of his/her own system. 

[firedog]

42 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

Except for the first sentence, where you state your personal experience, everything you have said is nearly a personal attack on someone who shares an opinion you don't. You could have just stopped at the first point. But you wouldn't want to. Since you incite pleasure by upholding your ego and trying to find as much random references to fit in to your argument.

 

I'd honestly name the other forum cocoon fi, boomer-fi, or condoscend-fi. Objective fi is rather generous for the level of brickwall they build upon their arguments. They always bank on one big statement - "it <should not be> audible". I'm sorry mate science studies do show humans can discern a time precision way above what a 48khz sampling rate can reliably capture (5micro seconds is what I remember, check some MIT studies and stuff). That forms the essence of you actually being able to locate objects in space using just sound even with your eyes closed. Just because the rest of your chain filters those out in a way that the change is un noticed doesn't mean a change is not there. I really doubt they have a basic understanding of a coverage metric either. For example, A headphone amplifier in practice drives a load that is in a magnetic field (almost like a motor). They actually do work against the magnet's force and that is in essence how they push the thing and make sound. How they come to claim it's the same as a resistance is beyond me, not even an inductor on top of it. And I don't think I've come across a model of a motor that has been described as a LTI system, let alone a minimum phase system. If you want to cite one popular persons "objective" measurements, he rarely even measures the precision of reconstruction filter and its bandwidth. It's quite easy to fake low thd in low frequencies by inhibiting harmonics (ie a pig fat low pass). Sorry it smears transients in an audible way. And I don't think these guys who think cables don't change anything learnt anything about transmission lines, foundry rules from fab/manufactuer, or even the fact that companies that produce usb to i2s converters have patents on packet loss masking. Bit is bit. What a joke. If that were the case you'd have had 1000Ghz CPU by now and you'd be able to put one core in one room and another core in another room connected by USB.

 

I'm all in for objectivity if it has enough coverage metric. Else it's just some random manipulated squiggle. Even then there still are aspects that just can't be objectified (everyones ear canals are different and the peaks and nulls change). There have been so many instances where things that have been considered placebo for a long time have actually been later proven to be true. Micro stutters is a good example. Didnt we just have the episodes of spectre and meltdown (and who knows what other potential disaster is hiding). Heck, it was believed sun revolved around the earth, earth was flat, classical physics explains everything, atom is the smallest particle, all of which have been overridden by further explorations. Trying to cockblock a discussion on a topic is not going to help it.

Your technical references etc., aren't correct or accurate. Either study up so you know what you are talking about, or don't use them. The 48khz reference is totally confused and wrong, for example....