Article: Audiophile Style State of the Union

[The Computer Audiophile]

View full article

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, JDoyle said:

Please think about this... How can your forum make Computer Audio easier to understand for those who want it, but just don’t understand it and need help with getting it.

 

JD

Hi JD, the same way it always has. Perhaps I don't follow your question?

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

I'd like a little clarification on the new rules. Would my answer in the thread linked below be allowed?

 

Is all rational thought now forbidden outside the "reservation"?

 

Clarification is always good. 

 

In your specific example, the information you provided was great. There was no snark, combativeness, imposition, confrontation, or belittling. You weren't seeking to save someone from themself or seeking to just be a disrupter. The OP clearly appreciated your answer as well. 

 

Life isn't black & white. As much as people would love hard and fast rules around here, they just can't be made to fit all circumstances. My guess is that you are well aware of the types of posts from both objectivists and subjectivists that derail threads and ruin people's enjoyment. The new Objective-Fi sub-forum will alleviate this. You specifically, won't have to deal with Sandyk's diatribes about bit identical files and he won't have to deal with your terse replies. 

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

I have to say that I'm not a fan of this change.

 

This place is interesting because you have folks with radically different viewpoints interacting with each other.

 

Your creation of an objectivist containment zone sends the message that objectivists are second class citizens here. 

 

I also believe it will turn this place into an echo chamber for subjectivists and cause valuable contributors like Mans to move on to other more welcoming places.

 

The fact that the subjectivists are lining up to pat you on the back for making this change suggests I'm right.

 

Thanks for the feedback, but I think the facts don't backup your suggestion. 

 

For example, the very first response to this change is ...

 

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Is all rational thought now forbidden outside the "reservation"?

 

Comments like this are the main reason why the change was necessary. I also pointed out Mansr's reply he asked about as being a great example of a helpful exchange. If you like  snark, combativeness, imposition, confrontation, or belittling, then you may be disappointment with this change. 

 

If you like keeping SandyK out of a purely objective thread, then you may like this change. 

 

Subjectivists are likely happy because not they can have fun without  snark, combativeness, imposition, confrontation, or belittling. When objectivists couldn't police themselves and stop their own rude behavior, changes were necessary. 

 

Nothing is off topic here on AS. But, there is a right place and time for everything. I don't see why you should care if people like to talk amongst others who have the same passions and beliefs. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, bobflood said:

The type of behavior Chris is trying to tamp down has destroyed websites both in audio and elsewhere.

Agree 100%. This isn't an audio thing, but it's a people thing. Some people just can't live and let live. On all sides of every issue we have this problem. Letting a small few ruin it for everyone else isn't a winning approach, but it's the approach taken by many websites who have disabled comments and eschewed all comments from anyone other than the Ministers of Information.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

In my opinion, you are attempting to put folks into boxes and treat them all the same.

 

The fundamental issue here isn't that Alex is a subjectivist. It is that he can be rude and you've never punished him for his bad behavior. 

 

The same applies to me and others. The problem isn't that we are objectivists or subjectivists but that we can be assholes on occasion and you've allowed us to get away with it.

 

I've given many people warnings and temporary bans, but to no avail. 

 

Your logic seems to go like this - Please don't do this or people will go away. But, you haven't punished people (made them go away) so they will keep it up. 

 

It's hard to follow. There is no silver bullet. Many people don't want to talk to each other. Now they can talk amongst those who they enjoy without issues. I don't see why this is such a hard pill to swallow. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

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.

+1000000000000000000

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes 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.

Don't you think it's obvious in most cases? Serious question. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

Sounds to me like you are deciding on what belongs in which forum based primarily on tone, Chris. If Mans' answer had no snark then it's ok to for the general forum, but if not, then it belongs in Objective one, is that right?

 

Let's just rename the Objective-Fi forum to "Time-out for misbehaving children".  Seems more descriptive. And yes, that was snark

 

Thanks for the feedback. I'll take your question as more of a comment expressing your distaste and disagreement with this move. I'd never implement such a system as described. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

That's not it. I was following up on your answer to Mans, and it made little sense to me in the context of what you described. Sorry if I tried to use some humor to illustrate the point.

 

To restate: is it OK to have objectively-sourced information posted in the subjective area of the forum? Ever? Or can it be done but only without snark? Or only if the subjective audience doesn't mind the answer? And is it the whole audience, at least 10 readers, or any one who complains that triggers the move to Objective-Fi? When and how is the decision made that an answer doesn't qualify for the subjective part of the forum?

Hi Paul, this is where people are going to have to be comfortable with a little gray in their lives. Nothing is black and white. 

 

In a USB cable listening experience thread, even if someone was totally nice about it, the place isn't right to "show" people why they can't be hearing what they're reporting. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Hi Chris,

 

That's makes sense, but I'm still missing something. How is this any different than what was already in place?

 

It was already the case that the owner of the thread could declare it as subjective-only. And, if someone misbehaved on such a thread, the owner could remove their posts. Others could complain to you and also get these posts moved/removed.

 

With the change, I'm still unclear as to what and where I can post, since it is, as you say, a gray area. And if I have to worry about offending someone's sensibilities by sharing my knowledge and experience (without snark) then I'd rather go elsewhere. I can always count on at least one person to disagree with everything I post, even though he's on my ignore list

 

 

The difference now is that the interjections or fundamental disagreements now have their own sub-forum and there's a sub-forum for people to start objective conversations in a place free from, as some call them, anti-vaxxer style comments. 

 

We tried giving the OP the ability to police threads with limited success. We tried telling people to create their own threads if they disagreed with something their comments would be seen as a thread-crap. There's no silver bullet. Now, we can move comments and threads into a place where everyone knows they are allowed. 

 

If you're unclear where to post you have the option of asking me (probably time consuming for both of us), doing your best to select the right spot, or just giving up on the new rules and going elsewhere. Seems to me the risk / reward of the middle option isn't too terrible and will likely help us all get to a happy medium. That said, if the change is a bridge too far, I understand. 

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

The implication here is that only the awful, terrible "objectivists" ever misbehave. The nice, friendly subjectivists are only trying to help when they are repeatedly rude, belittling, and condescending, even after being told to go away.

 

Not at all. Perhaps you missed all my examples of SandyK's inappropriate posts and the fact that this now gives you a place free from his snark and anger. There are many threads with "objectivist" OPs who have mod rights to the thread. They wanted this just to remove his posts. 

 

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

It's quite clear to me now. We're only allowed to speak at the kids' table.

 

If objective information and science is what you consider the kids table, it's a table I'd be happy to sit at. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

So why isn't he the one being banished to a separate area?

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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Norton said:

If this is simply notice that “objectivist” incursions into  threads which are clearly about subjective experience (e.g. “what’s the best sounding USB cable you have heard”) will be moved, that seems fair enough, as does moderating other off topic or antagonistic contributions.

 

But if this means that threads which have an objective thrust from the outset (e.g.”what’s the best measuring DAC”) can only be started  in the one subforum, or if objectivist responses to a neutral thread (e.g. “is there a difference between USB cables”) are also moved, that seems unfair to me.

I appreciate where you are coming from, but what’s good about this forum is the breadth of opinions and approaches.  I certainly think more critically about audio choices now because of objectivist contributions (at their best).

 

I'm with you 100%

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

47 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Is it or is that just the approach that many, but not all, take to the hobby?

 

Liking something is subjective. I'm guessing people listen to music because they like it or like the way it sounds or there is some subjective reason why they pursue music and audio. If people don't think audio is an inherently subjective pursuit, there is always Hydrogen Audio where nothing subjective is allowed. 

 

How could one take the approach that audio / HiFi as a hobby is inherently objective? If you look at graphs and charts only, then yes I get it. But, if you listen to music for enjoyment that's subjective. 

 

Please don't think I'm saying anything related to how components are designed and the masterful work done by people like Mitch using DSP and measurements to improve my room. I'm not. I am saying that in the end I listen as a subjective pursuit for of entertainment. 

 

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, Enjay said:

I've always thought of music as art and our subjective responses to it, but audio as engineering.

 

I've been reading this forum for a couple of years now and gained much knowledge from it without feeling the need to post. I mostly ignore what I would consider to be the woo elements (apart from when some new topic seems really strange to my eyes) and have no problem with people discussing their subjective impressions on subjects such as cables; as you have said many times, people are free to enjoy their hobby and spend their money as they like.  That said, I was fascinated by the thread regarding the testing conducted by Mani and Mansr - where would such a thread reside?

 

Of course engineering is involved. People are taking this way over the top and thinking I am anti-engineering for some reason. I'm anti-fighting when this is supposed to be fun. Providing a space for both parties to discuss topics is idea. That is, if both parties really want to discuss what they say they want to discuss. 

 

Life is gray. We will find out where to place specific threads in due time. nobody is going to get banned for good faith attempts at anything. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

It is not about music at all, or preferences thereof.  It IS about how to reproduce recorded music with electronic and mechanical devices to get the best SQ (or some euphonic distortion, such as tubey goodness).

 

Censoring factual comments move this site FURTHER from that goal, not closer.

 

But perhaps I mistake your actual goal in running this site?

Stop with the made up fake news that anything is being censored. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

Audio Science Review

That place is very far from an objective pursuit of HiFi. But, I encourage people to have fun there if it's more their style. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

 

45 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

ASR is another example of a place "where nothing subjective is allowed".

 

Absolutely false. Read an "objective" review of a product that Amir doesn't like. It's all gussied up with subjective sauce talking about cheapness of the chassis etc... 

 

 

37 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

To compare the relatively trivial differences of opinion regarding the contents of an online audio forum to the scourge of anti-Semitism is, IMO, insulting, insensitive, outrageous and completely inappropriate. The analogy is a most egregious example of the application of Godwin's law or its philosophical equivalent.

 

I agree 100%. When will people just stop with the nonsense. 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, skatbelt said:

What is the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi's action in this context?

 

More serious. It's good that you do address these issues, Chris. At the same time I think it is a shame it's needed. And I am curious if it will have effect. Feels a bit contrived.

 

What about it feels contrived? Serious question. We have a problem, we've tried solutions with limited success. This is yet another solution to the issue. 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, PeterG said:

Hi Chris,

 

I applaud this (long overdue) effort to get rid of some of the incivility on AS.  I'm also a subjectivist with little need to read the 100th iteration of the same objectivist statement.

 

But I'm a bit concerned this is the wrong solution.  Two thoughts:

 

First, too much of the internet allows people to easily filter out those with whom we disagree.  In politics, this manifests itself as too many Democrats watching only MSNBC, and too many Republicans watching only Fox.  Collectively, we lose a common set of facts and ideas.  So I hope that does not happen here.

 

Second, you seem to suggest a much more obvious solution in your post when you refer to the usual suspects causing you to steer clear of certain threads.  I have the same problem.  The real answer is to get rid of the usual suspects so that the rest of us can enjoy your (our?) awesome website in aesthetic, intellectual, collegial peace.

 

Thanks again for all your great work

 

 

I hear your points and take them seriously. Fortunately with spaces for all conversations here on AS people can do what they like. I can't force anyone to do what they don't want. As it was, people were leaving because threads were being ruined. Then where do we land? I think your concern is great and one I share, but there is no solution that forces people to do what they don't want to do , and that's co-mingle with others who they disagree with about an audio hobby. This is supposed to be enjoyable, not a fight about how to have fun. 

 

Second, I hear you here as well. However, I like reading posts from people who often cause me headaches. If they'd only post in the right location and not derail other threads I'd love it. I hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is my way of saying, hey stick around but please do so in the appropriate place. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I often wish people would stop to look around a bit and realize there are people without a place to sleep for the night and without food. Yet, we're here arguing about where the appropriate place to post is on a site dedicated to first world problems. 

 

Take a step back people. We'll get through it. Nobody is being censored except Prof. Scott's sophomoric comments. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

 

of course you have censored things

 

what is wrong with you?

 

Because your thread designed to cause problems was removed, you're upset. I get it. I don't call that censorship. You yelled fire in a crowded theater. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

if you didn't understand the post you could have asked questions

 

if you dislike PART of the Op in that thread you could have asked me to modify it

 

you did neither

 

but that isn't the point...

 

you are censoring technical discussion with your new Stylist rules

 

Do we really need to get into the discussion about what is or isn't censorship? I split topics so people can enjoy themselves and you're claiming censorship. 

 

Real censorship is you guys continuing to drive people away until there's nobody left. Nobody talking about HiFi because of your crusade. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

Splitting posts made on a thread so that they no longer exist on that thread is clearly censorship

 

I hope you realize that

No. 
 

If people are enjoying themselves you don’t need to barge in and tell them they are delusional. If this happens, I move the post so you can explain why and we don’t have a fight. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes 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.

Don’t pretend to know what goes on behind the scenes. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Yep, the meanest, nastiest posts I ever read here were put up by a subjectivist having his feet held to the fire when asked to produce proof that what he believes he heard is real by supplying verifiable evidence such as DBT's or measurements. They just can't stand having their religion questioned and get reduced to name calling, snarky remarks and such.

 

 

 

 

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.

If someone comes here after going to a Copperfield magic show and insist he made a 747 disappear off the runway with his "magic",  would you take that as gospel because he seen it with his own 2 eyes, or ask him to please look behind the curtain with a camera to prove the airplane was actually gone?

 

Not faked in any way Chris, that's exactly what your doing. If one of us posts a reasonable objective question to a thread that you or the OP doesn't approve of, you cast it off to Siberia.

 

 

Not true at all.  Amir lets people post most anything they like, but they will probably be asked, mostly by members, to supply verifiable confirmation. That IMO is only fair. You can't just make up fake news there and expect to get away with it.

 

Oh brother, that's a straw man if I ever heard one.  "there are starving people the world over, what different does it make if people tell fairy-tales about creating audios SOTA?"  BOOO

 

Chris, I find it truly sad what your doing to CA/AS.  I came here originally thinking this was a site dedicated to Computer Audio, a place where the technology of computers used for audio storage, etc; held sway.  It has slowly swung towards just another WBF "I heard it, so it is so"  site where any claim, no matter how foolish is taken seriously.

Now it seems the final nail will be to turn this site into the subjectivist version of Hydrogenaudio, were little to any objective challenges will be allowed.

Yes Sir,  that is censorship in its worst form, to ban the process of critical thinking.

Sal, I like the cut of your jib, but you're truly dreaming up something that isn't happening and playing the victim. 

 

If you can't handle the fact that I'll no longer allow you to confront people about their experiences, then sayonara. You are free to post contrary information in a thread of your own choosing in the Objective-Fi sub-forum. If you're really seeking the truth, you've now got a space for only your truth. No subjective nonsense allowed. On the other hand, if you're only in this for confrontation and saving adults from themselves, then there's no place for you here. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Still trying to understand. So no contrary objective information is allowed in the rest of the forum? Or is it? 

It’s going to take some common sense and communication between those who really want to help make it work. If you aren’t up for it, I understand. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

23 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Don't know what this means, but it doesn't appear to be an answer to a simple, direct yes/no question. Gray area, I guess? 

You’re looking for a mythical black & white world where none exists. Policing is easy, in a police state. This isn’t one. Things can be murky. However, I believe 95% of people who are here to enjoy audio will have no problem working through the adjustment.