Article: Audiophile Style State of the Union

[esldude]

47 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Unfortunately no one did. Because this wasn't some battle or contest, it was a bunch of folks trying to enjoy their music more who couldn't get along well enough to learn from each other and make it work.

The bs and the money won.  Chris won. Makers of make believe won. Hard to be genuinely helpful in such an environment. Easy to spin the fanciful tale.

[esldude]

5 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I've seen you being genuinely helpful (and seen you being criticized unfairly for it, and responded to the critics that they were in the wrong, as you may recall). Sincerely hope you won't give up trying.

 

Saw you disagreed with my other post, or at least some portion of it. I really do think this is a matter of being able to play well with others - that's everyone. I think, very sadly, that we may have shown we can't. I hope everyone here proves me wrong.

I've not forgotten those times you spoke up for some fairness in considering my posts. 

 

If it is a matter of being able to play well with others, Chris decided we can't.  So now you won't be allowed to play with others.  If you have certain viewpoints the default position is you'll stick in one 2nd grade sub-forum.  Imagine..... those who attempt to keep to things that follow known science, physics and rational principles disagree with some who spin yarns from the aether.  So we'll keep the aether and offer a special aether free section so as not to upset those not up to speed on the Michelson-Morley results yet. 

 

So considering Brandolini's law, and how some companies use the Gish Gallop as a marketing method, yes once things are additionally stacked against you, you would only be wise to give up trying in one place and go elsewhere.  Chris has structured things that way now on his forums. 

 

One need only look at the predecessor he is following at Head Fi.  Now AS is poised to slide all the way to maximal profit with no contrary views possible in the mainstream discussions of the forum.  Head Fi is the largest audio forum on the internet by a good margin.

[esldude]

54 minutes ago, PeterG said:

YES!!!  In my early years at this, Chris and other posters  on CA were absolutely essential to my ability to put together a decent system.  THANKS TO ALL ADVICE GIVERS OF OLD!!!

Those bygone days were when you asked how to connect something you'd be told use a USB cable meeting spec.  While now the same question with that answer will result in being told you'll need a somewhat expensive cable, and one or two USB cleaners, and maybe some optional power supplies for the cleaners before you can expect good results. 

 

I learned a lot in those days, now you'll mostly be helped to spend lots of money on dubious gear for some pretty simple setups.

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You're misremembering things Dennis. The The Synergistic Research Tricon USB cable ($550) was talked about around here two monts after this site started. Not that I'm proud of it, but just want to get the facts out there. 

Well I can agree the old CA I remember sure isn't the Audiophile Style.  I never liked the new name.  We should have had a funeral for CA when you changed it.

[esldude]

33 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

At the end of the day, this was a business decision for Chris and nothing more.  "Subjectivists" buy more stuff and are way more influenced by hype and the Audiophile Press.  Chris is just going where the money is.

 

"it's not personal, it's business"

Yes, it is this and quite transparently so.  Chris cannot put enough lipstick on that pig to fool anyone.

 

Nothing personal just business.  Of course except for Chris and his advertisers it wasn't a business. 

[esldude]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Dream on Dennis. If you don't like it here, leave. 

Yes the welcoming STYLE you now have as we are all here to have fun and enjoy this wonderful hobby.

[esldude]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I’m just tired of taking shit from people. I can only be nice and reasonable for so long. Some people don’t respond well to nice and reasonable. Then I just give them the blunt truth. Isn’t that what they do to others?

Funny as HELL.    That is exactly the feeling I've had many times just as a poster.  I and those of a similar approach to enjoying our audio have the same experience.  And now you are getting a bit of it and do not seem to be doing very well.  You aren't so cheerful and easy going.  Remember none of the rest of us were killing puppies either. 

[esldude]

4 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

While I think the whole "objectivist/subjectivist" trope is just intellectual laziness taken to extremes, the changes Chris has made are a win for MQA because their proxies (Atkinson, Quint, Austin, Scoggins, et. al.) will feel no restraint to push the MQA lies with full confidence that they will not be challenged here in any way.  After all, we have to be civil to the Elders, don't we?  This is what they have demanded (just look at Quint's last 10 posts), and Chris has granted it to them with no conditions.  The forum now has no place for dissent.  Chris has been unequivocal: if you don't like it, leave!

 

 

The real danger probably isn't from a zombie MQA.  It is that something like it will come along in the future.  And Chris has arranged for the forum to have shall we say, no resistance to such a thing in the future. 

[esldude]

1 minute ago, Iving said:

 

I can understand this - but it implicates AS as EITHER an effective "resistance" node OR a place where Audiophiles can be Audiophiles. If CC was effectively forced to choose then maybe that's what we're seeing.

 

[That said I think I have seen CC say that he considers no-one indispensable in the "resistance" business. I don't have a view about that since I am not here for that purpose primarily.]

I don't see it as an EITHER/OR choice.  I think you can have both.  You can also choose not to have both.  Looks like a choice has been made even if that choice was unintentional. 

[esldude]

21 minutes 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.

 

 

Superb post here. 

[esldude]

47 minutes 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. 

So which of those forums do you frequent? I'd expect you to list them, but I guess a jerk isn't going to be helpful.

[esldude]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Assuming he's referring to the time period of a 48kHz wavelength, I'm guessing that's a reference to Kunchur. His stuff is somewhat controversial because the noticeable time period he found is shorter than that found in experiments by others. And the relevance for digital audio is also a matter for discussion (for example, it doesn't mean a 48kHz sample rate is required for accurate reproduction).

You are correct. So does this post have to be quarantined to prevent spoiling the fun of the poster you were responding to?