My response to "Boycott the sub-forum"

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Allan F said:

 

The inclusion of "with due respect" is another clear example of hypocrisy. Be that as it may, I couldn't care less what you think of my opinions. While written in reply, my posts are intended for a wider audience.

 

Indeed.  At least you can't now accuse someone of publicly preening lest you be called a hypocrite.  🙂

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Just wondering what the proper terminology is when asking audiophiles to justify their beliefs. "Stand and deliver!"?

I wouldn't have used justify.  But it is the key question never answered. 

 

As we know many believe what they hear.....period.  Others know hearing is unreliable in some circumstances.  So when someone hears something which is technically dubious or physically impossible others will point that out.  And hence the problem. 

 

Chris solved the problem.  What you hear is given primacy.  If you don't agree, you are free to post about it in quarantine aka the Objective Fi sub-forum. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, Archimago said:

Hmmm guys, to be honest I don't like the change either and think CC's incorrect; we'll leave that for another discussion...

 

However, is it possible to make the "Objective-Fi" forum become actually the most popular of the forums on here?

 

Hello Archimago

 

The "Objective-Fi" sub-forum is a quarantine zone, just as the Sound Science sub-forum is at Head-Fi.

 

Now that CC has made the linkage between rational thought and incivility, "Objective-Fi" will always be known as the place the "mean" people hang out.

[Allan F]

When rude, unwanted, condescending interference in threads is accepted as "rational thought", this forum will really be in trouble.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Allan F said:

When rude, unwanted, condescending interference in threads is accepted as "rational thought", this forum will really be in trouble.

 

too late

 

Oh, I guess it's not rude when you do it?

[Bill Brown]

12 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

You might be mixed up and this was an extremely awkward attempt to call me a coward (anonymous screen name?).  Show me where I called someone a coward, please.

 

Absolutely not.  I don't consider you a coward.  No awkward attempts from me.  I try to speak plainly.

 

I would only call someone a coward under the most extreme circumstances.  It would always be to their face, and I would be prepared to defend myself from an (in my mind) expected response attempting to demonstrate otherwise.

 

I am not sure if you saw my clarifying edit, sorry for the the perceived implication.  I don't believe you have used that word before and wanted to make sure that was understood, but is was certainly bandied about too readily (I hate to say, but must) by the usual suspects.

[gmgraves]

23 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

This has nothing to do with rational or irrational thought, and everything to do with rational and irrational behavior. If you can't parse that then I'm truly sorry for you and perhaps, as CC might say, you need to move on and find your fulfillment elsewhere.

 

IMO CC was being entirely diplomatic when he said mansr's contributions would be missed, because as long as I've been around here I haven't seen him contribute one single thing beyond one liner snark and naysaying. Pretty easy to rack up 13,000 posts when that's one's m.o. My prediction is the "objectivists" thread is going to be a very lonely place, because more often than not they have their rigid, marked in stone stance, but very little to back it up  - i.e. prove without a doubt why ethernet cables absolutely couldn't make a difference in sound, vs always haranguing those who hear a difference to prove why they do. Repeated, empty phrases about 'science' and 'measurements' is just another flip side of subjectivism if you ask me. Maybe it comes down to obstinance vs curiosity. I'll always choose the side of curiosity - it's what I try and teach my children. 

I think that you are being just a wee bit unfair. When people with a real engineering or scientific background state something akin to “Ethernet cables can’t possibly make a sonic difference”, all that they are saying is that after looking at what kind of signals these cables carry, and given the parameters of those signals and that cable, they don’t see any way that said cable could affect the way that a DAC sounds down-stream of that cable. Here’s the problem. I have a master’s degree in electronic engineering. I think I understand how cables work, what their drawbacks and strengths are and how digital audio works. I can see nothing in Ether cable, in digital audio encoding, or in the way DACs Interpret the signals they receive to explain such a phenomenon. This tells me that Ethernet cables (or USB cables for that matter) simply CAN’T alter the sound of the digital signal passing through them, BUT, THEY CLEARLY DO! Why? I haven’t a clue. So just as you can’t tell me why it should alter the sound, all I and those like me can do is tell you why it SHOULDN’T affect the sound.

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Absolutely not.  I don't consider you a coward.  No awkward attempts from me.  I try to speak plainly.

 

I would only call someone a coward under the most extreme circumstances.  It would always be to their face, and I would be prepared to defend myself from an (in my mind) expected response attempting to demonstrate otherwise.

 

I am not sure if you saw my clarifying edit, sorry for the the perceived implication.  I don't believe you have used that word before and wanted to make sure that was understood, but is was certainly bandied about too readily (I hate to say, but must) by the usual suspects.

 

I appreciate your response.  And don't spend another second clutching pearls about "the usual suspects".  They're gone.

 

Oh, and why do you always go to fisticuffs? :

 

Quote

It would always be to their face, and I would be prepared to defend myself from an (in my mind) expected response attempting to demonstrate otherwise.

 

 

[Allan F]

15 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I think that you are being just a wee bit unfair. When people with a real engineering or scientific background state something akin to “Ethernet cables can’t possibly make a sonic difference”, all that they are saying is that after looking at what kind of signals these cables carry, and given the parameters of those signals and that cable, they don’t see any way that said cable could affect the way that a DAC sounds down-stream of that cable. Here’s the problem. I have a master’s degree in electronic engineering. I think I understand how cables work, what their drawbacks and strengths are and how digital audio works. I can see nothing in Ether cable, in digital audio encoding, or in the way DACs Interpret the signals they receive to explain such a phenomenon. This tells me that Ethernet cables (or USB cables for that matter) simply CAN’T alter the sound of the digital signal passing through them, BUT, THEY CLEARLY DO! Why? I haven’t a clue. So just as you can’t tell me why it should alter the sound, all I and those like me can do is tell you why it SHOULDN’T affect the sound.

 

IMO, George, you are being far to kind to those people, and I suggest that you are attributing an undeserved favourable interpretation to their posts. Unlike you, who is prepared to accept the existence of these differences although you are unable to offer an explanation for them, they tend to adopt a very different approach. Not only do they insist that there can be no such sonic differences, but they also maintain that there is, in fact, no possible sonic difference. Moreover, they tend to ridicule anyone who suggests that there is, and declare that anyone who does so is deluding himself/herself.

[Bill Brown]

3 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I think that you are being just a wee bit unfair. When people with a real engineering or scientific background state something akin to “Ethernet cables can’t possibly make a sonic difference”, all that they are saying is that after looking at what kind of signals these cables carry, and given the parameters of those signals and that cable, they don’t see any way that said cable could affect the way that a DAC sounds down-stream of that cable. Here’s the problem. I have a master’s degree in electronic engineering. I think I understand how cables work, what their drawbacks and strengths are and how digital audio works. I can see nothing in Ether cable, in digital audio encoding, or in the way DACs Interpret the signals they receive to explain such a phenomenon. This tells me that Ethernet cables (or USB cables for that matter) simply CAN’T alter the sound of the digital signal passing through them, BUT, THEY CLEARLY DO! Why? I haven’t a clue. So just as you can’t tell me why it should alter the sound, all I and those like me can do is tell you why it SHOULDN’T affect the sound.

 

"Shouldn't," backed by sound supporting engineering reasons, is great.  Let people soak it in, learn and benefit from your expertise, then leave it up to them.  Some will be educated and convinced!  "Can't possibly," "irrational," "impossible," "you are delusional," "silly" isn't edifying and is a turn-off (not that you have used all of those).

 

You have previously extended your above comments about digital links to analog cables re. no difference.  I believe (?think) there are equally educated engineers that would disagree.  It feels ok to me that I use a generic USB cable, balanced Canare star-quad interconnects, and Kimber speaker cables.  I believe I hear a difference with the latter.  I don't think I am delusional, but if I am I am still happy .  So what?

[AudioDoctor]

38 minutes ago, Archimago said:

However, is it possible to make the "Objective-Fi" forum become actually the most popular of the forums on here?

 

Actually "the" place to go to for truly open and honest debate? A place where truth and facts about technology and hardware matter more than some bland concept of "respect" that honours members of the Industry just because they say so, and afraid of stepping on toes because someone might feel bad about it and shy to speak up. Courtesy does not mean having to agree with all opinions and there comes a time when one just has to express to another "you're wrong... here's why..." But let's still be courteous.

 

Members could easily look at the topics from other forums and import some of the questions being asked and speak about it candidly. Even if objective-talk and attitudes are ring-fenced into some kind of virtual "underground", we could make that underground a place that even subjectivists know to look at to really get another, potentially more complete discussion...

 

That would just make way too much sense, they want to argue and fight with everyone where they stand...

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

IMO, George, you are being far to kind to those people, and I suggest that you are attributing an undeserved favourable interpretation of their posts. Unlike you, who is prepared to accept the existence of these differences although you are unable to offer an explanation for them, they tend to adopt a very different approach. Not only do they insist that there can there be no such sonic differences, but they also maintain that there is, in fact, no sonic difference. Moreover, they tend to ridicule anyone who suggests that there is, and opine that the person is deluding themself.

 

I can't speak for "they" (heck, I don't even know who "they" are).  Now forgive me if your post was "meant for a wider audience" and you're not really participating in the thread.  I wouldn't want to embarrass you.  🙂

 

For me, anyone who is in this hobby and utterly rejects the notion of confirmation bias or the merits of blind testing is somewhere on the irrational scale.  Where exactly isn't really the issue.  But there is a sort of stubbornness with some when it comes to accepting the existence of confirmation bias.  I'm not saying that's you, but you've never struck me as a paragon of rational thought.  Perhaps I misjudged?

 

"cables sound different and I don't know why" isn't as eye popping to me as, "I can't explain why I believe what I believe, I just do".

 

 

 

[mourip]

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

This tells me that Ethernet cables (or USB cables for that matter) simply CAN’T alter the sound of the digital signal passing through them, BUT, THEY CLEARLY DO! Why? I haven’t a clue. 

 

If everyone was this honest then we would not even be seeing this thread. I just do not understand it when someone who thinks they understand the science involved in a particular aspect of audio that they have learned so far feels the need to tell someone else that they cannot possibly be hearing something in their system that they do hear. Or worse, just makes it into a joke.

 

I am experimenting with ethernet cables between my server and endpoint. My system is pretty clear and my hearing is still pretty good. I can tell you with absolute certainty that one cable sounded better than another, and by a wide margin. My guess is that all cables are not engineered equally. Perhaps the difference is shielding or grounding. Perhaps all perfectly engineered cables sound the same? Dunoh!

 

But I would never come into a thread where someone was honestly asking for a cable recommendation and tell them that all ethernet cables sound the same. That is undiluted arrogance or hearing impairment.

 

Folks. It is usually not so much what you say but how you say it.

[Bill Brown]

Responding to Mr. Cogley above re. confirmation bias:

 

Someone completely rejecting the notion of confirmation bias isn't a convincing demonstration of self-awareness or scientific knowledge.  You and I and many others know it.  I just wouldn't use the names or belittle.  There is simply nothing to be gained by bashing your head against something that for many is an intuitively obvious human feature.

 

OTOH hand, to say "I am concerned that the science suggests that in this you may have been subjected to confirmation bias" then leaving it at that seems acceptable even outside the "objectivist quarantine" :).  It is collegial, non-threatening/belittling, and maybe they will eventually come around.  If not.......oh well.

 

Your last sentence is perfectly stated in my opinion.

 

Man I am posting a lot!  Sorry!

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Responding to Mr. Cogley above re. confirmation bias:

 

Someone completely rejecting the notion of confirmation bias isn't a convincing demonstration of self-awareness or scientific knowledge.  You and I and many others know it.  I just wouldn't use the names or belittle.  There is simply nothing to be gained by bashing your head against something that for many is an intuitively obvious human feature.

 

OTOH hand, to say "I am concerned that the science suggests that in this you may have been subjected to confirmation bias" then leaving it at that seems acceptable even outside the "objectivist quarantine" :).  It is collegial, non-threatening/belittling, and maybe they will eventually come around.  If not.......oh well.

 

Your last sentence is perfectly stated in my opinion.

 

Man I am posting a lot!  Sorry!

 

I'm concerned that science suggests that we are all subject to confirmation bias, even when listening to different USB cables  How's that? I'm trying...

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Someone completely rejecting the notion of confirmation bias isn't a convincing demonstration of self-awareness or scientific knowledge.  You and I and many others know it.  I just wouldn't use the names or belittle.  There is simply nothing to be gained by bashing your head against something that for many is an intuitively obvious human feature.

 

I asked a question a while back when the civility dust up was in full swing and CC's inbox was overflowing with complaints of incivility.  The question was sincere and in no way meant to "stir the pot".  That question:

 

"Is it rude to call irrational thought "irrational thought"'?

 

The answer from a majority of the forum was "yes!".  I'm still honestly flummoxed by that.  I guess being civil is politely lying.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Allan F]

20 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I'm not saying that's you, but you've never struck me as a paragon of rational thought.

 

Whether I strike you as "a paragon of rational thought" or not is of no importance to me. I have, on occasion, appeared before judges who have expressed similar reservations, only for them to be told by a court of appeal that my submissions were perfectly rational.

[Bill Brown]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I'm concerned that science suggests that we are all subject to confirmation bias, even when listening to different USB cables  How's that? I'm trying...

 

 

Perfect!  I know it is a real possibility for me!  Questioning one's perceptions/beliefs, bouncing it off of science is always good, and hopefully a stage many will achieve with time.  And I think that we all are affected is easily demonstrable.  The placebo effect is real (just look at any medical study).

 

I think your thread in the objectivist forum establishes a reference to how it could be done, BTW.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, Allan F said:

 

Whether I strike you as "a paragon of rational thought" or not is of no importance to me. I have appeared before judges who have expressed similar reservations, only for them to be told by a court of appeal that my submissions were perfectly rational.

 

Dude, I've appeared before panels of Star Fleet admirals.  Forgive me if I'm not impressed 🙂

[Bill Brown]

3 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I asked a question a while back when the civility dust up was in full swing and CC's inbox was overflowing with complaints of incivility.  The question was sincere and in no way meant to "stir the pot".  That question:

 

"Is it rude to call irrational thought "irrational thought"'?

 

The answer from a majority of the forum was "yes!".  I'm still honestly flummoxed by that.  I guess being civil is politely lying.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

This post by you, I think, summarizes the whole deal behind all of this stuff.

 

Yes, I suspect it is generally perceived as rude.  I would probably take it, consider it/reflect, then either accept it or discard it, hopefully without umbrage as you didn't call me a name, you addressed my thought.

 

In the realm of hard science colleagues can speak to each other that way.  This place is a mixture.  Many don't like to feel they are being called irrational/their opinions completely discredited and (perhaps unfortunately) accommodations have to be made to keep things civil (sorry, I know you hate that word as used here historically).

 

How about: "I am concerned, based on my knowledge of the available science, that I can't find a rational explanation for what you are describing?"

 

Heck, my wife thinks many of my decisions are irrational, and maybe they are.  But her opinion doesn't always define to me what is or isn't rational.  And we still get along.

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

This post by you, I think, summarizes the whole deal behind all of this stuff.

 

Yes, I suspect it is generally perceived as rude.  I would probably take it, consider it/reflect, then either accept it or discard it, hopefully without umbrage as you didn't call me a name, you addressed my thought.

 

In the realm of hard science colleagues can speak to each other that way.  This place is a mixture.  Many don't like to feel they are being called irrational/their opinions completely discredited and (perhaps unfortunately) accommodations have to be made to keep things civil (sorry, I know you hate that word as used here historically).

 

How about: "I am concerned, based on my knowledge of the available science, that I can't find a rational explanation for what you are describing?"

 

Heck, my wife thinks many of my decisions are irrational, and maybe they are.  But her opinion doesn't always define to me what is or isn't rational.  And we still get along.

 

So civility is the opposite of "keeping it real"?

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

Hmmm guys, to be honest I don't like the change either and think CC's incorrect; we'll leave that for another discussion...

 

However, is it possible to make the "Objective-Fi" forum become actually the most popular of the forums on here?

 

Actually "the" place to go to for truly open and honest debate? A place where truth and facts about technology and hardware matter more than some bland concept of "respect" that honours members of the Industry just because they say so, and afraid of stepping on toes because someone might feel bad about it and shy to speak up. Courtesy does not mean having to agree with all opinions and there comes a time when one just has to express to another "you're wrong... here's why..." But let's still be courteous.

 

Members could easily look at the topics from other forums and import some of the questions being asked and speak about it candidly. Even if objective-talk and attitudes are ring-fenced into some kind of virtual "underground", we could make that underground a place that even subjectivists know to look at to really get another, potentially more complete discussion...

 

At least the subjective folks who appreciate that maybe it's good to take the "red pill" and come to terms with reality might find this interesting. Heck, we could even respond in the regular forums with a message like "Guys, I have something to say about it... Take the red pill and check out the O-F thread on this." 😉

 

Just a thought.

 

 Thanks Archi. This is exactly what 99% of people here would love. I have emails from both obj and sub people saying the exact same thing as you.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

@Samuel T Cogley are you really trying to be an audio martyr? If you want to leave, just leave rather than being so disruptive I have to ban you. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

@Samuel T Cogley are you really trying to be an audio martyr? If you want to leave, just leave rather than being so disruptive I have to ban you. 

 

This thread is disruptive?  Man, that bar sure has lowered since the weekend.

 

When the civility dust up happened, I did exactly what you asked.  I stopped all snarky comments.  I contributed to the Polestar effort.  I helped random people in the help thread.  I know you are aware of these things.  And I just kept quiet hoping others would too and your purge would not be necessary.

 

So hopefully you understand my disappointment when I was rewarded with the purge.

[Bill Brown]

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

So civility is the opposite of "keeping it real"?

 

Maybe, I'm not sure, to tell you the truth.  Is it emotional intelligence as alluded to elsewhere?  Perhaps.  Is it simply kindness and understanding?

 

I am watching a BBC show, Doc Martin, with my wife.  Dude is brilliant, excellent in diagnosis and treatment, but clearly a bit, ummmm, autism spectrum.  Before an open cholecystectomy the pt asks if she really needs it.  He replies matter-of-factly that of course she does, otherwise she is at risk of ascending cholangitis, perforation, and death.  While he is factually correct, the delivery is probably not appreciated by most- you might be fine with it :).  He was certainly keeping it real!  I am faced constantly by having to read others' perceptions, fears, anxieties, openness and having to adjust my delivery.

 

People are so, so different.