My response to "Boycott the sub-forum"

[opus101]

I find it fascinating that the OP has drawn up a dichotomy between 'true believers' and 'rational thinkers'. Looking at actions (rather than rhetoric) its the 'objective' side that's been behaving like their religion has been insulted.

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Why would you stay somewhere you don’t like?

I might be a jerk.

I might think my being here improves the place even though I don't like it.

I might be a plain old contrarian.

I might be crazy.

 

 

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, esldude said:

I might be crazy.

 

You may be right
I may be crazy

   -- Billy Joel

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, ShawnC said:

Andrew Quint, The Absolute Sound magazine.

Yes. Now that I think about it, the character in Mutiny on the Bounty was Quintal, not Quint.

[Allan F]

35 minutes ago, opus101 said:

I find it fascinating that the OP has drawn up a dichotomy between 'true believers' and 'rational thinkers'. Looking at actions (rather than rhetoric) its the 'objective' side that's been behaving like their religion has been insulted.

 

The irony of those objectivists, who refuse to accept a reasonable code of civil conduct, presenting themselves as victims is truly palpable.

[Jud]

59 minutes ago, esldude said:

I might be a jerk.

I might think my being here improves the place even though I don't like it.

I might be a plain old contrarian.

I might be crazy.

 

 

 

I do think your being here improves the place.

 

You're definitely something of a contrarian! 🙂

[vortecjr]

Sonore is in a sub-forum and I don't feel banished. 

 

I took a quick look at the Objective-Fi sub-forum and didn't find much objective data in there...yet. I think it can work and hope it does, but give it time to see what happens.

 

Also, while objective people have targeted subjective people here the same is true in the other direction.     

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Just a comment on the result of alienating and chasing away those who could actually contribute to this conversation with anything but a blank agreement. 

 

 I fail to see why we should need to do that in a forum area that should no longer be needed given that those who most contributed to the demand for this separate forum area are no longer here, when Chris has given stern warnings that this kind of behaviour will no longer be tolerated from any member (myself included) , and that we must abide by the forum rules, which includes not posting in a thread where you know that your type of reply is not wanted by the OP. 

 I don't like the idea of Paul , Dennis etc. feeling that their input is no longer valued here.

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, vortecjr said:

Also, while objective people have targeted subjective people here the same is true in the other direction.   

Absolutely. 
 

 

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, vortecjr said:

took a quick look at the Objective-Fi sub-forum and didn't find much objective data in there...yet

 

 I noticed the same too. It's as if people feel the need to post there instead of ,say, the General Forum area in order to hear the other side of the discussion. The OP of a thread should make clear the direction he wishes his thread to take if it's not meant to be a general discussion involving both camps.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

The irony of those objectivists, who refuse to accept a reasonable code of civil conduct, presenting themselves as victims is truly palpable.

 

The outrage!

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

I might be a jerk.

I might think my being here improves the place even though I don't like it.

I might be a plain old contrarian.

I might be crazy.

 

 

 No Dennis, you aren't a jerk, you aren't crazy, and I for one value your input although I don't always agree with it.

 On occasions, it has made me do additional research in some areas, and we are both on friendly terms.

 

[ARQuint]

5 hours ago, Iving said:

Who the hell is Quint?

A Starfleet Admiral

 

You're all confused. Not  Mutiny on the Bounty, not Jaws

 

Peter Quint, from Turn of the Screw.

 

[Iving]

6 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

You're all confused. Not  Mutiny on the Bounty, not Jaws

 

Peter Quint, from Turn of the Screw.

 

 

or; late to the party in more ways than one

[ShawnC]

7 hours ago, vortecjr said:

I took a quick look at the Objective-Fi sub-forum and didn't find much objective data in there...yet. I think it can work and hope it does, but give it time to see what happens.

I would love to see some sort of absolute truths or bullet points about audio/computer engineering per se.  Like digital cables can't sound different and here is why. There could be an entire encyclopedia of sorts on all aspects of audio.  This could be a reference for those to research and learn.  This would be a massive undertaking but could be used to direct people to the information that are being discussed.

 

Another thought would be place here that has direct links to papers, books ect.. on these subjects.  Like digital cables can't sound different, here's the link to why and a great discussion can be found here.  Again some sort of alphabetical sorting would help.  The objectivists, I would imagine, since for many this is their background, should have numerous resources to direct us to these links and or maybe they have a better way of describing to us why these things are what they are.   

 

The forums here are great, but I'm all about the New Front Page Content that has dramatically increased over the past year, great Job @The Computer Audiophile

[Iving]

25 minutes ago, ShawnC said:

I would love to see some sort of absolute truths or bullet points about audio/computer engineering per se.  Like digital cables can't sound different and here is why. There could be an entire encyclopedia of sorts on all aspects of audio.  This could be a reference for those to research and learn.  This would be a massive undertaking but could be used to direct people to the information that are being discussed.

 

Another thought would be place here that has direct links to papers, books ect.. on these subjects.  Like digital cables can't sound different, here's the link to why and a great discussion can be found here.  Again some sort of alphabetical sorting would help.  The objectivists, I would imagine, since for many this is their background, should have numerous resources to direct us to these links and or maybe they have a better way of describing to us why these things are what they are.   

 

The forums here are great, but I'm all about the New Front Page Content that has dramatically increased over the past year, great Job @The Computer Audiophile

 

Such resources would be far more convincing than tawdry mocking. As a starting point for my own illumination I would love to know what the *real* experts say. Nobody in their right mind takes an ulterior assertion at face value.

 

[firedog]

13 hours ago, rickca said:

@The Computer Audiophile, please tell me you have no plan to invite Lee Scoggins back.  All he did was try to promote his upcoming articles and continue the MQA obfuscation.  I see no connection anyway between introduction of the Objective-Fi subforum and the idea of bringing Lee back.

Can you not drink Sam T's Kool-Aid please? He for some reason felt compelled to throw that out there. We don't need to have a feeding frenzy every time some chum is thrown into the water...

[Albrecht]

22 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

While I completely agree, I suspect this ship has already sailed.  Look at all the polite posts made by the polite people celebrating (politely, of course) the conquest of those rude rational thinkers!

 

CC took the gloves off completely, so this thread is an exercise in utter futility IMHO.  CC believes without reservation that the "true believers" should never be made to feel uncomfortable or have to justify their irrational beliefs.  I don't think there's anything else to be said.  And let's not beat around the bush, True Believers spend way more money than rational thinkers.  Despite CC's protestations, having a forum that never challenges irrational thought will be a draw to the True Believers, and that's clearly where the money is.

 

All that's left is for Quint to pop in and declare that Chris made the right decision, and Scoggins will be suddenly unbanned and all will be forgiven.  I wouldn't be surprised if Chris actually apologizes.

 

This is the new day that has dawned here.  Let them sing "ding, dong, the witch is dead" to their heart's content.  It's not the witch that died, but they'll never believe that.

 

Best to just boycott the forum completely I think.

Are you saying that the process of comparative listening, and investigating differences in various systems is somehow "irrational?"

 

[firedog]

52 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Are you saying that the process of comparative listening, and investigating differences in various systems is somehow "irrational?"

 

Many objectivists would say that sighted listening comparisons are irrational, as your conclusions from them are unreliable, by definition. 

[Albrecht]

43 minutes ago, firedog said:

Many objectivists would say that sighted listening comparisons are irrational, as your conclusions from them are unreliable, by definition. 

 

@firedog

Thank you for answering.

I think that what you write is 100% correct: does that necessarily lead to the next step in the objective thought process that comparative listeners are irrational "fools" that objectivists should not be made to suffer? So, not only wrong? And, doubly wrong that somehow irrational "fools" are treated with equality?

@TheComputerAudiophile: Do you perform metrics on what sub-forums are most popular on Audiophile Style?  

[firedog]

8 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

 

@firedog

Thank you for answering.

I think that what you write is 100% correct: does that necessarily lead to the next step in the objective thought process that comparative listeners are irrational "fools" that objectivists should not be made to suffer? So, not only wrong? And, doubly wrong that somehow irrational "fools" are treated with equality?

@TheComputerAudiophile: Do you perform metrics on what sub-forums are most popular on Audiophile Style?  

I don't think it's fair to say that's the "next step" in the thought process. Not all the objectivists think non objectivists are fools. Some just think they are misguided, others don't really relate to it. 

BTW, I also don't think sighted listening for comparison is worth much, but since often no other way of listening/comparing exists for most of us, that's all we can do. That doesn't make us fools - unless we refuse to acknowledge that our sighted listening is of  limited usefulness, at best. 

[tmtomh]

On 2/19/2020 at 3:40 PM, 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.

 

 

It's not a bad thought, Arch - and I heartily endorse and agree with your "but let's still be courteous" reminder.

 

If I had to guess, however, I'd say that a critical mass of self-identified objectivists are more like to join, or step up their activity at, ASR rather than work to turn the Objective-Fi subforum here into, essentially, ASR minus the equipment reviews.

 

I could be wrong, of course, and I recognize that each of us has a choice and therefore can perhaps play a role in whether or not Objective-Fi becomes an isolated wasteland or a vital, super-active discussion area. But I have to say, being told repeatedly to "be part of the solution" - and having entirely civil comments characterized as me not working to be part of the solution, is not making me feel like I want to help Objective-Fi thrive. And I can't imagine I'm alone in that.

 

 

22 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The reality is in fact very simple ... all real world implementations of circuitry, and connections have parasitic behaviours, which in audio are just enough to be audible - this was a lesson I learnt 35 years ago, and everything since keeps confirming this ... jumping up and down, pointing at a scope, and saying, "I can't see anything wrong!!" means a big fat zero - the ears are the primary deciders, measurements are very decidedly secondary.

 

<sigh>

 

Frank, you know full well that if equipment chains exhibit electrical characteristics that are the results of the interaction of the various components, that such electrical characteristics can be measured, and therefore objectivists believe in those "parasitic behaviors" you talk about.

It therefore seems contradictory for you to use this kind of scenario to bash objectivists.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, tmtomh said:

I will say that scolding folks repeatedly "not working to be part of the solution" is not the best way to encourage the use of the new Objective-Fi subforum.

 

Heads you win, tails I lose. 

 

I let people be themselves and I get criticized because all I had to do was moderate more rather than take drastic action. I take action, followed by telling people the blunt truth and I get criticized. I hate to hurt people's feelings by telling them to be part of the solution, not the problem, but such is life. I've instituted a solution to a problem and am giving people the chance to be part of this solution. I don't understand why some continue to feel the need to remain part of the problem by attacking the decision over and over. We aren't going back to the free for all. It feels like they only want to stick it to me by attempting to call out technicalities rather than get on with discussing audio and enjoying this wonderful hobby. 

 

Objectivists should like being called out and challenged :~)

 

 

[Shimei]

I have a <rant>! Actually, I feel a little like writing, 

 

Kinda ironic subject matter, no? I mean objectivist believe truth exists outside themselves and subjectivist believe no truth exists outside themselves. Pretty much the societal issues present between two parties regarding objective absolute camps vs post modernism or relativism. The irony is in history the rise of fundamentalism came about in order to combat post modernism and relativism. There are fundamentalist in more areas than just religion. I suppose any source text be it bible, constitution, data from whatever may be treated in fundamental like fashion. Just humorously ironic that some objectivist reject the truth claims of others with a knee jerk reaction without even consideration. 

 

Applied to whatever area of subject matter perhaps agreeing that truth exists might be a foundational ground on which two sides may begin? Story time, sat through a long debate once as two parties argued whether truth exists. The one debater against truth existing made his case that there is no truth and then the debater for truth existing made his case. Just when everyone thought the debate was over the advocate for truth then asked the audience to vote for the person they thought won the debate. I chuckled, because obviously one would only vote for the person they thought closer to the truth. No matter who a person voted for was clear evidence that everyone believed truth exists. 

 

Regarding the subjectivisit's approach to truth being experiential or even advocating for relativism I'm reminded that even Einstein was appalled when learning that people were misapplying his theory of relativity [relativism] in an area of absolutes, I refer to morality. Like truth some people believe moral absolutes do not exists so why would anyone expect them to behave morally and/or ethically? Nonetheless civilly? Just a little FYI, in order to combat a person that doesn't believe in absolutes in the area of morality the best line of defense is an offense. Simply steal the wallet out of their back pocket. If they get upset and say that's wrong simply say not to me it isn't. 

 

I'm curious how many subjectivist here believe truth is relative to an individual? That is, based on experiences etc? I suppose if a person gets ahead in the world and lying works for them then lying is good and advances them in the world. I wonder how long it takes before someone begins believing their own lies to become self deceived? Snake oil salesman come in various forms, but this I know, unfortunately, in today's world the more a person speaks with conviction the more others believe them. That is independent of whether the subject is true or false. I mean in a way even if something is true and a person doesn't demonstrate conviction then how are they believable? Likewise, do we believe something based on how much they believe? 

 

All these arguments or debates I read. What is the objective in debate? In areas of debate which pertain to religious truth the objective is not to win the debate. The opponent is not the adversary. Falsehood is the adversary. The true objective in debate ought to bring the audience as well as the opponent closer to the truth. 

 

Sometimes to see the truth one must abandon the position from which they see and move to another perspective. The elephant in the room each blind man only could feel a small part of the whole. Yet objective truth exists by one that sees the entire subject matter. 

 

Why am I bringing up all this stuff? Because I betcha that the objectivism vs subjectivism doesn't only affect persons here in the subject area of audio equipment but runs deep. 

 

10 hours ago, ShawnC said:

I would love to see some sort of absolute truths or bullet points about audio/computer engineering per se.  Like digital cables can't sound different and here is why. There could be an entire encyclopedia of sorts on all aspects of audio.  This could be a reference for those to research and learn.  This would be a massive undertaking but could be used to direct people to the information that are being discussed.

 

Another thought would be place here that has direct links to papers, books ect.. on these subjects.  Like digital cables can't sound different, here's the link to why and a great discussion can be found here.  Again some sort of alphabetical sorting would help.  The objectivists, I would imagine, since for many this is their background, should have numerous resources to direct us to these links and or maybe they have a better way of describing to us why these things are what they are.   

 

The forums here are great, but I'm all about the New Front Page Content that has dramatically increased over the past year, great Job @The Computer Audiophile

 

 Hi Shawn, 

 

What I wrote was inspired by your writings. Of course in the areas of science there are peer reviews. I am not a scientist but I imagine any truly credible scientist follows a scientific method which is based on observability, testability, and repeatability. Likewise, in areas of theology there are processes for interpretation that falls into the area of Hermeneutics which entail basic principles and methods when subject matter is incomprehensible. Point is, basic principles and methods have to be established. 

 

Last thought, I imagine this area of study in audio is no different than other sciences or even religion. Macro Evolutionist for example study the fossil record, the data, and come up with their own narrative. How in the world can other scientist which are Creationist come up with totally different conclusions based on the same data resulting in completely different narrations of stick figures? Then we have other areas such climate cooling, warming, and now change when nobody actually observed, tested, and repeated their findings. In science and religion the study of origins is not observable, testable and repeatable. How can any of these areas be considered truly science? Credibility, like the religious fanatics which appeal to horrible theological camps that keep crying end of world how many times does one camp need be wrong before losing all credibility? Hasn't anyone read "Henny Penny"?

 

Good luck fellas in finding the truth ya'll seek to share with others. As for me I believe truth exists and is absolutely beautiful. Like a painter that can look into the sunset and discern the various hues and repeat them upon a canvas into his art. Or even a musician that may hear a melody and pluck a note from out. These things require skill and do not just come naturally to everyone. I imagine both objectivist and subjectivist may find themselves with distorted sight and hearing. Good luck in perceiving what you're hearing and ultimately attempting to convey to others. As a writer do we hate or trust the reader for them to decide? 

 

On that note enjoy,

William

</rant>

 

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

I don't think it's fair to say that's the "next step" in the thought process. Not all the objectivists think non objectivists are fools. Some just think they are misguided, others don't really relate to it. 

BTW, I also don't think sighted listening for comparison is worth much, but since often no other way of listening/comparing exists for most of us, that's all we can do. That doesn't make us fools - unless we refuse to acknowledge that our sighted listening is of  limited usefulness, at best. 

 

Well said. I agree that it's important not to paint all subjectivists (and all objectivists) with the same brush stroke.

 

Beyond salesmen in the Industry, almost all audiophile consumers I'm spoken to will display some level of doubt about certain things being promoted... I've been to 3 audio shows including RMAF 2019 and a number of local dealer events. Every time one goes to a cable demo for example, just look around and notice the smirks and groans when the audience hears about hard-to-believe claims during the sales pitch.

 

I know some of these folks are way more "subjective" than I am. But even if they've never hooked up a measurement device, or tried a blind test, or never bother reading measurement results, many inherently are aware of controversies and can recognize when certain claims are simply "too good to be true".

 

Anyhow, I've certainly met folks who are "subjective" through and through who through their own experience with things like digital cables have figured out for themselves that they don't make a difference. They've arrived at that insight themselves and it happens to be consistent with what objective measurements show. Just because sighted listening isn't controlled and prone to bias doesn't mean that it's worthless.

 

As such, I agree that there is no "next step" here. I don't think objectivists need think those more in the other "camp" are "fools".