Chris's Objective/Subjective moat seems one-sided

[daverich4]

To me, the comments section of Austinpop's review of the EtherRegen comes across as a "Front of the Web Site" version of his "Massively Improve" thread. That is, a one sided viewpoint on a topic with no disagreement allowed. That's fine, Chris wants people to be able to be able to discuss a topic without disagreement. But I noticed that when I took a look at the Objective-Fi discussion of the review we have @Sandyk, @Superdad, @Vortecjr and others rooting around in their discussion. Does the wall between the Subjective and Objective audiophiles only go one way? To be clear, I'm not commenting on the content of the review and the massive (see what I did there?) amount of time it took to put it together, just the way the firewall seems to be working. Or for me, not working. I don't have the electronics background to be able to always follow along with the technical parts of a discussion. I appreciate it when forum members who are knowledgeable in those areas can point/counterpoint on a given topic. I found the discussion on Objective-Fi with the back and forth interesting and informative and the comments on the article itself, once you accept that "everything matters", boring. I hope that doesn't continue forever. My two cents.

[Norton]

I guess the OP of a thread in the “objective” section can be granted moderator rights to remove off topic content just like any other, but judging by your observation (I haven’t checked myself) they haven’t seen the need to so far, while the discussion hadn’t got so heated as to merit an intervention from CC.

 

Judging by the number of occasions that threads on this site get referenced, it looks like Chris has, in effect, just contracted out “objectivist” participation in AS threads to ASR.

[daverich4]

1 hour ago, Norton said:

I guess the OP of a thread in the “objective” section can be granted moderator rights to remove off topic content just like any other, but judging by your observation (I haven’t checked myself) they haven’t seen the need to so far, while the discussion hadn’t got so heated as to merit an intervention from CC.

 

Judging by the number of occasions that threads on this site get referenced, it looks like Chris has, in effect, just contracted out “objectivist” participation in AS threads to ASR.

I think your analysis is pretty spot on. The back and forth in the objective discussion seems to be measured and to me is way more interesting than the lack of any kind of discussion in the comments section of the article. Hopefully, the disappearance of the members whose idea of a conversation was to “body slam” the person they disagreed with will allow the discussions to be a little less vanilla than they appear to be headed for now. 

[audiobomber]

2 hours ago, daverich4 said:

To me, the comments section of Austinpop's review of the EtherRegen comes across as a "Front of the Web Site" version of his "Massively Improve" thread. That is, a one sided viewpoint on a topic with no disagreement allowed.

Most audio websites skew one way or the other, Objective or Subjective. A few sites won't tolerate comments from the other side. Other sites try to accommodate both with sub-forums, e.g. no ABX or cable comments allowed in certain sub-forums. What Chris has done is similar. Others allow OB's and SUB's mix freely, but moderate heavily. 

 

Surely you can see why a change was instituted at AS? The constant trolling and attacks were really getting out of hand. Some of the people who've left recently were the main offenders. IMO, they were here mostly to ridicule, and better off without them. For example, saying that all digital cables must sound the same at every opportunity, in every possible way, repeatedly in the same thread, is not helpful, especially when accompanied by a mocking tone. Most especially when the prevailing opinion around here is that they do sound different.

 

I maintain a healthy skepticism regarding audio and audiophile beliefs, however I've been surprised several times when audiophile tweaks that shouldn't matter, did. I've also tried things I expected to be improvements but would have been a grand waste of money.

 

The massive "Massive Improvements" thread is not terribly interesting to me, but others are enjoying it, so why should it bother anyone else? I don't have any intention of trying an EtherRegen in my system, but I enjoyed reading about it. Reading about gear and what others are doing with their systems is fun. 

 

Quote

I noticed that when I took a look at the Objective-Fi discussion of the review we have @Sandyk, @Superdad, @Vortecjr and others rooting around in their discussion. Does the wall between the Subjective and Objective audiophiles only go one way?

As I understand it, the "wall" is not to block any particular person from posting anywhere they like, but comments must respect the intent of the site. 

[tapatrick]

3 hours ago, daverich4 said:

 I found the discussion on Objective-Fi with the back and forth interesting and informative ....

Personally I have found the Objective-Fi section and various threads springing up there a massive refreshment. I never could find much out before about technicalities due to the endless bickering and was drifting away to other fora. It's not been my area of interest before partly because the level of discourse was on a primitive level so it has been hard to learn anything - but I'm now looking there to see what's going on and learn new things.

[sandyk]

7 hours ago, daverich4 said:

But I noticed that when I took a look at the Objective-Fi discussion of the review we have @Sandyk, @Superdad, @Vortecjr and others rooting around in their discussion. Does the wall between the Subjective and Objective audiophiles only go one way?

Please show me what is inappropriate or technically incorrect in this statement I made, or providing a link to John Swenson's paper on this issue which many people would not have read, in order to help them make an informed decision about the ASR thread report..

I made no Subjective claims in either post , unlike the vast majority of posts in the Objective Forum area.

 Both Alex C and Vortecjr posted additional technical information too, which is necessary in order to have a balanced technical discussion.

Quote

Among the other possibilities John's design also brings is a much more convenient way to inject a much cleaner and lower noise power supply than the typically noisy AND poorly regulated +5V SMPS power from the USB port, as well as extend the distance of the USB cable where voltage drop often becomes a problem at >3M length with some USB devices.

 

[Currawong]

 

14 hours ago, daverich4 said:

To me, the comments section of Austinpop's review of the EtherRegen comes across as a "Front of the Web Site" version of his "Massively Improve" thread. That is, a one sided viewpoint on a topic with no disagreement allowed. That's fine, Chris wants people to be able to be able to discuss a topic without disagreement. But I noticed that when I took a look at the Objective-Fi discussion of the review we have @Sandyk, @Superdad, @Vortecjr and others rooting around in their discussion. Does the wall between the Subjective and Objective audiophiles only go one way? To be clear, I'm not commenting on the content of the review and the massive (see what I did there?) amount of time it took to put it together, just the way the firewall seems to be working. Or for me, not working. I don't have the electronics background to be able to always follow along with the technical parts of a discussion. I appreciate it when forum members who are knowledgeable in those areas can point/counterpoint on a given topic. I found the discussion on Objective-Fi with the back and forth interesting and informative and the comments on the article itself, once you accept that "everything matters", boring. I hope that doesn't continue forever. My two cents.

 

I don't think that the issue is disagreement, so much as it is about the issues Chris described is post from that thread, which I quoted below. A genuine scientific approach involves making a hypothesis from an observation (in this case, subjective impressions) and testing it. This is completely different to the issues forums have, where a bunch of so-called objectivists try and put people down who don't worship science and disagree with the possibility of anything existing outside their own belief system.

 

When a genuine scientific approach is taken, there is much to learn. For example, I felt that a particular DAC had a slightly warmer presentation, or maybe more bass, than another, during listening comparisons. Going into the measurements, I found a particular pattern in the crosstalk where there was a bump in the bass around certain frequencies that correlated with what I was hearing. Answer found!

 

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

My take:  John’s approach of using objective data to try to explain why audiophiles are hearing what they claim to be hearing threatens the attacker’s status as “objectivists”.  I believe it even causes narcissistic injury in the case of the strident, vitriol-spewing segment.

 

John is what an objectivist is supposed to look like.  He finds great interest the claims of subjectivists - but instead of ignoring or mocking what they claim, he puts forth a hypothesis to explain what might be going on.  He then sets out to both prove his hypothesis and solve the problem(s) underlying the subjectivists’ claims.  His success is at the later is proven by the positive reaction of those buying the products he designed.  

 

A narcissist often feels compelled to rip to shreds those who have abilities they wish they had.  They do this to feel better about their own inadequacy.  I would imagine John’s successes cause those inadequacies to be felt more strongly amongst this segment, so tear down they must.  Unlikely UpTone would be singled out if John and Alex were like other manufacturers and not participating in these threads.  

 

To be clear, I’m only taking about a subset of the “objectivist” crowd: the strident, vitriol-spewing segment.  
 

I really wish we had more objectivists like John participating here.  I know there are others and wish they would drown out the mockers spewing objective nonsense.

[tapatrick]

6 hours ago, Currawong said:

When a genuine scientific approach is taken, there is much to learn.

 

Amen!

[daverich4]

14 hours ago, sandyk said:

Please show me what is inappropriate or technically incorrect in this statement I made, 

 

 Both Alex C and Vortecjr posted additional technical information too, which is necessary in order to have a balanced technical discussion.

 

I never suggested that what you posted was wrong, just pointed out that you were allowed to post a counter argument in an objective thread. And yes, @SuperDad and @Vortecjr did contribute to a BALANCED discussion in an Objective thread, something that is not allowed in a Subjective thread such as the comments section of Austinpops article. 

[Ajax]

22 hours ago, daverich4 said:

To me, the comments section of Austinpop's review of the EtherRegen comes across as a "Front of the Web Site" version of his "Massively Improve" thread. That is, a one sided viewpoint on a topic with no disagreement allowed. That's fine, Chris wants people to be able to be able to discuss a topic without disagreement. But I noticed that when I took a look at the Objective-Fi discussion of the review we have @Sandyk, @Superdad, @Vortecjr and others rooting around in their discussion. Does the wall between the Subjective and Objective audiophiles only go one way? To be clear, I'm not commenting on the content of the review and the massive (see what I did there?) amount of time it took to put it together, just the way the firewall seems to be working. Or for me, not working. I don't have the electronics background to be able to always follow along with the technical parts of a discussion. I appreciate it when forum members who are knowledgeable in those areas can point/counterpoint on a given topic. I found the discussion on Objective-Fi with the back and forth interesting and informative and the comments on the article itself, once you accept that "everything matters", boring. I hope that doesn't continue forever. My two cents.

Hi Dave,

 

You seemed surprised?

 

What other result could there be?

 

Segregation has never worked and never will.

 

I am a great fan of Chris and the way he has developed and managed this site over the past 10 years, and through his efforts I have leant a lot about audio and I am grateful for that, however, his "solution" has thrown the baby out with the bath water in my opinion. 

[davide256]

Kind of feels like a minority "religion" is wailing that the tail is no longer allowed to wag the dog. I stopped frequenting Agon in 2012 because the commenters

there seemed more like mystics then reasoned observers, found CA a welcome change. But over the last few years virtual fascism began to pervade CA, with intentional

cruelty and aggressiveness  towards others masquerading as objectivism.  There's nothing stopping an objective post from being posted anywhere on this site... but

recognize everyone has a right to their own philosophy of audio science ,,, be prepared to meet them on their own ground if you are honestly trying to persuade  vs

engaging in some self righteous ideological  "holy war".

[Norton]

I wasn’t sure Chris had made the right call with the recent changes, but it does look to me that it is working.

 

So much of what passed for objectivism on this site was essentially negative and reactive, objectivists ready to mock others but rather shy about their own systems and choices and how these were informed by the positive practice of objectivism.

 

Putting the objective viewpoint in a separate  area seems to have broken the cycle - because it is now necessary to take the initiative in order to express the objective viewpoint, the result is that this being expressed positively and constructively rather than as a  negative  and often unwelcome reaction to others’ viewpoints.

 

These of course may prove to be famous last words....

[garrardguy60]

Here's my take on how we arrived at this place, with the subjectivists being unable to take the behavior of the objectivists anymore, and the objectivists left unable to understand that the subjectivists no longer wanted to hear the objectivists' take on, for example, cables, even if those takes were correct [and, in the minds of the objectivists, they were and are.]

 

I believe a big reason for the unwelcome commenting behaviors is that people with technical backgrounds find it literally impossible to relate to the profound scientific ignorance [frequently coupled with innumeracy] of the average person. Engineers and scientists look at the whole world through a technical prism; they know no other way; they don't grok normalcy.

 

I posit that's why the comments from the objectivists became ruder and more disruptive as time went by -- it was the objectivists' version of 'shouting louder' at the subjectivists to try to get them to understand.

 

Now, I must emphasize that I don't mean 'scientific ignorance' in the previous paragraph as a pejorative, but as a statement of fact. And I'm not ''accusing' the subjectivists of being ignorant, I'm just saying that's how an engineer or scientist is looking at the situation. I should also be more specific and eschew 'scientific ignorance' [since most people know Darwin, Einstein, etc] and instead narrow the focus to ignorance of electronics, which is really what the objectivists are shouting into the wind about.

 

Not to belabor the point, but I think Chris made the right decision for his business. Even though it now leaves me out in the cold. I originally came to this site by discovering the MQA Vaporware thread, for which Chris should be given kudos for hosting a key community at a key time for discussion of that lossy, lossy encoding scheme.

 

But today, it's pretty clear to me that if 1,100 [or is it 2,200] people will shell out 650 bucks for the recently reviewed accessory, there are a lot more of them [subjectivists] than us. So I see the business sense. I do wonder if long-term traffic could be impacted if a flat-earth ethos infests some of the more technical threads, or, worse, they become concatenations of verbal 'likes' ['yo, that was a great review,' 'yeah, and so long too; you must've worked really hard.'] 

 

Anyway, I will end it here and just add a short close to say that I have tried very hard to not sound critical of this site in any way, because in fact I'm not criticizing it. In rereading this post just now, I see that I've insulted pretty much everybody. I didn't mean to do that, but I guess I have incremented the negative count for the 'o' team.

 

Thanks for listening. [As you also may have guessed, my parens keys are broken; hence the brackets.]
 

[vortecjr]

So to be fair the MQA thread should be in the Objective section and Subjective people should not be able to say they like MQA:) 

 

If it were me...I would close the MQA thread and the long stupid thread to air this place out.

[The Computer Audiophile]

On 3/13/2020 at 9:00 AM, daverich4 said:

To me, the comments section of Austinpop's review of the EtherRegen comes across as a "Front of the Web Site" version of his "Massively Improve" thread. That is, a one sided viewpoint on a topic with no disagreement allowed.

Anyone is free to disagree in the comments. If you’ve tried an ER and don’t like it, feel free to express yourself. 
 

 

On 3/13/2020 at 9:00 AM, daverich4 said:

But I noticed that when I took a look at the Objective-Fi discussion of the review we have @Sandyk, @Superdad, @Vortecjr and others rooting around in their discussion.

Nobody own objective information. The individuals you mention aren’t prohibited from offering objective information. 
 

 

 

On 3/13/2020 at 9:00 AM, daverich4 said:

I found the discussion on Objective-Fi with the back and forth interesting and informative and the comments on the article itself, once you accept that "everything matters", boring.

Excellent. The new sub-forum is a great place for you. Comments that you found informative were hard to come by without the new rules in place. You’d have had to weed through several pages of fighting per comment. 

[daverich4]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Anyone is free to disagree in the comments. If you’ve tried an ER and don’t like it, feel free to express yourself. 
 

 

Nobody own objective information. The individuals you mention aren’t prohibited from offering objective information. 
 

 

 

Excellent. The new sub-forum is a great place for you. Comments that you found informative were hard to come by without the new rules in place. You’d have had to weed through several pages of fighting per comment. 

I apparently didn’t express myself clearly in my initial post as you (and @sandyk) completely missed the point I was trying to make. No reason for me to pursue clarification, it was just my 2 cents. 

[Currawong]

On 3/14/2020 at 9:20 PM, daverich4 said:

I never suggested that what you posted was wrong, just pointed out that you were allowed to post a counter argument in an objective thread. And yes, @SuperDad and @Vortecjr did contribute to a BALANCED discussion in an Objective thread, something that is not allowed in a Subjective thread such as the comments section of Austinpops article. 

 

What is a counter argument to something subjective? What is a counter argument to something objective?

 

Much of the problem is that the idea of countering someone's subjective impressions has been to say that their impressions are impossible, or imaginary. As Chris pointed out, a genuine counter-argument would be that someone experienced things differently. Take the Schiit Unison thread. Someone made a post a short while ago saying that the Regen had a negative effect with the Unison USB, whereas it had had a positive effect with the Gen 5. Actually, that's not an argument at all, but a data point. That is real "balance", where people can talk about their experiences.

 

Often the behaviour of many so-called objectivists is irrational. They seem so intent on wanting someone's impressions of a product to not be true, that they will draw upon any argument they can to argue their subjective belief.  That is far removed from actual science. Real science, as I've already pointed out, would be to test hypotheses as to why people have particular impressions, using electronic analysis and measurement.

 

19 hours ago, garrardguy60 said:

Here's my take on how we arrived at this place, with the subjectivists being unable to take the behavior of the objectivists anymore, and the objectivists left unable to understand that the subjectivists no longer wanted to hear the objectivists' take on, for example, cables, even if those takes were correct [and, in the minds of the objectivists, they were and are.]

 

I believe a big reason for the unwelcome commenting behaviors is that people with technical backgrounds find it literally impossible to relate to the profound scientific ignorance [frequently coupled with innumeracy] of the average person. Engineers and scientists look at the whole world through a technical prism; they know no other way; they don't grok normalcy.

 

I posit that's why the comments from the objectivists became ruder and more disruptive as time went by -- it was the objectivists' version of 'shouting louder' at the subjectivists to try to get them to understand.

 

Now, I must emphasize that I don't mean 'scientific ignorance' in the previous paragraph as a pejorative, but as a statement of fact. And I'm not ''accusing' the subjectivists of being ignorant, I'm just saying that's how an engineer or scientist is looking at the situation. I should also be more specific and eschew 'scientific ignorance' [since most people know Darwin, Einstein, etc] and instead narrow the focus to ignorance of electronics, which is really what the objectivists are shouting into the wind about.

 

Not to belabor the point, but I think Chris made the right decision for his business. Even though it now leaves me out in the cold. I originally came to this site by discovering the MQA Vaporware thread, for which Chris should be given kudos for hosting a key community at a key time for discussion of that lossy, lossy encoding scheme.

 

But today, it's pretty clear to me that if 1,100 [or is it 2,200] people will shell out 650 bucks for the recently reviewed accessory, there are a lot more of them [subjectivists] than us. So I see the business sense. I do wonder if long-term traffic could be impacted if a flat-earth ethos infests some of the more technical threads, or, worse, they become concatenations of verbal 'likes' ['yo, that was a great review,' 'yeah, and so long too; you must've worked really hard.'] 

 

Anyway, I will end it here and just add a short close to say that I have tried very hard to not sound critical of this site in any way, because in fact I'm not criticizing it. In rereading this post just now, I see that I've insulted pretty much everybody. I didn't mean to do that, but I guess I have incremented the negative count for the 'o' team.

 

Thanks for listening. [As you also may have guessed, my parens keys are broken; hence the brackets.]
 

 

There are a bunch of underlying assumptions in this post that I believe should be considered. Firstly, the assumption that objectivists takes on things are correct. The attitude that the most obnoxious objectivists I've encountered use is, essentially, that because "it is science" that everything they say is correct, and whenever they mention science, it invalidates any subjective impressions. It seems not to matter if an objectivist has zero qualifications, has never manufactured a product in his (I've never encountered a "her") life, or even done a science experiment outside of high school, "Science" is put forward like "It's God's will". An observation a moderator made on another large audio forum, which parallels my own, is that these people often don't have much money and can't afford fancy audio gear, so they attack people who can.

 

The objectivists "shouting louder" is because people refused to join what amounts to their religion, and they seem to want to ruin peoples' enjoyment of the hobby, not help them enjoy it more. 

 

Like you though, I started spending more time on AS to read the MQA threads. I wanted to understand the technology deeper. But as much as the technical research done by people like mansr helped, it was tiring wading through page after page of back-slapping, congratulatory belittling insults thrown towards MQA supporters. When I was moderating Head-Fi, I stated to many people that technical criticism of technology was totally welcome, but personal attacks against anyone, including manufacturers we not. Time and time again, technical criticism was used to personally attack and insult the owners, often active on the forums, of particular companies.  The issue seemed to be that certain people cannot separate objective criticism, with a subjective desire to denigrate other people. 

 

You mention how "an engineer or scientist is looking at the situation". The good scientists and engineers sure as heck aren't looking at the situation as "This person is an idiot" but either "How can I explain this better to the customer so they understand it" or "Is this something I should look at closer or test to confirm what is going on?". Look at people such as the team from Chord Electronics or Schiit Audio as shining examples of how this is done. This is because scientists, engineers, and so-called science can be wrong and, most importantly, science is almost entirely incomplete. The purpose of science is to develop greater understanding. It is not to belittle people with!

[audiobomber]

21 hours ago, garrardguy60 said:

I believe a big reason for the unwelcome commenting behaviors is that people with technical backgrounds find it literally impossible to relate to the profound scientific ignorance [frequently coupled with innumeracy] of the average person. 

 

There are a number of things that bother me about the above. The idea that objectivists have a deeper scientific or engineering background than subjectivists is as useless as any stereotype. 

- Most of the people who design audiophile gear have solid technical backgrounds

- Plenty of subjectivists have relevant technical backgrounds

- Plenty of objectivists have no relevant technical training, they just relate to faulty objectivist thinking, i.e. black and white, no grey

- An engineering background is not a qualification for judging musical enjoyment

[opus101]

21 hours ago, garrardguy60 said:

I believe a big reason for the unwelcome commenting behaviors is that people with technical backgrounds find it literally impossible to relate to the profound scientific ignorance [frequently coupled with innumeracy] of the average person. Engineers and scientists look at the whole world through a technical prism; they know no other way; they don't grok normalcy.

 

As I'm someone with a technical background I'd just like to point out here that while many techie guys are like that, not all are. For myself I find it enjoyable to engage in educating those without the technical chops when they're open to it (which isn't always the case). 

[PeterSt]

6 hours ago, Currawong said:

Often the behaviour of many so-called objectivists is irrational.

 

I'm afraid they don't understand their (so-called) jobs. Btw, this is warranted. I am not shouting loudly or anything.

[PeterSt]

6 hours ago, Currawong said:

and, most importantly, science is almost entirely incomplete. The purpose of science is to develop greater understanding. It is not to belittle people with!

 

That.

[John Dyson]

On 3/14/2020 at 12:46 PM, Norton said:

I wasn’t sure Chris had made the right call with the recent changes, but it does look to me that it is working.

 

So much of what passed for objectivism on this site was essentially negative and reactive, objectivists ready to mock others but rather shy about their own systems and choices and how these were informed by the positive practice of objectivism.

 

Putting the objective viewpoint in a separate  area seems to have broken the cycle - because it is now necessary to take the initiative in order to express the objective viewpoint, the result is that this being expressed positively and constructively rather than as a  negative  and often unwelcome reaction to others’ viewpoints.

 

These of course may prove to be famous last words....

I am about 95% objective, but definitely avoid ever trying to hurt someone who isn't really technically minded.

There is a communication skizm going on, but not a difference in goals.

 

The objective/subjective disagreements start happening when one person doesn't understand another.   When someone (like me) must focus on technical accuracy, it is sometimes difficult & unwise to drop back to feeling/imprecision.  Likewise, when thinking in terms of experience or feeling, it is very difficult to quantify/describe  in technical terms the events impairments or needs for improvement.

 

One thing that frustrates me -- many don't really know what they know and don't know what they don't know.  Things would be much nicer if people really knew their limitations...  It need not be an ego hit to not know everything -- we can all still learn, certain ignorance can be mitgated with a little effort!!!  I am one of those people that when I find an uncomfortable blank spot in my knowledge -- I work to fill it in.  Hopefully, what I learn isn't metaphysical nonsense :-).

 

(I wrote a big-long morass of preachy pontification -- elided because I respect the time spent by those visiting the forum)

 

Too bad these differences cannot be resolved....   When I don't feel free to chat openly with parties of the whole spectrum, then I start feeling repressed because I want to be polite and hopefully kind.

 

Just seems that too often, people invest their egos in the wrong thing.   That really ruins a lot of fun.

 

John

 

 

 

[sandyk]

6 hours ago, opus101 said:

For myself I find it enjoyable to engage in educating those without the technical chops when they're open to it (which isn't always the case). 

Hi Richard (just realised who you are in DIY Audio )

 There is a big difference between helping to improve another person's technical knowledge and "educating" them as many from the Objective side have attempted to do in this forum.

 I think that Currawong summed it up pretty well in his recent post here.

 

Regards

Alex

 

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

DUPLICATE DELETED

 

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

One thing that frustrates me -- many don't really know what they know and don't know what they don't know. 

 John

That applies equally to both sides.

The last paragraph from Currawong in post  # 17  illustrates this very well, although many from the Objective side feel highly insulted when it is suggested that the currently accepted Science may be incomplete.

Regards

Alex