Chris's Objective/Subjective moat seems one-sided

[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.

 

[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

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, alfe said:

Actually 100% is the right figure.

 Sometimes it's hard to tell whether you are serious or not , as you have a wicked sense of humour .

 Incidentally, you have an unread PM.

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

For the most part IMO the "moat" has been more of a deterrent to bad behavior.

 

Objectivists and subjectivists tribes continue to mingle on both sides of "the moat". The only difference is that 'the drawbridge' can be raised by either side if they don't desire to mingle.Ironically the audio tribes have been showing less tribalism.

 

I would say it's working well.

 

YMMV

 

It certainly appears to be working well , as there have been no posts there for 2 1/2 days

[sandyk]

8 hours ago, daverich4 said:

And that’s your idea of it working well? I wonder if Chris agrees with you.

 

My remark ,although meant to be  tongue in cheek,was posted to stimulate a little thought about the reasons for it's original existence, and the need for it now, when the forum, (with a few exceptions) has become far more tolerant of the viewpoints of others.

 We shouldn't have needed it in the first place , especially when those that demanded it most have shown that they didn't really want it by migrating to A.S.R. and attempting to recruit members for that forum !

 I think that you will find that even members such as Tom (Kumakuma) are likely to agree with me here too about the need for this sub forum.