Is it worth it?

[idiot_savant]

Sorry to have such a kind of almost suicidal title here, but…

 

from my recent experiences on this forum, being objective gets you nowhere. I’ve tried explaining pretty basic stuff until I’m blue in the face, but because someone “believes” something, that is more important. If I try and point out that maybe, just maybe someone who has worked on stuff has a better idea than someone who read about in on Wikipedia, I get shouted down until the thread is closed. 
 

I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky - I believed so hard a bit of poo came out, but I was still somehow still on the ground?

 

Are we wasting our time here? Does it matter?

 

*edit* this might actually be a subjective piece ;)

 

*edit of the edit* - I’m here as I don’t like stupid mad things posted as “fact” in a subject I’m interested in - there is genuine innovation going on by various players with graphs and everything, and I don’t like it being confused with swapping out one kind of voodoo for another

 

your friendly ( as always ) neighbourhood idiot 

[fas42]

It most certainly matters ... people want the recordings they play to sound good to them - unless their addiction is to the shininess, and sheer spectacular look of their rig, 😉. So, they will generally spend lots of money, and devote huge amounts of time, to getting it to "sound good".

 

Being purely objective about it has failed ... that is, you can combine a set of components which all have brilliant numbers - and it doesn't pump out, "magic sound". And you know the latter exists, because you have heard such from at least one system you have come across, in your audio journeys ... . Your quest is to replicate the quality of that experience, and you will do almost anything, try almost anything, to make it happen. Which is why we have the great divide between objectivists, and subjectivists, 🙂.

 

"Pretty basic stuff" doesn't dictate, I repeat, doesn't dictate the subjective quality of the presentation - human hearing is incredibly sensitive to anomalies in the sound, and once it hears them, it can't unhear them. It just turns out that you have to be tremendously fussy about everything, to make sure that the flaws in the reproduction are at the lowest levels possible - this is what's necessary to achieve the quality of 'specialness' in what you hear.

 

Interference, no matter how bizarre or unlikely the route is to the key areas of the playback setup, is a particularly pernicious influence - because it dulls, saps the life out of the playback. Trying to explain that this effect "can't possibly be!" is never going to work - because people regularly experience otherwise. No matter how much you want the business of audio reproduction to be a straightforward, push the buttons process, it's not going to be such, until the components themselves, as an overall thing, are engineered and implemented better ...

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, idiot_savant said:

Sorry to have such a kind of almost suicidal title here, but…

 

from my recent experiences on this forum, being objective gets you nowhere. I’ve tried explaining pretty basic stuff until I’m blue in the face, but because someone “believes” something, that is more important. If I try and point out that maybe, just maybe someone who has worked on stuff has a better idea than someone who read about in on Wikipedia, I get shouted down until the thread is closed. 
 

I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky - I believed so hard a bit of poo came out, but I was still somehow still on the ground?

 

Are we wasting our time here? Does it matter?

 

*edit* this might actually be a subjective piece ;)

 

*edit of the edit* - I’m here as I don’t like stupid mad things posted as “fact” in a subject I’m interested in - there is genuine innovation going on by various players with graphs and everything, and I don’t like it being confused with swapping out one kind of voodoo for another

 

your friendly ( as always ) neighbourhood idiot 

My view (yes, subjective) is that there’s little value to have objective discussions here. And I’ve tried. Instead of having an actual discussion you get shouted down, usually by the same small group of individuals who want to ensure that nobody challenges their world view, but who obviously have no interest in understanding the objective approach.
 

If you’re looking to get into a fight, then by all means. If you want to have a meaningful discussion with folks who can truly challenge you and help you grow and understand technology and science behind it — look elsewhere.
 

IMHO and YMMV.

[March Audio]

8 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

My view (yes, subjective) is that there’s little value to have objective discussions here. And I’ve tried. Instead of having an actual discussion you get shouted down, usually by the same small group of individuals who want to ensure that nobody challenges their world view, but who obviously have no interest in understanding the objective approach.
 

If you’re looking to get into a fight, then by all means. If you want to have a meaningful discussion with folks who can truly challenge you and help you grow and understand technology and science behind it — look elsewhere.
 

IMHO and YMMV.

I can only echo these comments.

 

From recent experience it appears that some posters, who are being highly offensive, are allowed to do this without consequence.

[March Audio]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

It most certainly matters ... people want the recordings they play to sound good to them - unless their addiction is to the shininess, and sheer spectacular look of their rig, 😉. So, they will generally spend lots of money, and devote huge amounts of time, to getting it to "sound good".

 

Being purely objective about it has failed ... that is, you can combine a set of components which all have brilliant numbers - and it doesn't pump out, "magic sound". And you know the latter exists, because you have heard such from at least one system you have come across, in your audio journeys ... . Your quest is to replicate the quality of that experience, and you will do almost anything, try almost anything, to make it happen. Which is why we have the great divide between objectivists, and subjectivists, 🙂.

 

"Pretty basic stuff" doesn't dictate, I repeat, doesn't dictate the subjective quality of the presentation - human hearing is incredibly sensitive to anomalies in the sound, and once it hears them, it can't unhear them. It just turns out that you have to be tremendously fussy about everything, to make sure that the flaws in the reproduction are at the lowest levels possible - this is what's necessary to achieve the quality of 'specialness' in what you hear.

 

Interference, no matter how bizarre or unlikely the route is to the key areas of the playback setup, is a particularly pernicious influence - because it dulls, saps the life out of the playback. Trying to explain that this effect "can't possibly be!" is never going to work - because people regularly experience otherwise. No matter how much you want the business of audio reproduction to be a straightforward, push the buttons process, it's not going to be such, until the components themselves, as an overall thing, are engineered and implemented better ...

Frank, your post is reasonable and polite, but doesn't it just exemplify one aspect of what we are referring to?

 

You believe these things but cant present one shred of evidence to support them.

 

"Being purely objective about it has failed ... that is, you can combine a set of components which all have brilliant numbers - and it doesn't pump out, "magic sound" "

 

So show us a component that measures objectively very good and sounds bad.

[The Computer Audiophile]

This is a community. It takes a community to get things accomplished. If you start a thread and people don’t follow the rules, you need to use the report post feature. In addition, people who start threads can be the moderators of those threads with full mod rights. 
 

Some people only like to complain that things aren’t how they like them, rather than do something about it. 
 

If you want an objective discussion, then work toward that goal and surprisingly you’ll get there. 
 

March Audio’s situation is different. Ever since he joined there have been tons of issues. Before him, we had plenty of objective discussions that didn’t end up worthless. Now, he can’t avoid trouble. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I can only echo these comments.

 

From recent experience it appears that some posters, who are being highly offensive, are allowed to do this without consequence.

When you can’t get along with others and all of you report 20 posts in an hour, it’s ridiculous. It’s like children who need babysitting. Get over it. Have an adult discussion. 

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, March Audio said:

Frank, your post is reasonable and polite, but doesn't it just exemplify one aspect of what we are referring to?

 

You believe these things but cant present one shred of evidence to support them.

 

"Being purely objective about it has failed ... that is, you can combine a set of components which all have brilliant numbers - and it doesn't pump out, "magic sound" "

 

So show us a component that measures objectively very good and sounds bad.

 

So, what are the shreds of evidence that "prove" that objectively high scoring components produce 'inspiring' sound ... see, you have inserted a subjectivist POV in your reply, "measures objectively very good and sounds bad" - if you going to be objectivist about it, you need to demonstrate, by some means, that it in fact "sounds bad" ...

[The Computer Audiophile]

Here’s a novel idea, @March Audio and @fas42 put each other on your ignore lists. You never see eye to eye anyway. This will save everyone from reading pages on nonsense. 

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If you want an objective discussion, then work toward that goal and surprisingly you’ll get there. 

 

If one has to work this hard to get an objective discussion going, then this is just not the place for it. And again, I've tried, probably harder than most, and still failed. Hence my answer to @idiot_savant: it's not worth it. IMHO, IME, and YMMV.

[March Audio]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

When you can’t get along with others and all of you report 20 posts in an hour, it’s ridiculous. It’s like children who need babysitting. Get over it. Have an adult discussion. 

Chris, with the greatest of respect can you please explain why PeterST was allowed to be repeatedly highly offensive towards me, repeatedly use ad hominem, call me a wanker and a shit?

 

Has any action been taken against this individual?  His behavior was completely against forum rules and I was was restrained in not reaching in kind.

 

That has nothing whatsoever to do with getting along with others, that's myself being blatantly attacked for posting views that are contrary to a subjectivist bent.

 

I wasn't the one who started this thread, it's clear that others are seeing the same problem.

 

I'm not saying this is the case, but it comes across as the subjectivist area is protected whilst in the objective area some are allowed to do as they please and endlessly argue without objective basis.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

If one has to work this hard to get an objective discussion going, then this is just not the place for it. And again, I've tried, probably harder than most, and still failed. Hence my answer to @idiot_savant: it's not worth it. IMHO, IME, and YMMV.

You’ve tried one approach, and that’s to work harder, not smarter. You can be the mod of any of your threads and one-click remove off topic posts. Pretty simple and works very well. 

[fas42]

Quote

If one has to work this hard to get an objective discussion going, then this is just not the place for it

 

Why it doesn't work, is that the objectivists have an agenda - no matter what they actually say, inside they are absolutely certain that the subjectivists are wrong, dead wrong - and they won't back down on that, for anything.

[March Audio]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Here’s a novel idea, @March Audio and @fas42 put each other on your ignore lists. You never see eye to eye anyway. This will save everyone from reading pages on nonsense. 

That's no good if these individuals (I'm not just referring to Frank) still arrive in objective discussions endlessly posting unsupported opinions and thread crap.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, March Audio said:

Chris, with the greatest of respect can you please explain why PeterST was allowed to be repeatedly highly offensive towards me, repeatedly use ad hominem, call me a wanker and a shit?

 

Has any action been taken against this individual?  His behavior was completely against forum rules and I was was restrained in not reaching in kind.

 

That has nothing whatsoever to do with getting along with others, that's myself being blatantly attacked for posting views that are contrary to a subjectivist bent.

 

I wasn't the one who started this thread, it's clear that others are seeing the same problem.

 

I'm not saying this is the case, but it comes across as the subjectivist area is protected whilst in the objective area some are allowed to do as they please and endlessly argue without objective basis.

You run your own business correct? You ever have employees that need babysitting, that just find ways to eat up your time, the always seem to need you to do something? This is the case with you Alan. Sure, I need to go clean up the thread you mention, but it’s a weekend I’d like to spend with my family, not answering your every complaint. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Why it doesn't work, is that the objectivists have an agenda - no matter what they actually say, inside they are absolutely certain that the subjectivists are wrong, dead wrong - and they won't back down on that, for anything.

Your a big part of the problem though Frank. You can’t let anything go. If objectivists don’t want you in the discussion, you need to ignore it. 

[March Audio]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You’ve tried one approach, and that’s to work harder, not smarter. You can be the mod of any of your threads and one-click remove off topic posts. Pretty simple and works very well. 

I wasn't actually aware of this.  I thought it was something you granted on request, which I think I did in one of the reports I made about PeterST yesterday.

 

Had I known this that thread would worked very well with excellent contributions from several members.

[fas42]

1 minute ago, March Audio said:

Chris, with the greatest of respect can you please explain why PeterST was allowed to be repeatedly highly offensive towards me, repeatedly use ad hominem, call me a wanker and a shit?

 

 

 

Hmmm ... this is the problem ...

 

Search the Community

Showing results for 'wanker' in content posted by PeterSt.

 

 

 

 

 

Found 1 result

• Sort By

1. 

   "It's the best" - Subjective or objective statement?

   PeterSt replied to joelha's topic in General Forum

   ...riginally Posted by Audio_ELF I'm not sure tossed (in UK) really has any different connotation towanker ! And if you're going to wear your shoes keep them off the bed at least! :-) What people all not write WikiPedia pages full with :Wanker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This one...

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, March Audio said:

I wasn't actually aware of this.  I thought it was something you granted on request, which I think I did in one of the reports I made about PeterST yesterday.

 

Had I known this that thread would worked very well with excellent contributions from several members.

That thread was a shit show. Your request is likely in the pile with all the ported posts of people complaining about the other guy. 

[March Audio]

31 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You run your own business correct? You ever have employees that need babysitting, that just find ways to eat up your time, the always seem to need you to do something? This is the case with you Alan. Sure, I need to go clean up the thread you mention, but it’s a weekend I’d like to spend with my family, not answering your every complaint. 

Chris, with respect that is just not the case.  How am I to blame for other posters behaving in totally unacceptable ways?

 

What PeterST has been doing is completely against forum rules and frankly deserved moderator warnings followed by a ban if it continued.  That level of censure is very much your responsibility and I really don't understand why you didn't, and seemingly haven't, taken action.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, March Audio said:

Chris, with respect that is just not the case.  How am I to blame for other posters behaving on totally unacceptable ways?

 

What PeterST has been doing is completely against forum rules and frankly deserved moderator warnings followed by a ban if it continued.  That level of censure is very much your responsibility and I really don't understand why you didn't, and seemingly haven't, taken action.

Because all of you guys in that thread reported posts and whined about the other people being mean. I’d had enough of it. I can’t spend all my time on stupid stuff. 
 

It’s amazing how some people here do nothing but contribute without getting into pudding matches. Please follow their lead. 

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You’ve tried one approach, and that’s to work harder, not smarter. You can be the mod of any of your threads and one-click remove off topic posts. Pretty simple and works very well. 

 

Tried that as well. But if I need to be constantly moderating, hiding and editing posts by others, then, again, this is not the place to have a productive discussion.

[March Audio]

28 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That thread was a shit show. Your request is likely in the pile with all the ported posts of people complaining about the other guy. 

It was a shit show because 2 particular posters turned it into one.  That was their objective.

 

Again with the greatest of respect, please stop blaming everyone for the behaviour of these individuals.

 

OK, to move on from this because it's not going to progress things in a positive way, can I take it that you are happy for thread creators to take control and moderate their own threads to stop this sort of thing?

[March Audio]

26 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Because all of you guys in that thread reported posts and whined about the other people being mean. I’d had enough of it. I can’t spend all my time on stupid stuff. 
 

It’s amazing how some people here do nothing but contribute without getting into pudding matches. Please follow their lead. 

Is myself objecting to being called a wanker and a shit plus repeated other ad hominems whining?  Are you saying my objection to that unreasonable?

 

It's not.  Its explicitly against forum terms and conditions. 

 

Yes I totally agree, it really is stupid.  I'm really sorry Chris but I just don't understand why you have allowed it without censuring the individual concerned.

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Your a big part of the problem though Frank. You can’t let anything go. If objectivists don’t want you in the discussion, you need to ignore it. 

 

Why I respond to posts, as in the OP,

 

Quote

If I try and point out that maybe, just maybe someone who has worked on stuff has a better idea than someone who read about in on Wikipedia, I get shouted down until the thread is closed.

 

is that only half the story is told - a technical explanation for how something is done does not then "prove" that there can't be a causal link that impacts SQ ... those links are indeed part of the objective world, but there is a general refusal to accept that they could exist.