| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
November 13, 2009 - 3:20pm
#1
"Fun, Interesting, Valuable" - discussions about audio ?
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
pretty much any thread that has
1.) frog
2.) sas
is going to turn to shit and may as well be closed.
Maybe it can happen here.
It's not the topics that go sour, it's the intransigent dogma from either side.
Subjectivists can't abide having what they hear disappear when faced with blind listening or having the infallability of what they claim to be able to hear challenged.
Objectivists can't abide people hearing what the objectivists can't yet measure, or that occur below a level the objectivists deem audible.
Never the twain shall meet.
Let's not even mention what those crazy Sheldrakers demand we believe in order to have a conversation with them. They are a unique combination of subjectivist with rigid 'objective' rules that no phenomena can disprove - a perfect logical circle. Imagine them admitting to anything outside their rigid 'objective' reality!
Anyway...
How about a compromise thread where subjectivists try to imagine how they would 'appease' objectivists - what results would it take to settle down the argument...
... and the objectivists could try and come up with how they think a subjective experiential component could be more generously applied to their opinions.
I bet neither side has the imagination to do this!
To steal from the Bard:
I have no other but an audiophile's reason:
I think it so, because I think it so.
Well, some of us alleged "Objectivists" specialize in running SUBJECTIVE TESTS to find out what people are hearing.
So some of us have been there for years.
There are, I must say, some "objectivists" who can't get past SNR and/or THD.
I've had my own run-ins with them.
See? Common ground, already!
So, subjective listening can be used to identify sonic differences!
I hear they can be quite sensitive, too!
Grin or not, it's very hard to run a good subjective test that does NOT find some differences.
It's even easier to run a bad subjective test and find differences.
The way one catches the "insensitive", and we will simply not presume why they ARE insensitive, is by something called "controls", i.e. test conditions that should be clearly audible. When people miss those, whoops...
Subjectivists, being music lovers (by definition), eventually lose patience and merely go back to their tunes. We are a placid, flaccid lot. All we ultimately want to do is listen to some fine tunes. The objectivists (again, by definition) always have greater staying power, for the same reasons that arguments even exist. The arguments are sustained by numbers wonks who would rather, well..., just argue about numbers.
Okay. You all argue. I have a date with the hi-fi. I have said, over the past 5 years, all I have to say on the subject. As an ancient relic who somehow lived long enough to see/hear the miraculous technological revolution, I can only say this. In my living room, music sounds closer to the memories of live concerts than it used to. That's progress. But, to get maximum bang for the buck, you STILL have to buy tickets for the live events, and you STILL have to wander from store to store and listen.
That much hasn't changed in my 30 years of chasing the dream. Numbers don't cut it, unless you want to listen to numbers. Me? I prefer music.
If you all, out there, prefer numbers and oscilloscopic blips to my artificial notes bouncin' off of real walls, then go for it. I won't argue any more. Strangely, I feel a great peace when I spin the vinyl and the bits. I am where I always dreamed of being. No, it is NOT live in my living room. But it is better than it ever HAS been, in the past, and my own quest is complete.
Let the arguments rage. After all, what are arguments FOR? To make webutations (sorry, that is a portmanteau for attempts by idiots to establish reputations by arguing fallacies on the web as though they, somehow, represented "truth" simply by their webstatus....)?
Listen to your tunes. If they don't sound satisfying in your living room, then get off your dead asses and walk the real streets, where live music lives. Then head for your dealer. ANY dealer. Then listen. Then go back to live music. Then listen again.
Repeat as needed. You, too, can find your dream. I found mine.
Happy tunes, all. And, Buddha, I KNOW you are sitting, somewhere, at this moment, enjoying music. At least, that is how I remember you and Mike from a few years ago.
The celebration is in the music. Not in the arguments. Pah! Don't get me started...
Happy tunes, all.
Amen, Brother Clifton... And there is nothing whatsoever sarcastic about that, either, just so we're all sure.
"Subjectivists can't abide having what they hear disappear when faced with blind listening or having the infallability of what they claim to be able to hear challenged.
Objectivists can't abide people hearing what the objectivists can't yet measure, or that occur below a level the objectivists deem audible."
Of course, that argument is pure poppycock. It's the standard Naysayer/Anti-Tweak logical fallacy right out of Zen and the Art of Debunkery - "controversial tweaks are too small, too unscientific, too bizzare to have any but the most subtle or inconsequential effects." Strictly Naysayer/Anti-Tweak mumbo jumbo of the highest caliber.
Like the Placebo Effect, Naysayers have been using the dreaded Blind Test like the witch hunters' Drowning Chair, wielding it like the jawbone of an ass for years: "IF the results of a blind test are negative it PROVES the item under test is a hoax."
But it's never actually THEIR testing. Ironically, Naysayers/Anti Tweaksters never actually DO any testing themselves. Or, if they do, it's for some innocuous thing like cables that was settled back when Jesus was in diapers. They would much rather be argumentative.
The Amazing Randi realized the commercial potential of Blind Tests years ago - when used as a witch hunters drowning chair.
"Never up, never in." - old audiophile expression
>>> "pretty much any thread that has
1.) frog
2.) sas
is going to turn to shit and may as well be closed." <<<
I asked Stephen a specific question - "just how "Interesting and Valuable" does a 'thread' have to be to keep it open ?" And the VERY FIRST response to my question was a negative one AND it already contained the word 'shit' - and we are still only on Page One !!!!
I think I might have my answer already !! Just where did my query "Interesting" and "Valuable" go to ?????? It has disappeared already !! Back to the same old, same old.
Are you therefore suggesting, in your reply ncdrawl, that if 'frog' and 'sas' did not participate in the various 'threads', then all discussions would be "Interesting" and "Valuable" ?
To try to understand further, would your latest reply, ncdrawl, generally come under the category of 'negativity' or would it come under the category of the 'cut and thrust' of 'male banter' ???
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics
I would suggest to Steve that he adopt the following rules from the Steve Hoffman forums and enforce them fully.
"There are many different types of people who are members at Steve Hoffman Forums, with many different tastes in music, hardware, etc. One of the primary goals of our cyber community is to foster an intelligent, enjoyable, and civil exchange of thoughts and ideas about music and its related topics between our members. You may even make new friends here.
We expect you to respect the opinions of your fellow forum members. Please curb any urge you may have to flippantly dismiss someone's opinion (Examples: "that's stupid", "that's ignorant", "that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard", or "that's bullsh*t").
Since this an open music forum, obviously many different types of music will be discussed. Statements about a members' personal taste in artists or hardware, or negative comments about whole genres of music will not be tolerated (Example: "all rap sucks!"). This also goes for viciously attacking the musical merit of a group or artist (Example: "Creed sucks!"). Note, however, that a civil criticism of an artist is allowed (Example: "I never did care for Creed, I feel the vocalist is copying Eddie Vedder").
Likewise, vicious attacks on an individual *outside* of the forum are not allowed. (Example: "Trent Lott is an *sshole!")
Harassment
Harassment occurs when a member insults, attacks, or denigrates another member, either on the public forum, or in a PM (Private Message). We realize that discussions about music can get intense, but we have zero tolerance for taking an argument to a personal level.
Example: The use of terms such as "idiot, moron, stupid" and other derogatory terms constitutes harassment. Likewise, telling a forum member to "go themselves" is also unacceptable.
If a personal attack occurs, the offender with be notified and depending on the severity of the attack, may be suspended.
If You Are Harassed
If you feel that you have been harassed, notify us by using the "Report this post to a Gort
how about Neither. Just stating the facts. Look at the stats. Go to their profiles and research their posts. Heated debate is one thing, but when that is ALL you do without ever offering anything helpful, or if you use this forum as a vehicle by which to launch character attacks/slander/etc, you are in the wrong.
Interestingly, May started this thread, but she does not discuss, she lectures. A true pedant.
Geoff can't abide any suspicion regarding his 'products.'
What's to discuss when the CoD is on board?
You'd have a better chance of having a back and forth sharing of ideas with a Moonie.
Maybe we can switch to UFO's, which likely have some sort of Sheldrakeian connection, as well.
I must know what the CoD is, Buddha
"Geoff can't abide any suspicion regarding his 'products.' "
If you mean I can't abide small minds, you're right.
We can't go on together
With suspicious minds
And we can't build our dreams
On suspicious minds - Elvis
I agree May. And I thought consistently presenting factual scientific evidence and confessed fraud was seeking the truth and a good thing for the public.
But I guess NCdrawal believes posting factual evidence is closed minded and negative?
Of course NCdrawal's position to suppress such evidence would allow falsifying information with inpunity while keeping it secret from the public. (I am sure the public wishes us to hide those who are screwing them over.)
So NC's position would defeat his own "professed goal" of weeding out scammers.
Too easy. pass
I don't understand your point of view, May. I close threads when I feel there's nothing left to be said; I close threads when I feel they've degenerated beyond the point of repair. Closing such threads gives us all an opportunity to cool off and to start fresh.
I don't know what you mean when you say "those 'participants' who are predominantly negative and exhibit immaturity win." How do they win? What do they win? Who are the losers? What have they lost?
Thanks for the suggestion, Scott. I hope those rules work great for Steve Hoffman's forum, but I have neither the time nor the desire to moderate a forum in that manner. I'm fine with giving people the freedom to show exactly how intelligent or stupid, how cool or boring, how nice or rude, etc., they truly are.
Of course, I do hope that everyone would want to be smart, cool, and nice.
They work extremely well. You will find more activity on that forum than any other audio forum with the possible exception of AA. You will also find extended threads full of interesting and valuable discusion on audio. Wouldn't it be nice to see a 50 page thread on this forum that was all about audio?
I can understand that.
And how do you think that is working out? Do you see a lot of interesting extended threads on audio here? Do you see a lot of shining examples of cool, nice and intellegent? I think we know where the place stands when it comes to stupid and rude. if that is what you want these forums to be all about.... your playground, your rules. Is that what you want though? Do you like being the WWE and Jerry Springer of audio forums?
Yes and I hope for world peace and good will towards man. I guess what it boils down to is that if you are happy with the state of the Stereophile forums then there you go. Nothing to fix.
Yes, i agree. it is up to every man to police himself. I'm a bit embarrassed about my outburst toward Ethan at the same time I feel that someone needed to say it. However, there was no need for me to be as virulent or to swear as I did. However, I've had a policy (since my beginnings on the net) to leave all posts I've ever made as they stand, even when I have time to go back and edit the nasty bits out. I have done so on occasion, when I feel they have slighted someone unnecessarily or that they might reflect badly on the people I'm involved with. Or when someone I know requests an editing.
So I'm not just fine with Stereophile's forum rules but I stand behind them strongly.
I'm not your mother, nor to I expect a given forum to be yours, nor do I expect anyone involved to police me or anyone else -- for anyone's sake. Either you can self govern - or you cannot. Note that Stephen steps in only rarely, which is exactly the way it should be, IMO.
what about someone helping you, then? obviously Hoffman's forum is doing well.. does someone have to be on the Stereophile staff to moderate these forums?
It's me, John Atkinson, and Jon Iverson. Someone does need to be on the Stereophile staff to moderate these forums, and we don't have money in the budget to pay anyone, and we're not going to ask anyone to do it for free or for any other sort of compensation. Sorry. We don't expect any big changes around here, so I must trust everyone to behave like intelligent adults.
My full quote was: I have neither the time nor the desire [to moderate a forum in the way that Steve Hoffman's forums are moderated.] This is our forum, and I'm proud of it. It's passionate and open, and all members should feel safe to speak their minds. Do I think this forum could be better? Yes, but I feel that all members are responsible for making it better. This is your forum. You make it what it is.
If that means that we have to go through self-analysis stages like this every few months, fine.
To continue my thoughts on this: There have already been many instances when forum members have acted as moderators. You've done it yourself, ncdrawl, stepping in and redirecting a discussion when it's gone foul. I appreciate this. Many members have done it. Even more important, though, is each member taking the responsibility to moderate himself. This is the way I think we should proceed.
Simple rules:
Don't be fucked up.
Words to live by for sure. The problem is people who think they're doing god's work, and the other guys are the ones who are fucked up.
Ethan Winer
RealTraps
Most of us are guilty of that at some point. I think the solution is to try to understand the other person's point of view. If it's impossible to understand the other person's point of view, I think we should ask questions rather than throw insults and accusations.
I am in full agreement. I like the stevehoffman.tv forum for what it is, but this isn't the same thing nor should it be. Even though things can get derailed here, I like the fact that there is a place to express your opinion on just about anything, even if that opinion is inane (I'm looking at you global warming deniers
)
here is a quote i thought the group would find interesting:\
"many of the correspondants seem genuine and sincere and reasonably bright and all that. But the experience has been spoiled for us by the presence of certain others-not the majority, mind you, but then again too many not to mention-intent upon throwing verbal mud at people who hear differently than they do, or, dare I say, at all. And all from behind the rock of a fake name."
kudos to anyone who can correctly cite the author of this quote; bonus points if you can cite the publication, volume and year.
tom collins
Why are you being an ass again here, NC? I didn't attack your character in this thread, and neither did SAS. Does Ethan really need you trying to defend his dishonorable behaviour 24/7, or do you think he won't be able to survive on his own if you give it a rest once a while? Why are you always so blithely unaware of your hypocrisy? Do you ever read your own words at all? You're talking about your opponents turning another thread to "shit", while being the first to do exactly that here! Are you at all familiar with the expression that when you wag your finger at another, you've got three more fingers wagging back at you?
I sure hope you weren't trying to suggest to us in your later post that you think you would make a good and fair-minded forum moderator here. Clearly, anyone who doesn't sit idly by while one of your good friends blatantly violates forum rules (even after being repeatedly told not to), lies his head off to everyone, refuses to ever take responsibility for his false and defamatory statements, and makes very deliberate and systematic attempts to bring the reputation of other industry members into disrepute, would get immunity. While his detractor would get banned. Personally, I wouldn't trust you to moderate a hog-tying contest. Even though I have no doubt you probably have a lot of experience doing so already.
I don't think ncdrawl was trying to do anything like that; I think he was just offering suggestions on how to make the forum better, which I appreciate.
Art Dudley, listening?
September? June?
>>> "I don't understand your point of view, May. I close threads when I feel there's nothing left to be said; I close threads when I feel they've degenerated beyond the point of repair. Closing such threads gives us all an opportunity to cool off and to start fresh." <<<
THAT I completely understand. A perfectly sensible and mature reason for closing a thread !!
The sentiments expressed within Steve Hoffman's forum (as outlined by Scott) are excellent and should, at least, be used as guidelines - of not actually constantly moderated by you. And, yes, once given as guidelines, then members will, as you say, step in occasionally and attempt to moderate the 'group' behaviour within such guidelines. But members would need to know the guidelines - any guidelines - as a guide !!
>>> "I don't know what you mean when you say "those 'participants' who are predominantly negative and exhibit immaturity win." How do they win? What do they win? Who are the losers? What have they lost?" <<<
My point was to do with 'the lowest common denominator' aspect of some discussions.
To answer you I will have to start at the end of your questions i.e "Who are the losers ?"
I am going to use a hypothetical story and it is a story 'out of the audio arena' to try to illustrate what I was meaning. I have no qualms about using a story - the great Richard Feynman would use a story at the 'drop of a hat' to try to get an idea across. In my story I am using, as the basis, one of Steve Hoffman's guidelines i.e :-
>>> "There are many different types of people who are members at Steve Hoffman Forums, with many different tastes in music, hardware, etc. One of the primary goals of our cyber community is to foster an intelligent, enjoyable, and civil exchange of thoughts and ideas about music and its related topics between our members. You may even make new friends here.
We expect you to respect the opinions of your fellow forum members. Please curb any urge you may have to flippantly dismiss someone's opinion (Examples: "that's stupid", "that's ignorant", "that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard", or "that's bullsh*t")." <<<
My hypothetical (non audio) story :-
There is a general discussion group - open to both sexes equally - of which you (Stephen) are the moderator and one which you would wish to continue being open to both sexes equally !! The discussion starts general and friendly enough but, soon, a Male Chauvinist (Joe Bloggs) soon shows his true colours. Some of the females taking part in the discussion add their opinions only to get a reaction each time from Joe Bloggs, the Male Chauvinist. The reaction can take a variety of forms i.e "Go back to the kitchen, woman, where you belong." OR "Go powder your nose" Some other (male) members of the discussion group who are NOT male chauvinists remonstrate with Joe Bloggs saying "Cut it out, Joe, cut it out, that is completely uncalled for" - but to no avail !!! Joe Bloggs still continues with his 'right to voice his opinion' !!! Continuing to respond to the female participants with variations on the theme such as "You must be having a bad hair day" OR "You are just being argumentative, it must be that time of the month".
Either Jill and Janet, etc could choose to respond, each time, by calling Joe Bloggs a "Male Chauvinist pig" or could choose to leave the discussion. Others (Jennifer and Jane) may have already decided not even to join in the discussion after seeing Joe Bloggs' gross attitude. Tom and Dick, the NON male chauvinists who had challenged Joe Bloggs with "Cut it out" decide to leave the discussion group in disgust and Harry and Henry (also NON chauvinists), on following the discussion but not participating decided not to even bother entering the discussion - even though they may have extremely relevant expertise and knowledge to contribute !!!!!
Now to your reply to Scott :-
>>> "I'm fine with giving people the freedom to show exactly how intelligent or stupid, how cool or boring, how nice or rude, etc., they truly are.
Of course, I do hope that everyone would want to be smart, cool, and nice." <<<
Tell me, Stephen. How (in the context of my story) does your 'giving the group the FREEDOM to show exactly how much of a Male Chauvinist some of them truly are' HELP any discussion ???
You ask "Who are the losers ?" Surely Jill, Janet, Jennifer and Jane and Tom, Dick, Harry and Henry who have either left in disgust or not even bothered to join in the first place ?? You ask "Who are the winners? What do they win ?" Surely, by default, Joe Bloggs and his ilk? With their unfettered opinions running riot and, if allowed to, bringing each discussion down to the lowest common denominator until such time when it has to be 'closed' ? Obviously, they don't win as in winning a prize !!
What I have outlined in my story may be regarded as serious or it may not be - it depends on each individual's viewpoint. After all, no one has ever died from being confronted by a Male Chauvinist !! But, if many females and many NON male chauvinists are discouraged from participating then I send your own question back to you "Who are the losers?"
Stephen, my hypothetical example was just about something as simple as a 'male chauvinistic attitude' but you can see how such a seemingly simple thing can have such repercussions if not 'dealt with'. So now we come back to the words 'dealt with' !!
Such as my hypothetical male chauvinistic attitude or response is really no different to Steve Hoffman's examples of attitudes and responses: >>> "that's stupid", "that's ignorant", "that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard", or "that's bullsh*t")." <<<
Those are simply evidence of someone who is not able to 'police themselves' !!
>>> "Simple rules:
Don't be fucked up." <<<
How would that approach alter the tone of a discussion with some constantly contributing mainly "that's stupid", "that's ignorant", "that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard", or "that's bullsh*t")." to a discussion - without additional guidelines ??
Before some people react, I am not suggesting (with my hypothetical story) that females should be given SPECIAL considerations over and above anyone else. I am merely pointing out that such attitudes could quite well be the reason for Jill and Janet and Tom and Dick deciding to leave the discussion group and for Jennifer and Jane and Harry and Henry deciding not to join it in the first place !!
KBK :-
>>> "I'm not your mother, nor to I expect a given forum to be yours, nor do I expect anyone involved to police me or anyone else -- for anyone's sake. Either you can self govern - or you cannot. Note that Stephen steps in only rarely, which is exactly the way it should be, IMO." <<<
Surely KBK, Steve Hoffman's guidelines would not, in any way, prevent you participating FULLY in any Stereophile Forum 'thread' you wished to ? Back to my hypothetical story. The reason why Male Chauvinists are male chauvinists is because they CANNOT self govern. Then what KBK ? Is the other suggestion often put forward "put them on ignore" really the answer ? What does 'putting them on ignore' achieve ?
Wgriel
>>> "Even though things can get derailed here, I like the fact that there is a place to express your opinion on just about anything, even if that opinion is inane." <<<
Surely, wgriel, Steve Hoffman's guidelines would not, in any way, prevent you participating FULLY in any Stereophile Forum 'thread' you wished to ? Could opinions such as "that's stupid", "that's ignorant", "that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard", or "that's bullsh*t")." be really described as "inane" ?
There may not be anyone available, Stephen, to physically moderate individual 'postings' but merely adopting Steve Hoffman's guidelines as a "mascot" would be a start !!!
Just a suggestion !!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B Electronics
nc, very close. it was ad but it was in autumn/95, nearly 15 years ago and it still rings true today.
I tend to believe that we should in fact all be able to moderate our own words, in order to maintain a friendly tone, and to keep an interesting debate going. OTOH when people act like the male chauvinist May descibes, it's also my opinion, that the moderator, whoever that might be at the time, should as promptly as possible intervene, and issue a warning to the offender. Acting like that is IMO not acceptable, but because the waves go a little high sometimes, well it doesn't bother me much. I just stay out of it, and if I really needed to participate, I would ask them to cool it.