|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I've noticed that this venue has gotten increasingly contenious. While some might prefer that style, I find that many others are put off by it. Thus far, we've taken a hands off approach here and we'd like to keep it that way. However, we need to see a bit more common courtesy and respect for this to continue. Heated debate is fine. It's the personal attacks that need to be avoided. By now, most of you know each others biases and I seriously doubt that you'll convince anyone the err of their ways. You're welcome to try. Just try to avoid 18 come backs that generally amount to various creative ways of calling the other an idiot, one geniunely creative and humourous retort is usually sufficient.Ok, nuff said. On another note, it's been suggested that some folks feel that the term, Prop Head, is deragotary. Personally, I don't see it that way. But if folks would rather call this forum something else, I have no problem with that either. If you have suggestions, post them.
Thanks
Follow Ups:
What good would a name change do? This is for registered members and I can't imagine any are offended by the name.
Damn Rod, what's the fun in that!? Seriously, good points all around. It is comical when you have intelligent people engage in such trivial pursuits. Then again, who am I to question their source of amusement.
It has so many levels...
.
Even cooler might be TECH SQUARED, with the little 2 right next to the name. I wish I could do that on the computer, but I don't know how. Perhaps Steve Eddy could tell us?
What, you mean something like this?: TECH 2 or perhaps a bit simpler, just T 2 .se
Of course for the hard-core Romans out there, you could use T II . :)se
And use a "T 2 "...e-r-rrrr "T-square"... for the logo...
a
nt
Just use the sup /sup HTML tags.For example, TECH 2 would be TECH[sup]2[/sup] except replace the left and right brackets with left and right arrows. I can't remember how to display arrows without their being interpreted as HTML tags.
You can also use sub /sub for subscript, like H 2 O.
se
By the way, you can use most other HTML tags directly in messages here. Such as i /i for italic text, b /b for bold text, u /u for underlined text, etc.If you want to incorporate a graphic into your message without using Optional Image URL feature which always places the image at the end of your message which may not be where you want it, you can use the img tag (just img, there's no /img). Though the graphic has to reside on a system somewhere that's accessible. For images, you'd do the following:
[img src="http://www.wherever.com/somegraphic.jpg"]
Again, just replace the left and right brackets with left and right arrows.
You can place the img tag between center /center tags to center the image on the user's screen instead of having it left justified.
[center]
[img src="http://www.wherever.com/somegraphic.jpg"]
[/center]
The system also directly interprets exteded ASCII codes so you can enter them directly instead of using the HTML equivalent. If you have a PC, just hold down the Alt key and use the number pad (NOT the numbers above the letters) and enter the code number and release the Alt key.
For example, the number for the copyright symbol is 0169. Hold down Alt, hit 0169 and voila ©. Trademark is 0153. Which can be used with the sup /sup HTML tags to make it look better, such as FLOOBYDUST ™ .
se
somehow I was expecting something else!
Steve Eddy??? Anyway, this was a good way to test this out. Thanks for the info.
slope
BOO!
se
Man; you be ugli! you so ugli, you scare hungy dogs off the back of a meat wagon.
......only a dog could love. I thought you had a beard, and a Harley-Davidson tattoo on your forehead.
Oh.......... you've heard that before.
...I already got me a fine woman.
se
Is that what someone looks like after using your Q devices?
Is that what someone looks like after using your Q devices?Judge for yourself. Here's just one of my many satisfied customers.
se
Now Mr. Curl *really* has something to be scared about. That picture reminds me of Taxi Driver......"you talkin' to me?"
nt
. . . it seems like most of the rude folks with Ds and Ms after their names would prefer to keep their own private little sandbox to kick each other around in. That's cool; it's easy enough not to come here if you don't like the smell.Pity, though. Could have been lots of fun and education for other inmates, too.
regards,
Is it me? Am I the only one here who has *no* problem with the "bickering?" I mean, compared to RAO, this is tame...I suggested a "flame forum" to help keep the "smell" out of the normal forums, but that suggestion was to accommodate those sensitive to the commotion, but not necessarily myself.
.
Contentious? So? Let 'em be contentious. The contending parties seem to enjoy it, since either one can stop it at will. It certainly doesn't bother me. In fact, I don't see that it actually bothers anybody but Rod M.
Good point Norm; BTW the engineers here at Japanese Electro Optics Laboratory, (www.jeol.com) have really enjoyed some of the posts from Hanson, Curl, and Risch. They just burst out laughing, and made comments such as "great marketing". I say let the fun continue.
....for exotic cables and don't get the "real" results they're looking for find Hanson, Curl, and Risch's "great marketing" funny as well :)
......those of us who have spent real dollars for exotic cables AND have achieved REAL results? Or are you going to blindly and arbitrarily deny our experiences? Can we find amusement in H, C, and R's "great marketing" as well? Or maybe, just maybe, what they have to say makes sense to reasonable people. They *all* have long technical and business experience, and can back up what they say. Can you? You are merely throwing out cute little phrases so that you, and some others, can mock these fine gentlemen. Tony, you are far short on substance.
Or maybe, just maybe, what they have to say makes sense to reasonable people.Like Dan Banquer was trying to say, they do not make sense to any engineers that I know, and I know many since I am one. And I would classify most of them as very reasonable people.
which engineers of successful audio equipment you know (or specifically know their position). I'm not particularly interested in those who design military radar.Lessee here. I'll mention a few I either have met or know of who make quite respectible components at the top of the food chain who would disagree with your assertions:
Luke Manley - VTL Labs
David Wilson - Wilson Audio
Carl Marchisotto - Alon
Jud Barber - Joule Electra
Warren Gehl - Audio ResearchI'm sure if you were to query the industry, you would find far more engineers of stellar equipment who don't buy the zip cord=nirvana deal.
I have had email conversations with engineers from Texas Instruments (DAC engineer), Toshiba (Toslink interface designer) and Bryston (amp designer).There are also a host of other audio engineers, like John Dunlavy and Bob Pease to name two of the more popular, whose names come up here once and awhile and are promptly discredited because of their opinions on exotic cables. So if you took out any engineers who design exotic cables, I believe there would still only be a very small percentage that would advise anyone to spend hundreds on fancy cabling.
I'm not particularly interested in those who design military radar.
Perhaps you feel this way because you have confirmation bias. That is a tendency to dismiss evidence contrary to your beliefs and seek out and prop up affirmations.
And BTW, does this mean you would not believe somebody like Jon Risch if he gave you his opinion about radar performance?
You are almost saying that some audio engineers have a special knowledge that regular (e.g. a radar) engineers do not possess. And not only do they not possess this special knowledge, they can't comprehend it when explained.
You're taking a small portion of audio engineers who tell you things you like to hear, and putting them on a pedastal. Sad, really. After awhile, they start talking down to people.
I'll ask it again for clarity:Please tell us which engineers of successful audio equipment you know (or specifically know their position).
TI does not make any audio equipment that I am aware of. I'm not talking about parts designers who never work on finished product. Toshiba makes mid-fi DVD players. In case you're not aware, Dunlavy is out of business. See attached link for the bad news. As for Bob Pease, I'm not aware of what successful audio equipment he has designed. Do enlighten me.
Ok, so you've got one response with Bryston. Only one? By all means, keep going.
You are almost saying that some audio engineers have a special knowledge that regular (e.g. a radar) engineers do not possess. And not only do they not possess this special knowledge, they can't comprehend it when explained.
Next time you have a loved one with heart difficulties, I can recommend a great podiatrist for them to go to. Why go to a cardiologist since both are medical doctors, right?
You're taking a small portion of audio engineers who tell you things you like to hear, and putting them on a pedastal. Sad, really. After awhile, they start talking down to people.
What I am doing is pointing out that the long term successful designers of the best sounding audio gear dismiss your simplistic view of audio.
rw
Please tell us which engineers of successful audio equipment you know (or specifically know their position).Are these the only people who have valid opinions? I see by your wording now and by your mentioning of John Dunlavy (like his opinion is not non-admissable because he is no longer in business, sheesh!) that you wish to narrow the field of opinion to a group that happens to mostly share your opinion.
That's a weak approach to this discussion.
Why go to a cardiologist since both are medical doctors, right?
Are you in a profession of some sort? Medicine, law, engineering? You do realize that both a cardiologist and a podiatrist have had years of common schooling? That's why a podiatrist can understand a cardiologist much better than you or I when he is describing some new techique or techology in heart medicine. And a podiatrist is in a much better position to be skeptical or question something a cardiologist claims.
What I am doing is pointing out that the long term successful designers of the best sounding audio gear dismiss your simplistic view of audio.
That's pretty arrogant. Simplistic views? Confirmation bias. Really, look it up and understand how it works.
...you wish to narrow the field of opinion to a group that happens to mostly share your opinion.With literally hundreds, if not thousands of audio products around, why not focus on the designers of the best equipment (like your Bryston) and not mid-fi stuff like a $200 Toshiba player.
Are you in a profession of some sort?
I am a computer software engineer. A better example, however, would be my wife. She is a PharmD. (Doctor of Pharmacy) Since she went the clinical route with her career, she works every day in a hospital setting. Doctors regularly request consults for pharmaceutical advice. Their knowledge base is shockingly weak in this regard. Didn't they take that stuff in school? Yes, according to one of her brothers who is a Doc, they got two full quarters of it. The field of medicine is so broad, that specialization is the norm. Even with my wife whose specialty is pharmaceuticals, she has a sub-specialty in cardiovascular drugs. You have a question about heart related drugs, she is an expert. On the other hand, if she were asked for a definitive ruling on a psych drug, she would talk to her friend Sarah because that is her specialty.
Sure, all engineers get the basics. My Doc brother-in-law got his two quarters on pharmaceuticals. Why stop there? Why not consult a source who spends all their time in the specialty of high resolution music reproduction?
Ok, maybe Dunlavy is just inept at business.
Sorry folks, I have to say something. Successful audio designers find that we have to allow the 'non-proven' concepts into our design, because they work. I, personally try to 'prove' or measure 'non-proven' concepts if I can. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't. For example, I still can't prove what Bybee devices do with my existing test equipment. I have tried. Yet, I know that they work for me, because I can hear the difference, and first heard the difference, without knowing Jack Bybee. Now I know the man, (we went to lunch together this week) and I know that he is on track. So do many people in other fields who hire him as a consultant. To ignore what works is not very efficient.
> > So if you took out any engineers who design exotic cables, I believe there would still only be a very small percentage that would advise anyone to spend hundreds on fancy cabling.A non sequitur?
If an engineer designs exotic cables, aren't they fancy?
As matter of fact I do enjoy their postings when it is not cable related. But when it comes to cables, most tend to advocate cable's signature which is going against the concept of engineering.A [cable] engineer suppose to and should aim for achieving non cable signature (transparency). So any engineer who recommending a cable based on their signature is going against that principle :)
...most tend to advocate cable's signature which is going against the concept of engineering.
Jon said:"I am saying that different 1M cables will sound different, and have a different sonic signature."Given that all of 1M ICs in question meet minimum specifications (adequate shielding, low capacitance, inductance, resistance and quality construction and connections), there is no basis for such a statement unless one believe that changes in quantum [physics] level are audible. Even if your ear is capable of distinguishing such a minute changes, but your audio components and speaker won't be.
...there is no basis for such a statement unless one believe that changes in quantum [physics] level are audible.Maybe sometime you will have the good fortune to hear a system capable of discerning such differences. Changes in quantum physics unnecessary.
Even if your ear is capable of distinguishing such a minute changes, but your audio components and speaker won't be.
What is the basis for your comment?
Of audiophiles, musiclovers, etc. or to be more precise, those people who care enough to get something other than a Bose Wave radio, the vast majority have heard for themselves what audio cables can do, and treat them as the component that they are.They have the experience, and the sheer time listening to their system after various component upgrades, to have some trust in what they hear over the long term. They KNOW that cables matter, and can be heard as less than perfect. You have to chose which version of imperfection bothers you the least.
Folks like the (cable) naysayers at AR are the very small minority. They are just very vocal about their denial.
You mention that you believe that the speakers and amps limit what could be heard due to cable sonic variations.
However, this is the same flawed logic that is applied to amps and CDPs. Some folks like Dan B. claim that due to the levels of distortion in speaker systems( which often can run from 0.1% in the midrange for an electrostatic panel, to tens of % for cheap white-van speakers, and typically run from 0.5% to several percent for mainstream hi-fi speakers), that this means that any levels of distortion lower than that are going to be indistinguishable from one another.
Yet despite this seemingly reasonable logic, many folks can hear PAST the speaker distortions, and discern sonic differences between power amps with similar specs (by specs, I a refering to the very simplistic THD, S?N, and FR that is often claimed to be sufficient by many of the naysayers). Same for CDP's. If the premise is true that the speakers will mask anything lower than what they produce themselves, then we should not be able to tell the difference between a Mark Levinson and a RS portable CDP. But the vast majority of folks can hear the differences, quite readily, over loudspeakers with distortions tha may be 10 to 100 times as high.
So the whole idea that cable distortions are inaudible, due to this kind of reasoning, is just not going to cut it for the vast majority of experienced audiophiles and musiclovers, not to mention the successfull high end audio designers, who take great pains to voice their products to a point that satifies THEIR sonic requirements, sometimes going contrary to the THD meter BECAUSE THATS WHAT SOUNDS RIGHT TO THEM.
Until you gain some of this kind of listening experience, none of this will make sense when you continue to 'listen with your EE textbook' instead of your heart.
Of audiophiles, musiclovers, etc. or to be more precise, those people who care enough to get something other than a Bose Wave radio, the vast majority have heard for themselves what audio cables can do, and treat them as the component that they are.They have the experience, and the sheer time listening to their system after various component upgrades, to have some trust in what they hear over the long term. They KNOW that cables matter, and can be heard as less than perfect. You have to chose which version of imperfection bothers you the least.
Yet the same thing can be said with regard to such things as placing photographs of yourself in your freezer and the many other tweaks that have been offered by Peter Belt for quite a few years now.
That's not to say that cables can't make a difference. I'm just curious why it's automatically assumed that they actually do just because people perceive differences with different cables. Using that line of reasoning, one would also have to assume that placing photographs of yourself in the freezer actually does make a difference.
Folks like the (cable) naysayers at AR are the very small minority. They are just very vocal about their denial.
They've hardly cornered the market on denial. The "yeasayers" are also in a state of denial. When do you ever see a "yeasayer" acknowledge the fact that our subjective perceptions are not always unerring reflections of the physical reality? The only time you ever see it acknowledge is when it's immediately followed by their insistance that being human is a disease that only afflicts others and that they're immune.
Y'all are just flip sides of the same coin. Theists on the one side and atheists on the other. Both clinging to their dogma and both clinging to their denial.
So the whole idea that cable distortions are inaudible, due to this kind of reasoning, is just not going to cut it for the vast majority of experienced audiophiles and musiclovers, not to mention the successfull high end audio designers, who take great pains to voice their products to a point that satifies THEIR sonic requirements, sometimes going contrary to the THD meter BECAUSE THATS WHAT SOUNDS RIGHT TO THEM.
But God forbid they should dare recommend to others anything that's contrary to the THD meter. They'd have you swooping down on them questioning their experience, their equipment, their hearing, etc. and generally discouraging anyone else from trying it for themselves.
se
My post was a reply to Tony.He seems more content patting you on the back that answering any of my points.
I am not going to even attempt to address your twisted and bizarre logic used to try and make your post seem reasonable.
I am not going to even attempt to address your twisted and bizarre logic used to try and make your post seem reasonable.Same ol' song and dance. You can't show where the logic's twisted so you write it off as twisted logic and hope people actually fall for it like some cheap magician's trick.
se
He's nuts, JR! ;-)
He's nuts, JR! ;-)You know, if you tried just a bit harder, I'm sure you could get your nose just a bit farther up Jon's ass. Would you like some help?
se
He said:"...not to mention the successful high end audio designers, who take great pains to voice their products to a point that satisfies THEIR sonic requirements, sometimes going contrary to the THD meter BECAUSE THATS WHAT SOUNDS RIGHT TO THEM."So what he is saying is that high end audio designers rather sacrifice performance (low THD and distortion) over sonic quality if it sound better to them. I would call such a designer an artist rather than audio engineer.
If we choose sonic quality over performance and specifications, then one will never hear the "true" sound of music that was meant to be heard. Rather, you will hear music as an interpretation of somebody else's (designer) senses, and for all we know, the designer might be deaf in one ear and can't hear out the other
So what he is saying is that high end audio designers rather sacrifice performance (low THD and distortion) over sonic quality if it sound better to them. I would call such a designer an artist rather than audio engineer.Why's that? How does being an artist somehow preclude one from being an engineer? What is an engineer but one who uses their knowledge and skill to design something to suit a particular purpose? Why should an engineer be any less an engineer just because the particular purpose in question is ultimately one's own subjective satisfaction? Where is it carved in stone that engineering is to serve purely utilitarian, objective goals?
Take a look at something like the Brooklyn Bridge. While it serves as a bridge, it also has an aesthetic. Would you say that James Roebling was an artist and not an engineer?
If we choose sonic quality over performance and specifications, then one will never hear the "true" sound of music that was meant to be heard. Rather, you will hear music as an interpretation of somebody else's (designer) senses, and for all we know, the designer might be deaf in one ear and can't hear out the other
But it's pretty much ALL subjective when you get right down to it. From the instrument maker, to the musician, to the conductor, to the producer, the recording engineer, to the mastering engineer, etc.
You have the subjective fingerprints of everyone involved in the process all the way down the line. Why should the audio designer or the end user be left out? Why should there be subjectivity all down the line but the designer and the end user are expected to be slaves to some objective goal which will not necessarily result in the best subjective pleasure in the end?
Why should designing toward subjective pleasure be any less laudable than designing toward objective perfection? What else possibly matters at the end of the day but our own subjective pleasure? Does our audio equipment serve us, or do we serve it?
se
The Brooklyn Bridge was an excellent example. I am sure you will agree that the designer of bridge did not sacrify any of the bridge's "required" specification to achieve artistic nirvana. For example, he could have not said that the anchor and its column in the middle of bridge (that support it) does not look good , so it should be removed. so unless he can come up with another scheme to hold up the [middle] weight of the bride, they stay where they are even they look too ugly.The same concept can be applied to audio component design also. You got to achieve minimum requirement for performance (S/N ratio, Distortion and THD, power, bandwidth, etc..) before subjective evaluation even can be mentioned.
For example, if you look at some tube amplifiers, they have excess of 3% THD which mean some of amplifier frequency responses have been hyped up (or down) intentionally. Although the amplifier might sound outstanding on some recordings due to its frequency alteration, but what would happen if by chance we play a recording that have the same exact equalization as the amp do? You will hear double of everything and the recording will probably sound like crap.
So it is always best (and will get most consistent result) if human factor are left out of audio design chain. At least this way, if a recording sound like crap, you can blame it on the artist rather than your system :)
The same concept can be applied to audio component design also. You got to achieve minimum requirement for performance (S/N ratio, Distortion and THD, power, bandwidth, etc..) before subjective evaluation even can be mentioned.And how exactly will you know when you've achieved that minimum requirement of performence unless you listen for yourself?
For example, if you look at some tube amplifiers, they have excess of 3% THD which mean some of amplifier frequency responses have been hyped up (or down) intentionally. Although the amplifier might sound outstanding on some recordings due to its frequency alteration, but what would happen if by chance we play a recording that have the same exact equalization as the amp do? You will hear double of everything and the recording will probably sound like crap.
But if it had the same equalization as the tube amp, then why would it necessarily sound better on a more objectively perfect amp?
So it is always best (and will get most consistent result) if human factor are left out of audio design chain.
What absolute bullshit!
The enjoyment of music is PURELY A HUMAN EXPERIENCE! Why would you take the human factor out of the design chain?
Christ, you're no different than Jon in your intolerance of individuality and diversity. You both want to create some single-minded Borg collective.
Screw that. That's not a world I want to live in.
se
Given that most amplifiers have their input terminals close to their output terminals, the mutual inductance of speaker and interconnect cables may create a significant extra global feedback path. The magnitude and sign of the net feedback depends on internal cable geometries as well as how they are dressed in the audio system (and may be enhanced by such things as steel rack frames, etc., or suppressed by low amplifier input impedance). The amplifier response to this feedback depends on the details of the amplifier circuit.Jon's statement represents the experience of many audio enthusiasts. I believe your statement leaves out an important variable in the category of "one-meter interconnect cables." Even if they have similar resistance and self-inductance, variations in design geometry will cause variations in mutual inductance in particular systems, and results in one system would not predict results in another.
...that the operative word is "minimum". Leaves a lot of room for doubt.
Everybody has made good suggestions, both to content and the renaming of this forum. I don't have a problem with Prop Head Plaza as I think the name is delightfully tongue-in-cheek, and everybody who posts here knows that it's a technical forum.As to a forum name, I will volunteer a name used years ago in the local audiophile society's technical group, which I developed and hosted. I called it the Technical Roundtable......simple, and unambiguous. And it's not copyrighted. :--)
a
I don't have a problem with Prop Head Plaza as I think the name is delightfully tongue-in-cheek, and everybody who posts here knows that it's a technical forum.I agree. Odd that no one seems to have a problem with this place being called Audio Asylum, that its members are referred to as inmates who go through admissions and are overseen by the Bored of Lunatics.
se
nt.
Hello Rod,Thanks for hosting this space. Thanks also for your suggestions, which I think are well-founded.
If I could, I'd like to make another suggestion. You may recall how contentious the "High-Resolution" digital forum got for a while -- mostly just the SACD camp and the DVD-A camp bashing each other. The ultimate solution (that seems to have worked quite well, as far as I can tell) was to split it into two forums, one for each group.
Would it be possible to do the same thing here? That is, could we have separate forums for people that believe measurements explain everything (except for possible self-delusion), and a separate forum for people that either go by what they hear or try and correlate theories with what they hear?
If you were to do that, I think all of the current problems would be instantly solved. All that would be required would be a rule for each forum. The "yea-sayers" forum would forbid any criticism of subjective observations, and the "nay-sayers" forum would forbid any discussion of subjective observations. Any transgressions could be moved to "a more appropriate venue" as is done with the "Whiner's Woad" currently.
Nothing would make me happier than having a place to discuss ideas with like-minded individuals. The way it is now, things are headed to the same irrelavancy that befell RAO.
Thanks for your consideration,
Charles Hansen
...the "nay-sayers" forum would forbid any discussion of subjective observations.That's non-sensical. As a scientist, I would want to correlate theory (e.g. materials, construction, measurements, shielding, etc.) with blind subjective listening tests.
Further, I would like to learn a lot more about how we perceive sound, how we subjectively describe it, how our hearing works and what other inputs can affect subjective listening assessments.
Who are these naysayers that do not want subjective observations as part of rational discussion on audio?
As a scientist, you've already discounted any subjective input.Once you enter the DBT realm, then you have your correlation. I dare say that all naysayers refute any individual subjective input.
They also deny all subjective input unless it can leap a huge hurdle of X users and 95% confidence.
Subjective tests are quite important. The people who designed the MP3 codec used a carefully prepared double-blind test methodology (they were colleagues of Dr. Floyd Toole. Who says us Canadians cannot kick engineering ass?). Subjective assessments in carefully controlled conditions were key to developing those algorithms.I just don't understand why this testing could not be applied to cables to determine sonic differences. And to answer my own question, perhaps it is because the results would benefit no one.
This is not brain or heart surgery we're involved with, but a path to musical pleasure. An endeavor to lift the spirit. The path of discovery has enough obstacles. Having bystanders on the side of that road jeering and mocking creates unnecessary negativity. Of course, they of the Flat Earth Society *always* know better.
This is not brain or heart surgery we're involved with, but a path to musical pleasure. An endeavor to lift the spirit. The path of discovery has enough obstacles. Having bystanders on the side of that road jeering and mocking creates unnecessary negativity.Sure. But when one veers off the path of musical pleasure and onto the path of objectivity, the rules of the road are much different. And if one chooses to veer onto the path of objectivity, they ought not get their panties in a bunch when they're held to objective standards.
The problem as I see it is that there are some who wish to get onto the path of objectivity yet expect their objective claims to be as sacrosanct and beyond question or challenge as their subjective experiences.
Can't have it both ways.
If you don't wish to be questioned or challenged, stick to the subjective path. If anyone questions or challenges you there, then the person doing the questioning and challenging is out of line. If you choose to go down the objective path, you should expect and even welcome questioning and challenging of your claims. That's how we get at the truth and separate the wheat from the chaff. Furthermore, you should be prepared to substantiate your claims with objective evidence.
Why does this seem so unreasonable to some?
Another thing I don't understand is why some people get their panties in a bunch just because someone expresses a lack of belief when it comes to actual audible differences? To see the responses from some, you'd think someone had said nasty things about their mothers. If one is confident in their particular beliefs, why would they become defensive simply because someone else believes differently? What is there to take offense of?
se
But when one veers off the path of musical pleasure and onto the path of objectivity, the rules of the road are much different. And if one chooses to veer onto the path of objectivity, they ought not get their panties in a bunch when they're held to objective standards.Fine and dandy about the "rules" being different. There is still no excuse nor reason for some in either camp to be rude and discourteous to others, and especially to jeer, heckle, or mock. None of that perjorative behaviour contributes to our pursuit of knowledge. In fact, just the opposite....such behaviour is a discouragement to meaningful discussion, as has been shown repeatedly on these and other forums. And some of the brighter minds have simply left the building. We are all the sorrier for it.
There is a wonderful (IMO) expression I once saw at a martial arts school......"leave your ego at the door". This applies as well on these forums, and is exactly why some get their "knickers in a twist" over various comments. Ego, vested interest, and emotional investment (in our dearly-held beliefs) are behind each and every one of the slights suffered from insensitive and caustic comments from rude and discourteous individuals. As has been said many times before, it's so easy to hide behind a computer monitor.
Fine and dandy about the "rules" being different. There is still no excuse nor reason for some in either camp to be rude and discourteous to others, and especially to jeer, heckle, or mock. None of that perjorative behaviour contributes to our pursuit of knowledge. In fact, just the opposite....such behaviour is a discouragement to meaningful discussion, as has been shown repeatedly on these and other forums. And some of the brighter minds have simply left the building. We are all the sorrier for it.I get your point. And I agree.
The point I was making is how can we possibly achieve the goals you speak of as long as there are those who view any sort of questioning, challenging or even simple disagreement as nothing short of a personal attack? As long as there's such an intolerance of any sort of questioning or disagreement, I don't see there being any hope of achieving those goals.
se
I really wouldn't care what the rules for the "nay-sayers" forum would be. I personally wouldn't be interested in participating in that one, so from my perspective the "nay-sayers" could do whatever they pleased.The idea behind a separate "yea-sayers" forum would be to discuss correlations between observations and measurements without having 90% of the posts simply be challenging the validity of the observations, that's all.
That's a pure waste of time for everyone involved. I know that the "nay-sayers" will never convince me that my observations are invalid, and I'm not particularly interested in convincing the "nay-sayers" that my observations are valid.
So instead of wasting everyone's time and energy (and bandwidth) on that type of "discussion", I think it would be more productive to just split into two forums.
I would have to agree. I for one find this forum potentially interesting. Unfortunately my forays into it are quickly deflected by a couple of insistant posters who contribute nothing but pointless argument. They must have very boring lives. I don't have time for it, myself. Perhaps one forum could be for those who delight in disputing, usually those types aren't too hung up on what they are negating...Monstrous if you ask me...
The "yea-sayers" forum would forbid any criticism of subjective observations, and the "nay-sayers" forum would forbid any discussion of subjective observations.And what forum will be added for those of us who haven't any particular dogmatic beliefs and are neither "yeasayers" nor "naysayers"?
We've already enough problems with divisiveness, why add to it?
What's wrong with simply prohibiting the criticism of subjective experiences period? There's simply nothing one can rightfully question or challenge with regard to subjective experiences unless the person sharing their subjective experiences isn't content to stick to sharing their subjective experiences and opts to cross over the line and make objective claims in which case those claims should be as open to question or challenge as any other objective claim.
se
nt
Humor anyone?
Audio Asylum® Signature line: Hearing is believing.
Rod, I notice that the other forums have literal (rather than humorous) names. So why single us out for humor? Because we're nerds? We already know that.To be consistent with the other forum names we should be called "Circuit Theory", or simply "Theory". I know some here will object, complaining most of our talk is not theory but opinion, or observation, or second-party hypnosis. But our talk is (at its best) more than engineering, more than physics, and more than observation--it is all three and then some, and that's what I like about this forum. We correlate sound with circuit theory.
I would argue that there's really no need for this forum in the first place, making its name irrelevant. Technical discussions had always taken place on all the other forums and still do. This forum was created in a rather awkward attempt to deal with the equally awkward DBT-Free Zone policy of Cable Asylum.The DBT-Free Zone policy allows certain objective claims (i.e. objective claims relating to actual audibility) to be made while prohibiting those claims from being questioned or challenged without violating the DBT-Free Zone rule.
I've always felt that if objective claims are allowed to be made, they should be open to question or challenge. Otherwise, don't allow the objective claims to be made in the first place.
Prop Heads was created as a forum where cables could be discussed without the DBT prohibition. But because there's little if any discussion of DBTs here, and because technical discussions continue to take place on the other forums, it's largely just been relegated as something of a backwater forum (it's not even listed on the main page).
The DBT-Free Zone policy was intended to deal with two basic problems; one, to avoid the endless and unproductive DBT debates that have raged for decades and two, to allow people to share their subjective experiences without constantly being harrassed to provide objective proof of those subjective experiences.
I agree with both of those goals. I don't agree that the DBT-Free Zone policy as implemented is the best way to deal with it and I also don't agree that Prop Heads is the best way to deal with inadequacies of the DBT-Free Zone policy as implemented.
I've always felt that the best way to deal with these issues is to prohibit objective claims with regard to actual audibility as well as prohibit the challenging of peoples' subjective experiences by demanding objective proof of those subjective experiences (i.e. double-blind testing).
If no one is allowed to make any objective claims regarding actual audibility, there's nothing to challenge with regard to double-blind testing and if anyone challenges someone's subjective experiences by demanding objective proof, that person is out of line because there's simply no questioning or challenging the subjective experiences of another.
Then we can just forget about a separate technical forum and arguing over what it should be named and allow things to continue as they have been with technical discussions taking place in those forums which are most germane to what's being discussed.
se
Hmmm... How easily you forget Jon Risch's (shhh!!) four-part series and the quite lengthy response threads.
Hmmm... How easily you forget Jon Risch's (shhh!!) four-part series and the quite lengthy response threads.Ah, that's right. That was just before jj bailed wasn't it?
So scratch the "if any." It's still a drop in the bucket. Fact remains that Prop Heads is marginalized because technical discussions still routinely take place in the other forums, including Cable Asylum and I really don't see much point in it.
se
"While some might prefer that style, I find that many others are put off by it."I think a "flame forum" would be the ultimate solution. I think personal exchanges are almost unavoidable on any technical forum.
"If you have suggestions, post them."
Slide Rule Central
Engineers Asylum
Tech Trail
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: