|
Home
/ FAQ
/ News Classifieds / Events |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer |
Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
130.149.86.77
In Reply to: RE: Non-believers get excommunicated from the cable asylum posted by JimOfOakCreek on June 23, 2009 at 12:05:02
> But the policies in Cable Asylum are not healthy for the audio hobby in my opinion. Opinions
> given openly but in a civilized maner are what's healthy.
I would disagree. If you want to create a forum where a group of believers in something want to chat to each other in a comfortable environment then it is quite sensible to adopt rules to keep out nonbelievers. Even more so when those beliefs cannot be supported by rational arguments which would inevitably lead to unresolvable conflict and discomfort.
Open debate really only works if people either sign up for the same set of beliefs or recognise they hold different sets of beliefs.
"If you want to create a forum where a group of believers in something want to chat to each other in a comfortable environment then it is quite sensible to adopt rules to keep out nonbelievers."
The problem isn't belief or non-belief..... The problem is instigating flames, accompanied by a zero-tolerance policy. (I personally don't agree with the "zero-tolerance policy", but for another discussion.) For if you notice, the so-called "non-believers" almost **never** exchange ideas that are totally removed from denigrating the so-called "believers."
"Even more so when those beliefs cannot be supported by rational arguments which would inevitably lead to unresolvable conflict and discomfort."
This is why the problem is instigating flames. If someone wants to believe the presence of UFOs improves turntable performance, who cares!!! (The worst anybody should do is respond with kind disagreement.)
"Open debate really only works if people either sign up for the same set of beliefs or recognise they hold different sets of beliefs."
The real litmus test is the so-called "non-believers" stating a valid point in regard to **why** audiophile behavior ought be questioned. I've yet to see one stated, and I don't expect to see one stated. For bullying audiophiles, and that alone, is the sole motivation, in my humble opinion. (I only go along with it at times because the bullying doesn't bother me personally. But I do find such activity troubling because it does create a false and damaging perception of high-end audio from the mainstream. It has also enabled the marketing of products of questionable design, because audiophile feedback is no longer taken seriously.)
> The problem isn't belief or non-belief.....
Almost all the problems audiophiles have in dealing with nonaudiophiles derives from their belief that expensive audiophile hardware possesses magical properties.
> The problem is instigating flames, accompanied by a zero-tolerance
> policy.
It isn't possible to instigate flames in the cable forum because the posts are removed that oppose the interests of the moderators.
> For if you notice, the so-called "non-believers" almost **never**
> exchange ideas that are totally removed from denigrating the so-called
> "believers."
You need some context here because posts from nonbelievers are removed in the cable forum. AudioAsylum is clearly a site for audiophile believers and I would agree that the motives for posts from nonbelievers are often, although not always, unhealthy.
> If someone wants to believe the presence of UFOs improves turntable
> performance, who cares!!! (The worst anybody should do is respond with
> kind disagreement.)
This depends on people interests. If they benefit from turntable owners believing in UFOs then they will encourage the believers and seek to drive off the nonbelievers. The reverse is rare because it is very difficult to benefit from people not believing UFOs improve turntable performance. Note the disproportionate funding in favour of believers over nonbelievers in home audio.
> The real litmus test is the so-called "non-believers" stating a valid
> point in regard to **why** audiophile behavior ought be questioned.
> I've yet to see one stated, and I don't expect to see one stated. For
> bullying audiophiles, and that alone, is the sole motivation, in my
> humble opinion.
Audiophiles are purchasing expensive poorly performing equipment because they believe it possesses magical properties. They are encouraged in this belief by other believers and those that benefit from these beliefs. If one can see this then an easy option is to use this knowledge directly for personal benefit by teaching, taking the p*ss, challenging the suppliers, or whatever gets the juices going. It takes a bit more tolerance to recognise that there is both good and bad in the situation particularly as audiophiles are generally fairly unattractive as individuals because of what it takes to pick up and hold audiophile beliefs.
Bullying may often have a role but not always. Is Tom bullying in the branch above in his interaction with bjh?
> But I do find such activity troubling because it does create a false
> and damaging perception of high-end audio from the mainstream.
In my experience, audiophiles have little idea how they (and the objects they desire) are viewed by the "audio literate" mainstream or even simply those with a bit of common sense like, I suspect, many of their wives. If you believe something and are closed minded in the way audiophiles have to be in order to maintain their beliefs then it is not so much a question of not seeing an alternative viewpoint as not understanding that an alternative viewpoint could exist.
> It has also enabled the marketing of products of questionable design,
> because audiophile feedback is no longer taken seriously.
Audiophile feedback into the mainstream outside the audiophile marketing sector does not exist now and has never existed since the sector first became of significance in the 70s. Again, the reason is those audiophile beliefs which are in conflict with the scientific beliefs held by the mainstream. The mainstream is only going to accept audiophile input on their scientific terms in the same way that audiophile believers only accept input on their terms.
"Almost all the problems audiophiles have in dealing with nonaudiophiles derives from their belief that expensive audiophile hardware possesses magical properties."
By this definition of an "audiophile", I'd be a "non-audiophile"......
Can you cite some examples of this on AA? I think you'd be hard pressed to find such examples. (I've seen such stereotypical activity on Stereophile, but not on AA.)
"> The problem is instigating flames, accompanied by a zero-tolerance
> policy.
It isn't possible to instigate flames in the cable forum because the posts are removed that oppose the interests of the moderators."
So you condone instigating flames??
"> For if you notice, the so-called 'non-believers' almost **never**
> exchange ideas that are totally removed from denigrating the so-called
> 'believers.'
You need some context here because posts from nonbelievers are removed in the cable forum."
I don't see, for example, so-called "non-believers" (aside from Soundmind) discussing subject matters aside from "audiophile myths"......
"AudioAsylum is clearly a site for audiophile believers and I would agree that the motives for posts from nonbelievers are often, although not always, unhealthy."
Is this an admission of guilt??
"> If someone wants to believe the presence of UFOs improves turntable
> performance, who cares!!! (The worst anybody should do is respond with
> kind disagreement.)
This depends on people interests. If they benefit from turntable owners believing in UFOs then they will encourage the believers and seek to drive off the nonbelievers."
I really think had the responses mostly been kind disagreement, rather than denigration, such urge to "drive off the non-believers" would wane, if not cease altogether.
"The reverse is rare because it is very difficult to benefit from people not believing UFOs improve turntable performance. Note the disproportionate funding in favour of believers over nonbelievers in home audio."
I'm not sure what you mean by "funding"................
"> The real litmus test is the so-called "non-believers" stating a valid
> point in regard to **why** audiophile behavior ought be questioned.
> I've yet to see one stated, and I don't expect to see one stated. For
> bullying audiophiles, and that alone, is the sole motivation, in my
> humble opinion.
Audiophiles are purchasing expensive poorly performing equipment because they believe it possesses magical properties."
Whenever audiophiles purchase expensive products, based on the sales pitch from manufacturers (provided there was no audition, which would IMO be a big mistake), they'd expect performance to improve. And in some cases, they might even be in denial over purchasing expensive equipment that happens to perform poorly. The problem is not everybody is a technical guru, and that there is a **TON** of deceiving advertising of audio products.
But unlike the so-called "non-believers", I think the problem with the advertising is not in cable products (which might be deceiving, but cannot be proven unequivocally so), but in digital audio sources and processors. Most so-called "non-believers", for example, don't even see the blatant sophistry in the sales pitches for asynchronous sample-rate conversion ("24/96" or "24/192 upsampling"), which unlike audio cable claims, can be proven as misleading. But since most audiophiles are *not* DSP experts, they fall prey to such advertising. So even there, it would be ignorant to blame the end users, who are often audiophiles.
Audiophiles behave the way they do not because they're in some sort of dream world, but because a lot of false technologies have been beset upon them, and then the lack of satisfaction in performance. (And even if they were in some sort of dream world, why should you care??) There is so much crap being passed on as "advanced technology" (in both the high-end and mainstream audio markets), it is natural for desperate consumers to buy into it hook, line, and sinker.
"They are encouraged in this belief by other believers and those that benefit from these beliefs. If one can see this then an easy option is to use this knowledge directly for personal benefit by teaching, taking the p*ss, challenging the suppliers, or whatever gets the juices going. It takes a bit more tolerance to recognise that there is both good and bad in the situation particularly as audiophiles are generally fairly unattractive as individuals because of what it takes to pick up and hold audiophile beliefs."
I don't think these "beliefs" are what you think they are. There are two sides to this story. (If I had to criticize audiophiles for anything, it's that a small portion of them let sales claims and reviews override their aural perceptions. But for another discussion.)
"Bullying may often have a role but not always. Is Tom bullying in the branch above in his interaction with bjh?"
I'm not an advocate of bullying. It should be pointed out, but not intervened upon.
"> But I do find such activity troubling because it does create a false
> and damaging perception of high-end audio from the mainstream.
In my experience, audiophiles have little idea how they (and the objects they desire) are viewed by the 'audio literate' mainstream or even simply those with a bit of common sense like, I suspect, many of their wives."
I'd trust the wives more than those in the mainstream. By a mile. But again, for another discussion.
In regard to the mainstream being "audio literate" (or even "music literate"), IMO, it's anything but. And the minds at Bose realize this better than anyone. (There are a lot of audiophiles that like to slam Bose, but I'm not one of them.)
"If you believe something and are closed minded in the way audiophiles have to be in order to maintain their beliefs then it is not so much a question of not seeing an alternative viewpoint as not understanding that an alternative viewpoint could exist."
I don't know if it's really "closed-minded"..... Whenever I see the accusation of "closed-minded", the accuser is more-often-than-not the one that's closed-minded, not the accused.
If audiophiles are anything, they're disillusioned. The bliss of recreating the live event is so hard to attain nowadays, many have actually given up.
"> It has also enabled the marketing of products of questionable design,
> because audiophile feedback is no longer taken seriously.
Audiophile feedback into the mainstream outside the audiophile marketing sector does not exist now and has never existed since the sector first became of significance in the 70s."
Agreed, but the issue is **why**......
"Again, the reason is those audiophile beliefs which are in conflict with the scientific beliefs held by the mainstream."
You really think someone at Best Buy thinks about the scientific aspects of sound reproduction more than someone at a high-end audio store?
"The mainstream is only going to accept audiophile input on their scientific terms in the same way that audiophile believers only accept input on their terms."
The mainstream doesn't really care about the scientific aspects of sound reproduction. And if you think otherwise, that belief is more looney than anything audiophiles have been accused of believing in.
> > "Almost all the problems audiophiles have in dealing with nonaudiophiles
> > derives from their belief that expensive audiophile hardware possesses
> > magical properties."
>
> By this definition of an "audiophile", I'd be a "non-audiophile"......
Not if we disagreed on what was a magic and what was not.
> So you condone instigating flames??
It depends on context and what you consider to be flames. I suspect that the majority of people that continually repeat an adopted postion over a long period of time consider themselves to be making a positive contribution even though many non-contributors or only occassional contributors would disagree.
> > "AudioAsylum is clearly a site for audiophile believers and I would agree
> > that the motives for posts from nonbelievers are often, although not always,
> > unhealthy."
>
> Is this an admission of guilt??
My interest has been in how and why audiophiles hold their beliefs. This has largely been satisfied and I now take much less of an interest. However, I have caught myself teasing audiophiles once or twice because it can be difficult to resist.
> I really think had the responses mostly been kind disagreement, rather than
> denigration, such urge to "drive off the non-believers" would wane, if not
> cease altogether.
Not at all. The supply of people that would ridicule a belief in UFOs improving turntable performance is endless. The moderators would have to implement something to bring it under control.
> I'm not sure what you mean by "funding"................
Like belief, funding is important in understanding why the home audio world is in such an extraordinary state. This site has to be funded as does all the other online sources of home audio information and the paper publications and the hardware suppliers, etc... At the expensive end of home audio, the audiophile view is successful and the scientific view unsuccessful primarily because it is difficult to get the latter to make money.
> So even there, it would be ignorant to blame the end users, who are often
> audiophiles.
The choice of what to buy and where to look for guidance lies wholly with audiophiles. They can choose to follow the free advice thrust upon them or seek out and possibly pay for more reliable advice. Not sure blame has much to do with it.
> There is so much crap being passed on as "advanced technology" (in both the
> high-end and mainstream audio markets), it is natural for desperate consumers
> to buy into it hook, line, and sinker.
It is hard to see anything desperate about deciding which expensive luxury goods to purchase.
> I don't know if it's really "closed-minded"..... Whenever I see the accusation
> of "closed-minded", the accuser is more-often-than-not the one that's closed-
> minded, not the accused.
Indeed but this is not always the case. Sometimes people are simply stating the blindingly obvious.
> The bliss of recreating the live event is so hard to attain nowadays, many
> have actually given up.
What is required to recreate the sound of a live event is straightforward and has been fully understood for a very long time because sound is linear. Also, anyone with even the slightest understanding of the information contained in a stereo signal knows it is insufficient to recreate the sound field of a live event.
> The mainstream doesn't really care about the scientific aspects of sound
> reproduction.
The mainstream cares about the results of the application of science to sound which is why consumer audio and pro audio deliver sound good enough to do the job so cheaply.
"Almost all the problems audiophiles have in dealing with nonaudiophiles derives from their belief that expensive audiophile hardware possesses magical properties."
I do not use any expensive audiophile hardware, nor do I believe that it has magical properties. It has been over a decade since I have purchased any expensive audiophile hardware and I am not presently using a single such component.
How do you account for the fact that I have problems dealing with nonaudiophiles, such as those to be found in many of the active threads on this forum?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> I do not use any expensive audiophile hardware, nor do I believe that it
> has magical properties.
It would be rather unusual in this day and age if an audiophile considered themselves to believe in magic given it's poor status. Possibly one or two of Geoff or May's customers?
> How do you account for the fact that I have problems dealing with
> nonaudiophiles, such as those to be found in many of the active threads
> on this forum?
You would have to be more specific.
If it is any comfort, nonaudiophile forums can also suffer from problems with anti-audiophile posts. The Hydrogen Audio site is currently suffering from an epidemic of this and the moderators and regulars have so far taken little action to deal with it apart from a few posts of complaint. The effect of these on people as full of themselves as JJ and Arnold B. Krueger is probably not difficult to imagine for the posters here. It will be interesting to see how it pans out because if this type of post is not held down to a low level it will drive nonaudiophiles away in the same way Peter Aczel's excessive anti-audiophile posts drove nonaudiophiles away.
You have demonstrated all of Todd's points with great aplomb.
Good job!
Rick
> ...audiophiles are generally fairly unattractive as individuals... <
THIS was the absolute funniest thing I've ever read here! This from a self-proclaimed uberintelligent... smarter than anyone here... who knows it all and blindly pushes his own POV in the face of everyone who has more experience and a guy who believes "good enough" is the ultimate because that's what "the mainstream" believes!
Yeah, that's exactly the kind of guy the chicks all dig and the whole world wants to party with. ROTFLMAO! I shall never again fail to read his posts. Who says a grown man can't cry? I was wiping away tears of laughter! Oh, my word... can't stop laughing! I got grapefruit juice all over my keyboard! Andy, the comedian... LMAO! :)
.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Go Green ]
[ Take5 ]