|
Tweakers' Asylum Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ. |
|
|
|
Tweakers' Asylum Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ. |
|
In Reply to: How about this: posted by Jon Risch on February 9, 2011 at 21:54:51:
[quote] "In other words, keep the two sorts of discussion separate—have an "experience based forum" and an "evidence based forum". If you post in the first you're saying "I don't want to discuss issues of proof and evidence, I just want to discuss what I experienced". If you post in the second forum you're saying "OK, let's argue the evidence for these claims". In my view those are 2 different but equally legitimate sorts of discussion. Posters should be able to choose which sort of discussion they want to take part in, and be able to do so without the kind of discussion they want to have being taken over by those who want to have the other sort of discussion. Anyone who wants to take part in both can also do so if they wish, and anyone who chooses to discuss their personal experiences in the evidence based forum is saying that they're prepared to deal with demands for proof to back up whatever they say their experience was.
That seems the fairest way of going about things to me." [/quote]
That is a nice idea put forward by David Aiken, coupled with yours - if only !!
[quote] "Conjecture about what causes a particular sound is assumed to be just that, conjecture. If not specifically stated to be conjecture is is automatically assumed to be. No challenges or confrontation will be allowed over such conjecture.
Demands for proof of any such conjecture will not be allowed." [/quote]
I would suggest that conjecture should be able to be challenged but no DEMANDS for PROOF of the conjecture allowed. A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but appears correct and has not been disproved. (to quote Karl Popper).
One problem is that in a discussion on an "experience based forum", people are wont to say "I tried it 'the tweak' and heard an improvement - but Why, How ?" Meaning that they would like some sort of understanding of what might be going on !!
Discussion threads CAN be 'ground to a halt' - by people bent on mischief - even by them merely being flippant constantly when others are trying to seriously discuss the subject. And, also WHY ELSE would insistence on proof from DB Trials be actually banned from the Cable Asylum section ??
To quote from the Cable Asylum:-
[quote] " Posting Rules at Asylum DBT Free Zones
*Pro-DBT posts are not allowed.
* Anti-DBT posts are also not allowed.
Why are DBT discussions not allowed?
Quite simply, the reason is that these topics rarely spark a productive exchange. While a vast majority of Asylum inmates are firmly in the middle ground, the topics of DBT and ABX tend to force polarization and quickly degrade into death spiraling flame wars. [/quote]
***************
So, it is obvious to many people that 'threads' CAN BE derailed by certain individuals. !!!!!!
THEN, what happens is that WHOLE chunks of a discussion can be deleted - the proverbial baby let out with the bathwater !!!!
I am glad to see that caspian@peak.org has come back into the discussion again because I would like to use one of 'caspian's' recent replies as an example.
'Caspian's' reply to one of John C's postings was a good reply. Quite a bit of thought and energy had obviously gone into 'caspian's' response. I replied to 'caspian' (just before going to bed that night) saying as much and (I think) tried to emphasise that designing and manufacturing Hi Fi equipment is not straightforward by any means !!
The following morning, on checking what were the latest comments, I found that 'caspian's' response (referred to earlier) was missing and therefore, obviously any responses which came after it. !!! So, someone must have posted a disruptive response so that a whole chunk was deleted, including 'caspian's' well thought out response !!
I have just a small section of that particular response by 'caspian' - and you will see (as an example of what I mean) how a good, well thought out response just 'went out with the bathwater'. Completely unnecessarily.
Original quote from 'caspian' :-
[quote] "BUT you have then established that a particular modification DOES work. You have probably also, in the process, established that a number of other modifications do NOT work. So, you have assembled a body of empirical data as to what does and does not work.
This is not "yet" engineering, but it certainly qualifies as research, upon which hypotheses may be founded as to WHY certain things do, or do not work. Next stage in the scientific method is the testing of these hypotheses for replicability. Only then, when you can predictably replicate particular aspects of performance with particular parts complements, board layouts, or whatever, does it become engineering.
Most of the history of science is the history of negative results. Edison tried something like 90 different filament materials for his incandescent bulb, before arriving at tungsten which worked the best. He said something like: "I did not have 90 failures. I learned about 90 materials that did not work in this application." [/quote]
The problem with having completely separate sections is that so much of audio and what can affect 'sound' ARE 'linked' by both subjective experiences and also, some of the time, by conventional electronic and acoustic theories.
However, I will give two examples of other (what I would call disruptive) responses.
Within one of Unclestu's 'tweak' suggestions one of the responders (SE) said:-
[quote] "Today, "tweaking" has more and more become what I feel is a symptom of an underlying mental illness, as people do battle with all manner of invisible demons," [/quote]
Now, Jon R and Rod M, either you regard such a response as coming under the umbrella of "freedom of speech" or you see it as 'disruptive' within the thread. It even ceases to be merely "challenging someone's conventional explanations" !!!
In my opinion, it is also an insult to the people who have enjoyed improvements in their sound from applying various 'tweaks' over the past 30 years - including the many people who are ALSO competent engineers, fully conversant with conventional electronic and acoustic theories forwards, backwards, sideways and upside down but yet can hear similar improvements from similar 'tweaks'. Just because someone else who has not even tried the techniques mentioned yet challenges others experiences does not mean that the techniques do NOT work as described. Yet they chose to 'diss' others observations by referring to their 'tweaks' and experiences as "a symptom of an underlying mental illness" !!!!!!!
THAT is why the comments quoted are disruptive !!
The comment I have quoted was not just to ONE thread or to ONE single participant. The same response occurred elsewhere concerning a different subject.
Jason Victor Serinus was covering the January Hi Fi show in 2011 for Stereophile and reported on (for example) the Stein Music Harmonizers.
The following comment on Stereophile was :-
[quote] "Nah. It's just another dalliance brought forth by the mentally ill for the mentally ill and which does nothing more than saddle this industry with yet further embarrassment.
That Stereophile of all publications should brand it as "intriguing" in their show report is truly sad." [/quote]
Are such comments disruptive or not ???
[quote] "Folks demanding such proof can (and will be) banned at the Moderator's discretion, even for just one such demand. Zero tolerance policy." [/quote]
The quotes re "a symptom of an underlying mental illness" I have given as examples of disruptive responses would not come under the umbrella of "demanding proof", so would such comments trigger banning ??? Would they trigger a Zero Tolerance policy ??
Surely those comments point to a serious and ingrained aversion to 'tweaks' - whereas, as many will testify, various 'tweaks' have given them many improvements in the sound and therefore in their pleasure in listening to music. SURELY that is what it is all about ??
Surely this is what "Tweakers Asylum" is all about and why people wish to participate ?
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: How about this: - May Belt 15:05:46 02/10/11 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]