Cyclic debates and moderation

[busb]

Hi
Surely this issue whether or not to allow such contentious debates is far more resolvable than the debates themselves.
Firstly, why do members moan that a particular thread's topic has already been done to death then not just bale out? Why not ignore such threads after one post?
A possible solution would be to have a separate section for debating subjects such as cable fidelity/directionality, whether or not similarly measured equipment sounds equally similar, if DB ABX testing actually works or not & other objectivist v subjectivist issues.

 

[Plutox]

My tuppence worth: one of the problems is that of over-simplification.

...any thread that wants to discuss how a piece of equipment sounds is almost immediately turned into a "Robert, serge and Teddyray say no difference can exist" thread

Unless I'm very much mistaken, none of the above-named have ever asserted such a thing, but the casual accusation that "they say no difference exists" appears to be the root cause of a lot of the disharmony.

The science of audio is complex and largely multi-dimensional. Understanding thereof is clearly not for everybody - nor are the "science" camp necessarily blessed with total and absolute knowledge - a certain wise sage said something along the lines of "the key to understanding is the realization of where your knowledge ceases". But at the same time, the fundamentalist subjectives must appreciate that their particular perception, in a particular room, at a particular moment in time, does not constitute an absolute. I do find much of the subjectives' faith in their hearing and perception, touching. And the often heard 'insult', "your equipment/hearing/auditory skills are clearly not of high enough a resolution to hear what I am hearing", simply beggars belief.

Subjective opinions need to be tempered with the knowledge that the human auditory system is weak, variable (both for physical & emotional reasons) and easily fooled. Perhaps the most "dangerous" creatures in a hobby such as this are those who fail to appreciate their own human weaknesses.

 

[Mescalito]

Let's try this from another angle Rob,

At what point do you believe an "objectivist" should leave what's clearly a subjective thread? After his first post stating an objection (with his reasons) and when there's no response (assuming he hasn't said anything belligerent provoking a response of course.)

Don't you believe the thread's majority have the right to discuss a matter in a peaceful, uninterrupted manner regardless of how you or I feel about the worthiness of the subject? (Especially when they've made it clear with silence or with replies that they are not interested in our opinion?)

regards,

dave

In a word, no. This is a forum. Fora are places where things are discussed & argued about.

If someone started a thread promoting, say, creationism, would you feel constrained from posting a rebuttal & engaging in debate?

No difference.

Chris

 

[Alan Sircom]

In a word, no. This is a forum. Fora are places where things are discussed & argued about.

If someone started a thread promoting, say, creationism, would you feel constrained from posting a rebuttal & engaging in debate?

No difference.

Chris

There is a difference between "discussed & argued about" and "making the same statement over and over again because you like the look of your words on a forum".

The old dictum, "I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it" is fine, but there are limits.

Most threads that descend this way are not argument, they are more like the Argument Sketch, without the humour.

Edit: Creationism threads are probably the worst example of this. Two entrenched positions with absolutely no middle ground, engaging in verbal artillery practice, forever. Any form of argument is long since worn away, just people making the same tired statements and defences. It adds nothing and eventually sounds like empty rhetoric.

 

[darrylfunk]

if people don't like challenging questions being asked of them why do they post details of these 'experiences' that they are having....?

for instance what makes the biggest differences to subjectivists, the warming up period improvement or the pulling out the plugs from sockets and replugging for clean connections requiring the powering down of gear improvement.....these people who 'believe' they are hearing improvements at every turn do not own better sounding systems than others who hardly touch the same gear....most 'improvements' are just reactions from ritualised fiddling....

trying to explain to people who say "i got an extra octave of bass with a new cable" that they are deluded because an extra octave of bass is actually a different note (one octave below) and is not what they are describing is also tiring, those people don't understand what they maybe experiencing.....and they don't seem to care.

i find it odd that a user of a one brand hi fi who only recommends one brand even comes on here in the first place....

it's odd that moving your head / or speakers a few inches often makes a bigger difference in audible presentation than any cable switch over can achieve but we don't get people posting...."i moved my head 2 inches to the left and i got an extra octave of bass, more prat and better enjoyment...i listened to at least 5 pink floyd cd's in a row...even my wife's sister's brother heard the improvement"

i'm against the proposed moderation....the forum should encourage informed scientific debate.

 

[hammeredklavier]

Unfortunately, most SCOs share some DNA with Ralph Nader and see it as their mission in life to rescue all non-Os from the folly of their ways.

Or DNA with Richard Dawkins. Believing in fairies isn't an admirable trait you know!

 

[busb]

In a word, no. This is a forum. Fora are places where things are discussed & argued about.

If someone started a thread promoting, say, creationism, would you feel constrained from posting a rebuttal & engaging in debate?

No difference.

Chris

I repeat - why not have a separate section for such debates? You could then have a sticky specifically for that section laying down the ground rules. This would free up the general audio area from at least some of the acrimony.
I don't think a section for purely subjectivist views would work for the the reasons Chris mentions.

 

[Alan Sircom]

My tuppence worth: one of the problems is that of over-simplification.


Unless I'm very much mistaken, none of the above-named have ever asserted such a thing, but the casual accusation that "they say no difference exists" appears to be the root cause of a lot of the disharmony.

The science of audio is complex and largely multi-dimensional. Understanding thereof is clearly not for everybody - nor are the "science" camp necessarily blessed with total and absolute knowledge - a certain wise sage said something along the lines of "the key to understanding is the realization of where your knowledge ceases". But at the same time, the fundamentalist subjectives must appreciate that their particular perception, in a particular room, at a particular moment in time, does not constitute an absolute. I do find much of the subjectives' faith in their hearing and perception, touching. And the often heard 'insult', "your equipment/hearing/auditory skills are clearly not of high enough a resolution to hear what I am hearing", simply beggars belief.

Subjective opinions need to be tempered with the knowledge that the human auditory system is weak, variable (both for physical & emotional reasons) and easily fooled. Perhaps the most "dangerous" creatures in a hobby such as this are those who fail to appreciate their own human weaknesses.

I'd argue that fundamentalist viewpoints exist in all things and on all sides of all arguments. In audio, there seem to be a number of people online who have undergone some kind of Damascene conversion away from subjectivism to some kind of slavish scholasticism dressed up as objectivity. Why is it everything uttered by Ethan Winer is considered sacrosanct, even when the objective evidence points in the other direction (his arguments for a reflection-free zone are contraindicated by Floyd-Toole's research into side wall reflection and Apparent Stage Width)?

 

[avole]

Contraindicated?? I think you mean contradicted.

 

[darrylfunk]

I'd argue that fundamentalist viewpoints exist in all things and on all sides of all arguments. In audio, there seem to be a number of people online who have undergone some kind of Damascene conversion away from subjectivism to some kind of slavish scholasticism dressed up as objectivity. Why is it everything uttered by Ethan Winer is considered sacrosanct, even when the objective evidence points in the other direction (his arguments for a reflection-free zone are contraindicated by Floyd-Toole's research into side wall reflection and Apparent Stage Width)?

winer is not talking about music rooms but mixing rooms.

at least he identifies the elephants in the rooms and he is not a fundamentalist, he also doesn't recommend 'reflection free' anything, reduced yes, controlled yes' natural sounding yes.....can't remember your magazine recommending room treatments in every issue in detail.

i do recall pages of glossy adverts for cables photographed up close, looking like the plugs were made by rolex or leica.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Contraindicated?? I think you mean contradicted.

Actually, I kind of mean both. Winer's position on side wall first reflection is contradicted by Floyd-Toole's research, and he also points to key room properties where use of side wall absorption is contraindicated.

 

[Alan Sircom]

winer is not talking about music rooms but mixing rooms.

at least he identifies the elephants in the rooms.....can't remember your magazine recommending room treatments in every issue in detail.

i do recall pages of glossy adverts for cables photographed up close, looking like the plugs were made by rolex or leica.

No, he makes no distinction. Bit of a major failing, IMO.

We don't cover room treatment in detail in every issue, but I've given the topic more column inches than all the other magazines put together in the last three years.

Thanks for noticing.

 

[darrylfunk]

Actually, I kind of mean both. Winer's position on side wall first reflection is contradicted by Floyd-Toole's research, and he also points to key room properties where use of side wall absorption is contraindicated.

alan you are kind of misrepresenting winer in this regard though....he talks about set up's for recording/mixing rooms where flutter echoes etc etc need taming....he is not saying your lounge needs to be like that.

just to clarify.

i don't believe winer should be belittled he is a very, very clever and talented guy....with a great sensuvhuma.....

 

[darrylfunk]

No, he makes no distinction. Bit of a major failing, IMO.

We don't cover room treatment in detail in every issue, but I've given the topic more column inches than all the other magazines put together in the last three years.

Thanks for noticing.

he does make a distinction alan.....he is after all the founder of the company real traps who do acoustic treatments for studios.

well i read most mags and looking at the pile here choice has had a lot more articles over the year.....but you do have the nicer adverts with close ups of gold phono plugs.....

 

[sideshowbob]

I'd argue that fundamentalist viewpoints exist in all things and on all sides of all arguments.

It isn't "fundamentalist" to expect some sort of evidence when people make outlandish claims which are either completely unknown to physics (audible cable directionality, for example), or flatly contradict what is well understood. It's merely commonsense.

It's a sign of how utterly debased and marketing-driven audio is nowadays that some people have a problem with this.

I say this as an audio subjectivist. Albeit a subjectivist who doesn't believe in fairies.

As for the idea that all the aggression and narrow-minded certainty comes from objectivists, pull the other one. The amount of times I've been called deaf, or deluded, or had the quality of my hi-fi questioned merely because I don't believe (for example) putting my power amp on a spiked piece of MDF makes it sound any different gives the lie to that.

 

[darrylfunk]

The amount of times I've been called deaf, or deluded, or had the quality of my hi-fi questioned merely because I don't believe (for example) putting my power amp on a spiked piece of MDF makes it sound any different gives the lie to that.

burn the witch, burn him!!!

 

[Alan Sircom]

he does make a distinction alan.....

well i read most mags and looking at the pile here choice has had a lot more articles over the year.....but you do have the nicer adverts with close ups of gold phono plugs.....

Oh, I didn't know HFC did more on room treatment than I did. Good. Is that recent, or was it when I was working there?

I do have a bit of a problem with dealing with room treatment in the magazine though. The usual high end audiophile response to room treatment is it's made out of the stuff they make divorces out of. The logic goes, if you are going to spend stealth money on audio, cables are small enough to get under the domestic management radar and expensive and shiny enough to tick the "I'm still in the audiophile game" box.

Room treatment is proving to be one of those off-again/on-again things I struggle to get past the rank and file readership, like computer audio. Given that currently about six out of every seven of my readers lives outside the UK, and would rather I focus on what's new, shiny and costs as much as a BMW, I'm going with the "give the reader what they want" ticket. And that's why we get the nice advertising with the pretty, shiny cables.

 

[avole]

Actually, I kind of mean both. Winer's position on side wall first reflection is contradicted by Floyd-Toole's research, and he also points to key room properties where use of side wall absorption is contraindicated.

Not convinced. I've only ever heard the term "contraindication" used in the medical field. You also mean side wall absorption is not advised rather than contraindicated.

Nothing like using a pseudo technical term to befuddle readers when simple terms will do. I say that as someone who has to do a lot of writing in my work.

 

[darrylfunk]

you keep recommending the trinkets alan, we'll just accept you know your stuff on acoustics....take it as box already ticked.


as i have most choices and plushes here as well as stereophile and many others, perhaps you can tell me which of your current mags issues includes stuff about acoustic treatment as none come to mind.

 

[paskinn]

Just waded through all this; the poor moderator has to try to keep things under some sort of control. But we are not discussing anything that really matters, and we won't change anyones opinions. It's a free world, believe what you like, believe in fairies if you want. As for the whole subjectivist/objectivist thing, that has been going on since mankind began to write and debate. It won't get settled here, so why worry!
None of it is worth getting upset about.