Cyclic debates and moderation

[darrylfunk]

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.

yes a very good point....obviously some people don't like the open minded critique on their opinions so want moderation to protect their weak position.

 

[Alan Sircom]

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.

OK then, contradicted. Happy now?

 

[Alan Sircom]

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.

I have never said that all the aggression comes from the objectivists. Merely that it's not one-sided; it's not the saintly objectivists against the rude subjectivists. People on both sides can be rude, aggressive and dogmatic.

 

[Alan Sircom]

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.

See Q&A in the current issue. Also six of my last ten columns have been about room treatment. I don't run reviews of room acoustic treatment generally because the products don't look that great in print, and I don't want to undermine my attempts to switch audiophiles on to room acoustic treatment by peaking too early with a photograph of something 'agricultural'.

Once I've got the current cycle of 'upgrade' features, out of the way, then the two or three on compression and computer audio (another battle as yet un-won), a series of columns on room treatment including case studies and more.

This is an ongoing thing. We struggle because the readership is ambivalent to passive treatment and openly hostile to active DSP treatment. Even using 2.1 systems with the subwoofer in the right place for bass is looked down upon.

 

[Alan Sircom]

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.

No. Of course not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbLVjHfHahg

(First YouTube linky not working)

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

I'm not belittling the guy at all. My point was some people think him some kind of demigod. That his every word is sacrosanct.

You are about one post away from making my case for me.

 

[sideshowbob]

I have never said that all the aggression comes from the objectivists.

Apologies, that was directed at an earlier poster in this thread, not you.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Apologies, that was directed at an earlier poster in this thread, not you.

no problems!

 

[darrylfunk]

You are about one post away from making my case for me.

of course alan....it shows that you don't respect his views....it doesn't show that i think he is an audio god.

he does not say what you have 'alluded' to him saying and it does not go against common knowledge....people should be treating their rooms....they will get better sound...end of.

i value his professional knowledge above a journalists taste....you are part of the problem you describe, in that you actively bow down to the trinkets and big dollar fans and say that you find it hard to get the real issues of acoustics across to people....it's because you have been bigging up the bling or the odd freaky tweakys for years, that if you now want to address the real deal they won't believe you.....

i think you trying to critique someone like winer in a public forum shows a rather one sided view of the industry.

you don't want to lose the jewellery adverts in the mag but criticise a world renowned musician/acoustician/recording engineer for having a fairly sensible view on recording acoustics....do you not see the slightly odd skew on your posts so far.

i do appreciate your honesty about the lack of interest in acoustics but bigging up £2500 phono to phono's is just a laugh if your not pointing out that a tiny room improvement will vastly outweigh any 'perceived' improvement of a cable.

don't do the industry such a disservice.

 

[Dik Dolan]

Alan should learn more from Mr. Winer and use strippers to promote his mag.

 

[Alan Sircom]

of course alan....it shows that you don't respect his views....it doesn't show that i think he is an audio god.

No. It merely shows that Ethan makes claims that people think are scientifically valid simply because it is Ethan stating them. One of these claims has been show to be contradicted by Floyd-Toole and it took you about 10 minutes to begin dancing round the topic and saying how I was misrepresenting him.

No need to refer to Ethan's work, or cross reference it. It must be right because Ethan says it is right therefore Ethan is right. That's hardly replacing the existing subjective model with pure, unalloyed objectivity, is it?

I think even Ethan would dispute a world-view so unutterably accepting of what he says.

And for the record, my own findings are closer to Ethan's than Dr F-T, but the good Dr does have the advantage of trying side-wall reflection on more rooms and probably bigger rooms than I have.

 

[darrylfunk]

No. It merely shows that Ethan makes claims that people think are scientifically valid simply because it is Ethan stating them. One of these claims has been show to be contradicted by Floyd-Toole and it took you about 10 minutes to begin dancing round the topic and saying how I was misrepresenting him.

No need to refer to Ethan's work, or cross reference it. It must be right because Ethan says it is right therefore Ethan is right. That's hardly replacing the existing subjective model with pure, unalloyed objectivity, is it?

I think even Ethan would dispute a world-view so unutterably accepting of what he says.

And for the record, my own findings are closer to Ethan's than Dr F-T, but the good Dr does have the advantage of trying side-wall reflection on more rooms and probably bigger rooms than I have.

his views do not disagree with f.t's.....you are misrepresenting things.

f.t's views are that perceived width is effected by reflections....that is of course a matter of taste and not a matter of accuracy.

please check your 'facts'

 

[Alan Sircom]

Alan should learn more from Mr. Winer and use strippers to promote his mag.

I was there when an Art Director tried scantily-clad women on the cover of Hi-Fi Choice. To say it was an 'error of judgment' is possibly an understatement.

We would have got fewer complaints if we'd nailed a puppy to the cover.

 

[darrylfunk]

alan.

i await you paper on how wrong winer is....maybe publish it in plush!!!

next to a beautifully photographed crystal cable plug.....

 

[Yank]

Seems like maybe people could show some respect and restrain themselves from the urge to gainsay everything they disagree with.

 

[Alan Sircom]

his views do not disagree with f.t's.....you are misrepresenting things.

f.t's views are that perceived width is effected by reflections....that is of course a matter of taste and not a matter of accuracy.

please check your 'facts'

No problem.

My facts are cited in Floyd-Toole's Sound Reproduction, where he clearly states (pg. 503), "The matter of side wall reflections of L, C, and R loudspeakers warrants some discussion because of the widespread belief (emphasis mine) that these reflections should be eliminated as a matter of ritual." (emphasis mine again).

You could also check out Olive, S.E. and Toole, F.E. "The Detection of Reflections in Typical Rooms". J. Audio Eng. Soc., 37, pp. 539-553.

Hmm... not sure if that sounds like 'a matter of taste' to me. 'Belief' and 'a matter of ritual' doesn't sound like a scientist defending their tastes to me.

Still, I'm convinced you have the evidence to show me where I'm wrong here.

 

[darrylfunk]

No problem.

My facts are cited in Floyd-Toole's Sound Reproduction, where he clearly states (pg. 503), "The matter of side wall reflections of L, C, and R loudspeakers warrants some discussion because of the widespread belief (emphasis mine) that these reflections should be eliminated as a matter of ritual." (emphasis mine again).

You could also check out Olive, S.E. and Toole, F.E. "The Detection of Reflections in Typical Rooms". J. Audio Eng. Soc., 37, pp. 539-553.

Hmm... not sure if that sounds like 'a matter of taste' to me. 'Belief' and 'a matter of ritual' doesn't sound like a scientist defending their tastes to me.

Still, I'm convinced you have the evidence to show me where I'm wrong here.

in the video of winer you posted he talks about over damping the room and how it effects things.

just the same as f.t's does.

you are wilfully misrepresenting winer again.

why?

oh and you haven't told us all the other places where winer is wrong.

or pointed out anyone who says he is a god who is 100% right all the time.

he is not made of straw.

 

[Robert]

I'm pretty much objectivist, I certainly lean way over to that side of things. But I really do find it utterly tedious when 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.

Frankly I know what you think, there's no need for me to read your opinion that all gear sounds the same in every single thread about dacs, power amps, pre-amps ad infinitum. You've managed to turn Zerogain into a ghost town with your attitude towards hifi I'd suggest it's not In Tony's interest to let you do the same on PFM.

If I wanted to read that I'd go to Hydrogenaudio. The WAM has a technical section which largely keeps the "but you can't measure it so it doesn't exist" posts out of the general audio section, that might well be what is required here.

Certainly I agree with Steven it's just a type of thread crapping, and it stifles posting and discussion. I agree that we need a dose of common sense as regards the most ridiculous types of foo in the market, but this isn't that, it's just annoying cyclical and repetitive thread crapping.

You should get a few facts straight.

If you're an objectivist then I'm the Pope.
You don't 'lean' anywhere you bob around in the breeze. You're a cable sceptic Simon, and I'm pleased for you.

You don't seriously think that I, Serge, Teddy or anyone else posts our opinions for your benefit?
Absolutely right, you know what others here think but please drop the self importance. I'm sure I speak for many others in saying that we post for general consumption, not just for your benefit.

There is no Zerogain - it finished many years ago while you were an active member and I had a post count barely in double figures. There is no room for another large uk forum and we aren't trying to create one. We bought it for a song precisely because because it had dried up. What's left of it was attached formally to Audiosmile for our use. Nobody is driving it and we're quite content for it be a repository for articles, with the odd question or comment from someone looking for practical advice.

So what to do.
Well, as I've said before (at risk of being banned for cyclical argument) rather than calling for censorship or throwing toys from pram, the little rump or so of users that this seems to affect have the appropriate tools available already:

- Man-up and argue the point. This seems to work for the vast majority of posters.

- Ignore the post or thread. Nobody forces you to read anything.

- If you really cannot stomach a poster, use the forum 'ignore user' function. This means that you can prattle away to your heart's content Simon, with no fear of having to read anything logical.

- If things get really bad, report the post.

So the tools are already in place for what is pretty much a non-issue for all but half a dozen people. If you care to step outside of this quite unnecessary blood letting thread you'll see lots of folk chatting perfectly amiably, and not getting the slightest bit wound-up.

 

[Alan Sircom]

in the video of winer you posted he talks about over damping the room and how it effects things.

just the same as f.t's does.

you are wilfully misrepresenting winer again.

why?

oh and you haven't told us all the other places where winer is wrong.

or pointed out anyone who says he is a god who is 100% right all the time.

he is not made of straw.

Were we watching the same video? I don't recall him mentioning over-damping the room at all. Just using bass traps and treating first-reflections on the walls and floor. I just watched it again, just to make sure I hadn't missed the over-damping bit.

For the record, and to stop people having to wade through AES papers and the rest, the received wisdom in room acoustic treatment is that comb filtering off the side walls is perceivable and undermines signal clarity. Olive and Toole showed that while comb filtering is a problem with rear wall reflections, it's not detectable from side wall first reflections and treating the side walls undermines the stage width. Ethan, along with most acousticians, goes with the received wisdom. I also tend to recommend absorption on side-wall first reflection points, despite Olive and Toole's paper, because I think it generally sounds better. I recognise this is not objectively qualified, but I prefer the sound that way, it seems to work better in smaller rooms and generally most speakers don't need to have increased ASW if their directivity is good. But at least I can say that from a position of knowing the arguments for and against first reflection treatment; it may not be a scientifically valid position, but at least it's well nuanced.

-

You don't seem to understand what I am getting at here. I am not saying Ethan is wrong. I disagree with some of what he says, agree with other aspects and think he makes a lot of sense in general, and have great respect for putting room treatment on the map in some branches of the audio community. My point is not directed at Ethan, it's directed at those like you who seem to think "He said X, so X must be right because he said it" represents scientific method. That kind of circular logic does no-one any favours and it seems endemic in all branches of audio, whether loony-tunes subjectivist or objective bulldog.

I gave you a get out and you still made my point for me. Thanks!

That's not a scientific position, it's Scholasticism, pure and simple. And straight out of the 12th Century.

 

[Covkxw]

Robert, I agree. Simon doesn't lean to either objectivist or subjectivist. He's more of a Argumentivist

 

[S-Man]

.... but please drop the self importance. I

Pot Kettle!!

......and not getting the slightest bit wound-up.

Really?