So, whenever a new member shows up it doesn't take long until he/she is called a troll, snide remarks are made, fun is made of them...
I am not totally innocent myself, as I've also made the occasional joke, but I think that this sort of behavior creates an atmosphere that will quickly send new members back to where they came from. That's a shame. This needs to change.
I would hope that new members, no matter how inexperienced or uninformed (remember that everyone is ignorant about something), were welcomed with a more friendly and helpful attitude.
Some suggestions I'd have are:
- Give direct, helpful answers. Try not to answer with a counter question, especially not a patronizing rhetorical one or gotchas.
- Expand on those answers if you think that the person asking needs that extra information.
- Don't assume that the person is a troll from the beginning. Assume the person is genuinely seeking help.
(A troll is not a person who doesn't get something or who is biased. A troll is "a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.")
For me this came because many trolls were feeded way to long before.
Agree.
It's understandable that the same nonsense keeps coming back and that this makes you quietly facepalm, but that just means you have to breathe before posting, not that you should post impatiently and defensively.
So, whenever a new member shows up it doesn't take long until he/she is called a troll, snide remarks are made, fun is made of them...
I am not totally innocent myself, as I've also made the occasional joke, but I think that this sort of behavior creates an atmosphere that will quickly send new members back to where they came from. That's a shame. This needs to change.
I would hope that new members, no matter how inexperienced or uninformed (remember that everyone is ignorant about something), were welcomed with a more friendly and helpful attitude.
Some suggestions I'd have are:
- Give direct, helpful answers. Try not to answer with a counter question, especially not a patronizing rhetorical one or gotchas.
- Expand on those answers if you think that the person asking needs that extra information.
- Don't assume that the person is a troll from the beginning. Assume the person is genuinely seeking help.
(A troll is not a person who doesn't get something or who is biased. A troll is "a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.")
Well said!!
I've definitely have noticed this a lot as of late. Especially the hostility of some members towards others either through name calling or impolite responses.
Also if an obviously trolling member makes claims violating our TOS and is not interested to discuss in public but asks for PM more than 1 time i find it a sign of under-moderation.
Edit: this topic really must be trolls gold :)
I am not saying there are no trolls, or deluded audiophiles (some of which can actually be helped ;) ) ... but we shouldn't start with that as an assumption.
Unfamiliarity with terms, technology, theory etc. also can lead to posts that some here would falsely interpret as trolling. Also, not everyone immediately gets it. We need more patience. If you don't have it then you don't have to unload that in a reply...
So I think the replies should seek to clarify and clear up the situation instead of turning into a toxic back and forth.
I'm not saying you cannot hit back hard if the other person knowingly asks for it. But try to do it with facts and to make it short and painless.
Violations of the ToS should be handled by the moderators, but I would never swing the ban hammer on new members unless it's a severe case. Give them a chance.
For me this came because many trolls were fed way too long before.
Poe's law, also some people like to see what a troll comes up with next, and the responses can have entertainment value. Nobody is forcing you to reply or read such discussions, which may end up in the bin anyway.
But still, even if you feel the need to communicate that you could always write something like "I cannot take you serious for reasons x, y, z.." and be done with it or wait for a potentially clarifying response. (I do have a feeling that some people are too quick to judge and dismiss new members.)
Edit: this topic really must be trolls gold :)
You understand why that made me sigh, right? :D
Perhaps people should recall Hanlon’s Razor every now and then.
Sure, but calling or assuming that other people are stupid is the opposite of what I want.
How about just not assuming bad intentions and stopping there?
Quite often I am left with the choice between believing that somebody is a troll, or that s/he is stupid. Other options don't seem plausible. What should I choose then?
I read a lot more on HA than I post, and some members' social skills are certainly lacking. It can get a bit "Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons" almost immediately. There are plenty of people on the internet who are genuinely seeking information, so rudeness and high-handed sneering isn't going to spread the word very effectively.
Why not keep it civil 'til you know someone's being deliberately provocative? Then you can put the boot in with a clean conscience and a good run-up.
Quite often I am left with the choice between believing that somebody is a troll, or that s/he is stupid. Other options don't seem plausible. What should I choose then?
Just because someone doesn't know what you (think you) know doesn't make them stupid. Behaving like a jerk is unlikely to educate anyone and just perpetuates the widespread bad opinions about HA.
Much of this community has existed since before Hydrogenaudio. The reason for this site's existence was conflict between Dibrom and another developer. Many of the old-timers have migrated here from Usenet. This site's very existence is controversial: subjectivism is philosophically (though not scientifically, IMO) valid.
The single most effective introduction strategy is blunt and without guile or tact. That will ensure that the user does not get the wrong impression. Attempting to "soften" the blow may lead the new user to believe that there might be flex where there really is none.
I'm not saying to be a jerk, just that things are how they are because of how they were. We've developed effective strategies for coping with new users and continue to be an effective community. I see no need for significant change.
The single most effective introduction strategy is blunt and without guile or tact. That will ensure that the user does not get the wrong impression.
I'm a new user myself - I registered a couple years ago, but only started reading regularly in the last few months. I agree with the above. Posters here are direct and forceful, but I've found them extremely helpful. There's so much anti-science out there in the audio community that I see no point in drawing things out. I've read quite a number of threads here and I don't think I've seen any one of those long newbie threads where the new user suddenly "gets it" 2 or 3 pages in. Either they can pull themselves away from wishful thinking relatively quickly, or they just won't ever do so. Going round and round with them only pisses the person off further, causes them to dig in, and probably gives casual browsers a sense that this place is more antagonistic than it actually is.
To that end, perhaps mods could lock threads a bit more aggressively? I don't usually favor aggressive locking policies on forums, but I think it's reasonable in this situation. The purpose of a forum is discussion, but once the wishful thinkers dig in their heels and responses get sharper, there really isn't any discussion happening anymore.
Hahaha! Oh, God, don't let greynol see that comment!
Yeah, no, there's a fine line to walk here, and we're all paranoid we're overly hard. Occasionally, people do come to their senses, and the discussions enable the participants to work out the errors in their own positions.
I know that for myself, this is very much true. It took me half a dozen pages to work through one of my own idiocies once. These threads are good for teaching the community how to deal with these arguments elsewhere, too.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, though. It really means a lot. Like I said, we're all paranoid that we're being too hardnosed in dealing with stuff like that.
To that end, perhaps mods could lock threads a bit more aggressively? I don't usually favor aggressive locking policies on forums, but I think it's reasonable in this situation. The purpose of a forum is discussion, but once the wishful thinkers dig in their heels and responses get sharper, there really isn't any discussion happening anymore.
Personally, I think locking threads, or any other forms of censorship, tends to be counterproductive for the simple reason that refusal to discuss the issues is seen as being unable to respond to the issues. Free speech isn't always quick or easy, sometimes it takes time to visibly exhaust an issue. As well, to me, it seems if the HA community cannot always openly defend its positions, that only adds fuel to those who would deny its conclusions.
Besides, who is so infallible as to be always able to say when an argument is truly and completely specious?
I would like to helpfully point out that one of our recently banned pair of "newbies" were both duplicate accounts belonging to an existing member, and all of their accounts have been banned for violation of the multiple accounts rule, which mostly applies to use of multiple accounts to impersonate multiple users.
Personally, I think locking threads, or any other forms of censorship, tends to be counterproductive for the simple reason that refusal to discuss the issues is seen as being unable to respond to the issues. Free speech isn't always quick or easy, sometimes it takes time to visibly exhaust an issue.
This is a privately-run website, there is no such thing here as free speech or censorship, it's all 100% down to the whims of the moderators and admins :-)
I think that xnor's point is valid.
There are two main issues, and it is the community as a whole the one that has to help on it, rather than the moderators alone.
First point: The opening of a seemingly controversial thread.
When a thread starts suggesting something that can cause controversy (oppinions with lack of support, contradiction with established knowledge, not appropiate for this forum and so on), what we, as a community, should do is to direct this person to post following the forum standards.
This is NOT meant to just point to TOS violation, nor to simply say that we don't want those types of posts. It is meant to interpellate the subject if he is willing to contribute in a way accepted by the forums or not. That is, the poster has to understand what he did wrong, and what should have done instead.
The important part is that the conversation should not continue if this is not accepted. I.e. other members should put on the fence or clarify why this is asked and not continue debating when the rules of the conversation are not yet established.
Second point: Never lasting threads.
This point is meant to prevent topics that somewhat repeat themselves, or that keep adding tangential information while avoiding to resolve the main point.
This type of post could be a bit difficult to differentiate from legit discussion, but in such cases, a moderation advice could be given to indicate that the topic is not behaving like it should.
I think that in these cases, what is needed is to reduce the amount of people participating actively. I.e. try not to open more points from multiple previous replies.
The outcome of this is to reduce the amount of open points, with the premise that some points are more important than others and those should be resolved first.
What this means in essence is that the forum is not a chat group, and discussions should happen on the premise that they offer information and can be contrasted.
Many of the old-timers have migrated here from Usenet.
Actually I came from remix.net :P
Yeah,
just pointing members to the rules probably makes them feel like in a dictatorship. But there are very good reasons for the rules. As crazy as it sounds, some people do not understand what anecdotal vs scientific or objective evidence is, and that they need to provide the latter to support their claims.
They probably come from places where everyone's opinion is valid and each person has its own valid "reality" and there is no accountability for the claims made... like most audiophile forums.
@Canar That sounds a bit like "shoot first, ask questions later". I'm not saying ToS violations should be overlooked for new members, but there are different ways one can clarify what is to be expected of new members, or what they did wrong.
@KozmoNaut I like to think that this place is better than that and that the mods are not censoring on a whim, like I've been in other audiophile forums...
@[JAZ] Full ack.
Second point: Never lasting threads.
Ouch! I meant "Never ending threads". I mixed it up with "thread where the last post is never the last".
@KozmoNaut I like to think that this place is better than that and that the mods are not censoring on a whim, like I've been in other audiophile forums...
That's my point, it's all up to the mods and admins, and thankfully they run a site where people are giving a significant amount of leeway before the banhammer comes down.
But if they wanted to, they could just censor and ban indiscriminately, and there would be nothing we could do about it, other than leave for some other site.
So when people start to pipe up about free speech and censorship and what not, they really don't have any ground to stand on, other than what the mods and admins allow them. Hydrogenaudio does not have any obligation to give them a platform for spreading their unsubstantiated audiophile ramblings.
So when people start to pipe up about free speech and censorship and what not, they really don't have any ground to stand on, other than what the mods and admins allow them. Hydrogenaudio does not have any obligation to give them a platform for spreading their unsubstantiated audiophile ramblings.
Sorry, but if people here want respect, shouldn't they be prepared to respectfully listen to everyone who follows the rules? In my opinion, dismissively labeling all "audiophiles" isn't being either open, or objective and is completely lost on outsiders who don't share your negative slant on this word. As well, don't some people here come across a little to strong to be seen as presenting a dispassionate argument? Aren't you doing yourselves a disservice by attacking the arguer and not their argument?
Sorry, but if people here want respect, shouldn't they be prepared to respectfully listen to everyone who follows the rules? In my opinion, dismissively labeling all "audiophiles" isn't being either open, or objective and is completely lost on outsiders who don't share your negative slant on this word. As well, don't some people here come across a little to strong to be seen as presenting a dispassionate argument? Aren't you doing yourselves a disservice by attacking the arguer and not their argument?
When people register here and start spewing audiophile nonsense in their very first posts, I would say that's quite disrespectful of the rules and users on this site. Is it any wonder they're not met with outstretched arms?
When people register here and start spewing audiophile nonsense in their very first posts, I would say that's quite disrespectful of the rules and users on this site.
With all due respect, that sounds exactly like you've already decided and there's no need to listen, or at least listen without prejudice. Is it any wonder if people think that this type of approach is the result of closed or narrow minds?
As well, to me at least, it just seems that some of you have little faith in the obviousness your beliefs and as a result, your arguments often come across sounding reactionary and defensive.
Shouldn't science be able to afford to take the high road? Just sayin .... ;~)
(edits for diction and tone)
With all due respect, that sounds exactly like you've already decided and there's no need to listen, or at least listen without prejudice. Is it any wonder if people think that this type of approach is the result of closed or narrow minds?
That's because there is absolutely no reason to listen to audiophile bullshit that's been thoroughly debunked hundreds of times already.
Still no need to be hostile or insulting. If it's been discussed already then simply point that member to that preferably civil and factual discussion, tell him to read that and come back if there are any remaining questions.
Also, we shouldn't assume that the person knows that the BS is BS or that it has been debunked hundreds of times. I'd rather assume the person does not know the science, does not know anything about cognitive biases, about controlled experiments, about digital audio, about epistemology ...
The only question then is whether people want to do something about that.
btw. Nobody should make suggestions how to be more tolerant and calm when he normaly is not seen posting much on exactly these topics started by suspicious new members.
Still no need to be hostile or insulting. If it's been discussed already then simply point that member to that preferably civil and factual discussion, tell him to read that and come back if there are any remaining questions.
Also, we shouldn't assume that the person knows that the BS is BS or that it has been debunked hundreds of times. I'd rather assume the person does not know the science, does not know anything about cognitive biases, about controlled experiments, about digital audio, about epistemology ...
The only question then is whether people want to do something about that.
The attitude all depends on whether they come here and ask genuine questions, however misguided they may be. But when they just barge in with a complete audiophile spiel and seem to completely ignore every single sensible suggestion made to them, I can't really be too bothered about their precious feelings.
@Wombat Why not? They absolutely should. They are just suggestions... No names are named and I hope it stays this way.
Those who post can hopefully take something away from this thread, those who just read can still give input.
And
suspicious new members? :-X
And suspicious new members? :-X
I see no typo!?
... we shouldn't assume that the person knows that the BS is BS or that it has been debunked hundreds of times. I'd rather assume the person does not know the science, does not know anything about cognitive biases, about controlled experiments, about digital audio, about epistemology ...
The only question then is whether people want to do something about that.
I agree that some newcomers genuinely seem to have no clue about how the process of scientific inquiry works, and I feel sorry for them. If I knew of an entertaining guide to how it all works, I'd be okay with sending them in that direction.
Also, I'm probably in the minority in having no problems with more luxury or design-oriented gear per se.
As for the ones who choose to disregard scientific thought or claim that it can't be applied to sound reproduction: Flame away!
And suspicious new members? :-X
I see no typo!?
I guess you mean new members who are actually the same (group of) people, but the admin cannot ban them since they can change their IP or use other tricks to hide their identity at will?
We can do nothing about this. What I usually do is wait until the thread is long enough to determine the nature of the OP.
Our usual memberbase is mature enough to debunk most audiophile myths, but the problem is that we have similar beliefs and knowledge, and we know each others' strength and weaknesses from previous discussions. Therefore HA normally don't have a lot of new post unless we found something new or we need help from other members. This makes HA much quieter than some other forums.
In a quiet and mature forum like this, new members who post clueless things can easily get attacked. I can imagine HA is just like human body, when viruses attack us we come together and defend ourselves but if we are overreacted we can also hurt ourselves (our reputation for example).
Moderation is like taking medicine, it can temporarily suppress our pain but drug abuse is harmful as well. And most importantly, moderation represents HA's official view rather than individual members' opinions so it must be done very carefully. The best thing we can do is of course, settle the problems ourselves without the intervention of mods.
With all due respect, that sounds exactly like you've already decided and there's no need to listen, or at least listen without prejudice. Is it any wonder if people think that this type of approach is the result of closed or narrow minds?
That's because there is absolutely no reason to listen to audiophile bullshit that's been thoroughly debunked hundreds of times already.
I must say I find some of audiophile bullshit very entertaining, and with no new voices, this
web-site may soon become very boring (software updates etc., members with a entrenched point of view)
Long live free speech, & audiophile bullshit to entertain us all.
btw. Nobody should make suggestions how to be more tolerant and calm when he normaly is not seen posting much on exactly these topics started by suspicious new members.
Sigh. When I have something useful to say, I'm obliged to, other than that, silence is golden. I try not to go around egotistically assuming I'm right and others are wrong. If people are wrong, they need to come to that themselves. It rarely works to rub people noses in their own misunderstandings. Personally, I suspect that some people here just like to argue, put others down and use these forums to feel superior. To me, emotional posturing and verbiage are useless no matter which side of an argument it's on. If you can't make your argument politely, you've lost my respect. Indeed, with all due respect, I'll stick to facts and leave the personal attacks for those who can't get their minds out of the gutter of personality.
There's nothing wrong with basic civility.
Wait a second. This is a forum about audio, right? Wouldn't it be a place for audiophiles?
Wait a second. This is a forum about audio, right? Wouldn't it be a place for audiophiles?
Define 'audiophile'. If you mean a devotee of The Absolute Sound, Stereophile, Computer Audiophile, HiFi News, etc. ,no, it might not be a place for them....if they abhor having their standard audio evaluation practices challenged (not to mention declared in violation of forum rules).
Still no need to be hostile or insulting. If it's been discussed already then simply point that member to that preferably civil and factual discussion, tell him to read that and come back if there are any remaining questions.
Also, we shouldn't assume that the person knows that the BS is BS or that it has been debunked hundreds of times. I'd rather assume the person does not know the science, does not know anything about cognitive biases, about controlled experiments, about digital audio, about epistemology ...
The only question then is whether people want to do something about that.
Isn't that what a FAQ/ sticky post/wiki is supposed to be for?
The single most effective introduction strategy is blunt and without guile or tact. That will ensure that the user does not get the wrong impression. Attempting to "soften" the blow may lead the new user to believe that there might be flex where there really is none.
I'm not saying to be a jerk, just that things are how they are because of how they were...
I wholeheartedly agree, however we are not locked into never changing anything about the forum,
at all, just because of how things originally started.
For example, I continually see ad hominem attacks against other forum members, and I'm talking about veterans who should know better who attack not just newbs but also other veterans. They seem to enjoy being abusive, condescending, and as you just put it, "jerks". There is a very simple word for what they are:
bullies. There's absolutely no reason an adult, professionally run forum like ours should put up with this behavior yet we have no explicit TOS which forbids such personal attacks, other than a vague, poorly defined rule that we must converse in an "acceptable" fashion, which can be interpreted differently depending on what one deems acceptable.
All I'm asking for is that your signature line (under your post) should not
just be a guideline, instead it should be a forum
rule:
1. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
For example, telling a person "There is absolutely no valid reason to use the encoding you suggest for consumer distributed audio" is fine, but telling that same person they are a "stupid idiot" is not. Currently there is no rule to prevent this and it happens over and over again.
We can and should change, but the only way that this can occur is to have a rule against it so when people break the rule they can be held accountable. It seems exceedingly simple and straightforward to me that ad hominem attacks should not be tolerated and are grounds for, at the very least, getting the post removed.
I fully support the approach that will treat new members and reasonable opinions gracefully.
Talking about discussants as "jerks, having disorders, audiophiliacs" etc. does not help to find and discuss good solutions.
I know that e.g. repeated craving for high sample rates could be unpleasant to experienced members, but there is always a way to tell it in such a way that the others will understand.
Moreover some of the issues that the "old" members have clear opinion or proof on are debated again because of new findings, advances in computer audio or changes in market situation. In know this is Hydrogen Audio, but it does not exist in vacuum or laboratory.
I know that e.g. repeated craving for high sample rates could be unpleasant to experienced members, but there is always a way to tell it in such a way that the others will understand.
That's odd, because I seem to remember several members repeatedly telling you in quite straightforward and reasonably friendly terms that your assertions and beliefs were based only in hearsay and unsubstantiated speculation, and that all of your proposed reasons for preferring 24-bit audio over 16-bit for playback had been thoroughly debunked many times. But you persisted in trying to rationalize your completely irrational claims.
Sometimes, it is very hard to get people to understand, and that's when the tone tends to get a little sharp.
The best threads are those with lots of technical discussion, which I enjoy a lot.
The worst threads can be recognized by their page count.
I know that e.g. repeated craving for high sample rates could be unpleasant to experienced members, but there is always a way to tell it in such a way that the others will understand.
That's odd, because I seem to remember several members repeatedly telling you in quite straightforward and reasonably friendly terms that your assertions and beliefs were based only in hearsay and unsubstantiated speculation, and that all of your proposed reasons for preferring 24-bit audio over 16-bit for playback had been thoroughly debunked many times.
Believe me or not, I am still convinced that getting a record in 24 bit format has benefits for experienced end user, especially in the longer perspective. Even if it does not directly justify to charge higher price, just to offer a download of appropriate FLAC file to a customer. And this is not the case usually today, as when buying a CD you get just that (although that is completely OK for Hi-Fi playback).
Believe me or not, I am still convinced that getting a record in 24 bit format has benefits for experienced end user, especially in the longer perspective. Even if it does not directly justify to charge higher price, just to offer a download of appropriate FLAC file to a customer. And this is not the case usually today, as when buying a CD you get just that (although that is completely OK for Hi-Fi playback).
Apparently you seem to be impervious to learning, despite overwhelming evidence to refute your beliefs.
Not true. Just keeping my opinion which I have good reasons to. That is onne of the problems discussed in this thread. Tolerance to others people approach. I know that science sometimes cannot be debated over (there are some facts to comply with), but this is not the case of 24 bit audio.
Not true. Just keeping my opinion which I have good reasons to. That is onne of the problems discussed in this thread. Tolerance to others people approach. I know that science sometimes cannot be debated over (there are some facts to comply with), but this is not the case of 24 bit audio.
Yes, it actually is.
Your opinions are pointless in that discussion, as the use of 24bit audio as a distribution format is not a question of opinion, it is a question of basic facts of human hearing. But you insist on your erroneous opinions, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
That is not an open-minded approach to discussion, that is a closed-minded ingrained belief system on par with religious fundamentalism.
Unlike you I have no significant problem with different approaches. So I know that as a pure distribution (playback) format RedBook standard (16/44.1) is OK and that is a fact I do not dismiss. But as I wrote before, there are quite common scenarios even for the end user where he could benefit from having 24 bit record. That is a difference between us. Not religion here, sorry.
Edit: If we are picky, it would be better to write "some scenarios". The discussion took place in another thread before so I do not wanna do it here now.
Unlike you I have no significant problem with different approaches. So I know that as a pure distribution (playback) format RedBook standard (16/44.1) is OK and that is a fact I do not dismiss. But as I wrote before, there are quite common scenarios even for the end user where he could benefit from having 24 bit record. That is a difference between us. Not religion here, sorry.
Edit: If we are picky, it would be better to write "some scenarios". The discussion took place in another thread before so I do not wanna start it here now.
And precisely as before, you cannot actually tell us what these "quite common scenarios" are, you just allude to their supposed existence.
This is not a question of different approaches or opinions, this is a question of verifiable fact. And you're trying to argue against it, with no evidence whatsoever.
If you're actually talking about remixing or applying effects, that still doesn't justify 24bit as a distribution format. As long as the processing is done with higher precision, using 16bit sources is perfectly fine.
I talked about them in the other thread, but they were dismissed, not discussed. Not good to repeat them again here.
Edit: Of course using 16 bit source is perfectly fine, especially concerning audibility. But when doing some processing (including resampling or simple effects or even volume changes) which could be in simple form done even on end-user level, the results will be (digitally) better with 24 bit sources, not talking about the neccessity of dithering which disappears in 24 bit. Still: 16/44.1 (RedBook) is OK and I do not want to argue against CD in any way - I have learned things about it, even here.
@KozmoNaut @jumpingjackflash5 Terms of service number 5 talks about keeping threads "on topic" (although i am not innocent in there, as a recent question about foobar and wasapi ended in a talk about discussing coding terminology).
Yet, as we are discussing how to approach controversial topics, let's take your proposed first-hand example:
The community has had previous talks about this 24-bit vs. 16-bit Audio listening test (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,106156.msg868763.html#msg868763), Succesful ABX of 24/96 vs. 16/44.1 (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,81467.25.html), and so far seems that the bitdepth alone is not a factor (there are other factors in those threads).
We try to keep on facts rather than "just in case" scenarios. Whereas no one is limited to choose their preferences, the wording and the suitability is of importance. Like I said in my first post, this is not intended to be a chat, but a scientific discussion, so oppinions or preferences don't add much to the information and are not seen as a good thing. Said that, it is perfectly acceptable to say things like: "i have enough disk space so i don't even compress to lossless" or "i've bought that expensive device because I have other components of that brand". They are simply of no value here.
The problem starts when audible benefits are given to the preference which are not substantiated by evidence. And evidence here is provided from trustable sources or from personal ABX tests.
For example, I continually see ad hominem attacks against other forum members, and I'm talking about veterans who should know better who attack not just newbs but also other veterans. They seem to enjoy being abusive, condescending, and as you just put it, "jerks". There is a very simple word for what they are: bullies. There's absolutely no reason an adult, professionally run forum like ours should put up with this behavior yet we have no explicit TOS which forbids such personal attacks, other than a vague, poorly defined rule that we must converse in an "acceptable" fashion, which can be interpreted differently depending on what one deems acceptable.
Firstly it can be fun teasing such people when they get something a bit wrong. Secondly, if you were to stop posts from such people then what is currently a pretty low posting rate may drop below what is viable for a functioning forum. What seems to matter is consistency. Some forums can work fairly well with a bit of rough and tumble but they tend not to be the overly serious forums.
Treating audiophiles with contempt is a reasonable thing to do if you want them to go away. They are unlikely to respond positively to a reasoned scientific view given what it takes to believe in things audiophile. Unfortunately this will encourage people to come here and wind people up. What proportion of people with opening posts enthusing about audiophile nonsense are genuinely interested in what the regulars here have to say? My guess is not many.
Edit: Of course using 16 bit source is perfectly fine, especially concerning audibility. But when doing some processing (including resampling or simple effects or even volume changes) which could be in simple form done even on end-user level, the results will be (digitally) better with 24 bit sources, not talking about the neccessity of dithering which disappears in 24 bit.
Did you not read what I just wrote?
"If you're actually talking about remixing or applying effects, that still doesn't justify 24bit as a distribution format. As long as the processing is done with higher precision, using 16bit sources is perfectly fine."
Perfectly fine, as in completely audibly indistinguishable.
This is exactly my point, and why I don't think this discussion is completely off-topic. It concerns willingness to accept when one is wrong concerning a subject that has been tirelessly researched and tested.
I know that e.g. repeated craving for high sample rates could be unpleasant to experienced members, but there is always a way to tell it in such a way that the others will understand.
You can even buy 32 bit files if you have such cravings (which seem to be based on emotions, not facts), but as soon as you start making claims about sound quality you should be prepared to provide supporting evidence. It's that simple.
As I've mentioned before, this is the opposite of many audiophile places where everyone lives in his own little bubble and there are threads and even postings within the same threads that are completely contradictory, completely nonsensical, based on pure ignorance ... but are still celebrated by others. When the same tweak, that is actually useless, results in a bass boost for one group of people and a treble boost for the next one then you know it's BS. People hear what they want to hear, and if they spent a lot of money they want to hear an improvement - so they do.
See, these people do not care if there actually are audible differences. Many just seem to seek acknowledgment of their purchases, seek attention by showing off their purchases and publishing their "knowledge" based on biased opinion and flawed comparisons, seek others who agree with their opinions. If you try to (they have various defenses set up) burst their bubble you get silenced at best.
Here it's the other way around.
I know that here it is different and that is why I am on this forum even if not being treated kindly sometimes.
I also know that on some other forums the approach "I have paid XXX USD it must be better" or "this SW audio player has much much better sound colorization and spacing" prevails and I am not a big fan of those.
I do not crave for high sample rates because I respect physics and agree to the findings of the Nyquist-Shannon theorem. I know also that human hearing dynamic range is below the "capacity" of a RedBook format. But I still get the benefit of 24 bit digital audio format to the end user.
In this sense the problem is simple to me.
I do not crave for high sample rates because I respect physics and agree to the findings of the Nyquist-Shannon theorem. I know also that human hearing dynamic range is below the "capacity" of a RedBook format. But I still get the benefit of 24 bit digital audio format to the end user.
But you don't "respect" the physics regarding signal/noise ratios? So what exactly is the benefit of 24bit digital audio to the end user?
Please spell it out in detail, and don't leave anything out, to avoid misunderstanding. Because you have continued to harp on about 24bit audio as a distribution format being beneficial to the end user, but you have provided absolutely
zero actual reasons for why you believe this.
If I may be so blunt, it is time to put up or shut up.
I'm beginning to feel that this is simply a case of you not wanting to admit that you're completely wrong.
But I still get the benefit of 24 bit digital audio format to the end user.
Yep and as a unchangeable true believer, you should be "welcomed with a more friendly and helpful attitude" here at HA, since that has proven over time, again and again to be far more effective results wise, than "rude and snide".
Sure.
I put it up in the original thread so that this one is not flooded futher.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111271.msg918034.html#msg918034
Certain people are just incredibly toxic. Too toxic to maintain a discussion.
Modify profile - Buddies/Ignore List - Edit Ignore List. That's all I will say about that.
@xnor : I am confused now. Isn't this specific thread about not doing what you have just done? I think
@jumpingjackflash5 has behaved accordingly moving the discussion to the correct thread and in that thread the post is reasonable (debatable, but reasonable). Where is the "Toxicity"?
Also, why do you suggest using the Ignore List? Should moderators use the Ignore List so that the forum runs unmoderated? (because the mods don't see the noise). Should normal users use ignore list to just see the comments they want to see?
Back then on the glory days of IRC or IM, ignoring could make sense to avoid being attacked, but i'm not really seeing the use-case on a forum, especially on threads (PMs are a different issue).
Edit:
@ajinfla : I don't understand your comment. Is that sarcasm?
We are debating how to react to these type of posts. As such, I would like you to classify your comment:
Is it helpul? Does it conduct the conversation to a good end? What is the destination of the comment, the argument, or the person? Overall, does it meet what we are proposing here, or what we are trying to avoid?
I wasn't talking about
@jumpingjackflash5 but aj's continuing toxic behavior with just rude, bad and sarcastic remarks here and elsewhere.
Why do I suggest the ignore list? Because of this ^. I guess it's not toxic enough for the mods to do something about it. To me it is. Personally I don't care that some people are just rude, but others certainly do and that makes it incredibly disruptive.
edit: Oh good, you have noticed it too. Of course such replies are not helping, that's why he's posting them and why I suggested the ignore list.
Edit: @ajinfla : I don't understand your comment. Is that sarcasm?
From me?? No never, never.
I love reading about 24bit disorder "fretting" and why controlled perceptual testing is pure folly, etc, etc. here on HA.
I think those beliefs should be welcomed with friendliness and helpfulness. Don't you?
So, ajinfla, do you want to contribute to this thread? If so, then, please, reply to the questions i asked, else we will not be able to continue.
Still trying the the golden silence way of things and it seems to get better. I already wrote less as i wanted.
If i get better at it i may even have no need to post anything at all.
Thanks for your efforts.
@Wombat: That is actually part of the proposed solutions.
If an user feels that no response will be better than the response he wants to make, such user is actually helping both, the community and himself.
That is not to mean that "no response" is better than "any response". In the interest of increasing the quality and attitude of the community, we should educate ourselves to behave in a good way, and try first the constructive way or, at least, to stop the destructive way at first.
Moderation will always be needed, and any user can act as a moderator (using the relational meaning of the word) if a real moderator is not present.
So, ajinfla, do you want to contribute to this thread?
Do you have me on ignore (like my friend...who somehow continues to see my posts)?
I am posting to the thread as well as others.
@ajinfla : You've been busy in the More misinformation thread, with posts like this (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111271.msg918058.html#msg918058), this (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111271.msg918065.html#msg918065), this (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111271.msg918067.html#msg918067) or this (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111271.msg918070.html#msg918070).
Meanwhile, you did not reply to my questions in this thread about the quality of your comments. You actually added more comments to judge (the ones i've posted above).
I am interested in what this topic has to offer to the community. I am interested in talking about the direction that we want this community to take and be proud of it. And in doing so, we will probably write some code of conduct complementary or in addition to the Terms Of Service.
It is of your interest to reply to my questions and participate in this tread in a constructive way. Else, you might find yourself violating these new Terms Of Service, and giving the moderators a founded reason to ban you from here.
The internet is big enough, so maybe this limitation will not matter to you. I just want you to realize that it can happen.
You are a moderator?
Is it not enough reason that I am an user of this forum? Since I want to continue being such an user, I see the necessity of maintaining it a nice place to be.
You know, like picking up a paper from the floor of your building, even if it wasn't you the one that throw it.
Edit: Oh, and now that you ask it, I was offered several years ago to become a moderator. I declined it because I thought I would need to spend more time here than what I wanted right then.
I was just curious, is all. Thanks.
@ajinfla You still have to reply to the questions i made.
Are your (still ongoing) comments helpful? Do they let the discussion flow in a friendly or at least educated way?
Is your usage of the words "my friend" amicable or disrespetful? In this regard, you should take notice that at least on some cultures (I bet the english culture too) calling "my friend" repetitively to someone that you don't know is offensive.
Oh, don't worry about it. When he is using "my friend" you can be certain that it's used in a derisive way. ;)
A non moderator implying a future ban because...s/he was asked to be a moderator in the past. Power, phew.
The trolls are laughing their heads off today.
@xnor: I am free to think one way or another, but this thread is about interacting and having good manners.
For that, it is important that participants take responsibility on what they write, and one way to do so is evaluating one's words.
He has opted to ellude this evaluation so far, but this is not preventing us from identifying what we should consider acceptable and what not. And from these conclusions, improve our TOS.
@copperblue: If that can be interpreted from what I said, then I didn't use the correct words. If a future ban comes, it will not be because I suggested it, but for actions done by him in the future regarding some terms of service that might appear thanks to this topic.
I did not say that I have the same authority than a moderator using the premise that I could have been one. I said that I am an user that cares about the site, and I added that moderators thought that I could do so better being a moderator. As such, that is not an expression of power (moderators do exist), but of good behaviour.
2. All members, at the staff's discretion, must converse in an acceptable fashion to be allowed the privilege of continued participation.
tos2 (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,3974.html#post_tos2)
Ok... but TOS8 was reworded some time ago, so tos2 can be reworded too :P :D
For example, I continually see ad hominem attacks against other forum members, and I'm talking about veterans who should know better who attack not just newbs but also other veterans. They seem to enjoy being abusive, condescending, and as you just put it, "jerks". There is a very simple word for what they are: bullies. There's absolutely no reason an adult, professionally run forum like ours should put up with this behavior yet we have no explicit TOS which forbids such personal attacks, other than a vague, poorly defined rule that we must converse in an "acceptable" fashion, which can be interpreted differently depending on what one deems acceptable.
Firstly it can be fun teasing such people when they get something a bit wrong. Secondly, if you were to stop posts from such people then what is currently a pretty low posting rate may drop below what is viable for a functioning forum.
So in your opinion in the interest of "fun" we should not expressly forbid ad hominem attacks and bullying, as I suggested, say calling people "stupid idiots" for example. Plus you fear it would reduced the forum's total post count.
I come to this forum to discuss science with mature, civilized adults, when I can find them. You seem to have other reasons.
Ridiculing and contemptuously eviscerating a newb's naïve idea is perfectly fine. Go for it! Calling them a stupid idiot however is
not, at least not in my book, but I'm not sure you see the distinction between the two.
Ok... but TOS8 was reworded some time ago, so tos2 can be reworded too :P :D
Unless the mods have a different idea what an "acceptable fashion" of conversation is, I'm not sure there's even a need.
So in your opinion in the interest of "fun" we should not expressly forbid ad hominem attacks and bullying, as I suggested, say calling people "stupid idiots" for example. Plus you fear it would reduced the forum's total post count.
I come to this forum to discuss science with mature, civilized adults, when I can find them. You seem to have other reasons.
Ridiculing and contemptuously eviscerating a newb's naïve idea is perfectly fine. Go for it! Calling them a stupid idiot however is not, at least not in my book, but I'm not sure you see the distinction between the two.
I think you might need to reread the post you have quoted. It can be fun teasing the people doing the "bullying" when they don't have a firm grip on the stick they are using. Audiophiles are too soft a target to be much fun at all. Here is an example (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111267.msg917408.html#msg917408) of teasing in a perfectly polite way. I started teasing because the chap I was chatting with became less than civil. I would start teasing you for the same reason if you would give me something to work with.
You are
pro teasing, at least when you personally deem it appropriate it would seem, and if I understand correctly you find it "fun" . I am against it and feel that forum members have the right to not be abused and harassed.
People should feel free to viciously attack arguments with all they've got, but not the
arguers themselves, calling them, for example, "stupid idiots". The ease of teasing a person or the level of fun it creates for the teaser, or if the victim has themselves bullied others and/or is technically incompetent on an issue is all completely immaterial to the question of, "Is it acceptable to tease/bully?", so I don't see why you bring these things up:
It can be fun teasing the people doing the "bullying" when they don't have a firm grip on the stick they are using. Audiophiles are too soft a target to be much fun at all. . . . I started teasing because the chap I was chatting with became less than civil.
Two wrongs don't make a right. If a person has broken a forum rule then report them. Don't attack them back as your course of action. As an analogy, if a person deliberately throws a rock through your parked car window this does not grant you the right to throw a rock through their car's window. What one does, as a civilized adult, is report the offense to the authorities.
If one forum member personally attacks another this is grounds for disciplinary action, it is not a green light to then personally attack them with impunity, calling them a "stupid idiot". We have
one set of forum rules and they are not to be broken "if one feels justified in doing so". This seems a simple concept, to me at least.
If we allow teasing then when a bully personally attacks another person (not their argument), calling them a "stupid idiot", they will simply fall back on "Oh, I was just having a little polite fun. Don't make a big thing about it." if they get called on it:
it is their standard modus operandi.
Not true. Just keeping my opinion which I have good reasons to. ...
That's OK. You're entitiled to your opinions. What's not OK here is presenting your opinions as valid without also presenting sound technical evidence for their validity. It might help to think of TOS #8 as the "put up or shut up" rule.
You are pro teasing, at least when you personally deem it appropriate it would seem, and if I understand correctly you find it "fun" . I am against it and feel that forum members have the right to not be abused and harassed.
Certainly. When someone such as yourself makes a personal attack on a person, such as myself, incorrectly claiming they are making personal attacks on others it is funny because it is hypercritical. Teasing is an appropriate and reasonable response. Do you really think I should moan to the moderators about you? Wouldn't it be better to engage and draw out some more entertaining content?
As I've suggested in #1 the first suggestions I've made is that it would be more helpful to give direct, helpful answers or just ask for extra information. Teasing can be more annoying than just being called "stupid". It also lowers the SNR of the thread. :(
Given how the thread on more misinformation goes, I start to think that this is already the modus operandi of the active users of this community. Else, I cannot understand why is it so difficult to close arguments rather than continue attacking the people involved in it.
This is a serious question: what purpose do the twenty (7 just from today) pages serve to hydrogenaudio?
It's a question for all the participants to make to themselves.
People are free not to participate in that discussion. Why should that decision be made for them instead?
BTW, it's "that said" not "said that".
This is a serious question: what purpose do the twenty (7 just from today) pages serve to hydrogenaudio?
It's a question for all the participants to make to themselves.
It reminded me about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x48Hq9F4Q70
Do you really think I should moan to the moderators about you?
About me having done what? Or is this a hypothetical question? Sorry, I think I got lost and I'm not getting your point. Please explain.
In general, if anyone breaks the rules they should be held accountable, so reporting them is the correct thing to do, yes.
Wouldn't it be better to engage and draw out some more entertaining content?
I'm here to discuss science and not seek entertainment from watching or participating in fighting. If one posts with the intent of inciting fights we actually have a rule against that: No flaming.
---
[Now addressing everyone:]
I am against making personal attacks,, for example, calling other forum members "stupid idiots". I want a rule which states that personal attacks, ad hominem attacks, such as this are unacceptable. Currently we only have a vague rule which states it is unacceptable to post, um, unacceptably, but obviously that's not clearly defined. Is calling another forum member a "stupid idiot", for example, allowed or not? This is not a difficult question.
Where is this "stupid idiot" quote I keep reading?
We have a report function. Why not use it?
^Because there is no (current) TOS rule which has been broken by calling another forum member that.
Nonsense.
I certainly hope you don't expect TOS #2 to display every possible name that you can think of putting in a pair of quotations as if it were literally said or could be said* by someone.
(*) I have no idea which as it seems no one knows how to use punctuation properly anymore.
Neither TOS #2, nor the extended clarification below it, explicitly says name calling is not permitted. TOS #2 says unacceptable speech is unacceptable but that doesn't help clarify things for me.
Since I now know you deem the current hypothetical example I just gave is unacceptable, I take it you consider it falls under the umbrella of "hateful" or "abusive" as the extended clarification written by CiTay mentions (recently update on 10 January, 2016, 02:08:08 AM by kode54). Good to know. Thank you.
Remember that moderation is neither instantaneous nor complete. Moderators are humans and humans are not perfect.
Also realize that leeway is usually granted in order not to stifle conversation. Also, the forum usually does an excellent job at self-moderating (TOS 2 and 8 mostly; 5 and 6 not so much). For the most part you guys are highly intelligent adults who don't need coddling.
There are lots of other things that could be clarified here, but like everything else, little in this discussion is new. I will say that moderators have extremely limited banning abilities. I will also say that the new forum software doesn't grant moderators anywhere near as much control as what was available previously.
As a parting shot, I'm left wondering how our latest placebophile is going to get along here. Heaven forbid anyone so much as suggest he read our golden rule. I'd do it but I'm deathly afraid of being labelled a bully (not really).
Quite often I am left with the choice between believing that somebody is a troll, or that s/he is stupid. Other options don't seem plausible. What should I choose then?
Both isn't a possibility?
As a parting shot, I'm left wondering how our latest placebophile is going to get along here.
On a factual level? I guess like most people coming from audiophile forums.
As a member? Not that great I guess, but I do think that this thread already had an impact, albeit a much too small one for my taste.
Both isn't a possibility?
False dichotomy anyway.
I do think that this thread already had an impact, albeit a much too small one for my taste.
I'm sorry to say that I can't take this 20-20 Monday morning quarterback back seat driving very seriously.
Where's that image of the cat circling round and round? Is it on a timer?
How will the compiler know when to dismiss me as a troll as a means to declare my arguments null and void?
Monday evening here :D, very tired ... and I have no idea what you're saying.
I'm saying that you need to lead by example.
The good example is usually "hold your tongue" which is a problem, since one cannot be silently present on an internet forum! Maybe I should make a habit of typing an occasional (ಠ_ಠ) as the equivalent of staring down a bloviator.
The good example is usually "hold your tongue" which is a problem, since one cannot be silently present on an internet forum! Maybe I should make a habit of typing an occasional (ಠ_ಠ) as the equivalent of staring down a bloviator.
Instead of a "like" button, maybe an HA administrator could program a "Harumph" button, for those silently judging.
I don't think like/dislike buttons are that useful. I'd rather see a "this is helpful" button.
It appears that trick is in the wording, as if "new" member is someone that just walked out of corn field, while in reality can be pure evil from the deeps of "insert your favorite hifi forum here" or worse: troll.
(http://en.wikifur.com/w/images/f/f3/Troll.png)
I'd say: beat them, question them, ban them (if needed) and some will become supersonic real members.
Technicality: Perhaps it is possible with this new forum software to silence new members for first N days, which will allow them some reading and reduce weird topics, reducing the admin/moderation work.
Technicality: Perhaps it is possible with this new forum software to silence new members for first N days
Nah, gotta allow people to just ask a question, instead of requiring long-term commitment.
I don't think like/dislike buttons are that useful. I'd rather see a "this is helpful" button.
Voting up and down buttons are useful when there are high volumes of posts but with only a few active threads each day I am not sure there is much of a requirement.
How to handle unwanted posts from audiophiles is an interesting and challenging problem. I am pretty sure it is unwise to be accommodating when the first post is unwanted and violates the TOS. I am close to certain it is unwise if the second and third posts continue on the same track. Ridicule is an effective deterrent for all but the committed who are likely to be spurred on by it. Since there are a handful of active posters that want to ridicule audiophiles the forum currently gets it for free. Reducing it is what would require effort and it might also reduce other posts from these active and often fairly knowledgeable members.
The ridiculing of audiophiles will put off some posters that could make a positive contribution to the forum but it will also put off posters that would make a negative contribution. I lack the information to make a reasonable judgement of whether the pros are likely to outweigh the cons. My guess is that toning it down might in time raise the positive posts but what will happen with the negative posts? It is not an easy question.
There's a weird repeating pattern in the rhetoric of all of them, which always springs up giant red flag when I hear something like one of these:
- I can hear it, which is an incontrovertible observation
- Science doesn't know everything, therefore I'm going to ignore everything that we DO know
- Tsk, you people and your "experiments"
- My wife/dog
- I live in a big house near some woods
There's a weird repeating pattern in the rhetoric of all of them, which always springs up giant red flag when I hear something like one of these:
- I can hear it, which is an incontrovertible observation
- Science doesn't know everything, therefore I'm going to ignore everything that we DO know
- Tsk, you people and your "experiments"
... and none of those tell you that the person is a troll. I will not repeat the definition again, or my earlier points on misjudging people without a science education, that are ignorant about a lot of things, people that have been spoiled (not just in audiophile forums but this seems also to be generational) ...
- My wife/dog
... heard it from the kitchen with the door closed? :D
This does smell of trolling.
I'm a new member here, and I've joined the forum at the behest of a former coworker. He is a digital audio engineer/developer and so with pretty high expectations, I started reading some of the forum discussions here. And at the time, he told me that the forum was quite different from most other "audio enthusiast" sites on the internet. From what I've read and learned so far, I'm glad to see that there's a counter-balancing force amongst those other sites.
But a good number of new members are coming here after being bombarded with pseudo audio science "facts" for a long time. In fact, I was pretty dismayed by the inaccuracies of things I had thought to be true or at least relevent. And much of my previous perceptions of "audio quality" and corresponding purchases go against the advice of older forum members here. And I often see new members argue and attempt to justify their thoughts and, more importantly, their gear to make themselves feel better.
Thankfully, I never fully went "audiophile" although a few things I own definitely lean that way. I regret some of those things now, but I made those purchases based on what I thought was good information. So perhaps a little sympathy could go a long way to better educating the misguided?
In any case, I'm glad this place exists. It sure cured me of the worst effects of the audiophile disease.
Thanks for reading,
Dan
I'm sure that being told that one had vastly overpaid for one's audio equipment must be very painful to hear, It's no wonder that one would fight back hard against the new reality.
More than that, we all know how easy it is to trick ourselves especially with our hearing. Imagine if you didn't know that and "heard" stuff for years while being surrounded by like-minded people... we all know what that results in.
I'm sure that being told that one had vastly overpaid for one's audio equipment must be very painful to hear, It's no wonder that one would fight back hard against the new reality.
Too true. I can honestly say my fancy desktop amp sounds no better than my O2AMP/ODAC pair, my fancy stereo receiver sounds no better than my budget amp hooked to my Sonos Connect, and my higher bit rate music files sound no better than CD quality music. With a little more information, I could have saved myself a bunch of money and time. Same thing applies for the money I spent on speakers and headphones... Damn, I'm upset at myself...
There's nothing wrong with still enjoying fancier components.
I'm sure that being told that one had vastly overpaid for one's audio equipment must be very painful to hear, It's no wonder that one would fight back hard against the new reality.
Too true. I can honestly say my fancy desktop amp sounds no better than my O2AMP/ODAC pair, my fancy stereo receiver sounds no better than my budget amp hooked to my Sonos Connect, and my higher bit rate music files sound no better than CD quality music. With a little more information, I could have saved myself a bunch of money and time. Same thing applies for the money I spent on speakers and headphones... Damn, I'm upset at myself...
I'd bet that your headphones and speakers sound better than cheap ones (unless we're talking about my "cheap" LSR305's).
Technicality: Perhaps it is possible with this new forum software to silence new members for first N days
Nah, gotta allow people to just ask a question, instead of requiring long-term commitment.
Nah, give them 30 days for meditation and world peace.
On one hand having new members wait before posting something might give some older members a break but on the other hand if they register to report a bug on foobar2000 part of the forums and find out they have to wait then it's a bad thing because it might discourage them all together.
Too true. I can honestly say my fancy desktop amp sounds no better than my O2AMP/ODAC pair, my fancy stereo receiver sounds no better than my budget amp hooked to my Sonos Connect, and my higher bit rate music files sound no better than CD quality music.
Unless broken and/or "audiophile", (real) audible differences in electronics/files should be negligible to zero.
Same thing applies for the money I spent on speakers and headphones...
Unlike electronics, there most certainly
are audible differences with transducers, it's just that you don't have to spend a fortune to get the sound you prefer.
However, the total subjective experience might go beyond just audible sound. And often does.
cheers,
AJ
Thankfully, I never fully went "audiophile" although a few things I own definitely lean that way. I regret some of those things now, but I made those purchases based on what I thought was good information. So perhaps a little sympathy could go a long way to better educating the misguided?
Indeed. Hydrogen Audio has helped me along the way too, but there is a very simple approach: ask. There is at least one thing that I had had my doubts about (electrical noise from PC power supplies, especially laptop) that I have been able to mark as
confirmed possible by people with rational minds. Hydrogenaudio is not
always about just rubbishing and debunking things. There is a tiny patch of shared ground that connects audiophile nonsense to reality.
The other approach is to treat the forum as if it is another audiophool site. Just arrive, spouting the usual, and then complain when people respond
no thanks. Seems to me that that approach to a site is either rude, ignorant, or... just plain trolling.
I am far from a hard-core rationalist, and I have no scientific or technical knowledge. However, I have (in my old age!) become too rational for some of the fora that I used to frequent. There is no point in trying to convert those people. Harping on will only get one told to go away. If I went to certain religious institutions (which audiophile sites are, in a way) and spouted my opinion of what is going on there I'd expect to be violently evicted. I'd deserve it too: such behaviour would be rude to say the least. It is their house; not mine. I don't think it is wrong for hydrogenaudio members to expect the same simple good manners here. Some of these people must be pretty thick to not the the this-site-is-not-for-message within a page.
In any case, I'm glad this place exists. It sure cured me of the worst effects of the audiophile disease
Me too. I've come to regard some of the stuff I've seen some audophiles do and say is little short of metal illness (Ha! How would that go down on some of those sites!). At best, it is a world, and a very commercial world, supported by complete fantasy --- which is pretty weird state of affairs!
it's just that you don't have to spend a fortune to get the sound you prefer.
You hit the nail on the head there. I was looking for "better" when all I found was "different" and realized I had my favorite sounding pair already.
I'd bet that your headphones and speakers sound better than cheap ones (unless we're talking about my "cheap" LSR305's).
Yes, I do enjoy my newer speakers' sound over the old ones.
There's nothing wrong with still enjoying fancier components.
Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with still enjoying more powerful equipment.
Personally, I suspect that the better sound most "audiophiles" claim to hear, simply comes from systems with more powerful amplification.
We've had a number of technical discussions on the matter and from those I strongly suspect that the majority of people who think they are truly benefiting from higher power are only doing so through placebo effect.
EDIT: I probably should have binned and warned for the above post being off-topic instead of answering it in an effort to combat what I believe to be FUD. Oh well.
2tec's last reply was binned per TOS #5. He can do his own research into the matter and resurrect the appropriate thread if he has any further questions.