New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Brilliant Pebbles - Page 2  

post #16 of 87
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markl
If the implication is that people who believe in cables also must surely believe is silly stuff like this, I hate to disappoint you, but....
My point in bringing it up was related to cables, but not directly. The only way to compare audio components is to compare them side by side scientifically. If discussing scientific testing of the performance of a specific type of audio component is taboo, then we might as well enforce purely subjective reviews of all components.

Here are the subjective testimonials of people who have used the Brilliant Pebbles... What do these reviews tell you about how effective the product will be with *your* system?

Brilliant Pebbles User Comments
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina19.htm

Here is another sound improvement product...

Golden Sound Intelligent Chip
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina27.htm

And the purely subjective reviews of this product...

Intelligent Chip User Comments
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina30.htm

This one in particular should sound familiar... It hits just about every subjective buzzword we hear regularly:

Quote:
I have commenced using the new lot of GSIC-30s. The thing that I particularly notice about the GSIC-30 is that the sound is more "musical." Also, there is less of a "digital edge" to the music, a somewhat bigger and more cohesive soundstage, a little more air and slightly more resolution in a system that was already very resolving. All this makes listening a more enjoyable experience.
Reviews like this sound great, but they say zilch about the effectiveness of the product. In fact, they tell us more about the person providing the review than they do the product itself.

And just to point out that it isn't just kooks that are supporting stuff like this...

Six Moons Reviews The Intelligent Chip
http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/chip/chip.html

My point isn't that cables are like pebbles or chips... And it isn't to make fun of any particular product or reviewer. My point is that the ONLY really useful way to provide information to other people is to have some objective basis for your argument. When objective analysis isn't allowed, there isn't much point saying anything about the subject at all.

See ya
Steve
post #17 of 87
See it always comes down to some variation on the DBT argument.
Quote:
If discussing scientific testing of the performance of a specific type of audio component is taboo, then we might as well enforce purely subjective reviews of all components.
This was essentially my point in the thread in the Members Lounge and in many private exchanges with moderators since. I see no way for non-believers in cables to post *anything* in the Cables forum. Although they are forbidden only (apparently) from mentioning the dreaded DBT-word, if they are to express any opinion at all that is true to what they believe, it must always come down to pointing out that subjective impressions of things like cables lack validity because---

And then you have to stop right there because you run into the brick wall of the no DBT rule. It's part and parcel of any argument anyone can make about the problems they see with subjective impressions of audio gear.

So, I see two choices only-- re-define what the "no-DBT" rule means to include any talk of cable skepticism whatsoever, because it inevitably leads to and depends upon DBT-based arguments, or get rid of the rule and don't enforce anything. I see the situation as ill-defined, still (I know the mods are working on this, I can be patient, there are other more pressing matters).

But then, why would this rule be limited to the Cable section only? I would submit (and have submitted) that this isn't just a problem in the Cables forum, but site-wide. I can't think of any example of a thread in which a skeptic can make any comment that is anything other than a thread-crap and a diversion, and an argument-starter, and the only time I can see it being OK, is in a thread specifically titled, "Amps make no difference" or "All headphones are the same". In every other type of thread, it would be an automatic crap. "What amp should I buy for my Senns?" "Don't buy an amp, they're all the same". "New headphone from Sennheiser announced!" "Don't spend $300 on a headphone, they're all the same!" "New CD player from Sony reviewed". "You dope eveyone knows that all digital is the same, a bit is a bit". "My new computer sound card is the best ever." "Oh, yeah, where are your DBT study results to *prove* it?" "What Sennheiser replacement cable should I buy?" "You idiot, everyone knows a cable is a cable" Etc. etc. In every case, any DBT-style discussion is a thread crap. We wouldn't tolerate the DBT crowd constantly barging in on discussions of Grados vs. Senns and demanding everyone voicing an opinion perform DBT test to *prove* they hear a difference. Or in the amps forum, to *prove* people are hearing differences between the Airhead and the Blockhead.

If the site does not believe in cables, it should simply remove the cable forum. I sense a tacit acceptance of the fact that cables are a valuable part of your system (if not, why the forum?), bolstered by the fact that Jude deemed (at least) the cable forum to be a "DBT-Free" zone because of that fact. But that's my interpretation, which as I've said is why I started that thread in the first place.

Furthermore, if you don't believe in cables, and since it is known that all DBT-style discussion or cable skepticism is banned from the Cables forum-- why would you post here? Every comment you could possibly make is (apparently) against the rules. Personally, while I can appreciate a nice wine, I'm just as happy with a big bottle of the cheap stuff. Why would I spend my time going to wine-tasting sites to moan and complain to the Members there that everything they say about the flavor of this or that wine is hogwash unless they DBT it? What would I have to contribute to their discussions, and what would be the motivations I might have for looking down my nose and wanting to insult people there? And why would I have time available in my day to do it?

I could speculate about the motivations of some of the people who post in this particular section of Head-Fi, but it would likely just earn me a nasty-gram from the Mods.

Bye.
post #18 of 87
See...jello would provide the best vibration isolation, obviously!
post #19 of 87
This may cause audiophiles to get the Munchies .
post #20 of 87
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markl
I can't think of any example of a thread in which a skeptic can make any comment that is anything other than a thread-crap and a diversion, and an argument-starter
I'm sure they feel the same way in Rush Limbaugh's discussion board! If any kind of disagreement is going to be defined as off-topic, you've crossed the line into religion. The best rule to enforce in a discussion is that everyone remain civil and polite. That's the only rule that's needed. Good arguments and bad arguments will rise and fall on their own merits. It's up to the reader to figure that stuff out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markl
I could speculate about the motivations of some of the people who post in this particular section of Head-Fi, but it would likely just earn me a nasty-gram from the Mods.
It's really easy... If you're secure in your beliefs and can back them up, nothing anyone else says should be able to bother you. You can just dive in and participate in the discussion calmly and politely. If other people disagreeing with you really gets under your skin, internet discussion boards aren't for you. A one-way communication, like a web page, would be more suitable for you.

My overall point in this thread was to show by example how altering the rules of the discussion board to protect the delicate sensibilities of one side or the other in a discussion is a good way to eliminate worthwhile discussion. I think I've made that point now. I'm moving along to other discussions...

See ya
Steve
post #21 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot
It's really easy... If you're secure in your beliefs and can back them up, nothing anyone else says should be able to bother you. You can just dive in and participate in the discussion calmly and politely. If other people disagreeing with you really gets under your skin, internet discussion boards aren't for you. A one-way communication, like a web page, would be more suitable for you.
I completely agree with Mark, and you misunderstand the function of an audio discussion forum. We're no scientists, and we don't (have to) prove anything, we just report our listening experiences, and most of us don't have a «belief», as you call it. It's annoying to constantly encounter posts pretending «our hearing is notoriously unreliable» and «without a scientific test your sonic description is worthless».


Quote:
I'm moving along to other discussions...
Great idea!


post #22 of 87
Realized I left one example out--

"I like Jimi Hendrix better than Clapton."

"Oh yeah, did you DBT them?"

post #23 of 87
Thread Starter 
Jimi Hendrix could definitely be compared to Clapton in a logical way...

First you would define your criteria for judging guitar playing. (speed, expression, specific music theory, improvisation, etc.) Then you would apply your criteria to examples of their work to see how well they stack up. Once you obtained enough samples to decide on an overall rating, you could make a decision based on the results to determine which is best.

Someone with a different set of criteria might come to a different conclusion, but regardless of whether they agreed with your conclusion or not, they would probably learn something from your analysis. The important thing in making a point isn't the conclusion you reach, it's how you reach it.

Just saying "Jimi Hendrix is the best to my ears." means nothing to anyone except people who happen to have your ears.

See ya
Steve
post #24 of 87
You are calling these purely fictional thoughts of an adman “reviews”?

If you read a little more on this forum you will detect that the general consensus is that any review is worth as much as the publicly known context. For example the reviewers taste and experience.
A little more reading instead of preaching wouldn’t hurt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markl
… why would you post here?
… what would be the motivations I might have for looking down my nose and wanting to insult people there?
Don't spoil their fun mark. Finally they have found people who seem to be even more stupid than they are, and now they want tell them so.
post #25 of 87
6 moons review of Pebbles.

Above is a link to a review of the Brilliant Pebbles done by a 6 moons reviewer. Typically like most moon reviews, a lot of flash and verbage but no beef. If anyone can figure out if he liked them or not, please let me know.

Regards,
Michael
post #26 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by markl
I see no way for non-believers in cables to post *anything* in the Cables forum.
This must be one of the funniest (or scariest) posts I have read in years. Paranoid calls for censorship and for even more censorhip are signs of the desperate state high-end audiophoolery is in.

Why not go even further, Markl? To me it seems that according to your reasoning the skeptics should not be allowed to post anything on any Head-Fi forum.




Regards,

L.
post #27 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ
I completely agree with Mark, and you misunderstand the function of an audio discussion forum. We're no scientists, and we don't (have to) prove anything, we just report our listening experiences, and most of us don't have a «belief», as you call it.
This of course is not true at all (I think we have been through this before).

In addition to "just reporting listening experiences", audiophiles (myself including) make factual claims of the sonic attributes of various pieces of equipment. Without those claims discussions would not make sense at all.

Part of growing up is accepting the fact that somebody is always likely to question the basis of your factual claims, scientific or not. True, you do not have to prove anything. OTOH, for most rational adults "because I say so" just doesn't cut it.


Regards,

L.
post #28 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leporello
This of course is not true at all (I think we have been through this before).

In addition to "just reporting listening experiences", audiophiles (myself including) make factual claims of the sonic attributes of various pieces of equipment. Without those claims discussions would not make sense at all.
You name it. But «factual claims» is too hard a word. People report what they hear, and since they trust their own hearing, the impression is valid for them. Moreover many audiophiles are aware of the fact that the same gear can react differently in a different system and to somebody else's ears with different listening criteria. I barely read absolutistic claims on Head-Fi -- the main exception being some extremist objectivists and cable skeptics.


Quote:
Part of growing up is accepting the fact that somebody is always likely to question the basis of your factual claims, scientific or not. True, you do not have to prove anything. OTOH, for most rational adults "because I say so" just doesn't cut it.
Of course I also don't trust others' experiences blindly -- hearings and sensitivities are different by nature. So I wouldn't bother with contradictory statements such as: «I hear exactly the opposite» or: «I hear absolutely no difference». But we're talking of purely ideological claims and universalizations of own experiences from a few ultra-skeptics. Many cable skeptics haven't even seriously tried to gain experience with the subject they fight.


post #29 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leporello
This must be one of the funniest (or scariest) posts I have read in years. Paranoid calls for censorship and for even more censorhip are signs of the desperate state high-end audiophoolery is in.
Desperate state, censorship, audiophoolery, paranoid... Don't you think you have crossed the line between subjectivity and paranoia here?


Quote:
Why not go even further, Markl? To me it seems that according to your reasoning the skeptics should not be allowed to post anything on any Head-Fi forum.
What's so bad with a decent netiquette? It's for protecting peaceful people with interest in audio against attacks from ideological extremists claiming that they're «audiophools» fallen for the high-end industry's marketing tricks and placebo effects.


post #30 of 87
Quote:
This must be one of the funniest (or scariest) posts I have read in years. Paranoid calls for censorship and for even more censorhip are signs of the desperate state high-end audiophoolery is in.
LOL. Yup, it's sure in a desperate state. While the audio cables industry is doing just fine, IMO, there's a minority (a small one) on this site who seem hell-bent on crapping on threads, particularly here in the cables forum, with their endless supply of snide comments. While that situation is not yet desperate I think it's safe to say that for many, it's risen well above the level of minor annoyance, to one that should be clarified further by site ownership and the Mods. If the site is deemed to be a free-for-all, and that the existing no-DBT rule is eliminated because it's (possibly) un-enforcible, that's fine, the circular arguments will continue apace. But for now, there seems to be some line drawn in the sand somewhere ("A DBT-Free forum"), and I expect we'll get further clarification on what that actually means soon.

Quote:
Why not go even further, Markl? To me it seems that according to your reasoning the skeptics should not be allowed to post anything on any Head-Fi forum.
Please provide some examples of where demanding DBT-style tests is not a thread crap in each of our forums, given the typical thread titles and discussion topics we have. I already did that earlier in the thread, take a look and then ask yourself how do you feel about people posting similar skeptical thoughts in the thread examples I mentioned? Is that cool to you or can you see it's a crap in each case?

As I pointed out, threads like this are an obvious exception. This was not a review of these pebbles from a member, or a thread from a Member asking *which* brand of pebbles he should buy. In those cases, any snide comments (even ones I might want to make) would be a thread crap. In this case, when the purpose of the thread was to ridicule these pebbles, and since it was started by a skeptic, IMO, it's fair game to express opinions pro or con about these pebbles. If non-skeptical members don't want to bother with yet another debate, they certainly don't have to look at a thread like that. Everyone's happy.

Again, if someone wants to start (yet another) thread proclaiming that "Cables make no difference" that's great, all the DBT-ers and skeptics can swarm in that thread and get out all their pent-up hostility. Clearly, in a thread like that, given its topic, debate and skepticism is clearly allowed. It also contains the DBT-ers to a defined area where they can snipe, complain, and condescend to their hearts content without crapping in someone else's thread. (But then this is still just *my* interpretation of the "no-DBT" rule, I could be way off-base, I'm just a Member, not a Mod.)

But I suspect that's not good enough for most of them. I suspect the "thrill" is in upsetting people, not in establishing the superiority of their argument. Being so confined would prevent them from being able to do their trolling where it isn't welcome.

When someone comes in here with a review of some new cables, or is asking for advice on what cables to upgrade to next, drive-by skeptical thread-crapping is completely against the rules, not to mention incredibly rude. This seems reasonable to me, and if one has a problem with that, then clearly, it's because he/she does not want his/her trolling restricted to places where he/she is just talking into an echo chamber with other skeptics. And if that's the case, he/she should ask him/herself why it is they wish to be free to cause trouble, derail threads, and generally try to disrupt the Forum.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked