What is the rationale behind the prohibition of DBT discussion? - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by dexter3d 

Experience and authority does not prevent from believing all sorts of BS.

Of course.

This thread is becoming an example of why DBT was “banished” to the Science forum. Actually, it hasn’t been all that bad, but still there’s been a few rants and unproductive insults towards fellow head-fiers – goodness, we’re meant to be on the same side. I can’t think of any other hobby which invokes such antagonism.

The correct answer to the original question was given by Roger Strummer in the 2^nd post. Yet some people just can’t accept the simple and obvious. They just can’t let go and so inevitably the downward spiral starts with the same boring fights and put downs.

The sticky in the old format site stated it very clearly. I thought it was carefully written to say that it’s not about who is right or wrong. There’s no conspiracy or victimisation – it’s just a pragmatic way of preventing endless arguments that NEVER come to a helpful conclusion.

With the new format site, that sticky seems to have gone, but dexter3d, you’ve been a member since 2008, so surely you must have come across it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAttorney 

This thread is becoming an example of why DBT was “banished” to the Science forum. Actually, it hasn’t been all that bad, but still there’s been a few rants and unproductive insults towards fellow head-fiers – goodness, we’re meant to be on the same side. I can’t think of any other hobby which invokes such antagonism.

 

The correct answer to the original question was given by Roger Strummer in the 2^nd post. Yet some people just can’t accept the simple and obvious. They just can’t let go and so inevitably the downward spiral starts with the same boring fights and put downs.

 

The sticky in the old format site stated it very clearly. I thought it was carefully written to say that it’s not about who is right or wrong. There’s no conspiracy or victimisation – it’s just a pragmatic way of preventing endless arguments that NEVER come to a helpful conclusion.

 

With the new format site, that sticky seems to have gone, but dexter3d, you’ve been a member since 2008, so surely you must have come across it?

To be fair, he is asking why it is banned, and present valid reasons why it should not be banned in hopes for some detailed reasons why it should.

The only valid reason it is banned is to prevent arguments. Protecting peoples feelings and beliefs is quite silly. If people are wrong, or can't prove something... well then what else could they be?

The reason we have science is to try and get everyone on the same page, as much as possible, and to rule out the inane. When feelings and emotions play into this, you have a sticky mess of ignorance and anger.

Personally, I feel that cables SHOULD make a difference, but have never been able to hear a difference once I sat down and tested. So gut feeling overrides scientific evidence in this case. This sense of 'should be" gives me no claim to respect when it is a matter of right and wrong. This is not philosophy, it is facts.

This forum is full of rants and insults on topics other than cables. A recent thread on the B&W P5s and another on the "need" to use amplification were full of such. Should they be quarantined as well?

Singling out those who say that DBT shows numerous claims to be untrue is wrong IMO.

Just remove posts or ban posters who become offensive or argumentative.

Gosh, 3 reasonable posts in response to mine. But in the meantime I've been to the pub, so I'll respond in the morning

I think it's cool enough that anecdotal evidence is allowed. The Forum is better off  being like a load of mates down the pub talking bollocks than a court of law. So long as you exercise a bit of common sense. Fortunately delusionist Night and Dayers tend no to be very rigourous by definition so at least they rarely fabricate evidence.

Anyway there is no ban on asking people how they reached a certain conclusion or what steps they took to eliminate human error.

People talk shite all the time about practically everything. I mean you don't get in a tedious handbags fight if someone tells you that Tottenham Hotspur are the best football team in the world do you? Any even remotely scientific analysis proves you are right but it's more fun laughing at them.

In the US, the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus is where a lot of the false advertising disputes play out. (Many other countries have similar tribunals.)  I've always been interested in how NAD would handle a consumer complaint about cable advertising.  Competitors in the industry obviously have no interest in going after each other, but it's very easy for an individual consumer to file a complaint.

http://www.nadreview.org/complaint.aspx

Quote:

Originally Posted by dexter3d 

There are SCIENTISTS (people with nature science PhDs doing research work), who believe that the earth is 6000 years old. Experience and authority does not prevent from believing all sorts of BS.

Yes, but very few of those scientists are geologists. Being an expert in your field doesn't make you an expert in *every* field. You wouldn't ask a physicist a question about neurology, and you'd probably want to avoid talking to an engineer entirely (I kid, really). But in this case, we're talking about people who are respected for their experience with headphones and their opinion on headphones.

And of course just because someone is knowledgeable on a subject doesn't mean that they're infallible, but it does mean that they have more knowledge to make an educated guess on and that perhaps their opinion should lend a bit more weight. After all, if we're to continue with the "professional" comparison, you'd be better off consulting a cardiologist when you have heart problems than a guy who has done some light reading on the subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spelaeus 

 

Yes, but very few of those scientists are geologists. Being an expert in your field doesn't make you an expert in *every* field. You wouldn't ask a physicist a question about neurology, and you'd probably want to avoid talking to an engineer entirely (I kid, really). But in this case, we're talking about people who are respected for their experience with headphones and their opinion on headphones.

And of course just because someone is knowledgeable on a subject doesn't mean that they're infallible, but it does mean that they have more knowledge to make an educated guess on and that perhaps their opinion should lend a bit more weight. After all, if we're to continue with the "professional" comparison, you'd be better off consulting a cardiologist when you have heart problems than a guy who has done some light reading on the subject.

You are so right, but as an added never assume a physicist really knows Math  (sorry, couldn't help myself from doing that, I've had some arguments with physicists this year).

Anyways about reviews, one very good one is Skylab's of the HD800, which he even uses measurements that back up his point and the language is clear. Another one is the 4 year O2 review, which even if complicated he defines every term and reasoning he uses, also a very valid approach. But when I read someone that says that a headphone sucks out the emotion, I just scratch my head and not really know what it is about (just read that in the overrated headphone thread).

Anyways, I wonder if any review has ever mentioned DBT and what is the policy about that, anyone knows?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey 

In the US, the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus is where a lot of the false advertising disputes play out. (Many other countries have similar tribunals.)  I've always been interested in how NAD would handle a consumer complaint about cable advertising.

I've always thought advertising disputes would be referred to a tribunal rather than litigation, it's probably standard around the world, which makes sense.

I think there's a lot of wisdom there. You take on the point you can win first, and though I've definately had people refuse to answer, I don't put too much weight on their opinions if they don't.

As for the whole thing about science and the rest of the forum, it takes time. The western world is less superstitious  today than it was 300 years ago, but it was a long process. You can't expect instant changes, it takes time and a lot of effort to change peoples' minds, and I've seen marketing studies before that say you can't just show them the facts. No point to spend too much time lamenting the world's troubles, live by your own ideals, having this forum to talk about DBT is a start.

Also, I'd be careful about using the word 'fraud' - by definition, it's an intentional act. Plenty of cable makers believe in the claims they make, as wrong as they probably are. Misleading or false would be a much more accurcate term.

I think some people take the question of a DBT as an insult to there view or perception.  You are actually questioning their review process and the thread that they have started and spent time to prepare.  A better way may be to listen to it yourself and then report your perception that the USB cable did nothing.  Then you are adding your own perception to the thread instead of trying to take away from someone else's, just another perception instead of a challenge to them.  Of course you may have to go to a meet or another head-fiers house to to this but it is the most gentle way of adding your opinion as opposed to a challenge based on what may appear to be self-righteous fact.  Sorry that you had such a discouraging experience on one of the threads.  I kind of just try to have fun with it myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ypoknons 

Also, I'd be careful about using the word 'fraud' - by definition, it's an intentional act. Plenty of cable makers believe in the claims they make, as wrong as they probably are. Misleading or false would be a much more accurcate term.

Differences are harder to prove on analog cables -- there are all sorts of possible interactions such as feedback and capacitance, etc. But selling a USB interconnect for $1149 is nothing short of fraud. Whoever makes such a cable and claims to have done 15 months of development on it must have known that USB cables are digital, and that as long as the signal can be decoded, there is no loss of quality, AT ALL.