1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Objectivists board room

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by joe bloggs, May 28, 2015.
First
 
Back
287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296
298 299 300 301 302
Next
 
Last
  1. bfreedma
    I’d think sticking to some hard numbers would help, for example, they typical inexpensive shiny disc player has between x-y nanoseconds of jitter and the range of human detection is x-y ms. Not to dissuade someone with a legitimate idea or discussion to challenge it, but to have them recognize that they would need to support their position with something more than “my ears are the truth”. Another example might be a chart showing the relative impact of different wire materials on resistance and a column showing that impact over typical cable lengths.

    I’m already onboard with Amish shunning - those with an agenda will ignore the faq, play word parsing games and/or keep moving the goalposts. No personal interest in engaging in that type of conversation as it’s nothing more than “The Arguement Clinic” sketch from the old Monty Python show.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
  2. colonelkernel8
    Considering how quickly the mob descended upon my dissent in the equipment forums when I called to question someone’s subjective experiences, I’d say, “NO QUARTER”.
     
  3. sonitus mirus
    No it isn't. :ksc75smile:

    I agree there should be a general reference to common measurements that are considered to be inaudible or insignificant in comparison to the overall situation. We can at least have a starting place. What specification is suspect?

    This reference page is a bit old, but still applicable. I like the format.

    http://www.rane.com/note145.html
     
    bfreedma likes this.
  4. bigshot
    I did a thread on this a million years ago. It was called The Most Important Spec Sheet: The Human Ear. I'll bump it up and if anyone wants to add to the thread to update and expand it, I'll be happy to do that. I'm sure some of the citation links are dead by now though. We may need to find new ones for some things.
     
  5. bfreedma

    Exactly - links like that are very helpful in explaining the basics and helping posters do a better job of using appropriate terminology.

    I’ll start putting together what I think are some of the better posts and links with one caveat. I consider myself a reasonably knowledgable layman but want the experts here to comment on any information, links or quotes so that I can correct any and all mistakes or errors. And hope that they will contribute, even if mostly by cutting/pasting existing posts where they’ve covered the topics previously. I’m not the right person to be the final arbiter of what should go in the faq for the majority of subjects that we would be covering and think the group contributions would add tremendous value.

    Source Science could use a good set of basics. Most people don’t start their audio experienced based on what’s considered common operational knowledge, so a baseline of terminology and reasonably simple constructs would be a good place for those guenuinely interested and perhaps make them a little more comfortable participating.
     
  6. bfreedma

    Sounds like a plan. If I find any dead links, will try to find replacements so you can update.
     
  7. Glmoneydawg
    Has anyone considered a wall...i hear they're in right now.
     
  8. bigshot
    You can be our guard dawg!
     
  9. Glmoneydawg
    Some logic to that....i am a certified convert in the digital arena of SC....GRRRR
     
  10. castleofargh Contributor
    I have been thinking about this for a while, and have whined like a bad puppy to other modos just this week. but while I clearly feel that this section just doesn't work the way it is, I don't really have a clear solution either. I tried writing to start a few stuff, on magnitudes, on what this sub section is about, but I write the way I do. a lots of words to say very little very poorly. nobody in his right mind would wish to read 10 pages of my disorganized thoughts. if the post we ask people to read is worst than a license agreement mixed with science talk, nobody is going to read it.

    also I'm not totally sure that I have the authority to redefine this section or the rules in it. so there is that.
    but of course you guys are more than welcome to make posts if only for yourself to refer to instead of saying the same stuff 3 times a week. and if you think it's worth it, I have the unicorn power of making a topic "sticky". so that much can be done without issue.
     
  11. Glmoneydawg
    As a recent outsider i have to say that yes there are some strongly opinionated people in here,but it is their forum and perhaps a place where standards are set by the SC guys(its their forum)and a place where the subjectivists continually come to take a poke at the objectovists(mostly unsuccessfully)i dont see SC guys stickin their noses in the other forums....double standard here?....i feel like some of the SC guys could seriously mess up some of the other forums....pretty simple concept in here...got an opinion??prove it!!
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2018
  12. bigshot
    You'll just give them an excuse to delete this whole section if you aren't careful. The internet has to be allowed to find its own level. This section has functioned for as long as I've been here. People blow in and cause trouble. Then they get bored and leave. You just have to be patient.

    If you ask me, the big problem here is the attitude towards sound science in the rest of the site. The quarantine atmosphere and the ban on pointing to science and facts in the rest of the site gives jerks permission to come crap all over our threads. The only ones who complain to the mods are the people who come in here to troll us. They are doing it deliberately because they know they're safe. I think the best approach is to treat this group as its own entity and let those of us who care about it enjoy it without intervention. We do fine on our own. None of us are crying.

    It's a shame, because there really isn't anywhere like this anywhere else.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
    Glmoneydawg and colonelkernel8 like this.
  13. bigshot
    We are like dogs reacting to a rolled up newspaper when it comes to that. I don't even participate in the music forum or speakers on HeadFi. I have learned through punishment that I am to stay in here. So I discuss music and speakers here. The only double standard is that if we go into the other forums in HeadFi and talk about science, we get the ban hammer. If someone comes in here and craps all over us with solipsist anti-intellectualism, they are free to complain to the mods about *us*. That isn't fair. Castle should be free to moderate here the same way the other mods moderate out there.

    The way I see it there are only a few options... 1) Get along and follow the rules of the group or at least find your own place in it, 2) Swim upstream and put up with the logical broadsides you are going to receive, or 3) Leave with your tail between your legs. The people who hang around in here stop at 1. Most everyone who tried 2 ends up at 3. Nothing wrong with that.

    Darwin's theory is science, right?
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
    Glmoneydawg and colonelkernel8 like this.
  14. colonelkernel8
    Hear hear.
     
  15. bigshot
    If the fella who has been PMing me lately wants to speak about his recent experience, I'd invite you to. It's relevant to what we're talking about.
     
First
 
Back
287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296
298 299 300 301 302
Next
 
Last

Share This Page