[Night Surfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif Posts like this make me think that maybe we're making a mistake by permitting some discussion of DBT. Could you be more arrogant, obnoxious, and dismissive if you HAD your own forum? I must confess that, at the moment, it wouldn't bother me one bit to tell this poster and his like-minded obnoxious buddies to go pound sand. Frankly, I have to wonder if we're going to create a BIGGER problem by sactioning attitudes like this. But, we wish to be open minded about this. Apparently that doesn't mean much to some.

Childish and immature moderators like you and Zanth make me wonder why I am here at all.
This has becoming a place that I no longer wish to be associated with.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oicdn /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nothing conspiratorial about it...rather, it's a quite simple observation. Most of the DBT threads are locked down already....so what's there to move to the new forum? Locked threads?

If that is Jude's intension, then yes, locked threads woudl be a start. Also, the fact that given what Night Surfer and others like him post, it will take more moderating and perhaps Jude is contemplating how to go about that. I'll say this, it's been listed as coming, that means it's coming. This thread discusses the forum, it hasn't been locked or deleted, that demonstrates that things are progressing towards the subforum. All in good time.


Quote:

I didn't read all 9 pages, so if it was pointed out already...my apologies. I was just stating an observation.

I can't recall if it was specifically mentioned outside of what mbriant listed, we are busy folks and one new subforum at a time I think is the way things are progressing.

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sovkiller, the current implementation of DBTs is not working. I proposed an alternative, yet I was dismissed as to the need or validity of such a DBT. Apparently the only valuable DBT is one where a person is in a room for a determined length of time among peers or pros and made to exhausitively listen back and forth and then comment on the differences. This DBT is known to be flawed...so again, changes must be made to improve this process if DBT is the way to go.

I agree with you 100% that it is not perfect, or better it is flawed as you said, but as opposed to what, a fairy tale? My concern is why treating both differently...while none of the two offer the truth till now...In other words there is no evidence that could prove either case yet as the absolute truth (well indeed the subjectivist do not need it, and never ask for it, maybe they know they can't, or simply are happy with what they get)

Quote:

As for the DBT discussions being part of a sub-forum, I'm thinking that's where they will stay. Like it or not, agree with it or not, it seems to me that the vast majority of folks would either like to avoid typically rancourous DBT discussions altogether, or would prefer that their subjectivist discussions (which appear to represent the beliefs of a majority of the membership) be allowed to continue without the unwanted interruption that comes when an argumentative objectivist inserts himself into the discussion.

Say by whom, that were true maybe 5 years ago, while we had 20 members, but right now if you do a poll you will be really surprised in realize how many objectivists you will find here, among them professionals of the audio field, designers or audio gear, engineers, and of course people of all instruction and knowledge, like in the opposite field...But don't be so sure that the subjectivists are the majority...

If the same objectivists, or subjectivists are the ones that mainly engage in those discussions that is different, but do not think that they are less in number becasue some of them do not participate so frequent...

 

[digger945]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sovkiller /img/forum/go_quote.gif If the same objectivists, or subjectivists are the ones that mainly engage in those discussions that is different, but do not think that they are less in number becasue some of them do not participate so frequent...

..... and I think that most are like myself, they just do it themselves at home with thier own equipment, cables, bitrates.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you would like to be a part of the solution, feel free to suggest language that is less offending of yor'n and y'ins delicate sensibilities. I can't see anything wrong with it, but it was not intended to offend.

What's wrong with something like "Discussion of empirical and scientific testing of audio equipment"? Things like "if you feel the uncontrollable urge to use the word...." and "and only here..." seem to carry an inherent weight and tone to them.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you would like to be a part of the solution, feel free to suggest language that is less offending of yor'n and y'ins delicate sensibilities. I can't see anything wrong with it, but it was not intended to offend.

You've gotten a couple in this thread already.

Equal position in the menu for both forums- not subnested.
No flippant comments in either description- just clarity.

I encourage the mods to act in a professional manner.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif I mean, twas a time when DBT discussions were deleted. Isn't this a step in the direction of progress and "fairness" with regard to the whole DBT issue?

If discussion of DBT is discouraged, why did a moderator just deliberately shift the discussion in this thread to the validity of DBT?

Will the posts like Zanth's be moved to the subforum too, or would they remain in the main forum?

I ask again... are we separating cable believers from those who think cables make no difference, or are we separating theoretical discussions of double blind technique from the main forum where we are discussing cables? I rarely participate in theoretical discussions, so it won't change my posting if it's the latter.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif If that is Jude's intension, then yes, locked threads woudl be a start.

Speculation isn't very wise here. If Jude is the one who makes the rules, not you, why are you speaking as if you are the ones who will be making the decision? Perhaps Jude should be the one addressing us in this thread.

See ya
Steve

 

[acidbasement]

Quote:

Originally Posted by monolith /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's a step, but still leaves things pretty far towards the unfair side. As I've said, the most fair solution is basically to invert the current plan. Make the "main" forum anything goes (with active moderation to prevent "rancorous" discussion and malicious thread derailment), and make a subforum of the main one a place where no science or DBT can be discussed.

I agree with this, although I don't believe there would be a need for such a subforum if people - subjectivists and objectivists alike - consistently posted in a respectful manner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by monolith /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find it abundantly clear that the most objectionable posts in threads like these come from "true believers". Rather than skeptics trumpeting "Prove it, prove it! DBT! DBT!" regardless of the reasoned opinions of believers, much more commonly I see believers trumpeting "You haven't heard it! You haven't heard it!" regardless of the reasoned opinions of skeptics.

I haven't been around long enough to comment on whether you're correct about this. However, in some cases the "You haven't heard it" argument makes sense to me. One thing that is interesting about many posts in this thread is that people seem to be confusing science with engineering. If someone cannot measure a difference between two different pieces of equipment on a such-and-such-ometer, it is therefore impossible for them to sound different? Excuse me? That logic may work for an engineer at the design table working up a prototype, but no scientist would ever say that - it is completely antithetical to the scientific method. One simply cannot say that "science has proven that xyz makes no difference", because science has not been in the business of proving anything for a good long while. Such statements do not offend me as a subjectivist (which I do not consider myself to be) - they offend me as a scientist.

If engineers were able to accurately predict our perception of sound through the use of measurement equipment currently available, our brains would be far too simple to appreciate music.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Speculation isn't very wise here. If Jude is the one who makes the rules, not you, why are you speaking as if you are the ones who will be making the decision? Perhaps Jude should be the one addressing us in this thread. See ya Steve

Your assumption is that Jude is the only one to make the rules, which de facto excludes me. Though the buck stops with him no doubt, the moderators often convene to organize and figure out forum policy. Since Jude is insanely busy, moderators often are the ones that relate information to the general membership. This is how it has always been. Ultimately if Jude feels it necessary that he posts in this thread, and/or he find the time, then we will know for certain unless he tells one of us directly to disseminate that information, but given precedent, there is no reason to think that opening up a DRM friendly forum, wouldn't contain past threads that were above the line of flame wars but were, at the time, against Head-fi policy. Again, if this did happen, it would take time for that to trickle down because we all have lives outside of Head-fi.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif If discussion of DBT is discouraged, why did a moderator just deliberately shift the discussion in this thread to the validity of DBT?

Stop trying to get into my head. I didn't deliberately do anything. I didn't purposely shift the thread, although I certainly participated in the validity of DBT, which I shouldn't have.

 

[jcx]

"
If you feel the uncontrollable urge to use the word "placebo," in here is where you'll post (and only here). Discuss DBT all you want in here
"

Why would serious subjectivists want the current situation of massive information dilution by clueless newbies and fanboys to be given unopposed free reign of the forums?

Subjective comparison should be based on perceptual “controls”, preferably reproducible and accessible to anyone interested in determining the weight to be given to a subjective impression posted on the forums

This requires education of new headphone enthusiasts in some not obvious but well established realities of audio perception, I’m afraid that this typically involves at least passing mention of placebo effect, unconscious bias and objective, measured perceptual thresholds that have been established by DBT

By not educating new members to the difficulties and requirements for useful subjective comparisons we get the current self reinforcing culture of (largely well meaning, but ignorant) people enthusiastic about their new found toys seeking to share the enthusiasm and “psychologically validate” their purchases

This behavior may generate "buzz"/interest that attracts commercial sponsors but does little to advance the state of the equipment supplied by them - I think educating ourselves as a community to objective criteria that affect audio reproduction and improving the validity/usefulness of subjective evaluations we could expect meaningful advances to come more quickly from manufacturers faced with educated consumers


The “(and only here).” term should be unacceptable to anyone interested in this site being anything more than a BS forum for clueless marks – the audio hobby desperately needs wider dissemination of science/engineering based comparison criteria


and besides, I don't want to change my sig

 

[stewtheking]

Maybe I am getting confused here, and maybe some over-zealous arguments from both sides are confusing matters, but surely individual perception of sound is NOT the issue when talking about double blind trial. I mean, if somebody can hear the difference, they can still hear the difference during a blind trial (as long as it is of sufficient length... etc...). If they can only hear a difference when they know what the difference they are "supposed to hear" is (I.e., they can see which gear they are listening to) then they can't really hear it.

I can see an advantage of being subjective, and if you are a live-and-let-live, hear-and-let-hear sort of camp, good on you. But talking about individual differences in perception, and individual differences in the ability to hear differences between certain sounds is fairly meaningless surely. DBT wouldn't really help that be investigated, more that if people are claiming to hear huge differences, DBT would show if they really were hearing them, and not being fooled into hearing them.

I think the problem has stemmed from people who have been listening to gear for along while, and get rankled when somebody tells them they are fooling themselves and there is no difference. Then because the debate starts in am argumentative way, it stays in that mindset, and the clear value of a useful tool is lost in the process.

Having mocking descriptions for the DBT-allowed forum is just a continuation of this divide between subjective and objective. But then again, maybe that's just me, as a scientist, getting a little upset that a very good scientific test (DBT) is being treated by certain members of both camps as something it is not. It is not a tool that could prove once and for all that cables really do make a difference, nor vice versa, and nor is it particularly limited or flawed. If somebody genuinely needs a month with a blind testing rig, to decide whether A or B is better, then that's fine, but if so, the difference must be a very subtle one. However some claims being made are about a new cable being a night-day difference. If so, then a DBT would show whether this difference is really heard or imagined.

As I see it, I am very much in favour of testing out things in a more scientific and objective manner, as if I found out that I couldn't tell the difference between my cheap and my expensive gear, I'd sell all the expensive gear, and if I found out I could tell the difference, all is well and good.

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidbasement /img/forum/go_quote.gif One simply cannot say that "science has proven that xyz makes no difference", because science has not been in the business of proving anything for a good long while. Such statements do not offend me as a subjectivist (which I do not consider myself to be) - they offend me as a scientist.

I really liked this post and would love if you could expand on this particular statement. I am wondering if you are speaking about Popper's falsification.

 

[Publius]

Tell ya what. Why don't you have the new objectivist forum merely be a link to HydrogenAudio? Everybody who wants to discuss their latest fuse-rolling exploits can still post here. Everybody who wants their audio questions answered correctly can head over there.