[bigshot]

I think the idea of "Appreciation Threads" is funny.

 

[chaos215bar2]

TBH, his reviews don't claim to be scientific research. while for better or for worst, this section is called Sound Science. can't really blame the guy for having certain expectations toward a section with that name.

Neither does Sound Science advertise itself as a research journal, but that's beside the point.


"Science", or the principals it represents, aren't something you simply turn on and off when you feel like it. Certainly there's nothing stopping someone truly dedicated to understanding the world in an objective way from going out and having fun, but evaluation of a product, such as a cable, is exactly the sort of place scientific principals naturally apply.

Consider this review for instance: https://twister6.com/2019/02/04/effect-audio-leonidas-ii-cable-2/.

Right off the bat, we have the disclaimer "I would like to thank Eric Chong of Effect Audio for providing me with the Leonidas II cable in exchange for my honest opinion. No incentive was given for a favorable review." which, while true, is also BS. If I received free products in exchange for an "honest opinion", you bet I would be biased towards a favorable review. Why would I expect to receive free products in the future if my honest opinion wasn't favorable? (Note: This is a conflict of interest someone with a background in science should immediately recognize.)

Contrast this with a reviewer such as DC Rainmaker, who carefully separates personal purchases from professional reviews and makes a point of returning each review unit once he's done with it.


Then we get to statements like this: "Doubling up the wires with the Ares II 8-wire immediately gives a noticeable expansion of the stage and everything becomes a lot more airy."

I mean, as a subjective opinion that's fine, but at the same time, someone with a remotely scientific approach to life in general would immediately ask, "Ok, why is a cable causing such an audible difference in the music I'm listening to? I'd hardly expect a meaningful difference in resistance, inductance, or capacitance as compared to any other well-made cable, so what am I hearing?". Instead, we're left to take @Wyville's word for it, which, again, is fine, but it's kind of the opposite of "science".

So, considering the repeated assertions as to @Wyville's dedication to science in this forum, it's only natural to ask, "What gives?". And when the answer is, essentially, a shrug, it's only natural to doubt the intentions behind what's being said, both in this forum and in these reviews.

 

[gregorio]

1. is number one for a reason.
("Be polite. We encourage debating in the forums, but please avoid defamatory statements, personal attacks, racial slurs, name-calling, and cursing at others in the forums.)

But I can't exactly work out what that reason is, or how/when/if it is enforced, although I have a good guess. This whole thread was started and is due to defamatory statements and personal attacks aimed at all of us!

Nearly all audiophiles who visit and post in this sub-forum make defamatory statements, statements which contradict science and typically leads to directly trying to discredit science, anyone who supports science and/or personal insults/attacks on us and this sub-forum as a whole. All of which is impolite but appears entirely acceptable in any head-fi forum, even this one! However, if we throw those insults back, attempt to discredit them/their audiophile beliefs with science/actual facts, then we're pretty much instantly locked out of any thread outside of this subforum and eventually reprimanded or censured even in this subforum.

Head-Fi in general appears to be: Being impolite and defaming/attacking science and those who believe in it = Allowed (even encouraged in some subforums!) BUT being impolite and defaming/attacking audiophile marketing BS and those who believe in it = Not Allowed.

I'm not aiming this at you personally castle, your laissez faire approach is far better than any other subforum and has some merit because it sometimes results in useful information, though not really science. However, that's not always the case and impolite, defamatory statements/attacks (on science and this subforum) are pretty much always ignored (allowed) until the discussion really gets out of hand and then posts are deleted but even then, typically the original defamatory statement is not deleted. All of which leads to the obvious conclusion that defaming science (even in this science forum) is somehow considered "polite" or at least, not "impolite".

G

 

[Steve999]

I do think people come in here and lash out at the regular posters, even as the regular posters make an effort to be softer and gentler. The person comes in on their first or second post with name calling, and then someone tries to calm them down, and then a week later the person is back to the name-calling and personal confrontation. Not too long ago I decided to just disengage in those situations because it is obvious the poster is not going to be civil unless I agree with them and there will be no moderation in response to the negative behavior. Sometimes I disengage and predictably enough 20 posts later the subject is blown up all to hell anyway because of the poster’s behavior towards the rest of the sub-forum.

 

[gregorio]

I do think people come in here and lash out at the regular posters, even as the regular posters make an effort to be softer and gentler. The person comes in on their first or second post with name calling ...

Commonly though, that doesn't happen on the first post. Their first post is typically just some assertion that contradicts science. Contradicting science is not only acceptable but encouraged and indeed an intrinsic part of science itself but ONLY with reliable supporting evidence. Without reliable evidence it's just a groundless attack, so even before there's any obvious "lashing out" there's already been a very "impolite" attack on science (and this subforum). Typically (unless it's some repeat offender), we politely assume they don't know/realise they've already inadvertently attacked science and ask for reliable evidence and it's subsequent to that point that the "lashing out" usually begins.

G

 

[Steve999]

Commonly though, that doesn't happen on the first post. Their first post is typically just some assertion that contradicts science. Contradicting science is not only acceptable but encouraged and indeed an intrinsic part of science itself but ONLY with reliable supporting evidence. Without reliable evidence it's just a groundless attack, so even before there's any obvious "lashing out" there's already been a very "impolite" attack on science (and this subforum). Typically (unless it's some repeat offender), we politely assume they don't know/realise they've already inadvertently attacked science and ask for reliable evidence and it's subsequent to that point that the "lashing out" usually begins.

G

True in general, absolutely, but after two minutes of casually looking around I would point to post 7 of this thread as a “first-time-lasher-outer.” I don’t think I’d have to look too much longer to find the next example.

 

[bigshot]

Right off the bat, we have the disclaimer "I would like to thank Eric Chong of Effect Audio for providing me with the Leonidas II cable in exchange for my honest opinion. No incentive was given for a favorable review." which, while true, is also BS. If I received free products in exchange for an "honest opinion", you bet I would be biased towards a favorable review. Why would I expect to receive free products in the future if my honest opinion wasn't favorable?

I have first hand knowledge about this... I was approached by a company to help them focus test a product they were planning to release. They put me in touch with their lead designer and sent me a product to evaluate however I wanted to. I invited a sound engineer friend over and we ran it through its paces and did various tests. We decided that it was a very high quality product fidelity wise, and just made a couple of small suggestions. The company thanked me and asked if I would like to evaluate another of their products that was designed to go with the other product I had evaluated. I said sure. My friend and I ran the other product though its paces and determined that it was overpriced and completely unnecessary. After that, I never heard back from the design team again. I guess I misunderstood the rules of the game! Oh well. I don't really need overpriced and unnecessary products anyway.

Head-Fi in general appears to be: Being impolite and defaming/attacking science and those who believe in it = Allowed (even encouraged in some subforums!) BUT being impolite and defaming/attacking audiophile marketing BS and those who believe in it = Not Allowed.

That was certainly the way Head Fi was before the Sound Science forum was created. The idea was floated to create a forum where DBT could be discussed, and it wouldn't be allowed in the rest of the site. None of the science folk back then wanted to be shuffled off to a banishment group. We fought it, but it turned out it was a dictate, not a suggestion. We went into our cage grudgingly. But then a culture started to grow here and it became very strong. Whenever I google audio terms, I always see Sound Science posts turn up in the search results. I think we generate a lot of the right kind of traffic now. They see the value in us.

But there is still a perception among some that this is a banishment group. Jerks from other parts of Head Fi come in here to poke us with sticks through the bars of our cage. But we aren't afraid to grab the stick away from them and paddle them with it. I don't see any reason why we need to be welcoming to people who have no interest in the subject and no intention of playing by the rules of the game here. I don't cry or feel guilty when idiots get butt hurt and implode. I would just prefer they do that faster and not waste so much of our time.

I do think people come in here and lash out at the regular posters, even as the regular posters make an effort to be softer and gentler.

There's a reason for that. They see who the influencers are and they're jealous. They want that kind of respect too. So they figure if they tear down the king, that makes them king. It's loser logic. This forum doesn't have a single king. We have a lot of kings, and they are judged by what they contribute, not what they tear down.

As for trolls, I've noticed that they come in pairs for a long time... I think there is a bit of sock puppetry going on here and there. I also think there are some people who are legitimately biologically deluded who are attracted here, much like kook UFOologists and Flat Earthers probably infect Space Science forums. We have a spectrum of trolls here.

 

[gregorio]

True in general, absolutely, but after two minutes of casually looking around I would point to post 7 of this thread as a “first-time-lasher-outer.” I don’t think I’d have to look too much longer to find the next example.

Yes agreed, there certainly are obvious examples as you describe. I'm referring to the cases where the poster isn't deliberately "impolite" to start with, for example if they don't really understand how science works and/or they don't realise they've contradicted the science without reliable evidence. EG. They've inadvertently attacked science and inadvertently been impolite. Regardless of being inadvertent, it's still an attack and impolite but is not, as far as I recall, ever treated as an infringement of the rules (TOS).

G

 

[bfreedma]

I have first hand knowledge about this... I was approached by a company to help them focus test a product they were planning to release. They put me in touch with their lead designer and sent me a product to evaluate however I wanted to. I invited a sound engineer friend over and we ran it through its paces and did various tests. We decided that it was a very high quality product fidelity wise, and just made a couple of small suggestions. The company thanked me and asked if I would like to evaluate another of their products that was designed to go with the other product I had evaluated. I said sure. My friend and I ran the other product though its paces and determined that it was overpriced and completely unnecessary. After that, I never heard back from the design team again. I guess I misunderstood the rules of the game! Oh well. I don't really need overpriced and unnecessary products anyway.

So you're to blame for that company exiting the audio market!

 

[castleofargh]

Neither does Sound Science advertise itself as a research journal, but that's beside the point.


"Science", or the principals it represents, aren't something you simply turn on and off when you feel like it. Certainly there's nothing stopping someone truly dedicated to understanding the world in an objective way from going out and having fun, but evaluation of a product, such as a cable, is exactly the sort of place scientific principals naturally apply.

Consider this review for instance: https://twister6.com/2019/02/04/effect-audio-leonidas-ii-cable-2/.

Right off the bat, we have the disclaimer "I would like to thank Eric Chong of Effect Audio for providing me with the Leonidas II cable in exchange for my honest opinion. No incentive was given for a favorable review." which, while true, is also BS. If I received free products in exchange for an "honest opinion", you bet I would be biased towards a favorable review. Why would I expect to receive free products in the future if my honest opinion wasn't favorable? (Note: This is a conflict of interest someone with a background in science should immediately recognize.)

Contrast this with a reviewer such as DC Rainmaker, who carefully separates personal purchases from professional reviews and makes a point of returning each review unit once he's done with it.


Then we get to statements like this: "Doubling up the wires with the Ares II 8-wire immediately gives a noticeable expansion of the stage and everything becomes a lot more airy."

I mean, as a subjective opinion that's fine, but at the same time, someone with a remotely scientific approach to life in general would immediately ask, "Ok, why is a cable causing such an audible difference in the music I'm listening to? I'd hardly expect a meaningful difference in resistance, inductance, or capacitance as compared to any other well-made cable, so what am I hearing?". Instead, we're left to take @Wyville's word for it, which, again, is fine, but it's kind of the opposite of "science".

So, considering the repeated assertions as to @Wyville's dedication to science in this forum, it's only natural to ask, "What gives?". And when the answer is, essentially, a shrug, it's only natural to doubt the intentions behind what's being said, both in this forum and in these reviews.

on one hand, I personally would want to see more rigor involved in making reviews. and I very much understand your expectations in that regard. on the other hand, I would argue that pitting his reviews against his position in what a science section should or shouldn't do, that's a strawman argument. he can take a purely subjective approach in his reviews, mix it up any way he wants depending on the situation, and take a scientific approach in scientific topics. if you go check some of the very bad reviews(please don't) that I did before coming to the realization that I wasn't the right guy for the job, you won't find much science or rigorous protocols in them. I certainly wouldn't like my arguments in here to be contested on the basis that my reviews are mostly subjective nonsense.

unrelated, but I think it's you who suggested the PBS space time videos. thank you for that. I'm really enjoying it so far. it's still for dummies so I can mostly follow, but it also goes as deep as not working directly on the equations can let them go and I already learned quite a few things. I'm just a little worried because I just reached a video where the cool dude who speaks fast explains that he's found a new job. I hope the rest is still as good without him. anyway, thanks for suggesting this.

 

[SilentNote]

In my opinion, sound science is indeed a banishment group. Which is odd, why is scientific discussion and DBT banished? I was always told that when something doesn't make any sense, think money.

Science and DBT are the strongest tools to fight excessive expenditure on worthless crap, you bet a lot of financial sponsors to Head-Fi wouldn't like that.

 

[old tech]

In my opinion, sound science is indeed a banishment group. Which is odd, why is scientific discussion and DBT banished? I was always told that when something doesn't make any sense, think money.

Science and DBT are the strongest tools to fight excessive expenditure on worthless crap, you bet a lot of financial sponsors to Head-Fi wouldn't like that.

And there is the answer to your question.

 

[castleofargh]

But I can't exactly work out what that reason is, or how/when/if it is enforced, although I have a good guess. This whole thread was started and is due to defamatory statements and personal attacks aimed at all of us!

Nearly all audiophiles who visit and post in this sub-forum make defamatory statements, statements which contradict science and typically leads to directly trying to discredit science, anyone who supports science and/or personal insults/attacks on us and this sub-forum as a whole. All of which is impolite but appears entirely acceptable in any head-fi forum, even this one! However, if we throw those insults back, attempt to discredit them/their audiophile beliefs with science/actual facts, then we're pretty much instantly locked out of any thread outside of this subforum and eventually reprimanded or censured even in this subforum.

Head-Fi in general appears to be: Being impolite and defaming/attacking science and those who believe in it = Allowed (even encouraged in some subforums!) BUT being impolite and defaming/attacking audiophile marketing BS and those who believe in it = Not Allowed.

I'm not aiming this at you personally castle, your laissez faire approach is far better than any other subforum and has some merit because it sometimes results in useful information, though not really science. However, that's not always the case and impolite, defamatory statements/attacks (on science and this subforum) are pretty much always ignored (allowed) until the discussion really gets out of hand and then posts are deleted but even then, typically the original defamatory statement is not deleted. All of which leads to the obvious conclusion that defaming science (even in this science forum) is somehow considered "polite" or at least, not "impolite".

G

taking something as an attack and a disrespect toward science, humanity, and yourself because it's not factual, is definitely not included in the terms of service. being wrong or overconfident is not something a modo has to act upon. it's just not our role(or qualification) as modo to pass judgement on who holds the truth in a conversation.

about something like the general critic toward the entire section or some of the people posting in it, yes that is definitely something I can moderate. attacking a group isn't better than attacking one person, it's worst. but here is the catch. actively moderating that, means that I will also actively moderate people who roast subjectivists, audiophiles, cable lovers, hires enthusiasts... they're all the same acts. see what I'm getting at? I'm willing to do my job properly(at least better than now^_^) and enforce this, but I'm not sure posters in this section are ready for the consequences.
same problem about acting on personal attacks. I don't properly enforce that rule because if I did, you'd be banned, bigshot would be banned(again), and several more would soon follow. that's the simple and very sad truth. I let others say stuff that go too far, mainly because I've let you guys go too far in the first place. I couldn't lock Joe R out of the R2R topic despite having ample reasons to do so from his posts. I'm sure you and several others would have liked that, but what if I tell you that I couldn't because of you guys? while he certainly goes too far, you and one or two others were treating him like crap, being unnaturally aggressive and pushy, and pretty openly suggesting that he was a fraudster or whatever similar term. I enforce a rule for all or for no one. I will not become a dictator who let his buddies do anything, but assassinates anybody else for breaking the law.
and this is why I've repeatedly asked for people in this section to be the better men, not to answer anger with anger, not to bully random dudes for being silly or overconfident, stick to attacking ideas and facts instead of attacking people. because unless you guys do that, my options are to get rid of you, or to do nothing. I believe that you, bigshot and several other of the Headfi misfits that make up this section, end up having a positive net value on this forum despite all your excesses. that's what makes me try my best to keep you around. but you certainly don't make things easy for me or this section.
to those who think 'he did it first' justifies to get mad and answer in kind, as a modo I can only reply that it's never an excuse! I get the idea, I certainly get frustrated too. still not an excuse. we can be the rational composed adults in the room, or we can't. it really comes down that this. not saying it's easy or fair, but I don't have a better idea.

BS marketing should be taken as any other proposition, if it's supported by nothing, we ask for evidence. the lack of which will let us reject the statements as probably being BS. if you have evidence that it's BS, as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to demonstrate it. can't talk about others, or money relations within headfi. I know nothing of it.

about attacking science and treating that like it's just another legit point of view. if we take a look at the world right now, it's fair to say that Headfi didn't cause it. and if that can be of comfort, many headfiers despise us without thinking that we have anything to do with science.

 

[bigshot]

on one hand, I personally would want to see more rigor involved in making reviews. and I very much understand your expectations in that regard. on the other hand, I would argue that pitting his reviews against his position in what a science section should or shouldn't do, that's a strawman argument. he can take a purely subjective approach in his reviews, mix it up any way he wants depending on the situation, and take a scientific approach in scientific topics.

I think it's pertinent to his intent on coming into this group and criticizing us for not being "scientific enough".I also think that his posts display obvious posturing and playacting. But perhaps other people are used to taking posts on the internet on face value and not questioning them. I see exactly why he backpedalled on audibility. The thread was going against him. That is fine. If he wants to be a part of the group and participate honestly, I'd welcome him. If he wants to manipulate and playact, I can do without reading his posts. I may be causing trouble, but I'm being honest. I give everyone three shots across the bow before I write them off.

 

[chaos215bar2]

I think it's pertinent to his intent on coming into this group and criticizing us for not being "scientific enough".I also think that his posts display obvious posturing and playacting. But perhaps other people are used to taking posts on the internet on face value and not questioning them. I see exactly why he backpedalled on audibility. The thread was going against him. That is fine. If he wants to be a part of the group and participate honestly, I'd welcome him. If he wants to manipulate and playact, I can do without reading his posts. I may be causing trouble, but I'm being honest. I give everyone three shots across the bow before I write them off.

This, I think, is the problem. It’s not really outright name-calling or harassment, as that would be moderated. The problem is the posts that sound reasonable, individually, taken at face value, but which are in reality twisting facts, repeating debunked misconceptions, or, in the worst case, outright misrepresenting statements made in earlier posts in order to support a contradictory or irrelevant position. These are both deeply frustrating, as they require the more active members to counter the same points again and again, and in the process make it impossible to have a productive thread.

I can point to at least one other forum which takes a much more aggressive stance towards cleaning out not only off-topic posts, but even individually reasonable posts from members who show they’re more interested in preaching their own (unsupported) ideas than having a meaningful conversation. I’ve witnessed more than one thread along those lines simply vanish, and in each case, I fully agree the deleted posts added little of value to the site.

That’s a ski forum, by the way, so entirely unscientific in name, yet I find what goes on there much more closely resembles a scientific approach to the topics at hand than a lot of what ends up being posted here in Sound Science. The problem isn’t that threads necessarily veer towards off-topic immediately, but if they go on long enough, they inevitably seem to head in that direction.