What happened to diyaudio?

[Pano]

Originally Posted by MJL21193

while these "useless" threads flourish. It's not my idea of the DIY spirit.

Thus my question from a few pages back.

Originally Posted by Pano;

This does seem to be an important subject for a lot of people here. Why?

Why do threads like these, and the cable threads, attract so much attention?
Because it pure discussion, and that's all. You don't need to design anything, build anything, tweak anything, burn your fingers, smash your thumb, hurt your ears.
All you need for this thread is an opinion.

And you know what they say, "Opinions are like speakers, everybody has at least two."

The other big problem with any Internet audio forum is that we rarely get to hear what the other forum members are building. So we can only guess if it sounds good or not.

I consider myself lucky to have heard the work of a dozen or more forum members. And some have heard mine. Thus I'm able to judge and filter some of what guys here are saying by what I've heard them do. There is a lot of nice work out there. It seems that many of the active forum members are doing really nice work. As for those I have not heard, I can only imagine. It's tough.

So we end up in threads like this trying to get others to judge our words, our opinions and beliefs, rather than our work.



Oh, sorry. That turned out fairly ponderous, didn't it?

[Robh3606]

All you need for this thread is an opinion.

I think thats a big part of it.

Internet audio forum is that we rarely get to hear what the other forum members are building.

There is nothing like sitting on a couch listening to music with someone. Once you have done that you really can get a much better understanding of what they post.

I think some people stay away from some project threads for the simple reason they don't have anything to add or contribute and simply don't want to dump on them.

Rob

[Pano]

Thanks Rob.

[syn08]

Originally Posted by panomaniac

All you need for this thread is an opinion.

Also enough nerve and a thick skin.

[rdf]

Originally Posted by panomaniac

Thus my question from a few pages back.

Why do threads like these, and the cable threads, attract so much attention?

It's being psychoanalyzed by ersatz experts with relevant qualifications no better than the clerk handing me coffee in the morning. Maybe worse. Add to that the act of doing so without evidence or training is a direct violation of their proclaimed principles, and who can resist? Someone has to defend science from that abuse.

[Curly Woods]

Originally Posted by rdf

It's being psychoanalyzed by ersatz experts with relevant qualifications no better than the clerk handing me coffee in the morning. Maybe worse. Add to that the act of doing so without evidence or training is a direct violation of their proclaimed principles, and who can resist? Someone has to defend science from that abuse.

rdf,

Because some people, engineers included, do hear differences, they are not qualified to express their opinions? The only issue as I see it, is that a few are trying to tell the majority that they are wrong. Why is that? This is DIY and I build stuff as I want to attain the very best musically satisfy equipment that I possibly can. What is the purpose if not for that?

No one is condemning anyone for their designs that I can see or have seen posted here. The only issue that I see being brought up and torn apart is the sonic merit of any circuit design. It seems that some of those that design, do not want the listening audience to form any type of opinion of the sonic results gained from actually listening to something. Why is that? Are they afraid that their designs will not meet public approval? Would that not be taken as the possibility to learn what might be a problem and try to address it somehow? I am just trying to grasp the issue behind the put downs to those that hear differences and know what they like and dislike.

I am currently building an amplifier that I did not design, but I have high hopes for its sonic signature based upon the individual that did design it. It may not turn out to be as good as I hoped, but I want to build it anyway. I love to DIY. I do hope that if it does not turn out to my liking that I will gain some knowledge about the topology, so that I can try to use that to my advantage on a future build. If it turns out to be great, I will be ecstatic! That is my ultimate goal.

Why is this such a hard principal to understand? Do many of the members still think that all amplifier/preamplifier topologies all sound the same? If so why do you continue to come up with new and different topologies to build? I am curious what these new designs are intended to do if it is not to hopefully sound better when playing music. Why continue to build new stuff if nothing ever changes sonically with each new iteration? Is it just to build something new each time? Is the build process what they enjoy more than the listening process? I am trying to understand why the amount of animosity is directed towards listeners, DIYer's or otherwise.

[jkeny]

I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions. - Shoog's tagline!

[rdf]

I've often been accused of writing in a sparse shorthand prone to generating confusion, but never have my words been so stood on their head. Curly, I'm not criticizing reports of audible differences on principle, I'm taking shots at 'objectivists' thinking they defend science when using those reports as a jumping-off point to make completely unwarranted conclusions about the author's mental capacity and motives.

[Curly Woods]

Originally Posted by rdf

I've often been accused of writing in a sparse shorthand prone to generating confusion, but never have my words been so stood on their head. Curly, I'm not criticizing reports of audible differences on principle, I'm taking shots at 'objectivists' thinking they defend science when using those reports as a jumping-off point to make completely unwarranted conclusions about the author's mental capacity and motives.

I guess I misinterpreted your intent. I need more coffee :-)

[Conrad Hoffman]

IMHO, there's almost nothing we don't understand about electronic design. Psychoacoustics is also reasonably advanced, though not to the degree of electronics for obvious reasons. What we don't seem to have is any way to join the two. My experience is that flawlessly accurate signal processing doesn't usually sound good. The more technically accurate you make it, the less you want to listen to it. OTOH, LPs, which are really pretty lousy reproducers of signal in a technical sense, can sound absolutely great. Yet, you'll never confuse the output of an LP with the output of a signal generator. People try to say that our measurements are flawed. Rubbish. We can measure pretty much anything down to part per million levels. The problem is that we're aiming at the wrong target- perfect signal reproduction. We're also starting with a source, be it analog or digital, that's been processed in an unknown manner, referenced to an unknown system, by people with unknown tastes. Finally, we tend to test the individual pieces, not understanding the whole system and how the parts interact. Thus, the great divide between the technically weak subjectivists, who can do nothing but listen, and the science based objectivists, often deafened by their own measurements, will probably go on forever. I'm in the objective camp because I have no choice in the matter. I believe science, and nothing else, will at least let us understand the problem, but progress of late has been hard to find. The world in general is losing most appreciation of quality; it's unlikely that any big resources will be brought to bear on the issue because very few people are dissatisfied with the sound they already have.