What happened to diyaudio?

[Curly Woods]

So people that hear differences are "faith based" now? I contend that anyone that is willing to put in the time to "learn" to listen, can and will notice differences. It was taught to me and I have taught others. It simply takes the desire to hear. If that is "faith based", I am surely guilty of that.

What I see is a growing anti-hearing faction in many forums. I simply do not understand why the demands for DBT testing when all that it takes is the willingness to try to hear. People, when put in situations where they have to "make" decisions, are much more likely to be under stress to prove their capabilities and then they are not listening, but thinking. Big difference in my book.

If you don't hear the differences, then you simply choose to not in my opinion. It is not that hard to do, it is simply training yourself to notice them. I know that I hear them, because I continue to change with a know reference multiple times to either confirm or deny. If I truly hear something one time, I will hear it every time the change is made. If I didn't, it will not be there each time and I blow it off. You simply need to get to know your systems intimately and pay attention. People hear differences in cartridges, speakers, etc. Electronics have subtle differences too. Faith based.......I fail to see the logic.

High end audio was and is based upon this premise. If these people did not hear the differences, they would never purchase. I know that I would not spend money on anything that did not get close to replicating music the way that I hear it live and unamplified, and there are a far too many that don't IMO. But that is what makes audio fun. Everyone has a little different take on how they "hear" music. The best audio gear satisfies more people though as a rule as it designed by engineers that understand what he/she was trying to accomplish with their designs. DIY audio is no different and today with the economic times, people are trying out the DIY to both save money and hopefully build something that will satisfy their desires. I just do not understand why both camps can not exist peacefully. It is not like anyone is taking food off the others tables

[Pano]

Originally Posted by tinitus

And I just thought you said "rational TINKERS"

And I interpreted it as "rational tinkerers." Which is what I hope the majority of us here are.

[peace brainerd]

Very poor choice of words I'll admit. I should have reckoned that "faith-based" was going to be troublesome . I'm sorry.

But propose me an alternative. There is still a majority of my neighbors in this country that will brook no question in the matter of the efficacy of prayer. Do I argue with this? Of course not. I've learned the hard way. I've honestly come to realize that it is so unassailably meaningful to them, as meaningful as anyone's certainty that he hears differences that are otherwise irreduceable, incalculable, that I am compelled to respect that. Some of my own friends quite literally feel Jesus in their lives. I'm fine with that. They remain my friends despite my personal struggle not to condescend (my problem, not theirs), but I'm getting better at it.

Curly woods, you may doubt this, but I DO respect the fact that you hear the differences you do. But until you, anyone else, can demonstrate those differences, according to scientifically acceptable standards, for peer review and repeatablilty, they ought not to be weighing in on the design of mechanical devices such as aircraft (for instance again). All audio components, as much as bridges and aircraft, I hope we can agree, are merely machines. The teaching you describe involves psychoacoustics and has it's place, but only if it's introduced as such right up front. Introduce it as such, and let's discuss it.

I only thought that at one time diyaudio was a more dependable source of trustworthy, repeatable, design ideas. If such assertions of 'facts' cannot be labeled 'faith based' then is there another useful (i don't know, is faith-based offensive somehow?) way to put it?

Am I just digging myself deeper?

[syn08]

Originally Posted by svejkovat

Am I just digging myself deeper?

No, you are just wasting your time. So do I, while writing this.

[cbdb]

I simply do not understand why the demands for DBT testing

And you never will, your ego wont let you. And I wont let your or any other ego tell me what sounds good. Thats why I need DBT.

Dont get me wrong, you might be right about your ability's, but just because you believe in your self dosnt mean anyone else has to, without proof. There are dozens of people on this site who believe in there hearing abilities just as much as you do, and I would bet none of them would agree on the "best sounding" system.

[jlsem]

The unfortunate truth is that a few of the so-called rational posters on this site have exhibited their own designs for public consumption and the performance was pretty poor. Then again, the faith based experimenters have done the same and the real results were pretty good. Now, I have no explanation for that and I can't say that it is 100% true so let's just say I've lost faith in the purist rational approach.

John

[syn08]

Originally Posted by jlsem

Then again, the faith based experimenters have done the same and the real results were pretty good.

<anxious> Where? Where? </anxious>

[SY]

I should have reckoned that "faith-based" was going to be troublesome . I'm sorry.

Don't be sorry. That's perfectly accurate.

[ScottG]

IMO.. (obviously)

The site hasn't gone "down hill" with respect to rational thought OR TECHNICAL discussion and application.

If anything it's gotten better in *both* respects. (..though some times nostalgia creeps in and alters this perspective.)

However, there *are* more posters now, and the threads "fly by" pretty fast (..in comparison to the past). People tend to focus on the negative, because well - it "stands out", is controversial and elicits strong opinions, and as a result often gets "bumped" back-up to the 1st page. (..and the process starts all over again, effectively "chumming the board".)


Then there is "veering" into to *listener perception*..

Even threads with a more "technical bent" that "float" into listener perception, tend to elicit a similar "in-fighting" reaction. The fact is, we *know* p!ss little about human auditory perception except with respect to basic basic "key" elements, and the occasional *extremely* limited studies on more esoteric perception. Of course this more esoteric perception is *often* the topic for discussion here, and typically in a manner well beyond the limits of previous technical studies. (..which is natural, after all, why discuss in length that which is already accepted?)

Frankly - *listener perception* is CORE to this and other forums. Just how many different types of amplifier circuits does a person need available? DAC's? Loudspeakers? A person that *appears* "rational" would likely argue something approaching *1* for each category. (..of course you'll have "nutters" here and elsewhere from both the technical and subjective extremes declaring almost exactly this - with of course wildly different outcomes.)

So it's pretty easy to "run afoul" in any thread under discussion, where invariably someone declares hearing "x", and another person elicits something along the lines of: "did you test it to my standards of "y"? IF not, then your statement is *worthless*."

Who is more rational? Is it the person *requiring* more technical proof, or the person trying to make a subjective description? (..consider that the subjective description is not only *subjective* and distinctly PERSONAL, there rarely is the sense of "requirement" that the description be taken as *objective*/fact.)


As for more technical discussion NOT veering into, (or at least not strongly into), arguments based on the very subjective listener perception - those are here as well, and typically in greater *diversity* and *depth* than you will find elsewhere, BUT they are comparatively rare and have always been so (..at least in the Loudspeaker section).

Further, much of the more technical discussions are split-off into more specific applications. The common example here would be discussion of a specific loudspeaker design to actually be built that has progressed well past the over-broad "what driver?", "what crossover?", "what enclosure?" - phase. Of course each of those phases of discussion can also be quite technical in nature, but often veer into the topic of subjective listener perception - on purpose.


Finally the commercial aspect of the forum, from members, was always there. The diversity of offerings and the greater professional care toward providing product was not. Nor were the number of member-providers. Member-providers have "stepped-up" their game here, and some have gone through some tough "learning pains" as well. It has become more commercial as a result, but thankfully not in the "bleeping prototypical add campaign" manner of other websites. On the other hand members *should* be more skeptical as a result, in that at least to some extent such provider-members will have some measure of "bias" leak through on their posts, though the skepticism should largely be held to those presenting information/arguments as fact or particularly when extolling the virtues of particular design constraints endemic to their commercial offerings (..or decrying others for not doing so ..as if they really wanted others to do so ). Of course it's not like the "reader beware" mantra should be relaxed at anytime with any poster.

Zaph has gone commercial. Planet10, John k, and gedlee went commercial a long time ago (to varying degrees). Nothing wrong with it, and if anything it's fantastic to have the shear diversity of product options. It also welcomes long-time and more established commercial designers to take part and share their views. Hell, a fair bit of this forum was designed around Nelson Pass. As a resource of those with great technical ability for those with far less ability - diyAudio is something *special*.


What doesn't the Loudspeaker section have (..that another forum might do better)?

FULLY DOCUMENTED designs built, tested, with a full listing of parts and their sources that are easy to peruse.

It's one area where diyAudio needs to "up its game" (..or not).

[Curly Woods]

Originally Posted by cbdb

And you never will, your ego wont let you. And I wont let your or any other ego tell me what sounds good. Thats why I need DBT.

Why do you call it ego? If you knew me at all you would know that ego is the last thing that I have. I am very humble as a rule. I try to be fair first and foremost. I do not "preach" that people should hear differences, but i do believe that anyone can if they want to do so. I am simply trying to say that it is possible, if you will allow yourself the opportunity.
Listening and then "having" to prove something are two different things. It is like a test when one is forced to prove their knowledge. I am not arrogant or trying to make anyone feel less than. I was shown that I could hear differences, if I wanted to hear them. I have never looked back. Why is it that some people find it hard to believe that people by audio equipment based upon the way it sounds? That is what really baffles me. I truly wished that customers were niave enough to purchase based upon looks when I sold audio. Everything in the high end arena was always well made and had a nice exterior appearance. People wanted to listen not ask about how stuff was built or what type of output technology was utilized. Firstly 99% could care less and they would not understand anyway.
In the future I would appreciate it if you could check you slanders about me and others ("ego"). If you can not make your point in a fair and adult manner, please do not respond to my posts. I do not mind people stating their views, but your diagnosis of my and others views about listening has nothing to do with ego. I have nothing to prove, nothing to gain and little to worry about whether anyone agrees with my view or not. I am simply trying to learn a little more about tube amplifier designs. These are what I enjoy and what I want to build.