Very hard to police and the mob mentality can still easily win out. Just get all your objectivist/subjectivist friends to vote.....
ah maybe an outright ban on opposing cyclical arguments, with time in the cooler for those involved would be the only solution? IIRC they had a dbt free forum over on head fi however I don't think that would work here.
it's a difficult one to solve, but worth pursuing as undoubtedly good stuff gets lost in the arguments. Here's what I think though - the smart money lies in the common ground in the middle all taken with a good degree of common sense. Those at the fringes can only lose out.
Fran
ah maybe an outright ban on opposing cyclical arguments, with time in the cooler for those involved would be the only solution? IIRC they had a dbt free forum over on head fi however I don't think that would work here.
it's a difficult one to solve, but worth pursuing as undoubtedly good stuff gets lost in the arguments. Here's what I think though - the smart money lies in the common ground in the middle all taken with a good degree of common sense. Those at the fringes can only lose out.
Fran
The rating system was not anonymous (maybe it would work better if it was, I suspect not though). When someone gave a post an F- then more often than not the person who wrote the original post would take it personally, this usually resulted in arguments about whether or not the post deserved an F- or not, and also led to tit-for-tat ratings.
The problem with the A+'s was/is that they do count towards a reputation score on that particular forum, so I guess if no one could see how many A+'s a particular person had, then it might actually work, especially if it was only visible to the person receiving the A+ This would potentially give the poster some feedback on what people liked at least and probably wouldn't ruffle too many feathers.
The downside would be those who felt dejected if they weren't getting any A+ posts, they may decide that no one values anything they are posting and stop, which could be far from the truth, not everyone will hit a button to give feedback even if they value someones posts highly.
It is all very tricky, and as you mentioned earlier the issue is there is no feeback mechanism like there is with body language/tone in a face to face conversation. This is one of the reasons I tend toward excessive use of smileys (even that you can't win with because some people intensely dislike smiley over-use)
Tony.
1. The closed thread about class D called Digital was very interesting, I learned a lot of things there. Or, at least, people confirmed some my earlier insights about which I had some doubts.
2. The moderator honestly asked to stop personal attacks and warned that if they don't stop he will close the thread.
3. If some questions left unanswered it is up to you to open a new thread.
I am against democratic voting about "Can we allow personal attacks in this particular thread or not". They have to be outside of the forum.
2. The moderator honestly asked to stop personal attacks and warned that if they don't stop he will close the thread.
3. If some questions left unanswered it is up to you to open a new thread.
I am against democratic voting about "Can we allow personal attacks in this particular thread or not". They have to be outside of the forum.
Last edited:
I quite enjoy a lot of what goes and as a know nothing do learn
a lot from here. I see two problems and they both have an element
of what thorsten is disagreeing with :
(a) When the disagreement comes down to just being between a very small group of posters and goes on for page after page, that is probably enough and
the thread should die.
(b) when the thread is started to ask a question and as a result of the
answers further questions either from the OP or other members are just ignored so that an interminable argument about a subject that may not even be connected with the thread might continue, then not only the thread, but perhaps even the forum, is no longer of use. This has happened and people have threatened to leave the forum and have left because of this.
jamikl
a lot from here. I see two problems and they both have an element
of what thorsten is disagreeing with :
(a) When the disagreement comes down to just being between a very small group of posters and goes on for page after page, that is probably enough and
the thread should die.
(b) when the thread is started to ask a question and as a result of the
answers further questions either from the OP or other members are just ignored so that an interminable argument about a subject that may not even be connected with the thread might continue, then not only the thread, but perhaps even the forum, is no longer of use. This has happened and people have threatened to leave the forum and have left because of this.
jamikl
Hi,
This often kills threads that could have useful continuation on topic AND stifles the other debate.
I would vote for a thread split instead, so the original thread may continue, which is another angle on what I am trying to get as a result.
But it seems (based on comments in this thread) the Moderators instead desire for threads to be pulled off topic by listener/meter-reader debates.
Ciao T
This often kills threads that could have useful continuation on topic AND stifles the other debate.
I would vote for a thread split instead, so the original thread may continue, which is another angle on what I am trying to get as a result.
But it seems (based on comments in this thread) the Moderators instead desire for threads to be pulled off topic by listener/meter-reader debates.
Ciao T
That's not what I said, and you know it.
Jamikl, that's why we ask users to use the report post button. We can't be everywhere at once, and even if a mod is involved in the discussion, it's still worth it, we're only human, and sometimes we too loose sight of the wood for the trees.
ThorstenL
Your Idea and intention is very good. I mostly browse the forum passively for loads of information from pros on various audio related stuff and I agree with you some debates are inconclusive. But for a good debate and to reach 'somewhat' conclusive outcome to a topic both subjective and objective views are necessary. Not sure but I guess your point no. (2) and (3) will require extra vigil from mods.
If voting system for contentious topic is required my suggestion is...
For a debatable subject everyone can participate. For a very good subjective/objective view a member has posted, other members can vote that post to show he/she agrees with it. Vote can be symbolized by letter 'S' or letter 'O' with two different colour. This way if anyone is interested in that thread and is browsing for information he can immediately pickup various important posts (subjective or objective) and draw his conclusion. This way he/she can also focus on only those posts which are voted. And if everyone follows forum rules humor and free speech can make threads interesting.
Best regards
Your Idea and intention is very good. I mostly browse the forum passively for loads of information from pros on various audio related stuff and I agree with you some debates are inconclusive. But for a good debate and to reach 'somewhat' conclusive outcome to a topic both subjective and objective views are necessary. Not sure but I guess your point no. (2) and (3) will require extra vigil from mods.
If voting system for contentious topic is required my suggestion is...
For a debatable subject everyone can participate. For a very good subjective/objective view a member has posted, other members can vote that post to show he/she agrees with it. Vote can be symbolized by letter 'S' or letter 'O' with two different colour. This way if anyone is interested in that thread and is browsing for information he can immediately pickup various important posts (subjective or objective) and draw his conclusion. This way he/she can also focus on only those posts which are voted. And if everyone follows forum rules humor and free speech can make threads interesting.
Best regards
What's the point ?
It's the subjectivity that creates the ego clashes. A valid point to make is ... without it (subjectivity) , why DIY? If all amps sound the same , all should either build a minimalist design or use a 3886 IC amp. Why bother with any topology that uses more than the basic half dozen devices ? Objectivity can also be rather useless , we can't hear PPM THD.
I wonder whether the OEM's have this "battle" in the lab ? One team designs it, and maybe even listens to it .... or do they have a dedicated subjectivist on the payroll ? I would hope they would not manufacture several thousand units on the sole advice of the "meter readers". For loudspeakers , I don't even see how subjectivism can't be a major factor. From a moving cone to air to a interface of liquid and hair , every mammals interface will be different. I suppose if you can precisely define the individuals hearing mechanics so what he hears can be "estimated". But , this still does not define the nervous system's final interpretation. The only way to be totally objective is if the final output goes no further than the distortion analyzer or the test load.
I been accused of "hearing things" . I throw back a question in the form of "why are you upgrading ? " or "why a new design?". If it all sounds the same.. WHY BOTHER ?
OS
It's the subjectivity that creates the ego clashes. A valid point to make is ... without it (subjectivity) , why DIY? If all amps sound the same , all should either build a minimalist design or use a 3886 IC amp. Why bother with any topology that uses more than the basic half dozen devices ? Objectivity can also be rather useless , we can't hear PPM THD.
I wonder whether the OEM's have this "battle" in the lab ? One team designs it, and maybe even listens to it .... or do they have a dedicated subjectivist on the payroll ? I would hope they would not manufacture several thousand units on the sole advice of the "meter readers". For loudspeakers , I don't even see how subjectivism can't be a major factor. From a moving cone to air to a interface of liquid and hair , every mammals interface will be different. I suppose if you can precisely define the individuals hearing mechanics so what he hears can be "estimated". But , this still does not define the nervous system's final interpretation. The only way to be totally objective is if the final output goes no further than the distortion analyzer or the test load.
I been accused of "hearing things" . I throw back a question in the form of "why are you upgrading ? " or "why a new design?". If it all sounds the same.. WHY BOTHER ?
OS
Hi,
Yes. The problem is that even the so-called objectivist view is actually highly subjective as well (warning, Philosophy content following), since Bishop Berkeley over 300 Years ago, it should be generally understood by intelligent educated people, that objective reality may (or may not) exist, however it is strictly and only percieved in a subjective way.
So the debate is strictly and only based on subjective perception in all areas and on belief, instead of any indisputable facts, which is why I am charging that it is futile.
Now some enjoy arguing for arguments sake and that too should be allowed and supported.
I would like to champion just this exact viewpoint, however in the interest of fairness such a simple declaration will not do.
Hence my suggestion to tag threads as "Open" (all viewpoints welcome), "objectivist viewpoints unwelcome" and "subjectivist viewpoints unwelcome" ones.
This way debate can be as focused or as open as desired, WITHOUT ANY CENSORSHIP OF IDEAS as such (as anyone can start any thread they like and express anything they like - any allegations that I wish to censor anyone viewpoint are completely off base).
It really does vary from company to company.
Some companies have "subjectivists" all the way to the Board and CEO Positions, others "buy in" such views and expertise in the form of consultants. Still others (certainly based on the Products they turn out) are clearly controlled by meter readers all the way.
Even such a test is not actually objective. Think about it.
You mean you have been accused of "hearing things", but in fact you do not (hear things)?
Ciao T
Yes. The problem is that even the so-called objectivist view is actually highly subjective as well (warning, Philosophy content following), since Bishop Berkeley over 300 Years ago, it should be generally understood by intelligent educated people, that objective reality may (or may not) exist, however it is strictly and only percieved in a subjective way.
So the debate is strictly and only based on subjective perception in all areas and on belief, instead of any indisputable facts, which is why I am charging that it is futile.
Now some enjoy arguing for arguments sake and that too should be allowed and supported.
I would like to champion just this exact viewpoint, however in the interest of fairness such a simple declaration will not do.
Hence my suggestion to tag threads as "Open" (all viewpoints welcome), "objectivist viewpoints unwelcome" and "subjectivist viewpoints unwelcome" ones.
This way debate can be as focused or as open as desired, WITHOUT ANY CENSORSHIP OF IDEAS as such (as anyone can start any thread they like and express anything they like - any allegations that I wish to censor anyone viewpoint are completely off base).
It really does vary from company to company.
Some companies have "subjectivists" all the way to the Board and CEO Positions, others "buy in" such views and expertise in the form of consultants. Still others (certainly based on the Products they turn out) are clearly controlled by meter readers all the way.
Even such a test is not actually objective. Think about it.
I been accused of "hearing things" . I throw back a question in the form of "why are you upgrading ? " or "why a new design?". If it all sounds the same.. WHY BOTHER ?
You mean you have been accused of "hearing things", but in fact you do not (hear things)?
Ciao T
I think some people have got to get their head out their *** and think, do I want to help this person?
Yes: they leave a hopefully helpful comment.
No: they do nothing instead of writing shite because they don't like what the OP is asking...
I think the people on this forum are intelligent enough to identify a discussion based thread from one asking for help.
Yes: they leave a hopefully helpful comment.
No: they do nothing instead of writing shite because they don't like what the OP is asking...
I think the people on this forum are intelligent enough to identify a discussion based thread from one asking for help.
Hi,
The problem starts when someone gives a response they consider helpful and covers their experience only to find their response rubbished because they did not do a double blind test, presented uncontrovertible evidence etc. or because their suggestions address objective parameters that have no relationship to what is actually heard.
Then a thread that was meant to discuss a techncial solution (be it how to get sub PPM THD20 in a solid state Amp or how to optimise a tube amplifier design for a given subjective sound quality) is either choked off or turned into yet another subjective vs. objective thread. Either way the thread has been poisoned and made less useful than it likely would have been without the added debate.
All the while the added subjective vs. objective debate that created an impact on the thread itself adds nothing and merely continues the same tired debate.
Ciao T
The problem starts when someone gives a response they consider helpful and covers their experience only to find their response rubbished because they did not do a double blind test, presented uncontrovertible evidence etc. or because their suggestions address objective parameters that have no relationship to what is actually heard.
Then a thread that was meant to discuss a techncial solution (be it how to get sub PPM THD20 in a solid state Amp or how to optimise a tube amplifier design for a given subjective sound quality) is either choked off or turned into yet another subjective vs. objective thread. Either way the thread has been poisoned and made less useful than it likely would have been without the added debate.
All the while the added subjective vs. objective debate that created an impact on the thread itself adds nothing and merely continues the same tired debate.
Ciao T
Perhaps it isn't censorship, but it teeters awfully close. I'd say what it definitely is is segregation of undesirables. Fundamentally, not something I would advocate.
I'm trying to discern exactly what it is to be improved/achieved. It seems to me to be a comfort thing - to post any imaginable point of view (or hearing) without fear of having to defend it. I'm not seeing how that leads to technological progress and improved understanding of hi-fi audio reproduction.
I don't see that from this thread, and KNOW that is false in general practice. Quite the opposite, really.
I'm not in any kind of camp!
yep! Putting a label on people and exclude them from whatever shouldn't be supported by diyaudio.com
regards
- Status
- Not open for further replies.