WBF: How Much Science Talk Do You Want to See?

[ddk]

I meant it more in the way that , amir is also a dealer of Harman products

It's good to put one's money behind one's mouth !

david

 

[PeterA]

in the past I defended having a relatively balanced forum where objectivists had some foothold, and felt it worked in the big picture. from time to time I did not care for lack of respect for listening opinions, or posts demeaning listening opinions about things that those posting could not support ever even experiencing. yet, the forum worked.

what changed for me was one of the forum's owner's shift in degree of energy used to promote his agenda. in my mind this shifted the balance away from an audiophile one to something else where the listener perspective is under siege. he was honest about his agenda to cause change. actively.

it's one thing for Frantz or Tim to go down that road. it's another thing altogether for Amir to do it. and do it. and do it.

that made it not fun for me and if it's not fun i'm gone. negative energy is a waste of time. and i'm not a bridge burner.

it's a matter of balance.

and Amir got a bit personal with me and that tipped me over.

WBF will be what those in charge decide it should be. those that no longer enjoy it will go where they fit in. it's not a life and death issue.

Mike, you have managed to describe what I noticed but could not properly articulate.

 

[Steve williams]

but it can also become tiresome. I find this passive/aggressive approach distracting

Precisely my point

For anyone to say otherwise that the recent threads about which we are talking have not changed the direction of this forum are IMO seriously misguided as well as deluded and one needs to look at real data to support ones position. I will say again, where are all of the posts from our founding members? This is what I looked forward to every day. The content , and life experiences that these people brought with them will never be supplanted by the guise of science and the reality that brought fear and trepidation to these people should they post their subjective feelings. I found that the attacks brought forth under the veil of science were so personal and so direct that in all honesty I agree with Mike Lavigne in what he stated earlier and had it been me that Amir attacked I would have left as well. Like PeterA I found those posts so tedious that I as well can no longer read them. If this is what it means for me to call myself an audiophile I would rather revoke my card or quit. Isn't it all just about the music?

I spent 5 days at a member's house and am at the airport on my home thinking to myself that in my over 50 years of involvement in this hobby I have never heard a system as perfect in every way as the one I just left. No measuring tools in my pocket or DBT's or crap like that. We played album after album from start to finish and never once tried to isolate parts of the system to analyze. Why? Because everything IMO was so wonderful that there was nothing to do but relax and enjoy the music and the friendship. This for me is why I am an audiophile. Call me crazy I guess but I can't wait to post about this member's system and give him what Frantz calls a "congrats".

 

[ddk]

…, it's like people's mothers got insulted here or something.

I guess we all have different thresholds and attachments to this or any other hobby. I know from a couple of photography forums that subjectively arguing the drawing qualities of a lens was difficult when presented with objective figures of edge to edge resolution. Some there took it very personally as well and felt like a family member was also violated in the process. Perhaps its time to move on from this thread and play more with the toys...

david

 

[DaveC]

...Isn't it all just about the music?

I spent 5 days at a member's house and am at the airport on my home thinking to myself that in my over 50 years of involvement in this hobby I have never heard a system as perfect in every way as the one I just left. No measuring tools in my pocket or DBT's or crap like that. We played album after album from start to finish and never once tried to isolate parts of the system to analyze. Why? Because everything IMO was so wonderful that there was nothing to do but relax and enjoy the music and the friendship. This for me is why I am an audiophile. Call me crazy I guess but I can't wait to post about this member's system and give him what Frantz calls a "congrats".

I think this points out the basic divide we're seeing. As a designer I'd be very interested in WHY this system was so good as well as appreciating it's superior sonic qualities through simply listening to it. If I could I think it would be very interesting to see acoustic measurements of the system/room with some attempt to correlate them to what's heard in the sweet spot.

I'm not sure I understand why there isn't room for both. Seems like this is heading towards a forum where science and measurements are fair game for discussion and a forum that only cares about subjective observations. Or the thread starter has to say in the first post what type of discussion is allowed. All because people on either side can't put their egos aside and keep an open mind?

 

[Steve williams]

I have purposely over the past week or so tried to keep my feelings quiet on these issues but I would like to offer one last comment which is my opinion and only mine and then I am done with this thread.....

As the co owner and founder of this site, I feel very strongly that my position on the board will forever be neutral and I hope that this is what I always convey. I feel this should be the case for any owner in a forum of this nature. If not I think it becomes very obvious (to me at least) how the events of the past few weeks have changed the direction of this forum. Just my $0.02 and of course YMMV

 

[PeterA]

I think this points out the basic divide we're seeing. As a designer I'd be very interested in WHY this system was so good as well as appreciating it's superior sonic qualities through simply listening to it. If I could I think it would be very interesting to see acoustic measurements of the system/room with some attempt to correlate them to what's heard in the sweet spot.

I'm not sure I understand why there isn't room for both. Seems like this is heading towards a forum where science and measurements are fair game for discussion and a forum that only cares about subjective observations. Or the thread starter has to say in the first post what type of discussion is allowed. All because people on either side can't put their egos aside and keep an open mind?

I think there is certainly room for both as seen in the poll results of this thread. For me it is about the tone of the discourse. If there is an openness and willingness to respect the different sides of an argument, all should be fine. The content can be valuable from both an audio science perspective and from a subjective listening perspective. Arrogance and condescension are best checked at the door.

 

[Steve williams]

I think there is certainly room for both as seen in the poll results of this thread. For me it is about the tone of the discourse. If there is an openness and willingness to respect the different sides of an argument, all should be fine. The content can be valuable from both an audio science perspective and from a subjective listening perspective. Arrogance and condescension are best checked at the door.

in my profession we call it self aggrandizement

 

[ddk]

I think this points out the basic divide we're seeing. As a designer I'd be very interested in WHY this system was so good as well as appreciating it's superior sonic qualities through simply listening to it. If I could I think it would be very interesting to see acoustic measurements of the system/room with some attempt to correlate them to what's heard in the sweet spot.

I'm not sure I understand why there isn't room for both. Seems like this is heading towards a forum where science and measurements are fair game for discussion and a forum that only cares about subjective observations. Or the thread starter has to say in the first post what type of discussion is allowed. All because people on either side can't put their egos aside and keep an open mind?

I think Steve's point is that we forget to simply sit back and enjoy the musical experience, alone or in company of others we appreciate…

david

 

[NorthStar]

The decadence of the global human empire?

Are we putting more value to science and audio gear than people themselves? ...Without people there is no science, there is no audio gear, there is no spiritual and material world.
...There is no music, no films. ...No new, better, more advancement in audio gear, video gear, technologies. ...And science of the universe.

I look @ WBF from the very beginning...March/April 2010...and all the members who aren't here any longer...and all great people too.
/// I can easily mention roughly one hundred members if not more. ...All with opinion that counts, and that we learned from and still can learn from.
People are more important than all the gold in the world...without people this planet is a vast emptiness, a land of incommensurable magnitude.
With people on it we made it what it is today. ...All the music movies science. ...And much much more.

It is true that we are more concerned about what we have than who we are.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

I think Steve's point is that we forget to simply sit back and enjoy the musical experience, alone or in company of others we appreciate…

david

I'm very thankful that I have never lost sight of why I got into this hobby to begin with, and I can honestly say that I never will. The musical experience is the driving force, the gear appreciation (in whatever form) is but a tool to make the first happen.

 

[esldude]

The most important thing, is if even the slightest aspect of vitriol or put down, or undertones of superiority and pushing... enter into a discussion, then cut that member out like a cancer.

Send them along.

This is discussion, not war, where people fight to get their way.

Dogma exists in science, wholesale. The very heart of the conflated problem.

It is vital to understand that engineers are trained to use laws.

Laws do not exist in science. Science is wholly built of and on theory. If there be laws in science then we have social punishment, execution,and so on. Laws are about punishing people in a social-cultural perspective.... for injuring the flow of the whole.

Engineers use laws as they can't build things for people to use, based on theory. So they are taught laws.

IF....Science cannot change itself, if it cannot modify itself, if it is has laws..well...laws lead only to a circular black pit of a black hole where nothing changes. And that.. is dogma, that is religion, that is church and papal bulls, diktats and fatwas.

From what I can tell, there was a recent eruption of the insanity of the dogma aspect of engineering here, on this forum.

Do not mistake engineering law for science theory they are 100% different. Take that home and never forget it. Science:theory --- ---engineering:laws.

Science is all theory, subject to change... and all of the world has but one single fact in it. Just one freaking fact exists: There are no facts. Paradox, and it is exactly as quantum physics tells you.

The engineering linear, rationalist mind has been with us for along time and it is deeply tied to ego expression. Desires, feelings, coming out of the person as sureness and facts, to fluff up the animals comfort zones with walls. All creations of the mind.

And that mind was with us in the middle ages, it was the cleric level of the given churches or religious systems, the nuts and bolts of the system, and we call them engineers, in today's times. as..when you've got laws.. you've got dogma.

When you have only theory, with no facts of any kind...only then, do you have actual 'real as can be'...science.

The rest...... is dogmatic emotionally projected misinformed ill will thrown at other people, as a fear filled game, of trying to have one's way. Where one begins the misstep into soicopathology.

And that, is apparently what happened to this forum, in the past few weeks.

The good, kind, easy going people, which is the vast bulk of people, had nastiness projected upon them; hidden and slyly delivered vitriol of the linear minded rationalist.... who is really... just a mid level cleric from the dogmatic church of engineering.

If one adds in any form of crypto-fascism of self interest from forum governance.... then you have an even more serious problem.

One of those comedy posts I suppose.

Somehow they wouldn't let me sit in engineering classes without taking quite a few science classes. Rather strange curriculum if as you say:


Do not mistake engineering law for science theory they are 100% different. Take that home and never forget it. Science:theory --- ---engineering:laws.

Engineering in the modern sense anyway, might well be considered applied science. Applied science of course is not going to be cutting edge theory and using areas of science still being investigated and not yet well understood.

So yes engineers are not research scientists. In some areas science will eventually advance and impact engineering in the form of better engineered results. To say engineers are nothing more than rote appliers of 100% law is spoken like someone who isn't an engineer or a scientist. To imply there isn't a close relationship between the two is rather humorous.

But not as humorous as this laugher:

When you have only theory, with no facts of any kind...only then, do you have actual 'real as can be'...science.

 

[Groucho]

'Objectivism' is not much different from 'subjectivism', it seems to me, because no one can actually convince anyone else what the figures mean - and they are indeed meaningless if they are incomplete. An isolated measure of distortion, or of magnitude-only frequency response doesn't really tell us very much, and there's no point in trying to win an argument using figures if you don't have - and your 'opponents' don't even recognise - a criterion to compare them against.

I would be far more interested in people's ideas than their listening experiences or the measurements they've made. Most of all I would be interested in people's thoughts on what, in scientific terms, the perfect hifi system is supposed to do, and why they think there is some impediment to achieving it in the 21st century - and I think most audiophiles and audiophile designers do believe there is still some unsolvable mystery there. (Personally, I don't.)

 

[esldude]

I would be far more interested in people's ideas than their listening experiences or the measurements they've made. Most of all I would be interested in people's thoughts on what, in scientific terms, the perfect hifi system is supposed to do, and why they think there is some impediment to achieving it in the 21st century - and I think most audiophiles and audiophile designers do believe there is still some unsolvable mystery there. (Personally, I don't.)

I think that would be an excellent topic. I would suggest you start a thread based upon that question.

 

[amirm]

in the past I defended having a relatively balanced forum where objectivists had some foothold, and felt it worked in the big picture. from time to time I did not care for lack of respect for listening opinions, or posts demeaning listening opinions about things that those posting could not support ever even experiencing. yet, the forum worked.

what changed for me was one of the forum's owner's shift in degree of energy used to promote his agenda. in my mind this shifted the balance away from an audiophile one to something else where the listener perspective is under siege. he was honest about his agenda to cause change. actively.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us Mike. So if you were to define how you want the forum to change as to make it a super comfortable home for you, one where you contribute broadly and constructively, with nary a complaint to management, how would the forum look different from where it is now?

Same question to Mark. And whoever else thinks something should change. What are the changes that are being proposed and would people stand behind that being the only thing keeping them from being core and supportive members of our forum?

Looking for constructive recommendations and seeing if there is consensus in the membership to follow them.

 

[amirm]

It's not about what was presented but rather how it was presented. I've learned in life that it is all about doing things in moderation. The way things were done recently were a far cry from delivering it in a proper fashion before people stood up and said "enough already"

They have said more than that but let's let them speak up per my last post.

As far as the change in direction of the forum, showing those threads to me are meaningless. What people fail to see is that driving out "founding members" (or any member for that matter) serves only to remove all of the valuable content and life experiences in this hobby that people bring with them. Rather than looking at the threads as a data driven person, I suggest you look at our founding members list and see from your data driven perspective how many still post here

Here is the list of our founding members Steve, their date of joining and last activity in the forum (viewing or posting). At least that is what the system is telling me:

I value all of our core members and like to know what you think has happened to them and why.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

in the past I defended having a relatively balanced forum where objectivists had some foothold, and felt it worked in the big picture. from time to time I did not care for lack of respect for listening opinions, or posts demeaning listening opinions about things that those posting could not support ever even experiencing. yet, the forum worked.

what changed for me was one of the forum's owner's shift in degree of energy used to promote his agenda. in my mind this shifted the balance away from an audiophile one to something else where the listener perspective is under siege. he was honest about his agenda to cause change. actively.

it's one thing for Frantz or Tim to go down that road. it's another thing altogether for Amir to do it. and do it. and do it.

that made it not fun for me and if it's not fun i'm gone. negative energy is a waste of time. and i'm not a bridge burner.

it's a matter of balance.

and Amir got a bit personal with me and that tipped me over.

WBF will be what those in charge decide it should be. those that no longer enjoy it will go where they fit in. it's not a life and death issue.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us Mike. So if you were to define how you want the forum to change as to make it a super comfortable home for you, one where you contribute broadly and constructively, with nary a complaint to management, how would the forum look different from where it is now?

as my first paragraph above states; I'm not looking for 'super comfortable' or 'nary a complaint'. I think some degree of pushing comfort zones is healthy. for most of 5 years the balance of things on WBF mostly has been workable. it did not completely cater to my sensitivities, but was not 'anti' me. some who share my perspectives did not stay on WBF when I did stay.

my post above already comments on what changed for me from that previous environment. no need to beat that dead horse again. the words are there to re read should you desire.

I have little faith in the dynamics of an open web forum to find the right path for WBF. I'd recommend discussing it among the moderators. and maybe it's just me and all is ok as it is now.

 

[Mosin]

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
~ Albert Einstein

I voted dead center in the poll. Science can be good thing, but if the science isn't relevant, it is a waste of time. Then, I see "science" being discussed that is intended to address a known problem, but the problem hasn't been quantified. (There is one of those on here now.) That's worthless, too. At other times, it is on point and quite relevant. Most of all, it should be presented in a way that is easily grasped. Otherwise, many people are turned off because any benefit escapes them.

Summary: Give me something I can use.

 

[amirm]

as my first paragraph above states; I'm not looking for 'super comfortable' or 'nary a complaint'.

That was not for your sake, it was for ours . I am trying to get an idea of what makes this a home for you so that management does not have to field complaints from you. As you know, you recently had serious beef with Davey over his view of whatever he saw at the show, leading Peter to create that nasty thread. That created a ton of complaints that we had to deal with. So it is not workable situation. I am specifically asking what it takes for you to post constructively and positively as a core member of our organization.

I think some degree of pushing comfort zones is healthy. for most of 5 years the balance of things on WBF mostly has been workable.

That has not been my experience. Multiple times I have seen you quite unhappy leaving the forum for some time, none of which was due to any interactions with me.

it did not completely cater to my sensitivities, but was not 'anti' me. some who share my perspectives did not stay on WBF when I did stay.

So the Davey comments was not anti-you? You seem to take it that way.

my post above already comments on what changed for me from that previous environment. no need to beat that dead horse again. the words are there to re read should you desire.

I have little faith in the dynamics of an open web forum to find the right path for WBF. I'd recommend discussing it among the moderators. and maybe it's just me and all is ok as it is now.

I am willing to grant you any wish you have. But you need to express it clearly Mike. What is your wish list that gets you stay here, post productively and not complain, quit, etc. For starters, I am happy to not ever respond to you. If I do that, is that sufficient for you to be so situated? If not, what else is on the list?

 

[NorthStar]

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
~ Albert Einstein

I voted dead center in the poll. Science can be good thing, but if the science isn't relevant, it is a waste of time. Then, I see "science" being discussed that is intended to address a known problem, but the problem hasn't been quantified. (There is one of those on here now.) That's worthless, too. At other times, it is on point and quite relevant. Most of all, it should be presented in a way that is easily grasped. Otherwise, many people are turned off because any benefit escapes them.

Summary: Give me something I can use.