New Objective-Fi Sub-forum

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If this change was about money, then yes. But it isn’t. It’s about making an enjoyable hobby fun. Most people don’t bring a dietician with them to every restaurant so s/he can tell them how they are screwing their body. People like to enjoy audio without the audio police on their backs at every turn. 

Is this the "you didn't use a linear power supply" audio police or the "you haven't heard it so you can't comment upon it" audio police?

Maybe the "your system isn't good enough to hear it" audio police or one of the variants of the "you aren't a music lover" audio police.

Reminds me of a streaming comedy called the "Medical police".  Sort of bad timing with events in China too. 

So where is the "New Fantasy-Fi Sub-forum"???

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

So where is the "New Fantasy-Fi Sub-forum"???

 

According to the extremists, it’s everywhere except the Objective-Fi sub-forum. 

2 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

There's not much to it. Sorry, I'm not sure the point you are making. I'll steer clear of going in on an audio forum with Joe Sixpack though.

There's quite a bit to making a community work, knowing what to try, and understanding wen to hit the no button. All the challenges are about people, not technology.

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

There's quite a bit to making a community work, knowing what to try, and understanding wen to hit the no button. All the challenges are about people, not technology.

Well, a majority of the forum seems to be cheering the new ghetto you created, so you should feel good about what you accomplished.

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Well, a majority of the forum seems to be cheering the new ghetto you created, so you should feel good about what you accomplished.

Yes, nothing like a common enemy to unite a community.

I'm most interested in the practical impact of this new subforum - how people who are not "partisans" in the objective-subjective debate will encounter and navigate content at Audiophile Style. I see two likely consequences of this new change, both of them negative, although in different ways.

For those who come here and click on the Forums main page, they see a list of subforums - and for someone who navigates this place in that way, everyone complaining about ghettoization and isolation of objectivists has a strong point. Are you new here and want to talk about music servers? Then you'll go to the Music Server subforum. DACs? DAC subforum. Networking? Software? Same deal.

If I understand the new rules, if someone reads a thread about ethernet cables in the Networking subforum, they will not encounter anyone saying that ethernet cables do not impact the sound of a stereo system - because any such comments disputing the sonic impact of different ethernet cables will be moved to the Objective-Fi subforum (or else flat-out deleted after a warning, I presume?).

In that scenario, how could any reasonable person not consider that a sequestration of certain views into an isolated area, while certain other views are allowed free reign in every other subforum?

For those who come here and click on the Active Topics filter, I presume they will see multiple, similar thread titles, one with subjectivist content and one with objectivist content. Sometimes the thread titles might make it clear which is which, and other times the titles will not make that clear. So people will click into threads having no idea that only certain perspectives will be on display in whichever one they happen to click on. Unless they notice the "Objective-Fi" or "Music Server" (or whatever) subforum tag at the top of the page, they will have no idea what subforum they're in and therefore will have no idea that they're only getting one portion of all the information and views available on the subject here. That seems, well, less than desirable if the idea is for this to be an information resource.

My view is that it is a mistake to structure this forum too much based on the perceived needs and preferences of highly active members who know each other and all the usual arguments. I believe it's important to think of the person who does not yet have a lot of information and who has not yet come to some basic conclusions about how they want to go about pursuing this hobby. From the perspective of that type of member/user, I feel this change is a step backward.

My view also is that there is an underlying difference in how subjectivists and objectivists perceive the purpose of discussion here. Subjectivists routinely talk about letting people enjoy their hobby, and say that when objectivists enter into disputes about issues, they do so in order to "be disagreeable," "tell others what to do," and "stir up controversy."

But this misses the crucial point that objectivists generally are not interested in simply sharing enthusiasms with like-minded enthusiasts. Despite what Chris has repeatedly said, I don't think objectivists want to be 'free to discuss issues without the subjectivist crazies coming in" - that "I want to be left alone to discuss with my fellow enthusiasts" idea is expressed far more often by subjectivists.  

By contrast, objectivists believe certain claims have evidence and others don't, and they believe in seeking knowledge by evaluating objective evidence - by "objective" I mean reliably repeatable by others, per the scientific method. And so the idea of not intervening in discussions about whether ethernet cables have a sound, or whether JRiver throws up a better soundstage than Roon, is anathema to objectivists. Talking only to others who already share their beliefs is IMHO of far more limited pleasure and utility to objectivists than it is to subjectivists.

And again, let's not forget that in most threads the most numerous group of readers is the people who don't post - so If I write that bit-identical digital files do in fact sound the same, I'm not trying to convince Alex. Instead, I'm trying to inform people who might be reading the thread that there is in fact zero evidence for Alex's claim, because I think it's important that folks know that.

Now, @The Computer Audiophile is under no obligation to allow objectivists to participate in that kind of activity if he feels it's detrimental to the forum or to what he wants this place to be. But if that kind of activity is to be ended via the sequestration of all objectivist argument in this subforum, then I can certainly understand @mansr's desire not to be a member here anymore.

Personally I'm always inclined to stay and keep discussing, but I would be lying if I didn't say that this change concerns me and has me rethinking the amount of time I spend here and the effort I put into the discussions.

1 minute ago, Kimo said:

Lots of subjective commentary to be found here already.  

 

Yes, I see some rather mushy descriptions from objective leaning folks. What's next, cats and dogs living together!

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes, I see some rather mushy descriptions from objective leaning folks. What's next, cats and dogs living together!

If nothing else, the jokes should be good.  The Objective folks seem to make the funniest comments, but that is just my opinion.

It seems strange to me that so many objective people would not welcome a place dedicated to objective people. 😲

Objections in the DNA 😀

On 2/17/2020 at 4:30 PM, mansr said:

You keep saying that, yet your actions speak strongly to the contrary.

Any data to support this? 🙂