New forum ethos - what exactly is it?

my tuppence on those - admitting that "i've been away, as prodigal":

1. Have separate subjective and objective areas to stop each group boring/driving away the others.

I really dont think that these are alternatives, but a matter of emphasis, from 3 povs: the music production mix; the kit and the mix of kit; the listener

 

Some interesting and creative suggestions.

 

Now that's more like it - very constructive

I like a few of those immediately.

Manuals and docs held in a reference area, definitely.
Inviting guest designers also sounds good, though that can run into problems with accusations of using the forum to promote products and the line is sometimes very thin indeed.
We are already pretty lax on that score (deliberately) so as to encourage those with trade connections to post and explain their idea, so shouldn't pose any real difficulty.

Music section here used to be great and still has its moments, especially if you like classical stuff.

The only thing that I'm not comfortable with is the separate objectivist and subjectivist sections. There has to be overlap IMO and each side should be able to challenge the other.

On paying for trade membership and services/benefits I've no strong view.
I guess that's a bit chicken and egg really. People will likely pay once the forum is seeing more activity, so perhaps do some of the other things first.


But hey, forum has been nice and active over the past few day.

 

I like the idea of a good reference section with hosting for documents. Rob and I talked about making some reference material before, but it does take a very long time to do it so I guess it never happened.

Still the first step is to create a reference section of the forum and initiate the attachment function on the forum with a decent space for uploads. Lets have it please

 

> The only thing that I'm not comfortable with is the separate objectivist and subjectivist sections.

The rational/high-fidelity/"objectivist" vs. magical/audiophile/"subjectivist" thing cannot be ducked because the two systems of belief are in conflict on a range of relevant subjects. Since they are different systems of belief there is no shared basis of what is considered true on which to debate or resolve conflict. I am aware of no forum that functions in a reasonably civilised manner that has not opted overwhelmingly for one or the other.

In the UK there is no home audio forum that has adopted a strong rational/high-fidelity/"objectivist" leaning and so this would seem to be an opportunity given that one of the moderators seems to lean this way and there is currently too many forums with a strong magical/audiophile/"subjectivist" leaning for them all to maintain healthy numbers of posters.

 

But are there sufficient objectivists to maintain a UK forum?

 

> But are there sufficient objectivists to maintain a UK forum?

As in people that regularly post on audiophile forums telling audiophile-subjectivists that they are wrong but rarely chat about positive things with each other? No.

What is required is something positive to talk rationally about. Hydrogen audio has audio computer software and hardware. Audioholics has home theatre. Parts Express has DIY speakers. And I think that is about it of home audio forums with a rational rather than audiophile leaning. Anyone?

Don't know what Rob's trade is but a UK loudspeaker DIY slant might work.

 

Yes, that is rather a good description of what I was thinking of .

 

IMO Rob is not trade. He chose to declare himself as trade because of his association with Simon/Audiosmile. Specifically he helps out his friend Simon on demoing Kensai speakers. Rob does not receive any payment from Simon/Audiosmile.

Rob works for HSBC.

 

Look to Zener on pfm, great guy but uncomfortable status IMHO.

 

That depends how you define objectivist.
It should only apply to the testing process IMO, and it can never be used to define what we like or dislike.

On that basis, objectivity should be part of the mainstream.

There are some nut-jobs around who will tell you that if you like the sound of something that measures a bit 'iffy' you are deaf. That's just a extreme and misguided as listening to a range of kit with no attempt whatsoever to remove sources of bias and advocating that as a flawless process.
Both of those viewpoint probably need their own forum because never the twain shall meet, but I've not seen anyone here in either camp - well not lately - we used to have a few in the latter group

 

The real issue for me lies with the subjectivist/objectivist dichotomy and how to deal with it. For me it's simple, I know enough history to understand the concept of discovery and refinement, the forward progress of knowledge. I sure as hell know enough physiology and psychology to know that despite the fallibility of our senses what we are able to hear is justly offset by the huge signal processing power of our brains.

I don't think we have any issue with measuring what we hear, but we are a million miles away from being able to process those measurements into what we recognise as aspects of music- and that's where pure objectivism falls down for me.

So it can't be black, or white it has to represent the shades of grey if we choose to head in that direction. There's no device to measure how well someone plays, how much more emotion they capture than another musician, all we have are measurements for the simple things that really don't matter because all gear does those well enough already- yet none of us have found audio perfection.

 

It is simply about having the cards on the table. Not making such declarations and not wearing the appropriate hat attract all sorts of flak. Been there and experienced it!
Jon has been in a similar position.

I could easily remove the hat and start recommending certain dacs and Kensai Speakers on every other thread. Wouldn't be right though given that there is a connection.
Effectively selling and promoting the products at shows, demonstrating them (my address is given as a demo location) and having helped build a few pairs on occasion puts partiality to the fore.

 

I'd argue that if the electronics (leave speakers aside for the moment) can be shown to have very low distortion, super flat responses, ample channel separation, no phase errors within the audible range etc etc.... in other words , excellent performance that is easily obtainable today, your brain has ample information to do all the fancy processing that you mention.

I would also argue that if you've an amplifier such as Self's recent designs where distortion is driven down to 0.0005%, your brain cannot detect driving that down to 0.0002 or even raising it by a good deal. Same for other specs, so if channel separation iis 80dB then your brain processing abilities won't improve by taking that to 82dB. Similarly, response deviation of 0.25dB are going to immaterial. And so on.....

Of course you then have to ask yourself where the bar needs to be set for these issues to sink below audibility. That requires lots of blind testing along the lines of that done by Leak, Quad and the BBC Research Department many years ago. Harman are doing it today but many don't bother.

The norm today is to place, for example, two amplifiers on a table and play them in turn with no controls in place - nothing - and then expect a competent decisions to be made on the merits and characteristics of each.
That might be possible if they really do differ markedly (and measurably) but if they don't, and these days many amplifiers achieve good competency, then problems arise. You cannot possibly make an accurate assessment under those conditions. Yet people assume they can.

To give you a real example of this, in your comments on the new Linn phono stage you describe certain aspects of the sound and ascribe these to being typical of units using op amps. You are sitting in front of a unit full of op amps (which you described recently as the work of the devil) and then describing the sound as typical of such circuitry. Well it might be - but then again your opinion might be coloured by knowledge of the circuit design. That is by no means a criticism, simply an observation of a type verified many many times in other areas.
So introduce some objectivity into the listening tests. If after doing so you can still tell the unit apart from others and identify a preference - excellent, you've demonstrated how objectivity and subjectivity work together.

 

Rob I didn't write the review to support your new world order, i don't care if you think it lacks objectivity. The unit was installed and listened to and notes made before it was opened for the pictures. The review was written from the notes after the pictures were taken.


Had my notes not read "bass sounds fulsome and deep, treble sounds slightly angular and rolled off, lacks resolution" then i probably would have had any 'blame' to lay at the door of the op-amps and would have probably summed it up thus- " doesn't sound at all like I have come to expect from an op-amp driven phonostage".

But it didn't sound that way.

If you'd prefer that anyone with a balanced approach mid-way between the two camps doesn't write reviews in case they don't align with your new direction then just say the word, I'm sure we'll all be happy to help direct the traffic to other forums without an axe to grind.

 

Indeed and your debate with Rob illustrates the issue nicely for Rob and Dev (are there other active ZG moderators?). Rob's beliefs may be mainstream outside the audiophile world but they are not mainstream inside it. If he continues to offer negative information rather than positive information then people such as yourself will mainly post on other forums which are more comfortable and enjoyable for you.

One alternative might be if Rob greatly reduced his "objectivist" posts but would the "subjectivist" posts pick up given the many other similar forums? And would he want to continue as a moderator if he had to suppress the posts he would like to make?

I don't know what Dev's views are but if Rob wishes to continue as a happy "objectivist" ZG moderator of an active forum it is hard to see an alternative to attracting more posters with views similar to his own. This will mean providing something positive to talk about among themselves rather than simply bashing "subjectivist" posters. The moderate "subjectivist" posters will leave for more accommodating forums but the more aggressive ones will stay and argue/snipe in just the same way as a few "objectivist" posters currently do on "subjectivist" forums.

Peter Aczel and Audio Critic is an excellent example of what not to do if you opt for an "objectivist" leaning. His primary interest was in bashing "subjectivists" which not only cut out "subjectivists" (a good thing) but progressively drove away the "objectivists". Bashing "subjectivists" can sometimes add spice to "objectivist" forums/publications but it will not serve as the meat and veg which needs to be a positive interest.

It will be interesting to see what happens to ZG in the future.

 

Probably worth listing the team at this point: Mark Telkman is the owner and admin - this is his site. Rob, Dev and SCIDB are the active mod team, Lordsummit and Julian2002 are still on the list despite not being around much these days, as is MichaelAB who originally setup Groovehandle (with Joel) from which ZG eventually evolved. I'm here as a kind of 'guest' mod (I own and run pfm), though I do little other than deleting spammers and on occasion offering an opinion - I abstain from all 'active' moderation such as thread locks, votes on banning members etc as I feel I have a conflict of interest due to owning pfm. It may actually make sense that I step down shortly as I suspect my being is confusing to some and may ultimately be counterproductive to ZG. Rob, Dev and Dean are the people to drive ZG forward IMO.

Tony.

 

Which was why i suggested the two areas for the sub/ob camps and maybe even a DMZ for those prepared to argue the toss, such as myself.

Were we arguing about turntable speed, then i'm 100% in the measurement defines it all camp- but turntable speed alone does not define the sound of a turntable.

Likewise for amps I don't feel that a single gross distortion number comes close to telling the story and steady state measurement is largely pointless for defining how reactive systems act in the real world.

Both subjective and objective viewpoints have their place, i'm just not sure that either of them should be the 'appointed' way of looking at the world- that leads to exclusivity and thats seldom a good direction for community involvement.

 

as stated, I've just returned, and although I have a professional stance wrt objectivity (I'm a statistician by training and many years of past practice) my principal interest is listening to music so I like to think that my stance here has always been (like my system) one that's 'fully balanced'.

Another pre-occupation on forums is as a football supporter, and the world there is split horribly between the half-full and half-empty (or as I like to think of them, The Glums). Recourse to stats does happen - everything from (lack of) silverware, points, winning, goals, shots, assists, successful passes etc. But they are used only as snowballs.

The idea of two areas for The Glums and The AKB (Arsene Knows Best) has happened, with spin-off forums and occasional flame wars. I wish it was not the case.

I'm up for objective measurements of components, but "as we all know" there is need for synergy between components [just as team play between individual players - not all of which need be super stars] and finally in the domestic setting there is the placing of the ears in a room of uncertain dimension and resonance.

 

Well put I feel.