I know it works, but I still don't like it. There may be a decent way to use it though. Your suggestions go a fair bit in the right direction.
Last edited:
As mentioned in my note below, It might be helpful to have some of the basic background material/info high up in the list of questions. This would include summary of “Thresholds of Audibility, referencing the post here:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-thresholds-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/
It should also include the role of cognitive biases in listening tests and the reasons why (and when) blind testing might be necessary (both of which - I have just noticed - you already have in Q1 and Q2 )
Q: Why is the word science in your forum name?
A: […]
Q: How can you be both passionate about audio and think that, for instance, all top-measuring DACs sound the same?
A: […]
Q: I prefer DAC A over DAC B. Is there something wrong with me?
A: […]
Q: Are there, in your view, limits to the upgradeability of an audio setup?
A: […]
Q: If redbook is good enough, does that mean no-one here enjoys high res audio?
A: […]
Q: My speakers would never get high marks according to the criteria you apply in your reviews. Still I think they sound amazing. What does this say about your speaker reviews?
A: […]
Q: Do I have to back up literally everything I state here about something with data?
A: […]
Q: I love vinyl and tube gear. Can I happily join this forum?
A: […]
Q: I love op-amp rolling. Is there a place for me here?
A: […]
Q: Do you guys ever discuss at all how something sounds?
A: […]
And some still aren't convinced to this day. C'est la vie...The same way that people hundreds of years ago were finally convinced that our solar system was heliocentric; it took time, it took proofs, it took education, and most of all it took perseverance.
Jim
An FAQ is not a doctrine, nor a hardline manifesto. It is just a place where we can point the initial, common questions of newcomers to. If after looking at it they still have questions (and they will), then no problem. But we avoid the need of having to keep on pointing out the basics.I'm finding some of this a bit, well, wrong. This is a forum provided by its owner, who has a clear mission, and has set rules for us to follow when in his house.
I think that's quite enough.
Obviously, there is something of a consensus among regular posters and it gets a bit tribal sometimes. After all, there is an entire faction that has effectively been chased out of other areas of the audio world for your views, and there's a strong desire not to let this forum go the same way as others.
However, that is not the only function. The forum has an owner who provides a valuable service, and the forum promises expert members to help answer your questions as promised at the top of the page. Rather than creating a hardline manifesto and circling the wagons, maybe we should actually discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as also requested at the top of every page. Those statements define the mission, as it were.
Setting out a doctrine beyond those points: apart from scaring away people who may come with a desire to learn, but from a different place, it may also cause some of the expert members who don't hold exactly to that doctrine to reconsider whether they belong here. Two own goals for the price of one. The first port of call is that people should not be scared off reading the reviews, watching the videos, joining the forums and joining in in a genuine way. Those who don't show a "desire to learn" can be shown the door easily enough.
I don't agree with only using cut and paste answers, either, for the most part (there will always be exceptional resources to refer to). That will be mocked by the rest of the Internet soon enough. I do think that an index to the library resources and better posts is a good idea, and one that allows the forum to grow organically.
As for "use the ignore function" - that should be a last resort, not the answer to almost everything.
Obviously, you missed the bit where that was sarcasm...As for "use the ignore function" - that should be a last resort, not the answer to almost everything.
Arguments fuel the forum, so they should not decrease. They should become better though!Arguments will probably not decrease, but they might be shorter.
In marketing we would call this case studies, or testimonials, if the story is told from the first person. This is useful to convince people when they can see themselves in the "protagonist" of the story. However, it also requires someone to be interested enough in the product (in this case, an objectivist approach to audio) to read the damn thing. I think a FAQ and case studies / testimonials can coexist, but they serve different purposes.I wonder if we could construct something different. A handful of stories to illustrate a few key concepts.
It should rather be a resource one can link to or copy past from whenever one of the standard questions comes up.
The last suggestion would be a way for new members to negotiate the plethora of acronyms.
I think FAQs will need periodic updating. Who has time for that?
Thanks, helpful suggestions here!Q: Why is the word science in your forum name?
A: […]
Q: How can you be both passionate about audio and think that, for instance, all top-measuring DACs sound the same?
A: […]
Q: I prefer DAC A over DAC B. Is there something wrong with me?
A: […]
Q: Are there, in your view, limits to the upgradeability of an audio setup?
A: […]
Q: If redbook is good enough, does that mean no-one here enjoys high res audio?
A: […]
Q: My speakers would never get high marks according to the criteria you apply in your reviews. Still I think they sound amazing. What does this say about your speaker reviews?
A: […]
Q: Do I have to back up literally everything I state here about something with data?
A: […]
Q: I love vinyl and tube gear. Can I happily join this forum?
A: […]
Q: I love op-amp rolling. Is there a place for me here?
A: […]
Q: Do you guys ever discuss at all how something sounds?
A: […]
There is always the danger that it will become one.An FAQ is not a doctrine, nor a hardline manifesto. It is just a place where we can point the initial, common questions of newcomers to. If after looking at it they still have questions (and they will), then no problem. But we avoid the need of having to keep on pointing out the basics.
Lol, made my day.Q: I love vinyl and tube gear. Can I happily join this forum?
A: Yes. See above re the ignore function.
That’s great! Have a discussion. Preferably you can refer from one question to the next in defense of it. Because likely there will not be a single new argument.And there will be lots of posts that begin "Your FAQs are wrong..." at the very least.
Thank you @Axo1989.
In all honesty I had something a bit more introspective in mind but I guess it’s a start.
Great, we will more easily identify the radioactive threads and avoid them.there will be lots of posts that begin "Your FAQs are wrong..."
I tend to agree, it will be oriented towards new people, who necessarily get their ideas about ASR from somewhere else.The start of doing an FAQ is probably to try and identify the things that outside people are saying and asking about ASR
Indeed, part of the brief is that any FAQ would need your approval. I am personally happy to take a stab at some questions to help speed the process, as are a few others here, but of course in the spirit of strawman or placeholder pending official sign-off.I have to write it so I can defend it. As noted, what I think may not be what you all think. And at any rate, what we enforce as admin/mods is a reflection of the mission as I see it, for good or bad.