Collaborate on the "New to the ASR Forum FAQ" here

[Sokel]

It will be handy to link to people who ask the same questions all the time.
The big question is who will answer this questions in the first place.

People who used to write here that knew stuff in depth without been fanbois or biased against prices for example seem to write less and less.
It matters a lot who answers.

 

[Rednaxela]

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: […]

 

[Blumlein 88]

But there is a catch here: they all try to sell a product, and none of them care for the truth, none of them are actually informative.

That is indeed not what it should be in my mind. It should rather be a resource one can link to or copy past from whenever one of the standard questions comes up.

I really hate that: using what you despise to try to convince somebody. There is nothing wrong with stories. They pique interest. But the end goal should be to educate. I don't want people to just believe me because I have a nice story to tell. I want them to actually understand, and apply that knowledge next time.

My background is more or less in engineering. I hate commercializing and propaganda. Not uncommon in that. But you have to hook someone's interest before you can educate them. Marketing works like it or not. Fables work like it or not. Stories are what people find accessible with ease. Even engineers more than they want to let on.

Rednaxela's post is a good list of FAQ questions to start with. Another section with stories or tales to illustrate wouldn't be necessarily a bad thing either.

 

[voodooless]

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.

 

[tonycollinet]

I've just added the following note at the top of the document. Does it make sense to do that, or put notes/suggestions in here? The problem I see with putting them in thread, is the possibility of missing them as the thread grows:

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 )

 

[Axo1989]

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: […]

Q: Why is the word science in your forum name?
A: Using "science" here is basically clickbait (but with the best of intentions) really it's Audio Engineering/Measurement Review.

Q: How can you be both passionate about audio and think that, for instance, all top-measuring DACs sound the same?
A: Engineers are passionate about rules, less so about audio.

Q: I prefer DAC A over DAC B. Is there something wrong with me?
A: No. You can prefer what you like.

Q: Are there, in your view, limits to the upgradeability of an audio setup?
A: If you upgrade beyond Topping+Genelec, you are apostate. It may still sound better. Or not.

Q: If redbook is good enough, does that mean no-one here enjoys high res audio?
A: 44.1 is a messy number, 48 or 96 are much nicer to look at.

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: Measurements get you 70% of the way to imagining what a speaker sounds like. The rest is up to you.

Q: Do I have to back up literally everything I state here about something with data?
A: Not necessarily. If someone gets on your case about this in a way that isn't in any way interesting, use the ignore function.

Q: I love vinyl and tube gear. Can I happily join this forum?
A: Yes. See above re the ignore function.

Q: I love op-amp rolling. Is there a place for me here?
A: Sure. See above re the ignore function.

Q: Do you guys ever discuss at all how something sounds?
A: @MattHooper is you friend. I might join in, but I haven't listened to as much stuff.

 

[Rednaxela]

Thank you @Axo1989.

In all honesty I had something a bit more introspective in mind but I guess it’s a start.

 

[fpitas]

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

And some still aren't convinced to this day. C'est la vie...

 

[Galliardist]

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.

 

[tonycollinet]

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.

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.

 

[Jim Taylor]

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.

I understand how you feel, but we're trying to HELP here. We're not trying to step on toes.
We're trying to help visitors.
We're trying to help ourselves.
Maybe I'm self-centered, but I really think that's going to help @amirm. (We might do best to ask his comments now, before this goes too far.)

Hopefully, bandwidth use will be decreased, not increased.
Arguments will probably not decrease, but they might be shorter.
The number of visitors might actually increase. Who knows?

But ............ let's hope this is not done "by committee".

Jim

 

[voodooless]

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...

Arguments will probably not decrease, but they might be shorter.

Arguments fuel the forum, so they should not decrease. They should become better though!

 

[Multicore]

There are people like me who find much of the sales and marketing surrounding audio gear suspicious and don't identify as audiophile. For me getting stuck into ASR was a huge relief from all that bafflegab and I was happy to learn.

It might be interesting to try writing any new pedagogic articles as though you were talking to someone like me, open but ignorant, rather than someone defensive.

For example, alone the words "Message to golden-eared audiophiles..." seems a bit combative to me.

Btw, for us, AB testing is impractical. We have no concerns about sources, only amps and speakers. How would I even obtain the B to test our A against? Buy with intent to return if important isn't big enough?

 

[loafeye]

If one were to peruse the NASIOC web site, FAQs would be found pertaining to common elements of ownership questions and issues for that brand of automobile. It looks quite helpful.

At the moment, I think what I would find most helpful at ASR:
an index of the gear that @amirm recommends (as opposed to the index of that type of product reviewed) based on the reviews he's done, for each category of gear.
The indices I've been able to discover group reviews by category of gear, but most of the questions I read here by other new members are asking for recommendations. Many of these people already have gear, so they at least know what type of gear they're looking for. I haven't found a simple (for me) way to separate the wheat from the chaff, as in, "Don't tell me about all the products that exist, tell me what I should be looking at to buy".
The indices that I can find are great, especially if I want to compare what I now have or what my drinking buddy tells me I should be spending my money on to other products that have been reviewed here.
[Re: the above. Between the times that I lurked here years ago and Oct 25 2022 when I registered, new indices and sorting ability were implemented (this past spring; Welcome to the New Review Index!), something that I had not noticed immediately, as the layout on my screen looked the same as it had in the past. I think this is huge - thanks!]
I think FAQs will need periodic updating. Who has time for that? Does the forum make that a "wikipedia"- type free-for-all? That is, when a person looks for a product, the forum could provide current substitute products AND alternative solutions )(i.e., substitutes or replacements) based on the obsolescence of previously reviewed "recommendations" which can now (whenever now is) be replaced by newer products incorporating newer technology; for example, a stand-alone DAC as opposed to a DSP product containing a DAC.

The last suggestion would be a way for new members to negotiate the plethora of acronyms. There are posts that I'm incapable of understanding because they're written in code. I don't know of any way around this short of a dictionary of ASR acronyms/slang or allowing automatic links as is done when referring to @user_whoever .

I think the above would be of more immediate assistance than than FAQs.

Thanks for reading.

 

[kemmler3D]

I wonder if we could construct something different. A handful of stories to illustrate a few key concepts.

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.

The FAQ is to save existing members from re-writing the same responses over and over, and to save new members from getting testy responses from old members who are tired of writing the same responses over and over - beyond that, I think we are talking about diverging objectives that may be better served by other types of content.

There is a broader point here - if someone has already spent real money on audio-woo gear... they are going to be a very tough nut to crack because it's hard to admit a mistake, especially a costly mistake, and likely some of their personal pride is wrapped up in that decision as well. We shouldn't put a lot of effort into trying to convince those people. Very low yield.

The target market for new ASR users is the person who is *thinking* about dropping >$200 on gear, but hasn't yet, and may have been exposed to some of the SBAF or AG style nonsense. Someone who is still looking for answers, not someone who thinks they've found them. The FAQ could be very helpful in steering those people in the right direction.

It should rather be a resource one can link to or copy past from whenever one of the standard questions comes up.

Bingo - we are dealing with potential scope creep in this thread. Let's focus on cataloging the common questions and answers to save us all some keystrokes.

The last suggestion would be a way for new members to negotiate the plethora of acronyms.

Would definitely be good to link to a glossary, or if one doesn't exist already, create one and link to it from the FAQ.

I think FAQs will need periodic updating. Who has time for that?

Probably no one individual is going to volunteer to own the FAQ for eternity. However, anyone posting on ASR who knows their stuff has time to contribute to it, by definition. So from time to time the mods should review the FAQ and make sure it's up to date, and if not, ask for assistance from knowledgeable members for edits.

 

[kemmler3D]

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: […]

Thanks, helpful suggestions here!

 

[Galliardist]

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.

There is always the danger that it will become one.

And there will be lots of posts that begin "Your FAQs are wrong..." at the very least.

The start of doing an FAQ is probably to try and identify the things that outside people are saying and asking about ASR, not to ask members what they think they are. I'm sure my list would be far removed from reality, anyway.

 

[JaMaSt]

Q: I love vinyl and tube gear. Can I happily join this forum?
A: Yes. See above re the ignore function.

Lol, made my day.

 

[JaMaSt]

It may be simpler to make a FAQUBBNA* list.

Certainly it will be a shorter list....

*Frequently Asked Questions You Best Be Not Asking

 

[amirm]

I think we need an FAQ as to avoid me having to explain the same thing over and over again. And for that reason, 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. My thought on this is to start slow and add to it as I find and realize more repeat questions.

An example of what I want in an FAQ is this: "no one listens to graphs; use your ears!" I have had to answer this 1000 times so having an FAQ with a number I can point to, would save time and work.

Threads like this are useful by the way as I glance at them and see what else I may need to address.