Has civility on ASR declined recently?

[killdozzer]

Funnily though the German youth word of the year 2021 is the English word cringe though.

Youth word of the year (Germany) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I like the fact!! They want their feeling of shame for others to be internationally recognizable!

 

[Charles E Flynn]

I am relatively new on ASR, 15 months, and to me there has not been much change. There are some people who are combative and even insulting, which is to me very rude, and rudeness while hiding behind an avatar is cowardice! However, ASR is much better than other forums -- full-stop. That is why I am only active here.

My issue with forums is the unwillingness of people to learn. As the saying goes, little information is dangerous. Many people think they know everything but otherwise all they know is at best from Wikipedia or magazine articles. As ASR is a hobby forum very few people have the basic education in an audio related engineering or science education. This lack of education makes them think their knowledge is final. Audio engineering requires a diverse amount of subjects. It is not possible for one person to know everything from speaker cones to amplifiers to heath dissipation to acoustics, but we often see the same posters vehemently arguing on all subjects. I am a well educated person with a long history in audio. However, I am still learning. I wish people will be similarly open to learning.

In his book "Class: a guide through the American status system", the late Prof. Paul Fussell wrote that the two main social divides (in the USA) are between those who entertain in their domestic premises, and those who do not, and those who read to be surprised, and those who read to have their notions confirmed.

 

[JustAnandaDourEyedDude]

Ah, c'mon now. Nine pages of posts in this thread, and some mention of schadenfreude, yet not a single person admits to clicking on "New Posts" and scanning the second column of each page for the thread-locked symbol as the quickest way to find the most sensational and entertaining spectacles on ASR?

 

[Robin L]

Ah, c'mon now. Nine pages of posts in this thread, and some mention of schadenfreude, yet not a single person admits to clicking on "New Posts" and scanning the second column of each page for the thread-locked symbol as the quickest way to find the most sensational and entertaining spectacles on ASR?

No.

It's like pre-cog, usually get in just before the lockdown.

 

[bloodshoteyed]

with all the (ab)use of those rare phrases i'm pretty sure a german reading this might get a severe case of Kummerspeck

 

[Rudolf]

First things first: compared to Audiogon this is paradise.
I do believe that too many people at Audiogon are borderline delusional, the cable talk alone is debilitating, not to mention the fuses, cable supports, etc.
That being said, I am not entirely sure that all the math, physics and elecronics problems in amps, and, by extension, DACs are fully understood. I do not want to go subjective, but I will not bet that none among ‘rules of the thumb’ and audiophile myths and prejudices will not prove to have grasped/ guessed some elements of truth.
On this forum there is a very strong belief in scientific method, which I 100% share.
Next, a belief that in certain areas, namely DACs and amps, we have enough knowledge and what we measure is enough to fully describe the audio quality – well, I am not sure we are already there: if we compare to physics, we have an equivalent of Newtonian level of understanding (which is a lot!) but A.Einstein is yet to come.
Finally, a belief that anechoic loudspeaker measurements (or methods approaching the equivalent of anechoic measurements in a different environment) tell us enough to compare loudspeakers is a position which I do not share. That is only because I do not want to invest resources into turning my living room into an anechoic chamber. Therefore I look at Gradient Labs Ltd., Siegfried Linkwitz, etc.
Then again if double blind testing does not show the difference, it should not be there.
Yet I wonder how double blind testing accounts for long term phenomena like listening fatique? Do we simply dismiss it?
I have been quite excited about new equipment, only to find myself not listening to music too much after a while. Or just the opposite: I got Altmann Tera player some years ago (2012), I recall I used it almost daily for 5 years, till cables broke or earpads fell off from two of my best headphones; now I listen less, and mainly to loudspeakers.
Are long time phenomena unscientific? I would not necessarily think so. Yet, to the civility question, if one mentions observations which do not seem to have a ready scientific explanation, the answer is that amp and DAC problems are in the past, and double blind tests rule, case closed. Double blind tests rely on short fragments, and rightfully so, audio memory is short and fickle, we can measure more accurately than we hear. But I am not so sure about fatigue-building factors, not sure we know what to measure.
It is puzzling why questions whether current methods are sufficiently developed trigger a degree of hostility. Almost as if the scientific method was treathened. Surely it is not! My question is rather if there are other things on top of what we already measure which could be measured which correlate with the fatigue. Or maybe that is a question which has been alteady answered, if so, I’ll be thankful if somebody would point me to the answer.
To the civility again, there is a hint of a typical political party supporter approach: uniform thinking, clear, simple ideas and concepts, and increasing hostility if that is questioned.
We of course say it is all about being scientific, but I venture to say that some people on ASR would have less problem accomodating Flat Earthers who have unwavering belief in double blind testing and equality of all amps and DACs, than a person with solid undestanding of sciences, who has second thoughts about current scientific audio quality measurement methods.

 

[Robin L]

First things first: compared to Audiogon this is paradise.
I do believe that too many people at Audiogon are borderline delusional, the cable talk alone is debilitating, not to mention the fuses, cable supports, etc.
That being said, I am not entirely sure that all the math, physics and elecronics problems in amps, and, by extension, DACs are fully understood. I do not want to go subjective, but I will not bet that none ‘rules of the thumb’ and audiophile myths and prejudices will not prove to have grasped/ guessed some elements of truth.
On this forum there is a very strong belief in scientific method, which I 100% share.
Next, a belief that in certain areas, namely DACs and amps, we have enough knowledge and what we measure is enough to fully describe the audio quality – well, I am not sure we are already there: if we compare to physics, we have an eui alent of Newtonian level of understanding (which is a lot!) but A.Einstein is yet to come.
Finally, a belief that anechoic loudspeaker measurements (or methods approaching the equivalent of anechoic measurements in a different environment) tell us enough to compare loudspeakers is a position which I do not share. That is only because I do not want to invest resources into turning my living room into an anechoic chamber. Therefore I look at Gradient Labs Ltd., Siegfried Linkwitz, etc.
Then again if double blind testing does not show the difference, it should not be there.
Yet I wonder how double blind testing accounts for long term phenomena like listening fatique? Do we simply dismiss it?
I have been quite excited about new equipment, only to find myself not listening to music too much after a while. Or just the opposite: I got Altmann Tera player some years ago (2012), I recall I used it almost daily for 5 years, till cables broke or earpads fell off from two of my best headphones; now I listen less, and mainly to loudspeakers.
Are long time phenomena uncientific? I would not necessarily think so. Yet, to the civility question, if one mentions observations which do not seem to have a ready scientific explanation, the answer is that amp and DAC problems are in the past, and double blind tests rule, case closed. Double blind tests rely on short fragments, and rightfully so, audio memory is short and fickle, we can measure more accurately than we hear. But I am not so sure about fatigue-building factors, not sure we know what to measure.
It is puzzling why questions whether current methods are sufficiently developed triggers a degree of hostility. Almost as if the scientific method was treathened. Surely it is not! My question is rather if there are other things on top of what we already measure which could be measured which correlate with the fatigue. Or maybe that is effectively a question which has been alteady answered, if so, I’ll be thankfulmif somebody would point me to the answer.
To the civility again, there is a hint of a typical political party supporter approach: uniform thinking, clear, simple ideas and concepts, and increasing hostility if that is questioned.
We of couse say it is all about being scientific, but I venture to say that some people on ASR would have less problem accomodating Flat Earthers who have unwavering belief in double blind testing and equality of all amps and DACs, than a person with solid undestanding of sciences, who has second thoughts about current scientific audio quality measurement methods.

I'd say folks around here are more comfortable with the sorts of data that comes from measuring audio gear than the sort of "fuzzy" data derived from listener preferences. I'd love for there to be more research of subjective preferences. People in general don't understand just how variable people's listening/hearing abilities are, or how much people draw conclusions from unexamined personal preferences. No matter what, "one size fits all" doesn't, and won't, apply to personal listener preferences.

 

[kyle_neuron]

That fact is cringe in itself.. I my mind really not a word that seems to fit and sound well between German words. I wonder what the pronunciation will be..

One could even say that it's a bit of schadenfraude.

 

[tmtomh]

First things first: compared to Audiogon this is paradise.
I do believe that too many people at Audiogon are borderline delusional, the cable talk alone is debilitating, not to mention the fuses, cable supports, etc.
That being said, I am not entirely sure that all the math, physics and elecronics problems in amps, and, by extension, DACs are fully understood. I do not want to go subjective, but I will not bet that none among ‘rules of the thumb’ and audiophile myths and prejudices will not prove to have grasped/ guessed some elements of truth.
On this forum there is a very strong belief in scientific method, which I 100% share.
Next, a belief that in certain areas, namely DACs and amps, we have enough knowledge and what we measure is enough to fully describe the audio quality – well, I am not sure we are already there: if we compare to physics, we have an equivalent of Newtonian level of understanding (which is a lot!) but A.Einstein is yet to come.
Finally, a belief that anechoic loudspeaker measurements (or methods approaching the equivalent of anechoic measurements in a different environment) tell us enough to compare loudspeakers is a position which I do not share. That is only because I do not want to invest resources into turning my living room into an anechoic chamber. Therefore I look at Gradient Labs Ltd., Siegfried Linkwitz, etc.
Then again if double blind testing does not show the difference, it should not be there.
Yet I wonder how double blind testing accounts for long term phenomena like listening fatique? Do we simply dismiss it?
I have been quite excited about new equipment, only to find myself not listening to music too much after a while. Or just the opposite: I got Altmann Tera player some years ago (2012), I recall I used it almost daily for 5 years, till cables broke or earpads fell off from two of my best headphones; now I listen less, and mainly to loudspeakers.
Are long time phenomena unscientific? I would not necessarily think so. Yet, to the civility question, if one mentions observations which do not seem to have a ready scientific explanation, the answer is that amp and DAC problems are in the past, and double blind tests rule, case closed. Double blind tests rely on short fragments, and rightfully so, audio memory is short and fickle, we can measure more accurately than we hear. But I am not so sure about fatigue-building factors, not sure we know what to measure.
It is puzzling why questions whether current methods are sufficiently developed trigger a degree of hostility. Almost as if the scientific method was treathened. Surely it is not! My question is rather if there are other things on top of what we already measure which could be measured which correlate with the fatigue. Or maybe that is a question which has been alteady answered, if so, I’ll be thankful if somebody would point me to the answer.
To the civility again, there is a hint of a typical political party supporter approach: uniform thinking, clear, simple ideas and concepts, and increasing hostility if that is questioned.
We of course say it is all about being scientific, but I venture to say that some people on ASR would have less problem accomodating Flat Earthers who have unwavering belief in double blind testing and equality of all amps and DACs, than a person with solid undestanding of sciences, who has second thoughts about current scientific audio quality measurement methods.

Very thoughtful post, and I agree with the vast majority of what you say here. A couple of comments and thoughts:

I strongly agree with you that first impressions and short-term listening experiences can be misleading or can provide limited information. I would add, though, that the information that does exist about this seems to indicate that low distortion and high linearity are likely to minimize listener fatigue, while conversely we are all (I think) familiar with the fatigue created by "boom-tizz" voiced speakers that are designed to be non-linear so they really pop in the showroom, but are not relaxing or enjoyable for longer-term listening.

My understanding is also that the loudspeaker studies that have led to the Harmon curve and the consensus listener-preference claims favoring neutral speakers have not been based only on short-term ABX listening but also on what I take to be hours and hours of listening, repeated over time, with the same groups of listeners. If I am wrong I am happy to be corrected, but that is my understanding.

I also would suggest that your point about speakers not being able to be chosen based solely on measurements because most of us don't listen in anechoic or quasi-anechoic rooms is missing a key link its logical chain: if anechoic measurements don't fully predict how a speaker will sound in your room (and you are right, they don't), that doesn't mean that any of us has a good or predictable sense of how a particular speaker's deviations from objective perfection will interact with the particular conditions of our room. And to the extent we can make some basic predictions about that, those predictions are totally based on science and measurements. For example, @amirm always points out the degree of floor or ceiling padding/absorption you might need to deal with vertical reflectivity in speakers, especially non-coaxial two-way designs, in order to avoid significantly distorting the frequency response because of strong floor/ceiling reflections near the crossover frequency. So yes, you are correct that the measurements can't say what any individual will prefer in a particular room - but I would not attribute that to a lack of scientific understanding or any categorical limitations in measurements. They are more practical limitations based on individual preference, the complexities of individual room, and - a highly underrated factor - the crucial fact that whenever any regular consumer claims to prefer a certain speaker in their space, they are making a claim based on a very small number of samples (speakers they've purchased and auditioned in that space) compared to the number of samples that have been used to generate the Harmon curve and listener preferences, not to mention the knowledge base that Amir or John Atkinson or anyone else who's measured a ton of speakers has.

So while I agree with you wholeheartedly that embracing science also means acknowledging the scope of what we do not yet know, I also feel that a lot of the questioning of science and measurements in audio - whether of the thoughtless, strident stereotypical audiophile type or a more moderate and thoughtful type - tends to be just a little quick on the trigger about the supposed limits of what science and measurements can currently tell us. For most of us, our own knowledge of what science can tell us about audio is less than the actual extent of human knowledge on that subject - to return to my prior example inspired by your comment, I'm willing to bet that there is scientific literature on long-term listening that neither you nor I is aware of, and that we both could probably learn from if we were to seek it out.

 

[JustAnandaDourEyedDude]

I've never minded on-topic conversations with strong opinions being expressed as long as the focus is on the ideas not the person. That's the best way to learn.

Spot on! A nice illustration by Ian Leslie of the value of vigorous debate in arriving at the best understanding, a method stretching back at least to Socrates:
https://aeon.co/essays/why-disagree...-human-understanding?utm_source=pocket-newtab

The quote of Wilbur Wright is a gem:
"No truth is without some mixture of error, and no error so false but that it possesses no element of truth. If a man is in too big a hurry to give up an error, he is liable to give up some truth with it, and in accepting the arguments of the other man he is sure to get some errors with it. Honest argument is merely a process of mutually picking the beams and motes out of each other’s eyes so both can see clearly…"

 

[Rudolf]

"No truth is without some mixture of error, and no error so false but that it possesses no element of truth.

Great post!!
Just to observe that one actually can be “Not even wrong” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong , W.Pauli: "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" ) ;-)

 

[RayDunzl]

I notice some things that have a tendancy to turn conversation sour.
The "uh huh" response

We must go to the source of uh-huh...

[Thing-Fish:]
Just like you! I see some of y'all be FROWNIN'... 'cause mebbe y'think what I's tellin' ya' is a LIE! How 'bout it, folks? Whatcha say? Id dat right?

[Ensemble:]
Yes, it sho' is!

[Thing-Fish:]
Well, les' jes' have a test... how many o' you nice folks think I knows what I's talkin' 'bout? RAISE Y'HAIN UP! Uh-huh!

An' how many thinks my potato been bakin' too long? RAISE YO MIZZABLE HAIN UP! Uh-huh!

 

[Rudolf]

I also would suggest that your point about speakers not being able to be chosen based solely on measurements because most of us don't listen in anechoic or quasi-anechoic rooms is missing a key link its logical chain:

Thank you for your constructive and enlightening post!
I must apologise, I have done ‘the usual’, I put down part of my thoughts, taking the other part for granted.
I am happy to see measurements as done by the Stereophile, ASR, National Research Council of Canada, Princeton 3D3A Lab, etc. They are a given, I’d be sad if I woke up one day and there were no loudspeaker measurements.
Indeed, the response can be well predicted from the measurements for the average listening room (8 – 9 feet tall, between a square and a 1:2 rectangle, between 150 and 600 square feet, more often between 250 and 400, carpeted, 2x4 timber frame + drywall; in Europe that would be somewhat smaller size and more massive walls).
Where I have a problem is the room mode excitement by monopole speakers in mid- and upper bass region in a typical 8-8.5 feet tall, compact room. I had less of that in my previous habitats (had taller ceilings, then regular height with light ceiling or floor structures, till the current one - solid reinforced concrete slabs 8’3” apart. The vertical room mode is quite something, as are the reflections. That is why I mention dipole champions Gradient Labs Oy and S.Linkwitz, they adress the issue which is particularily problematic in my current living room.
Also, unless the situation has changed from J.Salmi‘s time (and nothing tells me it has), different loudspeakers which sound well and similar in anechoic conditions sound different in real-life flats and houses, some good and some less so.
This makes me wonder that if the speakers are not made to sound realistic in real-life rooms, yet wast majority of the loudspeakers are made according to the same scheme (dome tweeter, cone midrange and bass or just a midbass, bass in vented box … could it be just because this can be comparably easily calculated using Thiele-Small parameters?), what if we are ‘conditioned’ to accept that 2-2.5-3 way bassreflex box sound as “state of the art”, the correct way how the sound should bereproduced?
Most speakers are made that way for 30+ years, dipoles are mere oddballs. And our measuremnts pursue ‘ideals’ within the limits of 2-2.5-3 way bassreflex box paradigm. Can we even see/hear outside that bassreflex box?
For me the only way out is to go to a live performance. Not pop/ rock, as it is reinforced/interpreted through loudspeakers in the first place, just acoustic – voice, piano, strings, orchestra, opera (I do not listen to jazz too much).
Now, is there a good way to do that objectively, to objectively compare loudspeakers to a live performance? There must be, but I do not have it.
Remembering live performances to the best of my ability and trying different loudspeakers, subjectively in my room dipoles in bass seem more promising than monopoles.

 

[JustAnandaDourEyedDude]

One thing I would like to call out is when we get new members who’ve known nothing but the subjectivist sites, citing some dubious claim. I’ve seen them jumped on like they were stupid, and basically told, you’re not welcome here. I wish we could welcome everyone and be a little more mindful of easing them into a new way of thinking. A lot of us bought into the BS at some point, and we weren’t shamed into changing our views - we were shown.

We shouldn’t tolerate trolls or humor subjectivist partisans, but IMO we can be a little more patient and impersonal with the deprogramming. If they truly have curiosity about the science, they will stay and learn. ASR doesn’t need to be an exclusive objectivist treehouse. If ignorant people were barred from school, no one would ever get in.

Very well put, indeed.

Agreed that we could be a little more patient and polite with recalcitrant but educable newbies to audio science, despite the initial difficulty distinguishing them from the incorrigible trolls or partisans. Deprogramming is not an easy task, and learning itself is difficult for the learner. If teaching were just a matter of presenting the correct information, psychiatrists would be able to cure all of their neurotic patients with single sessions, and children would be able to go from first grade to graduating college in just the time needed to read all the textbooks. We have to take into account that the obstinate minority are faced with the complexity of audio science and with scientific information that runs counter to what they have previously been told by "experts". Often lacking any scientific background, and sometimes lacking even critical thinking and logic skills, they are ill-equipped for deciding which group of experts they should believe. Their arguing back at us is a reflection of their internal struggle to recognize and reject the audio myths that they have been poisoned with. For every argumentative newbie, there are probably a dozen or more readers struggling with the same question, who will be influenced positively or negatively by how the newbie is answered.

While most of the knowledgeable ASR stalwarts are good teachers, and Amir's commentaries in his reviews are very illuminating, when it comes to interacting with argumentative newbies, solderdude in particular springs to my mind. While not wishing to embarrass him by singling him out, I must say in this context that I admire solderdude's approach to newbies and see him as a paragon of teaching excellence (just as he is a paragon of excellence in many other aspects). Tirelessly (and unpaid!) and patiently responding to newbie's questions and arguments, he always tries to find and address the particular impediments in their thinking or lack of knowledge. He uses his vast knowledge of audio science to summarize and present the relevant information in an authoritative yet understandable way, yet without over-simplifying [not "all amps sound the same", but "under such-and-such conditions and constraints, all amps sound the same"], and without showing-off and without put-downs of the newbie's statements. For the most part, he succeeds in educating such newbies, or at least in causing them to soften their stance and question their own mistaken beliefs. The process makes me recall the scene early in the movie Crocodile Dundee where the eponymous character stares down a truculent wild buffalo (was it a buffalo? It has been so long since I watched the movie) on the road and returns it to a peaceful state. I think we could usefully strive to emulate solderdude's gentle yet firm approach to re-educating ill-informed folks.

 

[DanielT]

Regarding the subjective vs the objective that I saw discussed in the thread. One suggestion:

Launch a new section on ASR: Vintage

In many threads on ASR, nostalgic memories emerge, including experiences of how it was with the old stereo / first Hifi and so on. I see nothing wrong with that. Can be nice to take part in old stories. Very nice even so why not a separate section on ASR where this can be ventilated?

A section with a more forgiving attitude towards the subjective? In many cases, these are still old memories, so ..?

Of course, a Vintage section can be combined with lots of other vintage items. Measurements, searches for spare parts (for those who have vintage as a hobby) and so on.

Just a thought.

 

[mhardy6647]

ASR: Vintage could put a few of the big ol' warhorse forums outta business.
I am just saying.

 

[DanielT]

ASR: Vintage could put a few of the big ol' warhorse forums outta business.
I am just saying.

He he,

I would have thought it was fun anyway. Do not know if others would appreciate such a section.

Just take this:
Cleaning and oxide removal in vintage hi-fi
and so on...

On occasion regarding subjective vs. objective, I mentioned this with vintage section in this thread.Ok enough with OT in this thread. New thread about it, new section Vintage ASR that is.
It is possible that this has already been discussed at ASR. I know nothing about that.

 

[muslhead]

While most of the knowledgeable ASR stalwarts are good teachers, and Amir's commentaries in his reviews are very illuminating, when it comes to interacting with argumentative newbies, solderdude in particular springs to my mind. While not wishing to embarrass him by singling him out, I must say in this context that I admire solderdude's approach to newbies and see him as a paragon of teaching excellence (just as he is a paragon of excellence in many other aspects). Tirelessly (and unpaid!) and patiently responding to newbie's questions and arguments, he always tries to find and address the particular impediments in their thinking or lack of knowledge. He uses his vast knowledge of audio science to summarize and present the relevant information in an authoritative yet understandable way, yet without over-simplifying [not "all amps sound the same", but "under such-and-such conditions and constraints, all amps sound the same"], and without showing-off and without put-downs of the newbie's statements. For the most part, he succeeds in educating such newbies, or at least in causing them to soften their stance and question their own mistaken beliefs. The process makes me recall the scene early in the movie Crocodile Dundee where the eponymous character stares down a truculent wild buffalo (was it a buffalo? It has been so long since I watched the movie) on the road and returns it to a peaceful state. I think we could usefully strive to emulate solderdude's gentle yet firm approach to re-educating ill-informed folks.

I concur. He gets my vote as ASR's best.

 

[Robin L]

Very well put, indeed.

Agreed that we could be a little more patient and polite with recalcitrant but educable newbies to audio science, despite the initial difficulty distinguishing them from the incorrigible trolls or partisans. Deprogramming is not an easy task, and learning itself is difficult for the learner. If teaching were just a matter of presenting the correct information, psychiatrists would be able to cure all of their neurotic patients with single sessions, and children would be able to go from first grade to graduating college in just the time needed to read all the textbooks. We have to take into account that the obstinate minority are faced with the complexity of audio science and with scientific information that runs counter to what they have previously been told by "experts". Often lacking any scientific background, and sometimes lacking even critical thinking and logic skills, they are ill-equipped for deciding which group of experts they should believe. Their arguing back at us is a reflection of their internal struggle to recognize and reject the audio myths that they have been poisoned with. For every argumentative newbie, there are probably a dozen or more readers struggling with the same question, who will be influenced positively or negatively by how the newbie is answered.

While most of the knowledgeable ASR stalwarts are good teachers, and Amir's commentaries in his reviews are very illuminating, when it comes to interacting with argumentative newbies, solderdude in particular springs to my mind. While not wishing to embarrass him by singling him out, I must say in this context that I admire solderdude's approach to newbies and see him as a paragon of teaching excellence (just as he is a paragon of excellence in many other aspects). Tirelessly (and unpaid!) and patiently responding to newbie's questions and arguments, he always tries to find and address the particular impediments in their thinking or lack of knowledge. He uses his vast knowledge of audio science to summarize and present the relevant information in an authoritative yet understandable way, yet without over-simplifying [not "all amps sound the same", but "under such-and-such conditions and constraints, all amps sound the same"], and without showing-off and without put-downs of the newbie's statements. For the most part, he succeeds in educating such newbies, or at least in causing them to soften their stance and question their own mistaken beliefs. The process makes me recall the scene early in the movie Crocodile Dundee where the eponymous character stares down a truculent wild buffalo (was it a buffalo? It has been so long since I watched the movie) on the road and returns it to a peaceful state. I think we could usefully strive to emulate solderdude's gentle yet firm approach to re-educating ill-informed folks.

And if you want more Solderdude, don't forget his website, one of the best sources of information on headphones:

Headphones

home Headphones exist in many forms and shapes ranging from small ones that are pushed in the ear canal to quite large ear-speakers that hang on the sides of your head. We can divide them in sever…

diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com

 

[Thomas savage]

A bit of friction is a small price to pay , critical and independent thought along with the value ASR lays at the feet of affirmed research is a wonderful mix.

Humanity would do better if they challenged themselves with these values rather than just finding solice in self conformation.

That's what many people come online for unfortunately and indeed are used to receiving. Some sort of conformation, some seek it by antagonism some chase like minded affirmation.

Both in excess create a unhelpful dynamic, trust me when i tell you entertaining all those actors and maintaining balance along with the core values of the mission is impossible without accepting some friction .

You kill the friction, you kill the meaning and value imo .

ASR relays on a challenging atmosphere, you just gotta keep a untied sense of endeavour and ultimately promote a shared humility. Theres a few ways those in charge can do that .


Those in charge know how . You're all rather fortunate they do and I'm pleased they continue to do so . Helps me be happy in retirement form my duties here and know the effort I put in wasn't wasted .

Leave some room for each other, it's really important, embrace challenge and don't be too quick to eradicate cognitive dissidence.

You gotta tear the muscle to grow the muscle.