Improving ASR as a member/moderator

[RickS]

I recently had some discussion with Amir around ASR messaging. Some of this effort was due to earlier posts here that focused on new members but can often apply to existing ones as well. One idea was to make the FAQs mandatory reading. I pointed out that members do not seem to read the Terms and Rules aspect of registration, so was not sure adding the FAQs would be effective. A bit ago, it was mentioned ASR lacks a stated purpose. Pretty sure it has been covered elsewhere but is question #3 on the FAQs.

Perhaps we have a different problem to consider?

 

[Satiomeliom]

It is their interpretation of their experience -- the causation they assume -- that is typically at fault.

That was where i was going with this. But if that is the case, why does it spiral so much here? Shouldnt an objectivist always have the upper hand here? If i cant adress their logic with my own facts and stop them stirring the pot, then have i even internalized them correctly?

 

[Mort]

Also one might learn that sometimes, off-the-rails may actually be the better track

There are plenty of spaces on the Internet for that.

Now there's plenty of them and I, and a lot of people here I suspect, come to this forum to get away from that noise and actually learn some real knowledge. That can only continue to happen if the 'I don't care about the measurements' people are dissuaded from coming here to crusade.

Exactly

 

[Mort]

I recently had some discussion with Amir around ASR messaging. Some of this effort was due to earlier posts here that focused on new members but can often apply to existing ones as well. One idea was to make the FAQs mandatory reading. I pointed out that members do not seem to read the Terms and Rules aspect of registration, so was not sure adding the FAQs would be effective. A bit ago, it was mentioned ASR lacks a stated purpose. Pretty sure it has been covered elsewhere but is question #3 on the FAQs.

Perhaps we have a different problem to consider?

The problem is brevity. People barely look at roadsigns or read headlines. They definitely do not look at the quite long FAQ. And it would be unrealistic to expect them to.

 

[BlueTunes]

As far as I'm aware the original purpose of the forum was to discuss research papers from the AES et al and the mission expanded organically from there.

I think you're correct in that there isn't any written definition of what the forum is about; however de facto it is about using the scientific method, part of which is backing claims with evidence. And that evidence should be valid i.e gathered with some controls and a thought- through methodology.

I think questioning any findings or current paradigms is encouraged here, provided it is done within that framework. What isn't welcome is the 'I own both DACs and they certainly sound different, don't tell me what I can and can't hear' type of contribution.

At a minimum, posters should accept that their perception is not flawless and their subjective experience is not, therefore, sacrosanct.

Intersting that a search of the AES database shows that Psycho-acoustics are well documented and are part of the AES remit.
Like most things in life, there are rarely any definative boundaries to what is or isn't.

Audio Engineering Society (AES) researches how human perception interprets sound—covering, masking, and, loudness—to improve audio production, speaker design, and, 3D audio,. These studies guide, engineers in, creating, realistic, soundstages, by, manipulating, frequency response, off-axis, response, and, spatial, characteristics,.

Audio Engineering Society - AES +5
Key Psychoacoustic Areas in AES Research:

• Spatial Hearing & 3D Audio: Research focuses on how humans localize sound and perceive height, crucial for immersive audio and virtual reality,.
• Speaker/System Design: Studies emphasize creating a "holographic" soundstage, optimizing sweet spots, and managing room acoustics through psychoacoustic principles,.
• Data Compression & Modeling: Psychoacoustic models analyze audio signals to determine masking thresholds (what the ear cannot hear), allowing for reduced data rates in compression,.
• Subjective Evaluation: AES investigates how listeners evaluate sound quality, looking at metrics like loudness, roughness, and sharpness,.
  
  
  Audio Engineering Society - AES +5

The AES E-Library provides extensive papers on these topics, including studies on psychoacoustically optimized loudspeakers and general, sound engineer applications.

Audio Engineering Society - AES +1

 

[krabapple]

That was where i was going with this. But if that is the case, why does it spiral so much here? Shouldnt an objectivist always have the upper hand here?

Don't they?

If i cant adress their logic with my own facts and stop them stirring the pot, then have i even internalized them correctly?

Huh? You think that's how humans work?

Anyone can join ASR. There's constant incoming, some are inevitably going to be wide-eyed audio subjectivists. But they can learn.

Then there are the ones who have been here for enough time to know better. What is motivating them to post dopey subjectivist claims, knowing they'll be knocked down?

Ask them. Not us.

 

[RickS]

The problem is brevity. People barely look at roadsigns or read headlines. They definitely do not look at the quite long FAQ. And it would be unrealistic to expect them to.

Is brevity really the problem?

 

[Mort]

Is brevity really the problem?

Sorry lack of brevity. An implied ellipsis.

 

[BlueTunes]

Experiences aren't 'true' or 'false' in the sense you mean. They are simply experienced, or not. Claims are true or not.

It's possible a trollish poster could claim to have had an experience they didn't really believe they had. A fiction. That would be a 'false' experience.

But we assume good faith.
We assume they sincerely think they heard a difference.

We think they are making a sincere mistake.

Er,

I think this ignores the reciever aspects of the equation. What is heard is very much as valid a point to discuss in audio as is what is sent.
Indeed, it is the whole basis of tranducer technology. Without understanding and investigating the reciever side, the whole audio exersice is pointless.

Audio has changed from the struggles for decent reproduction as that has now (within reason ) been passed.
It is now very much a transmition problem, getting that output to the listener.
This is he who has different ears, brains, heads, rooms, locations, altitudes, etc. tec.

You can't do that without confronting the experience. It becomes a dead end.

 

[krabapple]

Intersting that a search of the AES database shows that Psycho-acoustics are well documented and are part of the AES remit.
Like most things in life, there are rarely any definative boundaries to what is or isn't.

Huh? You're just discovering that psychoacoustics is a branch of science? Meaning, it employs scientific methods of investigating perception of sound.

 

[Mart68]

Intersting that a search of the AES database shows that Psycho-acoustics are well documented and are part of the AES remit.
Like most things in life, there are rarely any definative boundaries to what is or isn't.

Not sure where you're going with this. I'm sure you must realise that research into psycho-acoustics is conducted scientifically? It's not some bloke comparing the 'tone' of his amp with one he heard last month and scientists eagerly writing it all down.

 

[RickS]

Im not sure what to make of this. What is a subjectivist then?

Have you read the first thread in the Newbie subforum?

Master Thread: “Objectivism versus Subjectivism” debate and is there a middle ground?

The topic of subjectivity vs objectivity in audio seems to constantly come up in various threads or dedicated threads of the same. So we thought it is best to have one master thread for it so interested people can participate here, and others not seeing it spread everywhere. If you do post about...

www.audiosciencereview.com

We also have at least 3 other major threads on subjectivism in audio btw. May be picking on you a bit but hopefully can see why I prefer not to discuss in this thread.

 

[krabapple]

Er,

I think this ignores the reciever aspects of the equation. What is heard is very much as valid a point to discuss in audio as is what is sent.
Indeed, it is the whole basis of tranducer technology. Without understanding and investigating the reciever side, the whole audio exersice is pointless.

No one is 'ignoring' the 'receiver'. No one is failing to 'confront the experience'. We're confronting it tediously often on ASR.

The frequency of error in the 'receiver's' interpretation of audio experience is something to contend with.
That's what scientific methods do. They aim to minimize that error.
The typical error is the receiver's imputation of particular effects to particular causes.

Your bargle is becoming tiresome.

 

[Satiomeliom]

Have you read the first thread in the Newbie subforum?

Master Thread: “Objectivism versus Subjectivism” debate and is there a middle ground?

The topic of subjectivity vs objectivity in audio seems to constantly come up in various threads or dedicated threads of the same. So we thought it is best to have one master thread for it so interested people can participate here, and others not seeing it spread everywhere. If you do post about...

www.audiosciencereview.com

We also have at least 3 other major threads on subjectivism in audio btw. May be picking on you a bit but hopefully can see why I prefer not to discuss in this thread.

Thank you. It seems though the root of the discussion seems to be outside of this distinction anyway.

 

[RickS]

While I get some of the banter, felt I should remind folks that topic I intend to discuss here is how to improve ASR.

Giving the thread a rest to allow some of the heated off topic discussion to cool. Please come back with constructive ideas and be assured I see enough of the problems!

 

[Keith_W]

Is brevity really the problem?

Yes.

 

[kemmler3D]

One idea was to make the FAQs mandatory reading. I pointed out that members do not seem to read the Terms and Rules aspect of registration, so was not sure adding the FAQs would be effective.

I've seen other forums where you actually have to click over to the FAQ and look it over before you can post or reply, it locks you out until you do that. Not sure if this forum software supports that, but if y'all decided to force the issue in that way, I'd be supportive.

 

[Mort]

I've seen other forums where you actually have to click over to the FAQ and look it over before you can post or reply, it locks you out until you do that. Not sure if this forum software supports that, but if y'all decided to force the issue in that way, I'd be supportive.

With appreciation for your earnestness, this will just be another bureaucratic click through like legal agreements no one reads.

 

[kemmler3D]

With appreciation for your earnestness, this will just be another bureaucratic click through like legal agreements no one reads.

While my experience in marketing says you're 95% right, I also know it's possible to make people read (a little bit of) stuff if you try. The legal agreements are intentionally presented in a way so you *don't* read them.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

While my experience in marketing says you're 95% right, I also know it's possible to make people read (a little bit of) stuff if you try. The legal agreements are intentionally presented in a way so you *don't* read them.

and if they don't read it and then act like fools, you can just reply with a link to go read the damn thing instead of reinventing the wheel every time