Is this site about AUDIO Science Review, HiFi S.R., or MEASUREMENT S.R.?

[benanders]

Audio! Audio! Audio?
As the query poses.
Do you consider this site’s assessments and discussions to (or should) focus on:

(1) Audio Science Review - broadly any form of music playback equipment / setup / process
(2) HiFi Science Review - focus on equipment / setups / processes which themselves focus on high fidelity playback
(3) Other - what did I miss?

I’m curious, especially now that ASR membership has ballooned.

 

[Steve Dallas]

One look at the titles of the subforums answers this question. Obvious answer is obvious from the Department of Redundancy Department.

 

[benanders]

One look at the titles of the subforums answers this question. Obvious answer is obvious from the Department of Redundancy Department.

But reading many comments in various threads among sub-fora would debunk your stance.
So agree to disagree, I suppose.

 

[Dreyfus]

All three to some extent. Depends on your specific interests.

 

[JSmith]

It's about high fidelity audio reproduction and measurements of the devices that purport to deliver same, with a goal to provide advertising free and independent information for consumers.


JSmith

 

[Deleted member 21219]

First and foremost, this site is dedicated to cutting through the disingenuous subjectivist b.s. and misinformation that form the preponderance of web presentations. So I guess you could say that all other considerations are secondary.

And now that the membership has ballooned, the job is more difficult than ever and takes more dedication than ever. As @BDWoody says, it's like trying to herd cats.

Jim

 

[Chrispy]

1/audio science goes beyond just music
2/yeah, so?
3/what are you aiming at?

 

[DVDdoug]

First and foremost, this site is dedicated to cutting through the disingenuous subjectivist b.s. and misinformation that form the preponderance of web presentations.

I second that!

It's a website for rational audio lovers.

...I say "audio lovers" because most of the "audiophile" community is nuts and I hate to consider myself one of those people!

 

[dartinbout]

Given this example, It's obviously a forum for useless polls that achieve very little.

 

[benanders]

Given this example, It's obviously a forum for useless polls that achieve very little.

Be more curious, less judgemental. If you think very little might be achieved, maybe it’s not warranting of dismissal.

 

[Sokel]

I usually like to see patterns.
And all this site is about is evident by it's long threads,the repeated same questions (usually about budget stuff) and reviews of course.

What makes thing odd sometimes is the mix between enthusiasts and pros which their goal is totally different and the same with the cold,cruel engineering with the high aesthetics other people want.

I would say mostly the first too and it's really interesting!

 

[Killingbeans]

Any type of equipment.

To me, this place has its focus on giving people the data and tools needed to reach their goals, without having to resort to myths and superstition.

At the very least furthering the ability to make educated guesses instead of simply running with a feeling.

The goal itself doesn't really matter much.

 

[DMill]

I’m completely fine if someone wants to start a thread about photos of cats lying on their amps for warmth. I don’t have to read or follow it. To me it’s a community of people who geek out on audio. So as long as most of the content stays focused on music and gear it’s just fine. Is there an issue?

 

[amirm]

I don't understand the distinctions in the poll. As a general rule, I am more a fan of lose than tight. I don't like forums where members are heavily policed on strict guidelines of what to post. This is why you see me posting reviews in the context of threads and allow fair amount of drift. Yes, we have limits but they are loosely enforced.

My charter of what to test has also expanded seemingly without bounds. What was initially about testing DACs and headphone amps, has grown to any and all things related to audio.

 

[Multicore]

There are a lot of kinds of audio playback scenarios that are perfectly common and are seldom if ever discussed here. Most of the posts I've read here have to do with the consumer hi-fi and HT perspectives. So I'd go with the second option.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Has the phrase ""distinction without a difference" come to anyone else's mind? I have to think the entire problematic was framed to advance some tendentious end.

 

[benanders]

I don't understand the distinctions in the poll. As a general rule, I am more a fan of lose than tight. I don't like forums where members are heavily policed on strict guidelines of what to post. This is why you see me posting reviews in the context of threads and allow fair amount of drift. Yes, we have limits but they are loosely enforced.

@amirm thanks. Yes, I could’ve made a clearer query (was morning coffee time). I wanted to trawl for what members think the focus of most threads could/should be - more general or more hifi. I’ve seen a fluctuating sentiment among threads that doesn’t always seem to match title/topic.

My charter of what to test has also expanded seemingly without bounds. What was initially about testing DACs and headphone amps, has grown to any and all things related to audio.

That’s why I queried hifi-or-otherwise. When I first started reading this site, seemed like it was “diminutive desktop audio accuracy review” (which was also fine). And now, wow.
So thanks to the handful of ya’s who chimed in giving benefit of the doubt

 

[Chrispy]

Define hifi?

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Classically HFi (e.g a late 1970s HiFi mag) included sources, amplifiers (with and without eq) and headphones/speakers. There are quite a lot of other things discussed here which don't fit that mould, including ADCs and computers, room modelling, test tools preferences and software. It could all be loosely classed as "HiFi", but I think "audio" is broader.