Let's be a little nicer, especially to newcomers

[Jeromeof]

I also think sarcasm can be problematic and difficult for non native speakers to pick up. But there are even cultural differences with sarcasm between difficult countries. Being Irish, I know we can have a very vicious sarcasm sometimes which is actually meant to be taken as a bit of affection - e.g. you can be extra sarcastic with those that you like the most.

 

[Drengur]

I also think sarcasm can be problematic and difficult for non native speakers to pick up. But there are even cultural differences with sarcasm between difficult countries. Being Irish, I know we can have a very vicious sarcasm sometimes which is actually meant to be taken as a bit of affection - e.g. you can be extra sarcastic with those that you like the most.

Sarcasm can be we very hard to follow for some people. Sure, sometimes it's a cultural thing (Germans), but sometimes it's not (engineers).

 

[computer-audiophile]

As a non-native speaker, I often face the hurdle of not being able to convey really complicated things or subtle statements correctly. So I have already once caught a (inconsequential) warning for inappropriate language. That doesn't really suit to myself.

ASR gives a pretty good picture of the state of the art in audio, and shows things that weren't seen in such detail before. Such efforts have always existed, but today there are other means and media to convey this. HiFi has been worked on for a long time. I see no reason to declare an intellectual revolution.

 

[Scgorg]

As an extension to this post, I find people often get very heated when discussing a topic where both posters are familiar with some of the research and/or technical background on the topic, but have come away with different interpretations of what they have read. In those discussions being right is a lot more important than learning anything. In a similar sense I find that some members have a tendency to make absolutist statements where none are to be found in the writings of the truly most knowledgeable people in the field, e.g. "always absorb sidewall reflections", "never absorb sidewall reflections", "the MTM arrangement is inherently bad", "the MTM arrangement is inherently good" etc. This benefits no one and typically leads to heavily polarized discussions where a common understanding or even just mutual respect is never reached. Good discussion requires some level of respect. If you can't even respect the person you're arguing with, how could you possibly respect and seriously contemplate their ideas that differ from yours?

I also question how many of the people on this site have a legitimate interest in the actual research that has been done, rather than just consuming single-paragraph breakdowns written by someone else. What percentage of people on this forum have read Sound Reproduction cover to cover (since that is by far the most-discussed piece of literature on this site)? How many are AES members that actually use the e-library? How many have read other trustworthy books on electroacoustics or psychoacoustics? Science is boring sometimes, but putting up a front of being "scientific" while not actually caring about science beyond what can be distilled into a 2-paragraph forum post is laughable. At that point you should just be honest enough to say "I don't actually know much about this, but people that do seem to say so-and-so".

It's a terrible look when people that only engage with the science through second-hand accounts of other forums users try to be a "defender of the science". It's incredibly transparent that the only goal is to put someone else down so the bully can become a member of the "in-group", and then the "in-group" contains 90% of the same kind of people that haven't engaged with the actual literature at any point in their audio hobby journey. To me, that is hypocritical and toxic, and I don't recall the forum being that bad back when I started lurking here (long before this account was made).

So yeah, I agree that increasing toxicity is a problem on this forum. I also think that it is unavoidable when a forum grows to this size, unless moderators crack down heavily on people being rude. There are some incredibly knowledgeable members on this forum, and seeing them leave would be a big loss.

I struggled a bit to parse my thoughts and put them into writing for this post, so I apologize for any mistakes or unclear formulations.

 

[Digby]

I have to say, I am sometimes a bit confused as to the purpose of the forums. This is not a criticism of Amir/ASR, so let me explain. I have said before, there are probably 100 or so forum members who are highly knowledgeable about the science of audio, to the point where they can have a no holds barred discussion, with all kinds of charts and mathematics with little to no misunderstanding between them. The rest of us aren't there and are never likely to get there. Seeing as there are thousands of members, it seems like some degree of translation is needed between those with a full understanding and those with less so.

The problem I see is that those of us who know less than the most knowledgeable would like to engage too, if only by floating ideas/thought experiments. If someone comes along with an idea and the response is 'go read a book' or 'learn the science', how is that helpful? Some ideas by less knowledgeable members may not be that interesting, but some could hold weight, especially if they are helped in putting 'flesh on the bones' of what they are trying to convey.

I'll give an example. There was a thread recently asking if X speaker sounded "plasticky" to other members. Very quickly the thread was filled with people saying there was no such thing, instead of asking the poster to elaborate. There seems to be the view that any subjective descriptor like 'plasticky' is, by default, some imagination of the part of an individual, yet terms like bright are taken as a given - apparently everyone 'just knows' what a bright speaker is. It is interesting to note that many musicians and engineers use subjective terms day in and day out with a high degree of translation between one persons idea of what the term means and another. Yes, they are somewhat fuzzy and not as scientific as saying '+2db from 2khz through 6khz' or something similar, but that does not mean they are without value.

My point is no true science is going to be done exclusively on this board (rather than through private correspondence), so rather than go on the offensive, as some members do, why not try to be charitable and assume someone, who perhaps cannot describe what they mean in scientific terms, may have a point and engage with them in a charitable/helpful way? There is a small clique that considers anything subjective to mean it is 'unscientific'. This isn't quite true and is their misunderstanding of the science.

There is plenty of good science that is based off of subjective impressions - Harman curves, for instance - so if we deny any room for the subjective, we might end up throwing out baby with the bathwater.

From my point of view, I'd like to see more practical articles bridging the gap between these two worlds. An article on distortion, for example. We all know distortion is bad, but some distortion is relatively inaudible to the human ear, even at high levels. So how do we know which distortion is and isn't of concern? How do we read this from a graphs - is it possible to do, and so on.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

From my point of view, I'd like to see more practical articles bridging the gap between these two worlds. An article on distortion, for example. We all know distortion is bad, but some distortion is relatively inaudible to the human ear, even at high levels. So how do we know which distortion is and isn't of concern? How do we read this from a graphs - is it possible to do, and so on.

I agree. There are some absolutely terrific explainers dotted throughout the forum, but many are quite old (age does not wither them) and so not the most recent or obvious response that turns up in a search. There is the "library" section, but perhaps there needs to be a flag or something that highlights the explainers that everyone has found helpful.

I see some unnecessary behaviour on ASR, but I'm also impressed by the patience some people show when putting together explainers and answering questions on them

 

[markrubin]

keep in mind we were all newcomers at some point….even the old timers

 

[ErVikingo]

Opinions (and impressions) are like … bellybuttons. I see the same kind of responses/attitudes on car, bikes, business forums.

We all have our set of instructions and experiences. Perhaps the worse instructions are those that tell you not to listen to others and be open to learn from them. Also, accepting that someone else will have something that is (to them) better than yours.

True story: I have 2 systems in one room; one is tube and old school speakers, the other an AVR with small separate “mid Fi” speakers. I Can feed then with the same source.

I have had 4 different high end audio enthusiasts (at different times) visit and listen. I have done A/B tests and (on purpose A/A test; yes tell them I’m switching systems but I don’t).

One friend that is full on ASR always says that the modern rig sounds best (even when being played the old school); another always praises the old school rig and can tell right away which is playing (not hard to my ears due to soundstage) BUT prefers the modern rig for modern music.

I then decided to test reactions to “new” music on old vs new rig and vice versa. 3/4 prefer old school for symphonic, blues, old rock, psych rock AND new rig for “modern” rock.

YMMV for me, I enjoy the music, appreciate specs, graphs, aesthetics and also the fact that I can work on my tube stuff (if I want to).

My wife says the tube stuff talks to my love for vintage cars and the new stuff to my new cars.

Let’s all get along. We all love music, tech….

 

[12Many]

Well said Amirm. During my first few posts I was called names for saying my opinion which is factually correct and supported by the test results. I am a bit surprised how toxic the audio forums can be. I post on another forum as well and it is rough. I end up posting less, and trying to just jump in and then get out - sticking to facts and stats. Even then it is risky. I find it is a few people who are likely just terrible people and don't have anyone to be mean to in real life. Overall, ASR is good though. Great site and one that I use for purchasing decisions based on the test results and the super knowledgeable people.

 

[Philbo King]

I have to say, I am sometimes a bit confused as to the purpose of the forums. This is not a criticism of Amir/ASR, so let me explain. I have said before, there are probably 100 or so forum members who are highly knowledgeable about the science of audio, to the point where they can have a no holds barred discussion, with all kinds of charts and mathematics with little to no misunderstanding between them. The rest of us aren't there and are never likely to get there. Seeing as there are thousands of members, it seems like some degree of translation is needed between those with a full understanding and those with less so.

The problem I see is that those of us who know less than the most knowledgeable would like to engage too, if only by floating ideas/thought experiments. If someone comes along with an idea and the response is 'go read a book' or 'learn the science', how is that helpful? Some ideas by less knowledgeable members may not be that interesting, but some could hold weight, especially if they are helped in putting 'flesh on the bones' of what they are trying to convey.

I'll give an example. There was a thread recently asking if X speaker sounded "plasticky" to other members. Very quickly the thread was filled with people saying there was no such thing, instead of asking the poster to elaborate. There seems to be the view that any subjective descriptor like 'plasticky' is, by default, some imagination of the part of an individual, yet terms like bright are taken as a given - apparently everyone 'just knows' what a bright speaker is. It is interesting to note that many musicians and engineers use subjective terms day in and day out with a high degree of translation between one persons idea of what the term means and another. Yes, they are somewhat fuzzy and not as scientific as saying '+2db from 2khz through 6khz' or something similar, but that does not mean they are without value.

My point is no true science is going to be done exclusively on this board (rather than through private correspondence), so rather than go on the offensive, as some members do, why not try to be charitable and assume someone, who perhaps cannot describe what they mean in scientific terms, may have a point and engage with them in a charitable/helpful way? There is a small clique that considers anything subjective to mean it is 'unscientific'. This isn't quite true and is their misunderstanding of the science.

There is plenty of good science that is based off of subjective impressions - Harman curves, for instance - so if we deny any room for the subjective, we might end up throwing out baby with the bathwater.

From my point of view, I'd like to see more practical articles bridging the gap between these two worlds. An article on distortion, for example. We all know distortion is bad, but some distortion is relatively inaudible to the human ear, even at high levels. So how do we know which distortion is and isn't of concern? How do we read this from a graphs - is it possible to do, and so on.

This reminds me of the terms a musician used who I was recording. She wanted it to sound more "purple. Not dark purple, more like pinkish-purple".
Not knowing how purple should sound, I swept a frequency boost on a parametric EQ, and asked her to stop me when it sounded purple enough...

Maybe she had some sort of synesthesia? Anyway, it was an interesting experience.

 

[sarumbear]

Hello you all. While I consider our forum to be more friendly than many, it seems that we are quite harsh on new members who post things that go against our consensus view. There is no reason to pound on people hard when they say this and that sounds good to them. Let them have some time here to learn what we are about and what the data is.

Maybe a sticky post by you, welcoming and guiding them will be a good addition to the newbie forum, which then can linked to the welcome message?

 

[robwpdx]

This is good advice for any forum. First, people can get over excited when posting. In my mobile user research i call it the "write once" phenomenon - people get pleasure writing and reading what they wrote, even if no one reads it. Second, people can get over excited reading replies to them and magnify the anxiety because emotion is hard to judge from reading text.

I often start by acknowledging the post I am replying to. "Yes," "Exactly," "That's a good observation," "Thanks," or paraphrasing and repeating back, "Is what your are saying/asking ---." Then answer your paraphrased statement. It is a common technique in-person called "active listening." It is taught in parenting classes.

I'm pretty good at finding the hidden question. I try to match the technical level of the question, but likely get that wrong sometimes.

If someone on here says "gold plated cables matter a lot," you can always say "most people say cables don't make much difference as shown by these studies..." or "where did you read that?" No need to make it personal.

 

[AdamG]

No need to make it personal

This ^^^ and try to remember that it’s just a forum. Sometimes we are all guilty of taking stuff too seriously.

I always try to think of the below copy of a relevant joke. I picture this in my mind and can’t help but laugh at myself. Maybe this can help others to have fun above all and realize we’re not curing Cancer.

I have no doubt that a few of our very special and gifted Members probably could cure cancer if they set their minds to it. We have a list

 

[Travis]

The willful embrace of ignorance is one of the more shocking, disappointing, and unnecessary contemporary conditions of a surprisingly large contingent of the American public.

It’s human nature, and very well studied. The paper linked to above by @sam_adams is a great paper on this when it comes to ignoring science specifically - vaccines.

This article covers the phenomenon in more detail - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.769591/full

You can lead a horse to water, but can’t make it drink. Which is why people shouldn’t let it get under their skin that they can’t get someone to “understand the science.”

The thread on the Nordost cable for example, it’s upsetting to more than one responder in the thread that 2, or maybe 4, rated it high in the poll that Amir always includes. Personally I think people do that because they know it will get a rise out of people that are upset by that.

Our brains are not wired for the way established audio science works, it’s counterintuitive - “I know what I heard.” As many have stated in this thread more eloquently than I ever could, there are many options on how to explain the pitfalls of sighted listening, placebo effect, etc. I would say if you don’t have the time to explain to someone what those are, or link to good threads, it’s better just not to respond to a newcomer trying to get a quick answer, or a quick comment.

The Socratic method would cause you to ask sincere questions of them, specifics of the conditions of DUT, controls, to try to lead them to the conclusion on their own.

 

[pablolie]

I would not call it a willful embrace of ignorance. Audio is not important enough to get into that entire social dynamic at a far more relevant level.

ASR is fantastic, but it also breeds a new kind of subjectivism: those who swear that, as soon as measurements are published, claim they can completely and accurately hear a difference between equipment that is 0.5% apart in measurements etc. And you can't dispute their ability to hear the difference because they have ASR measurements to back them up, and based on that they'll accuse you of poor hearing or the fact your equipment sucks (even when either isn't true). :-D

All in all, while I love a far more scientific approach to audio, I also think it opens the door to those who turn the "science" into a new subjectivism that yet again supports the obscure "*I* hear a difference" claims, albeit now with some charts to back up their claim. But at least they are backing competently designed equipment (despite subjectivist claims they can hear differences between very well-designed equipment).

 

[Chrispy]

I would not call it a willful embrace of ignorance. Audio is not important enough to get into that entire social dynamic at a far more relevant level.

ASR is fantastic, but it also breeds a new kind of subjectivism: those who swear that, as soon as measurements are published, claim they can completely and accurately hear a difference between equipment that is 0.5% apart in measurements etc. And you can't dispute their ability to hear the difference because they have ASR measurements to back them up, and based on that they'll accuse you of poor hearing or the fact your equipment sucks (even when either isn't true). :-D

All in all, while I love a far more scientific approach to audio, I also think it opens the door to those who turn the "science" into a new subjectivism that yet again supports the obscure "*I* hear a difference" claims, albeit now with some charts to back up their claim. But at least they are backing competently designed equipment (despite subjectivist claims they can hear differences between very well-designed equipment).

I don't agree that most here simply on release of a review/measurements can hear particular differences as a result. Seems many posts say not to assume such at all. At least I hope not, maybe I don't read enough comments from believers.

 

[pablolie]

I don't agree that most here simply on release of a review/measurements can hear particular differences as a result. Seems many posts say not to assume such at all. At least I hope not, maybe I don't read enough comments from believers.

By no means did I generalize it, otherwise I would not be a forum supporter and bother to participate. I just observe there are several exchanges that have highlighted that dynamic. New DAC or speaker comes out that measures 0.5db better... "Oh the last gen is unlistenable now".

It is not widespread, but it is there, and it is observable.

Personally, I hope we're in this hobby to enjoy music. Ultimately the thrill is to tailor stuff to our preferences once we establish them. And I think we have *ALL* make mistakes on our journey to get there. Some are more willing to admit it than others, that's all.

 

[Chrispy]

By no means did I generalize it, otherwise I would not be a forum supporter and bother to participate. I just observe there are several exchanges that have highlighted that dynamic. New DAC or speaker comes out that measures 0.5db better... "Oh the last gen is unlistenable now".

It is not widespread, but it is there, and it is observable.

Personally, I hope we're in this hobby to enjoy music. Ultimately the thrill is to tailor stuff to our preferences once we establish them. And I think we have *ALL* make mistakes on our journey to get there. Some are more willing to admit it than others, that's all.

In that case, no better than the claims in the other direction. Anyone claiming unlistenable on such criteria, meh, more rather start disregarding their opinions at that point. I do like good audio reproduction, whether music or not, depends what you use the gear for; I started with music before the video possibilities got intertwined for home use.

 

[sam_adams]

What we see from measurements of devices with 120 dB SINAD is excellence in engineering. An attention to detail and application of methods and practices that either were ignored or simply deemed too 'expensive' to implement in past designs. Those days seem to be over. What we have now, by virtue of these new designs, is an assurance that what we 'hear' is unencumbered by those past limitations. We truly are living in a golden age of audio reproduction.

As-far-as the acceptance of scientific facts and theoretical consensus goes, one has to look no further than flat-earthers to see how overconfidence in personal scientific knowledge that lacks scientific literacy can lead one 'astray'. (Unfortunately actual study is paywalled but the article covers the gist.)

 

[JaMaSt]

There seems to be the view that any subjective descriptor like 'plasticky'

"Plasticky" is not, technically speaking, "subjective". It's an analogy.

We have 6 sense modalities: Vision, Hearing, Touch, Smell, Taste and Proprioception. No one sense modality has it's own language. Humans are largely visual animals, with hearing coming in second, and one can dispute the order of the other four. Being able to see and audibly locate incoming stimuli from the environment while it is still far away from us is of vital importance. Our noses are too far above the ground to capture many scent molecules. Touch means that something is already close and known. Taste is more concerned with the quality of food - and like touch - once you taste something, you've already allowed it near you. Proprioception may or may not be counted as a "sense".

If someone says something like: "At first I didn't grasp your position, it was fuzzy. But now it's becoming clearer. I can see where you're coming from. I can see your point." -- everyone will understand what the speaker is conveying. But the statement is chock full of visual and positional analogies of movement and distance. Language doesn't exist without analogy. (Metaphors are often employed too, but they are subtly different).

I fully standby you that it's distasteful to see responses which pounce on such terms as "plasticky".