Stereophiles editor Jim Austin publicly disagreeing with Kal Rubinson

[antcollinet]

I think it is pretty obvious you are a bad faith actor. So you are now on ignore.

You too?

 

[fpitas]

ASR is where I go for all my in-depth grocery buying discussions.

 

[fpitas]

You too?

Me too

 

[preload]

Nice strawman. Consumer protection laws and agencies are not just about safety.

Folks, please consider the correct definition of a strawman argument before using the term.

Trell, you brought up the example of consumer protection laws to support the idea that is important to regulate misinformation. But you certainly must also know that there are different degrees of scrutiny with those laws. I further explored the example that you proposed by focusing on those consumer protection laws related to drug company misinformation, which is heavily regulated and where there's even an agency (the FDA) that is responsible for APPROVING official pharmaceutical claims. My question was, then, why wouldn't the government also want to regulate AUDIO misinformation just as rigorously? I thought the answer was obvious, but to be clear, it's because the potential for harm to the consumer with AUDIO misinformation is far lower than it for pharmaceutical company misinformation (and even then, the FDA isn't perfect).

Now, if that wasn't the argument you were trying to make, then please clarify what it was. Providing clarification of what you meant is far more productive to dialogue than accusing a fellow member of constructing a strawman, especially when the term doesn't even apply.

As another poster wrote I think you are arguing in bad faith.

The other poster misinterpreted what I wrote, I provided clarification, and then he insisted that I did not mean what I wrote (because he can read my mind?) - and then he decided that I was posting in "bad faith." The IRONY, is that I would have said that of the other poster. Conversation requires understanding one another, particularly as ASR has members from across the globe, with each locale offering different customs and conversational practices. If someone provides clarification, where I come from, that adds to the general understanding of the conversation = good faith. But if someone ignores that clarification, and then decides that the other person meant something else anyway, that's what I would consider BAD faith. Maybe things are different from where you come from.

 

[preload]

What does misinformation have to do with the quality of things?

This was taken out of context. My grocery store example was in response to someone asking if I care about other people making what I think to be the wrong decision about something of relatively low importance, irrespective of misinformation - in which case, its none of my business. The ASR board format doesn't have multiple cascaded replies, so it's hard to trace back to the primary post after a series of replies.

 

[Killingbeans]

My grocery store example was in response to someone asking if I care about other people making what I think to be the wrong decision about something of relatively low importance, irrespective of misinformation - in which case, its none of my business.

Maybe I'm just blind, but I tried tracing the conversation back just now and couldn't find anybody asking you about wrong decisions that possibly didn't have anything to do with misinformation. I only see the switch of focus in your reply, and that's what I responded to.

As long as you don't start claiming that magical pixie audio tweaks can be excluded as misinformation, we're all good.

 

[preload]

Maybe I'm just blind, but I tried tracing the conversation back just now and couldn't find anybody asking you about wrong decisions that possibly didn't have anything to do with misinformation. I only see the switch of focus in your reply, and that's what I responded to.

Oh, got it. It would have been more clear if I had explained my grocery store example further - if a person is making a decision I don't think is wise, and it is of relatively little consequence, I don't think it's my place to "correct" them, irrespective of whether or not that person's decision was the result of receiving misinformation. Meaning, in the grocery store, it wouldn't matter if the person saw a sign that said "best quality peaches," I still wouldn't have said anything. Now, if the person had asked me, do you think these peaches are any good, THEN I would mention that the peaches are better across the street. And I think others had expressed similar sentiments in different ways (for instance, @Doodski talking about developing good relationships with audio store customers who sought (or were interested in) his opinion.

As long as you don't start claiming that magical pixie audio tweaks can be excluded as misinformation, we're all good.

We're all good. Audio misinformation is still misinformation.

 

[jools]

This was taken out of context. My grocery store example was in response to someone asking if I care about other people making what I think to be the wrong decision about something of relatively low importance, irrespective of misinformation - in which case, its none of my business. The ASR board format doesn't have multiple cascaded replies, so it's hard to trace back to the primary post after a series of replies.

It's nothing to do with peaches but once upon a time an old woman saw me selecting lemons in a shop, told me I was selecting the wrong ones and explained how to pick the best ones. I was, and remain, grateful for that bit of unsolicited information which I have applied to the buying of citrus fruits to this day.

(In case anyone is more interested in lemons than the benefits of spreading objective information, you want the heavier lemons rather than the ones which look good. Heavier lemons have more juice.)

 

[preload]

In any hobby part of the community aspect is to help each other out. I wish there had been people around to give me good advice back when I started. It would have saved me a lot of time and money.

I agree completely. And the ASR community, I think, is very very open to helping enthusiasts who are interested in audio science, and in particular, what devices/tweaks can make an audible difference using scientific standards. And in this situation, you would be seeking advice, and you are open to the possibility that some audio claims are not correct, and you would like to use audio science to guide your purchasing decisions.

 

[rwortman]

But that's just the thing - it's not your money! Why does it matter to you if people want to spend their money on things they think will make their system sound better but actually don't?

Because self righteousness is intoxicating no matter what the subject is.

 

[Killingbeans]

Meaning, in the grocery store, it wouldn't matter if the person saw a sign that said "best quality peaches," I still wouldn't have said anything.

 

[Mart68]

I agree completely. And the ASR community, I think, is very very open to helping enthusiasts who are interested in audio science, and in particular, what devices/tweaks can make an audible difference using scientific standards. And in this situation, you would be seeking advice, and you are open to the possibility that some audio claims are not correct, and you would like to use audio science to guide your purchasing decisions.

So in what specific situations is it not okay to give people who are interested in good audio correct information about audio?

Or is it quicker to list the situations where it is okay?

 

[preload]

So in what specific situations is it not okay to give people who are interested in good audio correct information about audio?

That's really not for me to say.
My opinion is that, at least for me, the context matters and the person's interest in audio science matters. There are obviously other perspectives on this.
For me, if someone comes onto an audio science forum ("context"), such as this one, and says "cables are just as important as speakers," it's totally reasonable to respond to that. Whereas, if this same statement is made on a forum that belongs to a magazine that establishes itself as subjectively-oriented and declares that whatever you hear is valid, then personally, I wouldn't bother. But that doesn't mean science-oriented audiophiles shouldn't go stir things up on such a forum.
But if a member of a subjective audio magazine forum DOES want to know about blind listening test results, etc., well then why not help?

I used to think that people needed "saving" from audio misinformation. But it turns out, a lot of these people are honestly very happy with their systems, which may consist of audio tweaks, cable elevators, CD rings, etc. and they simply just want to "enjoy the music" and like to interact with other people who also like to talk about how amazing their silver cables and polarity switchboxes sound. Not all people are like this, but I would guess that a lot of audio enthusiasts are. My opinion is that I ought to just let them be. It doesn't REALLY help them to make them realize they wasted their money, and they're not necessarily grateful to the person who helped them see they got ripped off (the "shoot the messenger" phenomenon). And if THEIR goal was to simply enjoy their hobby and listen to music, you've actually caused them a disservice. Now, I realize that there are some people who are especially interested in audio science and only spending their cash on upgrades that have a high performance/$ ratio, but that is simply not everyone.

 

[Mart68]

I used to think that people needed "saving" from audio misinformation. But it turns out, a lot of these people are honestly very happy with their systems, which may consist of audio tweaks, cable elevators, CD rings, etc. and they simply just want to "enjoy the music" and like to interact with other people who also like to talk about how amazing their silver cables and polarity switchboxes sound. Not all people are like this, but I would guess that a lot of audio enthusiasts are. My opinion is that I ought to just let them be. It doesn't REALLY help them to make them realize they wasted their money, and they're not necessarily grateful to the person who helped them see they got ripped off (the "shoot the messenger" phenomenon). And if THEIR goal was to simply enjoy their hobby and listen to music, you've actually caused them a disservice. Now, I realize that there are some people who are especially interested in audio science and only spending their cash on upgrades that have a high performance/$ ratio, but that is simply not everyone.

Yes, I know people like that and they are constantly buying new things and lifting yet more veils. If it was no fun for them they wouldn't do it, so I agree with you there.

On the other hand I've been doing this hobby four decades now and I've enjoyed it and met a lot of wonderful people, but frankly the nonsense side does take the shine off it a bit for me. So you could say it is personal.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

That's really not for me to say.
My opinion is that, at least for me, the context matters and the person's interest in audio science matters. There are obviously other perspectives on this.
For me, if someone comes onto an audio science forum ("context"), such as this one, and says "cables are just as important as speakers," it's totally reasonable to respond to that. Whereas, if this same statement is made on a forum that belongs to a magazine that establishes itself as subjectively-oriented and declares that whatever you hear is valid, then personally, I wouldn't bother. But that doesn't mean science-oriented audiophiles shouldn't go stir things up on such a forum.
But if a member of a subjective audio magazine forum DOES want to know about blind listening test results, etc., well then why not help?

I used to think that people needed "saving" from audio misinformation. But it turns out, a lot of these people are honestly very happy with their systems, which may consist of audio tweaks, cable elevators, CD rings, etc. and they simply just want to "enjoy the music" and like to interact with other people who also like to talk about how amazing their silver cables and polarity switchboxes sound. Not all people are like this, but I would guess that a lot of audio enthusiasts are. My opinion is that I ought to just let them be. It doesn't REALLY help them to make them realize they wasted their money, and they're not necessarily grateful to the person who helped them see they got ripped off (the "shoot the messenger" phenomenon). And if THEIR goal was to simply enjoy their hobby and listen to music, you've actually caused them a disservice. Now, I realize that there are some people who are especially interested in audio science and only spending their cash on upgrades that have a high performance/$ ratio, but that is simply not everyone.

Bless you preload,
With this response you have gone back to bot behaviour. For goodness sake, just answer the question!

 

[Trell]

Bless you preload,
With this response you have gone back to bot behaviour. For goodness sake, just answer the question!

I put that dude on ignore.

 

[preload]

Bless you preload,
With this response you have gone back to bot behaviour. For goodness sake, just answer the question!

I have already responded to the question, it was my first sentence, and it was separated from the rest of my post with a line break.

Not sure what you mean by "bot behavior." To me, a bot-like response would be something closer to:

beep-bop, Stereophile bad, beep-bop
beep-bop, subjectivists evil, beep-bop
beep-bop, stop asking questions and assimilate, beep-bop

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

I have already responded to the question, it was my first sentence, and it was separated from the rest of my post with a line break.

Not sure what you mean by "bot behavior." To me, a bot-like response would be something closer to:

beep-bop, Stereophile bad, beep-bop
beep-bop, subjectivists evil, beep-bop
beep-bop, stop asking questions and assimilate, beep-bop

Responded isn't answered.

 

[preload]

Responded isn't answered.

LOL, NOW who's the robot?

 

[ahofer]

LOL