The Good Forum

[AJ Soundfield]

He has mellowed out some faced with selling his speakers to the same people he curses online . A dichotomy that I mentioned to him when I heard he was going into business. As you, I almost don't recognize him in those videos relative to how he interacts in forums.

Cow patties. I'm the same as ever. In fact I'm probably having more fun than ever as a "manufacturer".

 

[amirm]

I believe this sounds like crazy-talk to some people here, and I don't want to create further division, so if that's what I'm doing, I should leave. Amir may state his goals clearly, but if the whole group disagrees, cool, the message is clear.

Leave? If you leave, I will personally come and hang you wherever you go .

You are definitely not causing any division. If anything, you are unifying us against AJ and that guy could use all the abuse we could dish out to him!

Let's have fun at AJ's expense, I mean have fun in general, and learn a thing or two from each other. And be inclusive.

 

[fas42]

Part of the situation seems to be that some "objectivists" are not interested in the latest research on how the auditory system works - with a limited foundation of understanding on the matter then there will always be conflict - not perceiving the bigger picture can lead one to make poor decisions on the rights and wrongs of the matter ...

 

[tomelex]

See we all agree, even the subjective lead guy ' me' though this was never the issue here as I stated in my opening post.

It's the amature / professional divide that's causing issues. Too many guys used to only debating within them selfs. It's a language barrier really, you guys are from different worlds to one another and a few here are on another planet altogether

LOL for long time

 

[tomelex]

I think one of the key things for this forum is if you have a view to post you should try to back it up with some objective material. We can't always do that but that to me makes this place scientific, and unlike other forums, those who are so inclined will come here and stay here, on another forum the hard tilted objectivists ran off all the folks who had real audio experience, to me our goal is to try to stay scientific in those threads that are clearly that. I have big hopes for this forum.

 

[John Kenny]

For a supposedly scientifically focussed forum there is interest in what S&M has to say here:

"My problem is with the "objectivists" who really overestimate their understanding of certain topics and act as though their "knowledge" should not be challenged. I've been wanting to write a short nano-tutorial on thresholds. Many people try to state "facts" with a clearly insufficient undestanding of how thresholds are measured, what the number means for predicting the outcome of a different experiment, and why so many! differing values ar published. "
​

Why is nobody interested in possibly learning some of the science behind thresholds? I see nobody express any desire for this information only 4 pages of mostly self-aggrandising rubbish.

 

[amirm]

Why is nobody interested in possibly learning some of the science behind thresholds? I see nobody express any desire for this information only 4 pages of mostly self-aggrandising rubbish.

You answer your question with the second sentence in your post. Genuinely join this forum to have fun and share knowledge and everyone will come along. Post on a science topic that is not partisan and see what happens.

 

[John Kenny]

OK, yes, I would be delighted for S&M to start a thread which delves into the science behind thresholds of audibility - I did this to some extent with the JND volume thread but I would be interested in hearing from someone with his expertise.

Or are you saying that's too partisan for this forum?

 

[amirm]

I am saying it that it seems that you are putting forward only that science that you hope invalidate objectivity (e.g. validity of double blind test level matching). That doesn't bother me and as you have noticed, I did engage and read the paper you put forward. But it will bother others so they don't see it in good faith.

And to be clear, understanding the thresholds of our hearing in various manners is core to understanding the audio topic and I hope to cover a lot of it in the future.

 

[John Kenny]

As far as I was aware, it was S&M that was suggesting he write a short article, not me? I was commenting on the lack of interest shown in his suggestion. It's there some reason why you would consider that wouldn't be a good article or some other reason that you don't show any enthusiasm for his suggestion?

I am saying it that it seems that you are putting forward only that science that you hope invalidate objectivity (e.g. validity of double blind test level matching). That doesn't bother me and as you have noticed, I did engage and read the paper you put forward. But it will bother others so they don't see it in good faith.

And to be clear, understanding the thresholds of our hearing in various manners is core to understanding the audio topic and I hope to cover a lot of it in the future.

 

[John Kenny]

Is science now a matter of what's considered "in good faith". Are the assumed motivations now an argument that's acceptable here? Wasn't it your position Amir, to put up counter argument rather than accuse the poster of some I'll formed opinion of his motivations?

 

[Opus111]

But it will bother others so they don't see it in good faith.

You have touched on the core issue it seems to me here Amir - the vast majority of humans are only going to be scientific up to a point, after which their emotions get the better of them and science goes out the window.

 

[amirm]

Is science now a matter of what's considered "in good faith". Are the assumed motivations now an argument that's acceptable here? Wasn't it your position Amir, to put up counter argument rather than accuse the poster of some I'll formed opinion of his motivations?

This is a forum first, anything to do with science second. A forum is virtual interactions between members. You asked why there was no interest in some discussion and so I discussed the forum dynamics. So yes, if how you are saying is not what folks like, they may not engage.

 

[Mivera]

You have touched on the core issue it seems to me here Amir - the vast majority of humans are only going to be scientific up to a point, after which their emotions get the better of them and science goes out the window.

Some people will simply have to leave their purses at the door before they step in If they feel an emotional outburst coming on, quickly rush here and vent it out. Being among others in the same situation sometimes helps.

http://www.drphil.com/speak_main/

 

[amirm]

You have touched on the core issue it seems to me here Amir - the vast majority of humans are only going to be scientific up to a point, after which their emotions get the better of them and science goes out the window.

True and hence the reason I emphasize over and over again that we must have fun. It is the key to get anywhere in my opinion. So far we are lucky to have more of that component than I have seen anywhere. But more is needed especially in argumentative threads.

 

[John Kenny]

I'm not soundandmotion, Amir - you know that? Just checking

OK, I misunderstood the forum - I thought it was something to do with science & objectivity & having some fun along the way but you seem to be saying something different but what it is I'm not sure?

This is a forum first, anything to do with science second. A forum is virtual interactions between members. You asked why there was no interest in some discussion and so I discussed the forum dynamics. So yes, if how you are saying is not what folks like, they may not engage.

 

[NorthSky]

I expect nothing less.

 

[John Kenny]

Forget about what I am saying & what my motivations might or might not be, Amir - you seem to be suggesting that the reason why there is no interest in the topic that S&M suggested is because the forum dynamics are such that it might undermine objectivity or DBT testing in some way? Is that what you are saying? It's nothing to do with me, I only came in on page 4 to comment on the fact that no one was interested in the topic so please don't use me as the reason for this lack of interest.

 

[amirm]

Forget about what I am saying & what my motivations might or might not be, Amir - you seem to be suggesting that the reason why there is no interest in the topic that S&M suggested is because the forum dynamics are such that it might undermine objectivity or DBT testing in some way? Is that what you are saying? It's nothing to do with me, I only came in on page 4 to comment on the fact that no one was interested in the topic so please don't use me as the reason for this lack of interest.

What topic? We are discussing the forum itself in this thread. We are not having a discussion about thresholds. Sam mentioned that as an example in passing.

I am addressing the negative tone with which you addressed the membership in your post.

 

[John Kenny]

OK, I see the confusion, - sorry if I mentioned S&M's topic - do continue having fun, don't let me interrupt

What topic? We are discussing the forum itself in this thread. We are not having a discussion about thresholds. Sam mentioned that as an example in passing.

I am addressing the negative tone with which you addressed the membership in your post.