[Hanatsu]

I'm an active reader of lots of forums around the web and I've come across lots of good examples and lots of bad ones. One of my favorite site has this rule in the "Terms of service (TOS)", this is an excerpt;

All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings.

The last part might not be applicable in all tests but the general idea is sound (no pun intended). If something sound different in a blind test, find out what it is (graphs/measurements), analyzed samples - is it better or worse? - post your findings - discuss!

I think this would be a wonderful rule to implement on DIYMA (it would on any audio forum). It would benefit all consumers, enthusiasts and DIYers. It would increase awareness of audio technology, it would add support to constructive thinking and ideas, it would definitely clear up any misinterpretations and myths that plague the audio industry. In the process we might learn new things, change our point of view or propagate constructively for our cause. A new sub-forum could be made for controlled listening tests and research into audibility thresholds, ideas for measurement techniques/possibilities and correlation into what we hear. If everyone really put their mind into that, the collective intellect on the forum could actually come up with interesting research that rivals the findings of many professionals in the field have made.

Many threads, as they are right now are completely meaningless because the discussion is not constructive. I sincerely believe that DIYMA would benefit greatly from this.

 

[Ultimateherts]

Sorry I do not speak GEEKEEZE! Opinions are what make the internet what it is. Why don't we just ban the words "best", "greatest", "loudest", ""Most", "Superior", "king", "Champion", "first", "winner", "100", "Handsdown", etc

 

[JoshHefnerX]

O/T: Banning words is banning ideas and a way to control thought.

Back on topic: I don't know how that could be reasonably implemented. Probably the best way to do that would be for the community to 'call them out'. If the very next post asks for proof of what they just stated people may think about what they post first.

Josh

 

[Orion525iT]

Onus probandi

de Groot cycle

Sorry I do not speak GEEKEEZE! Opinions are what make the internet what it is. Why don't we just ban the words "best", "greatest", "loudest", ""Most", "Superior", "king", "Champion", "first", "winner", "100", "Handsdown", etc

Maybe it was late and you were drunk and you were being sarcastic, but this is a prime example of why there is so much BS on the internet and in the world in general. People are not educated or disciplined enough to know how to generate formal arguments and how to determine when an argument is completely fallacious. BTW, there would be no internet without the process that Hanatsu is proposing.

I posted the empirical cycle (de Groot cycle) for a reason. It is essential in any form of empirical research, which I think is part of why this forum is here. The problem is that most of the time, nobody goes past step one. Sometimes things progress to the induction phase, very rarely does it move to deduction, and 99.9% of the time it never gets to testing and evaluation phases. So you get the same tired arguments and opinions with zero evidence to back up the claims. The onus lies on the person making the positive claim. You make a claim, it is your duty to back up the claim with evidence...period.


As far as banning words, that is not at all what Hanatsu is proposing. In fact, this is a wonderful illustration of what is so frustrating. Suggesting that he is trying to ban words is a great example of a strawman argument; it is a fallacious assertion. Words do have specific meaning especially when it comes to the context (scientific or otherwise) and people in general are not very careful with them.

O/T: Banning words is banning ideas and a way to control thought.

Back on topic: I don't know how that could be reasonably implemented. Probably the best way to do that would be for the community to 'call them out'. If the very next post asks for proof of what they just stated people may think about what they post first.

Josh

It's actually not that hard to implement. There are forums out there that do have TOS exactly as proposed here. You can't make a claim without valid evidence and research to back it up. You need to at least provide citations. This is carried through in all of the subforums. If you fail to meet the TOS, you will be warned. If you continue to ignore the TOS, you will be suspended and then banned. This may be somewhat difficult to follow through on in exceptional circumstances. For instance, if the information comes from an industry expert, and said information is proprietary. But that is likely to be a very rare scenario. But I agree, in the very least calling them out would be a first procedural step.

There are a few very, very, very long threads on this forum that should have never made it past 2 pages. This is why in this thread I proposed doing proper statistical analysis on the results (ANOVA type analysis). Otherwise the results will remain null and void.

 

[hurrication]

I 100% support this, but I think it would be better implemented as a separate subforum instead of trying to govern the whole forum. It would be a lot easier to moderate that way because there are just too many Audiophool bullshitters on the forum as it is. It would be a nightmare trying to corral all of them. Calling them out doesn't work either - it just elicits a similar ******** response from them and they keep posting.

Maybe a new subforum called "The science of sound" or "The Objective arena" similar in genre to Erin's Klippel data forum, and allow Hanatsu complete control over it.

 

[Krank]

Perhaps a sub-forum specifically for discussions of such empirical data could yield the type of results Hanatsu is talking about and I know I'd be interested.

Overall, I think there is still a place for unverifiable subjective data. When one is dealing with the scientific application of technology to the human senses, completely objective research leaves an important human factor out of things. I might be biased based on my career though...my background is medical, and I find the subjective answers from my patients are integral to properly diagnosing my patient. When my patient is unconscious and there is no family to question, diagnosis and treatment based solely on objective data is difficult.

Sometimes, the opinion of somebody that I respect carries significant weight in my buying choices.
Sometimes, verifiable research plays hugely in my decisions.
Personally I need both to feel comfortable parting with thousands of dollars to try the next awesome audio thing.

What I can do without though, is the 120 pages of subjective opinion(arguments) on the sounds of amplifiers. I love a quality review that states the testing methods and limitations, even if done by amateurs. Obviously, one guy testing items at home in his free time isn't going to be able to give us any controlled, double-blind data, so that would also be gone from these forums. His data must be interpreted to be what it is based on his limitations, but it is still somewhat valuable.

Either way, I definitely see that value in Hanatsu's recommendation. It has the potential to yield significant value. Just need to weigh the benefits vs what-is-lost if implemented across the board.

 

[Justin Zazzi]

I'm all for a section of this site to be ruled as such, and agree that trying to enforce such a rule over the entire forum would be a nightmare for the mods to enforce, and alienating to the newer members in particular.

 

[Ultimateherts]

Onus probandi

de Groot cycle



Maybe it was late and you were drunk and you were being sarcastic, but this is a prime example of why there is so much BS on the internet and in the world in general. People are not educated or disciplined enough to know how to generate formal arguments and how to determine when an argument is completely fallacious. BTW, there would be no internet without the process that Hanatsu is proposing.

And this why wars starts. People picking on others because their opinions. I was stating that it would be a form control which the internet was not founded on. Also that behind the keyboard is one thing, but in real life you would not have the gall to say this to the person's face. You come across as ignorant and feeble minded for making that statement. Opinions are what makes us who we are and by editing them is just fatuous way of doing things.

 

[WhereAmEye?]

I think an argument on how a 5k system sounds better than a 1k system is entertaining sometimes and as such shouldn't be blatantly removed with an overall terms of service contractual agreement.

That being said, I would like to see factual data that could lead one to prove WHY paying more could potentially get you a better sounding system. I would love a sub-forum headed by hanatsu.

 

[Orion525iT]

And this why wars starts. People picking on others because their opinions. I was stating that it would be a form control which the internet was not founded on. Also that behind the keyboard is one thing, but in real life you would not have the gall to say this to the person's face. You come across as ignorant and feeble minded for making that statement. Opinions are what makes us who we are and by editing them is just fatuous way of doing things.

You did not state that you thought it was a form of control. You suggested that it would be tantamount to banning words, which it is not.

In any case, it's not a form of control at all; not in any way, shape or form. It's about putting facts, evidence, and data behind claims that are made.

I am 100% behind freedom of information, thoughts, ideas, opinions, and expression. I have personally donated time to inform the public regarding net neutrality laws, for which the populous as a whole seems to be incognizant. I understand fully what is at stake in this regard. However, this is not at all what this is about.

Moreover, to your point about control, I actually find it liberating to separate thoughts and ideas from the shackles of misinformation and personal bias. It is often a catastrophic failure of approach to do otherwise. Sadly, this issue is endemic and multifaceted. Misinformation, conformation bias, unflinching affiliation; all are dangers that precede close mindedness. Looking at and fully evaluating evidence is essential for progress. Wheat from the chaff...wheat from the chaff.

Edit: I am not picking on you, just used your comments as an example. I would have no compunction what so ever about discussing this with anyone face to face. In fact, I do it quite often.

 

[Orion525iT]

I am all for a Hanatsu sub-forum, seeing as his content is always geared to what he can prove and how he always provides a reference, the data people can depend on and use, but half of car audio is the process of picking the kernels of truth from the stinky product of the masses.

Sweden isn't that far from Germany...

I thought this was the basis behind the "myths" sub-forum. In any case I think it should be compulsory in the "myths" section and a strong pillar of the technical section at least. This may require intervention from the mods in extreme cases, but as a community, we should steer the course.

 

[hurrication]

And this why wars starts. People picking on others because their opinions. I was stating that it would be a form control which the internet was not founded on. Also that behind the keyboard is one thing, but in real life you would not have the gall to say this to the person's face. You come across as ignorant and feeble minded for making that statement. Opinions are what makes us who we are and by editing them is just fatuous way of doing things.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has them and they all stink.

What we're proposing is a subforum that deals in facts and data only and leaves subjective opinion out of the equation.

 

[hurrication]

The other general/basic subforums would still be there, so the newbies could still come in and make "help me choose some components" or "what amp for my sub" or "can I go infinite baffle" posts.

 

[hurrication]

Yeah, but that's likely not going to happen.

His issue isn't about the lack of technical threads, it's about the ******** audiophile logic along the lines of "this brand RCA cable really brings out more midbass" without any sort of data to support the claim.

 

[Orion525iT]

although, it's entertaining to see Hanatsu reach a crisis with what appears to be very little prompting, it's not a problem that is contagious, much.

I think there is more prompting from his point of view than from your point of view .

 

[cajunner]

I think there is more prompting from his point of view than from your point of view .

a poll, then?

let's find out.


and to make it interesting, let's cap the poll entrant post counts, to those above 300.

that way, we exclude all the newb posse with concerns about their "dumb" questions being examined for worth.

and, include all the people who have been here so long, that the tedious nature of ******** is grinding us down...

I am genuinely interested to see the demographics, I expect that there's less of the true scientist in this hobby as the art appreciation types.

 

[Orion525iT]

I am genuinely interested to see the demographics, I expect that there's less of the true scientist in this hobby as the art appreciation types.

I would agree. But are you suggesting that there is no science to the art? That there is no data that can explain and help us correlate our individual experiences?

 

[cajunner]

I would agree. But are you suggesting that there is no science to the art? That there is no data that can explain and help us correlate our individual experiences?

there is!

it's called...





marketing.


haha...

 

[Ultimateherts]

You did not state that you thought it was a form of control. You suggested that it would be tantamount to banning words, which it is not.

In any case, it's not a form of control at all; not in any way, shape or form. It's about putting facts, evidence, and data behind claims that are made.

I am 100% behind freedom of information, thoughts, ideas, opinions, and expression. I have personally donated time to inform the public regarding net neutrality laws, for which the populous as a whole seems to be incognizant. I understand fully what is at stake in this regard. However, this is not at all what this is about.

Moreover, to your point about control, I actually find it liberating to separate thoughts and ideas from the shackles of misinformation and personal bias. It is often a catastrophic failure of approach to do otherwise. Sadly, this issue is endemic and multifaceted. Misinformation, conformation bias, unflinching affiliation; all are dangers that precede close mindedness. Looking at and fully evaluating evidence is essential for progress. Wheat from the chaff...wheat from the chaff.

Edit: I am not picking on you, just used your comments as an example. I would have no compunction what so ever about discussing this with anyone face to face. In fact, I do it quite often.

I think we are all smart enough to weed out what we do not find as useful information. Also for you to imply that we are not and need someone to do it for us, further illustrates my point. You come across as holier than god and I find this sense of arrogance rather annoying. However, I am not going to suggest that all your comments be removed from this thread. It's like with all reading we weed out the bad and only use the information that will be most beneficial to us.

 

[hurrication]

It's not about weeding out useful information... it's about weeding out all the ******** subjective opinions that are spewed without any sort of reason or support for them.

It would be like comparing two brand new cars, with car A having a 0-60 time of 5 seconds and car B with a 0-60 time of 4.5 seconds, and then having someone swear to everyone else that car A is quicker simply because they say so. The data will show that car B is actually quicker but the ******* will still be there saying it's his opinion that car A is quicker and getting offended when people question his perception of the cars' quickness.