Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
Today is February 10, 2017. There have been no posts in the
rec.audio.high-end newsgroup since December 2016. We have a few options, and I will lay them out. 1. Close the newsgroup. This is effectively what has happened anyway. If selected, I will send a notice to various people r.a.h-e is now dead, and some servers will stop carrying it. Others won't. Without a live moderator, no more messages will ever appear. 2. Open the newsgroup. In this proposal, rec.audio.high-end becomes unmoderated. Anyone can post at any time on any subject. Spammers will likely run rampant, and frequent flamewars between people who believe that they can hear differences between certain things and people who believe that nobody can hear those differences will dominate the non-spam content. (That's just my opinion.) 3. Self-moderate the newsgroup. There's a secret method to getting posts approved on rec.audio.high-end. If you do it without authorization, people will consider your actions despicable. In this proposal, I will grant that authorization to everyone. Spammers will be unlikely to use it, but people who don't remember how to do it will have their messages disappear without a trace. Moderation effectively ends. 4. Find a new moderator. Self-explanatory, I think. Please let me know what you all think. Suggestions, comments, theorizing, whatever: This thread is open to everyone, and is constrained to the topic of "the fate of rec.audio.high-end", rather than the general purpose of the newsgroup. The thread will close April 1, 2017, unless there is an active discussion going on. -dsr- |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 2:39:06 PM UTC-8, RAHE Moderator wrote:
Today is February 10, 2017. There have been no posts in the rec.audio.high-end newsgroup since December 2016. We have a few options, and I will lay them out. 1. Close the newsgroup. This is effectively what has happened anyway. If selected, I will send a notice to various people r.a.h-e is now dead, and some servers will stop carrying it. Others won't. Without a live moderator, no more messages will ever appear. 2. Open the newsgroup. In this proposal, rec.audio.high-end becomes unmoderated. Anyone can post at any time on any subject. Spammers will likely run rampant, and frequent flamewars between people who believe that they can hear differences between certain things and people who believe that nobody can hear those differences will dominate the non-spam content. (That's just my opinion.) 3. Self-moderate the newsgroup. There's a secret method to getting posts approved on rec.audio.high-end. If you do it without authorization, people will consider your actions despicable. In this proposal, I will grant that authorization to everyone. Spammers will be unlikely to use it, but people who don't remember how to do it will have their messages disappear without a trace. Moderation effectively ends. 4. Find a new moderator. Self-explanatory, I think. Please let me know what you all think. Suggestions, comments, theorizing, whatever: This thread is open to everyone, and is constrained to the topic of "the fate of rec.audio.high-end", rather than the general purpose of the newsgroup. The thread will close April 1, 2017, unless there is an active discussion going on. -dsr- am unfamiliar with #3 so obviously that wouldn't work for me. #2 IMHO would be a slow death, compared to the quick death of #1. if #4 doesn't work, then #2 IMHO would be better than nothing. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
RAHE Moderator wrote:
2. Open the newsgroup. In this proposal, rec.audio.high-end becomes unmoderated. Anyone can post at any time on any subject. Spammers will likely run rampant, and frequent flamewars between people who believe that they can hear differences between certain things and people who believe that nobody can hear those differences will dominate the non-spam content. (That's just my opinion.) That's probably the best bet. I really think the spamming era is over for massive disruptions. The trolls and spammers need an audience to keep their attention to the group and being the audience is gone, I really don't see it as a problem. Usenet died and there was a film at 11 which no one bothered to watch. My only concern is with switching the status, there used to be "a board" where the control message is sent out from, but I haven't see a peep out of them except for "lists of usenet groups" lately. Even if the moderation flag change is sent out, not sure how many news servers will honor it anymore. So some servers will still have it moderated and others won't. But out of the other choices, it's probably the most sane one to try. -bruce |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
RAHE Moderator wrote:
Today is February 10, 2017. There have been no posts in the rec.audio.high-end newsgroup since December 2016. We have a few options, and I will lay them out. 1. Close the newsgroup. This is effectively what has happened anyway. If selected, I will send a notice to various people r.a.h-e is now dead, and some servers will stop carrying it. Others won't. Without a live moderator, no more messages will ever appear. This is surely the best option. Usenet doen't need another newsgroup full of spam. Nothing good is going to be posted here. Andrew. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On 2/10/2017 5:39 PM, RAHE Moderator wrote:
Today is February 10, 2017. There have been no posts in the rec.audio.high-end newsgroup since December 2016. We have a few options, and I will lay them out. 1. Close the newsgroup. This is effectively what has happened anyway. If selected, I will send a notice to various people r.a.h-e is now dead, and some servers will stop carrying it. Others won't. Without a live moderator, no more messages will ever appear. I'm sorry to say that closing the group is probably the best option. This was once a vibrant community, but of course that was a long while ago. Competition from other sites surely helped accelerate the decline here, and the aging of usenet itself is certainly another factor. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
It would be too bad if it were to die - but there is little life in any cas=
e. Writing entirely for myself and from the position that quality is in no = way related to cost, it was always interesting to see the various views and= ideas.=20 Further to this, this is not, and has seldom been, a place to get advice, h= elp or suggestions with gear, either in the care/feeding or purchasing aspe= cts. Often legitimate questions and concerns would either be dismissed or i= gnored.=20 Although I betcha if I were to troll 'this wire/interconnect/capacitor is (= insert elaborate descriptive here) and so justifies (insert time and troubl= e here) at a (insert cost here) premium, we would have half-a-dozen answers= within a day, and 40+ in a week.=20 Leaving it unmoderated would be the most efficient way of providing a venue= for the few actually interested in this hobby, do nothing to deter others = and allow some lively discussions on off-topic, but often relevant issues.= =20 "The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings-- And why the sea is boiling hot-- And whether pigs have wings." Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
Once upon a time on usenet Andrew Haley wrote:
RAHE Moderator wrote: Today is February 10, 2017. There have been no posts in the rec.audio.high-end newsgroup since December 2016. We have a few options, and I will lay them out. 1. Close the newsgroup. This is effectively what has happened anyway. If selected, I will send a notice to various people r.a.h-e is now dead, and some servers will stop carrying it. Others won't. Without a live moderator, no more messages will ever appear. This is surely the best option. Usenet doen't need another newsgroup full of spam. Nothing good is going to be posted here. I'd rather no moderation than ending the group. Then, if *you* don't like the results you can unsubscribe. It gives the readers the option rather than it being arbitrarily decided for them. -- Shaun. "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
Once upon a time on usenet Peter Wieck wrote:
It would be too bad if it were to die - but there is little life in any case. Writing entirely for myself and from the position that quality is in no way related to cost, it was always interesting to see the various views and ideas. Further to this, this is not, and has seldom been, a place to get advice, help or suggestions with gear, either in the care/feeding or purchasing aspects. Often legitimate questions and concerns would either be dismissed or ignored. Although I betcha if I were to troll 'this wire/interconnect/capacitor is (insert elaborate descriptive here) and so justifies (insert time and trouble here) at a (insert cost here) premium, we would have half-a-dozen answers within a day, and 40+ in a week. Leaving it unmoderated would be the most efficient way of providing a venue for the few actually interested in this hobby, do nothing to deter others and allow some lively discussions on off-topic, but often relevant issues. Seconded. "The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings-- And why the sea is boiling hot-- And whether pigs have wings." How very apt. ) -- Shaun. "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On 2/10/2017 2:39 PM, RAHE Moderator wrote:
Please let me know what you all think. RAHE used to be a great and active resource. I personally had RAHE business cards and would fly to the Stereophile Show each year, wherever it happened to be, to talk about the shows and what I heard in this newsgroup. I had the pleasure of meeting the then moderator (prior to David's long tenure) at one of the shows. Then the newsgroup got *stridently* usurped by those of the opinion "if I can't measure it, it must not exist and you can't possibly be hearing any differences", aka "tin-eared objectivists". This would probably be the late 90s. The newsgroup never recovered. Having it unmoderated would presumably change it into a spam heaven, as with most other similarly uncontrolled newsgroups. I'll sadly opine that euthanasia is probably the appropriate decision. Art |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
"Art Shapiro" wrote in message ...
On 2/10/2017 2:39 PM, RAHE Moderator wrote: Please let me know what you all think. RAHE used to be a great and active resource. I personally had RAHE business cards and would fly to the Stereophile Show each year, wherever it happened to be, to talk about the shows and what I heard in this newsgroup. I had the pleasure of meeting the then moderator (prior to David's long tenure) at one of the shows. Then the newsgroup got *stridently* usurped by those of the opinion "if I can't measure it, it must not exist and you can't possibly be hearing any differences", aka "tin-eared objectivists". This would probably be the late 90s. The newsgroup never recovered. Having it unmoderated would presumably change it into a spam heaven, as with most other similarly uncontrolled newsgroups. I'll sadly opine that euthanasia is probably the appropriate decision. Art __________________________________________________ ______ Before signing off, I'd like to get recommendations for other discussion groups on the Internet about hi-end stereo gear. I'm not up for magazines that review Wilson's latest WAMM at almost $700,000. (That's not a typo.) Ed Presson |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:13:21 PM UTC-5, Art Shapiro wrote:
Then the newsgroup got *stridently* usurped by those of the opinion "if I can't measure it, it must not exist and you can't possibly be hearing any differences", aka "tin-eared objectivists". This would probably be the late 90s. I see. "Tin-eared". I guess that would be the contrast to "received wisdom'? And why this NG is moribund. When camps are so-divided that the necessary descriptive of the other camp is negative, there is no room for discussion or the fair and free exchange of information or opinion. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
Once upon a time on usenet Art Shapiro wrote:
On 2/10/2017 2:39 PM, RAHE Moderator wrote: Please let me know what you all think. RAHE used to be a great and active resource. I personally had RAHE business cards and would fly to the Stereophile Show each year, wherever it happened to be, to talk about the shows and what I heard in this newsgroup. I had the pleasure of meeting the then moderator (prior to David's long tenure) at one of the shows. Then the newsgroup got *stridently* usurped by those of the opinion "if I can't measure it, it must not exist and you can't possibly be hearing any differences", aka "tin-eared objectivists". This would probably be the late 90s. The newsgroup never recovered. Having it unmoderated would presumably change it into a spam heaven, as with most other similarly uncontrolled newsgroups. I'll sadly opine that euthanasia is probably the appropriate decision. I respectfully suggest that, if you think the group is bad enough (and/or will get worse if unmoderated) then *you* decide to stop following it yourself and let others decide on a case-by-case basis in future. Usenet is slow these days but the days of mass spam are gone. For those of us who still check groups of interest regularly having options is good. -- Shaun. "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message ...
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 5:58:16 PM UTC-5, John Stone wrote: On 2/14/17, 9:11 AM, in article , " wrote: On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:13:21 PM UTC-5, Art Shapiro wrote: Then the newsgroup got *stridently* usurped by those of the opinion "if I can't measure it, it must not exist and you can't possibly be hearing any differences", aka "tin-eared objectivists". This would probably be the late 90s. I see. "Tin-eared". I guess that would be the contrast to "received wisdom'? And why this NG is moribund. When camps are so-divided that the necessary descriptive of the other camp is negative, there is no room for discussion or the fair and free exchange of information or opinion. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA Is it maybe just possible that the reason this group is dead is simply because all of Usenet is itself obsolete and dead? I dunno.... A few other groups are quite lively. Infinitely better than facebook in any case. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA Yes, I am a participant in one of those active groups. However, many others are moribund or stuffed with spam advertisements that have killed participation. I had hoped that this group could survive and thrive. Ed Presson |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 11:53:58 AM UTC-5, Ed Presson wrote:
Yes, I am a participant in one of those active groups. However, many others are moribund or stuffed with spam advertisements that have killed participation. I had hoped that this group could survive and thrive. Ed Presson It can not if +/- 1/3 of the participants are considered a-priori 'tin eared'. As with the American Revolution at its beginning: 1/3 were 'for' it. As it happens, that 1/3 tended to be amongst the educated, and many, but not most, were land-owners and fairly well off. 1/3 were 'agin' it. As it happens, that 1/3 tended to be amongst the less educated, poorer and not so well off. 1/3 held no brief for either side, and, in fact, found both sides equally annoying as it disrupted trade and commerce. These tended to be amongst those who engaged in trade, commerce, sales and transportation. No surprise there. As with subjective/objective (ists): They are both more concerned with their own received wisdom, per the tenets of their own revealed religion. Neither is amenable to free and fair discussion, and both would much rather win than be right. Nor would either admit to any sort of testing at any level, as there are far too many oxen on the line. The other 1/3 or so would like to get on with the business of enjoying the hobby - but dodging the flack is just too many for them. As an open suggestion on how understand the typical perception of logic, and how all too many of us look at the world - Read Lewis Carroll's Hunting of the Snark. As a send-up of common logic as practiced, it is unsurpassed. If one starts out with a fixed idea - and that idea is not amenable to any level of discussion, then no discussion is possible. Only agreement or disagreement, and only by the 'other' as defined by the 'first' party. May as well be on Facebook. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On 10 Feb 2017 22:39:04 GMT, RAHE Moderator
wrote: Today is February 10, 2017. There have been no posts in the rec.audio.high-end newsgroup since December 2016. We have a few options, and I will lay them out. 1. Close the newsgroup. This is effectively what has happened anyway. If selected, I will send a notice to various people r.a.h-e is now dead, and some servers will stop carrying it. Others won't. Without a live moderator, no more messages will ever appear. 2. Open the newsgroup. In this proposal, rec.audio.high-end becomes unmoderated. Anyone can post at any time on any subject. Spammers will likely run rampant, and frequent flamewars between people who believe that they can hear differences between certain things and people who believe that nobody can hear those differences will dominate the non-spam content. (That's just my opinion.) 3. Self-moderate the newsgroup. There's a secret method to getting posts approved on rec.audio.high-end. If you do it without authorization, people will consider your actions despicable. In this proposal, I will grant that authorization to everyone. Spammers will be unlikely to use it, but people who don't remember how to do it will have their messages disappear without a trace. Moderation effectively ends. 4. Find a new moderator. Self-explanatory, I think. Please let me know what you all think. Suggestions, comments, theorizing, whatever: This thread is open to everyone, and is constrained to the topic of "the fate of rec.audio.high-end", rather than the general purpose of the newsgroup. The thread will close April 1, 2017, unless there is an active discussion going on. -dsr- I just came here looking for a place to post about where to find some PRECISION CAPACITORS (for an old piece of tube test equipment that requires PRECISION Caps. I figured people working on high end gear would maybe know where to get these caps. I did not know this group was moderated, I've been on usenet for many years, but I thought all moderated groups had the word "moderated" in the group name. Yea, usenet is close to dead, but for old timers like me, there is no alternative. I wont touch Facebook or any of that so called "social media" Even if someone paid me to use that crap, I would not touch it, unless the pay was quite large. Not only is that crap geared to kids that talk worthless nonsense, and it's too darn slow and its filled with ads, which are worse than the spam on usenet and can not be filtered, but I also value my privacy, and if the young generation wants to sell out and give away all their privacy on Facebook, let them do it, because I wont.... Since I just came here for the first time, I guess I dont have much to say, but I'd probably NOT do #1. Maybe try #4, and if thats not possible, just open it up.... #3 sounds interesting, but I am not sure how you "Self-moderate the newsgroup". Maybe worth a try though. Just my 2 cents. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 2:39:06 PM UTC-8, RAHE Moderator wrote:
Today is February 10, 2017. There have been no posts in the rec.audio.high-end newsgroup since December 2016. We have a few options, and I will lay them out. 1. Close the newsgroup. This is effectively what has happened anyway. If selected, I will send a notice to various people r.a.h-e is now dead, and some servers will stop carrying it. Others won't. Without a live moderator, no more messages will ever appear. 2. Open the newsgroup. In this proposal, rec.audio.high-end becomes unmoderated. Anyone can post at any time on any subject. Spammers will likely run rampant, and frequent flamewars between people who believe that they can hear differences between certain things and people who believe that nobody can hear those differences will dominate the non-spam content. (That's just my opinion.) 3. Self-moderate the newsgroup. There's a secret method to getting posts approved on rec.audio.high-end. If you do it without authorization, people will consider your actions despicable. In this proposal, I will grant that authorization to everyone. Spammers will be unlikely to use it, but people who don't remember how to do it will have their messages disappear without a trace. Moderation effectively ends. 4. Find a new moderator. Self-explanatory, I think. Please let me know what you all think. Suggestions, comments, theorizing, whatever: This thread is open to everyone, and is constrained to the topic of "the fate of rec.audio.high-end", rather than the general purpose of the newsgroup. The thread will close April 1, 2017, unless there is an active discussion going on. -dsr- I came here hoping to learn of other audio hobbyists'/music lovers' experiences so I could integrate the best of them into my own practices. I wonder how many other people here listen in "augmented stereo"? |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On 10 Feb 2017 22:39:04 GMT, RAHE Moderator
wrote: Today is February 10, 2017. There have been no posts in the rec.audio.high-end newsgroup since December 2016. We have a few options, and I will lay them out. 1. Close the newsgroup. This is effectively what has happened anyway. If selected, I will send a notice to various people r.a.h-e is now dead, and some servers will stop carrying it. Others won't. Without a live moderator, no more messages will ever appear. 2. Open the newsgroup. In this proposal, rec.audio.high-end becomes unmoderated. Anyone can post at any time on any subject. Spammers will likely run rampant, and frequent flamewars between people who believe that they can hear differences between certain things and people who believe that nobody can hear those differences will dominate the non-spam content. (That's just my opinion.) 3. Self-moderate the newsgroup. There's a secret method to getting posts approved on rec.audio.high-end. If you do it without authorization, people will consider your actions despicable. In this proposal, I will grant that authorization to everyone. Spammers will be unlikely to use it, but people who don't remember how to do it will have their messages disappear without a trace. Moderation effectively ends. 4. Find a new moderator. Self-explanatory, I think. Please let me know what you all think. Suggestions, comments, theorizing, whatever: This thread is open to everyone, and is constrained to the topic of "the fate of rec.audio.high-end", rather than the general purpose of the newsgroup. The thread will close April 1, 2017, unless there is an active discussion going on. -dsr- #2 Open it up, I do not see any reason to just turn it off. If it gets way to much spam people will self regulate themselves and unsubscribe. I myself have been viewing since the early 90's but almost never posted because I never want my e-mail exposed. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On 2/10/17 5:39 PM, RAHE Moderator wrote:
2. Open the newsgroup. In this proposal, rec.audio.high-end becomes unmoderated. Anyone can post at any time on any subject. Spammers will likely run rampant, and frequent flamewars between people who believe that they can hear differences between certain things and people who believe that nobody can hear those differences will dominate the non-spam content. (That's just my opinion.) This works for me. I think this is the only group I read that is moderated. Other groups seem to get along fine without moderation. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
Back in the 90s, having always been interested in audio and finally finding=
myself with some discretionary income (i.e., enough that the wife wouldn= =E2=80=99t object to my wasting a little), I decided to delve a little deep= er into the subject, in particular to answer this question: What should I b= e listening for to tell the difference between amplifiers? Fortunately, I soon found my way to RAHE and learned at the feet of a few m= asters (thank you JJ & Arny & Dick Pierce and a few others) that my inabili= ty to distinguish amplifiers by sound wasn=E2=80=99t a personal failing. At the time, there was nowhere else on Teh Internets that you could learn t= his, and the moderation (thank you Reynaud and Dave Bath) was essential to = RAHE=E2=80=99s value. Everywhere else, foul-mouthed yahoos (and more knowle= dgeable types who were nonetheless willing to bait the yahoos) ensured a si= gnal-to-noise ratio somewhere in the vicinity of the lower circles of Hell. In those days, RAHE was a lively place, but it was most lively on the subje= ct of the objectivist/subjectivist wars, a discussion that eventually burne= d itself out. Once it did, traffic slowed dramatically, and it doesn=E2=80= =99t surprise me that DSR finds himself somewhat in the role of the Maytag = repairman. I haven=E2=80=99t posted here in a long time (I migrated to the audio-relat= ed discussions at avsforum.com for a while, but my interest in ultra-accura= te sound reproduction has waned of late), so I‘ll leave the open-it= -up vs. shut-it-down debate to those with an actual stake in the outcome. B= ut before it disappears or morphs into something else, I wanted to thank al= l the people --mods and posters alike--who made it so great for so long. bob |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 9:13:21 PM UTC-5, Art Shapiro wrote:
On 2/10/2017 2:39 PM, RAHE Moderator wrote: Please let me know what you all think. First, let me put in my non-vote: do with the group as whatever respondents see fit. It's essentially dead as it is. RAHE used to be a great and active resource. I personally had RAHE business cards and would fly to the Stereophile Show each year, wherever it happened to be, to talk about the shows and what I heard in this newsgroup. I had the pleasure of meeting the then moderator (prior to David's long tenure) at one of the shows. Then the newsgroup got *stridently* usurped by those of the opinion "if I can't measure it, it must not exist and you can't possibly be hearing any differences", aka "tin-eared objectivists". This would probably be the late 90s. And this sort of response could be seen as another reason why it went down hill, though the moderators did a pretty good job or tempering both side of the argument. But, more to the point, I suppose since the poster has decided to indiscriminately wave such a broad brush, clearly using (as was often done in the past), the time-dishonored tool of ad hominem attack, I suspect I could be one of those splattered with a lot of that paint. In my particular case, it was rare, if at all, that I ever disparaged any opinions proffered by anyone as to whether they liked or disliked a particular piece of equipment or sound of technology or anything. Rather, I (and MANY others that have been herded into the "tin-eared objectivist" camp) considered personal preference to be sacrosanct and unimpeachable. What I often did, however, is go after the many bogus "technical" explanations as to why a particular preference was superior. I specifically attacked (and I know of no kinder word) explanations like: * Digital is inferior because there is audio "missing" between the samples, * Digital is inferior because the output is a series of stair-steps, * Digital cannot preserve the phase relationship at higher and higher frequencies, * There is a secret, classified, I musty kill you if I show you Army gun-shot study showing that the ear CAN hear well above 20 kHz. * Vented box (reflex) loudpeakers can't possible produce proper bass transients because the vent output is 180 degrees out of phase with the woofer. And on and on and on. And I have always said that people can like what they like, but to attempts to demonstrate the superiority of one's personal preference with completely nonsense pseudoscience and expect the world to accept it as the TRVTH (tm), sorry, you're out of your league. If you don't like someone pointing to a turd and stating what it is in simple understandable, verifiable terms, then don't poop there. The newsgroup never recovered. No, it was specifically because of the moderators that it never suffered from thye extreme stridency of either camp. Dick Pierce |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
My only quibble is that:
Yes, my choices are infinitely superior to yours - for me. As yours are for= you. If they happen to conform to each other, good. If not, there is neith= er harm nor foul *unless* either of us chooses to dictate to the other.=20 Sure there are things that are exceedingly difficult to measure, possibly n= ot at all, that do affect sound from audio sources. Not all of them meaning= ful to every user. My sovereign example of this phenomenon is the fact that= some systems/speakers/amps as a group or individually make me restless. Me= aning that after some short period of time I *must* get up and move around,= or leave the room (Aside: By that point the cats are long gone). Other do = not (and the cats stay, too). The equipment I have accumulated over the yea= rs does not make me restless - although it would probably give some here th= e cold sweats.=20 But in any case, to me, this is all in good fun. As much as I enjoy popping= balloons, I try not to take the joy out of it in doing so. However, those = attempting to pop my balloon(s) out of malice or self-declared expertise ar= e entirely fair game. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
Once upon a time on usenet Peter Wieck wrote:
My only quibble is that: Yes, my choices are infinitely superior to yours - for me. As yours are for you. If they happen to conform to each other, good. If not, there is neither harm nor foul *unless* either of us chooses to dictate to the other. Sure there are things that are exceedingly difficult to measure, possibly not at all, that do affect sound from audio sources. Not all of them meaningful to every user. My sovereign example of this phenomenon is the fact that some systems/speakers/amps as a group or individually make me restless. Meaning that after some short period of time I *must* get up and move around, or leave the room (Aside: By that point the cats are long gone). Other do not (and the cats stay, too). The equipment I have accumulated over the years does not make me restless - although it would probably give some here the cold sweats. I might say that, as long as you're listening to music that cats like to hear live, this is a perfectly valid metric. -- Shaun. "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) But in any case, to me, this is all in good fun. As much as I enjoy popping balloons, I try not to take the joy out of it in doing so. However, those attempting to pop my balloon(s) out of malice or self-declared expertise are entirely fair game. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 12:57:52 PM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote:
Sure there are things that are exceedingly difficult to measure, possibly not at all, that do affect sound from audio sources. Actually, I have NEVER encountered a case where, when a verifiable, repeatable audible difference was demonstrated, there was not a large, repeatable difference in measurement. On the other hand, I have witnessed very large differences in measurements and no definite repeatable and verifiable audible difference was to be discerned (differences audible to others, including those claiming to NOT live in the "tin-eared objectivist" camp). In fact, I have seldom, if ever, encountered two pieces of equipment did not have measurable difference between them. And, as I have related before, I have even measured and personally heard LARGE differences in some cables. The glaring example was a case where a semi-pro TASCAM DAT recorder that suffered from a fairly poorly designed S/P-DIF output driver connected to a VERY poorly designed (but highly regarded by the high-end press) Levinson DAC that suffered from dreadful clock recovery was a combination that was critically sensitive to the capacitance of the interconnecting digital cable, where the wrong cable put the combination on the verge of losing sync. The DAC was highly regarded as being "very revealing" of subtle differences in cables when, in fact, it was a piece of sh*t mixed analog-digital design. But, to reiterate, I NEVER encoutered a case where an reliable audible difference was accompanied by no measurable difference. And, as an example of bad measuring, there was a measurement of a new "power supply" for the infamous Linn Sondek done by a magazine that should LARGE differences in "jitter" between the two when, in fact, the difference inthe measurement could be shown to be nothing more than simple truncation error caused by a combinations of a small speed difference (a fraction of a percent) and improper data windowing before doing the FFT. This has NOTHING with "tin-eared objectivists" or any other cheap attacks: these two example are simple cases of sheer incompetence, intentional or otherwise. That was my goal: root out the incompetence and ignorance. Much of it is due to innocence and simply lack of knowledge, but much is quite intentional, unfortunately. Dick Pierce |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 6:15:15 AM UTC-4, wr=
ote: On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 12:57:52 PM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote: =20 Sure there are things that are exceedingly difficult to measure, possibly not at all, that do affect sound from audio sources. =20 Actually, I have NEVER encountered a case where, when a verifiable, repeatable audible difference was demonstrated,t there was not a large, repeatable difference in measurement.=20 Nor would I dispute that if it were the same thing to all people. But, ther= e is some sort of something that makes me uncomfortable when listening that= I cannot point out except by the lack of comfort. Sounds good, seems good,= but after some period of time usually less than 3 hours, more than 1 hour = with variations, I can no longer sit still. The secondary indicator is that= the cats, who usually very much enjoy music of many sorts and genres will = leave the room in much shorter order than I will. Others I have spoken to s= eem to be entirely unaware of this, and whose ears are easily as good as mi= ne, or better. I am not claiming magic, and it is probably measurable with = the correct instruments - that I do not have.=20 Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 12:48:11 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
ould I dispute that if it were the same thing to all people. =20 People are different...that's a given. Not sure why that refutes the po= sition=20 that any difference a person (any person) can repeatably detect is easily= =20 measurable. The trick is determining what parameters or combinations thereof is trigg= ering=20 your detection. I would like to be able to predict that. Here is one example, however: I happen to have a serious weakness for Dynaco products, tube and solid-sta= te. I have rebuilt enough ST-120s in my time such that I do not even need a= schematic and I can pretty much go directly to the problem based on the sy= mptoms. Early versions using 2N3055s for drivers sound much like glass-in-a= -blender despite "good specs." There are no less than five (5) factory iter= ations of this device from first-to-last, the final being called the "TIP-M= od" using TIP31/32 drivers and 2N3772 outputs (and a bunch of other stuff).= If I do a simple rebuild, about 80% of the time, it is fine. 20% of the ti= me, the cats leave and eventually so do I. HOWEVER - if I match drivers and= outputs very closely, that problem goes away. In the 80% unmatched success= es, they outputs and drivers are quite often well over 15% apart. Can I tel= l you what bothers me? Not in terms that have any clarity to them. Is it re= peatable - with that unit, absolutely. I usually put in sockets so making s= uch changes is a matter of moments.=20 And, it is both cats. One nearly 8, one coming up 4 in July.=20 I can tell how well I am doing on a restoration based on how many cats are = with me in my work room, and for how long as I burn in each item, often ste= p by step - until the cats stop running away.=20 Test pieces include Kiri TeKanawa, Exultate Jubilate, Emmylou Harris & Mark= Knopfler, All The Road Running, Leo Kottke, much Mozart and others.=20 Peter Wieck=20 Melrose Park, PA |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 9:32:42 AM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 6:15:15 AM UTC-4, wrote: On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 12:57:52 PM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote: Sure there are things that are exceedingly difficult to measure, possibly not at all, that do affect sound from audio sources. Actually, I have NEVER encountered a case where, when a verifiable, repeatable audible difference was demonstrated,t there was not a large, repeatable difference in measurement. Nor would I dispute that if it were the same thing to all people. How does that follow from what I said? I never claimed that a given set of measurement data has the same result on all people (presuming that's what you meant). Different people have different preferences, sensitivity, biases and "training", unintended and otherwise (perhaps better characterized as long-term acclimitization). Therefore, that their reactions are different is not the least surprising. But, there is some sort of something that makes me uncomfortable when listening that I cannot point out except by the lack of comfort. Sounds good, seems good, but after some period of time usually less than 3 hours, more than 1 hour with variations, I can no longer sit still. I like Sibelius, a lot. But, there is some sort of something that makes me uncomfortable that I cannot point out except by lack of comfort when I am listening to the Sibelius violin concerto. Sounds good, seems good, but after a period of time, usually less than 3 minutes, I can no longer sit still. But back to the topic at hand. It seems you're implying that there is something uniquely unmeasurable in your case that you're detecting by listening. Yes, I'd bet good money you ARE perceiving something, but I'd also bet that there are measurable differences, probably more than might account for the difference you are perceiving. Dick Pierce |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 6:21:52 PM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 12:48:11 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote: ould I dispute that if it were the same thing to all people. =20 People are different...that's a given. Not sure why that refutes the = position=20 that any difference a person (any person) can repeatably detect is easi= ly=20 measurable. The trick is determining what parameters or combinations thereof is tri= ggering=20 your detection. =20 I would like to be able to predict that. Here is one example, however: =20 I happen to have a serious weakness for Dynaco products, tube and solid-s= tate. I have rebuilt enough ST-120s in my time such that I do not even need= a schematic and I can pretty much go directly to the problem based on the = symptoms. Early versions using 2N3055s for drivers sound much like glass-in= -a-blender despite "good specs."=20 What are "good specs"? Well, they are most assuredly NOT good measurements. "Specs", as published by manufacturers, are more marketing and sales tools, somewhat less are they legally binding agreed minimum requirements to meet the definition of "fitness=20 for purpose" and almost NEVER are they reliable indicators of=20 actual performance. Specifications are not measurements. If this is not clear, let me say it differently: SPECIFICATIONS ARE NOT MEASUREMENTS. And the 2N3055 example you give is a classic example of this. I,=20 too, have come across 2N3055s that "spec'ed" the same but worked=20 VERY differently in situ. And taking them back out of the circuit and actually measuring them, they measure VERY differently. Not an insignificant number of them didn't even met "spec." Those that did fell within the manufacturer's stated statistical variance of their target specs, that that variance is wide for many of the device's many parameters. Another example: analog high-order filters. Try and find capacitors with the kinds of manufacturing tolerances needed to implement a high- order filter: you need tolerances of perhaps 1% or better. Now, go=20 shopping for them. You're not going to find them, not for any price that would fit in the budget of a piece of electronics intended to=20 be sold to all but the most anally retentive consumer. The capacitors that were sued, most assuredly "met specs", but the variance in actual performance among, say, a dozen filters implemented with 5%=20 and 10% capacitors could be enormous. If one equates "specs" with "measurements", that's simply a piece=20 of folly. If someone comes to me and shows me two different pieces of equipment that sound different but with the same specs, I will, politely as I am able, send that person back telling them they ain't even started=20 their homework yet. And the "specs as measurements" folly is one I have pointed out more times than I can count. Dick Pierce |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 8:02:19 AM UTC-4, wrot=
e: On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 6:21:52 PM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote: On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 12:48:11 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote: ould I dispute that if it were the same thing to all people. =20 People are different...that's a given. Not sure why that refutes th= e position=20 that any difference a person (any person) can repeatably detect is ea= sily=20 measurable. The trick is determining what parameters or combinations thereof is t= riggering=20 your detection. =20 I would like to be able to predict that. Here is one example, however: =20 I happen to have a serious weakness for Dynaco products, tube and solid= -state. I have rebuilt enough ST-120s in my time such that I do not even ne= ed a schematic and I can pretty much go directly to the problem based on th= e symptoms. Early versions using 2N3055s for drivers sound much like glass-= in-a-blender despite "good specs."=20 =20 What are "good specs"? Well, they are most assuredly NOT good measurements. "Specs", as published by manufacturers, are more marketing and sales tools, somewhat less are they legally binding agreed minimum requirements to meet the definition of "fitness=20 for purpose" and almost NEVER are they reliable indicators of=20 actual performance. =20 Specifications are not measurements. SNIPPAGE I agree entirely with your premise and statement that Specifications are no= Measurements Hence the "" around "specs". Few of us in the hobby end of the range have much more than very crude meas= uring devices - perhaps a high-end VOM and a sound meter, maybe. Or a scope= ..=20 However, I am kept by two cats that more quickly than I recognize something= 'off' in audio equipment. So, they are my measuring devices amongst many o= ther attributes and skills that they have. The dogs could care less.=20 p.s.: Every device in the inventory that once used 3055s is now using 3772s= with the 'proper' bias adjustments. Much better, thank you! Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:51:23 AM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote:
p.s.: Every device in the inventory that once used 3055s is now using 3772s with the 'proper' bias adjustments. Much better, thank you! Yeah, well not really. Way, WAY back, when my father was getting his PhD in Physical Chemistry at Columbia, he filed and was granted a patent having to do with epitaxial deposition of compounds on silicon substrates. A year or so after the patent expired, the world decided THE way to make a lot of semiconducting devices was via the epitaxial method. Had he the foresight to wait a few years or to renew the patent with some appropriate variation, and had managed to get people like TI to give him a piddling royalty of something like $0.001 per device*, I'd be a quadrabazillionaire. I'd have the likes of Bill Gates cleaning my toilets. I'd be able to hire and fire Trump twice a day just for the fun of it. * Perhaps the better way, back in the '60's, would have been to charge $0.00001 per junction, not $0.001 per device. Back then, the licensees would have jumped at the opportunity, but by the late '70's royalties would have amounted to a buck a chip, only to increase exponentially, according to Moore's law, from that point forward. Sigh, missed opportunities... Dick Pierce. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 5:37:53 PM UTC-4,
. I'd have the likes of Bill Gates cleaning my toilets. I'd be able to hire and fire Trump twice a day just for the fun of it. * Perhaps the better way, back in the '60's, would have been to charge $0.00001 per junction, not $0.001 per device. Back then, the licensees would have jumped at the opportunity, but by the late '70's royalties would have amounted to a buck a chip, only to increase exponentially, according to Moore's law, from that point forward. Sigh, missed opportunities... Snippage Be careful what you wish for - and you are not the first! https://dailyoddsandends.wordpress.c...ied-penniless/ |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On 2/10/2017 5:39 PM, RAHE Moderator wrote:
2. Open the newsgroup. In this proposal, rec.audio.high-end becomes unmoderated. Anyone can post at any time on any subject. Spammers will likely run rampant, and frequent flamewars between people who believe that they can hear differences between certain things and people who believe that nobody can hear those differences will dominate the non-spam content. (That's just my opinion.) At this point usenet is sufficiently depopulated that a couple of spam filters seems to work pretty well. I don't read all that many usenet groups these days, but the few I do are unmoderated and are still usable (with a few entries in the killfile, of course) I can't say I'll be heartbroken if RAHE goes away, but leaving it up and running seems to be the best option. Thanks a bunch to David for moderating all these years; I understand why you are ready to move on. I say set the group free and let it live or die on it's own rather than killing it. -Walt //Walt |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
On 2017-02-10, RAHE Moderator wrote:
Today is February 10, 2017. There have been no posts in the rec.audio.high-end newsgroup since December 2016. We have a few options, and I will lay them out. 1. Close the newsgroup. 2. Open the newsgroup. 3. Self-moderate the newsgroup. 4. Find a new moderator. Please let me know what you all think. Suggestions, comments, theorizing, whatever: This thread is open to everyone, and is constrained to the topic of "the fate of rec.audio.high-end", rather than the general purpose of the newsgroup. The thread will close April 1, 2017, unless there is an active discussion going on. There is no longer an active discussion on this thread. However, there is substantially more traffic in the newsgroup. Here is my decision for the next period of r.a.h-e: 1. The newsgroup will remain moderated. 2. The Guidelines are suspended. 3. I shall generally approve any message that is sent, unless it appears to be obviously spam or gratuitously objectionable. In particular, I won't be checking for proper quoting format, or asking people to edit overly-long messages, or calming flames. 4. When I get too tired of it, or someone else wants to do it, we'll talk. Your humble obedient overlord, -dsr- |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
thank you for having stuck with this newsgroup as long as you have. I came here to learn from you all and hope that somehow this will continue.
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Playback Room [Was: The end of R.A.H-E]
-dsr- wrote:
Here is my decision for the next period of r.a.h-e: 1. The newsgroup will remain moderated. OK, so we should talk about audio again. Whoopee! At the Tate Modern (a major art gallery in London) there's an interesting exhibit. It's a carefully-treated room with a high-end audio system. The idea was that many people have never had the chance to hear recorded music played back in the highest quality: "Wolfgang Tillmans' Playback Room is a space conceived by the artist specifically for listening to recorded music. While museums are dedicated to the contemplation of works of visual art and concert halls allow us to experience live music, no comparable venues exist where visitors can listen to music in its optimum sound quality." There's room for about twenty or thirty people to sit. The system is a pair of B&W 800 D3s and Rotel amplification, and the music is carefully chosen and very well-recorded. And it sounds wonderful. In particular, the soundstage is excellent: very broad and deep, and without any small "sweet spot". I'm guessing that the wide soundstage is as much due to the acoustic treatment as the speakers. http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate...-room-sessions Andrew. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Playback Room [Was: The end of R.A.H-E]
wish they had something like that in my neck of the woods. nearest high-end audio store is half a day's drive from me. and it is oh so snooty in there.
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
Once upon a time on usenet -dsr- wrote:
On 2017-02-10, RAHE Moderator wrote: Today is February 10, 2017. There have been no posts in the rec.audio.high-end newsgroup since December 2016. We have a few options, and I will lay them out. 1. Close the newsgroup. 2. Open the newsgroup. 3. Self-moderate the newsgroup. 4. Find a new moderator. Please let me know what you all think. Suggestions, comments, theorizing, whatever: This thread is open to everyone, and is constrained to the topic of "the fate of rec.audio.high-end", rather than the general purpose of the newsgroup. The thread will close April 1, 2017, unless there is an active discussion going on. There is no longer an active discussion on this thread. However, there is substantially more traffic in the newsgroup. Here is my decision for the next period of r.a.h-e: 1. The newsgroup will remain moderated. 2. The Guidelines are suspended. 3. I shall generally approve any message that is sent, unless it appears to be obviously spam or gratuitously objectionable. In particular, I won't be checking for proper quoting format, or asking people to edit overly-long messages, or calming flames. 4. When I get too tired of it, or someone else wants to do it, we'll talk. Your humble obedient overlord, -dsr- Thanks for the not inconsiderable time that you must spend moderating R.A.H-E. I appreciate it. -- Shaun. "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
The end of R.A.H-E
|