Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
[Admin] New RAHE moderator
I like to welcome Dan Ritter as the new RAHE Moderator. Dan offered to
help moderate back when I returned from vacation in May and is now an active moderator. He has already begun processing posts as of Wednesday. I let Dan introduce himself and hopefully he tell us why he's an RAHE reader and a little about his audio exploits. -- David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
[Admin] New RAHE moderator
On 2008-07-12, David E. Bath wrote:
I like to welcome Dan Ritter as the new RAHE Moderator. Dan offered to help moderate back when I returned from vacation in May and is now an active moderator. He has already begun processing posts as of Wednesday. I let Dan introduce himself and hopefully he tell us why he's an RAHE reader and a little about his audio exploits. Hello, everyone. I've been reading RAHE since 1993, and I've been a Usenet news administrator on-and-off for much of my career, so it seemed useful to volunteer when David sent out his call. I'm not sure I have any audio exploits as such. I like a wide variety of music, ranging from early polyphony, classical guitar and Bach, through modern rock. I'm as likely to go to the Boston Early Music Festival as I am to see a Styx concert. I like the sound of speakers from the companies that have used the Canadian NRC facilities. It's true that I worked at BBN for four years, but not in anything related to acoustics. I enjoy reading about psychoacoustic models, experiences with live music and the recording and reproduction of same, and equipment I can't justify buying. -dsr- |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
[Admin] New RAHE moderator - Suggestions
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
[Admin] New RAHE moderator - Suggestions
In article ,
JimC writes: Dan, Thanks for accepting the moderator duties. - I suspect this is a thankless position, but it has kept the ng on a relatively positive course in which (usually) substantive discussions can take place. And in which one can get a substantive answer to an audio-related question instead of a personal attack, or endless, off-topic discussions as on rao. [ Moderator's note: Just to be clear, both Dan and I (David) are full time moderators. --deb ] I have a suggestion. - A downside to a moderated ng is that the delay for approvals tends to slow down the discussion and make it less spontaneous. This "drag" on the discussion might be minimized if we had something like an "approved membership" list, consisting of those participants who regularly post to the ng and who generally observe the posting rules. The list could initially comprise those who have posted for the last several months or so, who know the rules and generally don't cause issues with the moderator. Notes from those on the "approved membership" list would be posted automatically unless or until they began to take advantage of the situation and deviate from the posting rules. OTOH, notes from participants not on the "approved membership" list would continue to be reviewed by the moderators as usual. If their posts proved to be within the rules/regulations for a period of time, they could then be placed on the "approved membership" list also, perhaps on a conditional or "subject to approval" basis at first. Spot checks, or consideration by the moderator of any member complaints about a particular post could also be considered. If acceptance of posts from participants on the approved list could be automated, this might tend to reduce your work load and those of the other moderators, since you would normally not have to spend time evaluating their notes. I believe this "light moderated" approach has been previously discussed, but perhaps others will have further suggestions that would make it work. - In any event, thanks again for assuming the moderator duties. There was an effort to create a new newsgroup called rec.audio.moderated (RAM). It was to operate almost exactly as you describe above. It never made it to a vote since they could not get an agreement on the rules. In order to do something like this, new moderation software would have to be created or acquired as the current software won't easily support a white-list type of moderation. Plus I am concerned that there are those out there who aren't fond of RAHE would might make an effort to scam the 'bot and post things outside the guidelines just for spite. But I am interested in the groups opinion of this discussion. -- David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
[Admin] New RAHE moderator
Welcome Dan!
Hope you will filter out ALL of the posts regarding iPods, computer audio, $100 Sony tuners BOSE systems, Coat Hangers and anything else NOT related to a high-end audio forum. Haven't read a real high-end audio post in quite some time. Isn't there just a rec.audio group? The majority of naysayers deafened by 16-bit digital all these years and prefer to rationalise their cheapness/laziness should subscribe to that group, wherein they can preach to their very own choir all_day_long :-) -Frank |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
New RAHE moderator - Suggestions
On Jul 17, 5:49*am, (David E. Bath) wrote:
In article , *JimC writes: Dan, Thanks for accepting the moderator duties. - I suspect this is a thankless position, but it has kept the ng on a relatively positive course in which (usually) substantive discussions can take place. And in which one can get a substantive answer to an audio-related question instead of a personal attack, or endless, off-topic discussions as on *rao. [ Moderator's note: Just to be clear, both Dan and I (David) are full time moderators. --deb ] I have a suggestion. - A downside to a moderated ng is that the delay for approvals tends to slow down the discussion and make it less spontaneous. This "drag" on the discussion might be minimized if we had something like an "approved membership" list, consisting of those participants who regularly post to the ng and who generally observe the posting rules. The list could initially comprise those who have posted for the last several months or so, who know the rules and generally don't cause issues with the moderator. *Notes from those on the "approved membership" list would be posted automatically unless or until they began to take advantage of the situation and deviate from the posting rules. OTOH, notes from participants not on the "approved membership" list would continue to be reviewed by the moderators as usual. *If their posts proved to be within the rules/regulations for a period of time, they could then be placed on the "approved membership" list also, perhaps on a conditional or "subject to approval" basis at first. Spot checks, or consideration by the moderator of any member complaints about a particular post could also be considered. If acceptance of posts from participants on the approved list could be automated, this might tend to reduce your work load and those of the other moderators, since you would normally not have to spend time evaluating their notes. I believe this "light moderated" approach has been previously discussed, but perhaps others will have further suggestions that would make it work. - In any event, thanks again for assuming the moderator duties. There was an effort to create a new newsgroup called rec.audio.moderated (RAM). It was to operate almost exactly as you describe above. It never made it to a vote since they could not get an agreement on the rules. In order to do something like this, new moderation software would have to be created or acquired as the current software won't easily support a white-list type of moderation. Plus I am concerned that there are those out there who aren't fond of RAHE would might make an effort to scam the 'bot and post things outside the guidelines just for spite. But I am interested in the groups opinion of this discussion. -- David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator I would have two concerns about this approach: 1) The "white-list" would probably exclude a number of regulars (certainly me) who occasionally lapse into, shall we say, non- productive comments. I don't mind being moderated, and I'd rather everyone were. 2) It would create sort of a two-tiered discussion, where one group of posters would be carrying on a real-time discussion, while a second group would be chiming in belatedly, responding to messages from 24 hours prior. bob |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
[Admin] New RAHE moderator
Frank Traut wrote:
Welcome Dan! Hope you will filter out ALL of the posts regarding iPods, computer audio, $100 Sony tuners BOSE systems, Coat Hangers and anything else NOT related to a high-end audio forum. This is rather a mixed bag. An iPod can be 'high end audio' hardware on its technical merits (as noted by Stereophile). And wire coat hangers can make technically excellent interconnects.; Haven't read a real high-end audio post in quite some time. Isn't there just a rec.audio group? The majority of naysayers deafened by 16-bit digital all these years and prefer to rationalise their cheapness/laziness should subscribe to that group, wherein they can preach to their very own choir all_day_long :-) One could be deafened by 16-bit -- but one is more likely to be deafened by 24-bit, which offers even more dynamic range. This is assuming, of course, that one one was in the habit of recording and listening to rocket lauches, close-proximity gunfire, jet engines, and the like. -- -S A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles" (1748) |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
New RAHE moderator
On Jul 17, 5:53*am, Frank Traut wrote:
Welcome Dan! * Hope you will filter out ALL of the posts regarding iPods, computer audio, $100 Sony tuners BOSE systems, Coat Hangers and anything else NOT related to a high-end audio forum. So it is not possible for audio gear by certain manufacturers to meet high-end standards? Please provide guidelines for identifying the high- end manufacturers. Apparently, it is also not valid for posters to state that certain requirements for cables are so minimal that coat hangers would suffice. Haven't read a real high-end audio post in quite some time. Isn't there just a rec.audio group? The majority of naysayers deafened by 16-bit digital all these years and prefer to rationalise their cheapness/laziness should subscribe to that group, wherein they can preach to their very own choir all_day_long * :-) It appears that guide lines are also needed to set minimum prices for equipment to qualify as high-end gear. In this rationale, the sound, measurements and unbiased test results provided by a system are not actually what qualifies it as high end. Rather, price and manufacturer are what needs to be considered and the standard CD format never can sound good by definition. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
[Admin] New RAHE moderator
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:53:09 -0700, Frank Traut wrote
(in article ): Welcome Dan! Hope you will filter out ALL of the posts regarding iPods, computer audio, $100 Sony tuners BOSE systems, Coat Hangers and anything else NOT related to a high-end audio forum. Haven't read a real high-end audio post in quite some time. Isn't there just a rec.audio group? The majority of naysayers deafened by 16-bit digital all these years and prefer to rationalise their cheapness/laziness should subscribe to that group, wherein they can preach to their very own choir all_day_long :-) -Frank So now you're the arbiter about what constitutes suitable content for this group. In the contexts in which they were given, both coat-hangers and $100 Sony tuners were very germane to these conversations. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
[Admin] New RAHE moderator
On 2008-07-17, Frank Traut wrote:
Welcome Dan! Hope you will filter out ALL of the posts regarding iPods, computer audio, $100 Sony tuners BOSE systems, Coat Hangers and anything else NOT related to a high-end audio forum. I'll be following the guidelines as stated. I'm sure David will keep me on the straight and narrow. Haven't read a real high-end audio post in quite some time. Isn't there just a rec.audio group? The best way to ensure a supply of interesting conversations about high-end audio is to start one. What gets you excited? -dsr- |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
New RAHE moderator
jwvm wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:53*am, Frank Traut wrote: Welcome Dan! * Hope you will filter out ALL of the posts regarding iPods, computer audio, $100 Sony tuners BOSE systems, Coat Hangers and anything else NOT related to a high-end audio forum. So it is not possible for audio gear by certain manufacturers to meet high-end standards? Please provide guidelines for identifying the high- end manufacturers. Apparently, it is also not valid for posters to state that certain requirements for cables are so minimal that coat hangers would suffice. Haven't read a real high-end audio post in quite some time. Isn't there just a rec.audio group? The majority of naysayers deafened by 16-bit digital all these years and prefer to rationalise their cheapness/laziness should subscribe to that group, wherein they can preach to their very own choir all_day_long * :-) It appears that guide lines are also needed to set minimum prices for equipment to qualify as high-end gear. In this rationale, the sound, measurements and unbiased test results provided by a system are not actually what qualifies it as high end. Rather, price and manufacturer are what needs to be considered and the standard CD format never can sound good by definition. from the RAHE guidelines: // 2.0 -- Definition of High-End Audio The working definition of 'high-end audio' under which this newsgroup operates is a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical realization of the emotional experience commonly called music; or c) any relevant issues related to the use, design or theory about a) or b). Price is generally not significant in determining whether or not a given component may be considered 'high-end'. // -- -S A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles" (1748) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
[Admin] RAHE on hiatus from 10/31/04 thru 11/06/04 | High End Audio | |||
A quick study in very recent RAHE moderator inconsistency | Audio Opinions | |||
Latest RAHE Moderator Questionable Justification For Refusing My Posts | Audio Opinions | |||
Latest RAHE Moderator Questionable Justification For Refusing | Audio Opinions | |||
Latest RAHE Moderator Questionable Justification For RefusingMy Posts | Audio Opinions |