Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to
rec.audio.dbt?

Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end
up about dbt's. You could look with that 95% confidence
you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers
and non-believers etc. etc.

How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end
when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly
denigrated by posters here. And the moderators don't seem to
be high-enders for the most part.

[Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD]

A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too.

Seriously,
Dennis

"Dennis Moore" wrote in message news:xmg0b.149774$Oz4.41175@rwcrnsc54...
Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to
rec.audio.dbt?

Looks like this wasn't an original idea of yours. :-)


Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end
up about dbt's. You could look with that 95% confidence
you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers
and non-believers etc. etc.

Since the beginning of August, according to Google, there have been
197 posts that contained any of the terms ABX, DBT, or blind. There
have been 603 posts that contained the word "the." This surely
understates the incidence of posts on the topic, but I think a safe
estimate would be that if you picked a random post, you'd have only
about a 50-50 chance of running into one on the Great Debate in any of
its forms.

Furthermore, these posts are concentrated in very few threads. I count
fewer than 15 of the last 100 active threads that, based on their
subject line (and my recollection of them) would have discussed this
topic at any length.

That's no accident. RAHE does have a rule against posts on this
subject in threads otherwise unrelated to it. Now, that's a tough line
to draw, but it clearly has an effect.

Finally, take a look at those offending threads. For the most part,
they are started by the very people who object to all this
objectivism. Others are started by people asking "Why biwire?" and
"Can amp stands make a difference?" Surely the results of blind tests
on those very questions are a legitimate response.


How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end
when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly
denigrated by posters here.

Who says the high-end industry should own the term "high end"? This
newsgroup is about optimizing the reproduction of sound, especially
music. To the extent that members of the self-styled "high-end"
industry produce less than optimal products, shouldn't they be
denigrated? Or would you prefer that posts only be allowed by industry
shills? By the way, this group is currently open to posts *defending*
the high-end industry. Perhaps you'd like to step up to the plate.

And the moderators don't seem to
be high-enders for the most part.

[Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD]

A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too.

Seriously,
Dennis

Get serious.

bob

"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
news:xmg0b.149774$Oz4.41175@rwcrnsc54

Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to
rec.audio.dbt?

I agree with you. Or rec.audio.same-old-arguments.

Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end
up about dbt's.

Mostly originating from failed attempts to criticize DBTs.

You could look with that 95% confidence
you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers
and non-believers etc. etc.

Just to make a point, what does it mean to not believe in DBTs? If someone
believes in God, that means that he believes that God exists. Is there
anyone who seriously doesn't believe in the existence of DBTs?

How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end
when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly
denigrated by posters here.

Is that denigrated or criticized? It seems like criticism of *any* audio
segment is conceivably on-topic here.

And the moderators don't seem to
be high-enders for the most part.

Say what?

[Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD]

A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too.

Without compromising the right to free speech on the part of the same old,
same old people who start these threads?

Dennis Moore wrote:
Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to
rec.audio.dbt?

Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end
up about dbt's. You could look with that 95% confidence
you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers
and non-believers etc. etc.

How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end
when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly
denigrated by posters here. And the moderators don't seem to
be high-enders for the most part.

[Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD]

A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too.

Good idea! And how about rec.audio.sour-grapes for posts like yours, then?

The high-end discussion that goes on here is *far* more valuable
than what you'll find elsewhere, if only you realized it.

--
-S.

Dennis Moore writes:
Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to
rec.audio.dbt?

Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end
up about dbt's.

I don't think that's true, judging by posting volume.

You could look with that 95% confidence you will mostly be reading
about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers and non-believers etc. etc.

How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end
when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly
denigrated by posters here.

Well, that's good, isn't it? Seems to me like this is one of the very
few places where the more outlandish claims of that industry are
treated with due skepticism.

Firstly, you don't have to agree with everything the high-end industry
does to be a fan of high-end audio reproduction.

Secondly, surely the question of whether or not claims about the
properties of "high end" audio equipment might be subject to rational
inquiry is of pivotal importance. The high-end magazines have already
made their decision, but we don't have to follow like sheep.

Finally, this group is for discussion of "high-end audio systems", not
just praise. Opposing arguments are equally on-topic.

Andrew.

Dennis Moore writes:
How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end
when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly
denigrated by posters here.

Well, I guess that sort of single me out as one of the offenders
in your eyes. I certainly admit to being one of the more vocal
critics of the high-end priest's mystiques.

But let's look at some of the charges. Claims are made about the
relevance of the high-end in the audio marketplace, in direct
contravention to the real economic data that CLEARLY shows that
is a miniscule part of the whole and losing ground all the time.

And what about the charges of witchcraft and flim-flammery. It
seems the high-end community, when confronted with the nonsense
it propogates about, say, green CD pens and the like, react with
denial or indignation. The high-end community can't admit that
the green-pen CD craze started as an April fool's joke some
years ago then took on a life of its own. The same with
"optical impedance matching CD fluid." And we have blue LED
dithering CD players and magic pucks and all the rest.
Physician, heal thyself first.

And my oft made charge about the high-end industry being decades
behind the technological state of the art? Well, why don't you
educate yourself on the topic: look at the claims being made
about the "discovery" of jitter, and then take a look at the
numerous technical articles on the topic from back in the late
1950's and 1960's. Look at the tpoic of dither, definitely
researched 40 years ago. Look at the AES in the late 1970's
regarding many of the issues just now being addressed as "new"
discoveries.

It seems many in the high-end industry do NOT like being told
their little sandbox stinks. Maybe the way to deal with it is
NOT to bury one's head along with the cat droppings, but maybe
to start identifying and scooping out the cat poop.


--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

Dennis Moore wrote:

Do you think the name of RAHE could be changed to
rec.audio.dbt?

Sure seems that by far the great bulk of the messages end
up about dbt's. You could look with that 95% confidence
you will mostly be reading about dbts. Pro's and cons, believers
and non-believers etc. etc.

How about it? Would be more honest than calling it high-end
when the practices of the high-end industry are regularly
denigrated by posters here. And the moderators don't seem to
be high-enders for the most part.

[Moderator's Note: That's news to us. RD]

A simple change in the FAQ could make it all clear too.

Seriously,
Dennis


I agree with Dennis. I am a lurker and not a contributer. I have
frequently come here in the past looking for what I would consider Audio
high end discussions. I have found very little discussion of value, but
most of the arguments are non-constructive and repetitive between the
same combatants. I've read a number of the previous responses to this
post and they are, for the most part, contributed by the regulars who
love this never-ending, repetitive, and inconclusive arguing. Any
question posed by a newbie is easily turned back to debating dbts or
something else similar and esoteric. However, I agree with the poster
that says RAHE is not audiophile friendly. Going further, most newbies
that post a question are likely to get their thread hijacked and their
question never answered. Another regular poster responded that there
are plenty of other forums for people to go to if they are not happy
with the "high end" discussions here. I am familiar with other options
and I found few other forums and no newsgroups that answer my questions
about "high end" audio. RAHE could potentially appeal to a larger
audience, but it is currently a closed poker game. Dennis' proposal
addresses that issue.

Jerry Cipriano