Rename the "Science of Audio" forum

[rbbert]

Following a suggestion from a site owner and administrator, I propose this.

Since little actual science is presented or discussed in the above mentioned forum, I would respectfully suggest that the name of the forum be modified to reflect what actually is posted. Somewhat disrespectfully, I would propose "Hydrogen Audio" as a new forum name On a more serious note, "Audio Engineering" or "Technical Aspects of Audio" would be more accurate and less misleading

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

How about: Just the facts, Ma'am!

 

[Diapason]

Or "Measurements-based discussion", to make it really clear that subjective opinions (even justified by pseudoscience...) aren't welcome.

 

[rbbert]

Or "Measurements-based discussion", to make it really clear that subjective opinions (even justified by pseudoscience...) aren't welcome.

I like this

 

[Steve Williams]

I have no problem changing the title if everyone is in "universal" agreement

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Or "Measurements-based discussion", to make it really clear that subjective opinions (even justified by pseudoscience...) aren't welcome.

I like that as well.

 

[Steve Williams]

So shall we call it Measurement Based Audio Forum

 

[Diapason]

I have no problem changing the title if everyone is in "universal" agreement

Heh, good luck with that!

 

[rbbert]

So shall we call it Measurement Based Audio Forum

I think this is an accurate description. I would also hope it is inoffensive.

 

[Steve Williams]

I think this is an accurate description. I would also hope it is inoffensive.

The bottom line guys is that if you are a subjectivist this is not the forum in which you want to participate. If you read something bothersome start a new thread if you'd like to discuss it

 

[Steve Williams]

OK, the change has been made BUT the rules are the same if you want to participate in this forum

 

[Mike Lavigne]

good luck and best wishes.

nature tells us it won't work. so far nature is correctomundo.



how it's been told to me is that it requires the 2nd coming. (I beg forgiveness (but not permission) if I've offended anyone with my attempt at humor).

 

[Whatmore]

Seriously haters, is that all you got?
You don't like the name of the forum?

Now that it's changed will the hatin' stop, let's see...

 

[Gregadd]

Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself


Juliet From Romeo and Juliet..

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Nice kangaroo court job based on no attempt to determine if there is anything like a clear consensus on this. One antagonist raises a totally spurious issue over naming and a few like minded aherehents agree, and that's it. Wham. Done.

Great job, Steve, as if we did not know where your own sentiments lie.

 

[Steve Williams]

Nice kangaroo court job based on no attempt to determine if there is anything like a clear consensus on this. One antagonist raises a totally spurious issue over naming and a few like minded aherehents agree, and that's it. Wham. Done.

Great job, Steve, as if we did not know where your own sentiments lie.

Excuse me Carl

Do you have a problem? Frankly I don't care what the forum is called as long as the rules are followed. So whats your issue Carl

 

[rbbert]

Nice kangaroo court job based on no attempt to determine if there is anything like a clear consensus on this. One antagonist raises a totally spurious issue over naming and a few like minded aherehents agree, and that's it. Wham. Done.

Great job, Steve, as if we did not know where your own sentiments lie.

Well, it's not a totally spurious issue over naming. I don't know about you, but in my (somewhat distant) past I participated in and published scientific studies, and what goes under the name of science in this forum is simply not science. More pertinently, there is (potentially) science in audio, and once again this forum is not it. Amir has an engineering and measurement forum, and it should be appropriately named. I for one will have no interest in it, for two reasons; first, it's not science (which I do have an abiding interest in), and second, most of the participants are amateurs both in their performance and their outlook. If they want to putz around that's fine, and keep it there. On a daily I have to deal with measurements made by professionals on professional equipment with lives at stake; I think I know a little more about the limitations of even well-done measurements than the participants in that forum.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

My own impression, with all due respect, is that you did not like how the "debate" over the measurements of specific devices was going, so you threw in a trolling, totally OT issue complaining about the thread's rubric as "science", repeatedly, in fact. Then you appealed to the moderators via this thread to change the thread's name. And, as we all saw, that request was quickly and summarily granted without any form of due process or consensus. Shame on the moderators, in my opinion, for rushing to judgement under these specific circumstances and so quickly acquiescing on this OT red herring issue.

I personally do not care a rat's behind what the rubric of that thread is. Personally, I think the term "audio science" is and has always been overreaching. I do not think there is such a thing as audio science. What I personally think exists is a body of "audio engineering", which is a form of multidisciplinary applied science, if you want to get down to precise semantics. Even Amir often seems more comfortable referring to it that way. And, audio engineering is about more than just measurements. It also includes discussions of objective concepts beyond measurements. But, now we have what we have, which is a hastily and inaccurately renamed thread done in the heat of an ongoing debate.

The point is that debate down there in that thread was supposed to have been walled off from this sort of thing. It was supposed to focus on the objective issues in each thread, avoiding things like this. And, your modus operandi, if I am not mistaken, is pro subjectivism and anti-objectivism. You are fully entitled to your views, but why were you even there posting, given the warnings about that specific area of this forum? You even now say you have no interest in it. So, why were you even there attempting to disrupt it with this OT naming issue? You say you feel you know more about measurements, etc. But, I do not recall seeing any of your critiques or suggestions on the measurements that were actually under discussion, just this naming issue.

Yes, rename it to something sensible if it makes everyone happy. But, somehow, it seems the mere existence of such a discussion area under any name would seem to be the real problem for many here.

 

[treitz3]

*slaps face hard*

Tom

 

[Ron Party]

Yes, rename it to something sensible if it makes everyone happy. But, somehow, it seems the mere existence of such a discussion area under any name would seem to be the real problem for many here.

Absolutely. Been that way since this forum's inception. Since the inmates are allowed to run the asylum, it will always continue to be that way.

Intellectual honesty and humility are in extraordinarily short supply amongst capital A Audiophiles. They will not rest until this forum becomes nothing more than another subjective love-fest. They are very close to success. Shameful. There will be no peace in this forum unless and until they get their way.