Manufacturers on the web: a double edged sword?

[YNMOAN]

Well, I see your point - but why not just delete the thread straight away? It's not the deletion I find curious (I can understand that), but the reason (lack of interest).

To be honest, the specific details of a specific thread are not the intent of my post; I am more interested in the nature of censorship (which is, in essence, what moderation is). I'm not intersted in discussing individuals, or their actions,except within the greater context of forum structure.

_________________

I wouldn't be so quick to assume what my opinion is (unless I have stated it) - you don't know me (and, it would seem, are unlikely to). However, should there be any doubt on the matter, Andrew has my full support.

__________________

...ad hominem, which yet again for people who don't understand it means addressing the poster and not the post.

Sorry, I know this is like a stuck CD, but the above is not the meaning of ad hominem except in the most simplified manner.

 

[RobHolt]

I must say that it does seem odd to post a question about a forum owners views and then not actually post any view. If someone is going to pose such a question they should at least give their reasons and state their position.

 

[danworth81]

This is getting psthetic!

 

[flatpopely]

This is getting psthetic!

I wont have my name associated with things that are not correct. As long as they are posted, I'll respond.

 

[YNMOAN]

Let's move on then and discuss something entirely different - for my own part, I am happy to do so.

 

[Mescalito]

Ok, somewhere in the mists of time the OP put forward 2 ways in which trade people usually interact with their customers, on their own fora & on open fora.

Really, on their own fora, anything goes. You cannot complain if anything which is posted & throws a bad light on the company has a short shelf life. Similarly, most of the posters are likely to be fanbois & hence touchingly uncritical of the companies products. These fora are nevertheless very useful as a source of troubleshooting advice etc. But don't go asking for comparative opinions between the companies products & those of their competitors.

Open fora are another kettle of fish entirely. Here, even if a member posts as trade, there is always the possibility of hidden agenda etc. In many ways, I think that people like Ash are easier to assess than most. He is on the forum to promote his kit and does so at every opportunity. That is transparent and what you see is what you get, and it should not give anyone a problem really, because any advice or recommendation from him can be weighed up in the knowledge of where he's coming from.

Of course, shilling (or 5 pencing as it is known knowadays), is an entirely different kettle of fish and should never be tolerated.

So, I believe trade members should declare themselves as such, state which company they represent and go for it.

That way, any advice you get from these often very knowledgeable guys which is not related to their companies offerings can be given full weight. How much weight you give to advice from say a Linn guy when talking about turntables is entirely up to you.

Chris

 

[nando]

why am i being singled out of the thread?my say on the subject is very clear, dealers and manufacturers have an issue to make, most are indeed bias to what they want to promote , it iss their right, hoever what i meant by the weather is the storm we are creating with in the industry, weather is not rocket science, i persoanally want out, had enough of kindergarden tactics,
nando.

 

[Richard Dunn]

There is no such thing as a forum without an agenda, either dictated by the gangs that dominate them as at WW and PF, or by the agenda of the owner as at AoS. Or to a lesser degree at all other forums.

 

[nando]

well , i think if i may say so, we are all entitle to our views if they correspond to the trhead,
nando.

 

[danworth81]

Ok, somewhere in the mists of time the OP put forward 2 ways in which trade people usually interact with their customers, on their own fora & on open fora.

Really, on their own fora, anything goes. You cannot complain if anything which is posted & throws a bad light on the company has a short shelf life. Similarly, most of the posters are likely to be fanbois & hence touchingly uncritical of the companies products. These fora are nevertheless very useful as a source of troubleshooting advice etc. But don't go asking for comparative opinions between the companies products & those of their competitors.

Open fora are another kettle of fish entirely. Here, even if a member posts as trade, there is always the possibility of hidden agenda etc. In many ways, I think that people like Ash are easier to assess than most. He is on the forum to promote his kit and does so at every opportunity. That is transparent and what you see is what you get, and it should not give anyone a problem really, because any advice or recommendation from him can be weighed up in the knowledge of where he's coming from.

Of course, shilling (or 5 pencing as it is known knowadays), is an entirely different kettle of fish and should never be tolerated.

So, I believe trade members should declare themselves as such, state which company they represent and go for it.

That way, any advice you get from these often very knowledgeable guys which is not related to their companies offerings can be given full weight. How much weight you give to advice from say a Linn guy when talking about turntables is entirely up to you.

Chris

Agree totally Chris!

As u say a fora is a great place for tips and advice on their products but other than that way too clicky!

Open Fora is a great place to be if u enjoy the forum experience but u do have to keep a keen eye on people and do ur best to determine their motives on some things, shilling, self promotion whatever is a good good means of putting u off some items, just like when ur a kid and ur mum tries to shove veg down ur throat, u dont even wanna look at it next time let alone eat it. Whereas if it was simply put on ur plate u may just eat it!

 

[Mescalito]

There is no such thing as a forum without an agenda, either dictated by the gangs that dominate them as at WW and PF, or by the agenda of the owner as at AoS. Or to a lesser degree at all other forums.

Absolutely agree with you, Richard. Presumably people join fora because the like the agenda or at least can tolerate it. Nowt wrong with that. For instance, I like Rob's gentle scepticism with regard to foo. I don't like The Subjectivists acceptance of it. So I post on ZG and no longer even go to The Subjectivist. Don't get me started on AOS!!!!!!!! The Art of Second Order Harmonic Distortion......

Different strokes....

Chris

Mods, sorry if this sails too close to the wind re other fora. If it does, just bin it

 

[YNMOAN]

Indeed, whether trade or not, everyone has an agenda. They may not realise it, or actively promote it, but just the sum of their held views essentially describes an agenda.

_______________

and on that happy note, I'm 'off on the raz' - TTFN

 

[Richard Dunn]

Absolutely agree with you, Richard. Presumably people join fora because the like the agenda or at least can tolerate it. Nowt wrong with that. For instance, I like Rob's gentle scepticism with regard to foo. I don't like The Subjectivists acceptance of it. So I post on ZG and no longer even go to The Subjectivist. Don't get me started on AOS!!!!!!!! The Art of Second Order Harmonic Distortion......

Different strokes....

Chris

Mods, sorry if this sails too close to the wind re other fora. If it does, just bin it

Subjectivist doesn't promote foo or anything else apart from using your ears and your music to make your judgements, nothing else.

 

[Mescalito]

Subjectivist doesn't promote foo or anything else apart from using your ears and your music to make your judgements, nothing else.

Probably an inappropriate choice of words on my part. Reliance on perception & faith rather than perception backed by evidence is more accurate. Anyway, one man's foo is another man's blindingly obvious improvement. As I say, different strokes.....

Chris

 

[Richard Dunn]

Probably an inappropriate choice of words on my part. Reliance on perception & faith rather than perception backed by evidence is more accurate. Anyway, one man's foo is another man's blindingly obvious improvement. As I say, different strokes.....

Chris

Don't re-write my words to fit your agenda. I said what I meant to say. No one at Subjectivist relies on faith that is just your nonsense. The ethos is perception backed by evidence - the evidence of our ears - and seeing as that is what everyone uses to appreciate, listen to, understand and enjoy music I would have thought it is blindingly obvious.

 

[Mescalito]

Don't re-write my words to fit your agenda. I said what I meant to say. No one at Subjectivist relies on faith that is just your nonsense. The ethos is perception backed by evidence - the evidence of our ears - and seeing as that is what everyone uses to appreciate, listen to, understand and enjoy music I would have thought it is blindingly obvious.

Calm down, Richard. I am trying to send olive branches here. Why do you always respond with rudeness and aggression?

I was not re-writing your words. I was giving an summary of my view of the Subjectivist.

My position is that everyone's ears, when supported by other senses, are unreliable. If you ignore this experimentally established fact, NOT theory, you are in the realms of faith and witchcraft.

I do not want to get into a pissing match over this. You believe whatever you want to believe. I'll rely on the proven, I repeat, proven, evidence.

Let's agree to differ?

Chris

 

[Richard Dunn]

Calm down, Richard. I am trying to send olive branches here. Why do you always respond with rudeness and aggression?

I was not re-writing your words. I was giving an summary of my view of the Subjectivist.

My position is that everyone's ears, when supported by other senses, are unreliable. If you ignore this experimentally established fact, NOT theory, you are in the realms of faith and witchcraft.

I do not want to get into a pissing match over this. You believe whatever you want to believe. I'll rely on the proven, I repeat, proven, evidence.

Let's agree to differ?

Chris

What do you listen to on your system? I listen to music as do all normal people. Music is an art form, it has been recognised as such for ever, it has never been thought of as a scientific exercise. So what you are saying is that listening to and appreciating music and hearing differences is faith and witchcraft, and I am not re-writing you words this is what you are saying - obviously this is trite nonsense.

Go to Gramophone or any other magazine that writes reviews of music and show any reviewer or writer who uses test equipment or scientific fact for explaining their enjoyment of a piece of music!

Senses are more reliable than so called scientific fact, seeing as for the last 100's of years *every single* parameter and so called known fact has been at the very least modified. So you think what we can measure or even have terminology for now is the end of the story - fantasy land! I can give you example after example after example from cable to amplifiers to anything in the audio chain where specs and test gear that are at the moment state of the art do not provide any reasons or proof for differences that are *easily* observable if you or your equipment is up to it.

I will never "agree to differ" over the subjectivist v objectivist debate, it is absolutely critical to the future of this industry and where it is going. The objectivists dominated the industry for years, where reviewers never even listen to product on review, they just measured them you want to go back to that. And because of that stupidity it left the industry open to the Flat Earth takeover which has been the most harmfull thing that has ever happened to this industry, with *great* product, mostly being made in Japan just ignored because it didn't have the right naim on it. If we hadn't been so stupidly extreme in one direction then we wouldn't need to have had this bullshit as compensation. It is always there as a threat, with the marketing men looking for domination oportunities, the latest one from AVi. But we are now on line so bullshit can be openly seen as bullshit without the magazines, reviewers and retail slurpers getting in the way.

So no, I will *never* accept a truce in this argument as it is fundemental to my ideas, ethos, pleasure, hobby, designs and products.

 

[Fnuckle]

I think the problem is not with the Flat Earth. That was ultimately destined to burn itself out. It caused a lot of damage, but no more or less than the cult of Harry Pearson in the US a decade earlier.

The real problem was Peter Belt.

Peter Belt created a market for frankly loony things that has never gone away. He left open the door for a lot of bad crazyness. Belt also created an incredulity in those not into hi-fi, that has only amplified with time and has caused a lot of people to question anything subjective in audio.

Without Peter Belt telling us to put little silver foil stickers on things, there would have been no Shakti stones, no temple bell resonator devices, no Hallographs, magic pebbles or tweaked battery alarm clocks. Worse, because Belt went too far and started saying his treatments would make cheap crap sound better than good equipment, he allowed others to make similar claims. So now we have an audio world where it's legitimate for someone to claim that if you have £10,000 to spend on audio, spend £8,000 on the cables.

Now, it may well be that cables, tables, mains conditioners and a lot of other 'secondary' products make a sonic difference. But the problem is, faced with claims of sonic transformation said to be better than audio equipment upgrades, when the reality dawns that such sonic transformations these products deliver are at best mild, is it any wonder that more people question similar claims made by manufacturers of electronics?

I think the pendulum has swung back, kicking against those who make bold claims based purely on unsubstantiated and wild subjective claims. And in so doing, it has swung back too far, and the 'No It Alls' are slowly deconstructing any seemingly subjective input to audio equipment.

Here's the thing though. Many of the pet products of the science-led don't make it to market until they are 'voiced' by someone working subjectively. Why? Because the products designed to deliver a perfectly objective goal of solid measurement end up not sounding that good.

 

[Richard Dunn]

I think the problem is not with the Flat Earth. That was ultimately destined to burn itself out. It caused a lot of damage, but no more or less than the cult of Harry Pearson in the US a decade earlier.

The real problem was Peter Belt.

Peter Belt created a market for frankly loony things that has never gone away. He left open the door for a lot of bad crazyness. Belt also created an incredulity in those not into hi-fi, that has only amplified with time and has caused a lot of people to question anything subjective in audio.

Without Peter Belt telling us to put little silver foil stickers on things, there would have been no Shakti stones, no temple bell resonator devices, no Hallographs, magic pebbles or tweaked battery alarm clocks. Worse, because Belt went too far and started saying his treatments would make cheap crap sound better than good equipment, he allowed others to make similar claims. So now we have an audio world where it's legitimate for someone to claim that if you have £10,000 to spend on audio, spend £8,000 on the cables.

Now, it may well be that cables, tables, mains conditioners and a lot of other 'secondary' products make a sonic difference. But the problem is, faced with claims of sonic transformation said to be better than audio equipment upgrades, when the reality dawns that such sonic transformations these products deliver are at best mild, is it any wonder that more people question similar claims made by manufacturers of electronics?

I think the pendulum has swung back, kicking against those who make bold claims based purely on unsubstantiated and wild subjective claims. And in so doing, it has swung back too far, and the 'No It Alls' are slowly deconstructing any seemingly subjective input to audio equipment.

Here's the thing though. Many of the pet products of the science-led don't make it to market until they are 'voiced' by someone working subjectively. Why? Because the products designed to deliver a perfectly objective goal of solid measurement end up not sounding that good.

What an extremely good post that I agree with. But I think you overate the influence Peter Belt had, very very few people got drawn into it even with Jimmy Hughes promoting it. Its influence was mostly emotional in stiring up peoples anger who are naturaly inclined to the objective. The Linn / Naim axis of bullshit had far far more influence and still now pollutes the industry, just look at virtually every thread at PF.

This argument is not only audio based, but many things including my other persona in the world of martial art. There people argue just as strongly as to whether you can control people mentally and energetically as well as physically. Same heated arguments and I am afraid I have been involved in a few of them

 

[flatpopely]

The Linn / Naim axis of bullshit had far far more influence and still now pollutes the industry

I'm sure Linn and NAIM (being as successfull as they are) don't consider the Axis was 'bullshit'.

Rega did allright as well being part of it and are still doing well.

Just because a business model does not conform to ones views does not mean it is incorrect, especially when that model is doing well (NAIM winning the Queens Award is a good indicator all is well in Salisbury).