|   Why there are no other forums on the Net like CableAsylum? | Tony_Montana
Nov 10, 2003 2:40 PM | | I frequent other [major] forums on net such as Audiokarma, HomeTheaterForum, Audioholics and others, and I have never seen a forum so much dedicated to cable's signature, and how much they effect one's system.
I guess the [heavy handed] promotion of only one view (yeasayers), and suppression and censoring of other views does contribute to that factor. I just wished there was more of a balancing act going in CA forum. Yea and naysayer camps both have good advices and arguments that can be used to promote more cable awareness, and I hate to see one view get promoted at cost of suppressing another :) |
| re: Why there are no other forums on the Net like CableAsylum? | Bill L
Nov 10, 2003 3:32 PM | | Cable Asylum is for those who (right or wrong) believe that cables make an audible difference in their system. Just like Audioholics is for those who (right or wrong) believe it just can't be so. AA was named "Asylum" because it was meant as a shelter from those who, for whatever reason, just can't stop hammering at other people having a pleasant dialogue between themselves. |
| re: Why there are no other forums on the Net like CableAsylum? | pctower
Nov 10, 2003 5:01 PM | | As I understand it, you have properly described the original intent of the Cable Asylum, and if that were what it really was, I wouldn't find anything to criticize. As far as I'm concerned, if people want that kind of a place to share experiences, without contantly being bombarded with demands for "proof" and DBTs, that's fine.
Unfortunately, CA is moderated by Jon Risch who has a personal agenda of pushing a certain technical position regarding cables. His arbitary, biased position as a moderator, coupled with the anti-DBT rule, coupled with his own offensive behavior that repeatedly results in his violating the very rules against personal attacks that he is suppose to be enforcing, ensures that only one side of the technical issues can be advanced on that board, and it just happens to be a technical view that is subject to a load of valid criticism.
I say that unless they are going to remove all restrictions on technical discussions at CA, they should ban all such discussions and let them occur over at PropHead where no formal restrictions exist. Well, maybe even that is not a very good idea, because Curl and Hansen, with a wink and a nod from Rod, have chased all reasonable people away from that board, and as a result it has pretty much gone dead.
Of course, it doesn't matter a hill of cables what I think. Rod will run AA however he wants, Jon will continue doing his thing, and people on both sides will make individual choices of whom they want to listen to, whether they are willing to learn, and whether their own personal beliefs are so precious they can never be challenged, as well as continuing to decide how much, if anything, they want to spend on cables - all without any percieved need to consult me with respect to any of those decisions. |
| re: Why there are no other forums on the Net like CableAsylum? | rb122
Nov 11, 2003 9:51 AM | | b people on both sides will make individual choices of whom they want to listen to, whether they are willing to learn,
I agree. I guess I don't really understand the problem with the cable asylum, after having lurked there a few times. It's full of people who truly believe that cables make a difference and they do not want to be challenged i.e they do not want to learn anything. That's my take. And it's not up to any of us to attempt to educate a person who is dead set against it. It's the old "lead a horse to water" saying. I see no reason to force the poor horses head into the water. When he gets thirsty, he'll drink. If he never gets thirsty, he'll die never knowing what water tastes like. |
| re: Why there are no other forums on the Net like CableAsylum? | pctower
Nov 11, 2003 1:45 PM | | I agree. But bear with me a minute while I foolishly try to push the analogy a little further.
It's one thing to lead a horse to water and leave it up to him to decide whether to drink or not. But, perhaps Jon is telling all the horses he has water (which is pure as would be truth) for all of them to drink to their hearts content, while slipping them turpentine instead.
Either give the horses real water (uncensored discussions aimed at getting at the truth), or be honest and tell them no water is available at that well; and, that while they are welcome to hoof around the well, the only thing they will be allowed to do while grazing in that vicinity is to discuss the different flavors of water they have experienced while roaming the range or else the owner of the well will be setting up a kiosk for selling cheap horsemeat.
I know - the sound of the groans and boo's is already deafening. |
| You won't hear groans and boo's from here. | Tony_Montana
Nov 11, 2003 9:33 PM | | Since Jon has a such a strong following in CA, I believe the responsibility rest on his shoulder for balancing the act in that forum. He should abandoned his position as always being right as such that other view (even from yeasayers) than his own have a chance to being discussed.
There are alot of knowledgeable people on that board and it a shame to see it channeled thru such a narrow shallow waters. |
| You won't hear groans and boo's from here. | pctower
Nov 12, 2003 7:45 AM | | Jon's behavior is inexcusable and I believe, to any fair minded person is an abomination.
However, as long as they permit technical discussions and the anti-DBT rule to coexist on that board, it seems to me it will continue to be a place that thoughtful people may want to avoid, even if Jon were to suddenly disappear.
And, I say all this being a person who uses exotic cables. I do because in my surely biased experience they add to my enjoyment of my system. However, I find other people's descriptions of their own experiences with cables unhelpful (I do what works for me independent of any technical consideration or the experiences of others) and if I do want to gain technical knowledge (to satisfy my own intellectual curiosity) I will not expect to find it on CA. |
| Groan - boo! :) | rb122
Nov 13, 2003 5:25 AM | | Ha Ha! You set the table, Phil! :)
b to any fair minded person is an abomination.
A-ha! You are a fair minded person, no? Using the horse and water analogy, you chose not to drink Jon's turpentine. You see? You have a choice, just as Jon does. He can choose to run his ship as he sees fit. You can choose to go overboard. Sorry, another stupid analogy :). What I mean is, CA is apparently a "Members Only" forum, no different than a country club that doesn't allow women. You will share their views or be asked to leave. It's their right since it's not a publicly owned facility.
And if you'll excuse me one more time, what possible technical information is going to tell you that cables built to sound neutral are going to sound different and why? It's my understanding that cables are considered commodity products by technical folks (Jon excepted, I suppose). What do you need to know besides impedance, inductance and capacitance? Don't take this the wrong way because my experiences lead me to prefer items that are considered technically inferior (tubes, vinyl) and I have a much better chance of engaging in meaningful (to me) dialogue when dealing with sonic issues rather than technical ones since technically, the battle is over :) Technical discussions over why cables sound one way or another could at best be described as opinions that are not consistent with the technical mainstream, agree? It sounds like you're searching for truths in a place where none exist.
b uses exotic cables. I do because in my surely biased experience they add to my enjoyment of my system.
Objectivists may tell you that you are indeed biased. No one can or should tell you that it's wrong in your case to use these cables. If they add to your enjoyment, go for it. |
| Groan - boo! :) | pctower
Nov 13, 2003 6:34 AM | | b You see? You have a choice, just as Jon does. He can choose to run his ship as he sees fit. You can choose to go overboard.
Agree. I didn't challenge Jon's rights or Rod's rights. Just expressing my opinion on how I'd like to see it run.
b What do you need to know besides impedance, inductance and capacitance?
Don't know. Maybe nothing (I was using that comment about looking elsewhere for technical information as a means of saying that I don't think CA is a good source for technical information - poetic license, don't ya know). But a lot of people sure like to spend a lot of time talking about the technical side of cables. And let's say you are right. Does that mean it's a good thing for Jon to promote his own technical viewpoints to the exclusion of others - which is the point I'm arguing.
b It sounds like you're searching for truths in a place where none exist.
Well, that's certainly the belief of most on this board, which is why this place gets pretty boring when some misguided soul such as myself isn't here stirring up trouble.
Actually, I'm really not searching for much of anything. I just enjoy seeing how people argue over wires.
b No one can or should tell you that it's wrong in your case to use these cables.
Not only have I been told it's wrong, but I've been severely criticized for even disclosing the fact that I use these cable on a public board. |
| re: Why there are no other forums on the Net like CableAsylum? | Bill L
Nov 13, 2003 1:27 PM | | I see no problem with the original intent of the forum. It's not there to discuss IF cables make a difference. It's there for discussion of what effects posters hear in their systems. The issue (as far as desired members of the forum go) has already been decided, and uninterrupted discussion of that viewpoint is the goal of the forum - no further "education" is necessary. Regardless of what Jon Risch says or does, opening the forum to yammering hammerheads would only defeat that purpose. "Asylum" it would not be. Like religeon, it may or may not be correct but the believers certainly have the right to practice their own uninterrupted viewpoint in peace. |
| re: Why there are no other forums on the Net like CableAsylum? | pctower
Nov 13, 2003 4:52 PM | | I've said essentially the same thing here before, and was likened unto Hitler for having expressed that viewpoint.
While I agree with your comment, where I start to have problems with CA is when it involves newcommers. Because they allow technical discussions at CA, but only those discussions which support Jon's unsupported technical claims, a newcomer could be seriously misled. That's the primary reason I think they should exclude technical discussions altogether. Either open it up or not at all.
If they want a place for thoses who have already made up their minds that cables DO make a difference to share their opinions and experiences without the subject of IF, in which they have no interest, being injected into the discussions, that's fine as far as I'm concerned. But that doesn't require technical discussions or technical claims to accomplish that purpose.
As it is, they do still get into IF discussions, but with only one side fairly represented and free to express their views, thus running a substantial risk that newcomers won't get the full story.
Again, I'm not challenging their legal right to run that board anyway they want. I'm just stating my own personal views of how I think it should be run. |
| re: Why there are no other forums on the Net like CableAsylum? | Bill L
Nov 16, 2003 9:39 AM | | There is some truth in what you say. A newcomer that accepts or rejects any audible properties of cable on the basis of physics has missed the point anyway. |
| re: Why there are no other forums on the Net like CableAsylum? | pctower
Nov 16, 2003 10:19 AM | | b A newcomer that accepts or rejects any audible properties of cable on the basis of physics has missed the point anyway.
I don't necessarily agree. For some, the lack of reliable scientific evidence is enough to cause them to never try an after-market cable. If scientific verification is the most important thing for that person, so be it.
Others blindly accept voodoo scientific "explanations" for why cables should sound different and don't want to be bothered by scientific discussions. I have no argument with those people either, as long as he doesn't attempt to foist off on me or newcomers their voodoo science.
Others look at all of this and conclude that there has been relatively few, if any, valid DBTs ever run on cables, understand that virtually all amateur blind tests result in nothing much better than anectdotal evidence, accept that sighted tests are fraught with uncontrolled bias, and ultimately decide to do what brings them the most enjoyment in their own system. If they "experience" an "improvement" by using after-market cables, that's all that matters to them as to their own personal purchasing decisions. They feel no need to "apologize" to the "naysayers" for what they personally choose to do in their own systems.
I derive a certain sadistic pleasure when I find those who have strong scientific credentials who actually adopt that last approach with respect to home audio. It drives the "naysayers" on this board nuts who like to paint all of us who use after-market cables as flat-earthers and believers in alien abductions.
It takes all types.
BUT, as to the original point, I would hope that any newcomer would be exposed to all viewpoints. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that most of the people who care enough on either side of the issue to post regularly on audio boards, believe so strongly in their particular point of view, them want to "protect" newcomers from being exposed to contrary views.
BTW, thanks for the conversation. Nice to converse with someone who is not dogma-bound on this subject, one way or the other. |
| re: Why there are no other forums on the Net like CableAsylum? | Bill L
Nov 16, 2003 12:01 PM | | "For some, the lack of reliable scientific evidence is enough to cause them to never try an after-market cable."
True. But the logical conclusion to that statement is those people will never try an after market cable, because there isn't objective evidence, only subjective arguments. So they have followed a path to a dead end, arriving at a conclusion without even a (very easily accomplished) trial. That's what I meant by missing the point. |
| re: Why there are no other forums on the Net like CableAsylum? | mtrycrafts
Nov 16, 2003 8:28 PM | | b So they have followed a path to a dead end,
How so? Why must there be an open end?
b arriving at a conclusion without even a (very easily accomplished) trial.
Easy? How so? pc doesn't think it is easy, nor dot he ones who sat down in the ameture dbt tests. Sighted listening is unreliable. Next. |
| re: Why there are no other forums on the Net like CableAsylum? | Bill L
Nov 17, 2003 7:23 AM | | No-one needs (or wants) your approval. No-one needs (or wants) your approval. No-one needs (or wants) your approval. There. Next. |
| re: Why there are no other forums on the Net like CableAsylum? | mtrycrafts
Nov 18, 2003 6:32 PM | | Then why do you bother to respond? Next |
| Follow the money | skeptic
Nov 10, 2003 5:26 PM | | I'm not here to debate it again with Phil. We know each others views and we disagree.
Why would this seemingly open forum similar to our own and others be so one sided when it comes to cables? IMO it's because it is NOT at all similar to our own. It is a protected harbor whose purpose is to foster the notion among audiophiles that it is natural and beyond question to expect upgraded (usually meaning more expensive) cables as a normal part of a high quality sound system. It is not intended to promote any one brand or product of cable but to influence the audio culture at large by sowing seeds in the minds of a small but sometimes influential segment of it. It is the soft sell par excellance. The hard sell is not permitted. The market, ignorant as it is, is simply too sophisticated among the CA participants for it to work. Jon Risch is merely a lacky, a lap dog doing the bidding of Rod, the owner and his financial backers which include both cable manufacturers and merchants who profit from this high markup item. What proof do I have for this? None, just my observation and deductive logic Watson! BTW, if there was any doubt in my mind, Rod's proposed mission statement of a few months ago dispelled it. He admittedly only wanted to allow discussion of "positive" experiences with audio cables. Now doesn't that tell you something? |
| Some of cable reviews look suspicion enough. | Tony_Montana
Nov 11, 2003 9:48 PM | | Some of cable reviews posted on that forum seem to be to too tidy, clean and out of realism to be posted by a regular member. And the funny thing is that the reviews are always positive. I never seen a negative review posted on that board about cables. If a cable make such a profound "jaw dropping" effect on a system, some of them are bound to produce crappy sound :) |
| Everything points to CA as a site for shills and suckers | skeptic
Nov 12, 2003 4:19 AM | | In the last heated exchange I had here with Jon Risch, he posted that the reason people like me couldn't hear any difference between cables were words to the effect that it takes very high end equipment to hear any discernable difference because other unmeasurable distortion from lesser equipment would mask it. John Curl who claimed that he had some of the most sensitive test equipment in the world reported that the greatest difference he could measure in distortion between the worst (one dollar Radio Shack) interconnects and the best was that the cheap ones had minus 120 db seventh harmonic noise of a 5 khz tone while the best had minus 135 db. Both of course totally inaudible on any sound system of any quality under any conceivable conditions. However, when you hear someone flatly state that one cable blew the other away, what are you to conclude if you are honest and objective? That Curl and Risch are just wrong? Or that there might be minor differences in frequency response because of RCL differences? Or that the whole thing is just a crock! |
| Some of cable reviews look suspicion enough. | pctower
Nov 12, 2003 7:50 AM | | How do you explain the reviews here at AR, which is an unabashedly commercial site?
How do you explain this:
http://www.audioreview.com/Learncrx.aspx
Why don't you guys ever take this site to task? And while you are at it, how about audiogon.com? |
| Hey, we have enough trouble taking you to task... | Monstrous Mike
Nov 12, 2003 9:20 AM | | But to take on an entire site?
Really, though, I expect this site to promote audio products and claim improvements and good performance. I also expect people to enthusiastically write reviews of things like audio cables. These types of reviews are meaningless to me so why should I care what they say.
It's the people who claim X is better than Y and then attempt to technically explain the reason for their claim. Or there are people who go the other way and reason that a particular technology changes a particular electrical parameter thereby making any cable using this technology sonically superior (usually by default).
These are the people standing naked at the podium and there's usually smoke coming out of their asses. |
| Hey, we have enough trouble taking you to task... | skeptic
Nov 12, 2003 10:36 AM | | "These are the people standing naked at the podium and there's usually smoke coming out of their asses."
The vision of Jon Risch standing naked at a podium with smoke coming out of his ass is a grizzly and grusome thing to contemplate. It's bad enough when he stands there with his clothes on and the smoke is just coming out of his ears. |
| I have but I'll just be too happy to do it again | skeptic
Nov 12, 2003 10:33 AM | | "Why don't you guys ever take this site to task?"
OK Phil, here goes.
The advice given for buying cables by the people who own and run this site is a deceptive pile of crap which if followed will cause people to spend money on expensive items of unproven value which could be better used elsewhere. It is purely self serving as this is a commercial venture promiting products just like CA. However, there is one big difference. The editorial policy on the message boards does not censor anyone for saying it or anything derogatory about a particular product or audiophile cables in general. And people with negative opinions, presumably including those about equipment sold by the owners' backers and advertisers, can and do get bad reviews in the equipment review section. There are also undoubtedly shills posting there as well. If there had been censorship of negative opinions here, or if it starts....I'm outta here. And that means the whole site.
OK Phil. Is that enough or would you like some more?
(BTW, if this posting disappears or if you never see me post here again, I was banned for this.) |
| I have but I'll just be too happy to do it again | pctower
Nov 12, 2003 12:11 PM | | b OK Phil. Is that enough or would you like some more?
Couldn't have said it better myself, or even nearly as well (with the sole exception that based on my viewpoint, which is probably only slightly different than yours, I would have used the weasle term "might" rather than "will" in the first sentence. |
| Weasle term? Why that's an outright CYA if I ever heard one ... | woodman
Nov 14, 2003 12:09 AM | | ... but then, I guess that's the way a barrister must think, isn't it?
Come to think of it, whenever one reads the postings of Jon Risch (at least the posts that he put up here), ALWAYS contained a "weasle term" (CYA) ... such as:
b might, could, may, sometimes, possibly ...
He might be a veritable
i guru
to some - to me he's Captain Scumbag-weasleman
woodman
P.S. To BillL - your ascribing a definition of the word Asylum as a "getaway" or "haven" misses the mark. The word as it is commonly employed, means a place to house those "not playing with a full deck" as the saying goes. "Without both oars in the water". In slang terms ... it's called a "nuthouse". Some inmates MAY actually sound and seem intelligent, but trust me - they're nuttier than fruitcakes! |
| Weasle term? Why that's an outright CYA if I ever heard one ... | pctower
Nov 14, 2003 5:37 AM | | Woodman, October 31, 2003:
b To the best of my knowledge, I've NEVER called anyone [those who appear to be exhibiting behavior which is guided by the subconscious] such names [stupid, cult-followers] at this board or any other.
Woodman, November 14, 2003:
b Some inmates MAY actually sound and seem intelligent, but trust me - they're nuttier than fruitcakes!
b P.S. To BillL - your ascribing a definition of the word Asylum as a "getaway" or "haven" misses the mark. The word as it is commonly employed, means a place to house those "not playing with a full deck" as the saying goes. "Without both oars in the water".
Get your facts straight woodman. He was describing why the founders of AA chose that name, and he is correct. How you want to interpret the name is up to you, but why take BillL to task, when all he was doing was reporting something factually correct.
b ... but then, I guess that's the way a barrister must think, isn't it?
What's with this "barrister" crap you keep bringing up? Do you think it is a mark of learning and rational thought to frequently employ covert generalizations such as that.
You didn't seem to mind me being a lawyer when you called me for free advice, which I gave you and then asked you to keep in touch to let me know how you were doing - and then never heard from you again.
But then again, people who hide behind the anonymity of the monikers can get away with personally offensive behavior such as impuning other's professions.
You know what I think, woodman. I think you're not a very nice person. |
| I have but I'll just be too happy to do it again | rb122
Nov 13, 2003 5:28 AM | | b (BTW, if this posting disappears or if you never see me post here again, I was banned for this.)
LOL! Won't you get a "cool it" post first? |
| What about head-fi? | WmAx
Nov 10, 2003 7:21 PM | | Head-fi has some strong simularities, in their habits of wire/cable:
http://www.head-fi.org
-Chris |
| Never heard of that forum. | Tony_Montana
Nov 11, 2003 9:53 PM | | But I will keep an eye on it :) |
| You're not kidding..... | FLZapped
Nov 11, 2003 7:53 AM | | Jon has now taken to the tactic of quietly erasing posts which are either critical of his POV, or do not fall in line with the State's view.
-Bruce |
| You're not kidding..... | pctower
Nov 11, 2003 9:15 AM | | I believe that even people who place themselves within the "yeasayer" camp should rise above that issue and roundly condemn Jon's actions as a moderator. Basic fairness and rationality is infinitely more important to me than any specific issue involving audio.
It reminds me of our politicians who only express moral outrage when it is directed against a member of the opposite party.
Apparently, as in politics, there are few true statesmen in audio. I guess that pretty much applies across the board in all areas of human interest and endeavors.
But I still don't get it. Why is it so important to be "right" about cables (or just about anything, for that matter) that one becomes afraid of opening his own beliefs to critical challenge and analysis? What is so threatening about the truth?
In case anyone hadn't noticed, the ultimate "truth" is unaffected by what I or anyone else believes. We can "believe" as hard as we possibly can and it still won't change the ultimate "truth". |
| Simple... | Monstrous Mike
Nov 12, 2003 9:12 AM | | CA is a public forum trying to be run like a private club.
They want to lure in the newbies but they do not want contrary views to the primary assertion that cables make a world of difference.
The only way to accomplish this is a public forum is to be unfair. I think CA has achieved its goal quite successfully.
Perhaps I can coin a new mantra for CA:
"Welcome. We only have one point of view here but it's one you're going to love." |
| Simple... | mtrycrafts
Nov 12, 2003 11:37 PM | | Or
"Welcome. We only have one point of view here, Ours." |
| Tony, what's your moniker on AK? | Mwalsdor_cscc_edu
Nov 15, 2003 6:24 AM | | I spend most of my audio on-line time on AK and don't recall seeing your posts, assuming as much. If you're a lurker or would rather remain in "stealth mode" that's cool.
We've talked about adding a "Cable Forum" but I've rejected it everytime it's come up.
MikE |
| I am not a member at AK. | Tony_Montana
Nov 20, 2003 1:24 PM | | Posting at AR and CA already taking too much time as it is. I certainly don't need another add to that list.
But if you add a Cable forum at AK, I may have to register  |
| |
