EDIT
This thread is splitted from the MPC really all it's cracked up to be?, I just don't see it yet... thread.
/EDIT
__________________________________________________________

I can vividly remember the time around here when it was stated MATTER-OF-FACTLY that there were only two known problem samples for MPC and that the problem in them was "darn subtle".

I wonder...
Just how close did we come to causing THIS poster to permenantly bail out on this forum, as so many OTHER posters expressing similar concerns have done over the years?

This sentiment has been repeated TIME and TIME again - "people come on here and make claims but when we demand that they provide samples and ABX results, they just... disappeared".

The implication of statements such as these is clear - these people were JUST trolling.

Did they, in fact, ACTUALLY HEAR these soundstage and high frequency issues and fail to see the POINT in wasting their time ABXing something they KNEW was there, only to prove something to people who have INSULTED them?

And if someone hears problems with the MAJORITY of the encodings they have made what sense does it make to ask them to provide a SAMPLE?

Was it easier for them to just LEAVE?

layer3maniac - In all seriousness, that is the most thought provoking post I have read all day....

You may be right about people coming here hearing real problems, and going away without minding providing blind tests results. But have you forgotten all the command lines proposed for Lame at r3mix.net and here ?
I'm not a specialist, but I've seen many times Tangent pointing huge flaws in them, especially options that canceled each other because of the order in which they were written, or that had simply no effect at all because of their combination with the rest of the line.
That's why the blind test requirement was setup as a rule : time. We don't have the time to check anyone's claim, and we don't even bother to when they come with command lines full of settings that are ignored by the encoder anyway. So we asked people to help, by doing themselves the first listening part.

None should have been insulted, and there might have been a little abuse of rule 8 (you are likely to be receive harsh responses to your posts. The HydrogenAudio staff will not take action against any users which may post these responses.).
This rule is good in order to let people know what awaits them, but we should also have rule 2 strictly respected (You must converse in an appropriate way to be allowed to participate). Saying that no actions will be taken doesn't allow people to violate other rules.

Coming and claiming to hear something wrong in a recommended setting without providing test results is not trolling, it's just violating rule 8.
It become trolling when, asked to provide results, people answer that there is no need for testing, or that ABX is not a way of conducting listening tests, you must listen with your ears and not with a software ! This is trolling.
(I'm not talking about you Xerophase)

This kind of attitude can't help improve lossy codecs. We can't draw conclusions nor built any constructive work based on it.
What could we have done ? Listen to the people saying that lowpass should be removed, or to the people saying that we should resample anything to 22 kHz ? We can't go in two opposite directions at once !

We have in this thread a good example of constructive work, from which we can start serious discussions.

Agreed, and IMO Xerophase deserves a sincere "thank you" for sticking around, doing blind testing, and providing the samples -- that helps all of us, and is a worthy contribution to the Internet audio coding community (not just HA, but everyone).

Is it trolling or just a difference of opinion?

What many fail to realize is this - when you demand someone provide samples and ABX test results you have questioned their credibility.

The fact that anyone can LIE about what their test results were may very well lead some to believe that performing such tests can do NOTHING to enhance their credibility.

And, as I said before, if they hear a problem with the MAJORITY of encodings, what sense is there in asking them to provide a sample?

They can logically conclude that the very SAME people who are "licensed" to be abusive will not be ABLE to ABX any samples they provide, and use this as "PROOF" that they are trolling... and abuse them even FURTHER.

At this point, it has become a no-win situation for them, so why stick around and suffer abuse?

This is something that has bothered me for YEARS now, ever since I was in this boat myself.

Yes, two known problem samples. That doesn't mean there weren't more, it means that only two were known about. In the face of a complete lack of evidence, suspicious behavior, and an unwillingness to cooperate with the other members of the forum in helping to validate possible issues, it is a good argument for the likelyhood of certain claims being false.



Yeah... I wonder..... so?

If you think that just because one poster may have validated his claims that it's likely that all the other claims were valid also, you're wrong.



For good reason. The sentiment exists because issues such as these cannot be taken lightly at a forum like this. If we simply let people go around making claims without challenging them, we would be no further than the --r3mix days, and likely much worse even given the larger number of people that participate in these forums.

You seem to focus only on the negative aspect here (I think I know why....) and completely disregard the benefit that has been wrought by this attitude. Yes, some people might get scared off in the process, but overall, this attitude is more helpful than harmful -- much more so in fact. There have been numerous cases were real problems have been even more emphasized and brought to bear through the increased scrutiny these types of situations bring about.



Maybe, but probably not. Most of the people who have left, never to return, left on good terms, promising to provide some sort of usable results. It would be different if they left on completely hostile terms, but this doesn't happen often. Furthermore, even if they did hear something, it doesn't matter. Why? Because without verifiable results, it's useless to the developers trying to pinpoint the problem. They need samples, or at least something more substantial than vague claims. Either way, without going through the typical process here at HA, nothing useful comes out of the situation. Furthermore, if these people would spend time following the rules, then they wouldn't be insulted. In fact, by not following the rules, they are insulting the current regulars of the forum. By not paying attention to the rules they are completely disrespecting and ignoring everything this forum has been built upon, and that is far worse than someone asking for a little bit of validation of claims.



There are a few problems with this. One, the majority of samples a person might hear problems with still may only represent a very small fraction of all possible music/audio types that exist. A sample is needed to narrow the field down as far as discussion between one person to another. Secondly, it makes the jobs of the developers much easier. Most of these people don't have time to go on wild goose chases, listening to vague and suspect claims and spending hours trying to fix something that may not be a problem at all. If there are samples where a problem is more noticeable than others (and it follows that there are by the fact that not all samples have problems at all and that different people are occassionally able to hear different problems in samples in comparison with eachother), then the developers should be pointed in this direction.



Certainly. It still doesn't mean that they were right though. There's a much higher probability of these people not hearing anything than actually hearing something, and again, if they did hear something and were unwilling to cooperate, then it doesn't do us any good anyway.

I think you and PIO both have valid points. The time factor matters, but how do you propose changing people's attitudes here on HA?

I just stick by my original opinion that a "front page" is badly needed for HA at this point, and that I think it would help. A lot can be explained on a static, simply designed webpage that isn't evident on a forum that suddenly pops up out of nowhere (to the newcomer). What it does is open up possibilities for a very positive "first impression" (any psychologist would say that's the most important) gently informing the newcomer of how things work around HA.

Failing to follow the rules of a community which have been laid out with reason and which have proven beneficial, for no reason other than simply "not wanting to" because it's "too much trouble", certainly qualifies as trolling. It shows a lack of respect on all counts and serves no purpose to the community as a whole.



So? This happens in the scientific community all the time. It's a tried and true method and it works. If people can't handle this process without taking something personally, when it's not a personal matter at all, then they have some sort of problem and perhaps they shouldn't be participating in a forum environment in the first place.



These seems like flawed logic to me -- a simple way for someone to justify not doing the tests in the first place. If they have trust issues on this level (bordering on paranoia), then again, perhaps they shouldn't be at a forum like this.



Read my previous post. It makes everyone elses job easier. What makes the person reporting the problem so special that they should expect everyone else to simply believe them and that the developers should go out of their way to track down vague reports of problems which are likely already beyond their detection (if the problems are even real)? It is disrespectful to waste everyones time by not helping out in this manner. It is also arrogant. If they aren't here to help improve things in the first place (if they have no interest in progress), then what is the use in these people reporting the issue at all?



Bullshit. Flawed logic again, and an easy justification for someone who has already decided not to bother with this process. This has also never happened in this community once (at least that I know of). Every single time someone has bothered to actually comply with the process, most people have thanked them or that has been pleasentness from that point forward and progress has been made.



And we further the slippery slope..

This simply doesn't happen, though it certainly is convenient justification.



Clearly.

Dibrom, in my opinion the rules are just not very accessible to newcomers that aren't totally familiar with chat forums and/or aren't as computer literate as the average person here. I suspect many a newcomer never reads the rules, because he/she doesn't know where they are, or that they even exist.

As an experiment, try popping up the front page, and look for the term "rules" or "guidelines for this forum," or "BEFORE YOU POST..." something like that.

Sure.

But this cannot be the case when a person continues to break the rules once they have already been pointed out to them quite explicitly in one of the threads they are participating in.

And as a side note, I'm going to make it very clear right now, before a flamewar breaks out, that this discussion has been covered many times already. Things have been getting rather bad at HA lately with the way some people have been acting, and I will not hesitate to use the ban function if things get out of hand. Sorry if someone doesn't like that (I'm sure someone will bitch at me over this, as usual), but that's just the way it is.

Which people? If you're referring to me, then please be honest and say so, as I value honesty and personal integrity very highly. In my opinion, it's the least you can do to be direct and say who it is that has been "acting up."

No, I'm not referring to you. I'm not referring to anyone specifically (and I don't have the time or inclination to lay out detailed examples) other than those who have been starting flamewars or causing trouble or those who might do so presently.

But that's just it, YOU DO. Go back and read page one of this thread where this statement was made:

"MPC is transparent (indistinguishable from original) with quality-settings >= 5."

You skipped right over this preposterous claim and instead demanded the OP prove his claim.

Sigh...

First of all, I am not the magically infinite admin with boundless energy and time, etc, etc. I don't have time to respond to every.. single.. statement made by everyone on this board. I also don't have time to make sure everything is qualified to the absolute highest degree. If you want to nitpick that much, then I fear you'll never be satisfied with a community like this.

The claim about MPC standard being transparent is much more often true (and demonstratably so) than the claim which was made by the person starting this thread.

The claim made here went against previous experience in many regards and was made by someone who had no background here and which did not adhere to our rules or testing procedures. It'd made sense to question this person over the person making the statement you quoted.

Finally, I will state only state once that I WILL NOT get into this same old discussion with you again, layer3maniac. If you continue this line of discussion (which is going along in the same vein as countless other times), I will be taking administrative action. I am not going to waste my time on this like I have in the past. I might have been more patient then, but that time is over. I very sincerely suggest that you do not push me on this issue.

What you are ignoring is this:
You say that you require people to PROVE their claims by posting their ABX results and a sample.

Because anyone can lie about their ABX results this proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. And if they hear a problem which exists in the majority of encodings, what's the point in providing "a" sample?

There is proof ONLY when OTHER people can confirm the problem.

People are sensitive to hearing two DIFFERENT types of problems in encoded music.

Personally, I'm virtually IMMUNE to pre-echo. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and isn't a problem for OTHERS.

If someone DOES hear artifact type problems - pre-echo, post-echo, smearing, etc, they have NO PROBLEM providing samples which highlight this problem and "training" OTHERS to ABX it, thereby proving their claims.

But if someone hears soundstage type problems, it affects MOST of their encodings in a negative way. How are they to "pick" a sample? They CAN'T. So they report it and do what must be done ANYWAY - ask OTHERS to try to verify it.

The OP didn't "expect everyone else to simply believe him", and neither did I.

Apparently you didn't see the last part of my previous post.

This is your last warning.

Ban me??? For what??? What rule have I violated here?

Hey, it's your forum. I thought you genuinly CARED about improving the quality of these codecs. My mistake.

Ban AWAY!

If your response is in relation to pushing Xenophase out of the community by being abrasive to him [size=small](as opposed to the many other users/trolls), you come off as very uncaring Dibrom.

If that wasn't your intended meaning I apologize

This discussion doesn't seem to me worth continuing along these lines -- it isn't Dibrom or anyone in particular that's the focus here (IMO) but all members who participate in these discussions, and their attitudes when a newcomer shows up (perhaps thinking they know a whole lot more than they do). It doesn't seem to me that the attitudes of multiple forum members are really in anyone's control, and neither the way people react to newcomers (nor the newcomers themselves, and their various approaches).

I still like the idea of finding *some* way to ease a newcomer into HA instead of dropping a big load of "loud" on their ignorance of the rules... I think it's going to be very important in the future to the smooth running of the board. It's just my opinion though.

Peace, all... imo forums like this are meant to be enjoyed above all -- it's not a life or death matter.

sure, but you still can't dash in with opinions and bring test evaluations from improperlly done tests. That's the thing - just there.
It's just a method of doing things, and that must be respected.

Relating to that and your earlier post Fewtch, a static page of information for newbies and anyone with questions seems more and more appealing

I even tried a basic design to tie in with the forums, but I really don't class myself as qualified to make websites

For wasting the time of the admins and mods, for causing flamewars, etc, and for doing this for literally years. You have wasted countless hours of my time and the time of the other people working to maintain this board. You have been given many, many chances, and I have even personally forgiven you for some quite offensive things you have called me in your fits of rage. I'm done with all of that. My patience is not limitless, and it's time to move on.



I do, but apparently you don't. The philosophy you have been supporting here goes very much against what is useful to the people who have been improving things. Banning you will have no detrimental effect towards the quality of any of the codecs discussed on these forums.

And you implying that I don't care after all that I have done for this community is pretty laughable. I guess this is yet another sign of disrespect and arrogance on your part towards the people putting forth a genuine effort far greater than anything you seem to be doing. Oh well.



Your choice. I warned you twice just on this issue alone, and countless times before.

Yes, I agree -- and I submit that many newcomers aren't cogent of that fact. In a lot of forums I've run into (with lower standards than this one) it *is* OK to just spout off with opinions and incoherent tests -- nobody objects, and sometimes it's even welcomed. I think the HA standards need to be more accessible to people first signing up, so this issue doesn't continue to dog the forum. Fwiw, my 2c and the usual disclaimers.

Peace...

Would you like to be next?

Once more, for clarification, I'm going to state that we are clamping down on these kind of flamewars. I suggest that people tread lightly in their bitching and creation of time sink arguments for how forum policy is handled, etc.

If you want to offer a suggestion or two about how things are handled, fine. If you're going to endlessly nitpick about how things are run (when the current system works, and is fair), troll and harrass the mods/admins, and just waste their time in general, then don't expect to be taken lightly.

Some sort of a front page needed, defo -- newbies arrive from search engines, and if engrossed enough in the thread, join and post. I didnt read the Rules for a long time after I had joined.

Maybe have 'Newbie' Groups; when people join, they are automatically at 'Member'. People in the 'Newbie' Groups have a unignorable flash screen when they try to post saying (but a lot longer than this)

A ) YOU MUST MAKE SURE THIS IS THE CORRECT FORUM TO POST IN

B ) HA FORUM RULES : .....

ARE YOU SURE YOU STILL WANT TO POST?


So, kind of what they have at Afterdawn, really.

It wouldn't be too much effort for the moderators to promote the appropriate 'Newbies' to 'Members'.

This topic is closed. If someone wants to start a new thread, feel free, but make sure that it stays civil and reasonable, and definitely heed my warnings on this matter.

That can't be a problem..
The rules (ToS) have been there for a long time when you register..
(Logout and click register )

Granted, I'm sure not many people read those, but at least you can't say they don't know the rules exist.. You should also see a link to the Forum Rules on top of this thread..

But yeah, I think it's time still to do something about this rule-situation.