[David E. Bath]

I like to welcome Dan Ritter as the new RAHE Moderator. Dan offered to
help moderate back when I returned from vacation in May and is now an
active moderator. He has already begun processing posts as of
Wednesday.

I let Dan introduce himself and hopefully he tell us why he's an RAHE
reader and a little about his audio exploits.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[[email protected]]

On 2008-07-12, David E. Bath wrote:
I like to welcome Dan Ritter as the new RAHE Moderator. Dan offered to
help moderate back when I returned from vacation in May and is now an
active moderator. He has already begun processing posts as of
Wednesday.

I let Dan introduce himself and hopefully he tell us why he's an RAHE
reader and a little about his audio exploits.

Hello, everyone.

I've been reading RAHE since 1993, and I've been a Usenet news
administrator on-and-off for much of my career, so it seemed useful to
volunteer when David sent out his call.

I'm not sure I have any audio exploits as such. I like a wide variety of
music, ranging from early polyphony, classical guitar and Bach, through
modern rock. I'm as likely to go to the Boston Early Music Festival
as I am to see a Styx concert. I like the sound of speakers from the
companies that have used the Canadian NRC facilities. It's true that I
worked at BBN for four years, but not in anything related to acoustics.

I enjoy reading about psychoacoustic models, experiences with live
music and the recording and reproduction of same, and equipment I can't
justify buying.

-dsr-

[JimC]

wrote:

On 2008-07-12, David E. Bath wrote:

I like to welcome Dan Ritter as the new RAHE Moderator. Dan offered to
help moderate back when I returned from vacation in May and is now an
active moderator. He has already begun processing posts as of
Wednesday.

I let Dan introduce himself and hopefully he tell us why he's an RAHE
reader and a little about his audio exploits.


Hello, everyone.

I've been reading RAHE since 1993, and I've been a Usenet news
administrator on-and-off for much of my career, so it seemed useful to
volunteer when David sent out his call.

I'm not sure I have any audio exploits as such. I like a wide variety of
music, ranging from early polyphony, classical guitar and Bach, through
modern rock. I'm as likely to go to the Boston Early Music Festival
as I am to see a Styx concert. I like the sound of speakers from the
companies that have used the Canadian NRC facilities. It's true that I
worked at BBN for four years, but not in anything related to acoustics.

I enjoy reading about psychoacoustic models, experiences with live
music and the recording and reproduction of same, and equipment I can't
justify buying.

-dsr-

Dan,

Thanks for accepting the moderator duties. - I suspect this is a
thankless position, but it has kept the ng on a relatively positive
course in which (usually) substantive discussions can take place. And in
which one can get a substantive answer to an audio-related question
instead of a personal attack, or endless, off-topic discussions as on rao.

[ Moderator's note: Just to be clear, both Dan and I (David) are full time
moderators. --deb ]

I have a suggestion. - A downside to a moderated ng is that the delay
for approvals tends to slow down the discussion and make it less
spontaneous. This "drag" on the discussion might be minimized if we had
something like an "approved membership" list, consisting of those
participants who regularly post to the ng and who generally observe the
posting rules. The list could initially comprise those who have posted
for the last several months or so, who know the rules and generally
don't cause issues with the moderator. Notes from those on the
"approved membership" list would be posted automatically unless or until
they began to take advantage of the situation and deviate from the
posting rules. OTOH, notes from participants not on the "approved
membership" list would continue to be reviewed by the moderators as
usual. If their posts proved to be within the rules/regulations for a
period of time, they could then be placed on the "approved membership"
list also, perhaps on a conditional or "subject to approval" basis at
first. Spot checks, or consideration by the moderator of any member
complaints about a particular post could also be considered. If
acceptance of posts from participants on the approved list could be
automated, this might tend to reduce your work load and those of the
other moderators, since you would normally not have to spend time
evaluating their notes.

I believe this "light moderated" approach has been previously discussed,
but perhaps others will have further suggestions that would make it
work. - In any event, thanks again for assuming the moderator duties.

Jim Cate

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
JimC writes:
Dan,

Thanks for accepting the moderator duties. - I suspect this is a
thankless position, but it has kept the ng on a relatively positive
course in which (usually) substantive discussions can take place. And in
which one can get a substantive answer to an audio-related question
instead of a personal attack, or endless, off-topic discussions as on rao.

[ Moderator's note: Just to be clear, both Dan and I (David) are full time
moderators. --deb ]

I have a suggestion. - A downside to a moderated ng is that the delay
for approvals tends to slow down the discussion and make it less
spontaneous. This "drag" on the discussion might be minimized if we had
something like an "approved membership" list, consisting of those
participants who regularly post to the ng and who generally observe the
posting rules. The list could initially comprise those who have posted
for the last several months or so, who know the rules and generally
don't cause issues with the moderator. Notes from those on the
"approved membership" list would be posted automatically unless or until
they began to take advantage of the situation and deviate from the
posting rules. OTOH, notes from participants not on the "approved
membership" list would continue to be reviewed by the moderators as
usual. If their posts proved to be within the rules/regulations for a
period of time, they could then be placed on the "approved membership"
list also, perhaps on a conditional or "subject to approval" basis at
first. Spot checks, or consideration by the moderator of any member
complaints about a particular post could also be considered. If
acceptance of posts from participants on the approved list could be
automated, this might tend to reduce your work load and those of the
other moderators, since you would normally not have to spend time
evaluating their notes.

I believe this "light moderated" approach has been previously discussed,
but perhaps others will have further suggestions that would make it
work. - In any event, thanks again for assuming the moderator duties.

There was an effort to create a new newsgroup called
rec.audio.moderated (RAM). It was to operate almost exactly as you
describe above. It never made it to a vote since they could not get an
agreement on the rules.

In order to do something like this, new moderation software would have
to be created or acquired as the current software won't easily support
a white-list type of moderation. Plus I am concerned that there are
those out there who aren't fond of RAHE would might make an effort to
scam the 'bot and post things outside the guidelines just for spite.

But I am interested in the groups opinion of this discussion.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[Frank Traut]

Welcome Dan!

Hope you will filter out ALL of the posts
regarding iPods, computer audio, $100 Sony tuners
BOSE systems, Coat Hangers and anything else NOT
related to a high-end audio forum.

Haven't read a real high-end audio post in quite
some time. Isn't there just a rec.audio group?
The majority of naysayers deafened by 16-bit
digital all these years and prefer to rationalise
their cheapness/laziness should subscribe to that
group, wherein they can preach to their very own
choir all_day_long :-)

-Frank

[bob]

On Jul 17, 5:49*am, (David E. Bath) wrote:
In article ,



*JimC writes:
Dan,

Thanks for accepting the moderator duties. - I suspect this is a
thankless position, but it has kept the ng on a relatively positive
course in which (usually) substantive discussions can take place. And in
which one can get a substantive answer to an audio-related question
instead of a personal attack, or endless, off-topic discussions as on *rao.

[ Moderator's note: Just to be clear, both Dan and I (David) are full time
moderators. --deb ]

I have a suggestion. - A downside to a moderated ng is that the delay
for approvals tends to slow down the discussion and make it less
spontaneous. This "drag" on the discussion might be minimized if we had
something like an "approved membership" list, consisting of those
participants who regularly post to the ng and who generally observe the
posting rules. The list could initially comprise those who have posted
for the last several months or so, who know the rules and generally
don't cause issues with the moderator. *Notes from those on the
"approved membership" list would be posted automatically unless or until
they began to take advantage of the situation and deviate from the
posting rules. OTOH, notes from participants not on the "approved
membership" list would continue to be reviewed by the moderators as
usual. *If their posts proved to be within the rules/regulations for a
period of time, they could then be placed on the "approved membership"
list also, perhaps on a conditional or "subject to approval" basis at
first. Spot checks, or consideration by the moderator of any member
complaints about a particular post could also be considered. If
acceptance of posts from participants on the approved list could be
automated, this might tend to reduce your work load and those of the
other moderators, since you would normally not have to spend time
evaluating their notes.

I believe this "light moderated" approach has been previously discussed,
but perhaps others will have further suggestions that would make it
work. - In any event, thanks again for assuming the moderator duties.

There was an effort to create a new newsgroup called
rec.audio.moderated (RAM). It was to operate almost exactly as you
describe above. It never made it to a vote since they could not get an
agreement on the rules.

In order to do something like this, new moderation software would have
to be created or acquired as the current software won't easily support
a white-list type of moderation. Plus I am concerned that there are
those out there who aren't fond of RAHE would might make an effort to
scam the 'bot and post things outside the guidelines just for spite.

But I am interested in the groups opinion of this discussion.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

I would have two concerns about this approach:

1) The "white-list" would probably exclude a number of regulars
(certainly me) who occasionally lapse into, shall we say, non-
productive comments. I don't mind being moderated, and I'd rather
everyone were.

2) It would create sort of a two-tiered discussion, where one group of
posters would be carrying on a real-time discussion, while a second
group would be chiming in belatedly, responding to messages from 24
hours prior.

bob

[Steven Sullivan]

Frank Traut wrote:
Welcome Dan!

Hope you will filter out ALL of the posts
regarding iPods, computer audio, $100 Sony tuners
BOSE systems, Coat Hangers and anything else NOT
related to a high-end audio forum.


This is rather a mixed bag. An iPod can be 'high end audio'
hardware on its technical merits (as noted by Stereophile).

And wire coat hangers can make technically excellent interconnects.;

Haven't read a real high-end audio post in quite
some time. Isn't there just a rec.audio group?
The majority of naysayers deafened by 16-bit
digital all these years and prefer to rationalise
their cheapness/laziness should subscribe to that
group, wherein they can preach to their very own
choir all_day_long :-)

One could be deafened by 16-bit -- but one is more likely
to be deafened by 24-bit, which offers even more dynamic range.

This is assuming, of course, that one one was in the habit
of recording and listening to rocket lauches, close-proximity gunfire,
jet engines, and the like.




--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[jwvm]

On Jul 17, 5:53*am, Frank Traut wrote:
Welcome Dan!

* Hope you will filter out ALL of the posts
regarding iPods, computer audio, $100 Sony tuners
BOSE systems, Coat Hangers and anything else NOT
related to a high-end audio forum.


So it is not possible for audio gear by certain manufacturers to meet
high-end standards? Please provide guidelines for identifying the high-
end manufacturers. Apparently, it is also not valid for posters to
state that certain requirements for cables are so minimal that coat
hangers would suffice.

Haven't read a real high-end audio post in quite
some time. Isn't there just a rec.audio group?
The majority of naysayers deafened by 16-bit
digital all these years and prefer to rationalise
their cheapness/laziness should subscribe to that
group, wherein they can preach to their very own
choir all_day_long * :-)

It appears that guide lines are also needed to set minimum prices for
equipment to qualify as high-end gear. In this rationale, the sound,
measurements and unbiased test results provided by a system are not
actually what qualifies it as high end. Rather, price and manufacturer
are what needs to be considered and the standard CD format never can
sound good by definition.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:53:09 -0700, Frank Traut wrote
(in article ):

Welcome Dan!

Hope you will filter out ALL of the posts
regarding iPods, computer audio, $100 Sony tuners
BOSE systems, Coat Hangers and anything else NOT
related to a high-end audio forum.

Haven't read a real high-end audio post in quite
some time. Isn't there just a rec.audio group?
The majority of naysayers deafened by 16-bit
digital all these years and prefer to rationalise
their cheapness/laziness should subscribe to that
group, wherein they can preach to their very own
choir all_day_long :-)

-Frank


So now you're the arbiter about what constitutes suitable content for this
group. In the contexts in which they were given, both coat-hangers and $100
Sony tuners were very germane to these conversations.

[[email protected]]

On 2008-07-17, Frank Traut wrote:
Welcome Dan!

Hope you will filter out ALL of the posts
regarding iPods, computer audio, $100 Sony tuners
BOSE systems, Coat Hangers and anything else NOT
related to a high-end audio forum.

I'll be following the guidelines as stated. I'm sure David will keep me
on the straight and narrow.

Haven't read a real high-end audio post in quite
some time. Isn't there just a rec.audio group?

The best way to ensure a supply of interesting conversations about
high-end audio is to start one. What gets you excited?

-dsr-

[Steven Sullivan]

jwvm wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:53*am, Frank Traut wrote:
Welcome Dan!

* Hope you will filter out ALL of the posts
regarding iPods, computer audio, $100 Sony tuners
BOSE systems, Coat Hangers and anything else NOT
related to a high-end audio forum.


So it is not possible for audio gear by certain manufacturers to meet
high-end standards? Please provide guidelines for identifying the high-
end manufacturers. Apparently, it is also not valid for posters to
state that certain requirements for cables are so minimal that coat
hangers would suffice.

Haven't read a real high-end audio post in quite
some time. Isn't there just a rec.audio group?
The majority of naysayers deafened by 16-bit
digital all these years and prefer to rationalise
their cheapness/laziness should subscribe to that
group, wherein they can preach to their very own
choir all_day_long * :-)

It appears that guide lines are also needed to set minimum prices for
equipment to qualify as high-end gear. In this rationale, the sound,
measurements and unbiased test results provided by a system are not
actually what qualifies it as high end. Rather, price and manufacturer
are what needs to be considered and the standard CD format never can
sound good by definition.

from the RAHE guidelines:

//

2.0 -- Definition of High-End Audio

The working definition of 'high-end audio' under which this
newsgroup operates is

a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is
to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or

b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical
realization of the emotional experience commonly called music;
or

c) any relevant issues related to the use, design or theory about
a) or b).

Price is generally not significant in determining whether or not a
given component may be considered 'high-end'.


//



--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)