The Head-Fi Healing Thread

..which makes it all the more disconcerting that KG posts on Head-Fi as himself. I lost track of the niceties of the frosty Cold War era style relations between HF and other headphone sites a while ago (despite lurking on a few for a while).

 

OJ, I thought you were a defender of free speech and Democracy? What happened?

 

That explains the old group photo floating about here, then!

 

Haha, no worries. I just wanted to understand.
A lot has changed in two years, I now know a lot more and think for myself sometimes.. My point wasn't about the amps, it was more about the fact that you have to remember that on head-fi anything damaging to a sponsor will be removed/edited. Like Marv said if you can substantiate something here, people can hear you.
Head-fi unfortunately is a forum where I can't show internal pictures of products because it might affect sales...

FWIW: I had no problem with the cavalli LaU I had for a few months.

 

@Marvey

Actually this is an important point. For instance on StackExchange 'dislikes' (or 'downvotes') should be accompanied with an explanation to the dislikee of what triggered the 'dislike'. In other words, unexplained 'dislikes' can bring confusion and breed (unnecessary) resentment, which is why some explanation is in order.
Many times Friends will trigger a dislike and will post a short a explanation on what the Rando should have done differently, but not always. Personally I find it good civics to give even a terse explanation, and I think SBAF would be a better place if this behavior would be encouraged...

 

that's the great thing about SBAF, they don't censor shoddy workmanship like the recent hifiman BS.

 

Unless, of course, you don't defer to established members of SBAF. Then you get banned.

 

I think it depends upon how you disagree- sensibly with useful substantiation, or pugnaciously like some sort of unpleasant gobshite. Both tone and content matter. Don't stroll into the dive bar and start wiping your arse on the furniture- lurking a bit and working out the dynamic is less likely to anger the funny-looking locals.

 

Tone and content matter unless you're agreeing with the hivemind and shitting on someone who disagrees. Then you get likes on top of likes

 

I think banning a certain someone for saying that he wouldn't "defer" to anyone a little too hard to swallow...

 

This is just an observation from an "outsider" who has no horse in the race or a personal beef with any of the players at SBAF, HF etc. It feels to me like some of the posts from the "senior" members here demonstrate a bit of a Napolean complex at times. As another poster put it, it's like a "big brother / little brother" type of dynamic.

From Wikipedia: ""Napoleon complex" is a term describing a theorized condition occurring in people of short stature. It is characterized by overly-aggressive or domineering social behavior, and carries the implication that such behaviour is compensatory for the subject's stature"

SBAF is smaller but better. It's all about the girth anyway. Seriously though, I don't think you need to point out how shitty HF is or otherwise be so suspicious of people who don't automatically defer to your authority. Your frame of reference is obviously way different than mine... no doubt some of you have legitimate personal beefs with HF and it's leadership but your audience is broadening and you may turn off some otherwise good members with the knee jerk responses. That's all I have to say about that... and you have every right to tell me that if I don't like it I can leave. Problem is, I do like it .

 

Damn, the banhammer's getting used a lot...