Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Need Clarification on TOS8
post Sep 27 2012, 02:05
Post #1

Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 4-April 11
Member No.: 89557

8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

I've read some of the linked discussion on TOS8 as well.

All of it covers objective vs subjective.

What IMHO needs clarification is the first phrase:

" All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality... "

Can a mod or admin clarify - in an official way - "put forth a statement" ?

For example, if I were to post "Joe Blow, the editor of AudiophileGuys magazine, says that the new Megabuck 9000 amplifier sounds better than any other amplifier", technically that would violate TOS8 - even though that Joe said that, is a fact that is easily substantiated by a reference to AudiophileGuys magazine web site. The statement is what someone said, not actually making a claim about audio.

Clearly, that is not the intent of TOS8. Rather it seems to me that the intent is with regards statements like "flac files always sound better than 320k MP3s" which would then need the substantiation required by TOS8.

Okay, then here is where the clarification is needed.

If I were to state in a post " In my setup, using ASIO output seems to sound better than WASAPI output. " - is that a violation of TOS8 ?

The discussion that TOS8 links to, suggests that TOS8 is designed to prevent statements of sound quality "fact" - as opposed to statements of personal observations. In other words, "ASIO always sounds better than WASAPI" is a TOS8 violation, while " In my setup, using ASIO output seems to sound better than WASAPI output " is just reporting an observation - and NOT an assertion of audio fact.

Am I correct, and is that how you would differentiate ?


This post has been edited by kstuart: Sep 27 2012, 02:12
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Start new topic
post Sep 28 2012, 19:36
Post #2

Group: Members
Posts: 1853
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383

I think we all understand what the rule is meant to say, so, if the wording is not adequate enough, maybe we can improve it.

Main target of TOS#8: Someone says there is an audible difference when none is expected.

- The subject: It doesn't really matter if the subject is the one claiming it, or just linking to someone else. The rule applies nevertheless, since it is a requirement for a claim to provide methods to be verified. Of course, if the user just links to a third party subject to start a talk about it, the subject becomes the link content creator. The user would only be explicitely asked for DBT if he uses the link as a proof and there isn't one that complies with the TOS.

- The verb: "I think", "I like", "I preffer", "I know", "I heard", "It is obvious". There is no exception to the rule, but depending on the type of claim and the context of the claim, it might not be enforced. It doesn't matter if the user just thinks it or is fully convinced about it.
Hydrogenaudio posts are expected to be objective and verifiable. Opinions, if being about something opposed to the knowledge of the forums, are just as succeptible to be TOS'ed.
(Note: preferences are not seen as violating the TOS, if a difference is expected, and the preference does not imply sounding better than the one expected to sound better).

- The object: The object is the claim, and the claim is that an audible difference exists. It does not matter how this difference is described ( it is better, it has better quality, A is poor compared to B, it misses the high spectra,... ).
Said that, it is quite important for us that the subject makes clear what the object is (there is a clear difference between saying "it is better" and "it misses the high spectra"), since that can give a clue to what the user is experiencing (beliefs, faulty software, wrong tools), and/or what is causing it to happen (EQing, clipping, faulty speakers, wrong impedance).

The wording could be seen this way:
- The "puts forth a statement" means that the person writes the sentence to make a point (i.e. to be the main topic, or being the reasoning behing the main topic).
- "subjective sound quality" is any wording that says, implicitely or explicitely that there is an audible difference between two experiences, and that one is better than the other.

So, going back to the rule's reason of existence: We want the forums to contain objective information and provide methods to differentiate between experiences that can become knowledge and experiences that are flawed.

This post has been edited by [JAZ]: Sep 28 2012, 19:45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Sep 29 2012, 11:17
Post #3

Group: Members
Posts: 2402
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207

QUOTE ([JAZ] @ Sep 28 2012, 20:36) *
- "subjective sound quality" is any wording that says, implicitely or explicitely that there is an audible difference between two experiences, and that one is better than the other.

The problem, IMHO, is that while TOS#8 captures these cases, which I think it was intended to, a statement of “subjective sound quality” is not only any phrase saying wording A sounds different to B, but also any phrase saying A sounds just as good as B, or merely any wording that says A sounds good.

“I think my hi-fi sounds pretty good” is a statement of subjective sound quality. (Would anyone deny it is?)

A claim to transparency is a claim to subjective sound quality. It is a very strong claim even with a “by and large transparent” reservation; anyone who would claim that they can quadruple your storage even over .zipping and without you noticing you were missing anything, is making a claim they might in some jurisdictions be fined for using in marketing, unless they can offer evidence for the truth value. Here we switch the burden of proof. For good reason, I might add, but there is nothing in the actual term of service that says a claim to difference and a claim to “I achieved something equally good as” should be treated different.

The easy and quick fix to the TOS#8 wording, is to put a “differences” after “quality”. It clarifies what users commit to, and it clarifies to some degree why it is there. Two improvements in one word, and ... is there anything that would go missing?

(For nitpickers who would say that no difference is just as much a difference (that would my fellow math guys I guess): deliberately putting the word there should be taken to mean that the likely interpretation is not the one where it would be redundant. Or if all else fails: “concerning” --> “of”.)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- kstuart   Need Clarification on TOS8   Sep 27 2012, 02:05
- - pdq   My unofficial response is that even a statement of...   Sep 27 2012, 10:55
|- - greynol   QUOTE (pdq @ Sep 27 2012, 02:55) Also, I ...   Sep 27 2012, 17:16
- - Canar   QUOTE (kstuart @ Sep 26 2012, 18:05) In o...   Sep 27 2012, 14:58
|- - Porcus   QUOTE (Canar @ Sep 27 2012, 15:58) Show u...   Sep 27 2012, 17:18
- - greynol   ...and it is done over and over again. You make a...   Sep 27 2012, 17:57
|- - kstuart   QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 27 2012, 09:57) Ever...   Sep 27 2012, 19:00
||- - fuflo   QUOTE (kstuart @ Sep 27 2012, 21:00) So, ...   Sep 27 2012, 19:36
|||- - Porcus   QUOTE (fuflo @ Sep 27 2012, 20:36) QUOTE ...   Sep 27 2012, 19:53
||- - greynol   QUOTE (kstuart @ Sep 27 2012, 11:00) The ...   Sep 27 2012, 20:02
|- - Porcus   QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 27 2012, 18:57) Ever...   Sep 27 2012, 19:50
|- - greynol   QUOTE (Porcus @ Sep 27 2012, 11:50) But y...   Sep 27 2012, 20:00
- - Canar   QUOTE (kstuart @ Sep 26 2012, 18:05) ...   Sep 27 2012, 22:52
|- - kstuart   QUOTE (Canar @ Sep 27 2012, 14:52) QUOTE ...   Sep 27 2012, 23:33
|- - greynol   QUOTE (kstuart @ Sep 27 2012, 15:33) User...   Sep 28 2012, 01:36
|- - Porcus   QUOTE (kstuart @ Sep 28 2012, 00:33) User...   Sep 28 2012, 07:46
|- - skamp   QUOTE (kstuart @ Sep 28 2012, 00:33) User...   Sep 28 2012, 09:56
- - [JAZ]   I think we all understand what the rule is meant t...   Sep 28 2012, 19:36
|- - Porcus   QUOTE ([JAZ] @ Sep 28 2012, 20:36...   Sep 29 2012, 11:17
|- - kstuart   No matter what word you use, people divide themsel...   Nov 8 2012, 19:05
- - greynol   As far as forum policy is concerned this is nonsen...   Nov 8 2012, 19:16
- - Garf   The idea of TOS8 is to make a simplified explanati...   Nov 12 2012, 21:28
|- - kstuart   QUOTE (Garf @ Nov 12 2012, 13:28) The phi...   Nov 12 2012, 22:19
|- - Porcus   QUOTE (kstuart @ Nov 12 2012, 23:19) Huma...   Nov 12 2012, 22:59
|- - Garf   QUOTE (kstuart @ Nov 12 2012, 22:19) QUOT...   Nov 12 2012, 23:05
- - Wyld Stallyn   I would like to ask something regarding TOS8 too. ...   Apr 4 2013, 15:01
- - 2Bdecided   Some audible differences are invisible, some inaud...   Apr 4 2013, 15:25
|- - dhromed   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Apr 4 2013, 16:25) Som...   Apr 5 2013, 09:14
- - Wyld Stallyn   My OpenOffice copy isn't able to open the prov...   Apr 4 2013, 15:46
|- - Porcus   I really don't understand what you are saying ...   Apr 4 2013, 16:02
- - Wyld Stallyn   This may seem a bit dumb, but I actually didn...   Apr 4 2013, 16:30
- - greynol   We don't hear with our eyes. /enddiscussion   Apr 4 2013, 16:32
|- - Wyld Stallyn   QUOTE (greynol @ Apr 4 2013, 17:32) We do...   Apr 4 2013, 16:46
|- - greynol   QUOTE (Wyld Stallyn @ Apr 4 2013, 08:46) ...   Apr 4 2013, 18:01
|- - Wyld Stallyn   QUOTE (greynol @ Apr 4 2013, 19:01) QUOTE...   Apr 4 2013, 18:54
- - 2Bdecided   First read and understand this... http://en.wikipe...   Apr 4 2013, 16:43
- - pdq   My interpretation of TOS #8 is this: If a claim i...   Apr 4 2013, 18:03
- - greynol   It has been sufficiently well laid out in countles...   Apr 4 2013, 19:03
- - Mach-X   I myself have wondered how this applies to stateme...   Apr 6 2013, 01:25
- - Mach-X   Otoh, tos8 is fairly simple. Even established fact...   Apr 6 2013, 01:32

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th November 2015 - 13:42