Hey guys and gals. This week, I thought it'd be fun to just talk about something that was brought up over at the Audiophile Style forums in this thread "Who or What Is An Audiophool?". Seeing that there were a number of comments already, I figured why not jump in over the past week and engage?
Doing this brought back memories of the early 2010's when I would spend more time on the forums to chat with fellow audiophiles. As you can imagine, over time with work, family life, having fewer questions to ask as I progressed through the hobby, and turning to writing articles here, my time on the forums have significantly been reduced. I'll still pop in once awhile but not like in the early 2010's to read and participate.
So this past week, as you can see from Page 6 of the thread onwards, it was fun to get back into the weeds a bit and liberally engage. Over many pages, we got into quite a few topics including ideas around blind testing, importance (or not depending on whose opinion) of objective measurements, anecdotes, human behaviors, the role reviewers play in the Industry, examples of bizarre pseudo-science, why we enjoy audio as a hobby, JG Holt's interview from 2007, personal values, anti-vaxxers, agreeing to disagree, ASR, website traffic numbers, quotes from Richard Feynman, what is knowledge, etc.
Like with many threads, through the arc of the discussions, emotions can get heated especially with "objectivism vs. subjectivism" type debates (an enduring one over the decades). While I doubt there will be any imminent resolution around these matters, I trust the outcome wasn't too disastrous by Page 25 when I signed off. π Have a look there if interested in some reasonably civil discussions that covered a lot of ground. This could be one of many "interesting" examples I think for those starting the hobby and maybe wondering how things often go in forums when guys (mostly, I don't know how many ladies bother) disagree! π
I appreciate Chris Connaker's hosting, and the denizens on Audiophile Style for the opportunity to exchange ideas.
Regarding that question in the title, for me, I use the word "audiophool" rarely because it's obviously pejorative towards the hobbyist. I'd rather call out the questionable audiophile companies, reviewers, or representatives that peddle and advertise snake oil who are a big part of the root cause of confusion and misinformation in this hobby.
In searching this blog, the first time I used the word was back in 2015 regarding this silly Sony 64GB "Premium Sound" SD card. There was no evidence given that such a product would make anything audibly better as music storage and I think it would be rather foolish for audiophiles to get excited about such a thing!
Nobody wants to be judged. Nobody wants to feel that they're being bullied or "made" to feel bad or somehow forced to comply with the thoughts of others - especially those no-fun-objectivists, right? ☹️ However, even if we point blame at companies and spokesmen for promoting foolish thoughts, I think it would be incorrect to say that there are absolutely no foolish audiophiles who get wrapped up in - sometimes repeatedly - buying products from deceptive companies, or stubbornly hold on to unwise thinking.
When it comes to snake oil companies and practices, the old proverb "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" is applicable as we have responsibilities also to take blame when we allow ourselves to be taken advantage of.
Let's look in the Merriam-Webster dictionary at the word "fool". These 2 definitions I think best fit what we're talking about:
1: a person lacking in judgment or prudence
Only a fool would ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet.3a: a person lacking in common powers of understanding or reason
A fool is one who makes bad judgments, showing poor reasoning abilities. An important distinction I think is that a fool is not just a naΓ―ve person characterized by innocence or lack of knowledge. The fool actually may possess knowledge but perhaps chooses to disregard it, may be too stubborn to accept it, or maybe just doesn't learn from mistakes (including the mistakes and advice of others). In this way, there is a connotation of arrogance in the character that could deliberately lead to self-detriment.
My hope is that audiophiles as a matter of principle reject the obvious bizarre foolishness (like this Machina Dynamica stuff). We can also discern wisdom and recognize that there can be both knowledgeable and silly sides to people (like the oddities of Danny Richie's beliefs at GR Research). Furthermore, just because one might talk in number, let's not forget that this too can go too far such as with Chord and Rob Watts' extreme claims about digital filtering.
Ultimately, as consumers, I think one can avoid buying foolish products and looking foolish if we can seriously consider two obvious but important points:
1. Does the product do what is advertised?
At its heart, this is what differentiates true "snake oil" from worthwhile products. Beyond what the salesman said, do we actually believe, better yet, have evidence that this does the job as intended? Hopefully we know enough about the topic to discern the likelihood of benefit as a start and then can ask around to see if evidence exists and what others say and show.
I've often found it fascinating how much push-back there is to testing audio products. For example, some people don't believe that measurements matter (I disagree of course, within the degree of audible benefit). Others for some reason have an aversion to blind listening tests even though they'd probably agree that an audiophile should "trust your ears" rather than use our eyes. Obviously there is an Industry bias that we use our eyes to sell expensive, nice look products with cool brand names. Advertising literally is about creating desire using human psychology which is what we're trying to control when the person is blinded to assess claims of significant audibility.
2. Is there value in the asking price?
While the "High End" Industry seems to portray their buyers as individuals with unending financial resources, ready to drop $100k into this speaker, or $50k into that DAC without deep consideration, this is presumably not the price range most of us are wanting to participate in - even if one is a multi-millionaire! Nothing wrong of course with a company desiring to target their products for the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous and appetites for what I've previously called the "Class C Audio Jewelry" variant of snake oil that looks beautiful as a statement of luxury, but otherwise has no audible benefits.
Even if the product cannot really be doing what's advertised (eg. "The best sounding digital cable that money can buy!") as per item 1, we might still say that it's worth purchasing the thing if there are other factors that make the product of reasonable value. 300lb speakers likely imply significant material and manufacturing costs. There are perhaps opportunities to see the product as an "investment". Limited edition, expensive materials, unique artwork, sought-after brands can allow some products to hold value in the longer term on the resale market; desirable characteristics for luxury items even though probably does not apply to many audiophile products. I've had audio friends in the past tell me they sold their 10 year old turntable, or amp, or whatever at a better price than they paid. There's certainly nothing foolish about enjoying the product for a few years and making money off it!
I think it's worth consider the above questions before making serious decisions around audiophile purchases. Having said this, as humans, we certainly can reserve the freedom to be as silly and illogical as we want to be. So long as it's legal and doesn't lead to some kind of personal or financial disaster, it's all good I guess if we know what we're doing even if it looks foolish to others. π
As Forrest Gump's mama used to say: "Stupid is as stupid does."
For the present topic, I think we can adjust that to "Foolishness is as the foolish does." Whether audiophools exist, or how many there are, I'm happy to let others do the counting.
For the most part, let's try our best to not do audiophoolery ourselves nor encourage fellow audio hobbyists.
--------------------
As for music listening this week, I've been getting back into some rock classics. A friend came over recently with a copy of the 2020 Japanese SACD of Santana's Abraxas (1970, 2-channel mix at disappointing DR9, 4.0 mix DR11). While very familiar with this album, this was the first time I've heard an official quad-sourced multichannel version. I must say that they did a great job with the sound back in the early '70s. Clearly expansive soundstage from the first few notes of "Singing Winds, Crying Beasts", extra depth in "Oye Como Va" and "Samba Pa Ti" over 2-channel. There is obvious use of sides plus front-back surround panning at the start of "Black Magic Woman/Gypsy Queen" that's quite impressive and obviously a very different take on the music which lends well to these studio spatial manipulations!
This SACD reminds me of Deep Purple's Machine Head (1972) with their recent 50th Anniversary box with Bluray containing the excellent 1974 quad mix that dare I say may even be superior to the new 7.1-Atmos Dweezil Zappa mix!
While I did enjoy the Japanese SACD quad Abraxas, I'm not sure this was the best transfer I've heard. I know there is an unofficial quad 7.5ips tape rip floating around the Internets for a number of years. That one I found had significantly clearer vocals than what I heard on this official SACD. There are also other unofficial multichannel rips you might find online. For example, I've heard some pretty clean rips from the Quadraphonic 8-track (Q8) format released from 1970-1978 (list of titles released). Two I've come across include the Hair (Broadway Cast, 1968) soundtrack and Paul Simon's There Goes Rhymin' Simon (1973); both sound pretty good, especially the Paul Simon. I don't think either of these titles have been released as digital multichannels yet. Certainly an interesting variant and use of the much-maligned 8-track tape form factor!
Another reminder that the modern multichannel (+/- Atmos/dts:X/Auro-3D) mixes that some of us enjoy have a rich commercial legacy of content that stretches back at least half a century across different technologies from analog tapes, to vinyl LPs, to various shiny digital disc formats, and now streaming.
If you like more nostalgic-sounding vocal jazz/pop, including some duets, check out the recent Rachael & Vilray's West of Broadway (2025). Some cute songs that feel like they'd be right at home back in the 1930s, especially that first cut "Forever Never Lasts". I see that Stephen Colbert lent his vocals to the duet "Off Broadway". Well recorded and also available in multichannel spreading the instruments around the listener. I love the tonality of that vibraphone.
While over the years I've typically talked about Western music, there are quite number of Asian multichannel pop albums out there that sound great. A good selection of K-Pop which I have occasionally mentioned, but also C-Pop. The other day, I had a listen to Taiwanese singer Jolin Tsai's (θ‘δΎζ) Castle (εε ‘) in multichannel/Atmos - what a surprisingly dynamic surround mix for a 2004 album! Impressive work.
Well guys and gals, I'm going to be in and out of town for short breaks with a visit to Vancouver Island this coming week. Planning to enjoy the remainder of August with family and friends.
Hope you're all having a great time, audiophiles!
Hi Archimago! Regarding "legacy surround" formats, there has also been an attempt by David Chesky to introduce a 6.0 "hexagonal" format: https://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/chesky.htm with some DVD-Audios in this format being around. Chesky was making an interesting point about not needing a subwoofer and a center channel in "audiophile" setups.
ReplyDeleteThanks Mikhail,
DeleteYeah, I remember Chesky making that announcement at around the advent of DVD-A. Interesting idea but he was fighting against the established video/cinema format while they were trying to make the format be accepted. I think to make matters worse, DVD-A typically needed a screen to navigate tracks unlike the pure-audio SACD.
I wonder how many of those he released; I see a Christy Baron and Bucky Pizzarelli mentioned here. Were there others? Did any other company release similar multichannel layout?
Remapping the center I can see as OK. But I worry that many players would have always applied a low-pass filter on the LFE output (often by 120Hz) even if the disc encoded full range data on there.
These days, would not be a problem of course and that layout would basically be 7.1, ignore the center channel and subwoofer. Speaker arrangement would be similar and we'd use the receiver/decoder to adjust seating distance from the non-equidistant speakers.
While this full-range 6.0 should be good, personally, I do like the center and really enjoy 3.0 classical. As for the LFE, yeah, maybe with acoustic stuff it's not needed. But for modern pop/rock/electronica content that could use the +10dB LFE for extra impact on those bass lines and "drops" especially content <50Hz, it's nice to have!
Right, for the list of releases in 6.0 I first looked at that Ken Kessler's post as well :) I've also found this disc https://www.discogs.com/release/10109266-Various-The-Ultimate-DVD-Surround-Sampler-51-Set-Up-Disc which actually also contains 6.0 tracks despite saying "5.1" everywhere. From that you can look up full album releases containing the demo tracks and try your luck, because the labeling is extremely confusing and the channel layout is so exotic that even Discogs lacks proper tagging for it :)
DeleteAnyway, with objects worrying about the actual speaker layout should be a thing of the past! :)
Cool. So that makes 3 DVD-A with 6.0 content. :-)
DeleteI'll keep an eye out if I can get hold of maybe the demo disc to see what the track layout looks like when converted to multichannel FLAC. Now in 2025, can remap these channels to a 7.1 layout and have it stream with the contents properly arranged and no need to fiddle with the LFE or center channel.
I appreciate Chesky wanting to improve the sound... Pretty clear from the get-go that this was going to be swimming against the river and not going to achieve traction.
Not all audiophiles are audiophools but audiophools in general are misguided audiophiles that refuse to accept they might be (are?) misguided.
ReplyDeleteIt would be phoolish not to correct a small typo... it is Merriam-Webster (not Miriam-Webster).
Feel free to delete this comment after you (Archimago) read it.
LOL. Thanks for the fix solderdude, no need to delete! Typos happen, especially ones where spell check misses...
DeleteYeah, for sure, I would like to think and hope that the vast majority of audiophiles are not "audiophools" and over time the ratio improves. I believe it's important we do our best to keep audiophiles from being seen as "phools" for the sake of the respectability of this hobby and not being seen as the sheep ready to be fleeced by snake oil salesmen looking for their targets.
I can hear it now based on the recent forum discussions, some might say: "How dare you Archimago for telling people what to think and what to do! What makes you think you have the right to do that?!"
The obvious answer to that is audio snake oil is ineffective and being sold by unscrupulous individuals. IMO, there is simply no moral good in promoting deceptively advertised devices and tweaks, then profiting from them. While there is no law to insist that anyone should do or say anything, if we care about friends, family, fellow hobbyists, encouraging critical thinking would be a nice start regardless of whether it's audiophile stuff or when faced with other quackery.
I have often wondered how many snake-oil sellers actually believe in what they are selling and are equally 'misguided' by their hearing (they are human after all). Examples could be Paul McClown and Danny.
DeleteSome, for sure, are just unscrupulous money grabbers (think Machina Dynamica and absurdly priced cable sellers).
And, oh boy, most audiophools as well as audiophiles usually have plenty of money to spend on their hobby and being human and lacking actual knowledge are very easy to 'hear' things that aren't there just as they are equally fooled by optical illusions.
Some might simply have fallen for the same 'perception effects' and fully believe in what they are selling. Are these sellers also unscrupulous ?
Perhaps only the ones that sell their wares at way too high margins for what it costs to manufacture ?
Should we start calling this sector of the audio industry "alternative engineering"? If there was Federal Audio Administration they would require putting labels like "Claims not verified by double blind testing" and "This product is not intended to actually improve the sound of your audio system" on their products.
DeleteHmmm, interesting discussion... Maybe we can take this forward into another discussion article. :-)
DeleteYou seem to be a rarity in the audio commentary community in that, while you believe in objective measurements, you also seem open minded to ideas that some products may have sonic benefits even though they are not measurable per se. This brings me to my question regarding Isoacoustics' isolation products that supposedly 'decouple' loudspeakers from the flooring they rest on. Over at ASR many users seem to scoff at these products yet they have been adopted by many speaker manufacturers into their designs. These include Magico, Marten, PSB and many others, and most of these manufacturers have substantial engineering credibility and also believe in measuring their designs objectively. Paul Barton at PSB would be a good example of this. To me it seems cynical that the manufacturers are incorporating Isoacoustics products into their designs as a marketing ploy or sales gimmick. I am curious if you have had any experience with this brand and what you think about the merits of this approach.
ReplyDeleteHey David,
DeleteTo be honest I have not explored these kinds of footers/decoupler devices to date so can't really say that I have an opinion on whether they function well. I have pretty durable laminate floors in my sound room over concrete in the basement, and my speakers are sitting on thick rubberized no-slip furniture footers to remove risk of damaging the floors (probably also an interface to reduce vibrations). Front speakers are ~100lbs each so quite a fair bit of mass there.
I guess ultimately I would reflect the question back to the manufacturers like PSB, et al. I can totally appreciate if the manufacturer says the fancy footers they use look great, are built to last, and can reduce vibrations from transmitting to the floor or upwards (ostensibly could be helpful). For these reasons alone, I think this is adequate...
If the manufacturer insists they "sound better", then I think it would be very fair to ask them if they have evidence to show for this. I personally don't think I've seen clear evidence with devices like the Isoacoustics - they look nice and I think they tend to elevate the speakers a little so that in itself might change sound depending on the speaker and sitting position.
> I trust the outcome wasn't too disastrous by Page 25 when I signed off.
ReplyDeleteThe thread was closed on page 26 :-)
Oh, I'll have to take a peek when next on the site. π
DeleteDisaster, I presume...
So, earlier this morning I had a look at the comments before closure of the thread. Let's be honest, there's some significant immaturity in communications, presumably poor understanding, along with a flare of mean-spirited paranoia on display.
DeleteFor the record, there's no "sponsorship" or potential "bias" just because I had used Pkane2001's Distort software in 2020 when testing the audibility of THD.
When the software was introduced, I tried it myself and was impressed by the ease of use and was able to verify that it did the job of introducing the distortions as intended. So we collaborated to come up with a simple method to test out audibility among audiophiles on the Internet. Collaboration is natural since we can't do it all, and a hallmark of any research these days. While every once awhile over the years, Paul and I might have had a quick DM exchange, otherwise it's not like there's some kind of objectivist-cabal scheming of ways behind the scenes looking to destroy the subjectivists at every opportunity! It just so happened that this thread was of interest as an opportunity to engage.
There's this weirdness among certain people these days where they make vague allegations - "People say...", "I hear there's this going on..." with no evidence. Maybe it's linked to "the politics of paranoia" for years now in certain circles which has projected fear of the unknown to ideas and worse, towards other people. In return there is little goodwill, nor desire for friendship.
On the other side, note the hours Paul must have put into creating software like Distort, available freely to all who want to use it.
To paraphrase another well known saying. "Ask not what your hobby can do for you - ask what you can do for your hobby". IMO, to some of those on that "audiophool" thread, you need to look at yourselves in the mirror and ask in what way you've helped to provide clarity of thought or advanced understanding into this technological hobby of audio reproduction founded on science and engineering. Has your contribution done anything more than promoted a culture of ignorance and toxic criticism (not critical thinking as you might like to believe)?
It is difficult to imagine an ongoing vibrant discussion when there are such psychological forces at play.
I see it almost like the immune system dispatching antibodies in these audiophile forums. The automatic defense mechanism is to throw everything at the invader in order to drive them away. Some folks see it as their job to be those antibodies to protect the rest of their like-minded community from foreign ideas or undue influences.
DeleteIn any case, thanks for the support "sponsor"! But I am still looking for that large check to arrive in the mail -- it never came. Can you please double-check? :)
-Paul
LOL Paul,
DeleteI really got a kick from the comment about the whole sponsorship allegations. But yeah, no worries, I'll double check on the funds.π
As for the antibody theory, I like it. As if AS is some host that's threatened by foreign invaders with scary ideas that disrupt the normal homeostasis!
Then again, maybe it's the opposite. Perhaps it'll do some good to get antibiotics into various sites and forums across the audiophile landscape. The responses are not from "good" antibodies at all, just the bacteria who have lingered in the host a little too long. Maybe the hosts also needs to start doing some exercise and getting a proper diet in as well to keep healthy.
Hi amigo,
ReplyDeleteI've forgotten what was actually written in the article, and I’m too lazy to read it again. Hopefully, my memory will be good enough to stay on topic.
I’m a big fan of multichannel mixes, but there are a lot of issues holding them back. Bands, speaker companies, streaming platforms, and download services all need to make multichannel music more easily available. At the moment, it is a gimmick more than a serious format.
Take Apple, for example. They’ve been heavily promoting their ridiculously named HomePod. While it might do a job for some, to me it’s only a fun toy—not something for “serious listeners.” Marketing Dolby Atmos through a single HomePod speaker is a poor idea, because it’s just a tiny mono speaker. No wonder Dolby Atmos hasn’t really taken off for home consumers.
If companies want this technology to be taken seriously, they need to design proper multichannel speaker systems. Something like a compact 5.1 HomePod setup would make sense—wireless, portable, and with simple phone-based auto calibration. That would actually bring surround music to more people, instead of making it feel like a gimmick.
Another issue is the reliance on outdated physical formats. CDs are now over 30 years old, and along with DVD, Blu-ray, and pretty much every other physical format, they remain an environmental disaster we should have stopped producing years ago. I’ve even seen that SACDs are still being sold as a niche product. Instead of clinging to physical media, the industry should focus on accessible, modern digital or the next, yet be invented formats that don’t carry the same waste burden.
Streaming multichannel audio on a Windows PC to an external AVR is still awkward, and that doesn’t help either. On top of that, there aren’t any multichannel heavy metal albums I know of, which is a real shame. A proper catalogue of downloadable multichannel albums is needed—ideally in 16-bit, 48kHz FLAC format. I believe Bandcamp already allows bands and labels to upload and sell multichannel albums, which is exactly the kind of step in the right direction that’s needed. Hopefully, bands and labels will read and listen to this.
Hey there Dan,
DeleteThanks for your thoughts. Yeah on the hardware front it'll always be a challenge to have a standard, convenient, space-saving way to play multichannel well. The idea is to recreate a 3D sound field that envelops the listener and these days could include sound in the height dimension to put the listener into that "bubble" of sound. Obviously the need to have speakers placed so that this can be achieved is a level of demand many will find difficult and not want to do for all kinds of reasons from WAF to space constraints to cost.
I have not played with the Apple Homepod. My understanding is that even though it's a single unit, it has a number of tweeters inside with the intent to use beamforming to create a virtual 3D soundscape.
Whether it's the process of creating a binaural effect with headphones or beamforming with the Homepod, we're looking at using DSP to simulate the 3D environment. I've certainly heard some very good simulations with beamforming on a friend's Sonos Beam Gen 2. Not exactly the same as a full multichannel system of course but, for a sound bar, it was good!
I think as a start, with the streaming services offering Atmos through 768kbps EAC3, it's very reasonable currently and sounds good. Yeah, we can do better... Maybe 7.1 EAC3-JOC Atmos at 1Mbps isn't a far stretch. The fact that we even have music now accessible like this in multichannel is a significant win!
In terms of downloads, it's a shame that ProStudioMasters doesn't have multichannel last I checked but instead apparently has gone regressive and offers MQA! π Studios have always been reticent to release things losslessly (which is why they're happy to give you the lossy MQA at the same asking price). I can imagine them not wanting to be too open with selling their lossless multichannel at a low download price if they can get more with selling a Bluray or streaming the lossy EAC3 version. At this point in time, even if they did offer the lossless TrueHD-Atmos version, I don't think there's much to play that with other than through a PC with an .mka file over HDMI anyways. Clearly much still needs to be done...
As you know, I'm not regularly a metal listener, but there are occasionally more heavy mainstream albums like Metallica's 72 Seasons, Load available. Ozzy's recent Patient Number 9. I had a blast with Tarja's Dark Christmas last year π. Judas Priest's Invincible Shield, some Megadeths. A few more I've come across but can't remember at this time.
Hi amigo,
DeleteI don't follow Dolby Atmos releases on streaming services because I've just rechecked, and Dolby Atmos streaming is still not compatible on a Windows 11 PC. Dolby Atmos streaming is therefore meaningless for me.
Downloadable multichannel albums are much more appealing. I'm also reluctant to buy Blu-ray when I can store thousands of multichannel 16-bit 48kHz FLAC albums on a single hard drive. At this point, physical media feels backwards.
I also don't like concert audio and video recordings because they are often released at below 60fps, which by now is vastly outdated. I've checked one of the cameras used by multimillion-dollar filmmakers, and it is capable of up to 600fps at 1080p. I see the choice of using 24fps and wide shutter angles as poor filmmaking.
I really hope I'm not the only one bored with 24fps and blured indistinguishable smudges. It’s been over a hundred years. How much longer must one use 24fps and inadequately wide shutter angles?
Thanks—you’ve given me the opportunity to complain about low frame rates and inappropriately wide shutter angles.
I've never used the term "audiophool" and don't intend to start. It's a pejorative--and hence unhelpful--term. While the mutual contempt objectivists and subjectivists have for each other is probably inevitable, it's counterproductive to aggravate it.
ReplyDeleteThe entire thread was a masterful bit of pot-stirring on Chris' part. As for me, my intuitions are firmly in the objectivist camp, but on any matter of genuine controversy I recognize that there are smarter and more educated people on both sides of me. And this is true for virtually all of us! Contempt just drives people more firmly into their respective camps.
I think one of the reasons for this is that mental models for other people we disagree with are necessarily reductive and incoherent. From the objectivist standpoint I bristle when the subjectivists say things like "It’s used by people who can’t afford nice gear, and want to believe that all they need for aural happiness is cheap gear," or words to the effect of "objectivists cargo cult the 1KHz SINAD figure." To me, this isn't evidence that my side is wrong; rather, it shows that the other side has zero insight into how I arrive at my intuitions and beliefs.
Or do they? Can I trust myself to have insight into my own motivations and understanding? It's a bit of a conundrum, one that haunts me on matters of politics and policy as well. I think one of the reasons why I'm interested in audio stuff is that it's a harmless space to explore these issues, kind of like how following a sports team lets us indulge in all kinds of tribal impulses without actually killing anyone.
Well said Neil!
DeleteI really appreciate your expression of contemplation in these matters. Indeed, the conflicts in audiophilia are a microcosmic taste of the complexities of the world around us and the human ideologies that battle to be accepted.
Well, certainly Chris stirred the pot. Maybe it needed to be done on Audiophile Style since I'm not sure what it has become over the last few years. On the one hand, Chris has clearly become interested in multichannel and has been doing DSP and showing the measurements of his system. On the other hand, we can see a bit of malaise I think when forum members don't challenge each other in discussions.
So long as things don't end up personal or just frankly paranoid, the occasional debate here and there, as per Proverbs 27:17 (NIV) "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another", can be a good thing to shake up the echo chamber a bit...