Could I just remind folks......

[Scooby]

The problem IMO is the poncey names, which are non-intuitive. Simply re-naming 'Artist's Palette' as 'Accessories' and 'Strokes of Genius' as 'Reviews' will solve the problem and reduce the mods' workload.

I have to say I agree. I also think 2000 is an odd choice as Jez rightly points out that much of the 90s stuff is either still going or indistinguishable from new gear.

On top of that, forum members tend to buy a lot of 80s and 90s gear, so there is a risk of most threads ending up in one category. Are we really to lump all amps, CD players, speakers, Tuners etc in ONE category because they are of a certain age. If so, I think it's the wrong choice. Surely a 90s and 21st century amp have more in common with each other that a 90s amp and a 90s CD player. I'd respectfully say the Original post needs a re-think.

[Marco]

Hi Andy,

Thanks for your input.

I have to say I agree. I also think 2000 is an odd choice as Jez rightly points out that much of the 90s stuff is either still going or indistinguishable from new gear.

On top of that, forum members tend to buy a lot of 80s and 90s gear, so there is a risk of most threads ending up in one category. Are we really to lump all amps, CD players, speakers, Tuners etc in ONE category because they are of a certain age.

YES! That's precisely how the more 'specialist' areas of the forum are maintained and kept alive!

The point is that Blank Canvas is seen as the main hi-fi area of the forum, so if it's filled with discussions of vintage hi-fi equipment, it gives newbies and onlookers the false impression that AoS is a 'vintage hi-fi site', when that is far from the case. Therefore, modern/new and currently available equipment should be discussed in BC, in order to dilute that impression and provide a more balanced and realistic one.

Yes, we we love good vintage gear, but we're also into music streaming, modifications to equipment using the latest technology, DIY builds and all sorts of stuff - and that's precisely why those topics all have their own dedicated areas which we ask members to use. Therefore, if 'Past Masters' (the vintage section) is inundated with discussions of equipment, such as you've outlined, then so be it. It's obviously what people want to talk about

In any case, discussion topics tend to go in cycles, so one week it'll be vintage-orientated, next digital, then cables and accessories, etc, so soon enough, folk will post threads in Blank Canvas again about new gear, which will kick off discussion about that and diversify things again, which is exactly how a vibrant and varied forum should be - and we wouldn't want to stifle that, so that's precisely why we do what we do.

The other thing which is important, is that AoS is seen by many as a 'reference source' for various types of information (hence 'The Knowledge', etc), and so it's very important that popular topics are thus 'categorised' for ease of reference later, by those seeking that information, which is precisely why audio discussion here is separated out, and not all lumped into the one bit.

If so, I think it's the wrong choice. Surely a 90s and 21st century amp have more in common with each other that a 90s amp and a 90s CD player. I'd respectfully say the Original post needs a re-think.

Point taken (referring also to what Macca said), so consider the date for 'vintage qualification' changed to 1990!

I should also point out that, out with of Blank Canvas, which we rigidly want to keep as 'vintage free', it's inevitable that some of the specialist areas of the forum (such as Digital Expressions and Analogue Art) will become populated with discussions about both current and vintage equipment - and that's fine, as long as the *bulk* of discussion about vintage gear takes place in Past Masters.

The way to decide whether, say, topics about CDPs or turntables should be posted in either Digital Expressions/Analogue Art, or instead in Past Masters, is to know whether or not the items concerned predate 1990, and if so, they simply go into Past Masters.

It ain't rocket science, folks!

Marco.