Jump to content
  • joelha
    joelha

    Guest Editorial: Why did audio stop being about audio?

    How many forum threads on this site (and others) devolve into heated exchanges about whether people actually hear what they say they hear? Without “proof”, listeners are often mocked, insulted and their experiences discredited.


    Challenges range from assuming the listener has been influenced by expectation bias (I believe it will sound good, so it does sound good) to faulting his unwillingness to rely on measurements or blind testing.


    What bothers me most is reputations are attacked so casually. Everyone from Chris Connaker (one of the most decent people I’ve known in the industry) to reviewers and manufacturers are accused of lying, cheating and taking bribes. People, whom I suspect in most cases haven’t even heard the product they’re attacking, will smear the reputations of others they probably don’t know. Those who are attacked rely on their reputations to earn a living. That’s to say nothing of the personal attacks on the listeners themselves. And the attackers attack anonymously. Unless the case is black and white i.e. I sent you money and you never shipped my product or there are repeated, unresolved product defects, trying to ruin a person’s name is evil. Nothing will undo a person’s life faster and more effectively than giving him a bad reputation. And doing it anonymously and without hard evidence is cowardly and arrogant. In such cases, it’s highly likely the charge is far more unethical than the action being charged.


    Some will say measurements make their case open and shut. But there are too many examples of how measurements fall well short of telling the whole story. There are tube amps with 3% - 5% distortion that sound better to many than amps with far better measurements. Are those products a scam? Vinyl doesn’t measure nearly as well as digital and yet many strongly prefer its sound. Should fans of vinyl be told that turntable, tonearm and cartridge makers are scamming them as well?


    For some of my audio choices, some would say I’m deluding myself. Let’s say I am. If I’m happy with my delusion, why should the nay-sayers care? It’s an audio hobby. Why can’t I enjoy my system and post about my experiences, allowing others to judge? The nay-sayers might say “That’s fine, we’re just posting to protect others from being taken in.”


    Fair enough. But these are not always cases of “I have one opinion and you have another”. Many of the arguments are too heated, personal and frequently repeated to only be about audio.


    I believe these debates are about religion and before you conclude that I’ve lost my mind, consider the following:


    Many claim they have experienced God or have witnessed miracles with little or no evidence. The debates concerning those claims are often very intense and personal. Challenges commonly include: Where’s your evidence? Where’s your data? Only because you want to believe do you believe.

     

    Sound familiar?


    This is why I believe the challengers care so much. Allowing audiophiles to post their subjective conclusions without proof brings them one step closer to accepting those who relate their religious experiences without proof. For them, science is god and a subjective conclusion upends their god and belief system. They fight hard so that doesn’t happen.


    This is audio folks. Whether I think I hear something or not isn’t that important. If my audio assessment matters that much to you, I’m guessing you’re anti-religion and/or anti-God. That’s fine. But that explains why something as innocuous as describing the sound of someone’s ethernet cable could elicit such strong and often highly inappropriate comments.


    I’m old enough to remember this hobby when people would meet at audio stores to just listen and schmooze. We’ve lost too much of that sense of camaraderie. We may differ on what we like, but we all care about how we experience music.


    Whether I’m right or wrong about any of the above, would it hurt to return to the times when people’s disagreements about audio were friendly? Can we stop assailing the reputations of the people who rely on this industry to care for their families and employees? Can we respect the opinions of those who differ with us by not trying to shut them down with ridicule?


    It’s not about “religion”. It’s just about audio.

     

    - Joel Alperson




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

     

    Certainly in the 80's and early 90's. 

     

    In the area of digital audio, right? And has it since slowed because some smaller manufacturers put out some products you feel are questionable (and some I certainly do too), or because we are at a pretty good place now? To reiterate my question, what assaults on the state of the art do you believe remain to be made with products such as amps, DACs, and audio files?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 minutes ago, Jud said:

    @mansr may despair of finding adequate cables, but I've had no such difficulty; just bought some nice light flexible Monoprice Ethernet cables from Amazon, recommended here by a “subjectivist.”

    Good for you. In my experience, Amazon is always something of a gamble. Even when buying a familiar brand, you have zero assurance that you're not getting a fake product. Granted, your odds are better than on Ebay, but it's still not great. Buying from Monoprice directly isn't a sane option in Europe as they want nearly $40 in shipping for a $3 cable (checked just now).

     

    Now I wouldn't say I "despair" when it comes to cables. I am able to procure what I need. I'd still much prefer if I could simply pop into the store (it's a 5-minute walk) and get them. That I can't is a direct result of the snake oil infestation in the audio industry.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

    What about the sound of a grounding box full of sand?

    Before or after you stub your toe on it?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, Jud said:

     

    In the area of digital audio, right? And has it since slowed because some smaller manufacturers put out some products you feel are questionable (and some I certainly do too), or because we are at a pretty good place now? To reiterate my question, what assaults on the state of the art do you believe remain to be made with products such as amps, DACs, and audio files?

     

    Proper multi-channel audio, starting with the recording and ending with the speaker/DSP system would be my ultimate wish. Two-channel stereo is a compromise we no longer have to or need to tolerate as it will never be capable of realistic sound reproduction.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    10 minutes ago, wgscott said:

    This "editorial" is essentially just another (albeit officially-sanctioned) troll-thread designed to bait "objectivists" and possibly to increase site traffic (and therefore advertising revenue).

     

    How else are we supposed to interpret stuff like this:

     

     

    The sound of an ethernet cable is like the sound of one hand clapping.

     

    What about the sound of a grounding box full of sand?  

     

    Where do we draw the line between what should be respectfully accepted on "faith" in the interest of "civility," and what is palpably absurd, or evidence of consumer fraud?

    Amazing how you know my intentions better than I do, Bill.

     

    My intention has been to try to explain some of the over-the-top behavior on this site and just maybe mitigate that behavior.

     

    I'm guessing you know pretty well when to be civil and when not to be. I don't think you need to pose that as a question (rhetorical or not) on this forum.

     

    Joel

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 minutes ago, joelha said:

    Amazing how you know my intentions better than I do, Bill.

     

    Aren't you being at least as presumptive about the motivations and beliefs (or lack, thereof) of those who have the audacity to hold an opinion at variance with your own?  

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    11 hours ago, ARQuint said:

     

    ...but Lee S? He's really a gentle and thoughtful person who tried to engage in a serious discussion about the merits of you-know-what, and it took a lot of effort on the part of a dedicated few to get him unhinged enough to emit a bad word.

     

    Mr Quint, with all due respect, Scoggins was actively pushing MQA in this forum the way he shilled for Audioquest, Black Cat, and Shunyata over at the Hoffman forum.  You attempting to affix some kind of benevolence or altruism to his intent is just nauseating.  Disingenuousness is disingenuousness, regardless of your continued protestations.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Just now, Jud said:

     

    And you think the major corporations that would have to be involved in such an effort aren't doing so because a few people bought beeswax fuses?

     

    Why do you keep bringing up major corporations? These rarely cater to the tiny audiophile market. Mass consumer-oriented companies rarely care about improving SQ, about getting better, more realistic sound reproduction. Give the masses an iPhone with MP3 playback, with some wireless ear-buds and they'll be happy. 

     

    Meanwhile, audiophiles are seeking out hires files at ridiculous DSD rates, DACs with 768kHz+ PCM sampling, minimum phase filters, better USB and ethernet cables, and other junk that doesn't translate into anything meaningful beyond a very tiny, placebo-type improvement. And no, it's not just the subjectivists that are doing this. The ASR crowd looking for lower and lower SINAD numbers is doing the same thing, just pursuing a different dead-end.

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

     

    Aren't you being at least as presumptive about the motivations and beliefs (or lack, thereof) of those who have the audacity to hold an opinion at variance with your own?  

    I absolutely am, Bill.

     

    And it's not because their beliefs are "aidacious" pr at variance with mine. I wrote in hopes of trying to explain the behaviors I find offensive.

     

    That's it. Honest.

     

    Joel

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    18 minutes ago, Jud said:

    Is it, or is it that they can't make enough margin on inexpensive cables anyway?

    Same thing. Why settle for 10% (or 100%) margin when you can have 10,000%?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 minutes ago, joelha said:

    I wrote in hopes of trying to explain the behaviors I find offensive.

    Well, I find your "hit piece" rather offensive.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, mansr said:

    Well, I find your "hit piece" rather offensive.

    Please name s single line or paragraph you find as offensive or even close to being as offensive as if I made a personal negative reference about you.

     

    Joel

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 minutes ago, joelha said:

    Please name s single line or paragraph you find as offensive or even close to being as offensive as if I made a personal negative reference about you.

     

    Joel

     

    The ones I highlighted in bold-face.

     

    (Yes, I get that you don't -- or at least pretend not to -- see it that way.  But that, too, is the point.)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 minutes ago, wgscott said:

     

    The ones I highlighted in bold-face.

     

    (Yes, I get that you don't -- or at least pretend not to -- see it that way.  But that, too, is the point.)

    Sorry, I'm missing the point.

     

    If you want to take me up on my challenge, please do and show me the specific text you're referring to.

     

    Joel

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    10 hours ago, tapatrick said:

    There is plenty of philosophical discussion that science is a belief system...

     

    Of course - that's exactly what I said.  And that is the expression of one side of the argument trying to  change the framework... so they can have an argument... otherwise... well... 

    Again, gravity does not care if you don't believe in it... you will fall.

    But the reaction to your post if correct - veering off topic - last thing I will say on the matter.

    v

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 minutes ago, joelha said:

    Please name s single line or paragraph you find as offensive or even close to being as offensive as if I made a personal negative reference about you.

    The entire article is little more than a parade of insults and accusations directed at a caricature of those you disagree with. You didn't name anyone explicitly, but you didn't need to. We all know who you had in mind.

     

    My question to you (and Chris) is, what are you so afraid of?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 minutes ago, joelha said:

    Sorry, I'm missing the point.

     

    If you want to take me up on my challenge, please do and show me the specific text you're referring to.

     

    Joel

     

    The bit quoted here, especially that which I set in bold-faced:

     

    But let me add that I am glad you formulated your position in this way, because it gives invaluable insight into how at least one "subjectivist" proponent sees the opposition.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 minutes ago, wgscott said:

     

    The bit quoted here, especially that which I set in bold-faced:

     

    All I get is a link back to the article.

     

    Sorry, but I still don't see it.

     

    Joel

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 minutes ago, Superdad said:

    Pot, meet kettle.

    Among a couple dozen other posts with mostly factually incorrect things you said about our new product, there was this gem you wrote specifically about John Swenson (who designed the power networks inside large, sophisticated chips for 3 decades). You wrote:

     

    That's the thing with anyone selling such products. They must be either incompetent or dishonest. There are no other options. Oh wait, they could be both.

     

    Sadly, the above barely makes it into the top 10 insults hurled at us recently over in that uncivil and intellectually uncurios place.

    Yes, I said that, but don't flatter yourself. It applies equally to John Swenson, Gordon Rankin, Ted Denney, and anyone else making/selling devices that demonstrably do nothing.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now




×
×
  • Create New...