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, crenca said:

     

    More than just double - All in!  Your stuck in a rut (which might very well be where you want yourself and this site to be on this subject).   If you want serious thought and discussion on this subject, then a little work/self reflection on your and everyone else's part is probably the only way forward. 

     

    Beyond that, it's finger wagging all day long just as it was yesterday and just as it will be tomorrow.  

     

    @joelhasuggestion that we accept radical subjectivism as the neutral and civil ground of not only audio, but science, metaphysics and religion too, is just more of the same and not a way forward...

    With all due respect, please share some of what's in your glass. 😉

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, crenca said:

     

    @joelhasuggestion that we accept radical subjectivism as the neutral and civil ground of not only audio, but science, metaphysics and religion too, is just more of the same and not a way forward...

    That's an impressive misread of my article, crenca.

     

    I'm asking for "radical" civility and I offer a theory as to why we don't get it.

     

    Joel

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    @crenca how is your war on Christmas going this year. Talk about consumerism. Perhaps we can table the HiFi discussion until you finish your more important and larger business. 😀

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 minutes ago, joelha said:

    I'm asking for "radical" civility and I offer a theory as to why we don't get it.

     

    Joel

     

    Your asking for objectivists to agree that the subjectivism is "true" (in audio, and to infinity - and beyond!).  Your saying that subjectivism is the arbitrator of disputes between itself and objectivism.  You pit personalities and reputations against the truth, and then you have personality smoother the truth for the mere material $good$ of these same personalities and your version of civility.  

     

    It's like you don't understand objectivists at all.  If you want to understand why there is conflict and passion between them and subjectivism then your going to have to put a little effort to understand what makes them tick.

     

    Here is a question you could start with:

     

    Why would a moral objectivist privilege the truth over any particular personality and their livelihood?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I agree with the "calm" part of the (subjective) self-serving assessment.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

     

    For astronomy forums, that's a big NO. In fact, it's gotten much better since the end of the century. But then, I run a number of them, so I guess it's all due to my amazing moderator skills ;) The reality is I don't need to moderate any of my forums, I may jump in a few times a year to get a discussion back on track, but that's about it. 

     

    Sounds great I think I'll head over there. Why is it so different on astronomy forums? less room for 'subjectivity'.. ?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 minutes ago, tapatrick said:

    Sounds great I think I'll head over there. Why is it so different on astronomy forums? less room for 'subjectivity'.. ?

     

    less room for being right about anything (no matter who you are) ... it's a big old universe out there ...

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    BBBUUUTTTTTT....

     

    If in audio you want to move beyond good and evil, subjectivist vs. objectivist, and the tit for tat moralizing that both will bring because neither can agree with the other, then you will have to find the "transcendent third option" - the vantage point from which you can see the forest through the trees...

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'd like your definition of vitriol - maybe you mean sarcasm?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    55 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

    But it must be noted that one of the major differences we appear to have is over your claim that "scientific approach" is "just another option of opinion." That stretches the meaning of the word "opinion" to the point where the term becomes meaningless, and obscures important differences between different kinds of claims and knowledge.

    Hi Tom,

    thank you for reading and responding to my posting.
    Pls excuse my language skills, it's obviouisly not my mother tongue and not only once Chris was completely puzzled about my phrasing 😉
    ... I feel the need to correctly adress the point ...

    " why the supporter of "objectivism" and scientific approach are thinnly skinned when they feel further pushed away from the silver bullet to be just another option of opinion,"

    This was not at all meant as personal opinion, but as an example how science is pushed aside in modern times (in my perception), which allows me to think of it as a more than understandbale reason for being thinnly skinned as a proponent of science.
    I feel, when facts are announced to be just "another opinion" (i.e. in politics or public disscussions) we lose ad-hoc the quality of discurs, and the meaning of a factual world (for which I used the pictures of the mountain top and the submarine) is de-valued by (bad) intent.
    That is utterly wrong in my opinion, but obviously an accepted discussion technique for "winners" about which I need to prepare my teenage son (to analyse and how to defend), because it has found its entrée in everyday life ...

     

    you wrote:
    "That's why confirmation bias, humans' poor auditory memory of fine details, and other subjective factors come into play - not because objectivists think subjectivists are idiots or because objectivists cannot tolerate different views, but rather because those factors rise in probability when no other possible factors are apparent. "
    +1 for that

     

    "In my ideal community beliefs and science can co-exits, based on accepting that the fabric of understanding the world has its home on the side of facts."


    Best, Tom

     

    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...