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



    Just now, mansr said:

    If Lee had no idea what was going on, he's not nearly as good a friend of the Cheskys as he imagines.

    Could very well be the case, but I'm sure there are many other reasons as well. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    I disagree. Lying is not "simply making a false statement." 

    From Dictionary.com:

    noun

    the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

    From Dictionary.com:

    noun

    the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness

     

     

    I think we are already beyond such a sophomoric definition.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    18 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

    ""Archimago carefully researched using scientifically valid methodologies. "

    Not true. Archimago practices pseudoscience wherein he derives a conclusion, then sets out to prove that conclusion in advance by limiting the testing, and controlling the outcomes. Further, - he uses junk-ass test subjects and measuring equipment that is insufficient to to create a wide sampling of data that would refute, or (better) support those conclusions.

    You cannot use purely objective, (especially cursory measurements), data on only one piece of equipment in a system to make a subjective PREDICTION on how a recording might sound.

     

    "not doing your reputation as a "journalist" any good."

     

    Who is a journalist? And what is the definition of a "journalist?" I am questioning whether or not you understand that no one who writes for Audiophile Magazines or writes reviews or product announcements for any type of music playback equipment is a "journalist:" but an audio "enthusiast." Think music or film reviewer.

     

     

     

     

    Are you saying that Archimago's conclusions are not valid?  Seems like a number of people came to the same conclusions.

     

    What shall we call people who write for audiophile magazines?  Salesmen?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    Thanks for your comments, especially the one quoted above. It greatly helps me understand why you would care about some things in HiFi enough to "fight" with intensity. I disagree with you on your conclusions, but that's OK. Knowing how you got there is what's helpful in this discussion. 

     

    I think one has to pick his battles, finding the right time and place for spending emotional capital and precious time. The tiny niche of HiFi, where the risks are incredibly low all around, doesn't seem like a place I would fight the global war on science. Audiophile Style isn't the front line, and isn't even close. 

     

    Yet, even here the stakes are something and not nothing.  For all but oligarchs, the pricing of audiophilia is significant.  The hucksterism and "who cares" subjectivism makes for a poisoned divide.  

     

    Also we must remember the war on Christmas...that's important 😋

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

     

    Yes, the key issue is what did Lee know and when did he know it.

     

    In one exhibit David Chesky says everybody I wanted to know about this including Ford knew. In 2016 that included me apparently. The streaming service was announced in a press release in May of 2017.  2017 went by and no service. 2018 went by and no service. By 2019 the service was two years late.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    25 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

     

    Indeed - lemme try to summarize in this context - because you have a point

     

    1.- I think the general idea of the editorial is that audiophiles are requesting the same respect that, let's say, the wine hobby/industry - That is, if I hear it (or taste it) then that's it, that is my take on it and I am contributing valuable insights. Because ( and hope I  am not wrong) that seems to be the general aim of the audiophile practice (at least the subjective one, which seems to include most of the industry and its consumers).  Might add, though, that wine industry is also on very iffy grounds: 

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_(wine)

     

    So again, what is trying be said here, is "leave us alone to appreciate the products on our terms"

    IMHO.

     

    2. - That said, these are engineered devices. The process has even less variability than wine production (which is more engineering/science these days, than art). So to attribute characteristics that are not part of a design ("musicality" for example) is really strange. And connecting from that, an evaluation like that relies on the senses. Human senses; fallible, easily skewered, etc.  After all, it was our senses that told the ancients the earth was flat.

     

    3.- Now here is the gist of the argument. The thing that has caused more bits being used on the net than almost anything except pr0n! :D

    When the reviewer issues a statement  that contradicts scientific facts , people will comment. It did not use to be that way. Before the interwebs, the counterargument was not aired in the trade magazines; in that volume, of course. Magazines did publish dissenting opinions, but usually in the middle of the convinced choir, with no reply or long discussion. The internet changed that.

     

    4.-  And that's where the argument gets ugly.  Many accusations from one side to the other. For example, and this addresses directly a point in the post I am replying to,  the implication that the scientific side relies on religious-like "belief" in science is incorrect. Science is facts and I have seen in general in most of the posts a solid understanding of the scientific facts necessary for the argument.  A lot of knowledgeable engineers/scientists in this forum.

     

    5. Last, I will get personal. Why do I get into it? Believe it or not, it has to do with the zeitgeist and the current political climate. Lots of anti-scientific thinking right now, from anti-vaxxers  to flat earthers, climate change  denial, etc. This is a direct attack on humanity.  Yes, flat earthers, for example are ridiculous and relatively innocuous. Yet , such promotion of anti-science still has a detrimental effect. It promotes fear of knowledge and education, to the point that in some realms, educated persons and scientists are "an elite" that is not to be trusted etc. And in order to fight against that (because it really needs to be fought) I actively oppose it anytime I see it. And yes, it can be even dangerous, IRL. But because the stakes are pretty high we really need to do it.

     

    And I consider, $100,000/ft cables, Ethernet cables with sound, $200,000 power "conditioners", etc. part of the anti-science idea - the ultimate example of magical thinking. And a waste of resources, whether you can afford it or not. So I get into it.

     

    Well

     

    Not anymore. Almost. Obviously, nobody has noticed my absence, but until now, it has been a while since I got into it, in this forum and others. And after this, will probably be a while to be back. Probably only if I have a question or problem. Because, while I still think I am right in my assessment, also realized that audiophilia is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Only  got into this thread because it popped very prominently in my news feed.

     

    But I will continue and I do promise to try to live and let live.

     

    v

    Are you saying that there are people who are assembling audio system(s) to NOT listen to?, - but just have it sitting there idle?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

    Are you saying that there are people who are assembling audio system(s) to NOT listen to?, - but just have it sitting there idle?

     

    :D <3

     

    v

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Just now, 4est said:

    Not to pick on you in particular, but to me this statement is the gist of what the OP was getting at. I have an engineering background and would love to be purely objective. At present there are not measurements(or understanding of them) that will describe exactly how something will sound. Until such time, I will need to use both ob/subjective methods to determine the quality of playback I achieve, and whether I will do something about it. I, and likely many others, resent being described as irrational because we refuse to relinquish subjectivity until then. As Miska has pointed out, things can measure comparably but sound different.

     

    It pretty much was meant to try to bring the discussion back on topic.  Do you think it's rude to characterize irrational beliefs as such?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    13 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

    "Are you saying that Archimago's conclusions are not valid?"

    Absolutely, 100%.

    "What shall we call people who write for audiophile magazines?" 

    Audio enthusiasts and Audio reviewers.

     

    "Salesmen?"

    not funny

     

    Someone pissed in your Cheerios, hunh?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

     

    It pretty much was meant to try to bring the discussion back on topic.  Do you think it's rude to characterize irrational beliefs as such?

    Oh come on, you know what I meant. If you are here to just do battle, have at it.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Just now, 4est said:

    Oh come on, you know what I meant. If you are here to just do battle, have at it.

     

    I think you were quick to assume my use of "irrational beliefs" spoke directly to your subjectivity when I made no such linkage.  I'm asking what I think is a reasonable question:

     

    Do you believe that referring to irrational beliefs as such is, in a very general sense, rude?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    We have the never ending subjectivist/objectivist argument.

     

    Going back to the beginning of reproduced sound, which group was most responsible for bringing us to the current state of affairs.

     

    I can just imagine:

    Bell: "Come here Watson, I need you".

    Watson: Wow! That sounds like shit".

    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...