Guest Editorial: Why did audio stop being about audio?

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

This is a strawman to those who reject the "big crazy" because we reject the underlying subjectivism of "who cares if no deaths are involved".  For example our wallet's are involved - not as important as death but still important.  Our real (as opposed to some suggestable subjectivist haze) is also involved - we want real "HiFi" and not the "High End" house of mirrors.

You may not believe it, but many grown adults are equally as astute as you and can decide for themselves what to purchase and what causes them to enjoy HiFi more. You likely have more "real" HiFi options in the world than magic stones. Your fear of losing real HiFi is unwarranted.

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 The intensity with which some people rail against HiFi,  

I've never anyone on here rail against HiFi

I agree with the trolling comment

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This topic and thread is about the larger picture. I also don't believe global warming should stir any pot. We're all adults and can look at the earth's temperature graph over time and see it happening. 

But that's not the way you phrased it

Quote

The intensity with which some people rail against HiFi, and the demands for products to be pulled form the market as if they were Thalidomide, is no different from those trying to stop global warming. 

It sure looks to me like a patronizing take on those who want to reverse the Earth's warming.

5 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

It only takes a cursory examination of Archimago's processes and extremely narrow sampling of test subjects, and out of context tests, and poor measuring tools: to conclude that his conclusions are inconclusive at best, and downright manipulated at worst.

Can you provide some specific examples so we can evaluate the validity of your argument?

22 minutes ago, crenca said:

the existence of the objective/subjective divide

Except, there is no divide, because in practice (as opposed to a theoretical construct for fuelling online arguments) there is no such thing as audio “objectivism”.  I’ve never seen any self-described objectivist actually explain the process (with the supporting data) whereby their objectivism resulted in them making system choices that they wouldn’t have made had they adopted an subjective approach.

In truth, if we enjoy listening to music through audio equipment, we are by definition  all subjectivists (the clue is in the word “enjoy”).

I have a headache from this thread. I’m taking a break to listen to music. 

7 minutes ago, Norton said:

 

Except, there is no divide, because in practice (as opposed to a theoretical construct for fuelling online arguments) there is no such thing as audio “objectivism”.  I’ve never seen any self-described objectivist actually explain the process (with the supporting data) whereby their objectivism resulted in them making system choices that they wouldn’t have made had they adopted an subjective approach.

 

In truth, if we enjoy listening to music through audio equipment, we are by definition  all subjectivists (the clue is in the word “enjoy”).

 

 

 

 

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/yogi_berra_141506

v

5 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

You pretty much are required to defend Scoggins now as his new position pretty much demands that you do so.

 

I've met Scoggins myself at some shows, but he didn't know it was me.  In my experience, he is the polar opposite of a consumer advocate.  He seems to take pleasure in seeing consumers misled and manipulated.  Payroll you say?  In my experience, Scoggins' goal is to establish enough of a relationship with manufacturers that he can refer to the principals by their first name.  And he does this ad nauseam.  I like the term "first-name dropper".

 

And please, take your pro-MQA gaslighting somewhere else.  You motives are crystal clear and you're not converting anyone.

 

"...pro-MQA gaslighting?" Really??  Now that's a great example of inventing a narrative to suit one's purposes. My sole interest in MQA for more than two years now has been the bad online behavior it's associated with. I've written a couple of editorials about that subject and you yourself have accused me of "finger-wagging". I have very little, if any to saything about the technology itself (for example, I mentioned that one of the three SACD players I reviewed in the December issue was MQA-capable and left it at that.) I don't own a DAC that decodes MQA and I'm certainly not losing any sleep over it. I've never met Bob Stuart or any of the other MQA principals.

As far as "converting anyone" to my cause, I think that a wonderful thing about Joel Alperson's editorial is that it has brought people out of the woodwork who are similarly weary of the uncivil tone of so much discourse in enthusiast communities, specifically ours. No converting is required—plenty of AS forum members are already believers, when it comes to addressing rude and aggressive online behavior.

Andy

4 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

As far as "converting anyone" to my cause, I think that a wonderful thing about Joel Alperson's editorial is that it has brought people out of the woodwork who are similarly weary of the uncivil tone of so much discourse in enthusiast communities, specifically ours. No converting is required—plenty of AS forum members are already believers, when it comes to addressing rude and aggressive online behavior.

Disingenuousness is also rude.  You only post here to propagate the illusion of the wise, friendly, Audiophile Elder who's just trying to spread kindness and audio bliss.  When you're actually part of "the big crazy" that is discussed in this very thread.

Mr Quint, what, exactly, comes "out of the woodwork"?  I don't think it's something complimentary.  🙂

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Lee's detractors maintain that he just kept repeating MQA, Inc doggerel. The case could be made that many of the most aggressive (and often anonymous) Vaporware participants spent a awful lot of time citing Archimago's conclusions, using the same language over and over.

And you still don't get the basics.

Many of Arhcimago's/Mansr's conclusions were based on disprovable analyses/conclusions/understandings that he and Chris invited others to disprove. No one disproved what they said on it's merits. And they still haven't, till today. 

Lots of people tried to say that if the source of a fact is anonymous, then then the fact itself is wrong. You seem to be implying that here. That of course is a logical fallacy.  In fact, among the people who engaged Archimago's assertions on their merits, he only received backing. 

The same can't be said for Lee. The fact is that you either can't - or refuse - to see the difference. 

20 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

"...pro-MQA gaslighting?" Really??  Now that's a great example of inventing a narrative to suit one's purposes. My sole interest in MQA for more than two years now has been the bad online behavior it's associated with. I've written a couple of editorials about that subject and you yourself have accused me of "finger-wagging". I have very little, if any to saything about the technology itself (for example, I mentioned that one of the three SACD players I reviewed in the December issue was MQA-capable and left it at that.) I don't own a DAC that decodes MQA and I'm certainly not losing any sleep over it. I've never met Bob Stuart or any of the other MQA principals.

 

As far as "converting anyone" to my cause, I think that a wonderful thing about Joel Alperson's editorial is that it has brought people out of the woodwork who are similarly weary of the uncivil tone of so much discourse in enthusiast communities, specifically ours. No converting is required—plenty of AS forum members are already believers, when it comes to addressing rude and aggressive online behavior.

 

Andy

I appreciate your quest for civility.  I appreciated it when you attempted (civilly) to convince Chris that I was someone else that had previously been banned.  I appreciate the fact that you civilly tried to convince Chris to ban me.  You were very civil about it.  Speaking to Chris like he was a child that needed guidance.  That is a very civil way to deal with someone that disagrees with you and your magazines take on a subject.  Fortunately for me, Chris very civilly disagreed with you.

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That isn't the issue.  The real issue is false equivalence - that science is somehow another type of religion.

 

It isn't.

I didn't get that from reading the OP's article. 

I did...Objectivists were equated to Religious Zealots...IMO the opposite is true.  Religion is based on Faith (Beliefs)...for me this describes the true Subjectivist.  

Personally I like good measurements but ultimately rely on my ears.  Note other than some newer portable DACs, I have not upgraded my system in years. Still sounds fine to me.

32 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Hard example: I had my eye on an iFI iDSD Pro for years while it was in development.  I nearly purchased one until it became clear that IFI was "all in" with MQA.  So I did some more research and settled on Benchmark DAC 3 B based 1) their reputation for good sound and 2) their opposition to MQA.  I think the DAC 3 B was a great choice and to me, it sounds great.

 

It wouldn't matter how many people said the iDSD Pro sounded good, I still wouldn't buy one.

Far from illustrating the “objectivist “ approach, this is about as radical subjectivist  a decision as it’s possible to make.  Going simply by how you worded the above, you rejected the iFi not because of any consideration of how it performs  as a DAC (whether measured objectively or considered subjectively) but because its manufacturer has a relationship  with an organisation you don’t approve of.  

Just now, Norton said:

Far from illustrating the “objectivist “ approach, this is about as radical subjectivist  a decision as it’s possible to make.  Going simply by how you worded the above, you rejected the iFi not because of how it performs  as a DAC (whether measured objectively or considered subjectively) but because its manufacturer has a relationship  with an organisation you don’t approve of. 

"sold out" is the term I would use.  Avoiding technology that is, by design, anti-consumer is an objective act IMHO.

Discourse that rapidly declines into ad hominem attacks is to a great extent caused by people mistaking rudeness for frankness, mistaking being an asshat with not being politically correct, confusing arrogance with confidence, and overall taking everything way too personally by making everything way too personal. (That last one is the connection to religion...)

The biggest compliment I got in my decades of business strategy and technology consulting was from a client who told me that I was the only person who could tell him that most of the decisions they made were wrong, that the application was built to anti-scale, that their strategy was so inward looking that it drives customers away... and they'd nod their heads with me, sigh, and say, well then, let's get to work fixing all that. (And btw, that is what I got paid for.)

Or as he put it more colloquially, I could tell him "his baby's ugly" along with "and you and your wife aren't such a feast for the eyes either" in a way that he'd not take it personally but as honest observations, and would start asking for tips about hair styling and lighting and makeup. 

I didn't pull punches, or sugarcoat. But I stuck to honest, objective facts, and stayed away from I think, I feel, I believe. You can do that in business and in technical realms. I'm not sure that it's all that possible in more subjective realms.

Disagreeing agreeably, being destructive in a constructive way, downgrading a product or strategy without degrading it - all are actual skills, maybe even arts, that must (and can be) learned and practiced and polished.

And if you can't do it, perhaps you shouldn't, until you put in the time and effort to learn how to disagree in an agreeable way.

10 minutes ago, firedog said:

And you still don't get the basics.

 

Many of Arhcimago'sMansr's conclusions were based on disprovable analyses/conclusions/undestandings that he and Chris invited others to disprove. No one disproved what they said on it's merits. And they still haven't, till today. 

 

Lots of people tried to say that if the source of a fact is anonymous, then then the fact itself is wrong. You seem to be implying that here. That of course is a logical fallacy.  In fact, among the people who engaged Archimago's assertions on their merits, he only received backing. 

 

The same can't be said for Lee. The fact is that you either can't - or refuse - to see the difference. 

Or to put it a slightly different way, the fact that Bill Shockley and James Watson were/are awful people has absolutely no relevance to the fact that transistors work, or that DNA is a double helix.

Or perhaps even more apt (forgive my using a contemporary political example, but it's so on the nose), the identity of the whistleblower has utterly nothing to do with whether or not the President tried to shake down Ukraine to get dirt on Biden. He either did or did not, regardless of what the name is of the guy who first reported it. And regardless of Archimago's real name, either his measurements and conclusions hold up or they don't. (And as with the Presidential example, it's not just Archimago. There are other non-pseudonymous people who have come to technical conclusions along the same lines. Further as with the Presidential example, MQA itself has provided technical information that additionally supports those conclusions.)

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

So, this forum is not the place to disabuse someone of the belief that Santa Claus actually exists?

Maybe it is. But that doesn't mean I should go around telling little kids that he doesn't.

There's a time and a place for everything.

I am not a radical objectivist, but I also think some of the radical subjectivist threads here are a little nuts. So I just ignore them and let the people who enjoy them have their fun - even if, IMHO, they are a bit wacko. What I think doesn't always matter. 

43 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

"...pro-MQA gaslighting?" Really??  Now that's a great example of inventing a narrative to suit one's purposes. My sole interest in MQA for more than two years now has been the bad online behavior it's associated with. I've written a couple of editorials about that subject and you yourself have accused me of "finger-wagging". I have very little, if any to saything about the technology itself (for example, I mentioned that one of the three SACD players I reviewed in the December issue was MQA-capable and left it at that.) I don't own a DAC that decodes MQA and I'm certainly not losing any sleep over it. I've never met Bob Stuart or any of the other MQA principals.

 

As far as "converting anyone" to my cause, I think that a wonderful thing about Joel Alperson's editorial is that it has brought people out of the woodwork who are similarly weary of the uncivil tone of so much discourse in enthusiast communities, specifically ours. No converting is required—plenty of AS forum members are already believers, when it comes to addressing rude and aggressive online behavior.

 

Andy

Mr Quint

Seems like you consider those that agree with you to be civil.

Seems like you consider those that disagree with you to be uncivil.

1 minute ago, firedog said:

Maybe it is. But that doesn't mean I should go around telling little kids that he doesn't.

 

There's a time and a place for everything.

I am not a radical objectivist, but I also think some of the radical subjectivist threads here are a little nuts. So I just ignore them and let the people who enjoy them have their fun - even if, IMHO, they are a bit wacko. What I think doesn't always matter. 

I agree with what you're saying.  I'm just curious who the "little kids" are that you're talking about 🙂

And I find that I have much in common with some of the fiercest haters of objectivists.

My presence here is actually all @daverich4 's fault.  🙂  I was blissfully unaware of this thread's existence until he @-ed me.