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



    5 hours ago, rando said:

     

    Perhaps the reader's social skills were implied.  ;)

     

    Hey, look, the OK Rando button got implemented!

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    I believe you're hurting your own cause with little quips like this. At no point did he say anything like that and in fact said the opposite. 

    I don't know if I have a cause other than hoping the MQA scam is never implemented.  There may indeed be uncivil people here, but I take offense to Mr Quints passive-aggressive lumping of everyone who disagrees with him as being uncivil. It is labeling.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

    but I take offense to Mr Quints passive-aggressive lumping of everyone who disagrees with him as being uncivil. It is labeling.

    I haven't read all his posts, but sure hope he didn't do as you say. That would be preposterous. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Teresa said:

     

    Archie Mago maybe?

     

    vs.  

     

    5 minutes ago, Jud said:

     

    "Hello, may I speak to Mr. Archie Majo, please?"

     

    It's like Led Zeppelin all over again.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    16 minutes ago, wgscott said:

     

    Hey, look, the OK Rando button got implemented!

     

     

     

    I thought it was superseded by the UltraRando ??

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

    The word "disingenuous" came to mind when I read it.

     

    The glasses in your profile photo are definitely not rose colored :~)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

    "Good Sound" is more likely with good Scotch, and the state store had a very rare sale today.

     

    Therefore...

    BUT you need a good cigar to with that scotch plus ones subjective sense of Good Sound

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    41 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    I haven't read all his posts, but sure hope he didn't do as you say. That would be preposterous. 

     

    No, that's pretty much it.  He does not understand MQA though his understanding is besides the point.  I think he generally wants to understand why there has been a consumer reaction against it, but like a drunk sitting at the bar wondering why anyone would think one more would be a problem, he is too deep into the mythos of Audiophiledom to ever really "get" a skeptical, critical attitude toward it.

     

    You and @kennyb123are going to make me cry with your dreamers dream of "why we can't just get along"!  Well, not really 😉  I still think until there is an honest accounting of the real nature of subjectivism vs objectivism, then civility is going to be difficult.

     

    Interesting what you say about how you are certain that you would have seen MQA for the scam it is sooner if the tone was different.  I recall your reluctance, your "giving the benefit of the doubt" 2, 3, 7 times against all evidence.  Thing is, the culture of audiophiledom sets the tone  - short of almost herculean efforts on the part of individuals.  The tone of audiophile culture being "The Big Crazy", well skeptics and objectivists are always (always always) going to be more or less "uncivil" because the culture and most of those in it want to go along with the stream - going along (often confused with getting along) is easier.  Not going along is a war on Christmas, a war on pleasure, a war on music, and a war on "live and let live", and truth be told there is a certain truth in this reaction.

     

    Consumerism is about desire.  Desire of the audiophile for pleasure, reinforcement, etc.  Desire on the part of "the industry" to fulfill that desire and make $money$, and to control/direct the consumers desire.  But this sort of self-evaluation (on the part of everybody) is hard, and "live and let live" is easy.  Hard things don't happen all that often, easy things do.  This is why the objective subject divide and its side skirmishes around "civility" will remain the status quo...

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 minutes ago, wgscott said:

     

    Hey, look, the OK Rando button got implemented!

     

    Hindsight is (‿|‿)   In your case so is forethought.  Secondhand pop culture references are usually Ralf's bailiwick.  I think you'd be kidding me saying you two didn't work 'Ok Rando' out together.  Especially since I've made it clear in the past when one or both of you were engaging in ageism.

     

     

    Predicate to this discussion was the suggestion that far from lacking any social skills.  Mans perhaps was still in a working mindset and was being ribbed to finish clocking out before he missed/discouraged too much fun in here.  He wasn't the only one being asked to loosen up, just the closest.  :)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    As long as you are objective with your subjective assessment of sound quality, I don’t think anyone would criticize that. Problem is they started talking about a product based on objective attributes and concludes about its sound quality subjectively. That is fine as long as you are able to demonstrate your preference consistently. 
     

    I have a habit of making a playlist for each visitors listening session in the JRiver. I also make a copy of all settings in the Reaper project. In this way, I could replay the exact sound they liked or disliked in their previous session in any other occasions. 
     

    During their follow up visits, I will play the previous list and then compare their subjective assessment of their previous listening and current one. Either these so called audio connoisseur are lying or simply not consistent. A track which they claimed lacking bass is now deemed to be adequate or overwhelming. A blurred centre image is now a rock solid projection. 

     

    Nothing changed in between but same sound with different verdict from the same listeners. This inconsistency also applies to me and no one is exempted. 
     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    32 minutes ago, STC said:

    As long as you are objective with your subjective assessment of sound quality, I don’t think anyone would criticize that. Problem is they started talking about a product based on objective attributes and concludes about its sound quality subjectively. That is fine as long as you are able to demonstrate your preference consistently. 

    This line of thinking interests me. 

     

    Why is it a problem that, "they started talking about a product based on objective attributes and concludes about its sound quality subjectively?" And, why should they be able, "able to demonstrate your preference consistently?"

     

    They aren't producing a drug for epilepsy. They are having fun in their own way.

     

    What's the worst that can happen if they are allowed to discuss their listening impressions unchallenged?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    1 hour ago, crenca said:

    You and @kennyb123are going to make me cry with your dreamers dream of "why we can't just get along"!  Well, not really 😉  I still think until there is an honest accounting of the real nature of subjectivism vs objectivism, then civility is going to be difficult.

     

     

     

    I think you’re right.  I do think when we look at the real nature of objectivism we may find that persons who make broad sweeping generalizations like “there’s no way that audiophile power cords can improve the sound of your amplifier” shouldn’t really be called objectivists because they don’t seem inclined to apply data in a meaningfully objective way.   

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    And, why should they be able, "able to demonstrate your preference consistently?"


    If this hobby is about taking pictures of stars using long shutter speed and the discussion is revolving around cameras and sharpness of the pictures, would it be so wrong if someone suggests to use a tripod?  What is so wrong of telling that your understanding could be wrong? 
     

    The object is high fidelity and bystanders are just going going to swallow hook, line and sinker based on false belief if they do not have access to the differing views. 

     

    5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

     

    They aren't producing a drug for epilepsy. They are having fun in their own way.

     

    What's the worst that can happen if they are allowed to discuss their listening impressions unchallenged?


     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    32 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

    We always provide space for differing views. It just can't be done where it isn't wanted. Most people like to read all views, but they want to do it at their own pace and at the time of their choosing. We even recommend people with opposing views start their own thread and put a link in the original thread. It's a great way to keep both threads focussed and let people chose what they want to read. 


    I fully agree to that.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 minutes ago, STC said:


    I fully agree to that.


    But shouldn’t that request come from the OP him/herself? What we usually have is others who are objecting to the opposing views rather than the OP. 

    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...