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



    1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

     

    Not necessarily.  Context needs to be considered.

     

    Note the claim that @plissken made:  "When products are championed in the market place that are proven empirically to have no possible impact on audio."  

     

    This is an exaggerated and false claim based on a misunderstanding of the proper application of null results.  

     

    Oh enlighten me...

    1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

     

    Now is what he did unethical?   It depends on his intentions so we must consider the context.  Did he just misspeak or maybe was not aware of the proper application of statistical results

    How many times do you have to put your hand in the fire for the fact that you got burned to become statistically significant?

    1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

     Smearing them with malicious intent - that's what unethical looks like.

     

    I'm not smearing anyone. The instrumentation speaks for itself. If some manufacturer thinks I libeled them then there is a venue for resolving this.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    em·pir·i·cal
    /əmˈpirik(ə)l/
    adjective
    adjective: empirical
    1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

    The context there points to ethical intentions as they leave it to the prospective buyer to make the final call on the veracity of their claims.  Some, like Uptone, will fully refund purchases within 30 days if a buyer is not fully pleased with the product.  That's what ethical looks like.

     

    ...to a radical subjectivism and unfortunately most of Audiophiledom.  "Pleasure" and satisfaction does not equal the ethical.  A more normative perspective on ethics is that it is much more closely related to truth.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, plissken said:

     

    Oh enlighten me...

     

     

    You are un-enlighten-able on this topic.  Your ethics don't require that your own claims be based on sound science.  Nothing I can say will change your mind.  You are too personally invested in your desired outcome that you won't allow fairness to get in the way.

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

    I must admit you deflect with a creativity that is really something to behold.


    LOL! Give it up. You cannot beat these guys up. They are professional forum writers. They have mastered this trade

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    37 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

    it ain't him; it's you

     

    Wow, surprise, you respond with "deflect and attack". 

     

    Why not challenge my assertion?  In other words, why not provide the scientific basis for why it is acceptable for plissken to apply the results the way he did?  Is it because you can't and you know it? 

     

    Are you really an objectivist or are you just posing as one?

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    6 minutes ago, thyname said:


    LOL! Give it up. You cannot beat these guys up. They are professional forum writers. They have mastered this trade

     

    I know I can't beat them.  They're just helping me confirm a hypothesis.  

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The scientific method is worth of study before you start playing with hypotheses

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

    They are professional engineers and scientists.

     

    I believe you've just employed the "credentials fallacy" - though maybe not exactly.  If a person behaves like a child on a forum, their credentials are irrelevant.  

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

    The scientific method is worth of study before you start playing with hypotheses

     

    As an FYI, this (and #5 in particular) was not meant to be a "how to" guide.  

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 minutes ago, thyname said:


    ‘You have way too many posts here for a 14 years old guy writing from your parents’ basement 😁

     

     

    what's with the personal attacks, muffy??

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Are fuse's still an issue or moved from the Harry potter side/ box of magic beans of audio? 

    The electronics EEC designers in work looked at me like i'd grown a new head and quite rightly.

    I tried one before for fun and noticed a change 2 years on... second hand one just in.. fantastic but its just a fuse. My only concern always is that it doesn't sound like a fireman kicking the door in. 

    These guys scream of pseudoscience marketing crap for scientologist rejects...

    Not done a Amir special and A B' using 25 blind electronics engineers but enough that I can't reconcile that this has done the most to enhance my listening pleasure. Whats more the Ebay seller described to a Tee the exact changes before it arrived...

    But kept my mouth shut the first time as bias and just in my head like the voice that said spend £100 on a bloody fuse... more money means better and be belittled..

     

    But i am trapped with sub/obj dogma as the IFI gear measures well and is published but more than less had little effect for a modest price. 

    I am a subjectivist by default because its all i have but the paradox of having 'faith' in a highly educated engineer in thier field telling me otherwise because i am not and i should.

    So the bullshit filter failed me and cost me. Trust from experience won... 

    But a dilemma many it seems are trapped between... well at least me... 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

    You are too personally invested in your desired outcome that you won't allow fairness to get in the way...

     

     

    Not sure why you went personal.  You put forward an ethic, one that claims that radical subjectivism is "what ethics look like".  Yet surely you know that an objective thinker is never going to agree to such a radically subjective ethics...

     

    Edit:  I understand that what is "fair" (ethical) is subjectively determined, but can you allow that to an objective view this is hopelessly relative?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, crenca said:

    I understand that what is "fair" (ethical) is subjectively determined, but can you allow that to an objective view this is hopelessly relative?

     

    I meant to say:

     

    I understand that what is "fair" (ethical) for you is subjectively determined, but can you allow that to an objective view this is hopelessly relative?

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, Middy said:

    bullshit

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    let me get this straight - the F word is not allowed, but this is?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    34 minutes ago, crenca said:

     

    I meant to say:

     

    I understand that what is "fair" (ethical) for you is subjectively determined, but can you allow that to an objective view this is hopelessly relative?

     


    I can think of no greater waste of time than to discuss what is and isn’t ethical with someone who consistently misrepresents what others have said.  

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:


    I can think of no greater waste of time than to discuss what is and isn’t ethical with someone who consistently misrepresents what others have said.  

     

    Look who is dodging now.  Sucks don't it, when folks don't agree to the terms of how to get where you want to go.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    6 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

     

     

    let me get this straight - the F word is not allowed, but this is?

     

    Hi Ralf i hope this was taken in its context.. that even published figures or outlandish claims of synergistic research, I cling to people like your good self to interpret what I don't understand. 

    Published results can be as much BS as nano quantum tunneling marketing babble.

    But i cant lock Amir in my basement as my personal measurements gimp if I fancy spending money. I can't verify facts that are verifiable and i am back to try before you buy if i am lucky.

     

    Piggy in the middle and people who try to help on both sides are attacked regardless as not qualified enough... Golden Ears or letters after thier name.

     

    But i very much appreciate your help regardless..😁

     

    All this at best... hopefully Shepparding me in the right direction with the tag line caveat emptor...

     

     

     

    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...