Guest Editorial: Why did audio stop being about audio?

to get back to the topic:

Audio stopped being about audio because some people realized they could sell worthless junk to others if they dressed it up as "hi-tech" or encased it in Bubinga wood

14 hours ago, crenca said:

What's beyond the trap of (largely unconsciously) of committing to either objectivism or subjectivism and then accusing the other side of ill will?  My personal take is to look at audio in terms of consumerism and desire, manipulated by ourselves and "the industry".  I would welcome other takes however. 

Thanks for a thought provoking post and a genuine offer for reflection on this complex and troubling issue.

I see that this issue is made from a constellation of factors, arranged in a hierarchy of value, many of them expressed and scattered throughout these threads. You have mentioned a key one - 'consumerism and desire' for sure drives all of us as that is how society is structured and where we find our place.

I suggest that 'identity' is one of the primary motivations and needs serious scrutiny. Labelling oneself or being labelled, being told what one can or can't do hear or say elicits strong tribal responses but only when the walls have been accepted or forced up on us. Why not hold the categories of identity lightly and see what is around the corners of our projected self. Personally I refuse to be labeled and I find this makes for a more interesting and enjoyable journey. Cheers..

Over in the thread titled “Forum Decorum” I just posted and then realized that my short statement aligns more closely with the debate in this thread. So here it is:

The main problem I have with the objectivist/measurement/“scientists” here is that many are closed-minded to the likelihood that the current standard suite of noise/distortion/jitter tests are not telling the whole story with regards to the micro-perturbations that circulate in our audio systems and affect the clock thresholds in commonly used silicon.

I liken the situation to that period in medical science when we had microscopes and X-rays but not CT scanners or an understanding of the DNA and the genome. Even during that transitional period good medicine was practiced, sometimes based mostly on empirical outcomes and not full understandings of the mechanisms (in fact there still exist drugs that work without complete understanding of why).

And what will all the most vocal skeptics here (and in some of the very same people in another popular forum where they are FAR less civil) say when the science advances or when explanations and proof come to the fore? Will they all apologize for being so utterly dismissive and for their years of ridiculing those who have been reporting hearing differences all along?

I am not holding my breath. 

And I guess we are in for more years of being told that our ears and our audio companies are deceiving us. 

49 minutes ago, Superdad said:

Over in the thread titled “Forum Decorum” I just posted and then realized that my short statement aligns more closely with the debate in this thread. So here it is:

 

The main problem I have with the objectivist/measurement/“scientists” here is that many are closed-minded to the likelihood that the current standard suite of noise/distortion/jitter tests are not telling the whole story with regards to the micro-perturbations that circulate in our audio systems and affect the clock thresholds in commonly used silicon.

 

I liken the situation to that period in medical science when we had microscopes and X-rays but not CT scanners or an understanding of the DNA and the genome. Even during that transitional period good medicine was practiced, sometimes based mostly on empirical outcomes and not full understandings of the mechanisms (in fact there still exist drugs that work without complete understanding of why).

 

And what will all the most vocal skeptics here (and in some of the very same people in another popular forum where they are FAR less civil) say when the science advances or when explanations and proof come to the fore? Will they all apologize for being so utterly dismissive and for their years of ridiculing those who have been reporting hearing differences all along?

I am not holding my breath. 

And I guess we are in for more years of being told that our ears and our audio companies are deceiving us. 

You could be right. 

But since we all know that expectation bias is a real thing, we don't have to "be told" that our ears can deceive us, it's simply a fact that they can - and do. To all of us. And often. It's simply part of the human "design". 

With respect, you seem to think that the fact that you have satisfied customers (and I've been one of them) proves your claims for your products - it doesn't. It just means that X number of people under sighted listening conditions liked what they heard. That's fine for them as individual listeners, but means nothing in terms of the actual performance of your product(s). 

I understand you believe "conventional" measurements are lacking, but you seem to claim that a product like the EtherRegen lowers jitter, and reduces phase noise. Neither of those are "unknown" aspects of engineering and audio. So certainly you should be able to produce measurements (either self done or done by an outside lab) that shows this to be true. 

In addition, in your  "listening impressions"  thread there are very dramatic descriptions of how the ER has improved the sound of some systems. You certainly seem to accept these descriptions as valid and reflecting the ability of your product to improve SQ: So even if we don't have (as you claim) all the relevant measurements at our disposal, shouldn't at least some of the results of such dramatic descriptions of SQ improvement show up in the known conventional measurements we do have: reduction of  jitter, distortion, or other measurements of "noise", or improved S/N ratio -  from the output of a DAC that is in a system with the ER being used as intended? 

It strains credulity to think that such dramatic improvements in SQ wouldn't show up in some form in the measurements currently available to audio science, at least some of the time. Your claims and suppositions would be more credible if you could show that they do. 

1 hour ago, Superdad said:

(in fact there still exist drugs that work without complete understanding of why).

Your statement downplays this big time. Many drugs today and drugs still being worked on and released in the future are this way. I take one that I'd like to get off of. I asked my doctor if he could just measure the level in my blood when I'm on and off the drug and I could compare this will the results of what the drug is supposed to do. He laughed and said it can't be done. 

I know this is medicine, not audio, but it's an interesting piece of information for those that believe one can't develop a product without knowing how 100% of the pieces fit into the puzzle. I have an open mind, but not so open my brain falls out. 

1 hour ago, Superdad said:

(in fact there still exist drugs that work without complete understanding of why).

This is undoubtedly true but I'd be willing to bet that double blind testing has been performed on them to confirm their efficacy.

21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I know this is medicine, not audio, but it's an interesting piece of information for those that believe one can't develop a product without knowing how 100% of the pieces fit into the puzzle. I have an open mind, but not so open my brain falls out.

Tylenol (acetaminophen) is one.  It's not an NSAID and its core mechanism is not understood.  

Yet, it is not a placebo - it really is efficacious for fever and pain and these effects are measurable.  This is more than a subjective "I feel better when I take this drug".

To leverage the unknown in medicine, or any other human endeavor, in an open ended way "anything is possible - buy this product" is something other than engineering and science.

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

We need a "please elaborate" reaction

I'm always willing to leave openings for advances that current engineers eschew. At some point, all engineering was crazy. 

58 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Your statement downplays this big time. Many drugs today and drugs still being worked on and released in the future are this way. I take one that I'd like to get off of. I asked my doctor if he could just measure the level in my blood when I'm on and off the drug and I could compare this will the results of what the drug is supposed to do. He laughed and said it can't be done. 

 

I know this is medicine, not audio, but it's an interesting piece of information for those that believe one can't develop a product without knowing how 100% of the pieces fit into the puzzle. I have an open mind, but not so open my brain falls out. 

There are always limitations to a mechanistic view, namely that you think you have it all understood yet there is some other factor affecting the system - often episodically.  This is common in what I call complex systems, e.g. climate science, ecology, and economics (to name one that isn't a science).

While "it strains credulity to think that such dramatic improvements in SQ wouldn't show up in some form in the measurements currently available to audio science" there is always some (small) possibility that some aspects of SQ are not captured by the measurements (done, made, presented to consumers or -gasp - possible today).

And that is why I am a Subjectivist.  But subjective analysis is not the same as guessing or "Impressionism" - to be at all valid it requires reliable comparisons, where sources of bias are removed by blind testing.

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

While "it strains credulity to think that such dramatic improvements in SQ wouldn't show up in some form in the measurements currently available to audio science" there is always some (small) possibility that some aspects of SQ are not captured by the measurements (done, made, presented to consumers or -gasp - possible today).

 

But audio manufacturers make claims for their devices about things we do know how to measure - but don't provide the measurements. If, for example, you say your device "reduces the jitter" produced by a DAC, then show that it does. Jitter isn't some aspect of SQ that can't be measured. 

1 minute ago, firedog said:

But audio manufacturers make claims for their devices about things we do know how to measure - but don't provide the measurements. If, for example, you say your device "reduces the jitter" produced by a DAC, then show that it does. Jitter isn't some aspect of SQ that can't be measured. 

I'm with you on this. But, many people who also enjoy our wonderful hobby don't care. They use their ears and are 100% OK with this method of evaluation. This is a tough thing for many (not you specifically) to accept. 

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm with you on this. But, many people who also enjoy our wonderful hobby don't care. They use their ears and are 100% OK with this method of evaluation. This is a tough thing for many (not you specifically) to accept. 

I understand you weren't specifically referring to me. And I have zero problem with people and their listening experiences. I'm much more interested in the claims of manufacturers. That's what results in claims of "snake oil".

The problem with the original "snake oil" patent medicines wasn't with the experiences of the users (the placebo effect is a real effect), it was with the claims of the makers about the wonderful, unproven, and scientifically unlikely effects of their "snake oil" and it's ability to cure all sorts of ailments. 

On 12/9/2019 at 10:48 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

I really wish I would've been around in the days of meet-ups at audio stores to schmooze about all things music and HiFi.

After 761 responses to this well written and very interesting editorial (thanks, Joel !), I still haven't found anything to which I wanted to respond except Chris' initial comment.  I didn't respond on publication because I took that wish as no more than the innocent observation of a young man (OK - a relatively young man......) on "the good old days" that he heard about but sadly missed.  I was fortunate enough to live them to the fullest, and I can confirm that it was a great time for creative, intellectually curious thinkers and all who craved and valued sensory input of any kind.  But after reading hundreds of comments, many of which relate in some way to what Bobflood calls "the meanness of our time", I've thought a lot about what happened to those good old days and why we are where we are.

My family valued art, literature and music enough to have an abundance of each in our home.  When I was born in 1946, my father (an early adopter for sure) had a Stromberg Carlson audio system with a huge "Acoustical Labyrinth" speaker system built around a 12" field coil woofer.  We had hundreds of his family's 78s dating to 1920, along with my parents' collection of show tunes, assorted classics, and jazz (featuring my father's favorite performer - Nat King Cole).  He bought a Webcor 181 wire recorder in 1953 when they became available for sale, and his friend Rudy Kuba (who owned the local electronics store and was "the" local service guy) spent a lot of time at our house.  When stereo became available to the consumer (about 1958), we had the first RCA stereophonic system - and I still have "Sounds in Space", the demo record that came with it. So I started hanging around audio people & stores and learning about audio electronics at a very young age, building a 2W amplifier when I was 9 or 10.  I had several friends who shared these interests.  More than a few became amateur radio operators like the principal of our elementary school (whose call letters were K2SOX!) and we hung out together regularly.

I went to college in the Boston area in 1964, where I discovered a world of audio greatness that (for me) centered around the AR "sound room" and the KLH shop (both in Cambridge).  My friends and I got to see, hear, and play with the best of the day, which included the KLH 9, the ARx series, Hegeman's CItation 2, Marantz's 7& 8, McIntosh (whose stuff was far from prized by most of the audio press back then but sounded great to me) and a ton of amazingly good stuff from the likes of Eico, Dyna, etc.  We got to talk about it all with the engineers, designers, etc who made it happen. And because I was already a professional musician, I was invited to some great private listening sessions and jams.

When I moved to Philly for medical school in 1968, I found a new haunt called Danby Radio, owned and operated by an ex-lawyer who fell in love with audio after returning from WW II.  Dan was one of the first dealers for every major audio product that came along between his opening in about 1950 until he retired and sold the business about 40 years later.  He designed speakers with Fred Martin, and together they installed the first modern sound reinforcement system in the Phila Academy of Music.  I got to hang with his technician and customers (who included most of the known names in Philly music, from the conductor of the Phila Orchestra to the cream of the local band leaders and sidemen).  I made demo tapes of solo instruments for him on the high speed Crown SX724 he found for me, and we did extensive testing and tweaking of a lot of stuff using my instruments and these tapes side by side.

When I fell in love with Rogers LS3/5a speakers around the beginning of 1975 and told Dan about them, he got a hold of some and decided he wouldn't sell them because he thought they were "cold" and not well suited to his customers' listening rooms and habits. He also hated inefficient speakers and was offended by the combination of their 15 ohm impedance and limited power handling. So I found & bought a pair elsewhere (which wasn't easy) and still have & love them today.  He asked me to bring them for A-B comparison with his favorites.  I remember spending the better part of a Saturday in his showroom with about a dozen other people while I was still a resident, going back and forth comparing multiple systems to my Rogers using the AR test record, my demo tapes, and a series of very fine vinyl played on a Thorens TD125 / SME.  We tried different electronics using some great pieces, including early Sony SS monoblocks, a Yamaha B2, my Marantz 7 and 8, his Mac 275, my Citation 2, the first Apt Holman preamp (which he loved and brought in for me to try) etc. Everybody had a favorite or two and at least one combo that they hated - but voices were never raised and we were all still friends when we left.

Almost everybody (including my wife and my audio dealer) hated the Infinity Reference Standards I grabbed for a song from their original owner when his wife gave him the "it's me or them" ultimatum.  They remained in my home for about a year, as I recall, before I couldn't stand the "size doesn't matter" sarcasm and got rid of them.  My Crown IC150 & DC150 were equally unpleasant to many.  I also had a few guitar amps whose sound displeased my bandmates and leaders. Etc etc etc.

Although this could continue for another few thousand words, the narrative has reached the point at which comments in and on this thread fall into context.  Up to the middle '70s, interaction among the serious audiophiles with whom I was hanging was almost entirely well informed and politely collegial, despite some very serious differences of opinion.  Dan was so open to criticism that when I insisted I heard a slight difference in the mids between a pair of speakers he'd designed and built, he tore them open and found a bad cap in the offending crossover even though he didn't hear it.  We brought our own equipment to each others' homes and shops for comparative listening, and we used our own instruments to compare live to reproduced sound.  We learned from each other, and we often ended up trading stuff back and forth.  I even traded my modded Marantz 7c to Dan for the Apt Holman after swapping for what we thought would be a few weeks so we could each experience the other's current favorite (a frequent event).

Although there was no internet, there was an active community of audiophiles who expressed themselves in the analog equivalent of the web (club and professional journals).  Groups like the Boston Audio Society had monthly journals in which we wrote up and published our opinions, findings, studies, experiments, observations etc.  Letters to the editors of consumer audio publications were well used outlets for pent up thoughts, opinions, and emotions.  Some were a bit smarmy, and a few threatened to cancel subscriptions - but most were nicely written and interesting, whether or not you agreed with them.

When the "audiophile press" came along, reader exchanges with each other and the editorial staffs seemed to become sharper and not infrequently more strained.  This new schism was perpetuated by many condescending comments from audiophiles and their publications about the consumer audio press and its readers.   And as audio equipment became more complex and sophisticated, it did what tech does - it began to outpace the knowledge, skill & experience of many users.  

This hotbed of emotion boiled passions on both sides, in a kind of audio global warming.  As it inevitably began to ignite flames among the most volatile and flammable, discourse grew sharper - and the burn redirected attention from civility to reducing the distress.  Dealers like my friend Dan Greenfield have largely disappeared, and there are simply too few places in which we could gather like we did in days of old for face to face discourse, even if we wanted to do so.  I strongly doubt that many AS participants would drag their audio equipment to club meetings and gatherings of friends so we could all experience and play with it.

We had serious, knowledgeable people around to keep up honest and educate us when we were wrong (which was often).  The founders and designers of legendary equipment were accessible to us, and they shared their thoughts freely.  The staffs in places like the AR and KLH listening rooms and most high end dealers knew their stuff - no one was trying to say whatever they thought it took to get us to buy anything.  No one brought religion, politics, mental health, metaphysics, philosophy etc to the conversations.  No one insulted you if they didn't sell what you came to buy.  Your opinions were just that, and you had to support them if you wanted to convince others to change theirs.  It was clear to all (OK, to most) that measurements didn't describe everything we heard - so we looked for new things to measure and new ways to measure them.  Does anybody remember slew rate?

Getting your hands and ears on stuff became harder and less frequent, and experience shifted from the above world to whatever one could learn from the internet.  People began to express themselves in real time through web posting, which eliminated the fun factor of getting together in each others' homes and shops.  And many audiophiles found themselves left behind in the knowledge race because of all this. We're increasingly isolated from each other, which leaves us with no real time filter through which to express ourselves to each other.  And what Bobflood refers to as the "meanness of our time" crept into our little corner of the world from the otherwise unrelated realm of life in modern times.

Life was simpler in the good old days.  Many people seemed to feel better then about themselves and their lives than they do now.  We didn't take everything personally, and we saved our energy for the experiences we were having instead of wasting it on arguments. There was rarely any alcohol or other intoxicant present, and even those few who hated each other for business or philosophical reasons were generally civil about it.  Yes, it's a shame we can't have that world back again.  But maybe we can create a modern version by remembering and embodying at last some of what I describe above. 

Yes, Chris - those were great times.  They truly helped make me what I am today, and I'm forever grateful for them.  But the 21st century's also a pretty cool place to be, and I have to believe we can bring back the fun and feeling of those great days.  All it will take is some personal reflection by each of us to decide how much we want them.  I hope reading the above will ignite a better flame or two.