Guest Editorial: Why did audio stop being about audio?

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Ha! So it's all about you then?  How about what I need to be happy? I need audio manufacturers to really try to improve the SOTA, to innovate in the space that actually makes a real and not imagined difference. Instead, I keep running into new products around better cables, de-crapifiers to de-crapify something that doesn't have any crap, and designer fuses with beeswax. I fondly remember the days when manufacturers really tried to build a better mouse trap. But hey, I guess I'm just an angry and bitter person, like Kennyb said Make Audio Great Again!!!  Ooops! No political agenda intended, sorry...

 

I don't see Harman, for example, dropping out of the business. In fact, they're a rather large company. And you know I'm also quite scientifically curious about much that is involved with our hobby. So I don't think a small number of people with ideas that might be silly are going to really bother anyone, except those who want to be bothered.

Just now, plissken said:

 

Only what the FTC site is stipulating:

 

"The FTC looks especially closely at advertising claims that can affect consumers’ health or their pocketbooks – claims about food, over-the-counter drugs, dietary supplements, alcohol, and tobacco and on conduct related to high-tech products "

 

I also like listening to Steve Lehto on YouTube for what that's worth 🙂

So how many pages has this dragged on now where you avoid saying "I'm not a mindreader so I can't know for a fact they're lying, but I sure as heck will tell you based on my experience and the measurements I've seen that they're wrong"? Why all the twists and turns to avoid that simple distinction, between accusing someone of lying and saying you have good reason to think they are wrong?

And if it's simply that you think someone is wrong, why the felt need to say so repeatedly?

11 hours ago, tmtomh said:

@joelha, I appreciate your article - thanks for contributing it!

 

I agree with you on one major point you make; I partially agree and partially disagree on another point; and I respectfully but strongly disagree on two other points.

 

Agree:

• Discussion and debate do often become uncivil, descending into ad hominem attacks and flat-out nastiness. It's disheartening, and unnecessary.

Partially Agree:

• The level of vitriol is no doubt connected to larger trends in our contemporary culture, which are apparent to us all - and so in that sense I agree that the nastiness in audiophile argument can to a degree be linked to other realms of disagreement. But I don't think there's anything unsusual or distinctive about audiophile argument - people get overheated about kinds of things that are just as minor or unimportant in the larger scheme of things as audio.

 

Disagree:

First, I feel your argument contains a very common logical omission: You do not clearly differentiate between fidelity and pleasing sound. You do mention this indirectly in one or two places but your argument does not take the implications of it into account. For example, you mention high-distortion tube amps that sound good, and then ask rhetorically why your "delusion" should be a problem for anyone else. But that's the point: if a tube amp has high distortion, then by definition its fidelity is reduced. I (and I suspect many others who put a lot of stock in measurements) am fine with you preferring the sound of tube amps - if you are fine with not trying to claim that a tube amp actually has higher fidelity by virtue of its euphonic distortion. In other words, I don't think many so-called "objectivists" would claim that you don't really hear a difference with tubes - they would only object to the claim or implication that tube sound is more faithful to the original source. When someone like Herb Reichert waxes poetic over and over (and over) again about such things, it might induce some eye-rolling, but to the extent that people get upset about subjective audiophile-press reviews, it's because that kind of rhapsodic language and hyper-detailed experiential narrative carries with it a strong implication that equipment is reaching new vistas of fidelity when the best evidence we have instead points to varying forms of coloration or "voicing" rather than enhanced fidelity. When reviewers summarize or even quote manufacturers' untested - and sometimes nonsensical - claims about technical innovations literally in the paragraph before they then report listening impressions that appear to bear out those claims, I think that is cause for suspicion and concern.

 

Second, I realize you are using religion more as an analogy than as a literal connection, but I must take issue with how you manage to depict so-called objectivists as both religious in a rigid, intolerant way and also anti-religion/anti-God in a narrow-minded/intolerant way. Subjectivists, by contrast, are depicted as religious in a joyful, open-hearted, testifying-to-the-good-news way. And objectivists, in your narrative, react against this spreading of the Good Word either with religious-style Inquisition, or with Soviet-style anti-religious condemnation. It's a highly self-serving and highly biased narrative. I don't think for a minute that you have written it this way in bad faith - but I do think it reflects a seriously blinkered and partial perspective of this issue on your part.

 

To stick with your religious analogy for a moment, I have no problem with people believing whatever they believe. If your faith gives you joy and fulfillment, that's great. And if you want to speak your truth in that regard, go for it. But if your zeal for that truth leads you to public forums where you feel the need to Spread the Good Word, then you shouldn't be surprised when you run into people with contrary beliefs, and you shouldn't be surprised when you run into some people who very much have a problem with you presenting your personal revelation (explicitly or implicitly) as The Truth. 

 

To be clear, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to spread The Word if you feel so moved - but it does mean that if you want anyone to take your point of view seriously, you need to be very careful about the knee-jerk labeling of disagreement with your perspective as nasty, intolerant, close-minded, or a symptom of the disagreeing parties' emotional problems or insecurities. 

 

And that is indeed a common link between some audio discussion and some religious discussion: Creationism and all manner of religious objections to established scientific theories are pursued through a willful refusal of the difference between faith and science, and through a confusion of the possible with the plausible. The same is true for claims about things like high-end digital interconnects that don't measure any differently or produce measurably different results than lower-cost ones.

 

Finally, while I do lean strongly objectivist, I do agree that measurements tend to be less reliable indicators of sound for types of equipment that, as a class, are capable of less fidelity than other types of equipment. In other words, transducers - speakers and microphones - are the least accurate links in most equipment chains, and I agree that speaker and microphone measurements, while useful, are less useful in gauging sound and helping with final purchasing decisions than measurements can be for, say, DACs, which when properly designed are capable of far higher fidelity at far lower cost.

 

Oh, and a P.S. to @The Computer Audiophile and others: As you know, I have repeatedly condemned some members' tendency to play the "you're a shill" card for people they disagree with. However, I do feel strongly that it makes a difference if someone is promoting a product they are making/selling versus just enthusing about a product they have heard or purchased. An individual audiophile is expressing a point of view. An equipment vendor is pursuing a vested interest. They're still owed civility, but IMHO they are not necessarily owed the level of interpersonal deference that an individual is.

tmtomh,

If every post on this site were as decent and well thought out at as yours, I would have had no reason to write my article. Thanks for that.

As to your first point, the reason I didn't discriminate between fidelity and pleasing sound is because that point wasn't central to the larger point I'm making. I completely understand what you're saying however, even if someone claims higher fidelity for a tube amp, I don't have a problem with someone challenging him. The issue is the way these challenges are being made. Too often they're provocative, involve ridicule and insults.

I never compared religion and objectivists. I compared religion to objectivists who are inappropriate.

That's the whole point of my article. People are focusing on the word "objectivist" and I want them to focus more on how inappropriate the objectivists can be.

That's where my religious analogies come in.

Again, thanks for a great and thoughtful post.

Joel

9 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

It's not supposed to be a backhanded compliment - it's meant to be a regular, standard-issue compliment. It's admirable when you call out ad hominem attacks for what they are.

 

They are not, it seems to me, just an assault on someone's professional worth but an attempt to inflame and provoke. Lavorgna? He's a pretty excitable guy, but Lee S? He's really a gentle and thoughtful person who tried to engage in a serious discussion about the merits of you-know-what, and it took a lot of effort on the part of a dedicated few to get him unhinged enough to emit a bad word. If you'd given the sort of dressing-down to several of the worst bullies at the time that you gave to Plissken here, maybe there could be more discussions that stay useful for longer on any number of controversial subjects. As there are, by the way, on plenty of AS threads.

 

So, by all means, keep up what Cogley and crenca would refer to as "finger-wagging." It's what separates us from the the beasts of the forest.

 

Andy

I'm not sure you were around at the beginning of the MQA discussion here, but I was pretty vocal in demanding proof from those who said MQA was a scam. I was called a shill and everything Lee was called. So, I've done what you stated. 

Plus, personal responsibility is important to me. I don't care why someone flys off the handle and break the rules. They can claim "he made me do it" all day long. It will fall on deaf ears. 

I don't understand the finger wagging bit. 

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Ha! So it's all about you then?  How about what I need to be happy? I need audio manufacturers to really try to improve the SOTA, to innovate in the space that actually makes a real and not imagined difference. Instead, I keep running into new products around better cables, de-crapifiers to de-crapify something that doesn't have any crap, and designer fuses with beeswax. I fondly remember the days when manufacturers really tried to build a better mouse trap. But hey, I guess I'm just an angry and bitter person, like Kennyb said Make Audio Great Again!!!  Ooops! No political agenda intended, sorry...

 

As I've said before, it's almost like you think "real" innovation is inversely proportional to "snake oil." If we have more of one we can't have more of the other. I believe you can get all you want of both.

I have no other way to describe the objectivist interjections at every point, other than a crusade to save people, stop others from making money on what they see is wrong, a fear of the anti-science agenda, hatred of those they don't agree with, and other things. 

Nothing else explains the repeated unwanted interjections. Not even the objectivists can explain it.

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

I don't see Harman, for example, dropping out of the business. In fact, they're a rather large company. And you know I'm also quite scientifically curious about much that is involved with our hobby. So I don't think a small number of people with ideas that might be silly are going to really bother anyone, except those who want to be bothered.

Agree 100%. 

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Of course. That post was mostly in jest, Jud. I know for a fact that you are curious and willing to consider real evidence. Would be interesting to see how this site contributors break-down on a subjective vs. objective scale. I wouldn't be surprised if it's 100:1  

 

Any AI/data-scientists here that want to do the research?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it's 100:1 either. Not sure what that says about anything, but I'd guess it's a fair assumption.

Perhaps people enjoying themselves, tinkering, getting involved with a like-minded community, and a live and let listen attitude is beneficial to communication and posting on a site. Who knew. 

47 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Of course. That post was mostly in jest, Jud. I know for a fact that you are curious and willing to consider real evidence. Would be interesting to see how this site contributors break-down on a subjective vs. objective scale. I wouldn't be surprised if it's 100:1  

 

Any AI/data-scientists here that want to do the research?

 

I'd be happy to chat about audio, music, and (other) matters scientific with you or Dennis all day long, and perhaps someday we'll have the opportunity.

Regarding the split, I think objective and subjective is less important than people with whom one can have an informative and entertaining conversation.

17 hours ago, daverich4 said:

Three pages on civility without @Samuel T Cogley weighing in? S’up with that?

Civility is so 2016 😎

19 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

As I've said before, it's almost like you think "real" innovation is inversely proportional to "snake oil." If we have more of one we can't have more of the other. I believe you can get all you want of both.

Think of it as signal to noise ratio. In today's hi-fi market, there is so much noise (snake oil) that it is difficult to find the signal (honest products that simply do what they say for a reasonable price). There's a hi-fi store a couple of blocks from my house. They sell only snake oil interconnects (AudioQuest and such), and the salesmen say silly things about silver. This isn't even a "high end" store. If I need an interconnect, my options are to buy bulk cable and mount connectors myself, or I can take my chances on Amazon with the risk of being scammed in the other direction (cheap crap that falls apart if you look at it the wrong way). Do you find this situation desirable? I do not.

14 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I can honestly say that I believe this wholeheartedly. Innovation has slowed down to a crawl with much junk and unnecessary devices/enhancements being introduced all the time. As Mans said, true innovation is very hard to find in the noise.

Innovation in what area? Harman, the speaker, etc., manufacturer, may be the largest company in audio. Best Buy was selling $79 Pioneer speakers designed by Andrew Jones. I bought a pair for $49 on sale and think they're great. For DACs, amps, and audio files, what attacks on the audible state of the art remain to be made in your opinion? 

@mansr may despair of finding adequate cables, but I've had no such difficulty; just bought some nice light flexible Monoprice Ethernet cables from Amazon, recommended here by a “subjectivist.”