Guest Editorial: Why did audio stop being about audio?

One a more serious note,

this discussion shows in a special way why the supporter of "objectivism" and scientific approach are thinnly skinned when they feel further pushed away from the silver bullet to be just another option of opinion, maybe to be respected, maybe not - but definately to be critisized for their unfriendly bad manners in responding. Such is society in 2020.
I feel that respecting some rules of good communication may include sometimes to reflect our own beliefs as beliefs and facts as facts.
You don't need to like facts but there is no need to shoot messengers, and nowadays there is no need to burn witches for their beliefs.
It is sure an important discussion, thanks to Joel, Chris and most of the others, though we need to acknowledge that reacting repeatedly extremely calm not generally defends well again snarky sarcasm. And it feels weak, somehow.
OTOH, responding only calm to a cold push from the throne build on the fundamentals of science doesn't generate you another throne. Maybe the picture does not work well for some, it is about understanding the opposite opinion in a community and live with it rather than destroy it for our own rightfulness. I had the top of a mountain already as a picture, another picture is that you will build & plunge only once a submarine only on beliefs (in case you can get it down to 3000 feet).
The personal comfort zone of beliefs just ends where the facts kick in.
The scientist may accept people's belief and may try to establish rules of thumbs on his knowledge about it. In my ideal community beliefs and science can co-exits, based on accepting that the fabric of understanding the world has its home on the side of facts. Without that a split by incompatibility approaches.

another 5 cents  ... Tom

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

what brand of video cable are you using?

That's unimportant as long as the Ethernet isn't the old kind with Manchester coding.

59 minutes ago, mansr said:

Yes, I said that, but don't flatter yourself. It applies equally to John Swenson, Gordon Rankin, Ted Denney, and anyone else making/selling devices that demonstrably do nothing.

Quoting @joelha from his article:

"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."

I couldn't agree more with the text I've bolded. What makes it worse than "without hard evidence" is that all the feedback of delighted customers is demeaned and deemed entirely worthless.  I'm always taken aback by such behavior because it's so far out of the norm from what I've experienced in my personal and professional interactions.  And to go as far as trying to ruin a person's good name - especially when one like our own John Swenson is smeared as "incompetent or dishonest" ... that carries with it the stench of depravity.  

That's my last post in this thread.  Time to cleanse by going up to my listening room to enjoy the great sound of my system - recently made more enjoyable by John Swenson's efforts.  Back to the real word - where through the kind efforts of really great people I can more fully enjoy the music I love.

41 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

A few days ago you said you didn't care about making any money from your site - it was only about the audiophile community

I used the example of this is how I feed my family because it illustrates how much time I spend here on the site and my reason for being as active as the person I was talking to via this thread. 

I don't believe I said I won't care about making any money. I likely said as long as I can feed my family I'm good with it. I'm not out to get rich, even if that was possible in online niche publishing. 

39 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Exactly - major corporations rarely cater to our tiny market. Yet virtually every component that goes into our present DACs, amps, etc., is made by a major corporation. Tiny audiophile companies aren't making their own DAC or ADC chips. The same will be true of chips for better multichannel audio (and that's without even thinking about how much more affordable speakers would have to be; that would have to come from economies of mass production, it seems to me).

 

We can get there through software now (HQPlayer at least; there may be others I don't know about), but it requires top of the line CPUs and GPUs to do the processing, so that's not realistically going to be available even to the wider audiophile market. Either computing will have to continue to get cheaper (major corporations), or we'll need chips (major corporations).

 

We'll also need agreed on standards for end to end interoperable recording and playback, if you feel those for current multichannel won't suffice. That means standards bodies, usually staffed and/or aided by, yes, major corporations.

 

So that's why I keep bringing it up. Do you see an alternative path to better multichannel affordable to most audiophiles with workable standards that proceeds through tiny custom operations?

Having been in the innovation space all my adult life,  I don't buy it that only large corporations can do innovation. They mostly buy it from smaller players, screw it up a few times, and maybe by version 3.0, finally get it to become usable. The big guys rarely invent things. Mass produce -- yes. Invent -- no. I feel this is going way off topic here (bashing objectivists), but feel free to start a new thread and I'll jump in.

41 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

One a more serious note,

this discussion shows in a special way why the supporter of "objectivism" and scientific approach are thinnly skinned when they feel further pushed away from the silver bullet to be just another option of opinion, maybe to be respected, maybe not - but definately to be critisized for their unfriendly bad manners in responding. Such is society in 2020.
I feel that respecting some rules of good communication may include sometimes to reflect our own beliefs as beliefs and facts as facts.
You don't need to like facts but there is no need to shoot messengers, and nowadays there is no need to burn witches for their beliefs.
It is sure an important discussion, thanks to Joel, Chris and most of the others, though we need to acknowledge that reacting repeatedly extremely calm not generally defends well again snarky sarcasm. And it feels weak, somehow.
OTOH, responding only calm to a cold push from the throne build on the fundamentals of science doesn't generate you another throne. Maybe the picture does not work well for some, it is about understanding the opposite opinion in a community and live with it rather than destroy it for our own rightfulness. I had the top of a mountain already as a picture, another picture is that you will build & plunge only once a submarine only on beliefs (in case you can get it down to 3000 feet).
The personal comfort zone of beliefs just ends where the facts kick in.
The scientist may accept people's belief and may try to establish rules of thumbs on his knowledge about it. In my ideal community beliefs and science can co-exits, based on accepting that the fabric of understanding the world has its home on the side of facts. Without that a split by incompatibility approaches.

another 5 cents  ... Tom

I agree about the importance of not being too thin-skinned on the one hand or too snarky on the other. And of course there's a benefit to being able to get along despite having some different beliefs.

But it must be noted that one of the major differences we appear to have is over your claim that "scientific approach" is "just another option of opinion." That stretches the meaning of the word "opinion" to the point where the term becomes meaningless, and obscures important differences between different kinds of claims and knowledge.

So one person might hold the "opinion" that a premium cable provides tighter bass and a wider soundstage, while another person might hold the "opinion" that the premium cable makes no sonic difference. That's fine. But where science comes in is that it produces testable hypotheses for the validity of those opinions beyond the mind/perception of the individuals who hold them - and it produces testable hypotheses (at least to some degree) for what might lead people to hold those opinions in the first place.

So for example if you take the claims made by pretty much every premium cable manufacturer/vendor for why or how their cables improve the sound, those claims can be tested. And to my knowledge, whenever those claims have been tested, they have been shown to be false. That is important - that's meaningful information. It doesn't mean you (or I) won't hear a difference with that cable - but does mean two crucially important things:

1. If you or I do hear a difference, we cannot be confident - and therefore should not claim - that others will hear that same difference; and
2. If you or I hear a difference, and we want anyone else to care that we hear a difference, then we must make some gesture of evidence or reasoning to try to explain why someone else might hear the difference, since the manufacturer's explanation clearly is bogus.

That's why confirmation bias, humans' poor auditory memory of fine details, and other subjective factors come into play - not because objectivists think subjectivists are idiots or because objectivists cannot tolerate different views, but rather because those factors rise in probability when no other possible factors are apparent.

2 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

But it must be noted that one of the major differences we appear to have is over your claim that "scientific approach" is "just another option of opinion." That stretches the meaning of the word "opinion" to the point where the term becomes meaningless, and obscures important differences between different kinds of claims and knowledge.

I believe facts are facts and opinions are opinions. The issue I usually have is when facts or data are used in a manner that uses opinion to justify use of the facts and when conclusions are reached that don't follow the facts. In this way the conclusions are opinions based on facts, but the facts don't add up. 

I have no data to back up my opinion, but I'm willing to bet most people here understand the facts as presented by those smart enough to know them, but they disagree with the application of the facts and conclusions reached. 

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I used to think "your system isn't resolving enough" was a pompous, narcissistic stab at the "audiophile peasants".  Now I realize it is a marketing strategy.

 

As I've said before, audiophilia is consumerism.  And unless you're being honest with yourself and others with regards to your own status as a consumer, there's a high probability that you'll see audiophilia as something more virtuous.  It is not.

If there is real desire on the part of some to move beyond good and evil, subjective vs objective, and to see the hobby, "civility", etc. with fresh eyes, then pay attention to what Samuel is saying here.  Starting with yourself as consumer, and then looking at the hobby as consumeristic, might be the mental wedge you need...

56 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I certainly do not find your article calm or rational.

 

It's been a few days, so would you look at it again and see if you don't think it is just a tad over the top?

At your request, Ralf11, I scanned it.

Strong? Yes.

Over the top. I don't think so.

But let me ask you the question that I can't seem to get a good answer to . . . why so much intensity from some objectivists if I say you hear something an objectivist doesn't believe I should be able to hear?

Why not something like: "Here are the reasons I don't think you could be hearing what you say you do, but if you're enjoying yourself, that's great."?

And then just let it go.

Why so much acrimony over me saying what I think I hear regardless of whether someone else thinks that experience is possible?

Joel

I am almost afraid to post something to this thread, but here goes:

Audio is fun for me.  Music is something I need to calm the storms around me.  I write, I share, I hope that others find what I do interesting, but in the final run it is about the Music!  I do not have the talent to make music, play music or produce music.  I respect those talents greatly!    

I want this place to be somewhere I can learn more, find music to listen to, etc.    Just like the rest of the world some members relish disturbance, and worse.  

I am not 100% sure why I am even responding to this thread. I would not normally even read it.  Maybe it is just to thank those who work to bring music to my life!  Maybe it is to just say that I do not want or need more acrimony in my life.  OR maybe it is just me re-stating my reasons for being here, sharing, learning, listening!

Bob

I found this of interest:  https://darko.audio/?s=try+walking+in+my+shoes

There are some people who could hear you speak a thousand words and still not understand you.

And there are others others who will understand without you speaking a word."

Unknown

30 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

So for example if you take the claims made by pretty much every premium cable manufacturer/vendor for why or how their cables improve the sound, those claims can be tested.

Only insofar they mean anything at all. The extra funny part is that when they do, they often contradict one another. As with religions, all of them can't be right.

“You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks.”
― Winston S. Churchill

If everyone puts everyone on the ignore list, then everyone can say whatever the heck they want, problem solved, utopia! 😀

This is as good a place as any to post this link: Your Glorified Ignorance Wasn't Cool Then, And Your Scientific Illiteracy Isn't Cool Now

Quote

Of course, not everyone knows all (or even most) of these answers. It’s impossible, in this day and age, to be an expert in all possible things. Most of us learn this at an early age: that most of what is known to humanity is not known to us as individuals, and that we can either study to gain that expertise and learn it, or go find the appropriate expert to learn what the answer is from them.

At least, that’s how you behave if you’re genuinely interested in learning the actual answer. You’ll either undertake the research yourself to reach expert-level competence, where you’ll learn how to perform critical tests and experiments that determine the answer, or you can learn to discern whose expertise is worth listening to and why, and then to take that expert advice. That’s how you gain meaningful knowledge.

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

This is as good a place as any to post this link: Your Glorified Ignorance Wasn't Cool Then, And Your Scientific Illiteracy Isn't Cool Now

 

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Of course, not everyone knows all (or even most) of these answers. It’s impossible, in this day and age, to be an expert in all possible things. Most of us learn this at an early age: that most of what is known to humanity is not known to us as individuals, and that we can either study to gain that expertise and learn it, or go find the appropriate expert to learn what the answer is from them.

At least, that’s how you behave if you’re genuinely interested in learning the actual answer. You’ll either undertake the research yourself to reach expert-level competence, where you’ll learn how to perform critical tests and experiments that determine the answer, or you can learn to discern whose expertise is worth listening to and why, and then to take that expert advice. That’s how you gain meaningful knowledge.

There are quite a few people here who do this for their day jobs and just want to play around with their audio components and listen to music to get away from scientific searching.  This is a hobby. Nobody here is curing cancer on AS, although they may be trying in their day jobs. 

Edit: I was thinking about this more. I love researching this stuff and consulting with experts. However, this isn't the case with everything I do. When I go out to eat, sometimes I just want to eat a good meal without worrying about how the lettuce was grown, if the workers are paid well, etc... It's all about having a time and place for everything. 

21 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Talk about patronising ...

Or, you could just keep on moralizing as you do here.

If you want to understand, let alone move past (either personally or as a group) why there are objectivists and subjectivistist and why they

can't "just get along", then you will have step back and see the whole picture from another vantage point.

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

Or, you could just keep on moralizing as you do here.

 

If you want to understand, let alone move past (either personally or as a group) why there are objectivists and subjectivistist and why the can't "just get along", then you will have step back and see the whole picture from another vantage point.

 

There's the doubling down we expected.