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



    26 minutes ago, crenca said:

     

    Not only this, objective truth must bow to the demands of personality and "livelihood", and if it does not well as @kennyb123says it is the very definition of "evil".  That's radical subjectivism philosophically and in practice.

     

    I give @kennyb123the Golden Finger Wagging award for equating objective truth with "evil":

     

     

    Above @joelha mentioned that "From what you've written, it's hard to believe you're commenting on my article."  Likewise I said no such thing, so either you have a reading comprehension problem or you are attempting to "deflect and attack".

     

    A good description of "deflect and attack" I pulled from an article: 

     

    Here, the goal is to shift attention from what they are saying and doing to what you are saying and doing, where they never have to take responsibility for their toxic behavior or address anything you’re saying.

     

    If you bring something up that you don’t like or find to be untrue and problematic, instead of addressing it or taking responsibility for it, they will quickly deflect and go into attack mode. This means they will use their toxic tactics to quickly shift attention from themselves and bring up something that you may or may not have said or done. Often to the degree where they try to always keep you on the defense by accusing you of all sorts of stuff, some of which includes the things they are actually doing themselves.

     

    And if you make a mistake of actually trying to address it, you will get distracted from the initial issue and soon become overwhelmed by all the stuff that now you are expected to address and clarify. And do so to a person who doesn’t care about understanding you and is dedicated to mischaracterizing you in order to dominate and “win an argument.”

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

    I'd like your definition of vitriol - maybe you mean sarcasm?

    For this forum, my examples of vitriol would include "dishonest", "lying", "shill" and other terms that discredit an individual or company.

     

    Joel

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 minutes ago, joelha said:

    Yes, in the context of an audio hobby, subjectivism is o.k. and innocuous.

     

    Just so you don't misunderstand the objectivist reaction to this statement:

     

    WHATTTTT?!!!!!!!!!

     

    Now, an objectivist will understand that there is a subjective element (it's what, 90% of the weight of the hobby?) but will not accept the status quo, radical subjectivism, any opinion = another in worth and truth, and "it's only audio so who cares if the industry leverges cheating, lying, and stealing in pursuit of its $ends$".  It is the latter that you are arguing for.

     

    8 minutes ago, joelha said:

    I never said objectivists have to accept subjectivism.

     

    Yes you did, because you believe that anything less is the cause of strife and "religion" - you explicitly said this.  

     

    9 minutes ago, joelha said:

    Once again, I was explaining why I think the vitriol exists.

     

    Your explanation is objectively in error.  You don't see what subjectivism or objectivism really are (or how you argue from a subjectivist premise), and thus you wrongly attribute the "vitriol" and every other aspect of the conflict to the wrong thing(s).  I would apologize but I don't apologize for the truth:  Your "understanding" is in error...

     

    For a correct understanding, you could try Samuels suggestion and look at all this from a consumerist point of view...or you could take such a suggestion as a "war on Christmas" as our host would have it...LOL, this thread has been worth it just to read that!!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

     

    Just my opinion of course: your "honest experience" is riddled with assumptions and prejudices.

    Since you don't me, how do you know my prejudices?

     

    Joel

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

     

    I thought they were quite evident in your OP.  You believe you occupy the Moral High Ground compared to "objectivists".  You're nicer and less rude.  No?

    I believe my comments on this site are generally nicer than the kinds of comments I've called out as the reason for my article.

     

    I don't know the other people and so couldn't possibly compare myself to them . . . nor can you.

     

    Joel

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Ha! I own a Border Patrol SE DAC! What shit show that caused on forums. Guess what, it HANDS DOWN the most musical and enjoyable DAC I’ve had in my system...and it’s really not that close.

     

    ”Measurements...I don’t care about your measurements”!!!!!

     

    🤣😂🤣😂🤣

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    32 minutes ago, joelha said:

    For this forum, my examples of vitriol would include "dishonest", "lying", "shill" and other terms that discredit an individual or company.

     

    Joel

     

    So we are moving on to you being part of the definition police squad. You get to move the goal post where ever you deem fit?

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think the most offensive thing I've posted at AS is something about beating the subjectivist with the generic zip cord of logic. Even Superdad laughed at that. 

     

    Also can I change my Forum name to Superdata just to be an unmitigated ass-hole (some already think this so) with every single post of mine?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 minutes ago, plissken said:

    I think the most offensive thing I've posted at AS is something about beating the subjectivist with the generic zip cord of logic. Even Superdad laughed at that. 

     

    Also can I change my Forum name to Superdata just to be an unmitigated ass-hole (some already think this so) with every single post of mine?

     

    I always thought the kitten in your avatar offset your alleged reputation for being coarse.  Hard to hate on a kitteh.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, DuckToller said:

    Hi Tom,

    thank you for reading and responding to my posting.
    Pls excuse my language skills, it's obviouisly not my mother tongue and not only once Chris was completely puzzled about my phrasing 😉
    ... I feel the need to correctly adress the point ...

    " 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,"

    This was not at all meant as personal opinion, but as an example how science is pushed aside in modern times (in my perception), which allows me to think of it as a more than understandbale reason for being thinnly skinned as a proponent of science.
    I feel, when facts are announced to be just "another opinion" (i.e. in politics or public disscussions) we lose ad-hoc the quality of discurs, and the meaning of a factual world (for which I used the pictures of the mountain top and the submarine) is de-valued by (bad) intent.
    That is utterly wrong in my opinion, but obviously an accepted discussion technique for "winners" about which I need to prepare my teenage son (to analyse and how to defend), because it has found its entrée in everyday life ...

     

    you wrote:
    "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. "
    +1 for that

     

    "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."


    Best, Tom

     

     

    Ah, I see - thank you for clarifying, and apologies for misinterpreting your position. I now see that we actually agree!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    18 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

     

     

    If Decartes is the grandfather of radical subjectivism, then Kant is the God Father.   The current unraveling of his (catagorical) detente between reality and the Cartesian self  is everywhere seen (culture, law, etc).

     

    I'm surprised nobody has called me out for admitting that 90% of this hobby is subjective... 😱

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

    Just an FYI: There is no such term as "radical subjectivism" in philosophy or any other academic field or significant thinker that I have been able to find in several years of occasionally researching this. It is, in my opinion, a fabrication of a forum member here, yet it is used as if it were a recognized concept. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be pointed to the sources I've missed.

     

    But I strongly suspect it is b.s. If this member would like to share his background in study that led him to this, we could discuss his interpretations of these sources. My best guess is that they rely on a reading of a theological movement called "Radical Orthodoxy". If anyone wants to look into it, I suspect they'll find some similarities.

     

    When it comes to this kind of grand cultural criticism that this member engages, I do wonder if his background and experience is sufficient to be making such strong claims about what members and the owner/moderator need to do to get woke.

     

    Apologies for the OT.

     

    How hard did you look?

     

    https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783319438764

    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...