If you could go back in time..............????

[esldude]

More about this: It's interesting to note, and might be educational for both "subjectivists" and "objectivists," that TAS's stance in favor of subjective listening started out along the lines of "Your solid state amp might have these particular great measurements that you market, but it sounds like camel dung." In other words, the intent was to puncture the marketing use of incomplete specs that didn't honestly portray the sound quality of the equipment. Subsequently, a solid engineering basis was found for what people were hearing from these solid state amps (high distortion measurements that weren't part of "the usual specs" at the time). So subjective reviews (though not blinded) were used as a service to audio consumers - no accident, as I think the initial refusal to take advertising was modeled on the U.S. consumer magazine Consumer Reports.

 

Fairly soon, unfortunately, Harry Pearson, who was not a great businessman (understatement) found he needed advertising to survive, and (just coincidentally, I'm sure) subjective sighted reviews unattached to measurements started to appear that claimed wonderful ineffable sonic qualities for the reviewed pieces.

 

The idea of there never being a Stereophile and perhaps therefore never a TAS might be where I would go. Further, it appears JGH had the same idea. Remember he said audio took a wrong turn when it became about preference and not about high fidelity. Also that he didn't say measurements didn't matter just they didn't tell the whole story.

 

To me, perhaps because it also happened to me, tubed power amps are a good example of what is wrong with this. They can sound in a number of ways important to music better than a truly transparent and accurate amplifier. So we come to the part I really dislike about how things have gone. Trust your ears. Ignore science, ignore other information, if your ears tell a different story don't believe that other stuff.

 

Now how can it be wrong to go with what sounds more like music to you, which also lead to the TAS idea, that there is an absolute sound and your ears are the best judge. Well because that directly leads into pure preference. Even people who have intimate exposure to music take different things from it. Becoming radically subjectivist on that basis is no way to get to the truth. It is self insulating because it says anything that doesn't match with that is rejected outright. Then becomes ever more about preference which means a market explosion with everyone peddling a different idea. All in the name of getting the Absolute Sound via a method that guaratees exactly the opposite result.

 

If there are ways to get to that truth, it in no way then prevents people from catering to their preference as they should. In fact it would open up more ways to meet that preference with more precision. But back to the tube amps.

 

They sound in some ways more real. It can be shown now that such is an additive coloration. So pursuit of that is taking you further from the fidelity to the signal with the mistaken idea you are pursuing higher fidelity. Which leads to saying measurements don't matter, this amp has ten times the distortion and sounds better. Which leads to saying the measurements are of the wrong thing (to which there is a little truth though only a little). Which in time leads back to this stuff is mysterious nobody has fully penetrated the mystery just trust your ears and spend some more money on some high end stuff.

 

What is wrong with high end is too much of it has become snake oil. At one time though perhaps misguided most peddlers believed what they were peddling. Most probably still do, but it looks to me like a good number are just bilking the clientele. Best of all the clientele are their biggest defenders. This has happened because by a large measure high audio has rejected reason and science in the form of do anything and trust your ears. Trust only your ears. Trusting your ears for preference is fine. Ignoring good thorough technical understanding is not a recipe for effective, efficient, low cost, high fidelity equipment.

 

There probably are not all that many huge improvements to be had technically except for speakers now. What would be very useful is some more effort in understanding psychoacoustics. Which includes what people prefer and how. What departures from fidelity are most welcome, and which are detrimental. What practices will lead people to the wrong conclusions when listening. You get nowhere with this because the trust your ears crowd rejects it outright. Considers it an attack upon their persons. When it could lead to a better audio experience if you let it.

[Jud]

Dennis, my own personal opinion is that the situation is less dire than that. I can think of examples of everything you say, but I can think of counter-examples as well.

 

For example, I go to some lengths to try to be sure of two things:

 

- A perceived "difference" is not the same as a perceived "improvement." (I think often there is a temptation to think "Aha, a change! Great!" and leave it at that.)

 

- A perceived "improvement" is not merely euphony, but is closer to what's in the recording. The only way I know how to do this at present is to listen to a variety of recordings that are very different in particular characteristics, e.g., I'll listen to a recording that's always projected a tall, wide soundstage and then I'll listen to one that has a squashed soundstage. A component that always throws a big soundstage (I can think of a tube amp decades ago that did this) is euphonic but not accurate.

 

People like Peter do this to a much more extreme degree than I do. Now whether what we do is at all reliable or not, I won't vouch for (Peter will - but then he's got measurements as well), but the intent is there.

 

- I also think audiophiles by and large don't want to be taken advantage of, and regardless of technical expertise, there are cues that will tell you when a manufacturer or dealer is trying to do that. (I've worked in litigations requiring the hiring and the cross-examination of experts in highly technical fields, and it is not difficult to learn pretty quickly who is telling you the truth and who isn't.)

 

Regarding the magazines, I think there's been commentary before on the forum about what members think. I personally would never rely on a reviewer's evaluation of the sound of a component. When I look at the magazines, which these days is rarely, it's to see whether anything new and interesting has turned up, and to check out the music sections.

[esldude]

Dennis, my own personal opinion is that the situation is less dire than that. I can think of examples of everything you say, but I can think of counter-examples as well.

 

For example, I go to some lengths to try to be sure of two things:

 

A perceived "difference" is not the same as a perceived "improvement." (I think often there is a temptation to think "Aha, a change! Great!" and leave it at that.)

 

Yes I agree.

 

- A perceived "improvement" is not merely euphony, but is closer to what's in the recording. The only way I know how to do this at present is to listen to a variety of recordings that are very different in particular characteristics, e.g., I'll listen to a recording that's always projected a tall, wide soundstage and then I'll listen to one that has a squashed soundstage. A component that always throws a big soundstage (I can think of a tube amp decades ago that did this) is euphonic but not accurate.

 

Yes, but some tube amps for one example, throw a bigger soundstage though not big on everything. Just bigger than what is transparent. It does vary.

 

- I also think audiophiles by and large don't want to be taken advantage of, and regardless of technical expertise, there are cues that will tell you when a manufacturer or dealer is trying to do that. (I've worked in litigations requiring the hiring and the cross-examination of experts in highly technical fields, and it is not difficult to learn pretty quickly who is telling you the truth and who isn't.)

 

No they don't want to be taken advantage of, but that is no guarantee they aren't. There are a few companies doing very well that appear to be nothing other than total con jobs. Very skillful, but nevertheless con jobs. You can almost judge a reverse relationship between how passionate their customers are vs how real the product is. Remember the old Mark Twain quote. Is is easier to fool someone, than it is to convince them they have been fooled.

 

Regarding the magazines, I think there's been commentary before on the forum about what members think. I personally would never rely on a reviewer's evaluation of the sound of a component. When I look at the magazines, which these days is rarely, it's to see whether anything new and interesting has turned up, and to check out the music sections.

 

Me too and also very rarely.

[Paul R]

I think I would go back to the beginning of tape recorded music, and somehow make a point of getting all that music archived in better shape. Somehow implant the idea that archiving this stuff, with the absolute best quality available, will be, is, and always has been *important*.

 

-Paul

[gmgraves]

"Remember (JGH) said audio took a wrong turn when it became about preference and not about high fidelity."

 

Probably the most important and utterly correct observation ever made by any audio journalist.

+1!

 

[sandyk]

Probably the most important and utterly correct observation ever made by any audio journalist.

+1!

 

[/color]

 

+1

I bet you still like your LPs though ! (tongue in cheek reply)

[gmgraves]

+1

I bet you still like your LPs though ! (tongue in cheek reply)

 

 

Yep. But that's pretty irrelevant. Often my LPs of some performances are all that exist, and while I have no illusions that vinyl sounds much like real music, I do know and appreciate the difference.

 

The problem with preference is that it allows for an "anchor-less" frame of reference and while that ultimately hurts no-one, it doesn't help the cause of high-fidelity either. How can those interested chase the real thing when the manufacturers of recording/playback equipment (and indeed the recordings made by that equipment) are off somewhere chasing personal and current public taste?

[TubeLover]

I think I would go back to the beginning of tape recorded music, and somehow make a point of getting all that music archived in better shape. Somehow implant the idea that archiving this stuff, with the absolute best quality available, will be, is, and always has been *important*.

 

-Paul

 

+1, so much has either been lost, or degraded.

 

JC

[gstanley75]

I would stop the invention of ProTools and the whole idea of note by note editing so music would be more of a performance.

 

Then I would take out AT&T and Sony. Their big company monopolistic practices limiting resolution and bandwidth have done more damage to audio progress than all their innovations combined.

[trithio]

I would stop the invention of ProTools and the whole idea of note by note editing so music would be more of a performance.

.

 

Thanks for reminding me of that one. The note-by-note editors are a pretty amazing tool from the technical point of view. And those guys did it against almost all odds, no one thought that it will ever be possible or will ever be so good.

But you are right, those things can do a lot of damage when not used properly. I still have a lot of respect for the tech people behind it so I wont go for a ban. Also may be very useful for the 100% synth music. But I'll be for putting a clear label on any musical product that uses such note-by-note editing. Something like the 'contains artificial flavors' food labels. Cause I surely don't want my jazz vocal recordings to go through any of that.

[sandyk]

And I will continue to think that you could be a very fine preacher

Seeing that I couldn't even convince esldude about the genuine+VE results achieved by M.C. with my comparison .wav files, and that Martin is able to conduct meaningful Blind Tests, that will never happen.

[InfernoSTi]

Another fun thread flushed down the crapper of personal insults and entrenched negativity.

 

While I enjoy friendly banter as much as the next guy, I get my fill in the cables/resolution threads. I would ask those folks (you know who you are) to look up and see that there is a whole world of nice people out here that you are ruining the forum enjoyment for by your constant ugliness. Every thread that you participate in turns to the same old crap and it is really a drag to read (and reflects very poorly on Chris and his site).

 

If I could go back in time, such behavior results in any such poster having to issue an apology to the forum before they can post again. Second offenders have to watch the entire movie "Grumpy Old Men" before they can post. Third offenders have to listen to the "Complete Collection" of Yoko Ono on 128kps through a 1st generation iPod/Apple earbuds at full volume while reading the Steve Jobs biography start to finish before they post again.

 

Find the fun in life, guys...it's low hanging fruit and worth the very limited effort. In the meantime, consider that your redundant negativity is making a cesspool of an otherwise nice place to visit on a Saturday morning for everyone else.

 

John

[Jud]

Second offenders have to watch the entire movie "Grumpy Old Men" before they can post. Third offenders have to listen to the "Complete Collection" of Yoko Ono on 128kps through a 1st generation iPod/Apple earbuds at full volume while reading the Steve Jobs biography start to finish before they post again.

 

John

 

But I *liked* Grumpy Old Men! (Was it that one or the sequel where they had the outtakes at the end of 80- or 90-something Burgess Meredith reeling off a score of incredibly filthy and funny lines?)

 

...and the Steve Jobs biography.

[InfernoSTi]

Cant disagree with you. And I had no such intentions in this thread. And rarely anywhere else. But it surely follows me like the plague and it's surely disturbing many.

If you have any ideas other than me apologising to people who just follow me and overreact to anything I write, I'm all ears.

No problem apologising to all 'bystanders' who were unnecessarily disturbed by that noise. Fully agree with that position. And it's not less disturbing for myself.

 

I don't expect you to apologize if you are attacked...but if you have attacked someone, then yes, the apology is warranted. You can be your own judge. It really doesn't matter if the other person reciprocates because the self-felt apology is a reflection of you, your self awareness, and your personal integrity. In other words, how you present yourself in these moments is all that matters.

 

I also saw how you were attacked your first few posts and thought it was shameful and unwarranted. It was also hidden behind the thin veil of "you might be someone who was banned" when, in reality, it was just putting you on notice that your ideas were not in sink with theirs and if you persisted in such thinking, you might be banned. That was the forum equivalent of a rookie batter getting a fastball high and inside on his first at bat. I didn't say anything then, so by my silence, I have a degree of ownership of the forum's behavior. I'm sorry that happened to you and for my lack of response.

 

If folks behaved this way when they were visiting each other's homes, they would never get or accept a second invitation. The degree of vitriol that is slung in this forum would never happen face to face. Folks even brag about the fact that when they have a group of friends over, three out of four agreed on "X" but they NEVER turn on the person that feels differently and as a group insult the hell out them personally. If they did, ALL their friends would leave and never come back. The person who cast such ugly personal attacks because of a difference in opinion would be the crazy jackass and folks would warn others not to go over to their house because they were so far out of balance. Seriously.

 

How hard is it to be respectful of others? Not very hard, at all. And when people are disrespectful, it reflects on everyone who acquiesces by silence. I, for one, have had enough of being painted with the broad brushstroke of agreement for lack of calling crap what it is. It now reflects on me since I post here on Computer Audiophile.

 

John

[Jud]

John, nicely said.

[InfernoSTi]

But I *liked* Grumpy Old Men! (Was it that one or the sequel where they had the outtakes at the end of 80- or 90-something Burgess Meredith reeling off a score of incredibly filthy and funny lines?)

 

...and the Steve Jobs biography.

 

And your feelings on Yoko and 1st generation iPads/earbuds?

 

You have struck on a truth of my post: the first (an apology) SHOULD feel good to the person apologizing; the second (Grump Old Men) SHOULD make you laugh and remind you to not take your negative feelings so seriously (and realize our relationships are what really matter); and the third is the real punishment, taken in whole, and even the good parts get ruined by the crap...

[kumakuma]

I don't expect you to apologize if you are attacked...but if you have attacked someone, then yes, the apology is warranted. You can be your own judge. It really doesn't matter if the other person reciprocates because the self-felt apology is a reflection of you, your self awareness, and your personal integrity. In other words, how you present yourself in these moments is all that matters.

 

I also saw how you were attacked your first few posts and thought it was shameful and unwarranted. It was also hidden behind the thin veil of "you might be someone who was banned" when, in reality, it was just putting you on notice that your ideas were not in sink with theirs and if you persisted in such thinking, you might be banned. That was the forum equivalent of a rookie batter getting a fastball high and inside on his first at bat. I didn't say anything then, so by my silence, I have a degree of ownership of the forum's behavior. I'm sorry that happened to you and for my lack of response.

 

If folks behaved this way when they were visiting each other's homes, they would never get or accept a second invitation. The degree of vitriol that is slung in this forum would never happen face to face. Folks even brag about the fact that when they have a group of friends over, three out of four agreed on "X" but they NEVER turn on the person that feels differently and as a group insult the hell out them personally. If they did, ALL their friends would leave and never come back. The person who cast such ugly personal attacks because of a difference in opinion would be the crazy jackass and folks would warn others not to go over to their house because they were so far out of balance. Seriously.

 

How hard is it to be respectful of others? Not very hard, at all. And when people are disrespectful, it reflects on everyone who acquiesces by silence. I, for one, have had enough of being painted with the broad brushstroke of agreement for lack of calling crap what it is. It now reflects on me since I post here on Computer Audiophile.

 

John

 

+1

[4est]

I don't expect you to apologize if you are attacked...but if you have attacked someone, then yes, the apology is warranted. You can be your own judge. It really doesn't matter if the other person reciprocates because the self-felt apology is a reflection of you, your self awareness, and your personal integrity. In other words, how you present yourself in these moments is all that matters.

.......

How hard is it to be respectful of others? Not very hard, at all. And when people are disrespectful, it reflects on everyone who acquiesces by silence. I, for one, have had enough of being painted with the broad brushstroke of agreement for lack of calling crap what it is. It now reflects on me since I post here on Computer Audiophile.

 

John

 

Thank you! I saw this site as a bastion of civility in its inception, and would like to see it remain so in the future.

[Jud]

Thank you! I saw this site as a bastion of civility in its inception, and would like to see it remain so in the future.

 

Who're you calling a bastion?!! Oh, wait....

[trithio]

I don't expect you to apologize if you are attacked...but if you have attacked someone, then yes, the apology is warranted. You can be your own judge. It really doesn't matter if the other person reciprocates because the self-felt apology is a reflection of you, your self awareness, and your personal integrity. In other words, how you present yourself in these moments is all that matters.

 

I also saw how you were attacked your first few posts and thought it was shameful and unwarranted. It was also hidden behind the thin veil of "you might be someone who was banned" when, in reality, it was just putting you on notice that your ideas were not in sink with theirs and if you persisted in such thinking, you might be banned. That was the forum equivalent of a rookie batter getting a fastball high and inside on his first at bat. I didn't say anything then, so by my silence, I have a degree of ownership of the forum's behavior. I'm sorry that happened to you and for my lack of response.

 

If folks behaved this way when they were visiting each other's homes, they would never get or accept a second invitation. The degree of vitriol that is slung in this forum would never happen face to face. Folks even brag about the fact that when they have a group of friends over, three out of four agreed on "X" but they NEVER turn on the person that feels differently and as a group insult the hell out them personally. If they did, ALL their friends would leave and never come back. The person who cast such ugly personal attacks because of a difference in opinion would be the crazy jackass and folks would warn others not to go over to their house because they were so far out of balance. Seriously.

 

How hard is it to be respectful of others? Not very hard, at all. And when people are disrespectful, it reflects on everyone who acquiesces by silence. I, for one, have had enough of being painted with the broad brushstroke of agreement for lack of calling crap what it is. It now reflects on me since I post here on Computer Audiophile.

 

John

 

While I thank you for it, I guess you can also see how even this post and discussion is disturbing for any bystander. Not sure what this 'trithio problem' is and why does it have to be discussed everywhere I post. But many just do that. And it gets out of proportion quite often.

As admitted in many other posts I know I'm not the friedliest, personable dude here. I have some principles about sound and tests and I do state them plainly. And I'm looking for data that is at least somewhat tested not just stories. The only situations where I 'atacked' someone first were my 'that's only anecdote' posts. Maybe too direct and plain but I dont think anyone who actually had anything worth a second look would be offended by that. Certainly not anyone who shares an at least vaguely scientific, for-tests position. Dont remember any other case of uncalled for and agressive comments from my side.

That would be my policing of my posts. And thanks for taking the time and effort.

[alfe]

While I thank you for it, I guess you can also see how even this post and discussion is disturbing for any bystander. Not sure what this 'trithio problem' is and why does it have to be discussed everywhere I post. But many just do that. And it gets out of proportion quite often.

As admitted in many other posts I know I'm not the friedliest, personable dude here. I have some principles about sound and tests and I do state them plainly. And I'm looking for data that is at least somewhat tested not just stories. The only situations where I 'atacked' someone first were my 'that's only anecdote' posts. Maybe too direct and plain but I dont think anyone who actually had anything worth a second look would be offended by that. Certainly not anyone who shares an at least vaguely scientific, for-tests position. Dont remember any other case of uncalled for and agressive comments from my side.

That would be my policing of my posts. And thanks for taking the time and effort.

 

You can see from some posts that you are more than welcome in this forum, and with my poor english I will read your posts more than twice to compensate for the ignore list:)

[InfernoSTi]

While I thank you for it, I guess you can also see how even this post and discussion is disturbing for any bystander. Not sure what this 'trithio problem' is and why does it have to be discussed everywhere I post. But many just do that. And it gets out of proportion quite often.

As admitted in many other posts I know I'm not the friedliest, personable dude here. I have some principles about sound and tests and I do state them plainly. And I'm looking for data that is at least somewhat tested not just stories. The only situations where I 'atacked' someone first were my 'that's only anecdote' posts. Maybe too direct and plain but I dont think anyone who actually had anything worth a second look would be offended by that. Certainly not anyone who shares an at least vaguely scientific, for-tests position. Dont remember any other case of uncalled for and agressive comments from my side.

That would be my policing of my posts. And thanks for taking the time and effort.

 

Please note that my comments have NEVER been an effort to say there is a 'trithio' problem and I wasn't singling you out in any way unless your behavior included personal attacks, in which case it doesn't need me to point that out as you and everyone else is more than able to see it for what it is.

 

If it makes a difference, I include those who hide their nastiness behind a <smile> at the end of the sentence when, in reality, it is just another nasty comment designed to insult someone personally. A nasty comment with a <smile> is actually one of the most disrespectful ways to post: the person CLEARLY knows what they are saying is ugly yet instead of hitting the delete button, they type an even worse <smile> as if slinging an insult with a smile somehow makes it anything other than what it actually is. You can find those that use this particular veil regularly and it never makes the ugliness right.

 

I will say that if you think it is OK to be the "second one in the fight," you would be wrong as far as how it reflects on the forum. Anyone who levies a personal attack, whether first, second, third, etc, reflects badly on the whole forum.

 

So to be clear, ugly personal attacks are still ugly personal attacks even if they have a <smile> or of the attack came second, third, etc. And they reflect badly on those of us who post to the forum.

 

John

[alfe]

Please note that my comments have NEVER been an effort to say there is a 'trithio' problem and I wasn't singling you out in any way unless your behavior included personal attacks, in which case it doesn't need me to point that out as you and everyone else is more than able to see it for what it is.

 

If it makes a difference, I include those who hide their nastiness behind a <smile> at the end of the sentence when, in reality, it is just another nasty comment designed to insult someone personally. A nasty comment with a <smile> is actually one of the most disrespectful ways to post: the person CLEARLY knows what they are saying is ugly yet instead of hitting the delete button, they type an even worse <smile> as if slinging an insult with a smile somehow makes it anything other than what it actually is. You can find those that use this particular veil regularly and it never makes the ugliness right.

 

I will say that if you think it is OK to be the "second one in the fight," you would be wrong as far as how it reflects on the forum. Anyone who levies a personal attack, whether first, second, third, etc, reflects badly on the whole forum.

 

So to be clear, ugly personal attacks are still ugly personal attacks even if they have a <smile> or of the attack came second, third, etc. And they reflect badly on those of us who post to the forum.

 

John

 

deleted

[trithio]

Thank you all for the support. And alfe, I'm sure that double reading counts double than you think .

 

I wanted to put and end to this sideways discussion with an appropiate 'if I could go back in time' post. But I couldnt really find much that I would do differently and would've surely made a big difference.

Maybe joining at a different time. Or posting less. Or as Jud suggested not asking people for some verifiable data. Or ignoring more attacks. But most of that just wont be me. I do want to see some improvements in my system and I'm convinced that anecdotes are a waste of time. Yes I tried following some with no results. Like shinny cables who sound 'night and day better'. And nowadays I'm convinced that the only possibly productive way forward is to rely on verified and well tested accounts. That's why I'm looking more and more into pro devices nowadays. There is a lot of funny bla and 'sponsorship' there too but still somewhat more test and results oriented.

[InfernoSTi]

I wanted to put and end to this sideways discussion with an appropiate 'if I could go back in time' post.

 

That would be appropriate if it were "all about you" which it isn't and never has been. So please don't try to put an end to a very needed settling up of acceptable behavior and how it impacts the forum's good name (and those that post here). Saying that calling BS on bad behavior is something we should stop talking about is the exact wrong approach in my opinion.

 

But I couldnt really find much that I would do differently and would've surely made a big difference.

 

That is too bad. I would have thought such an exercise would have been a simple one.

 

Maybe joining at a different time. Or posting less. Or as Jud suggested not asking people for some verifiable data. Or ignoring more attacks.

 

Perhaps some measure of each of these things might have made a big difference to you and to others.

 

But most of that just wont be me.

 

This comment is a bit unclear to me: are you saying you lack the self-awareness to know when you need to do those things you have listed as being more appropriate than personal attacks or are you saying you just don't care to do so even when you do recognize it?

 

I do want to see some improvements in my system and I'm convinced that anecdotes are a waste of time.

 

I truly doubt ANYONE has read the posts in this "If I could go back in time...???" thread with the intention to see anything but anecdotes, as the very premiss of such fantasy is that each post is intended to begin with a "make believe" anecdote.

 

So why would you post in such a thread if you were seeking serious improvements to your system while trying to avoid useless anecdotes?

 

Disregard for the impact of one's posts on others is disrespectful to the forum and reflects poorly on all of us. Twisting threads from the intended topic to a series of personal attacks is equally disrespectful to the forum and also reflects poorly on all of us. Sadly, silence being acquiescence, such behavior paints all of us with that that brushstroke, and, I, for one, am sick and tired of such poor behavior by anyone who either lacks the needed self-awareness or simply doesn't care to be respectful.

 

John