Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[crenca]

TAS's latest attempts to hold back the collapsing dam of MQA (here):

 

 

Got me thinking about just how much this industry is dependent on the confidence game.  If you look at the responses to the latter "political" article you find "the industry" (TAS staffer Mr. Quint, Berkeley Audio principle Michael Ritter, etc.) saying essentially "we have the knowledge, the experience to know what is real/true/right, you don't.  Trust us".  When you don't, well they don't take it very well at all - angry and resentful is the best way to describe their response.  They appear impervious to objective refutation of MQA's false claims - they simply regurgitate their assertions and question who and what you are as a consumer.  Mr. Quint does not appear to even get the irony of his own place in the industry when lamenting about the allegedly "political" in the consumer response to MQA

 

Being a man of limited experience and means, I am unfamiliar with any other industry that is as dependent on the confidence game as Audiophiledom and "High End" excepting perhaps large portions of my local state fair.   I would say the supplement industry (i.e. vitamins, herbal remedies, etc. - at least here in America) rivals it but I am not sure exceeds it.

 

What other industries can you guys think of that suffers this ill?  All of them to some degree, but I mean to this extant?

[crenca]

mistaken edit attempt...

[crenca]

9 hours ago, Norton said:

 

 

The pushing of alternate MTB wheel sizes by the cycle industry in recent years has some parallels  as it encourages consumers to invest all over again in a new  format on the basis of  claimed  performance gains that may prove somewhat intangible to the average rider in real world situations.

 

Interesting, did not know that about the MTB market.

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Sorry, I couldn't find a stating-the-obvious emoji.

 

That's because it is part of MQA's secret sauce and behind the IP...

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

why not just chant his name 3 times into a mirror?

 

Is that not what Michael does just before he writes a review?

 

ba-da-ta-ta

 

Seriously though, is the fact that Michael has become a subject of discussion (putting aside his mostly acerbic postings on this site..or his own for that matter) not simply symptomatic of the confidence game that he and his compatriots play?  Many folks believe that the subjectivist "sounds like" audio trade press does not earn respect - it simply asserts and demands it.  Understandable in an "all is fair in war and business" sort of way, but where is proof in the puddin so to speak? 

[crenca]

1 minute ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

 

You know I'm not dead, right?

 

;-)

 

I am the subject of discussion because I posted a response to you, which on one has addressed. That is why I'm here - to discuss your notion of a "confidence game" which I see you've taken from theory to reality in no time flat.

 

I would apologize for you being the only person on my ignore list (besides some leftover accounts from some guy Chris banned) but as most would recognize no apology is necessary  

 

Give me a minute to look for your original response...

 

 

[crenca]

20 hours ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

If you live inside a tiny box inside a shoe box, this would be a great question; "What other industries can you guys think of that suffers this ill?  All of them to some degree, but I mean to this extant?".

 

Here are few items to add to your list:

• Religion
• Art
• Collectables
• Wine
• Fashion

Those are some obvious starters. Skipping over Religion, Art is a multi-billion dollar unregulated global market. Q - Who determines value in the Art market?

 

 

 

Hey, not bad Michael (once again overlooking the insults from which you can't seem to help yourself)!  I myself don't "do" any of these hobbies excepting perhaps "Collectibles" in the form of cars, though I have not participated in that industry for a while.  

 

 

 

 

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

I think the gist is that it is a basic problem cast the shadow of the doubt in the whole industry, be it Wine or Expensive-Fi - in the eyes of some of us (like Peter Aczel) , serious enough that we get the urge to fight it with all our might... maybe we are being unreasonable - but (again, itoh and weakening my my own argument) unreasonable does not mean wrong!

 

In a sense and hope fellow travelers will agree, we are fighting for the truth, justice and the weak and defenseless - except in this case, the weak and defenseless can afford $250,000 dollars amps!

 

 

Whether it is pricing or sound quality assessment, the radical subjectivist "anything goes - it is purely subjective " assertion is what brings out a very natural "objectivist" response.  All understandable, but is "High End" purely a subjectivist pursuit and as such so easily susceptible (and even dependent on) the confidence game?  If there is room for a subjectivist "sounds like" reality to all things musical, is there not also room for a dark side - a confidence game played by manufactures and their willing compaitriates in the trade publications who (for whatever reason - money, personal aggrandizement, etc.) relish getting to guide the herd as to what taste and fad is popular in that week?

 

What happens when (as is the case with MQA) they overreach and the game comes to the foreground where it is not supposed to be?

 

 

[crenca]

1 minute ago, Michael Lavorgna said:

 

The hi-fi industry is not a confidence game. Referring to the art market, religion, etc was a way of putting things in some perspective.

 

 

If boxes of rocks and thimbles full of "nanotechnology" did not put this assertion under a critical light, then certainly MQA has.  The mistake the industry made is trying to put a "taste", a subjectivity, to domains where such things do not and can not belong (such as math).  Essentially, you are asserting that realities such as "lossy encoding", DRM, and bit depth are subject to the same subjectivety as whether you like a paining (or a band) or not.  No how many times such assertions are made, they are incredulous.

 

In other words, MQA has exposed the confidence game like perhaps nothing before it.

 

The effort to save face (and regain lost confidence) is itself instructive.  Robert Harley's attempt to recover trust by trying to paint MQA as a living example of Kuhn's "revolutions" is laughable even as a piece of rhetoric (to say nothing as social, cultural, and scientific theory).  

 

This is not to say the usual trade publications are not going to continue on as they had before.  It is however a denial that their dignity rises even to the level of an old fashioned tent revival...

 

 

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Time to move on @Michael Lavorgna. You've been banned for the following message to a CA member. 

 

The thing is, tourette's is a real thing and Michael is but a victim.  I hope he at least gets a handicap parking sticker out of it...

[crenca]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

That's a bit low, no matter who it's aimed at.

 

 

Probably right, but Michael's consistent & reflexive personal insulting seems to be a kind of "tick" he just can't move away from.  What else can you do but tolerate it in discussion and try to focus on the substantial issues?  I do agree with you that a line has been crossed however.

[crenca]

7 minutes ago, Milt99 said:

Are some of you dense?

New to the Interweb, audio forums?

This is version 9,253,125 of the same stunningly pointless argument.

Anytime anyone who is directly in the A\V business or anyone who writes about it makes the mistake of posting

on a forum, it's like blood in the Amazon for the piranhas only these mindless meat eaters have an axe to grind for whatever reason.

The point of the attack is never made. So what is it? You want all A\V sites to burn in hell because you disagree with them?

CA is no different except it gives us voice, some chose to use that opportunity to anonymously strap on a flame thrower &

lay waste to their target. Grow the f*ck up.

 

 

 

And now for something completely different:

 

"The industry" normally only "dabble" in forums because they can not control the narrative.  There are those forums that they control of course, but their value is not the same and consumers tend to figure it out sooner or later.  This is another data point to consider when thinking if their's is a confidence game.

 

There are exceptions of course (Mr. Hanson, Schiit's principal {can't remember his name}), etc).  They however appear to work off different principals such as a more open (read legitimate) engineering style that even where you disagree with it, they don't seem to hide as readily...either that, or they are simply more sophisticated at the confidence game

[crenca]

1 hour ago, sdolezalek said:

 

 

The more we acknowledge most choices we make in life involve a combination of fact and belief, the more tolerant we become of others choices being different, and the more justified we become of questioning whether those others are simply trying to impose their belief vs. enlighten us to better facts.  Frequently, those with the most strident and unbendable opinions are selling belief, while those positing ideas but admitting the possibility of doubt are selling fact. 

 

 

 

Moving from this general kind of rule of thumb, how do you see the particular aspects of High End (such as MQA) in particular?

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I will have a conversation with Michael Ritter at some point but he has very little to add to the conversation here until MQA goes away.

 

 

What actual substance could he possibly add?  He has signed the NDA and all he can say is the meaningless "we are somebodies - you simply have to trust us" he has already asserted.  That might be meaningful in a world where "nobodies" have not actually dissected MQA a bit and where no known objective facts about MQA  in the wild, but that is not reality.  

 

I noticed that he kept talking the MQA "time smear" language around the filters.  Ok, so he likes it - why can't he use the actual language that everyone else in the industry uses and at least admit that you don't need MQA at all to accomplish this particular goal?...oh yea, he has signed the NDA.

[crenca]

20 minutes ago, wdw said:

 

Crenca

His company's achievements are so very significant that I must join in his defence

(from your rude comments that went beyond MQA),

what the F&&K have you ever done to move the art forward?

Warren

 

Ok then, come to his defense.  In what way did he say anything of substance about MQA (besides just repeating the marketing materials)?  In what way did he actually address the issues that we brought up (as just one example - if as he argues that MQA gets you "almost" to 24/192, why not simply 24/192 PCM without all the end-to-end DRM baggage?  

 

You can complain of being "rude" all you want but neither I nor many (I would say most) other consumers are simply going to take the confidence game that Mr. Ritter is playing with MQA laying down.  Perhaps you believe that his past accomplishments somehow give him a free pass?   Is Audiophiledom a personality cult?

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, wdw said:

 

So many are listening to his work...I had the original BADA.  I have a complete respect for this man.  As someone else mentioned in this thread, his responses were measured and thoughtful.  It is clear that Berkeley has given more serious thought to MQA than most while share your suspicions as to the product. 

You write a trail through the internet back to this site where you seem to live...this has given us (we the members of site) the tinge that we al share your convictions....I resent this!

 

Well, I respect a man who is loyal and shows respect (not just saying that).  However, I did not find Mr. Ritter's claims "measured and thoughtful" at all - certainly past the first post.

 

Look I get it, I got a big mouth and I know how to use it.  Channel your resentment into something useful.  Connect the dots for me.  How does Mr. Ritter's past accomplishments make up for his disdainful attitude (expressed as "you are nobodies" - as if that fills in the holes in his argument) and how is this related to his non-response of the factual circumstances of MQA that firedog, steve, and I brought up?  This really is his problem - having good will and capital from past success can only take you so far when you are trying to prop up something like MQA.  Sure, if digital audio were merely "art" (the word you used to describe audiophiledom) but it is not (its software, its math, etc.) and this brings us back to the title of this thread...

[crenca]

32 minutes ago, rando said:

 

@The Computer Audiophile, we are not entertained.  Surely you must have an underfed lion or chariot race planned  :~)     

 

Considering the Mason-Dixon line between objectivists and subjectivists is faltering, I think a reenactment of Gettysburg is called for  :~)  

[crenca]

7 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

This thread has parameters? 

 

I thought many of the posts surrounding Michael L posting and banishment support the thesis that Audiophiledom IS a confidence game - that is a game of confidence in certain personalities who define it.

 

Then it went down a kind of "is engineering a confidence game" road, but even that was at least tangentially related I suppose.

[crenca]

9 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Ok, fair enough. Please allow me to attempt to voice an alternative perspective. The provocative title of the thread proposes that we consider a pretty strong take and judge the overall ethos of this hobby as pretty awful and condemn it.

 

As if that weren't enough to consider, there is lurking right underneath the surface of that take, a very strong indictment of what is referred to here as "subjectivity", even "radical subjectivity", as being closely connected to the snake oil business, playing its part in the what you percieve as a creepingly relativistic (including moral relativism), narcissistic, surrealistic way that some of us behave as audiophiles and , by extension at times, as human beings.

 

Michael Lavorgna, with whom you have a long history of antagonism, which is not, imo, onesided, steps in to say that this industry is far from unique in its problem with corruption...and the battle ensued.

 

I think that subjective is the wrong word for the approach of some people in this hobby. I would suggest aesthetic instead, and aesthetics are, in my view, far from being simply subjective, but are social, cultural, traditional and in dialectic against tradition, to some extent linguistic, and are centered in our encounters with art,  including music. This is to be distinguished from scientifically -oriented approaches that are very important regarding music reproduction. The difficulty seems to me to be about sussing out the relative roles and legitimate options for both scientific method, and aesthetic event or encounter.

 

And the typical Procrustean bed simply won't due (thanks ralf).

 

Thanks!  This is on subject fer sur!!

 

In my defense however I don't think I have condemned anyone personally on a human level (i.e. as "human beings", even if you would extend it that far - I don't).  For example I have called Bob S a "Big Fat Liar", in the same sense I have called Bill Clinton a "Big Fat Liar".  I like Bill Clinton, let alone condemn him in some all encompassing personal way.  That is not to say that when discussing sex in the Oval Office, he is not a Big Fat Liar or a bit of a "snake oil salesman".  

 

You must be confusing me with someone else when it comes to Michael L.  Heck, I was the one who suggested that he has some kind real issue with his tourettes like impulsive insulting and that he should be granted a fair bit of tolerance.  I don't agree with his radical subjective take on music (or life) and sure, and I am human and his anti-civil insults get to me like anyone else.  I do not believe he was here for constructive dialouge as he has made it clear for some time on his own site what he thinks of forums such as this one. 

 

I also admit a "subjectivist", or to use your suggestion, aesthetic side of audiophiledom.  I even have a tube pre-amp!   That said I almost never place an emphasis on it because I don't think that is what is needed as this emphasis is everywhere expressed and defended.  In fact, it is overemphasized to such a point that domains where it simply does not apply, such as the math of digital software, are "subjectivsed" in audio to a point that you can not even parody it.  What is "aesthetic" about the bit depth of MQA, it's DRM nature, or whether an "end to end" solution to the normal recording problems (equipment, compression, loudness, etc. etc.) is possible or wanted?  

 

In this I think Audiophildom is in fact a complex thing that does not lend itself to a (simplifying) dialectic, such as the usual "subjectivist vs objectivist" or "art vs. science".  The confidence game aspects of audiophiledom rely on people (in all their complexity), culture, market conditions - all of which is difficult to boil down to a this vs that simplicity.  Not that such things can't be useful to ponder.  

 

As to my question "Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?" it is of course a rhetorical question.  Obviously, I do propose a kind of moral condemnation of some aspects "of this hobby" as I find it fairly obvious that it has more than its fair share of voodoo (when compared to most other markets) and that an overreaching and erroneous "subjectivism" is used and abused to defend it.  Math, widely known and "proved" EE principals, and the like are what they are and while there is an art form or craft in the implementation of them they are simply not the subjects of subjectivism or aesthetics normally, and certainly not in the way some audiophiles would have it in an effort  to have you believe that 1+1=3.  

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

I would love to hear what you think is "voodoo" in this hobby.

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/37121-is-audiophiledom-a-confidence-game/?tab=comments#comment-723701

 

[crenca]

15 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Just MQA?

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/?page=179&tab=comments#comment-724495

 

[crenca]

10 hours ago, skikirkwood said:

I always assumed that what was written in TAS, Audiostream and other audiophile publications was the truth...

 

I wrote up a summary of my discovery here:

 

https://medium.com/@skikirkwood/truth-lies-and-fraud-in-the-audiophile-world-a365e56c97c4

 

 

 

4 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Mans, I read ML to be replying the invitation of the OP: 

 

If you read ML as excusing the behavior, I suppose that's possible, but unclear to me.  I'm not excusing it.

 

ML did reply to me originally and I even gave him kudos:

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/37121-is-audiophiledom-a-confidence-game/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-724761

 

 

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?

 

If by "behavior" (let's put aside the intractable debate around his insulting behavior) you mean ML's toleration of the confidence game in Audiophiledom, I find it obvious that he does.  Indeed, for reasons already discussed (starting with my OP) his publication as well as TAS, Stereophile, and even most (but not all) of the online review/news/forum sites are "tolerant" of the confidence game in that they are built on it - they depend on it.  Now, they don't view it as "a confidence game" but rather more benignly.  They think of themselves the same as critics and opinion makers in the art world (as ML explicitly stated) and other similar luxury markets.  

 

Here is the deal:  They are right!  Audiophiledom IS to a large extant what they have created and what through their influence sustain a "culture" of "high end" that is much more a "luxury" market than it is the older ideal of "high fidelity".  From the outside looking in, Audiophiledom is explicable only in terms of raw moral condemnation because people don't normally tolerate the "lies" of $3500 digital cables that in reality are not substantially different (as in practice - as a digital signal medium) than $35 ones (see skikirkwood's excellent write up above).  However, Audiophiledom not only tolerates this reality but defends it with a seemingly inexplicable vigor, always in terms of the "unknown" around certain EE principals and an appeal to our aesthetic selves.

 

As a human being who fully acknowledges my own and the universes aesthetic being/aspects, it is not that I and other "objectivists" oppose or deny the aesthetic reality and the aesthetic aspect of music and its reproduction.  What we do oppose is the abuse of an aesthetic in defense of the dubious, the idiosyncratic for $personal gain$.  When the confidence game is covered over and justified with subjectivism and Audiophiledom is thought of as a kind of "religion" (as ML put it), then that is done with a purpose in that those who promote this view are saying "don't question me, truth in this domain is as elusive as religion - I get to say and sell anything I want, when I want, and who are you to question it.  If you do, then you are daring to question me personally."

 

Thankfully, we are all human and all of us to some extant "know" that this can't be right.  We all know that there is a reality, a universe, and that we are all part of it (we all are merely star dust) and that the current radical subjectivism that underlies so much of Audiophiledom can not be true because we are all not pure Cartesian selves who get to define reality at whim of our will.  No, we are all "checked" by the objective universe and there is this balance between the subjective and the objective, the "art" and the "science".  Depending on this or that domain and particular instance, the balance swings this way or that way but there is always a balance.

 

Digital audio has proved to be a bit of a conundrum for the status quo of Audiophiledom in that it rests on domains of human experience and knowledge that are particularly resistant to the bogus subjectivism of the Audiophile confidence game.  This has caught the guardians of the status quo culture off guard, and thus they are searching for the reasons (e.g. Mr. Quint's "Political" article) why folks are not accepting MQA simply because it sounds "better" to those who normally get to define who and what is "in".   They don't think of themselves as playing a confidence game, but they simply can't help themselves (such as when Mr. Ritter slips into "I am somebody, you are a nobody") because they have accepted (and built publishing and manufacturing enterprises) on the status quo.

 

I am optimistic however that the culture is shifting back towards a more balanced "High Fidelity" stance.  MQA and the like are clear overreaches, as most folks intuitively understand that 1+1=3 and no amount of radical subjectivism can change that, not in this universe at least.  Digital Audio has and will continue to expose the unreal ground of so much of Audiophiledom.  There will be a fight of course, but these are rear guard actions.  The younger "personal audio" Audiophile is in general more digitally aware, more skeptical of cultures built on the confidence game (Mr. Quint wrongly attributes this skepticism to an irrational distrust of "the expert") and the opinions of those who so obviously steer things to their benefit.  In this, I think MQA has actually been a good thing for Audiophiledom!

[crenca]

10 minutes ago, firedog said:

???

 

Just my way of summarizing the "debate" around the math of bit depth, lossy compression, etc. of MQA in particular and digital audio in general...

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

I am not saying there is not commercialism or even snake oil in this or other industries. That is a reality of the human condition and people will believe what they want to believe. Evidence optional, unfortunately. However, we are dealing with an inherently *subjective* domain here. People, including Michael L *are entitled* to say exactly what they want about their  experience even if you suspect there is an ulterior motive or concoct some other conspiracy theory, with no more proof than you purport is lacking in those you attack. No, the facts behind your theory are not proof.

 

 

 

Audiophile Neuroscience, 

 

You don't really capture what this thread is about, or what MQA has revealed about the culture of "Audiophiledom".  It is not just that Audioiphiledom suffers from snake oil, it is that it has a terminal case and is worse than (most) other industries/culture.  It is not that Audiophiledom is human, it has more than the usual share of some of humanities worse qualities.  No, Audiophiledom can not be reduced to a simplistic "subjective domain".  Digital, widely accepted and understood EE principals, etc. all come into play and those simply are not "subjective" in any meaningful sense (in the context of this thread).  Sure MQA was an attempt to leverage this misconception but it has not worked.  What it has done is revealed just how wrongly "subjectivised" the culture really is.

 

Where you are most wrong though is alleging that I am asserting some kind of "conspiracy theory".  If it were only that simple.  It is far worse than that I am afraid because a real conspiracy could be countered simply by exposing the conspiring members.  No,  Audiophiledom is rather a culture and a natural coalition.  It is this way simply because it has been this way for a while and people are en-cultured into it - consumers as well as manufactures and trade publications.  Nobody really wants to rock the boat because they have all built a livelihood around the status quo and are comfortable.  It takes effort to swim upstream and it is a risk.

 

I am optimistic because the younger, more skeptical (of status quo), digitally aware "personal audio" enthusiast is for all these reasons and more not really interested in the culture of Audiophiledom as it is today.  This is my impression - I could be overweighting it but I don't think so...

[crenca]

21 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

Conspiracy, " a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful ". It seemed to fit the descriptions about ML and others mentioned in this thread  perpetuating harm to maintain their "livelihood"

 

Trouble is you need more than just "exposing" them, you need proof.

 

 

 

I don't recall any specific "conspiracy" accusation but no doubt folks have used the word.  The term is often used when people mean other things.  Again, in my case I don't allege any "conspiracy" as such - just a culture.  The "proof" is in the puddin so to speak and is available for all to see with a little attention.  This threads OP started out with one important piece of that proof - TAS article and the comments section.

 

Also it is important to remember that the "confidence game" and this culture to which I refer is a separate issue from "the great audio debate".  Yes, it is related in the sense that subjectivism lends itself to hucksterism, and hucksters quite often leverage the "great audio debate" for their own purposes but I think it is clear that "Audiophiledom" has deeper cultural issues than this debate...