Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[crenca]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 

As far as I can tell, jabbr's point (as well as Tony's, etc.) is not that two bit identical files are inherently different - it is that in real world electronics lots of things can and do happen that can lead folks (particular "subjectivists) to hear differences in actual playback chains (i.e. they are all "suboptimal").  Upstream he says this is a "crucial" point, and that he "holds objectivists to a higher standard".  In other words, he is on a bit of a crusade (though he won't put it that way).  He also seems to believe all this is important to the root cause(s) of the subjectivist vs objectivist debate and whether Audiophiledom is a confidence game.

 

He is wrong.  Not in the particular, but in its relative importance to the Audiophile Confidence Game. "the con" does not rest on this or that particular "misunderstanding" around digital, real world non-ideal implementation, and the all too real "grey areas" in any techno endeavour.  These are proximate and even contributing realities, but they are in no way sufficient or and while I would not call the reality that he points to "un-important", it is at the end of the day what the con game rests on.

 

Now, this is not to say that digital audio is not something that is not resistant to the con  - it's just that the truth of all this is not going to move the debate in any significant direction or in any way upset the status quo.  There is too much inertia built in.

 

What will is changing demographics, major market disruptions, a consumer awareness, etc. etc.

 

should have read over it:

 

"while I would not call the reality that he points to "un-important", it is at the end of the day what the con game rests on."

 

should read

 

"while I would not call the reality that he points to "un-important", it is at the end of the day not what the con game rests on.

 

&

 

"Now, this is not to say that digital audio is not something that is not resistant to the con"

 

whhaaattt??    

 

I am trying to say that while digital audio is in fact more resistant to the con game culture than just about all the rest of audiophiledom, it is in not here where the crux of the matter lies...

[crenca]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Theory and speculation about audibility of noise sources in the digital domain is fine and healthy. What's not fine is the way audiophiledom is currently viewing USB audio: that it's a complete disaster, that it can only be fixed with 5 different chained cleanup/reclocking devices, expensive cables, and everything, including NAS and network switches, being powered by expensive LPS.

 

It is not a "view" caused by or circumscribed by a technical reality, it is a culture & a confidence game (perhaps "confidence market") which begins with a "art & wine" radical subjectivity.  The technical reality is simply something to be manipulated, affirmed, ignored, etc. at the pleasure of other things...

[crenca]

14 minutes ago, wgscott said:

Since everyone else is doing it wrong, could you help all of us idiots out by defining the problem properly?

 

He already did with the standard subjectivist view:

 

"The subjectivists are right when they focus on how the system sounds.  This is the end goal.  The narrow minded objectivists who focus on one component at a time will never succeed in getting to the bottom of the problem because they have not properly defined the problem they are solving.  (And this certainly includes all of the people who post on either side, just for the sake of argument.)"

 

But again, none of this matters because it is not at this level that the Audiophile Confidence Game rests - this is rather the symptoms of a deeper issue...

[crenca]

21 minutes ago, Tony Lauck said:

The culture and confidence game, with regard to digital audio, began with the adoption of the 44/16 PCM standard for CDs.  It was already known empirically that this format was inferior to formats with higher sampling rates, such as the 50 KHz rate used by the Soundstream recorder.   And yet we got the lying marketing, "Perfect sound forever".

 

In the all analog world everyone knew that analog devices were imperfect.  The objectivist vs. subjectivist split became possible once the technician quality engineers latched on to the phrase "bits are just bits" and started calling the people who listen and heard differences delusional.

 

There were scammers from the very beginning of audio.  And since the very beginning of people trading goods and services.  Nothing new here.  The most common technique used to be arranging the equipment being pushed to play back music at a louder volume, thereby sounding better.  Other techniques included playing different program material with different products.  Nothing new here.  These techniques are still being used today.

 

 

I don't usually say things like this, but who do you think you are kidding?

 

Yes, you point to a significant nexus of the "subjectivist vs objectivist" dialectic, but it in no way "started there".  ANY standard (pick any) would have revealed this dialectic because the dialectic does not rest or originate on this level.  

 

Also, it is not just that scammers exist - it is a culture of scam that contrasts Audiophiledom with other markets.

 

Also, real bits are just bits.  Chew on that for a while.

[crenca]

15 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Trillions of dollars in the global economy hinges on data integrity (i.e., "bit accurate" data).  The mere notion that data integrity is itself some kind of dogma is absurd at a level that defies definition.

 

 

You know, there must be REAL $money$ in the financial markets leveraging the idea that the bits are not really bits (resting as they do on eletronics that have not been "proved" to be accurate)...

[crenca]

3 hours ago, wgscott said:

There is another aspect to the confidence game.  Perhaps it might be best to make the analogy to the M.D. who, for example, decides to take up the mantle of the anti-vaccine movement, or the molecular biologist who endorses Creationism as a viable alternative to evolution.  If they favor the dominant position in their field, it is hardly newsworthy, but if they endorse the "maverick" or "anti-establishment" "alternative" view, they instantly become a hero with a cult following. Likewise for engineers or computer scientists etc. who legitimize what they doubtless privately and cynically recognize as the palpably absurd. It likely provides a real ego boost.

 

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

on the other had the beliefs which folks hold regarding what might be considered “absurd” regarding consumer audio has no such scientific backing. Indeed no one has been able to provide a single peer reviewed published article regarding the “SQ” of Ethernet cables. 

 

 

55 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

the real problem isn't so much that a test cannot be done; it is that tests are not being done

 

 

 

Again (and again) it is important to point out that the Audiophile culture does not rest on the resolution of these sorts of things.  Even if the Scientific Industrial Complex were to throw real money (billions) at digital cables, boxes of rocks, etc. Audiophildom would still be what it is.  In this it is like the herbal supplement market, where some real money has been spent at testing and yet it is as vibrant as ever.

 

The culture of Radical Subjectism and confidence goes deeper than this...

[crenca]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Don’t know if that’s the case.  I would be very happy to have more information with which to make reality-based decisions.  People like @jabbr and @barrows who design and build (and measure) their own components would I assume be similarly pleased.  Most of the audiophiles I run into are pretty smart and very intellectually curious.

 

Of course there are always those for whom nothing’s sufficient, but I think you’re painting with rather too broad a brush.

 

 

I wonder if my brush is not too narrow.  The good intentions of some certainly don't somehow cancel out the reality of the whole culture.  Again (and again) it must be said that this culture does not rest on the lack of information (for which "more information" is the antidote).  The confidence game can not be reduced to the (unresolved) dialectic of the "subjectivist vs. objectivist", and even if there was wholesale change/resolution to this debate tomorrow it would not change the culture fundamentally.

 

Whatever @jabbr or @barrows personal position is (or mine), the cultural fundamentals remain the same...