Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[George Hincapie]

24 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Perhaps Michael got out the wrong side of the bed this morning ?

It doesn't seem characteristic of him.

 

I am saying nothing further - particularly given what a grumpy toad I can be on forums sometimes. No-one is perfect...

[marce]

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Huh? Build quality using expensive materials, made by hand in the US, by an employee with health insurance, in small quantities with brand name internal components.

 

I'm not saying any of this matters to anyone, but it has nothing to do with exclusivity and everything to do with price. 

 

Bling doesn't equal exclusivity. Cubic zirconia is all about bling and zero to do with exclusivity. Shiny gold audio components and chassis are bling, not always expensive nor exclusive.  

I prefer machine made, much better accuracy these days and in solder joint quality, though some cables still have to be terminated manually, but today how many do assemble in house and how many outsource assembly with final packaging in the US. 

[marce]

Wow, interesting conversation. Can't say I am surprised.

[mansr]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

Perhaps Michael got out the wrong side of the bed this morning ?

It doesn't seem characteristic of him.

On the contrary. He's been here on and off for a few months, and every time he has quickly resorted to insults when people have disagreed with him.

 

Like here:

On 2/11/2017 at 7:24 PM, Michael Lavorgna said:

And he told me to tell you to grow up. I see that you and "Mansr" continue with your silly views about other people's motives which only serves to put yours into question.

 

Just so I'm clear, what I'm saying is that you don't know what you're talking about but for some reason you enjoy making shit up at other people's expense. This isn't me protecting my business, it's me telling you to fuck off.

 

Or here:

On 9/5/2017 at 10:35 PM, Michael Lavorgna said:

OMG. That was so clever. Damn. And what do you do, Bystander, beyond being clever on a hi-fi forum?

 

Those are just a couple of random examples I found quickly, and they're not even the worst. He has demonstrated a clear pattern of being rude and abusive. Now he finally crossed the line and got himself banned. Good riddance.

[George Hincapie]

I don't understand why someone would behave that way - am really surprised by what I am reading. It's a shame he hasn't recognised the association between behaving that way and damaging his professional reputation which is his business.

[ShawnC]

1 hour ago, George Hincapie said:

 It's a shame he hasn't recognised the association between behaving that way and damaging his professional reputation which is his business.

+1

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, marce said:

I prefer machine made, much better accuracy these days and in solder joint quality, though some cables still have to be terminated manually, but today how many do assemble in house and how many outsource assembly with final packaging in the US. 

I don't disagree at all.

[sdolezalek]

When it comes to bike parts, I apply a fairly simple test: Did it improve my Strava time without making my rear end massively more painful (I prefer speed but I do not ignore comfort).  The first is measureable, the second is largely my opinion.  In audio, I generally apply the opposite standard: does it sound better to me; and only then, can I find a rational basis for why it should (i.e. is it measurable?).  

 

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. 

 

 

[OldBigEars]

16 hours ago, Rexp said:

What!! I'd rather see Ralf banned.

 

Me too, and Crenca, and all the other small minded cretins that seem to want to unload all their resentment about expensive products on Michael who, from what I read, handled the discussion with exceptional patience and decorum.  Until he finally snapped and told Ralf what he needed to be told.

[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?

[rando]

@sdolezalekA steady diet of gossip based on personal interpretation is hardly the direct poop from someone with reason to know.  The first one slowly rots away accurate perception and digestion of how the deal is really being done.  If you were in the latter position how meaningfully and directly would you address a wide range of misinterpreted marketing concepts and hype blindly being accepted as fact?  Excusing oneself from a long winded conversation devoted to beginner level matters biased towards materialistic concerns, and suggesting it be moved to more suitable quarters, while filling the void with reputable material is hardly a strident bent towards selling belief. 

 

I'd be perfectly fine if you found the ignore button to your liking before feelings got hurt as well.  To be clear the contention being raised appears to be emotionally based.  Would it upset you learning right here and now that, just like Facebook, Strava turned into a place to sell stuff and prop up easily adjusted egos for the purpose of selling stuff as soon as 'grandpa' and 'mom' decided to flock to it en masse.  The "disruptive" side of this social media platform is it becoming the most medically relevant prescription drug study group going with people actually paying for the pleasure.  Don't forget about tracking and surveillance either.      

 

I take matters concerning cycling, rock climbing, bull fighting, and race car driving very seriously.  If you are playing a confidence game in regards to any of those.  I don't want to be anywhere near you and will push others away to safety.  Modern bicycles are capable to an extent so far exceeding that of the typical rider the speed and control is deceptive and addictive.  Add an incredibly medicated population, the same qualities of understated performance to cars on the same roads, and nobody watching the road so they can stare at an electronic device.  Getting a common sense restoring slap on the internet would be the best outcome.  

 

Audio, the indoor sport  , not so much.    

[mink70]

17 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Michael's private messages are just plain unacceptable. 

 

I don't have a single reported post of Ralf's in my inbox. Everyone seems OK with him or doesn't have the willingness to report his posts. 

Hey Chris, you know how you call them "private messages"? Doesn't that mean that they are, you know, private? And even if you've chosen to ban Michael, why would you publish a colleague's private message? To shame him? To publicly humiliate a business competitor? To draw attention to your awesome power? Stay classy, Chris. 

[sdolezalek]

13 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

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

Fair question.  I've listened to enough MQA to believe (not know) that there is stuff I like and stuff I don't.  So that forces me to the analytic side.  there I see: 1) too much uncertainty about the provence of any given MQA recording to feel comfortable comparing it to a non-MQA version of what purports to be the same thing; 2) lots of pretty sound mathematical stuff to suggest that I'm likely to get a better result by just listening to the higher resolution original (i.e. I would only turn to MQA because of streaming limitaions until it proves itself further); 3) I do use HQ Player to convert everything to hi-res DSD both because it sounds better to me and because I see enough evidence that moving the filtering process further away from the audio band should have sonic benefits (but I probably wouldn't do so if either I couldn't hear a difference or if the data suggested the opposite and I don't do so on my less resolving systems because it is just easier to listen to Tidal or Roon directly).  

[sdolezalek]

17 minutes ago, rando said:

Modern bicycles are capable to an extent so far exceeding that of the typical rider the speed and control is deceptive and addictive. 

Having ridden in the pro peloton in europe I think I'm capable of discerning the necessary differences in bicycles.

 

My ears are far less qualified... 

[christopher3393]

Reading the recent TAS articles on MQA, the word "sophistry" came to mind. It is a very old practice and more complex than contemporary common usage indicates. Plato devoted 3 dialogues to understanding it and fighting it. Training in the craft of persuasion was concerned with gaining power, not getting at truth. Socrates opposes rhetoric with philosophy, or, more accurately, "dialectic", aimed at discovering truth.

 

Worth noting is that the primary focus of the Sophists was training for the court of law and the political assembly. I'd like to suggest that contemporary sophistry in the legal and political industries dwarfs anything the audio industry could conceive, so I'm much more concerned about that, personally.

[Samuel T Cogley]

11 hours ago, mansr said:

On the contrary. He's been here on and off for a few months, and every time he has quickly resorted to insults when people have disagreed with him.

 

Like here:

 

Or here:

 

Those are just a couple of random examples I found quickly, and they're not even the worst. He has demonstrated a clear pattern of being rude and abusive. Now he finally crossed the line and got himself banned. Good riddance.

 

Over time, I began to understand that ML has seething contempt for the idea that audiophile skeptics have a voice in audiophile forums.

 

I submit this link as Exhibit A.

[wdw]

16 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Over time, I began to understand that ML has seething contempt for the idea that audiophile skeptics have a voice in audiophile forums.

 

I submit this link as Exhibit A.

 

this is a reasonable portrayal of what happened in this thread...don't think ML was looking for a fight at all but the pack was out in force...once he's using the F bomb his argument was lost but the increasingly personal attacks from the usual cadre of posters is unprofessional (and I am not really much of a fan of Audiostream to begin with) 

[realhifi]

2 hours ago, wdw said:

 

this is a reasonable portrayal of what happened in this thread...don't think ML was looking for a fight at all but the pack was out in force...once he's using the F bomb his argument was lost but the increasingly personal attacks from the usual cadre of posters is unprofessional (and I am not really much of a fan of Audiostream to begin with) 

+1 I’ve heard from a number of industry professionals that are not even considering dipping their toes in these waters because of the “pack”. If that keeps up things will just slowly die off and another will show up in its place. 

[wdw]

34 minutes ago, realhifi said:

+1 I’ve heard from a number of industry professionals that are not even considering dipping their toes in these waters because of the “pack”. If that keeps up things will just slowly die off and another will show up in its place. 

 

and this site is the lesser for it....I'm sure M. Ritter, a principal with one of the more significant audio companies currently building DACs, will never show up considering the treatment doled out on the AS site amongst others...and why do we have posters with a signature tagline with wording that suggests we're all idiots

""The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment."

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, wdw said:

 

and this site is the lesser for it....I'm sure M. Ritter, a principal with one of the more significant audio companies currently building DACs, will never show up considering the treatment doled out on the AS site amongst others...and why do we have posters with a signature tagline with wording that suggests we're all idiots

""The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment."

 

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.

[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.

[Rt66indierock]

4 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

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.

 

Probably none to me.

[The Computer Audiophile]

It's kind of crazy. My inbox is full of messages from people claiming the "pack" is ruining their lives or ruining audio or ruining whatever. 

 

The funny part is that the definition of "pack" includes die hard objectivists and die hard subjectivists and some in between.

 

If everyone takes a step back, takes a break to listen to some music, and does his part to remain civil, we'll all be just fine. 

 

P.S. Also use the report post feature.

[wdw]

18 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

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

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

[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?