"Audio Without Numbers" by Herb Reichert

[Alcap]

As a relative newbie here I’m must admit I’m confused by this rivalry and sometime bitterness that seems to pop up here occasionally regarding audio stream.com.

Maybe someone could explain what is going on here and why the letters MQA seem to stir up so much emotion.

[Alcap]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

MQA is seen by many here as a closed format attempt to control the production and distribution of music, ultimately at the expemse of the consumer. The initial response of the professional audio press was to glorify the possibly dubious technical and SQ claims of MQA as a revolutionary panacea for SQ and the world of hi-end audio. Pretty much no actual analysis or evaluation of the claims.

 

Audiostream: the editor, Michael Lavorgna, got into some heated exchanges here. Not all of the heat came from him. But it ended when he used the site private messaging service to launch profanities at one of the members. So Chris banned him.

He seems to many members here to represent an elitist audio press whose members (some here think) believe they should be the tastemakers in the audio world and that all of us `’regular people`’ should accept what they say fairly uncritically - because they are professionals - and we aren’t. 

ML has since gone out of his way to use his platform to disparage audio forums in general, posters at forums, and this forum - and it’s editor - in particular.

Ok, now I understand what all the buzz is about as soon as audio stream is mentioned and thanks for the explanation concerning MQA.

[Alcap]

7 hours ago, tmtomh said:

Far be it from me to blame an outside source for this forum's semi-official hobby arguing to extremes... 

 

... but, in this case I do think that many of us are getting into unnecessarily antagonistic arguments because the discussion here is trying to use Reichert's fundamentally flawed, straw-horse versions of "subjectivist" and "objectivist."

 

What Reichert is unfairly (or overbroadly) calling "objectivism" is really scientism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism. This distinction is crucial IMHO because while scientism of course exists in engineering/tech-centric communities like this one, it tends to be a minority view. The majority of science/measurement-oriented folks here are actually quite rigorous about what can and cannot reasonably be claimed based on the available evidence. True belief in the scientific method is based not on a faith that we know things, but rather on the admission that we don't know things and have to work hard and coherently to try to learn. A corollary of this is that observation (including, for example, listening to music) is part of the scientific method.

 

What Reichert is calling "subjectivism" is a contradictory and somewhat incoherent point of view. This is not surprising: It's often easier to simply (and crudely) define one's perceived enemy than it is to define one's own position free from contradiction and confusion.

 

But as far as I can tell, for Reichert a "subjectivist" is someone who believes only in the observational part of the scientific method; who equates observation with "experience"; who believes the Enlightenment consisted only of its Romantic, Rousseau-ian side; and who believes measurement and repeatability of results are the enemies of "love, poetry, and humanism."

 

As with pretty much any screed written by an intelligent person, there are of course kernels of valid points in Reichert's piece. But they're overwhelmed by the raging Id of the piece's tone and overreaching, deeply flawed claims.

 

As for myself, I prize my personal enjoyment of music above the objective quality or fidelity of my system - but counter to Reichert's implication, I don't find those two things incompatible or in opposition to each other. I don't love my stereo system because it outputs some ecstatic, intangible quality that can't be measured. No, I love it because its quality is good enough that I enjoy it and it makes me happy every time I listen to it. Even within that happiness, I know it could sound better. And I have little doubt that while measurements would not tell the whole story, a system that sounded better to me would indeed measure better in myriad ways, many of which also would help explain to me why it sounded better.

 

Where I do think listening-based experience is super-important, is in guiding our sense of what measurements are important and/or decisive - and perhaps even more importantly, what scale of difference various measurements make (e.g. how about room dimensions, speaker placement, and wall treatments before you start obsessing over USB cables, digital transports, or tonearm wiring?). And on that count, I think both the Old Guard and many of us here don't always pay as much attention as we might.

Well said that man !