Jump to content
IGNORED

"Audio Without Numbers" by Herb Reichert


Recommended Posts

This and other chronicles of similar nature have become a common sight in the past few months.

 

I have the impression that this all started with MQA, and the press's inability to convince the consumer that the new technology is the right thing for us.

 

Audio without numbers = MQA

 

The once influential voice of the poor old professional audio critic with the 6 figure high-end system, whose taste-driven subjectivist approach was once an trend setting instrument, no longer seems to heard.

And that hurts... As in that old song "stars they come and go...".

 

But it's not just egos being hurt here. The whole industry should see this as a wake up call. Audiophiles of the world unite. :)

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Has it ever occurred to you to post something of substance instead of the incomprehensible drivel that defines you?

Obviously I get the playground-insult tone, but I have no idea what you are saying. Perhaps it would be best to go back to your contribution of substance- the thing about counting, banking and science?

You are not a sound quality measurement device

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

BTW, birds have very different brain organization than mammals... in mammals the neostriatum is a thin protective membrane, but in birds it is very elaborate, perhaps like a cortex...

Yes, the name is applied to very different structures in birds and mammals but, in the latter, it is part of the deep nuclei (basal ganglia) of the cerebrum and neither a protective membrane nor a cortex.

Kal Rubinson

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Alcap said:

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.

 

MQA has encapsulated, if you will, in one place/product/encoding so much of the "voodoo" side of Audiophiledom it is kind of like the straw that broke the camel's back.  To begin your journey of exploration and understanding, see:

 

 

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

Radical subjectivism did not start with MQA, as it has essentially been the culture since "High Fidelity" died around 1980 or so.  Buuuttttt, I think 3 things have converged in the last 5 years or so that has caused a bit of a churn.  First, consumer oriented forums such as this one has allowed non-radical subjectivist information - an opposing view.  Second, the younger value oriented "personal audio" guy/gal has become a real demographic and $market$ force.  Third, MQA pushed radical subjectivism to the breaking point, and put the spotlight on confidence game underneath the "old guard" like perhaps nothing before...

"Radical Subjectivism" that is a pretty good Trump-like troll.

How about good science?

There is NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVISM

 

"oriented "personal audio" guy/gal has become a real demographic and $market$ force"

 

LOL, there are no audio manufacturers in either the lo-fi consumer end, nor in the high-end that are making any money out of audio, and there's certainly no "market"

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

LOL, there are no audio manufacturers in either the lo-fi consumer end, nor in the high-end that are making any money out of audio, and there's certainly no "market"

That’s clearly an untrue statement. Please show us proof NO audio maker is profitable. Many say they are, and are expanding production. Some of them even post at this forum. 

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
1 minute ago, firedog said:

That’s clearly an untrue statement. Please show us proof NO audio maker is profitable. Many say they are, and are expanding production. Some of them even post at this forum. 

Go to CES, or take a look at the vendor list.

Oppo is shutting down. Look at all of the consumer manufacturers shifting their business to other areas, and the high end manufacturers quitting....

 

It is a market that is dead or dying. Yes, - I should've said SIGNIFICANT: but was responding to the cray.

Link to comment
Just now, Albrecht said:

Go to CES, or take a look at the vendor list.

Oppo is shutting down. Look at all of the consumer manufacturers shifting their business to other areas, and the high end manufacturers quitting....

 

It is a market that is dead or dying. Yes, - I should've said SIGNIFICANT: but was responding to the cray.

First, CES has become a basic graveyard for high end audio and should not be used as a metric for the health of the high end audio community.

 

I have been hearing the death of high end audio for years and it just keeps on going.  Yeah, there are winners and there are losers BUT make no mistake plenty of them are making money and some are making huge amounts of money despite your claims to the contrary.  Oppo shutting down has no relevance to the discussion.  It isn't worth it for them, period.  In fact, more Oppos were sold to video than audio enthusiasts so are you suggesting video and makers of video like Sony/Samsung/LG/ETC are going out of business because Oppo is shutting down??

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

LOL,

Sure, yeah, after you open you mind....

You're the one making the claim, - produce the evidence.

I have seen many banned not for being rude but for not following his idea of reality, if you disagree you get banned simple.

Link to comment
Just now, marce said:

I have seen many banned not for being rude but for not following his idea of reality, if you disagree you get banned simple.

 

I got on ML's bad side when I disagreed with an academic he was trumpiting.  She had published a paper that argued a marxist understanding of high fidelity - it was a capitalist/cultural artifact and not real.  Soon afterword he banned me when he published a commercial - a video by a cable company, of a doctor explaining how  the companies power cables had enabled his imaging equipment to see things that it had not been able to before.   I explained that medical doctors don't (normally) have any engineering insight, and that they as individuals they are often $payed$ to lend their air of authority to all sorts of dubious products.  

 

ML is a warrior for radical subjectivism fer sur...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, marce said:

I have seen many banned not for being rude but for not following his idea of reality, if you disagree you get banned simple.

" if you disagree you get banned simple."

 

I have not seen any evidence of that. So, - until some evidence is produced, - there is really nothing more to say about it. But I understand that those who "don't like" ML will choose to continue nonetheless, - and believe something that is unsubstantiated. I have asked for some sort of evidence, and no one has yet to produce it.

 

What people have told me to do was for me to do the work and go find the evidence on my own: asking me to prove a negative.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, miguelito said:

My opinion:

 

Objectivist are right: Everything can be measured - However, what to measure is a different issue: In many cases we don't know.

 

Subjectivists are right: It does matter ultimately what you hear - in lieu of a lack of complete information, at the end of the day I can in principle short circuit all that just by listening. And they are "measuring", listening is the subjectivists data.

 

The rub here is reproducibility and predictability: although subjectivists short circuit the lack of information by listening, they are subject to all sorts of environmental issues. For example comparing two speakers at two different times in two different rooms...

 

My personal take is that I am an objectivist - everything can be measured - with an understanding that I have incomplete data - what to measure? - so I rely on subjective evaluation to some extent. I think most people actually operate this way regardless of their forum opinions.

 

PS: On the article itself my opinion is I wasted a few minutes reading pointless drivel. 

I think the inherent problem with subjectivity is the same as the inherent problem with "rules of thumb".  No two people have exactly the same-sized thumb. 

 

On subjectivity vs. objectivity, I think Galileo still has the best quote:

"Eppur si muove"

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...