Article: Guest Editorial: Why did audio stop being about audio?

[Rexp]

33 minutes ago, esldude said:

I'd say no as well.  I think some of the reason for a couple of them is that good instruments for measuring things are available widely that weren't in the past.  A few people learn to make use of them to help results in those hobbies.  Others learn from them.  And things actually are calmed down by more data.  Arguments generally follow with people presenting data in a way not much disputed.  The disputes are resolved with data from results.  

 

Somehow in audiophiledom, the more data the greater the dispute and the less likely the resolution.  So many refuse to accept the data and insist on some mystical way it isn't pertinent.  I think a large part of the reason for that is results in audio are ultimately subjective.  If I'm trying to shoot the best scoring target at 200 yards I either do it or demonstrate it and you can see if my methods work or not.  You don't get to dispute the target by saying "my grouping was larger, but it felt tighter when I made the shots.  Measuring the grouping is measuring the wrong thing when target shooting".  In astronomy you can resolve something or you can't.  Even when results are highly variable due to seeing conditions you don't much have people throwing in how it felt to explain results.  It is accepted that conditions vary without questioning how things work. 

 

So audiophiledom involves music which is art and subjective.  Somewhere sound, sound reproduction and hearing got imbued with the idea it was also subjective when it isn't.  

Yes I've always suspected my ability to judge SQ is objectively better than yours but how would I prove it?