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

[Samuel T Cogley]

17 hours ago, daverich4 said:

Three pages on civility without @Samuel T Cogley weighing in? S’up with that?

 

Civility is so 2016 😎

[Samuel T Cogley]

All snark aside, I think I've evolved to a different view on this.  All I really want is a decent music collection, augmented with a lossless streaming service, and a system (likely headphone-centric) that lets me hear what's in those digital recordings.  Ideally, the sonic qualities of the system get as close to a "perfect balance" of analytical and euphonic as possible within the limits of the practicality of cost vs. retirement needs.

 

I'm quite grateful that DAC technology has gained so much in the last decade or so.  Very high quality sound is finally affordable and it's so head-and-shoulders above anything I ever heard in the 70s or 80s (even on very high end systems) that vintage gear is of no interest to me.

 

Regarding civility, I think it should be noted that the demographics of audiophilia skew heavily toward middle aged men (sorry @Teresa ).  There is such a thing as "internet culture".  And if you've ever spent time on Twitter (just an example), you'll surely be aware that there's a wide swath of the "online population" that only knows snark, sarcasm, and "winning".  If you can't "speak meme", you're grandpa.

 

There are audio brands that I actively avoid (Audioquest, Nordost, and Wireworld come to mind, there are others).  I've just given up caring if people buy those things.  The recent ascent of Scoggins to the "belly of the beast" of Audiophile Establishment Media only reinforces to me that I'm in the right place by avoiding all products with large advertising/marketing budgets.  If they have to spend lots of money to convince you to buy it, you should probably pass.

 

In case no one noticed, there is a rift in audiophilia.  The Massdrop/HeadFi faction looks (from a marketing perspective) nothing like traditional audiophiles (who look to people like Atkinson, Harley, et. al. for "what's good").  This rift is really what everyone is clumsily poking at in this thread.  I used to think "your system isn't resolving enough" was a pompous, narcissistic stab at the "audiophile peasants".  Now I realize it is a marketing strategy.

 

As I've said before, audiophilia is consumerism.  And unless you're being honest with yourself and others with regards to your own status as a consumer, there's a high probability that you'll see audiophilia as something more virtuous.  It is not.

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

11 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

...but Lee S? He's really a gentle and thoughtful person who tried to engage in a serious discussion about the merits of you-know-what, and it took a lot of effort on the part of a dedicated few to get him unhinged enough to emit a bad word.

 

Mr Quint, with all due respect, Scoggins was actively pushing MQA in this forum the way he shilled for Audioquest, Black Cat, and Shunyata over at the Hoffman forum.  You attempting to affix some kind of benevolence or altruism to his intent is just nauseating.  Disingenuousness is disingenuousness, regardless of your continued protestations.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, joelha said:

All I get is a link back to the article.

 

Sorry, but I still don't see it.

 

Joel

 

Look here.

[Samuel T Cogley]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

There's the doubling down we expected.

 

So Chris, you believe audiophilia is something more virtuous than consumerism?  If so, how do you reconcile this virtuousness with the inescapable consumer aspects?

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, joelha said:

crenca,

 

From what you've written, it's hard to believe you're commenting on my article.

 

I'm not asking objectivists to agree that subjectivism is true or the arbiter of disputes. Where do I make either of those points?

 

You want to make a grandiose point based on arguments I haven't made.

 

In my previous post to you, I've said what my article has said.

 

There's no need to repeat those points here.

 

 

It might come as a surprise that you're not the first to take people to task for being mean or intolerant.  When you speculate about the underlying reasons for what you perceive as coarseness (something like "science is objectivist's religion"), you're not persuading those you seem to want to persuade.

 

Do we agree that you generally feel those who don't feel the way you do about audio are the most rude?

[Samuel T Cogley]

40 minutes ago, joelha said:

But if you're asking if I've experienced objectivists to be ruder than subjectivists, yes I have.

 

With due respect, I think this pretty much destroys your credibility with regards to civility.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, joelha said:

If that's my honest experience, how does that destroy my credibility?

 

Just my opinion of course: your "honest experience" is riddled with assumptions and prejudices.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, joelha said:

Since you don't me, how do you know my prejudices?

 

I thought they were quite evident in your OP.  You believe you occupy the Moral High Ground compared to "objectivists".  You're nicer and less rude.  No?

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, joelha said:

I believe my comments on this site are generally nicer than the kinds of comments I've called out as the reason for my article.

 

I don't know the other people and so couldn't possibly compare myself to them . . . nor can you.

 

I can certainly extrapolate from our little back-and-forth that you see your self as belonging to the more desirable group to be a member of.

 

I personally see it more like WOPR sees it: "the only winning move is not to play".

[Samuel T Cogley]

4 minutes ago, plissken said:

I think the most offensive thing I've posted at AS is something about beating the subjectivist with the generic zip cord of logic. Even Superdad laughed at that. 

 

Also can I change my Forum name to Superdata just to be an unmitigated ass-hole (some already think this so) with every single post of mine?

 

I always thought the kitten in your avatar offset your alleged reputation for being coarse.  Hard to hate on a kitteh.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

 

Interesting, Mr. Cogley, as I haven't spent much time on the Hoffman forum. I feel, though, that your information may support my impression.

 

You report that LS "shilled" for AQ, Black Cat, and Shunyata over at Hoffman. Are you saying that Lee had some sort of secret arrangement/agreement with all of those manufacturers to serve as an online "influencer" for their products? The way it's been continually suggested, with no hard evidence, that he's somehow on the MQA payroll? That he's a professional "shill" with a sizable portfolio of clients? Given the length of the list of products he's allegedly selling his soul for, isn't it (a lot) more likely that these are things he's simply genuinely enthusiastic about?

 

Look. I'm friendly with Lee, having chatted with him at shows for a few years but I don't know what happens in the deeper recesses of his heart and mind—and, of course, neither do you. I feel that you (and Indierock and a few others) have created a narrative that suits your contempt for his position on MQA. What joelha is saying here is that such accusations without real evidence amount to ad hominem and adversely impact the tone and utility of a potentially substantive discussion.

 

You pretty much are required to defend Scoggins now as his new position pretty much demands that you do so.

 

I've met Scoggins myself at some shows, but he didn't know it was me.  In my experience, he is the polar opposite of a consumer advocate.  He seems to take pleasure in seeing consumers misled and manipulated.  Payroll you say?  In my experience, Scoggins' goal is to establish enough of a relationship with manufacturers that he can refer to the principals by their first name.  And he does this ad nauseam.  I like the term "first-name dropper".

 

And please, take your pro-MQA gaslighting somewhere else.  You motives are crystal clear and you're not converting anyone.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

44 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

Wow, RT66indierock called Lee Scoggins a liar without so much as a peep out of you but ARQuint called RT66indierock a narcissist and here you are? Biased just a little?

 

Did you miss that @Rt66indierock brought receipts?

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 hours ago, ARQuint said:

You report that LS "shilled" for AQ, Black Cat, and Shunyata over at Hoffman.

 

Yes I did.

 

Shunyata

Black Cat

Audioquest

 

If he shilled for the "privilege" of referring to the company principals by their first name, how would that look different to a consumer than shilling for actual money?

 

I got more

 

George Cardas

Caelin Gabriel

Chris Sommovigo

 

I say again, the polar opposite of consumer advocacy.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You're no lawyer and this is no court of law, but suggesting you know Lee was lying is a stretch. 

 

Chris, are you suggesting there is an actual distinction between gaslighting and lying?  Aren't they the same thing?

[Samuel T Cogley]

Can we bring this back to the central theme of the OP?

 

"calling irrational beliefs 'irrational beliefs' is rude" 🙂

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, 4est said:

Not to pick on you in particular, but to me this statement is the gist of what the OP was getting at. I have an engineering background and would love to be purely objective. At present there are not measurements(or understanding of them) that will describe exactly how something will sound. Until such time, I will need to use both ob/subjective methods to determine the quality of playback I achieve, and whether I will do something about it. I, and likely many others, resent being described as irrational because we refuse to relinquish subjectivity until then. As Miska has pointed out, things can measure comparably but sound different.

 

It pretty much was meant to try to bring the discussion back on topic.  Do you think it's rude to characterize irrational beliefs as such?

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, 4est said:

Oh come on, you know what I meant. If you are here to just do battle, have at it.

 

I think you were quick to assume my use of "irrational beliefs" spoke directly to your subjectivity when I made no such linkage.  I'm asking what I think is a reasonable question:

 

Do you believe that referring to irrational beliefs as such is, in a very general sense, rude?

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, KeenObserver said:

We have the never ending subjectivist/objectivist argument.

 

Going back to the beginning of reproduced sound, which group was most responsible for bringing us to the current state of affairs.

 

I can just imagine:

Bell: "Come here Watson, I need you".

Watson: Wow! That sounds like shit".

 

My understanding of that process is that Watson said "what?" quite a bit before that happened. 🙂

[Samuel T Cogley]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Based on your comments in this thread, I don't believe you have any idea what the OP was getting at. Please stop suggesting otherwise.

 

Chris, I never made it past this little nugget (from the OP):

 

Quote

I believe these debates are about religion...

 

Couldn't one easily reach the conclusion that the OP, while perhaps forming a cogent complaint about incivility, doesn't seem to have the slightest idea what this eternal conflict is really all about?

 

Is the solution simply for those of us who point to the irrationality to STFU?  That seems to be what all the people who are upvoting the OP want.

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, 4est said:

Respectfully, the OP has intimated that you do not seem to understand the gist of what he was attempting to convey. I was speaking to what I think he was trying to say. Perhaps I am off too? Regardless, it is my opinion that we would all get along together better if put more effort into how we as individuals communicate. It is not place to define anyone but myself. Labeling someone else(as irrational or most anything) is bound to cause problems. We were taught that in grade school.

 

And respectfully as well, this statement could be summarized as "just ignore irrationality and everyone will get along".

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If someone believes Santa Claus...

 

So, this forum is not the place to disabuse someone of the belief that Santa Claus actually exists?

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

I think it pales in comparison to the 6 or 7 troll posters whoe are constantly venting their envy, and rage, against high performance audio manufacturers...

 

I've been waiting for the "skeptics are envious peasants" trope to rear its ugly head, and there it is.

[Samuel T Cogley]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Can anyone find a real world example where a consumer really wanted to purchase a stereo or pair of headphones, but was so turned off by magic stones that they stopped their pursuit and elected to not listen to music?

 

I can tell you that when I read a statement from the head of Audioquest stating something like, "some of our users report that an interconnect cable replacement (with an Audioquest product of course) outperformed a source unit replacement", and then I saw many of the AQ devotees enthusiastically agreeing with that nonsense that I realized there is really such thing as "the big crazy".

 

I've never spent a penny on anything AQ.  No DACs, no headphones, and or course, no cables!

 

And of course that experience has made me rather suspicious of anyone praising AQ products.

[Samuel T Cogley]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It seems like you guys think your saving the Earth from the next great plague. I'm all for calling out anti-vaxxers because people are literally dying. HiFi is entertainment. There hasn't been a death yet.

 

With due respect Chris, and I understand it's your prerogative, but you're trolling here.