Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Or @crenca!

 

I just discovered this editorial and thread a few minutes ago!  Are you ready for me to go all crenca on you good folks!?!? 😋

 

I confess that I have background in the subjects (graduate work in the humanities, I have been to seminary and back, an interest in audio, was a network/systems "engineer" for years, and I enjoy the sport of OCD driven comment box jui-jitsu 😉), and while I welcome @joelhaeffort, I don't really have anything good to say about it.  His editorial is a confused and confusing mish-mash of negative sentiment and poorly used/understood ideas such as "subjectivism", religion, science, etc.   Positively (I am trying! ;) ) I will say that such an editorial is "naturally" the result of the two Big Ideas that weave through our western civilization and culture since the High Middle Ages and which are in fundamental tension:  "scientific" methodological materialism on the one hand, and the Cartesian "self" on the other.   Subjectivists vs. Objectivists in audio is but a very minor backwater in this grand cultural "dialectic".  

 

Beyond this, I am interested in the culture of Audiophiledom and "the industry" because I think this is the best way to contextualize the hobby and issues such as civility and the like.  Want civility?  Then I think @Rt66indierockand others are correct when they point to the voodoo/confidence game/radical subjective poison pill that lives in the center of the hobby.  Want the status quo?  Then do as @joelhadoes and write the equivalent of my kids exclaiming "stop touching me!" in the back seat...

 

 

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

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

There's the doubling down we expected.

 

More than just double - All in!  Your stuck in a rut (which might very well be where you want yourself and this site to be on this subject).   If you want serious thought and discussion on this subject, then a little work/self reflection on your and everyone else's part is probably the only way forward. 

 

Beyond that, it's finger wagging all day long just as it was yesterday and just as it will be tomorrow.  

 

@joelhasuggestion that we accept radical subjectivism as the neutral and civil ground of not only audio, but science, metaphysics and religion too, is just more of the same and not a way forward...

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

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, joelha said:

I'm asking for "radical" civility and I offer a theory as to why we don't get it.

 

Joel

 

Your asking for objectivists to agree that the subjectivism is "true" (in audio, and to infinity - and beyond!).  Your saying that subjectivism is the arbitrator of disputes between itself and objectivism.  You pit personalities and reputations against the truth, and then you have personality smoother the truth for the mere material $good$ of these same personalities and your version of civility.  

 

It's like you don't understand objectivists at all.  If you want to understand why there is conflict and passion between them and subjectivism then your going to have to put a little effort to understand what makes them tick.

 

Here is a question you could start with:

 

Why would a moral objectivist privilege the truth over any particular personality and their livelihood?

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

Link to comment

BBBUUUTTTTTT....

 

If in audio you want to move beyond good and evil, subjectivist vs. objectivist, and the tit for tat moralizing that both will bring because neither can agree with the other, then you will have to find the "transcendent third option" - the vantage point from which you can see the forest through the trees...

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

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, joelha said:

Yes, in the context of an audio hobby, subjectivism is o.k. and innocuous.

 

Just so you don't misunderstand the objectivist reaction to this statement:

 

WHATTTTT?!!!!!!!!!

 

Now, an objectivist will understand that there is a subjective element (it's what, 90% of the weight of the hobby?) but will not accept the status quo, radical subjectivism, any opinion = another in worth and truth, and "it's only audio so who cares if the industry leverges cheating, lying, and stealing in pursuit of its $ends$".  It is the latter that you are arguing for.

 

8 minutes ago, joelha said:

I never said objectivists have to accept subjectivism.

 

Yes you did, because you believe that anything less is the cause of strife and "religion" - you explicitly said this.  

 

9 minutes ago, joelha said:

Once again, I was explaining why I think the vitriol exists.

 

Your explanation is objectively in error.  You don't see what subjectivism or objectivism really are (or how you argue from a subjectivist premise), and thus you wrongly attribute the "vitriol" and every other aspect of the conflict to the wrong thing(s).  I would apologize but I don't apologize for the truth:  Your "understanding" is in error...

 

For a correct understanding, you could try Samuels suggestion and look at all this from a consumerist point of view...or you could take such a suggestion as a "war on Christmas" as our host would have it...LOL, this thread has been worth it just to read that!!

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

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

If Decartes is the grandfather of radical subjectivism, then Kant is the God Father.   The current unraveling of his (catagorical) detente between reality and the Cartesian self  is everywhere seen (culture, law, etc).

 

I'm surprised nobody has called me out for admitting that 90% of this hobby is subjective... 😱

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

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, austinpop said:

@joelha

 

Hi Joel, 

 

I normally keep well away from such threads, but I wanted to publicly thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful article.

 

Naturally, the ensuing discussion has devolved in exactly the expected trajectory.

 

But hey, such threads are a good way to refine one's Ignore list. I caught one or two new ones that I had missed. Thanks for that. 👍

 

Somehow @austipop is not reading the same article the OP wrote, which ended with:

 

"Can we respect the opinions of those who differ with us by not trying to shut them down with ridicule?"

 

Or was this all a bunch of hypocritical thumb in the eye posturing from the get go?

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

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thanks for your comments, especially the one quoted above. It greatly helps me understand why you would care about some things in HiFi enough to "fight" with intensity. I disagree with you on your conclusions, but that's OK. Knowing how you got there is what's helpful in this discussion. 

 

I think one has to pick his battles, finding the right time and place for spending emotional capital and precious time. The tiny niche of HiFi, where the risks are incredibly low all around, doesn't seem like a place I would fight the global war on science. Audiophile Style isn't the front line, and isn't even close. 

 

Yet, even here the stakes are something and not nothing.  For all but oligarchs, the pricing of audiophilia is significant.  The hucksterism and "who cares" subjectivism makes for a poisoned divide.  

 

Also we must remember the war on Christmas...that's important 😋

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

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, 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.

 

Well stated.  However, I think you have made an error.  A rational and balanced explication of the real subjective/objective elements of audio is not the "gist" of what the OP was getting at.  

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

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Since you bring up Schiit, Jason Stoddard (co founder/owner) disagrees with you.  He said this just yesterday:

 

"...Someone once wrote that we should decouple ourselves from "the big crazy," which I believe is a great phrase for all the magical-thinking stuff. The problem is that "the big crazy" has been extremely influential in the business (a reviewer actually used Vidar with $20,000 cables--not kidding). But perhaps it is time to start the decoupling. Because I'm really really tired of having to hold my tongue when I'm shown yet another fuse that costs more than a Magni, ethernet cables that cost more than an Yggdrasil, or magic box that connects to nothing but somehow is supposed to improve the sound....Sorry to continue the derail, but this is an excellent point: the big crazy is holding audio back.  As soon as you start talking about cables/power supplies/stones/quantum resonance machines (or, for that matter, $20K preamps, $50K amps, and $500K speakers), sane people check out. You're crazy. And they're gone...."

 

https://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/magni-3-and-magni-3-heresy-released.8604/page-7#post-282025

 

The inescapable, sky is blue, cold hard fact is that this subjectivism we have been discussing is a fundamental part of "the big crazy".

 

Yet the OP and to a certain extent yourself believe that "the big crazy" is "innocuous" (to use the OP's description) and not only that, the "the big crazy" is the very ground of audio (and its civil discussion) itself.  

 

I should add that thread is about the "radical objectivism" of Amir and ASR, the use and abuse of measurements, etc.  It's a "both/and", etc.  At the risk of offending certain objectivists here, I agree with this, @4est, etc.  Still, the overwhelming status quo in audiophildom is not objectivism, but an off the rail "big crazy" subjectivism for all the known reasons...

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

Link to comment
5 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.

 

As I said initially, the OP's thought is confused and confusing.  That said, he clarified his essential "radical subjective" gounding when he affirmed that it and only it is "innocuous" and the ground of civility in audio, so I don't know what more effort needs to be put in to see that there is a fundamental disagreement here.

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

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I like Jason but disagree with him. 

 

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 think this is the easy scapegoat for people. Only those of us who are deep into HiFi know about magic stones and the like.

 

With respect to price, I don't decide to stop driving because Rolls Royce released the $13,000,000 Sweptail. If I want a car, I find one I can afford. If someone decides to stop driving, I think they have larger issues that auto manufacturers best not try to solve with lower prices. As a rational person, I look at the Sweptail and think it's a feat of engineering and luxury that I wish I could afford, then I head to the Subaru dealer and get a car loan for the Impreza I can afford. 

 

I'm all about choice. Right now we have options from an Apple dongle to a full digital stack at over $100,000. What a time we are living in. 

 

Please stop telling me what I believe. It's getting old. 


To circle back to Samuel's suggestion, consumerism is not neutral and/or an expression of radical choice.  The big crazy has real consequences and is not a mere "scapegoat".  It effects the "how" - how people inform themselves and how "the industry" informs the consumer.  It also affects the "what" - the information that's available, what products are made available, if they can compeat, etc.  Magic stones exist because of a generalized "big crazy" which effects everything.  It's basic culture, economics/markets, and psychology.  Consumerism is always tied to a culture and an industry and its culture.

 

 

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

Link to comment
1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Theory is great. Please give us examples of how HiFi has cause objective information to be unavailable to the consumer and taken choice away from the consumer. If anything, I believe the opposite. 

 

Easy  - the thread that @austinpopruns here (forget the name).  The signal (true objective information) to noise (endless subjective testimony) ratio is so bad it's hard to parody.  From the opposite end, how many folks have been swayed by Amir's radical objectivism and believe that distortion measurements are the end all and be all of sound, and that after a certain point "every amp sounds the same".

 

How is the consumer supposed to weed through all subjectivist prattle in the trade publications and find the truth of MQA, digital audio, analogue audio, or anything else.  

 

Information is not "out there" in a context-less void - it's always found amongst and in a culture, which is a human reality.  I find it ironic that the very comradery that the OP and yourself are concerned about is not supported but undermined by subjectivism

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

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I understand you might think this. No worries. 

 

However, I'm not. The intensity with which some people rail against HiFi   High End, and the demands for products to be pulled form the market as if they were Thalidomide, is no different from those trying to stop global warming. 

 

This is a strawman to those who reject the "big crazy" because we reject the underlying subjectivism of "who cares if no deaths are involved".  For example our wallet's are involved - not as important as death but still important.  Our real (as opposed to some suggestable subjectivist haze) enjoyment is also involved - we want real "HiFi" and not the "High End" house of mirrors.

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

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You may not believe it, but many grown adults are equally as astute as you and can decide for themselves what to purchase and what causes them to enjoy HiFi more. You likely have more "real" HiFi options in the world than magic stones. Your fear of losing real HiFi is unwarranted.

 

It's not out of fear, but out of joy that I point out the errors of the radical (though "libertarian" works in your case) subjectivism, because you are right in that even though big crazy subjectivism is bad for audio, the consumer does now have access to better information/product than perhaps ever before.

 

It is true that Big Crazy Audio is pushing back in a number of ways such as trying to swamp the signal with noise, FUD, etc. but I think things are improving.  This is despite many audiophiles being "ok" with subjectivism, not because of it.   

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

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...