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

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The world isn’t black & white. Your use of the term, and accusations of, lying is serious. 

 

Your vitriol toward audio companies must be caused by something larger than audio. Nobody in their right mind would care this much if there wasn’t a fear of something, jealousy, or something else at play. 
 

 

 

That's clear-eyed, honest, and a breath of fresh air, Chris. Change the word "companies" to "writers" or "magazines" and direct the observation toward a half-dozen or so participants on a very few Audiophile Style forums and you'll be taking an even more principled stand. Manufacturers help keep AS afloat; TAS and Stereophile and Michael Lavorgna and Lee Scoggins and John Darko are merely competitors. Unfounded claims of dishonesty and unethical behavior should be no more acceptable with these targets, even if you disagree vociferously with what they have to say. "…a fear of something, jealousy, or something else at play" ?  I'd say so.

[ARQuint]

32 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

A couple things come to mind here. 
 

0. Is this the backhanded compliment I think it is?
 

1. I like to let people speak for themselves, for the main reason that I don’t like people to speak for me. I believe my response above was related to a general series of comments not mentioning any entity specifically. Alex thought it was him and stepped in to speak for himself. 
 

2. Some behavior is indefensible. 
 

3. It’s much easier to talk about specifics than generalities, so I’d hate to guess what you’re specifically addressing. 
 

4. A couple people You mentioned lost privileges to use AS due to egregious rule violations. I suppose I could speak for them but then why have rules in the first place and I don’t have enough time to speak for myself. 

 

It's not supposed to be a backhanded compliment - it's meant to be a regular, standard-issue compliment. It's admirable when you call out ad hominem attacks for what they are.

 

They are not, it seems to me, just an assault on someone's professional worth but an attempt to inflame and provoke. Lavorgna? He's a pretty excitable guy, 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. If you'd given the sort of dressing-down to several of the worst bullies at the time that you gave to Plissken here, maybe there could be more discussions that stay useful for longer on any number of controversial subjects. As there are, by the way, on plenty of AS threads.

 

So, by all means, keep up what Cogley and crenca would refer to as "finger-wagging." It's what separates us from the the beasts of the forest.

 

Andy

[ARQuint]

19 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

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.

 

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.

 

Lee's detractors maintain that he just kept repeating MQA, Inc doggerel. The case could be made that many of the most aggressive (and often anonymous) Vaporware participants spent a awful lot of time citing Archimago's conclusions, using the same language over and over. This is, of course, the nature of online discourse, as plenty of people have pointed out. The need to get the last word in is why Vaporware is mind-numbingly redundant. All that seems to invigorate it periodically is the occasional opportunity for new insults. It'll reach 1000 pages, I'm sure, unless the narcissist (Hi, Steve!) who started it chooses to shut it down. Which strikes me as unlikely.

 

Andy

[ARQuint]

5 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

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.

 

 

"...pro-MQA gaslighting?" Really??  Now that's a great example of inventing a narrative to suit one's purposes. My sole interest in MQA for more than two years now has been the bad online behavior it's associated with. I've written a couple of editorials about that subject and you yourself have accused me of "finger-wagging". I have very little, if any to saything about the technology itself (for example, I mentioned that one of the three SACD players I reviewed in the December issue was MQA-capable and left it at that.) I don't own a DAC that decodes MQA and I'm certainly not losing any sleep over it. I've never met Bob Stuart or any of the other MQA principals.

 

As far as "converting anyone" to my cause, I think that a wonderful thing about Joel Alperson's editorial is that it has brought people out of the woodwork who are similarly weary of the uncivil tone of so much discourse in enthusiast communities, specifically ours. No converting is required—plenty of AS forum members are already believers, when it comes to addressing rude and aggressive online behavior.

 

Andy

[ARQuint]

2 hours ago, Albrecht said:

Who is a journalist? And what is the definition of a "journalist?" I am questioning whether or not you understand that no one who writes for Audiophile Magazines or writes reviews or product announcements for any type of music playback equipment is a "journalist:" but an audio "enthusiast." Think music or film reviewer.

 

Agree completely.

Hopefully, an enthusiast with experience and expertise.

 

2 hours ago, Albrecht said:

 

 

 

 

[ARQuint]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Sometimes I wonder, are you really this hard core?  Victim shaming by the confidence man?!  Can the trade publication machine really be this anti-consumer?  You don't want civil "enthusiast communities", at least not ones that are not cuckold to your purposes.

 

Sorry, I really don't know what you're talking about.

 

Andy Quint

[ARQuint]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

And you still don't get the basics.

 

Many of Arhcimago's/Mansr's conclusions were based on disprovable analyses/conclusions/understandings that he and Chris invited others to disprove. No one disproved what they said on it's merits. And they still haven't, till today. 

 

Lots of people tried to say that if the source of a fact is anonymous, then then the fact itself is wrong. You seem to be implying that here. That of course is a logical fallacy.  In fact, among the people who engaged Archimago's assertions on their merits, he only received backing. 

 

The same can't be said for Lee. The fact is that you either can't - or refuse - to see the difference. 

 

And FD, I feel that you and a few others just don't understand what's at stake here. It seems so obvious to me. For the umpteenth time, my concern isn't who is right or wrong on the MQA question, but rather, the way we talk to each other about it. I assure you: I read every word of Archimago's analysis and was impressed; I'm no happier to see his abilities called into question than the integrity and competence of those in the pro-MQA camp—for example, people like my dear friend Peter McGrath.

 

I'd been reading Audiophile Style without posting—"lurking"—for months before Joel's editorial was published two days ago. I'm being genuine when I say that I'm tremendously impressed with Chris's decision to present it as he did, in a way that acknowledged the vital importance of the issue of civility. There's been an explosive response, mostly from two constituencies. The first is a large group of members that's as concerned as the OP about the manner in which a vocal minority attack those with different opinions than their own. The second are representatives of that minority who recognize themselves in Joel's essay and don't like the characterization. I can detect, from some of them, annoyance and even frank anger with The Computer Audiophile for publishing the editorial, viewing it as a kind a slap in the face.

 

I suppose it is. But it's a subject that needs addressing and that outpouring of reaction—more than 500 postings in two days!—is very telling. I'll try returning to lurking status and observe what I hope will be the growth of a corrective force.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound