Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

On 12/9/2019 at 10:20 AM, firedog said:

I'm perfectly willing to accept what anyone else says they hear. My only issue is when they present their individual experience as somehow applying more generally, or as "proving" something. Just as I'm willing to accept what they hear, I expect them at a minimum to acknowledge that they may be subject to expectation bias during sighted listening. 

 

I think I've succeeded in the more recent past in not arguing with anyone's perceptions, but rather with how the personal perceptions are presented in some cases. That at least is my intent. 

 

I also realize that very few of us can reliably conduct a DBT or even an SBT at home; so the most practical fallback is to audition stuff in the best way we can and then make a decision on what we hear. That's what the vast majority of us do most of the time. And if that's expectation bias coloring our perceptions, that's also okay. After all, just like the placebo effect can sometimes cure disease, what we hear and enjoy is what we in reality are hearing, no matter the reason. 

 

My problem in the more recent discussion here is not so much with listeners as it is with manufacturers. Many audio manufacturers make claims about their devices that defy known engineering and scientific principles. Could they be telling the truth? Yes, and certainly some of them genuinely believe they are. But those extraordinary claims should be backed up by more than anecdotal sighted evidence. If you want me (us) to spend big bucks on a device that costs 2X, 5X or 50X, the price of a "conventional" equivalent, shouldn't you have an ethical obligation to base those claims on more than sighted and - by definition biased -listening?

 

Isn't that, for instance, one of our gripes about the MQA fanboys and their claims of vastly improved sound - that all those claims are based on sighted listening, manipulated shows, groupthink, etc? Why is it okay to doubt those claims, but not the claims made about "Device X", when the claims about "Device X" are fairly outlandish, according to accepted engineering/scientific norms? But that (MQA directed) skepticism isn't seen  as something illegitimate, for some reason. 

 

And as far as manufacturers measuring devices, I also get that some of these very small operations can't reasonably be expected to shell out multiple tens of thousands for testing equipment - at least not until they've been in operation quite a while. But they could pay a much smaller fee to someone else to measure/test their products. (And if they didn't like the results they could always not publish them, anyway). 


So I find it very telling that we almost never see such measurements. Even from some of the bigger operations that certainly know how to do them and can afford to. Again, get some testing that backs your claims up and publish them - it will only enhance your reputation and increase your sales. Doubters, and maybe even some of the ASR crowd will buy your stuff. 

 

"Many audio manufacturers make claims about their devices that defy known engineering and scientific principles"


This is decidedly not true, it is impossible to build audio equipment or peripherals that defy known engineering and scientific principles.

Now, - there may be manufacturers who may attempt to explain what we may be hearing when listening, and/or WHY a particular component or cable can cause some people to hear what they do: but that is decidedly not the same thing.

 

Also, - science is not rigid. It is FLUID. Science advances all of the time. Newton was not wrong. Newton just did not have the tools & knowledge and testing methodologies that became available and were by others, notably Einstein that allowed for "better" explanations on both micro and macro levels. The science ADVANCED.

 

 For example, there are more than a few physicists who have come to understand that electrons don’t flow at all but rather propagate in energy "waves"  that move through or along a conductor with many factors that alter the wave at quantum levels.

 

And as we have seen in some instances in high performance audio, - that many of these products aren't significantly different in design topology: but the internal components are MUCH BETTER built to tighter tolerances with less percentage variances: and are, therefore, much more expensive.

""I think I've succeeded in the more recent past in not arguing with anyone's perceptions, but rather with how the personal perceptions are presented in some cases. That at least is my intent. ""

 

I think that you have. FWIW, - i have a lot of respect for your reasoning, and your testing, your approach,  and your open mind and desire to "test" all kinds of devices.

 

Finally, - I want to mention that very few of us are songwriters, musicians and producers. Many folks who are NOT at the mix down sessions, or better yet, at K-Disc or any of the CD/Digital file manufacturing facilities: aren't going to know what the recording was supposed to sound like. I can tell you that my guitars sound different through the 5 or 6 generations beyond when I stood playing in front of the amp. So at the end of the day, - it's all about what YOU (each of us) want to hear that's going to make the music that we like, be enjoyed more.

 

 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Indeed - lemme try to summarize in this context - because you have a point

 

1.- I think the general idea of the editorial is that audiophiles are requesting the same respect that, let's say, the wine hobby/industry - That is, if I hear it (or taste it) then that's it, that is my take on it and I am contributing valuable insights. Because ( and hope I  am not wrong) that seems to be the general aim of the audiophile practice (at least the subjective one, which seems to include most of the industry and its consumers).  Might add, though, that wine industry is also on very iffy grounds: 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_(wine)

 

So again, what is trying be said here, is "leave us alone to appreciate the products on our terms"

IMHO.

 

2. - That said, these are engineered devices. The process has even less variability than wine production (which is more engineering/science these days, than art). So to attribute characteristics that are not part of a design ("musicality" for example) is really strange. And connecting from that, an evaluation like that relies on the senses. Human senses; fallible, easily skewered, etc.  After all, it was our senses that told the ancients the earth was flat.

 

3.- Now here is the gist of the argument. The thing that has caused more bits being used on the net than almost anything except pr0n! :D

When the reviewer issues a statement  that contradicts scientific facts , people will comment. It did not use to be that way. Before the interwebs, the counterargument was not aired in the trade magazines; in that volume, of course. Magazines did publish dissenting opinions, but usually in the middle of the convinced choir, with no reply or long discussion. The internet changed that.

 

4.-  And that's where the argument gets ugly.  Many accusations from one side to the other. For example, and this addresses directly a point in the post I am replying to,  the implication that the scientific side relies on religious-like "belief" in science is incorrect. Science is facts and I have seen in general in most of the posts a solid understanding of the scientific facts necessary for the argument.  A lot of knowledgeable engineers/scientists in this forum.

 

5. Last, I will get personal. Why do I get into it? Believe it or not, it has to do with the zeitgeist and the current political climate. Lots of anti-scientific thinking right now, from anti-vaxxers  to flat earthers, climate change  denial, etc. This is a direct attack on humanity.  Yes, flat earthers, for example are ridiculous and relatively innocuous. Yet , such promotion of anti-science still has a detrimental effect. It promotes fear of knowledge and education, to the point that in some realms, educated persons and scientists are "an elite" that is not to be trusted etc. And in order to fight against that (because it really needs to be fought) I actively oppose it anytime I see it. And yes, it can be even dangerous, IRL. But because the stakes are pretty high we really need to do it.

 

And I consider, $100,000/ft cables, Ethernet cables with sound, $200,000 power "conditioners", etc. part of the anti-science idea - the ultimate example of magical thinking. And a waste of resources, whether you can afford it or not. So I get into it.

 

Well

 

Not anymore. Almost. Obviously, nobody has noticed my absence, but until now, it has been a while since I got into it, in this forum and others. And after this, will probably be a while to be back. Probably only if I have a question or problem. Because, while I still think I am right in my assessment, also realized that audiophilia is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Only  got into this thread because it popped very prominently in my news feed.

 

But I will continue and I do promise to try to live and let live.

 

v

Are you saying that there are people who are assembling audio system(s) to NOT listen to?, - but just have it sitting there idle?

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

Someone pissed in your Cheerios, hunh?

is that your Keen Observation?

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 and the folks who are interested in improving the listening experience through better performing playback gear. Or otherwise, - whining on the internet....

 

"hunh?"

Is that darling? sweetie? or huh?

 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

My guess is that something that Archimago posted cast shade on a product that you have a vested interest in.  Did you refute the claims on a scientific basis, or did you attempt to shoot the messenger?

""My guess is that something that Archimago posted cast shade on a product that you have a vested interest in"

That would be entirely incorrect.....

""Did you refute the claims on a scientific basis,"

(Of course) But no one has to, and that's the beauty of good science. Either you're following the principles of good scientific investigation and the scientific method, - or you are not. If you are not, - then you're not conducting a good investigation, and not doing good science. If you've produced good evidence, and preponderance thereof, - your conclusions will have more validity.

It only takes a cursory examination of Archimago's processes and extremely narrow sampling of test subjects, and out of context tests, and poor measuring tools: to conclude that his conclusions are inconclusive at best, and downright manipulated at worst.

 

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

"Good Sound" is more likely with good Scotch, and the state store had a very rare sale today.

 

Therefore...

Whatever turns you on man....

I have no basis to ever criticize how you approach getting to the place where you wanna be enjoying the music that you (hopefully) love.

But twin bits of sarcasm aside, - I am truly sad that (on the basis of your posts) you neither seem to like your system, or the act of listening to music. So much so that you feel the need to come onto an audiophile website and attack both designers/manufacturers and the people who appreciate their equipment's performance without evidence, research, or experience: (in both subjective and objective realms).

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...