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

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

Those on the objectivist side behave as people who don't appear to behave as though they have confidence that their truth will ultimately prevail.  They are angry and bitter and take every opportunity to demean the other side. They have a diminished awareness of the dissonance between their expectations and reality as they completely discount the massive amount anecdotal evidence that challenges their truth.  If they were confident in their truth, they would feel no need to bash manufacturers because sales of snake oil should soon put those manufacturers out of business.  And likewise they would have confidence that those fooled into purchasing snake oil would eventually realize they were scammed and also buy into their truth.  Unfortunately reality keeps letting them down, hence the bitterness and anger.  Their fight isn't really with the other side - it's with reality not conforming to their truth.  They will never be at peace with the other side until reality submits to their will. 

 

This is why there are constant fights, this attitude of us vs. them. They are all evil, angry and bitter. We are all good and fun-loving people. They attack us, we are just here to enjoy ourselves. The more folks keep pushing this narrative about the other side, the more dysfunctional this place will become. It's not because of objectivist vs. subjectivist divide, or science vs. religion. The cause are those who can't tolerate opposing views, those who see a difference of opinion as a personal affront.

[pkane2001]

Just now, kennyb123 said:

 

There are plenty of opposing view expressed amongst the subjectivist side.  In fact, we welcome such views.  For example, some might argue a particular component sounds better with power supply A while another prefers power supply B - or one might prefer running AudioLinux while another prefers Euphony.  There's a recognition amongst this group that we each hear things differently and we each have different listening preferences.  There's no anger or bitterness.  These folks are just having fun...

 

... at least until the schoolyard bullies show up to try to spoil the fun by mocking us and demeaning us and repeated telling us that we can't be hearing what we're hearing - or that we are just pissing our money away. 

 

There's a civility gap - and until that can be acknowledged by the side behaving in uncivil manner, things will never get better.

 

Until you recognize to what degree this gap exists for both sides, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

Can you point me to thread or two that's been started by a person on the objectivist side that has been disrupted by one or more persons on the subjectivist side?

 

I don't like pointing fingers, but there's this recent thread about a new ethernet switch that a gentleman involved in this very thread decided to join to try to push a subjectivist point of view ...on a decidedly objectivist-minded forum. It wasn't a good showing for him. The whole thing got very nasty.

 

1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

I can point you to a signature line that begins with the words "The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge..." and then goes on to demand their purchasing decisions. 

 

So all objectivists are angry, bitter, evil people because one of them put something you don't like in his signature?

 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, emcdade said:

That’s an ad hominem.  The most frustrating of the replies.

 

Are you serious? A statement about speakers measuring differently is an ad hominem? I must be in an alternate universe, there's no other explanation

 

 

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, emcdade said:

Yes, I never argued that ESL and dynamic driver speakers measure the same.  That is the literal definition of an ad hominem.

 

No. A literal definition of ad hominem is a personal attack in place of an argument about the subject. You were not attacked in any way that I can see by Dennis' statement.

 

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

Thanks for providing evidence that supports my civility gap assertion.  Putting words in someone else’s mouth is usually done in an attempt to turn things in an uncivil direction - particularly when someone can’t come up with a civil and substantive response.  I won’t take the bait.  But thanks for helping to prove my point.

 

Ah, right. It wasn't you who said this just a few hours ago. I imagined the whole thing, and the civility gap that this represents:

 

Quote

Those on the objectivist side behave as people who don't appear to behave as though they have confidence that their truth will ultimately prevail. They are angry and bitter and take every opportunity to demean the other side. They have a diminished awareness of the dissonance between their expectations and reality as they completely discount the massive amount anecdotal evidence that challenges their truth. 

 

[pkane2001]

Just now, kennyb123 said:

You are arguing in bad faith and the only reason I’m playing along is because of how closely your behavior aligns a link I posted last night.  Wild.

 

Whatever you say, buddy. Have a good day, I'm out.

[pkane2001]

41 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Which is fine, and I've said as much in the EtherREGEN thread.

 

I'm happy with mine. Why should I need anyone else or even myself to believe I'm right in order to be happy? And why should anyone else have a need to prove I should not be?

 

Ha! So it's all about you then?  How about what I need to be happy? I need audio manufacturers to really try to improve the SOTA, to innovate in the space that actually makes a real and not imagined difference. Instead, I keep running into new products around better cables, de-crapifiers to de-crapify something that doesn't have any crap, and designer fuses with beeswax. I fondly remember the days when manufacturers really tried to build a better mouse trap. But hey, I guess I'm just an angry and bitter person, like Kennyb said Make Audio Great Again!!!  Ooops! No political agenda intended, sorry...

 

[pkane2001]

18 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I don't see Harman, for example, dropping out of the business. In fact, they're a rather large company. And you know I'm also quite scientifically curious about much that is involved with our hobby. So I don't think a small number of people with ideas that might be silly are going to really bother anyone, except those who want to be bothered.

 

Of course. That post was mostly in jest, Jud. I know for a fact that you are curious and willing to consider real evidence. Would be interesting to see how this site contributors break-down on a subjective vs. objective scale. I wouldn't be surprised if it's 100:1  

 

Any AI/data-scientists here that want to do the research?

 

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

As I've said before, it's almost like you think "real" innovation is inversely proportional to "snake oil." If we have more of one we can't have more of the other. I believe you can get all you of both.

 

If the market consistently demands fixes for non-existent problems (USB cables, decrapifiers, linear power supplies, ethernet filters, better sounding fuses, grounding boxes, "improved" DC cables, etc), companies will oblige. As you say the ratio is 100:1 here for subjectivists. The majority that's driving the demand is interested in products solving problems that are mostly imagined rather than seeking real innovation.

 

19 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I have no other way to describe the objectivist interjections at every point, other than a crusade to save people, stop others from making money on what they see is wrong, a fear of the anti-science agenda, hatred of those they don't agree with, and other things. 

 

I'm curious why you keep bringing this up in response to my posts. If you feel that I'm interfering with too many threads here on AS, I'm perfectly willing to go elsewhere. 

 

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You can't honestly believe yourself on that can you? Do you really think any of the manufacturers fro which you purchase equipment are going to stop engineering efforts toward innovation and start producing as you call them "decrapifiers?" 

 

I can honestly say that I believe this wholeheartedly. Innovation has slowed down to a crawl with much junk and unnecessary devices/enhancements being introduced all the time. As Mans said, true innovation is very hard to find in the noise.

[pkane2001]

18 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I can respect that if it's what you truly believe. I don't believe there is evidence to support it, but that's OK. 

 

Do you know when innovation in HiFi proceeded at a faster pace?

 

Certainly in the 80's and early 90's. 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

In the area of digital audio, right? And has it since slowed because some smaller manufacturers put out some products you feel are questionable (and some I certainly do too), or because we are at a pretty good place now? To reiterate my question, what assaults on the state of the art do you believe remain to be made with products such as amps, DACs, and audio files?

 

Proper multi-channel audio, starting with the recording and ending with the speaker/DSP system would be my ultimate wish. Two-channel stereo is a compromise we no longer have to or need to tolerate as it will never be capable of realistic sound reproduction.

[pkane2001]

Just now, Jud said:

 

And you think the major corporations that would have to be involved in such an effort aren't doing so because a few people bought beeswax fuses?

 

Why do you keep bringing up major corporations? These rarely cater to the tiny audiophile market. Mass consumer-oriented companies rarely care about improving SQ, about getting better, more realistic sound reproduction. Give the masses an iPhone with MP3 playback, with some wireless ear-buds and they'll be happy. 

 

Meanwhile, audiophiles are seeking out hires files at ridiculous DSD rates, DACs with 768kHz+ PCM sampling, minimum phase filters, better USB and ethernet cables, and other junk that doesn't translate into anything meaningful beyond a very tiny, placebo-type improvement. And no, it's not just the subjectivists that are doing this. The ASR crowd looking for lower and lower SINAD numbers is doing the same thing, just pursuing a different dead-end.

 

[pkane2001]

15 minutes ago, ted_b said:

I ask this question:  do any of us also partake in other technically complex hobby's forums (automotive, astronomy, etc etc) that act significantly poorer than their older days counterparts used to?  I would guess a big YES.

 

For astronomy forums, that's a big NO. In fact, it's gotten much better since the end of the century. But then, I run a number of them, so I guess it's all due to my amazing moderator skills  The reality is I don't need to moderate any of my forums, I may jump in a few times a year to get a discussion back on track, but that's about it. 

 

Audio forums didn't get better, I'm afraid, but I wouldn't say they got much worse from around the same period. I recall similar fights and arguments, just as heated, from the 90s.

 

[pkane2001]

39 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Exactly - major corporations rarely cater to our tiny market. Yet virtually every component that goes into our present DACs, amps, etc., is made by a major corporation. Tiny audiophile companies aren't making their own DAC or ADC chips. The same will be true of chips for better multichannel audio (and that's without even thinking about how much more affordable speakers would have to be; that would have to come from economies of mass production, it seems to me).

 

We can get there through software now (HQPlayer at least; there may be others I don't know about), but it requires top of the line CPUs and GPUs to do the processing, so that's not realistically going to be available even to the wider audiophile market. Either computing will have to continue to get cheaper (major corporations), or we'll need chips (major corporations).

 

We'll also need agreed on standards for end to end interoperable recording and playback, if you feel those for current multichannel won't suffice. That means standards bodies, usually staffed and/or aided by, yes, major corporations.

 

So that's why I keep bringing it up. Do you see an alternative path to better multichannel affordable to most audiophiles with workable standards that proceeds through tiny custom operations?

 

Having been in the innovation space all my adult life,  I don't buy it that only large corporations can do innovation. They mostly buy it from smaller players, screw it up a few times, and maybe by version 3.0, finally get it to become usable. The big guys rarely invent things. Mass produce -- yes. Invent -- no. I feel this is going way off topic here (bashing objectivists), but feel free to start a new thread and I'll jump in.

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I believe facts are facts and opinions are opinions. The issue I usually have is when facts or data are used in a manner that uses opinion to justify use of the facts and when conclusions are reached that don't follow the facts. In this way the conclusions are opinions based on facts, but the facts don't add up. 

 

I have no data to back up my opinion, but I'm willing to bet most people here understand the facts as presented by those smart enough to know them, but they disagree with the application of the facts and conclusions reached. 

 

In the absence of knowledge or understanding of the subject matter, any fact can sound like an opinion. There's nothing to distinguish one from the other except for the support and agreement from a like-minded group or from some questionable authority figure. The reason I say 'questionable' is that in the absence of knowledge or understanding, there is little basis for deciding who is and who is not a real authority.  And that's how opinions become facts in the minds of many. Science defines a different process for determining facts. As I said much earlier in the thread, not all opinions are the same. How you arrive at the opinion matters.

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, joelha said:

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

 

It must be that scientific religion they are into... Angry and bitter bunch of people they are!

[pkane2001]

15 hours ago, tapatrick said:

Sounds great I think I'll head over there. Why is it so different on astronomy forums? less room for 'subjectivity'.. ?

 

It's that to some degree. I joke that amateur astronomers spend most of the clear nights outside, with a telescope, getting little to no sleep. They are exhausted and have no energy to argue and fight on forums during the day  The hobby is extremely technical and more than frequently -- humbling, so folks help each other whenever they can and rely on building a common knowledge and understanding as a community.

 

There are always some strong subjective opinions, and even snake oil, but these are easily found out and rarely tolerated.

 

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, tapatrick said:

Thanks for the update, food for thought.. without being politically incorrect can you tell what the demographic is ? Cheers

 

Similar demographic to audiophiles. Maybe a bit older on average, age spans from early 20s to mid 80s. Average, without any real data to back this up, I'd say around 60. Predominantly male. World-wide.