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

[joelha]

View full article

[joelha]

Thanks for your post, Rick.

 

If you respect the people whose views you disagree with, then I think that's great.

 

Joel

[joelha]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thanks again Joel for putting yourself out here with an honest editorial.  I hope the adults here can remain adults and keep the discussion civil. If this happens, an interesting conversation will no doubt ensue. 

Thanks a lot for your support, Chris.

 

I couldn't have gotten my views out there in quite the same way without your help.

 

Joel

[joelha]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

"I know of audiophiles who are objective and religious (perhaps even yours truly 😉)."

 

I agree and never suggested otherwise.

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

Impossible to not think about science/engineering whenever a product reads and converts digital to analogue for example. Likewise, all the scientific principles that have to go into properly reproducing vinyl (eg. tonearm geometries, capacitance, quality of RIAA EQ in the preamp...).

I agree here as well and, again, I never suggested otherwise. As Chris asks in a later post, the issue isn't whether science should be applied, it's how emotional people become about advocating for the scientific assessment of a product and how personal they can be about the opinions of others that are only subjective.

 

For those who become inappropriate, I believe an anti-religious bias is at play for reasons I've already mentioned in my OP.

 

My article was not written to address those who are respectful as they invoke science to make their arguments.

 

Joel

 

 

[joelha]

13 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Joel,

 

I just got back from the Los Angeles & Orange County Audio Society's annual gala. Most of raffle prizes were expensive cables and other items of questionable value. 

 

I believe you are wrong. The people trying to push  snake oil on audiophiles will not go away quietly. And if they don't go away the industry will die.

 

Maybe your memory is selective there was a lot anger in the past. I avoided audiophiles in the 70's., 80's, 90's, 00's and 10's for that reason.

If there was that much anger in the past, Rt66indierock, more's the pity.

 

The people pushing expensive snake oil have something far more difficult to contend with than inappropriate comments on audio forums.

 

They have to exist in a shrinking audio market.

 

Our comments won't push them away, the market will.

 

Inappropriate comments stand a far better chance of pushing us away from each other.

 

Joel

[joelha]

7 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

Where I totally agree with you Joel, is that even I know that I am correct in a "scientific" way, I need to acknowledge that my opponent does not criticize me personally because he has a different way of regarding/hearing the things (under which bias ever). This works in the other direction as well. So far for the communication I'd wish for in our forums.
In recent times we undoubtedly are in need to grow more skin to resist the impact of often unfounded critic that targets us only for just having found a target.
 

Tom,

 

If we agree on the above, that's good enough for me.

 

My only reason for mentioning religion was to try to explain the reason some people become inappropriate as they advocate for their objectivist views. That's it.

 

Thanks for taking so much time to create your post.

 

Joel

[joelha]

8 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Hmmm, hang on @joelha, I'm just not sure who you're talking about when you said this:

 

"Allowing audiophiles to post their subjective conclusions without proof brings them one step closer to accepting those who relate their religious experiences without proof. For them, science is god and a subjective conclusion upends their god and belief system. They fight hard so that doesn’t happen."

 

Who are the "they" in this excerpt? Who are these "religious objective" people who worship this scientific "god"?

Archimago,

 

You're taking one part of my article out of context. But I'm glad you asked the question.

 

The "they" are not only objectivists but the inappropriate objectivists.

 

"Emotional force" is fine. Attacking others personally isn't.

 

That's the "they" I'm talking about.

 

Joel

[joelha]

2 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Inappropriate comments are  the cost of weaning people from authority figures in audio. It will die down as authority figures are seen for they truly are salesman. The same pattern occurred in golf and things have calmed down. 

 

The market doesn't have to shrink.

 

 

By your own statement, that's not happening in our industry, Rt66indierock.

 

If you say there was a lot of anger since the 70's, the anger proposition doesn't seem to be working or is working way too slowly.

 

I'd rather have some of the bad players out there in the industry and a friendlier overall environment.

 

If you want to disagree, you can have the last word as I've made my point.

 

Joel

[joelha]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

 

I don't personally care what type kool aid people drink. I'll tend to push back when I know when other people are pushing one type when it's certainly anotherkool aid in certain aspects of this hobby. 

 

Quote

 

The point to my article wasn't to address pushing back but rather how the pushing back takes place.

Joel

 

Quote

 

 

[joelha]

12 hours ago, esldude said:

How many forum threads on this site (and others) devolve into heated exchanges about whether people actually hear what they say they hear? Without “proof”, listeners are often mocked, insulted and their experiences discredited.

Challenges range from assuming the listener has been influenced by expectation bias (I believe it will sound good, so it does sound good) to faulting his unwillingness to rely on measurements or blind testing.

 

I really dislike this whole start to the opinion piece. 

 

What causes the heated discussion is different people accept different kinds of proof.  I like the truth.  I bet very nearly everyone here does.  But they arrive at it differently.  Some approaches are incompatible with others.  And with many audio matters it is true someone is right and someone is wrong.  No one likes being told they are wrong.  Hard to agree to the truth if incompatible proof is accepted by various groups. 

 

So here is a good example from the same opinion:

Some will say measurements make their case open and shut. But there are too many examples of how measurements fall well short of telling the whole story. There are tube amps with 3% - 5% distortion that sound better to many than amps with far better measurements. Are those products a scam? Vinyl doesn’t measure nearly as well as digital and yet many strongly prefer its sound. Should fans of vinyl be told that turntable, tonearm and cartridge makers are scamming them as well?

 

Are there really tube amps with 3% or more distortion that sound better than great measuring amps?  Yes I would say yes.  However, there are plenty who will dig in and say if it sounds better it is better.  Which can lead to all kinds of disagreements. I'd say it sounds better because of the distortion.  A fundamental problem with being totally subjectivist is believing your preferences in sound always guide you toward fidelity.  So some will then decide distortion isn't telling us all and something else is going on.  And then you get into some who will take advantage of that with all kinds of crazy explanations via which they prey on people's imagination and hearing.  That is where the real truth can clear that up, but some don't want it cleared up as they see it as an attack on themselves.   It isn't an attack to say someone prefers distortion over clean to me.  Yet more often than not it is taken that way.  This is just a tiny single topic with dozens more that have all the same problems.  

 

Now I'll skip over a whole bunch of thinking that I believe most here can fill in on their own if they care to do so. 

 

The last part I dislike in this opinion piece:

 

 

I’m old enough to remember this hobby when people would meet at audio stores to just listen and schmooze. We’ve lost too much of that sense of camaraderie. We may differ on what we like, but we all care about how we experience music.

Whether I’m right or wrong about any of the above, would it hurt to return to the times when people’s disagreements about audio were friendly? Can we stop assailing the reputations of the people who rely on this industry to care for their families and employees? Can we respect the opinions of those who differ with us by not trying to shut them down with ridicule?

 

Though no one is imagine if someone could say, "I remember when we'd sit around the campfire in the evening after a good days hunt.  Have fine meal from the women's gathered food.  We've lost that sense of camaraderie.  I miss those days.   Couldn't we return to those days?  Why do we have to have cars, and houses and grocery stores?  Why can't those city dwellers leave us fine folk alone to live as we please? If our medicine man is okay by us, why do those people have to insist a doctor is better and a medicine man is mostly telling us a story.  We've all experienced what the medicine man does for us. Just respect our opinions. 

 

 

esldude,

 

I just don't think people asking others to accept different kinds of proof is enough for people to get personal with each other. Different kinds of proof just isn't provocative enough.

 

And, as for your last objection, I just don't get it. Any reference to an earlier time is going to bring with it those negative connotations for you? Maybe i misunderstood.

 

Regardless, the last point was my not my primary point so I won't belabor it.

 

Thanks.

 

Joel

[joelha]

11 hours ago, tmtomh said:

@joelha, I appreciate your article - thanks for contributing it!

 

I agree with you on one major point you make; I partially agree and partially disagree on another point; and I respectfully but strongly disagree on two other points.

 

Agree:

• Discussion and debate do often become uncivil, descending into ad hominem attacks and flat-out nastiness. It's disheartening, and unnecessary.

Partially Agree:

• The level of vitriol is no doubt connected to larger trends in our contemporary culture, which are apparent to us all - and so in that sense I agree that the nastiness in audiophile argument can to a degree be linked to other realms of disagreement. But I don't think there's anything unsusual or distinctive about audiophile argument - people get overheated about kinds of things that are just as minor or unimportant in the larger scheme of things as audio.

 

Disagree:

First, I feel your argument contains a very common logical omission: You do not clearly differentiate between fidelity and pleasing sound. You do mention this indirectly in one or two places but your argument does not take the implications of it into account. For example, you mention high-distortion tube amps that sound good, and then ask rhetorically why your "delusion" should be a problem for anyone else. But that's the point: if a tube amp has high distortion, then by definition its fidelity is reduced. I (and I suspect many others who put a lot of stock in measurements) am fine with you preferring the sound of tube amps - if you are fine with not trying to claim that a tube amp actually has higher fidelity by virtue of its euphonic distortion. In other words, I don't think many so-called "objectivists" would claim that you don't really hear a difference with tubes - they would only object to the claim or implication that tube sound is more faithful to the original source. When someone like Herb Reichert waxes poetic over and over (and over) again about such things, it might induce some eye-rolling, but to the extent that people get upset about subjective audiophile-press reviews, it's because that kind of rhapsodic language and hyper-detailed experiential narrative carries with it a strong implication that equipment is reaching new vistas of fidelity when the best evidence we have instead points to varying forms of coloration or "voicing" rather than enhanced fidelity. When reviewers summarize or even quote manufacturers' untested - and sometimes nonsensical - claims about technical innovations literally in the paragraph before they then report listening impressions that appear to bear out those claims, I think that is cause for suspicion and concern.

 

Second, I realize you are using religion more as an analogy than as a literal connection, but I must take issue with how you manage to depict so-called objectivists as both religious in a rigid, intolerant way and also anti-religion/anti-God in a narrow-minded/intolerant way. Subjectivists, by contrast, are depicted as religious in a joyful, open-hearted, testifying-to-the-good-news way. And objectivists, in your narrative, react against this spreading of the Good Word either with religious-style Inquisition, or with Soviet-style anti-religious condemnation. It's a highly self-serving and highly biased narrative. I don't think for a minute that you have written it this way in bad faith - but I do think it reflects a seriously blinkered and partial perspective of this issue on your part.

 

To stick with your religious analogy for a moment, I have no problem with people believing whatever they believe. If your faith gives you joy and fulfillment, that's great. And if you want to speak your truth in that regard, go for it. But if your zeal for that truth leads you to public forums where you feel the need to Spread the Good Word, then you shouldn't be surprised when you run into people with contrary beliefs, and you shouldn't be surprised when you run into some people who very much have a problem with you presenting your personal revelation (explicitly or implicitly) as The Truth. 

 

To be clear, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to spread The Word if you feel so moved - but it does mean that if you want anyone to take your point of view seriously, you need to be very careful about the knee-jerk labeling of disagreement with your perspective as nasty, intolerant, close-minded, or a symptom of the disagreeing parties' emotional problems or insecurities. 

 

And that is indeed a common link between some audio discussion and some religious discussion: Creationism and all manner of religious objections to established scientific theories are pursued through a willful refusal of the difference between faith and science, and through a confusion of the possible with the plausible. The same is true for claims about things like high-end digital interconnects that don't measure any differently or produce measurably different results than lower-cost ones.

 

Finally, while I do lean strongly objectivist, I do agree that measurements tend to be less reliable indicators of sound for types of equipment that, as a class, are capable of less fidelity than other types of equipment. In other words, transducers - speakers and microphones - are the least accurate links in most equipment chains, and I agree that speaker and microphone measurements, while useful, are less useful in gauging sound and helping with final purchasing decisions than measurements can be for, say, DACs, which when properly designed are capable of far higher fidelity at far lower cost.

 

Oh, and a P.S. to @The Computer Audiophile and others: As you know, I have repeatedly condemned some members' tendency to play the "you're a shill" card for people they disagree with. However, I do feel strongly that it makes a difference if someone is promoting a product they are making/selling versus just enthusing about a product they have heard or purchased. An individual audiophile is expressing a point of view. An equipment vendor is pursuing a vested interest. They're still owed civility, but IMHO they are not necessarily owed the level of interpersonal deference that an individual is.

tmtomh,

 

If every post on this site were as decent and well thought out at as yours, I would have had no reason to write my article. Thanks for that.

 

As to your first point, the reason I didn't discriminate between fidelity and pleasing sound is because that point wasn't central to the larger point I'm making. I completely understand what you're saying however, even if someone claims higher fidelity for a tube amp, I don't have a problem with someone challenging him. The issue is the way these challenges are being made. Too often they're provocative, involve ridicule and insults.

 

I never compared religion and objectivists. I compared religion to objectivists who are inappropriate.

 

That's the whole point of my article. People are focusing on the word "objectivist" and I want them to focus more on how inappropriate the objectivists can be.

 

That's where my religious analogies come in.

 

Again, thanks for a great and thoughtful post.

 

Joel

[joelha]

10 minutes ago, wgscott said:

This "editorial" is essentially just another (albeit officially-sanctioned) troll-thread designed to bait "objectivists" and possibly to increase site traffic (and therefore advertising revenue).

 

How else are we supposed to interpret stuff like this:

 

 

The sound of an ethernet cable is like the sound of one hand clapping.

 

What about the sound of a grounding box full of sand?  

 

Where do we draw the line between what should be respectfully accepted on "faith" in the interest of "civility," and what is palpably absurd, or evidence of consumer fraud?

Amazing how you know my intentions better than I do, Bill.

 

My intention has been to try to explain some of the over-the-top behavior on this site and just maybe mitigate that behavior.

 

I'm guessing you know pretty well when to be civil and when not to be. I don't think you need to pose that as a question (rhetorical or not) on this forum.

 

Joel

[joelha]

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Aren't you being at least as presumptive about the motivations and beliefs (or lack, thereof) of those who have the audacity to hold an opinion at variance with your own?  

I absolutely am, Bill.

 

And it's not because their beliefs are "aidacious" pr at variance with mine. I wrote in hopes of trying to explain the behaviors I find offensive.

 

That's it. Honest.

 

Joel

[joelha]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Well, I find your "hit piece" rather offensive.

Please name s single line or paragraph you find as offensive or even close to being as offensive as if I made a personal negative reference about you.

 

Joel

[joelha]

5 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

The ones I highlighted in bold-face.

 

(Yes, I get that you don't -- or at least pretend not to -- see it that way.  But that, too, is the point.)

Sorry, I'm missing the point.

 

If you want to take me up on my challenge, please do and show me the specific text you're referring to.

 

Joel

[joelha]

3 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

The bit quoted here, especially that which I set in bold-faced:

 

All I get is a link back to the article.

 

Sorry, but I still don't see it.

 

Joel

[joelha]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

The entire article is little more than a parade of insults and accusations directed at a caricature of those you disagree with. You didn't name anyone explicitly, but you didn't need to. We all know who you had in mind.

 

My question to you (and Chris) is, what are you so afraid of?

I'm afraid of nothing on this forum.

 

Apparently, you get offended when you're confronted with a calm, rational article you disagree with.

 

If you think there's parity between that and calling specific people dishonest, then our view of reality is very different.

 

Joel

[joelha]

1 minute ago, wgscott said:

 

The BB auto-formats the link I fed it.  If you click the "wgscott replied to a topic" link just above where it says "52 minutes ago", you will get the post.  In it, I highlighted the specific text.  It might be easier for me just to do it again.

I found it, Bill. Thanks.

 

And I think you're conflating "disagree" with "offense".

 

And if you're really offended by that comment, I'm not sure how ideas (not personal insults) can be offered on this site without risking your being offended by them.

 

Joel

[joelha]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Take a look in the mirror:

 

Those are some pretty strong accusations.

You're right. But the term was "offense".

 

Please tell me, of the paragraph you quoted, what you consider offensive.

 

Joel

[joelha]

2 minutes ago, ted_b said:

Joel,

Hi.  Thanks for writing.  You and I go way back in this hobby, and although I don't know you well, I know you well enough to know you are "one of the good ones" as they say.

 

It is interesting that I found your article/editorial calming while others found it stress-inducing.  I think that is one of the major issues with the internet..lack of inflection or soul.  These writings can be taken like scripts, where one actor infuses amazing emotion and another reads it as if it is to be whispered.  Was there one intent...yes, but the only one who knows is the author.  The other TWO issues with internet discussions are: 1) an amazing embarrassment of riches as it relates to data.  Any one of us can use data for our own argument, and even contradictory data can be made to sound symbiotic.  2) anonymity..  As the cartoon used to say "on the internet no one knows you're a dog."  And it is so easy to start arguments behind this electronic distance that this becomes a catalyst for normally-even-tempered folks to then let it all out.

 

What point am I making?  Internet forums have to try REAL HARD to stay balanced cuz the natural tendency is to go the other way.  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.

 

Net/net, we need to act better, get out more (to audio stores, audio shows, etc) and meet our posters face to face and feel their real biases in the real world.  I think we'll find we are way more alike than what is felt on these forums.  BTW, thank your Chris for doing this forum, warts and all. 

Very kind words, especially considering the source, Ted.

 

I hope you're doing well. Any chance you'll be at AXPONA?

 

Be good and thanks for all the invaluable help you've offered me and countless others over the years.

 

Joel

[joelha]

56 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I certainly do not find your article calm or rational.

 

It's been a few days, so would you look at it again and see if you don't think it is just a tad over the top?

At your request, Ralf11, I scanned it.

 

Strong? Yes.

 

Over the top. I don't think so.

 

But let me ask you the question that I can't seem to get a good answer to . . . why so much intensity from some objectivists if I say you hear something an objectivist doesn't believe I should be able to hear?

 

Why not something like: "Here are the reasons I don't think you could be hearing what you say you do, but if you're enjoying yourself, that's great."?

 

And then just let it go.

 

Why so much acrimony over me saying what I think I hear regardless of whether someone else thinks that experience is possible?

 

Joel

[joelha]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

@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...

That's an impressive misread of my article, crenca.

 

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

 

Joel

[joelha]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

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. 

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.

 

Joel

 

 

[joelha]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

 

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?

My belief is my belief. If some people aren't persuaded, I'll live with it. I won't change that belief because some won't accept it.

 

But I'll take a calm respectful tone to persuade people vs. some of the other types of comments I've read on this site.

 

And no, we don't agree that the people I don't agree in audio are the most rude. I disagree with people on all kinds of audio topics.

 

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

 

Joel

[joelha]

8 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

"....Allowing audiophiles to post their subjective conclusions without proof brings them one step closer to accepting those who relate their religious experiences without proof. For them, science is god and a subjective conclusion upends their god and belief system....that explains why something as innocuous as describing the sound of someone’s ethernet cable....It’s not about “religion”. It’s just about audio...."

 

Subjectivism is not only ok it's "innocuous" and the ground of "comradery", whereas the objective truth is "religion" and the cause of strife.  Subjectivism according to you is the good ground upon which we can all just get along.

 

Not only this, objective truth must bow to the demands of personality and "livelihood", and if it does not well as @kennyb123says it is the very definition of "evil".  That's radical subjectivism philosophically and in practice.

 

I give @kennyb123the Golden Finger Wagging award for equating objective truth with "evil":

 

 

 

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

 

I never said objectivists have to accept subjectivism. I want them to allow subjectivist posts without the vitriol.

 

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

 

Honestly, if you want to read the article in the way you are, I can't stop you.

 

But I'm going to try to not to comment further to your posts as you refuse to accept my understanding of my own article.

 

Joel