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

[Jud]

I don't think a person's beliefs about religion, science, or audio are nearly as important as simply being a decent human being.

 

I know of people whose beliefs about religion are used to denigrate others. The same happens in science (e.g., William Shockley's or James Watson's views on race and gender, or The Bell Curve). And the same happens in audio. Some folks simply can't allow contrary views (what an uninteresting world that would be) without starting personal arguments, or impugning motives, competence or reputations.

 

But I have also seen decent human beings who were religious use what they have been taught to try to uplift people and live by the Golden Rule. Science, of course, has helped billions of us to live better (or in the case of medicine, to live at all). And audio can be a wonderful way to get to know great, interesting people around a shared passion for the best possible music listening experience.

 

So which will it be? Endless arguments or maximization of enjoyment?

 

The attorney Gerry Spence had a story he used to tell jurors. A man came to a great sage, showed the sage a bird, then put the bird behind his back. The man then said to the sage, "If you are so wise, tell me whether the bird is now alive or dead." The sage replied "I do not know. The bird is in your hands."

 

It's in our hands.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

For speakers, yes.

 

A speaker with a linear phase crossover will have a natural frequency response peak that can be ameliorated but not altogether avoided. Which measurement is better sounding, linear phase or flatter frequency response?

[Jud]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

But do you think that's what's going on here? It doesn't appear to me that the arguments here have much to do with the commercial interests of the posters. Most are just hobbyists having a discussion. 

 

If the people having the arguments are paid influencers, I think they're making way too much.  😀

[Jud]

3 hours ago, wgscott said:

I think the analogy to religious belief is spot-on.

 

In my own experience, I have received threats of death or grievous bodily harm from two sets of people:

 

(1) Christian fundamentalists, in response to scientific publications regarding theories of the origin of life in journals like Nature, Science and Cell.

 

(2) Audiophiles, in response to things I have posted here.

 

The conclusion is inescapable.

 

 

 

Nice to see a post from you again after a while. 🙂

[Jud]

58 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Let me know if you are ok with lying as long as it's not lethal.

 

This seems to me presumptuous. I'm not a mind reader and neither are you, but you know for a certainty the people you criticize are lying.

[Jud]

Just now, plissken said:

 

Sure do and I can prove it. Even in your own setup Jud. 

 

Having been a lawyer for 40 years, your notion of what constitutes proof of a deceitful mental state is mystifying, and not familiar to me from any case or law.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, plissken said:

 

They have a saying in your field: You bring your liars and We'll bring ours. So I'm certain their is some notion of what constitutes a deceitful mental state. 

 

There's much more than a notion. There are well defined methods and criteria. I haven't seen any of them in what you've said.

[Jud]

Just now, plissken said:

 

Well if I ever have to hire a lawyer we'll figure that out. I'm pretty sure cross examination goes both ways. Maybe they'll plead the 5th or say they don't recall. Juries love that stuff. 

 

See that's the thing. You say things of value about topics you know about, and that's good. But then you talk about areas where your lack of knowledge is evident to someone familiar with the area, which in this case I am. So when you talk about an area I don't know about, I can't be sure whether you really know anything or not.

[Jud]

7 hours ago, plissken said:

 

Jud, your acting like this is going to end up somewhere in courthouse. So based on your conjecture I can't be sure you really know anything or not. 

 

One justice is expensive. Two it's not worth going to court over. Three what the heck is a manufacturer going to provide as proof of the efficacy of their products in this niche? And if they have it, it would already be incorporated into their marketing and spec pages.  

 

Where's my downside? If answering this question constitutes free legal advice I understand you not wanting to give the $$ away 🙂

 

Except of course I'm not talking about court. That's where tools to determine whether people know what they're talking about or not have been finely developed over centuries, but those tools are just a natural outgrowth of what we use every day.

 

What I'm saying in simple terms is that your willingness to make confident statements about all kinds of topics makes it difficult for me to determine whether you really are knowledgeable about many of them.

[Jud]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

And no one has shown otherwise in a credible way.  Customers being satisfied with a product that does something as ephemeral as the Ethergen aren't credible.  

 

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?

 

The company was absolutely up front with the information that the product was based on hypotheses/speculations for which no tests had been done, and anyone who bought the product was also well aware there are many people familiar with this general class of product who firmly state it cannot do what the manufacturer states they believe it does.

 

There is a point at which repeating to people the item cannot work simply becomes obnoxious, and many (though assuredly not yourself) have passed that point.

 

I don't think Synergistic Audio's stuff works. I've explained why a couple of times. But I don't feel a need to get in the face of everyone who I think is wasting money on their products. I know I won't succeed in convincing them, so why be obnoxious?

 

And there are also folks who feel a consistent need to say their personal listening pleasure means others must be wrong. Why isn't enjoying yourself enough? Why be obnoxious?

 

It appears some folks either take pleasure in arguments or putdowns, or just can't help themselves. I'm not here for that.

 

I'm certainly here to learn and be informed by people who are willing to do so in a manner that reflects joy and a generosity of spirit, and luckily there are many people here willing to do that.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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...

 

 

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.

[Jud]

56 minutes ago, plissken said:

You'll have to be specific

 

Sure. You quoted a truth in advertising law to me in this thread. Are we to take it from this that you feel you know something about law?

[Jud]

Just now, plissken said:

 

Only what the FTC site is stipulating:

 

"The FTC looks especially closely at advertising claims that can affect consumers’ health or their pocketbooks – claims about food, over-the-counter drugs, dietary supplements, alcohol, and tobacco and on conduct related to high-tech products "

 

I also like listening to Steve Lehto on YouTube for what that's worth 🙂

 

So how many pages has this dragged on now where you avoid saying "I'm not a mindreader so I can't know for a fact they're lying, but I sure as heck will tell you based on my experience and the measurements I've seen that they're wrong"? Why all the twists and turns to avoid that simple distinction, between accusing someone of lying and saying you have good reason to think they are wrong?

 

And if it's simply that you think someone is wrong, why the felt need to say so repeatedly?

[Jud]

33 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

When they insist they've blocked leakage currents from making it's way to the output of a DAC, but yet they can't show you this..... There's a word I'm looking for that describes this.... Oh yea, it's called a lie. 

 

When audiophiles will buy beeswax "fuses" or "grounding boxes" filled with rocks and sand, if UpTone simply wished to perpetrate a lie, there'd be far less expensive ways for them to do it.

 

I don't think I've seen the claim that a product of theirs will prevent leakage current at the DAC output specifically, though my impression is a few of their products are designed to prevent leakage current from passing through various points in the circuit.

 

Do you have information that there is no leakage current in audio system circuits, or that a power supply operating in the manner of the UpTone LPS power supplies will create or pass leakage current? Or is your point that this doesn't pass built-in Ethernet transformers? Or that it doesn't audibly affect the analog output?

[Jud]

47 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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?

 

 

I'd be happy to chat about audio, music, and (other) matters scientific with you or Dennis all day long, and perhaps someday we'll have the opportunity.

 

Regarding the split, I think objective and subjective is less important than people with whom one can have an informative and entertaining conversation.

[Jud]

14 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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.

 

Innovation in what area? Harman, the speaker, etc., manufacturer, may be the largest company in audio. Best Buy was selling $79 Pioneer speakers designed by Andrew Jones. I bought a pair for $49 on sale and think they're great. For DACs, amps, and audio files, what attacks on the audible state of the art remain to be made in your opinion? 

 

@mansr may despair of finding adequate cables, but I've had no such difficulty; just bought some nice light flexible Monoprice Ethernet cables from Amazon, recommended here by a “subjectivist.”

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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

 

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?

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

That I can't is a direct result of the snake oil infestation in the audio industry.

 

Is it, or is it that they can't make enough margin on inexpensive cables anyway?

 

By the way, Amazon is quite good about returns of faulty merchandise.

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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.

 

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?

[Jud]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Same thing. Why settle for 10% (or 100%) margin when you can have 10,000%?

 

Perhaps we're saying fairly similar things. If "high end" cable didn't exist, audio stores would have to create it.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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. 

 

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?

[Jud]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Somehow in audiophiledom, the more data the greater the dispute and the less likely the resolution. 

 

I would mildly disagree here, because I believe we still don't have data of quite the quality we need, due to at least a couple of things: (1) The problem of echoic memory, where we have such a short time to recall sounds that we may miss subtleties; (2) The problem of requiring a conscious verbal response when even emotionally significant differences may register at a subconscious level; (3) The problem of having to frame a description for a difference, which may make us less likely to think we have heard one.

 

We are so tantalizingly close that I feel we may be quite tempted to think we've arrived.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Yes I did.

 

Shunyata

Black Cat

Audioquest

 

If he shilled for the "privilege" of referring to the company principals by their first name, how would that look different to a consumer than shilling for actual money?

 

I got more

 

George Cardas

Caelin Gabriel

Chris Sommovigo

 

I say again, the polar opposite of consumer advocacy.

 

 

I don't need to speculate about any motivations, conspiratorial or otherwise, for Lee Scoggins' reporting, and his posts here.

 

When he reported on LH Labs' crowdfunding exploits and other company principals in the industry told him LHL couldn't make things work as they'd promised, Lee's reaction was to write that their statements were due to jealousy over LHL moving to a new way of doing business that would leave the rest of the industry behind.

 

When posting here about MQA's proprietary (and technically inferior, but let's leave that aside for the moment) product and the implications for availability of regular non-proprietary hi res files if MQA took off, his reaction was to write that if MQA made lots of money it would mean the music companies would pay artists more. (If you believe that, there's a bridge in Brooklyn....)

 

So regardless of motivation, his written product is IMO utterly awful from the point of view of a consumer wanting good information to empower better choices.

 

I think going beyond this to impugn motives simply muddies the waters. It's already very clear: If you're an audio consumer, it's in your best interest to ignore what Mr. Scoggins says, or read what he says and act as if the opposite were true.

[Jud]

10 minutes ago, firedog said:

And you still don't get the basics.

 

Many of Arhcimago'sMansr's conclusions were based on disprovable analyses/conclusions/undestandings 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. 

 

Or to put it a slightly different way, the fact that Bill Shockley and James Watson were/are awful people has absolutely no relevance to the fact that transistors work, or that DNA is a double helix.

 

Or perhaps even more apt (forgive my using a contemporary political example, but it's so on the nose), the identity of the whistleblower has utterly nothing to do with whether or not the President tried to shake down Ukraine to get dirt on Biden. He either did or did not, regardless of what the name is of the guy who first reported it. And regardless of Archimago's real name, either his measurements and conclusions hold up or they don't. (And as with the Presidential example, it's not just Archimago. There are other non-pseudonymous people who have come to technical conclusions along the same lines. Further as with the Presidential example, MQA itself has provided technical information that additionally supports those conclusions.)

[Jud]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

What if that’s his real name and everyone has been searching for what’s right in front of them this whole time 😁

 

"Hello, may I speak to Mr. Archie Majo, please?"