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

[4est]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

@joelha,

 

I thought of another angle you or anyone else could take when thinking about this subject riffing off your "these debates are about religion" angle.  Are you familiar with these "C O E X I S T" bumper stickers?:

 

Where's the MQA logo one has to ask?

[4est]

14 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Can we bring this back to the central theme of the OP?

 

"calling irrational beliefs 'irrational beliefs' is rude" 🙂

Not to pick on you in particular, but to me this statement is the gist of what the OP was getting at. I have an engineering background and would love to be purely objective. At present there are not measurements(or understanding of them) that will describe exactly how something will sound. Until such time, I will need to use both ob/subjective methods to determine the quality of playback I achieve, and whether I will do something about it. I, and likely many others, resent being described as irrational because we refuse to relinquish subjectivity until then. As Miska has pointed out, things can measure comparably but sound different.

[4est]

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

It pretty much was meant to try to bring the discussion back on topic.  Do you think it's rude to characterize irrational beliefs as such?

Oh come on, you know what I meant. If you are here to just do battle, have at it.

[4est]

24 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Well stated.  However, I think you have made an error.  A rational and balanced explication of the real subjective/objective elements of audio is not the "gist" of what the OP was getting at.  

Respectfully, the OP has intimated that you do not seem to understand the gist of what he was attempting to convey. I was speaking to what I think he was trying to say. Perhaps I am off too? Regardless, it is my opinion that we would all get along together better if put more effort into how we as individuals communicate. It is not place to define anyone but myself. Labeling someone else(as irrational or most anything) is bound to cause problems. We were taught that in grade school.

[4est]

7 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

And respectfully as well, this statement could be summarized as "just ignore irrationality and everyone will get along".

That is not at all what I suggested. Be an adult about this. In a recent thread you stated that you were interested in trying HQPlayer at DSD512 using the EC modulator. Perhaps I am wrong, but the measured differences between EC vs nonEC or DSD256 vs 512 is likely below the threshold many objectivists might say is audible. Would you accept being labelled as irrational for your interest and/or the ability to distinguish them? That is not to mention that calling someone irrational is different than stating they made an irrational decision in you OPINION. There is not proof that we have learned all that there is to know. By extention, that means there MIGHT be something in some of these things labelled as inaudible.

 

As to the religion reference, I see this less like believers vs non believers, and more Protestant vs Catholic. I cannot come up with a proper atheistic metaphor. LOL