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

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi @joelha - Thanks for the guest editorial. It makes me think / feel a few things.

 

First, I really wish I would've been around in the days of meet-ups at audio stores to schmooze about all things music and HiFi. When my HiFi friends and I get together, many memories are made just by playing music and talking shop. It's a great way to get away from everything else that's going on in one's life.

 

Second, you and I have talked about religion in the past. Our beliefs are nearly opposite (I say nearly because I'm not sure how to calculate what 100% opposite would be), yet it's a blast to hear your thoughts. I was very interested to read your editorial and how it brought HiFi and religion together in a way I hadn't thought about in the past. 

 

Last, I'm as far from a religious guy as one can get, but I don't subscribe to the mandatory A/B/X tests and measurements. I want to make sure readers see your words for what they are and don't equate your sentence, "If my audio assessment matters that much to you, I’m guessing you’re anti-religion and/or anti-God." with the faulty logic of all anti-religion and/or anti-God folks must be in the camp of demanding A/B/X etc... I know that's not what you said and I want to double-down on that fact. 

 

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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

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.

 

Great post Jud. So true in every way.

 

P.S. I listened to a Gerry Spence audiobook on CD when driving across the country in college. What a story teller and great mind. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, rickca said:

The world's greatest cultural achievements in music, art and architecture were inspired by beliefs I find odd.  Some of those same people contributed incredible scientific insights.  It isn't either/or.  

Agree 100%

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

Measurements are critical,  but in the end. we listen to music.

 

The problem is that a computer can post a million posts that say: "The dogshit speakers are the best speakers I have ever heard".

 

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you. 😉

[The Computer Audiophile]

40 minutes ago, Archimago said:

"This is audio folks. Whether I think I hear something or not isn’t that important. If my audio assessment matters that much to you, I’m guessing you’re anti-religion and/or anti-God. That’s fine."

 

Yeah, I'd second/third/forth the suggestions by others that religion and audio preferences as rather separate. I know of audiophiles who are objective and religious (perhaps even yours truly 😉).

 

The key for me when it comes to hardware adjudication is the fact that audio equipment is built on scientific principles, and designed with engineering principles in mind. While any one of us can speak of what "sounds good to me" subjectively, there is no doubt the existence of an important correlation with physical properties that can be measured and evaluated objectively helping us appreciate the concept of "fidelity" in the product.

 

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...).

 

Good to find balance.

Hi Archimago - I love your closing line - good to find balance. 

 

How do you rationalize the fact that people get so heated about another's opinion. It can go both ways, objective <> subjective, but for now let's focus on the objective attacks toward subjective opinions. It just seems like something else is at play when people fall all over themselves to make points that often aren't invited.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

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.

I don't believe that causal relationship is supported by any data.

[The Computer Audiophile]

40 minutes ago, HiFiHeard said:

Such an interesting discussion and I couldn't help but sign up just to join this community and partake in the banter.

1. Just like any other passionate hobby, you have tribalism (Mustang vs Camaro, 911 vs Corvette, digital vs vinyl) where we conflate our self identity with the things we consume. This I think is completely normal because it is one of the defining characteristics that drive human survival (seeking like minded individuals to form stronger teams). 

2. The key to avoiding toxicity is respecting the others' tribal choice (exotic cables vs amazon specials), but the problem arises when we have evangelism: where an individual or group seeks to establish absolute positions like "I'm right, you're wrong", in lieu of "I like this, and it's OK if you don't like it."

4. Or worse, we are unable to separate unimportant hobbies (home audio) with the truly important tribalism issues that affect our society (vaxxers vs anti-vaxxers). And so toxicity ensues because certain posters elevate the importance of the discussion from "let's agree to disagree" to "my sanity requires that I change your mind."

 

Well stated HFH. Your 4th point is the best. Thanks for joining the community.

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Give me ten British  Audiophile Companies.

 

Even if I couldn't give you one, you haven't established the causal relationship between snake oil and a declining HiFi industry. You're taking the current facts, and imposing your unsupported reasoning on how we got here. 

 

 

 

21 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"?

 

Rather than looking at objective-leaning audiophiles as religious themselves or anti-religious as to desecrate the subjectivists' god, what about simply the idea that objective people get emotional and could fight hard at times because they have concerns about lies as it pertains to things that were engineered by humans using scientific principles? Since we're not naive to how the world works, one has to admit that advertising departments exist to create emotional impressions and sales people lie simply because there is/might be a financial motive.

 

To me, much of the emotional force coming from the objective camp is more about recognition of money and psychological factors rather than any religious/spiritual dimension...

 

Very interesting Archimago. Honest questions:

 

Is there a larger "problem" if the objective people don't fight hard? In other words, what happens if they let a conversation go with people believing what they want? Will science eventually be relegated to second class? Or something completely different?

 

I believe fear is a strong motivator for both the sub and obj groups. Objectives > Fear of attacks on science (end result unknown to me) and Subjectives > fear of losing a hobby or source of enjoyment. I don't believe either is rational, but that's just me.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

I'm super interested where you read that at. Please post a link.

I believe it was used for illustrative purposes of the absurd levels some people go to. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Actually it is happening. I interact with enough people that disagree with me in audio. E.g. "if it measures bad and sounds good, your hearing isn't as good as you think".

 

If that's what you believe then you're a larger problem than purely objectivists. For the most part they don't care about personal preference. You seem to have a problem with someone saying it "sounds good" when it measures bad. Who cares if something sounds good to someone. 

 

9 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

This ruffles a lot feathers but the pendulum swinging away from purely subjective analysis is ahead of schedule. 

 

Evidence please. Schedule please. Perhaps you can share it via Google docs. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

I worked at stuff on the golf side (see pictures of sheep references).

 

Your work involves creating memes?

[The Computer Audiophile]

25 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

Three pages on civility without @Samuel T Cogley weighing in? S’up with that?

Or @crenca!

[The Computer Audiophile]

Sometimes I wish everyone would get a thicker skin and not be outraged so easily. We have a global community with countless different native languages and personal backgrounds from tons of cultures. Perhaps we should also give people a break and the benefit of the doubt. 
 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

... and away we go

[The Computer Audiophile]

Let’s all try to be civilized human being talking about entertainment. 
 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes 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. 

 

 

I like your reasoning but think it’s misguided. There is nothing to clear up. If people want the distorted amp they can reason around it any way they want and demand more. If people believe this is fidelity, I don’t think you or anyone should care. You are taking the perspective that good measuring amps will disappear If a tiny niche thinks distorted amps equal fidelity thus we must clear up something and get to a truth or else.
 

I dislike MQA because I see forced harm on everyone as a possibility. I see no harm or foul in someone thinking Santa Clause dropped off a 10% distortion amp touted as the highest fidelity in the world. 

 

 

Please read that in a good light because I respect you greatly. I can see how it may be taken the wrong way. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes 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. 

 

Fidelity has a dictionary definition. It means something very specific and narrowly defined. 

 

 

 

Why do you push back? Seriously. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, plissken said:

You are being LIED to by manufacturers. 

Let’s continue on this line. Honest questions. I’m really trying to understand why you care. Honestly. 

 

Do you have a fear if you don’t take action against these manufacturers that something will happen?

 

Do you sense unjust enrichment?

 

Are you trying to help people who may not understand how a specific technology works, to make purchasing decisions?

 

Some other reason for caring that a tiny company is lying?

 

Have you thought about working big to small and going after the larger companies that are lying, hence more consumer bang for the buck?

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, plissken said:

Why do I keep seeing MD's push back against anti-vaxxers?

Because people are literally dying. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes 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.

If all disagreements were this well written, I’d sleep very well at night and not dread looking at my inbox in the morning. 
 

Thanks @tmtomh

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Yes they are. And audio isn't as serious as that. But just because it isn't doesn't mean that it shouldn't be pushed back against.

 

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

The world isn’t black & white. Your use of the term, and accusations of, lying is serious. 

 

Your vitriol toward audio companies must be caused by something larger than audio. Nobody in their right mind would care this much if there wasn’t a fear of something, jealousy, or something else at play. 
 

I purchased an album that said it was the best remaster of an album ever made. Turns out it wasn’t. Do you want the name and address of the record label? Of course not. It doesn’t touch on your fear, jealousy, or something else at play. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

That's clear-eyed, honest, and a breath of fresh air, Chris. Change the word "companies" to "writers" or "magazines" and direct the observation toward a half-dozen or so participants on a very few Audiophile Style forums and you'll be taking an even more principled stand. Manufacturers help keep AS afloat; TAS and Stereophile and Michael Lavorgna and Lee Scoggins and John Darko are merely competitors. Unfounded claims of dishonesty and unethical behavior should be no more acceptable with these targets, even if you disagree vociferously with what they have to say. "…a fear of something, jealousy, or something else at play" ?  I'd say so.

A couple things come to mind here. 
 

0. Is this the backhanded compliment I think it is?
 

1. I like to let people speak for themselves, for the main reason that I don’t like people to speak for me. I believe my response above was related to a general series of comments not mentioning any entity specifically. Alex thought it was him and stepped in to speak for himself. 
 

2. Some behavior is indefensible. 
 

3. It’s much easier to talk about specifics than generalities, so I’d hate to guess what you’re specifically addressing. 
 

4. A couple people You mentioned lost privileges to use AS due to egregious rule violations. I suppose I could speak for them but then why have rules in the first place and I don’t have enough time to speak for myself. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

36 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Well the cheap attempts at discrediting are already underway. I'm either jealous, fearful, or something else at play.

 

But it couldn't be competency. Oh wait:

 

 

So I'm the guy to go to help for on this stuff but anything else I take a position on because it's my bread and butter is suspect. 

 

Can't win for losing here folks. 

 

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with your area of expertise. The article is about the way people respond and reasons for such heated responses to meaningless personal opinions. 
 

Your responses are way out of proportion in my opinion. I can’t figure out why you are so into this battle with people who are having a good time on their own. Why must you piss in their punch bowl?

 

I like to understand those who I communicate with because it helps me learn and see other sides to issues. When I read your posts I keep thinking about that meme about “someone is wrong on the Internet. I can’t go to bed.” That’s the best case. The other possibilities are what I’ve mentioned, fear, jealousy, hatred, or something else. 
 

Nobody spends this much time and dedicates this much emotional capital for no reason. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Ethernet cabling and Switches are strictly data products. They don't care a wit for what's in the packet. They're just their to reliably transport frames/packets to the best of their ability. 

 

They simply aren't audio products. 

 

Except they do care what’s in the packet. Not in a clocking audio sense, but in many other cases. Try getting a DHCP ACK without looking at a packet. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, rickca said:

This whole thing reminds me of Dana Carvey's Grumpy Old Man on SNL.

I’ve never seen it but somehow think I know how it goes 😄

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, plissken said:

We seem to be spending the same amount of time on this topic however.

This is how I feed my family. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

@plissken I should add that I highly respect your knowledge and willingness to help me on matters with which you’re well versed to say the least.