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

[kennyb123]

It's been my impression those who believe the facts support their worldview have an underlying confidence that their side will prevail.  They are happy to defend and evangelize their worldview but don't feel no need to bludgeon others into believing the way they do.  The desire to bludgeon others tends to come from the folks who don't have confidence that they have the truth on their side.  They may behave as if they have it all figured out and are in the right, but their actions, attitude and discontent repeatedly betray them.  They don't behave like they are happy or at peace.

 

I was speaking about religion but I think this applies to audio too.  It seems that those who rely on subjective impressions believe they have the truth on their side and that their side will prevail once we figure out the ways to measure what we've been hearing.  Their actions, attitudes and behaviors repeatedly demonstrate that they are having a good time and are greatly enjoying this hobby.

 

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. 

[kennyb123]

5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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.

 

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.

 

[kennyb123]

6 minutes ago, firedog said:

Sorry, your post is just a bunch of baseless stereotypes. Plenty of objectivists enjoy their music and their systems. Reality? You mean the false reality people fool themselves with?

 

 

That is absolutely fair criticism.  I didn't mean all objectivists.  I should have said that there are "some on the objectivist side here".  I actually don't even consider the "some" to be objectivists.  

 

I intentionally used a generalization here.  Really there's just a few bad apples here that have been behaving like schoolyard bullies.   I have no idea how best to refer to this group. 

 

[kennyb123]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

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

 

Most certainly there's been incivility from both sides.  I've been guilty of it myself.  But I only see one side instigating it - and doing so repeatedly.  

 

But maybe you can change my mind..

 

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 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.  Can you point me to a signature line from someone on the subjectivist side that demeans the other side this way?

 

I wish I could point you to the posts that Chris had to delete in the "Mains Power Cord.." thread.  I'd love to see evidence of the subjectivist side behaving as uncivilized  - but those posts have probably been deleted too.

 

Actually these were just rhetorical arguments... no need to respond to this.  

[kennyb123]

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

do you mean like calling someone you disagree with a narcissist?

 

I wouldn't have been very nice of me had I called a specific individual a narcissist.  I don't think there's anything wrong with suggesting that certain displayed behaviors might be consistent with how one would expect a narcissist to behave (devaluation of others. anti-social behavior, consistent anger, grandiosity, etc).

[kennyb123]

14 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

certain displayed behaviors might be consistent with how one would expect a narcissist to behave - such as denigration of other peoples hearing, their audio system?

 

or believing that one's own hearing is so superior that it allows the slightest detail to emerge in a cloud of grandiosity?

 

I don't think it's appropriate to denigrate a system or another's hearing -- but I don't see it as being totally out of bounds to suggest those as possible reasons why someone might not be hearing what others hear.  I've said before that until a few years my own system hadn't advanced far enough to allow me to hear what many others were reporting.  It still has a ways to go.  This was a fun way to gauge my progress:  https://www.audioaficionado.org/showthread.php?t=46837

 

[kennyb123]

15 minutes 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.

 

 

As a Christian I must say that the one group of Christians I avoid getting into it with are the “young earth” proponents - so I got a chuckle out of what you wrote.

 

I’m not exactly sure if I’ve ever met a Christian fundamentalist though but this group comes awfully close per their strict interpretation that “day” in Genesis must be a literal 24 hour day.  I’m in the “day age” camp myself.

[kennyb123]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

And what you think is conclusive, a "massive amount of anectdotal evidence" is something they understand to not really be evidence at all. And why would they have confidence that their truth will come out? Based on what? The massive amounts of people who won't even consider the idea that their perceptions are clouded by expectation bias? The same way the climate change deniers, Kennedy assassination conspiracy buffs, Holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and anti-vaxxers have all come to their senses when confronted by facts? But according to your approach, we should all just accept all those ideas because then we will accept the  "reality" that doesn't conform to "our" truth.

All that I was saying is that people with the truth on their side behave in way that demonstrates confidence that they’re on the right side of things.  
 

Not everyone is going to come to their senses but no one put me in charge of making sure that they do.  And likewise no on on this forum was put in charge of making sure others come to their senses.

[kennyb123]

20 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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

 

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.

[kennyb123]

18 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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:

 

 

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

[kennyb123]

32 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

What emotional capital? 

 

What fear?

 

What jealousy?

 

What hatred? Manufacturers make claims that it's within my ability to logically rebut. 

 

 

If Uptone is right about the EtherRegen, doesn’t that mean that John Swenson has proven that he has a better understanding of the harm noise in networks can do to audio systems than you do?  And isn’t your credibility already being harmed due to the fact that so many have reported being delighted by the improvement John’s invention has brought them?  Might calling them liars be what you feel is needed to maintain your credibility as a networking guru? 

[kennyb123]

9 minutes ago, wgscott said:

It seems like it is faux outrage about imaginary persecution perpetrated by godless atheist objectivists.

Please stop.  This is the second time you made me laugh out loud.  How can I continue maintaining my us vs them posture when you shatter my stereotypes this way? 😀

[kennyb123]

28 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

And I'm here to tell you that I'm equally well versed on Computer Audio Systems having implemented AVB and AES67. We are talking 150 end points, a layer 2 diameter of 4 in some cases and round trip under 2ms. 

Wouldn’t noise be something passing along via layer 1?  

[kennyb123]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

No, not related to plissken's credibility.

I’m pretty sure that he’s claimed that his years of experience in networking has informed his view that there’s no benefit an audiophile switch can do over any regular switch (my paraphrase - I can dig up quotes if needed).  He’s staked his reputation on this claim.  

[kennyb123]

1 minute ago, plissken said:

 

Indeed I have. Do you know anyone that will sit and listen to some music without know what switch is in play?

I would do it - providing that I could somehow switch off my innate instinct to feel pressure/stress when test results matter.

[kennyb123]

3 minutes 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.  

And there we have the crux of why our sides are so far apart.  
 

I once worked for a company that had a very simple motto:  “we exist to delight our customers”.  At the end of the day that’s all that really mattered. 
 

An awful lot of people are going to take the opposite view that UpTone has more than demonstrated their credibility by how willing folks have been to spend their hard-earned dollars on a switch that is very expensive relative to the generic switches on the market.  How a product is received by the target market  is viewed by many as an excellent measure of credibility.

 

Had the EtherRegen flopped with their target market, might you have used that as grounds to challenge their credibility?  If so then it’s only fair that it work both ways.

[kennyb123]

42 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Because Ethernet RJE is heavily isolated it's all transformer coupled at both ends. Also the Ethernet clock is based at 25Mhz. WAAAAY outside of human hearing.  And if I'm doing optics there's no leakage currents. 

 

I've yet to see 60hz mains noise on properly implemented networks. 

 

There is one situation that can cause problems and that is with shielded cabling tied to switch. You can get ground loop hum. UTP is recommended. 

 

You mentioned seeing problems at level 1 only in one particular situation.  Have any of the devices connected to your networks been extra sensitive to noise?  Or has it just been the typical networking gear you’d find in a typical office or data center?

[kennyb123]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

Their credibility for marketing to a particular kind of customer and make them happy?  Sure very credible.  Credible in a business sense.

 

That however doesn't automatically make their technical claims worthy or true or credible.  

 
We are talking past each other because you care only that technical claims can be proven.  I only care that my ears and others whom I trust can confirm the claims that have been made.
 

To ignore completely what users of a product are saying isn’t very scientific.  I hate to be blunt, it seems like a pretty stupid thing to do in the absence of other measures..

 

There’s a ton of data that can be collected from the reported observations from listeners that can help to reach some conclusions. In the real world this is done every day by data scientists who are working with huge sets of data about how we behave.  

Human beings are the ones who will ultimately be deciding whether a products claims hold up.  To toss out all that data - I can’t imagine that such an approach would hold up when presented to any scientific authority who doesn’t already have skin in this particular game.  
 

And lastly I suspect that even if UpTone provided results that conclusively proved their claims, most of those demanding those results would find a way to weasel out of acknowledging it.  The verdict was decided the day these folks first learned about the product.  (And I’m sure the verdict has even already been decided for all the products UpTone hasn’t even announced yet).  Acknowledging that UpTone proved their claims would be the same thing as acknowledging that they were wrong.  Never gonna happen.

[kennyb123]

59 minutes ago, mansr said:

Yes, I said that, but don't flatter yourself. It applies equally to John Swenson, Gordon Rankin, Ted Denney, and anyone else making/selling devices that demonstrably do nothing.

 

Quoting @joelha from his article:

 

"Unless the case is black and white i.e. I sent you money and you never shipped my product or there are repeated, unresolved product defects, trying to ruin a person’s name is evil. Nothing will undo a person’s life faster and more effectively than giving him a bad reputation. And doing it anonymously and without hard evidence is cowardly and arrogant. In such cases, it’s highly likely the charge is far more unethical than the action being charged."

 

I couldn't agree more with the text I've bolded. What makes it worse than "without hard evidence" is that all the feedback of delighted customers is demeaned and deemed entirely worthless.  I'm always taken aback by such behavior because it's so far out of the norm from what I've experienced in my personal and professional interactions.  And to go as far as trying to ruin a person's good name - especially when one like our own John Swenson is smeared as "incompetent or dishonest" ... that carries with it the stench of depravity.  

 

That's my last post in this thread.  Time to cleanse by going up to my listening room to enjoy the great sound of my system - recently made more enjoyable by John Swenson's efforts.  Back to the real word - where through the kind efforts of really great people I can more fully enjoy the music I love.

 

[kennyb123]

26 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

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":

 

 

Above @joelha mentioned that "From what you've written, it's hard to believe you're commenting on my article."  Likewise I said no such thing, so either you have a reading comprehension problem or you are attempting to "deflect and attack".

 

A good description of "deflect and attack" I pulled from an article: 

 

Here, the goal is to shift attention from what they are saying and doing to what you are saying and doing, where they never have to take responsibility for their toxic behavior or address anything you’re saying.

 

If you bring something up that you don’t like or find to be untrue and problematic, instead of addressing it or taking responsibility for it, they will quickly deflect and go into attack mode. This means they will use their toxic tactics to quickly shift attention from themselves and bring up something that you may or may not have said or done. Often to the degree where they try to always keep you on the defense by accusing you of all sorts of stuff, some of which includes the things they are actually doing themselves.

 

And if you make a mistake of actually trying to address it, you will get distracted from the initial issue and soon become overwhelmed by all the stuff that now you are expected to address and clarify. And do so to a person who doesn’t care about understanding you and is dedicated to mischaracterizing you in order to dominate and “win an argument.”

 

 

[kennyb123]

On 12/9/2019 at 4:48 PM, Ralf11 said:

 

day-age works - i.e. it is outside the facts and so cannot be falsified (which is pretty much what faith is)

 

a literal day is ... entertainment

I has missed that you responded to something I wrote.  This is way off-topic, but I did want to mention that the day-age theory can most certainly be falsified.  All you need is conclusive evidence of a new animal species that appeared after man.  Hugh Ross in his book “A Matter of Days...” which was published in 2015, claimed that no such evidence has yet been found.   
 

Also I agree that the word “faith” has come to mean “outside” the facts, but that’s not what that word meant to the early Christians (or to me).  Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

But as I said, I’ve gone way off topic, so I apologize to the rest of you.

[kennyb123]

This entire thread could have concluded 20 or so pages ago had those called out for bad behavior simply said “We object to parts of that article but we get why our pressing for objective results may be not by be welcome by some subjectivists, While we don’t agree with many of the points made, we understand that the goal of the article was to try to make this a better place for everyone. So in that spirt, we’ll take seriously all the feedback provided and try to do better”.  

Had any of you on the objectivists side done this, the debate would have been over and you would have won - because you would have demonstrated by your actions that the stereotype presented in the article couldn’t have been more wrong.  Probably a better strategy for winning the debate then repeatedly reinforcing the stereotype over these 20 or so pages, don’t you think?  🤔

[kennyb123]

52 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

OMG. Reading your text that I've bolded made me feel so at ease. What a world we'd have here on AS if people were that civil. It would be a paradise where we could leave our doors unlocked and our windows open. 

The word “magnanimous” came to mind as I wrote those words.  “Generous, understanding, and tolerant” is how my dictionary defines that word.  It’s not difficult to see this in action on several of the curated threads on AS.  A look at how they’ve been able to achieve this could help to make this the norm at AS instead of the exception.

[kennyb123]

 

1 hour ago, crenca said:

You and @kennyb123are going to make me cry with your dreamers dream of "why we can't just get along"!  Well, not really 😉  I still think until there is an honest accounting of the real nature of subjectivism vs objectivism, then civility is going to be difficult.

 

 

 

I think you’re right.  I do think when we look at the real nature of objectivism we may find that persons who make broad sweeping generalizations like “there’s no way that audiophile power cords can improve the sound of your amplifier” shouldn’t really be called objectivists because they don’t seem inclined to apply data in a meaningfully objective way.   

[kennyb123]

15 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The term "anyone else" refers to those who prefer to thread crap, demand ABX testing, question their sanity, and try to save them from themselves.  

 

There's a time a place for everything. 

 

Exactly.  Those who may generally open to discussing religion (and even those who don't) tend not to appreciate when evangelists show up at their front door. 

 

Having said that, I think I'd prefer evangelists showing up at my front door over ABXers disrupting my threads.  The door-to-door evangelists tend to be polite and considerate - they'll even go away once you tell them you're not interested.  

 

What the evangelists realize is that by leaving a good impression, the person they tried to evangelize might be more open to hearing what they have to say the next time.  If it's that important to change people's minds, why go out of the way to denigrate these people?  Attacking one's beliefs tends to cause them to take a stronger stand in favor of their beliefs. That's why I find it hard to believe that the goal is to save someone from themselves or to try to change their thinking or to help them out in any way.