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

[pkane2001]

18 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I can respect that if it's what you truly believe. I don't believe there is evidence to support it, but that's OK. 

 

Do you know when innovation in HiFi proceeded at a faster pace?

 

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

[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?

[Rt66indierock]

10 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

It's not supposed to be a backhanded compliment - it's meant to be a regular, standard-issue compliment. It's admirable when you call out ad hominem attacks for what they are.

 

They are not, it seems to me, just an assault on someone's professional worth but an attempt to inflame and provoke. Lavorgna? He's a pretty excitable guy, but Lee S? He's really a gentle and thoughtful person who tried to engage in a serious discussion about the merits of you-know-what, and it took a lot of effort on the part of a dedicated few to get him unhinged enough to emit a bad word. If you'd given the sort of dressing-down to several of the worst bullies at the time that you gave to Plissken here, maybe there could be more discussions that stay useful for longer on any number of controversial subjects. As there are, by the way, on plenty of AS threads.

 

So, by all means, keep up what Cogley and crenca would refer to as "finger-wagging." It's what separates us from the the beasts of the forest.

 

Andy

 

Andy,

Lee either lied about HDTracks Streaming coming any day now or as I found out at RMAF 19 when we talked he was just repeating what he was told by the Chesky's meaning they were not telling him the whole story. Meaning he didn't check with another source. So when I accused him of lying he didn't understand why. It came as quite a shock when I told him HDTracks sued 7digital for failing to deliver a streaming service in 2018 and I'd been following the progress of the case.

 

Chris couldn't given me a dressing down because I was right that Lee was spreading inaccurate information. At any point I could have provided Chris with a copy of the  complaint and more fun the emails showing 7digital's strong desire to issue a press release to sucker the audio press into reporting an MQA streaming services was coming. Of course the audio press reported it like the sheep they are.

 

So in honor of you revisiting this journalistic failure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

@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.”

Good for you. In my experience, Amazon is always something of a gamble. Even when buying a familiar brand, you have zero assurance that you're not getting a fake product. Granted, your odds are better than on Ebay, but it's still not great. Buying from Monoprice directly isn't a sane option in Europe as they want nearly $40 in shipping for a $3 cable (checked just now).

 

Now I wouldn't say I "despair" when it comes to cables. I am able to procure what I need. I'd still much prefer if I could simply pop into the store (it's a 5-minute walk) and get them. That I can't is a direct result of the snake oil infestation in the audio industry.

[wgscott]

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:

 

Quote

This is why I believe the challengers care so much. 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.

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. But that explains why something as innocuous as describing the sound of someone’s ethernet cable could elicit such strong and often highly inappropriate comments.

 

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?

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

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

Before or after you stub your toe on it?

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

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?

 

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.

[Samuel T Cogley]

All snark aside, I think I've evolved to a different view on this.  All I really want is a decent music collection, augmented with a lossless streaming service, and a system (likely headphone-centric) that lets me hear what's in those digital recordings.  Ideally, the sonic qualities of the system get as close to a "perfect balance" of analytical and euphonic as possible within the limits of the practicality of cost vs. retirement needs.

 

I'm quite grateful that DAC technology has gained so much in the last decade or so.  Very high quality sound is finally affordable and it's so head-and-shoulders above anything I ever heard in the 70s or 80s (even on very high end systems) that vintage gear is of no interest to me.

 

Regarding civility, I think it should be noted that the demographics of audiophilia skew heavily toward middle aged men (sorry @Teresa ).  There is such a thing as "internet culture".  And if you've ever spent time on Twitter (just an example), you'll surely be aware that there's a wide swath of the "online population" that only knows snark, sarcasm, and "winning".  If you can't "speak meme", you're grandpa.

 

There are audio brands that I actively avoid (Audioquest, Nordost, and Wireworld come to mind, there are others).  I've just given up caring if people buy those things.  The recent ascent of Scoggins to the "belly of the beast" of Audiophile Establishment Media only reinforces to me that I'm in the right place by avoiding all products with large advertising/marketing budgets.  If they have to spend lots of money to convince you to buy it, you should probably pass.

 

In case no one noticed, there is a rift in audiophilia.  The Massdrop/HeadFi faction looks (from a marketing perspective) nothing like traditional audiophiles (who look to people like Atkinson, Harley, et. al. for "what's good").  This rift is really what everyone is clumsily poking at in this thread.  I used to think "your system isn't resolving enough" was a pompous, narcissistic stab at the "audiophile peasants".  Now I realize it is a marketing strategy.

 

As I've said before, audiophilia is consumerism.  And unless you're being honest with yourself and others with regards to your own status as a consumer, there's a high probability that you'll see audiophilia as something more virtuous.  It is not.

 

 

[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?

[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

[wgscott]

4 minutes ago, joelha said:

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

 

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?  

[Samuel T Cogley]

11 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

...but Lee S? He's really a gentle and thoughtful person who tried to engage in a serious discussion about the merits of you-know-what, and it took a lot of effort on the part of a dedicated few to get him unhinged enough to emit a bad word.

 

Mr Quint, with all due respect, Scoggins was actively pushing MQA in this forum the way he shilled for Audioquest, Black Cat, and Shunyata over at the Hoffman forum.  You attempting to affix some kind of benevolence or altruism to his intent is just nauseating.  Disingenuousness is disingenuousness, regardless of your continued protestations.

[pkane2001]

Just now, Jud said:

 

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?

 

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. 

 

Meanwhile, audiophiles are seeking out hires files at ridiculous DSD rates, DACs with 768kHz+ PCM sampling, minimum phase filters, better USB and ethernet cables, and other junk that doesn't translate into anything meaningful beyond a very tiny, placebo-type improvement. And no, it's not just the subjectivists that are doing this. The ASR crowd looking for lower and lower SINAD numbers is doing the same thing, just pursuing a different dead-end.

 

[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

[mansr]

18 minutes ago, Jud said:

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

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

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, joelha said:

I wrote in hopes of trying to explain the behaviors I find offensive.

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

[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

[wgscott]

4 minutes ago, joelha said:

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

 

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.)

[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

[vmartell22]

10 hours ago, tapatrick said:

There is plenty of philosophical discussion that science is a belief system...

 

Of course - that's exactly what I said.  And that is the expression of one side of the argument trying to  change the framework... so they can have an argument... otherwise... well... 

Again, gravity does not care if you don't believe in it... you will fall.

But the reaction to your post if correct - veering off topic - last thing I will say on the matter.

v

[Superdad]

17 minutes ago, mansr said:

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

 

Pot, meet kettle.

Among a couple dozen other posts with mostly factually incorrect things you said about our new product, there was this gem you wrote specifically about John Swenson (who designed the power networks inside large, sophisticated chips for 3 decades). You wrote:

 

That's the thing with anyone selling such products. They must be either incompetent or dishonest. There are no other options. Oh wait, they could be both.

 

Sadly, the above barely makes it into the top 10 insults hurled at us recently over in that uncivil and intellectually uncurios place.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, joelha said:

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.

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?

[wgscott]

7 minutes ago, joelha said:

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

 

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

 

But let me add that I am glad you formulated your position in this way, because it gives invaluable insight into how at least one "subjectivist" proponent sees the opposition.

[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