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

[mansr]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

I disagree. Lying is not "simply making a false statement." 

I'd say lying is making a statement contrary to what one believes to be true.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, mansr said:

If Lee had no idea what was going on, he's not nearly as good a friend of the Cheskys as he imagines.

Could very well be the case, but I'm sure there are many other reasons as well. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, mansr said:

I'd say lying is making a statement contrary to what one believes to be true.

I'd vote for that here in the AS Kangaroo Court. 

[vmartell22]

21 hours ago, tapatrick said:

No offence meant and I'm not trying to have an argument. I'm not sure what it would mean to veer off topic on this thread! 😱

 

Of course you are correct about gravity, I'll be taking the lift leaving work today not jumping out the window... Context is everything however. In relation to the topic of this thread only I responded to your statement 'Science is not a belief system' as I am genuinely interested in how any belief whether defined by oneself or others as 'scientific', 'objective', 'subjective' etc frames how we see the world and what the motive is when we express ourselves. I have met very few people who are honest about this but maybe I don't get out enough 🤣. Just my thing... which I have spent a life time studying.  

 

In the interest of this thread the arguments over the usual audiophile issues (dare I say subjectivist/Objectivist 😅) are not very interesting to me except the first few times I read them. What I find of interest is that in a conversation in person or online, there are different contexts being held, expressed and offered by each contributor. We affirm, bond with, react for or against whatever is our preference. When we are not understood or listened to seems to raise the thermometer pretty rapidly. Flexibility, openness, not being fixed, not needing to be right is hard won. 

 

I think a question has been genuinely posed in this thread about how to solve the riddle of conflict which is small potatoes on here between individuals in the grander scheme of things but the same underlying issues are of increasing concern in our hyper connected/disconnected world and in larger political social arenas when fuelled by power... Like I said my thing... 🙏

 

Indeed - lemme try to summarize in this context - because you have a point

 

1.- I think the general idea of the editorial is that audiophiles are requesting the same respect that, let's say, the wine hobby/industry - That is, if I hear it (or taste it) then that's it, that is my take on it and I am contributing valuable insights. Because ( and hope I  am not wrong) that seems to be the general aim of the audiophile practice (at least the subjective one, which seems to include most of the industry and its consumers).  Might add, though, that wine industry is also on very iffy grounds: 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_(wine)

 

So again, what is trying be said here, is "leave us alone to appreciate the products on our terms"

IMHO.

 

2. - That said, these are engineered devices. The process has even less variability than wine production (which is more engineering/science these days, than art). So to attribute characteristics that are not part of a design ("musicality" for example) is really strange. And connecting from that, an evaluation like that relies on the senses. Human senses; fallible, easily skewered, etc.  After all, it was our senses that told the ancients the earth was flat.

 

3.- Now here is the gist of the argument. The thing that has caused more bits being used on the net than almost anything except pr0n!

When the reviewer issues a statement  that contradicts scientific facts , people will comment. It did not use to be that way. Before the interwebs, the counterargument was not aired in the trade magazines; in that volume, of course. Magazines did publish dissenting opinions, but usually in the middle of the convinced choir, with no reply or long discussion. The internet changed that.

 

4.-  And that's where the argument gets ugly.  Many accusations from one side to the other. For example, and this addresses directly a point in the post I am replying to,  the implication that the scientific side relies on religious-like "belief" in science is incorrect. Science is facts and I have seen in general in most of the posts a solid understanding of the scientific facts necessary for the argument.  A lot of knowledgeable engineers/scientists in this forum.

 

5. Last, I will get personal. Why do I get into it? Believe it or not, it has to do with the zeitgeist and the current political climate. Lots of anti-scientific thinking right now, from anti-vaxxers  to flat earthers, climate change  denial, etc. This is a direct attack on humanity.  Yes, flat earthers, for example are ridiculous and relatively innocuous. Yet , such promotion of anti-science still has a detrimental effect. It promotes fear of knowledge and education, to the point that in some realms, educated persons and scientists are "an elite" that is not to be trusted etc. And in order to fight against that (because it really needs to be fought) I actively oppose it anytime I see it. And yes, it can be even dangerous, IRL. But because the stakes are pretty high we really need to do it.

 

And I consider, $100,000/ft cables, Ethernet cables with sound, $200,000 power "conditioners", etc. part of the anti-science idea - the ultimate example of magical thinking. And a waste of resources, whether you can afford it or not. So I get into it.

 

Well

 

Not anymore. Almost. Obviously, nobody has noticed my absence, but until now, it has been a while since I got into it, in this forum and others. And after this, will probably be a while to be back. Probably only if I have a question or problem. Because, while I still think I am right in my assessment, also realized that audiophilia is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Only  got into this thread because it popped very prominently in my news feed.

 

But I will continue and I do promise to try to live and let live.

 

v

[Rt66indierock]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I disagree. Lying is not "simply making a false statement." 

From Dictionary.com:

noun

the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

5. Last, I will get personal. Why do I get into it? Believe it or not, it has to do with the zeitgeist and the current political climate. Lots of anti-scientific thinking right now, from anti-vaxxers  to flat earthers, climate change  denial, etc. This is a direct attack on humanity.  Yes, flat earthers, for example are ridiculous and relatively innocuous. Yet , such promotion of anti-science still has a detrimental effect. It promotes fear of knowledge and education, to the point that in some realms, educated persons and scientists are "an elite" that is not to be trusted etc. And in order to fight against that (because it really needs to be fought) I actively oppose it anytime I see it. And yes, it can be even dangerous, IRL. But because the stakes are pretty high we really need to do it.

 

And I consider, $100,000/ft cables, Ethernet cables with sound, $200,000 power "conditioners", etc. part of the anti-science idea - the ultimate example of magical thinking. And a waste of resources, whether you can afford it or not. So I get into it.

Thanks for your comments, especially the one quoted above. It greatly helps me understand why you would care about some things in HiFi enough to "fight" with intensity. I disagree with you on your conclusions, but that's OK. Knowing how you got there is what's helpful in this discussion. 

 

I think one has to pick his battles, finding the right time and place for spending emotional capital and precious time. The tiny niche of HiFi, where the risks are incredibly low all around, doesn't seem like a place I would fight the global war on science. Audiophile Style isn't the front line, and isn't even close. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

From Dictionary.com:

noun

the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness

 

 

I think we are already beyond such a sophomoric definition.

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I think we are already beyond such a sophomoric definition.

 

Yes, the key issue is what did Lee know and when did he know it.

[KeenObserver]

18 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

""Archimago carefully researched using scientifically valid methodologies. "

Not true. Archimago practices pseudoscience wherein he derives a conclusion, then sets out to prove that conclusion in advance by limiting the testing, and controlling the outcomes. Further, - he uses junk-ass test subjects and measuring equipment that is insufficient to to create a wide sampling of data that would refute, or (better) support those conclusions.

You cannot use purely objective, (especially cursory measurements), data on only one piece of equipment in a system to make a subjective PREDICTION on how a recording might sound.

 

"not doing your reputation as a "journalist" any good."

 

Who is a journalist? And what is the definition of a "journalist?" I am questioning whether or not you understand that no one who writes for Audiophile Magazines or writes reviews or product announcements for any type of music playback equipment is a "journalist:" but an audio "enthusiast." Think music or film reviewer.

 

 

 

 

Are you saying that Archimago's conclusions are not valid?  Seems like a number of people came to the same conclusions.

 

What shall we call people who write for audiophile magazines?  Salesmen?

[Samuel T Cogley]

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

 

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

[crenca]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thanks for your comments, especially the one quoted above. It greatly helps me understand why you would care about some things in HiFi enough to "fight" with intensity. I disagree with you on your conclusions, but that's OK. Knowing how you got there is what's helpful in this discussion. 

 

I think one has to pick his battles, finding the right time and place for spending emotional capital and precious time. The tiny niche of HiFi, where the risks are incredibly low all around, doesn't seem like a place I would fight the global war on science. Audiophile Style isn't the front line, and isn't even close. 

 

Yet, even here the stakes are something and not nothing.  For all but oligarchs, the pricing of audiophilia is significant.  The hucksterism and "who cares" subjectivism makes for a poisoned divide.  

 

Also we must remember the war on Christmas...that's important 😋

[Rt66indierock]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Yes, the key issue is what did Lee know and when did he know it.

 

In one exhibit David Chesky says everybody I wanted to know about this including Ford knew. In 2016 that included me apparently. The streaming service was announced in a press release in May of 2017.  2017 went by and no service. 2018 went by and no service. By 2019 the service was two years late.

[Albrecht]

9 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

Are you saying that Archimago's conclusions are not valid?  Seems like a number of people came to the same conclusions.

 

What shall we call people who write for audiophile magazines?  Salesmen?

"Are you saying that Archimago's conclusions are not valid?"

Absolutely, 100%.

"What shall we call people who write for audiophile magazines?" 

Audio enthusiasts and Audio reviewers.

 

"Salesmen?"

not funny

[crenca]

9 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" 🙂

 

And its corollary:

 

"the only ground for civility is a subjectivist one"

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

In one exhibit David Chesky says everybody I wanted to know about this including Ford knew. In 2016 that included me apparently. The streaming service was announced in a press release in May of 2017.  2017 went by and no service. 2018 went by and no service. By 2019 the service was two years late.

 

But is that enough to impeach?

[KeenObserver]

40 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You're no lawyer and this is no court of law, but suggesting you know Lee was lying is a stretch. 

 

Perhaps we cannot know that Lee was lying.  We can only assume that Lee did not know what he was talking about.

 

And, we can put value in what Lee says accordingly!

[Albrecht]

25 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Indeed - lemme try to summarize in this context - because you have a point

 

1.- I think the general idea of the editorial is that audiophiles are requesting the same respect that, let's say, the wine hobby/industry - That is, if I hear it (or taste it) then that's it, that is my take on it and I am contributing valuable insights. Because ( and hope I  am not wrong) that seems to be the general aim of the audiophile practice (at least the subjective one, which seems to include most of the industry and its consumers).  Might add, though, that wine industry is also on very iffy grounds: 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_(wine)

 

So again, what is trying be said here, is "leave us alone to appreciate the products on our terms"

IMHO.

 

2. - That said, these are engineered devices. The process has even less variability than wine production (which is more engineering/science these days, than art). So to attribute characteristics that are not part of a design ("musicality" for example) is really strange. And connecting from that, an evaluation like that relies on the senses. Human senses; fallible, easily skewered, etc.  After all, it was our senses that told the ancients the earth was flat.

 

3.- Now here is the gist of the argument. The thing that has caused more bits being used on the net than almost anything except pr0n!

When the reviewer issues a statement  that contradicts scientific facts , people will comment. It did not use to be that way. Before the interwebs, the counterargument was not aired in the trade magazines; in that volume, of course. Magazines did publish dissenting opinions, but usually in the middle of the convinced choir, with no reply or long discussion. The internet changed that.

 

4.-  And that's where the argument gets ugly.  Many accusations from one side to the other. For example, and this addresses directly a point in the post I am replying to,  the implication that the scientific side relies on religious-like "belief" in science is incorrect. Science is facts and I have seen in general in most of the posts a solid understanding of the scientific facts necessary for the argument.  A lot of knowledgeable engineers/scientists in this forum.

 

5. Last, I will get personal. Why do I get into it? Believe it or not, it has to do with the zeitgeist and the current political climate. Lots of anti-scientific thinking right now, from anti-vaxxers  to flat earthers, climate change  denial, etc. This is a direct attack on humanity.  Yes, flat earthers, for example are ridiculous and relatively innocuous. Yet , such promotion of anti-science still has a detrimental effect. It promotes fear of knowledge and education, to the point that in some realms, educated persons and scientists are "an elite" that is not to be trusted etc. And in order to fight against that (because it really needs to be fought) I actively oppose it anytime I see it. And yes, it can be even dangerous, IRL. But because the stakes are pretty high we really need to do it.

 

And I consider, $100,000/ft cables, Ethernet cables with sound, $200,000 power "conditioners", etc. part of the anti-science idea - the ultimate example of magical thinking. And a waste of resources, whether you can afford it or not. So I get into it.

 

Well

 

Not anymore. Almost. Obviously, nobody has noticed my absence, but until now, it has been a while since I got into it, in this forum and others. And after this, will probably be a while to be back. Probably only if I have a question or problem. Because, while I still think I am right in my assessment, also realized that audiophilia is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Only  got into this thread because it popped very prominently in my news feed.

 

But I will continue and I do promise to try to live and let live.

 

v

Are you saying that there are people who are assembling audio system(s) to NOT listen to?, - but just have it sitting there idle?

[vmartell22]

2 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Are you saying that there are people who are assembling audio system(s) to NOT listen to?, - but just have it sitting there idle?

 

 <3

 

v

[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.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, 4est said:

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.

 

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?

[KeenObserver]

13 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

"Are you saying that Archimago's conclusions are not valid?"

Absolutely, 100%.

"What shall we call people who write for audiophile magazines?" 

Audio enthusiasts and Audio reviewers.

 

"Salesmen?"

not funny

 

Someone pissed in your Cheerios, hunh?

[wgscott]

48 minutes ago, mansr said:

I'd say lying is making a statement contrary to what one believes to be true.

 

What if one believes something false to be true?

 

I think there has to be intent to mislead or deceive.

[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.

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, 4est said:

If you are here to just do battle, have at it.

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, 4est said:

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

 

I think you were quick to assume my use of "irrational beliefs" spoke directly to your subjectivity when I made no such linkage.  I'm asking what I think is a reasonable question:

 

Do you believe that referring to irrational beliefs as such is, in a very general sense, rude?