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

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute 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. 

That would make a really cool article. I know I’d love to read it. 
 

But, the issue addressed in the OP’s article wasn’t about expertise. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 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

 

I'm not sure you were around at the beginning of the MQA discussion here, but I was pretty vocal in demanding proof from those who said MQA was a scam. I was called a shill and everything Lee was called. So, I've done what you stated. 

 

Plus, personal responsibility is important to me. I don't care why someone flys off the handle and break the rules. They can claim "he made me do it" all day long. It will fall on deaf ears. 

 

I don't understand the finger wagging bit. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Ha! So it's all about you then?  How about what I need to be happy? I need audio manufacturers to really try to improve the SOTA, to innovate in the space that actually makes a real and not imagined difference. Instead, I keep running into new products around better cables, de-crapifiers to de-crapify something that doesn't have any crap, and designer fuses with beeswax. I fondly remember the days when manufacturers really tried to build a better mouse trap. But hey, I guess I'm just an angry and bitter person, like Kennyb said Make Audio Great Again!!!  Ooops! No political agenda intended, sorry...

 

 

As I've said before, it's almost like you think "real" innovation is inversely proportional to "snake oil." If we have more of one we can't have more of the other. I believe you can get all you want of both.

 

I have no other way to describe the objectivist interjections at every point, other than a crusade to save people, stop others from making money on what they see is wrong, a fear of the anti-science agenda, hatred of those they don't agree with, and other things. 

 

Nothing else explains the repeated unwanted interjections. Not even the objectivists can explain it.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

I don't see Harman, for example, dropping out of the business. In fact, they're a rather large company. And you know I'm also quite scientifically curious about much that is involved with our hobby. So I don't think a small number of people with ideas that might be silly are going to really bother anyone, except those who want to be bothered.

 

Agree 100%. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Of course. That post was mostly in jest, Jud. I know for a fact that you are curious and willing to consider real evidence. Would be interesting to see how this site contributors break-down on a subjective vs. objective scale. I wouldn't be surprised if it's 100:1  

 

Any AI/data-scientists here that want to do the research?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it's 100:1 either. Not sure what that says about anything, but I'd guess it's a fair assumption.

 

Perhaps people enjoying themselves, tinkering, getting involved with a like-minded community, and a live and let listen attitude is beneficial to communication and posting on a site. Who knew. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

If the market consistently demands fixes for non-existent problems (USB cables, decrapifiers, linear power supplies, ethernet filters, better sounding fuses, grounding boxes, "improved" DC cables, etc), companies will oblige. As you say the ratio is 100:1 here for subjectivists. The majority that's driving the demand is interested in products solving problems that are mostly imagined rather than seeking real innovation.

 

You can't honestly believe yourself on that can you? Do you really think any of the manufacturers fro which you purchase equipment are going to stop engineering efforts toward innovation and start producing as you call them "decrapifiers?" 

 

If yes, then you're motivated by a fear of losing access to "good" components? I searching for motivation to help me understand.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

I'm curious why you keep bringing this up in response to my posts. If you feel that I'm interfering with too many threads here on AS, I'm perfectly willing to go elsewhere. 

 

It isn't you specifically.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

Probably that fears of this place turning into another Hydrogenaudio Forum are unfounded...

 

Correct, those fears are unfounded. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

Think of it as signal to noise ratio. In today's hi-fi market, there is so much noise (snake oil) that it is difficult to find the signal (honest products that simply do what they say for a reasonable price). There's a hi-fi store a couple of blocks from my house. They sell only snake oil interconnects (AudioQuest and such), and the salesmen say silly things about silver. This isn't even a "high end" store. If I need an interconnect, my options are to buy bulk cable and mount connectors myself, or I can take my chances on Amazon with the risk of being scammed in the other direction (cheap crap that falls apart if you look at it the wrong way). Do you find this situation desirable? I do not.

 

The situation is probably different around the world. I Minneapolis I can go to a store to get cables at all price points and at all levels of what yo'd call real engineering to snake oil. This isn't a big city with a burgeoning HiFi market either. 

 

Online "anyone" can get cables you'd consider "good" without much risk. Amazon is one place, but monoprice is also good. 

 

I don' think it's as dire as you purport above. 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I can honestly say that I believe this wholeheartedly. Innovation has slowed down to a crawl with much junk and unnecessary devices/enhancements being introduced all the time. As Mans said, true innovation is very hard to find in the noise.

 

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?

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

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?

 

I don't have any fear, I just want to see people enjoy themselves here. I suppose one could catastrophize and say I fear subjective AS users being run away from the site by an objective mob and I end up living in a van down by the river, but that's not based in reality for me. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

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.

 

I think everyone should see value in his honest editorial. If one doesn't agree at least it shows the reasoning and thought process of someone who doesn't think like you. It's all valuable. 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Superdad said:

 

Really? How does that work? Maybe @The Computer Audiophile can comment on this because, AFAIK advertising rates here are fixed price, per year, for different sizes and placements, and having seen the rate sheet they have not changed much over the past 3 years.

So more traffic here does not result in more revenue for the site. Though it might increase traffic to those of his advertisers.

 

Given this is the lucrative world of niche online publishing, I expect to be swimming in my gold coins, a la Scrooge McDuck, later this evening because of this editorial. Honestly, I don't even take Bill's speculation seriously. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

41 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

A few days ago you said you didn't care about making any money from your site - it was only about the audiophile community

I used the example of this is how I feed my family because it illustrates how much time I spend here on the site and my reason for being as active as the person I was talking to via this thread. 

 

I don't believe I said I won't care about making any money. I likely said as long as I can feed my family I'm good with it. I'm not out to get rich, even if that was possible in online niche publishing. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

But it must be noted that one of the major differences we appear to have is over your claim that "scientific approach" is "just another option of opinion." That stretches the meaning of the word "opinion" to the point where the term becomes meaningless, and obscures important differences between different kinds of claims and knowledge.

I believe facts are facts and opinions are opinions. The issue I usually have is when facts or data are used in a manner that uses opinion to justify use of the facts and when conclusions are reached that don't follow the facts. In this way the conclusions are opinions based on facts, but the facts don't add up. 

 

I have no data to back up my opinion, but I'm willing to bet most people here understand the facts as presented by those smart enough to know them, but they disagree with the application of the facts and conclusions reached. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

This is as good a place as any to post this link: Your Glorified Ignorance Wasn't Cool Then, And Your Scientific Illiteracy Isn't Cool Now

 

 

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Of course, not everyone knows all (or even most) of these answers. It’s impossible, in this day and age, to be an expert in all possible things. Most of us learn this at an early age: that most of what is known to humanity is not known to us as individuals, and that we can either study to gain that expertise and learn it, or go find the appropriate expert to learn what the answer is from them.

At least, that’s how you behave if you’re genuinely interested in learning the actual answer. You’ll either undertake the research yourself to reach expert-level competence, where you’ll learn how to perform critical tests and experiments that determine the answer, or you can learn to discern whose expertise is worth listening to and why, and then to take that expert advice. That’s how you gain meaningful knowledge.

 

There are quite a few people here who do this for their day jobs and just want to play around with their audio components and listen to music to get away from scientific searching.  This is a hobby. Nobody here is curing cancer on AS, although they may be trying in their day jobs. 

 

Edit: I was thinking about this more. I love researching this stuff and consulting with experts. However, this isn't the case with everything I do. When I go out to eat, sometimes I just want to eat a good meal without worrying about how the lettuce was grown, if the workers are paid well, etc... It's all about having a time and place for everything. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

Or, you could just keep on moralizing as you do here.

 

If you want to understand, let alone move past (either personally or as a group) why there are objectivists and subjectivistist and why the can't "just get along", then you will have step back and see the whole picture from another vantage point.

 

There's the doubling down we expected.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

So Chris, you believe audiophilia is something more virtuous than consumerism?  If so, how do you reconcile this virtuousness with the inescapable consumer aspects?

I never said that. I made a comment out crenca's doubling down on patronizing comments. As if we are all kids here who need to be taken to school by him.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

More than just double - All in!  Your stuck in a rut (which might very well be where you want yourself and this site to be on this subject).   If you want serious thought and discussion on this subject, then a little work/self reflection on your and everyone else's part is probably the only way forward. 

 

Beyond that, it's finger wagging all day long just as it was yesterday and just as it will be tomorrow.  

 

@joelhasuggestion that we accept radical subjectivism as the neutral and civil ground of not only audio, but science, metaphysics and religion too, is just more of the same and not a way forward...

With all due respect, please share some of what's in your glass. 😉

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

(Portlandia joke)

They were in the playoffs this year right?

[The Computer Audiophile]

@crenca how is your war on Christmas going this year. Talk about consumerism. Perhaps we can table the HiFi discussion until you finish your more important and larger business. 😀

[The Computer Audiophile]

This is truly an amazing display of exactly what this article is about.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, ARQuint said:

I'm sure, unless the narcissist (Hi, Steve!) who started it chooses to shut it down.

Personal attacks from a high horse are still against the rules here. This is your warning. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, daverich4 said:

Wow, RT66indierock called Lee Scoggins a liar without so much as a peep out of you but ARQuint called RT66indierock a narcissist and here you are? Biased just a little?

With all due respect, this sounds a little bit like the kids in my daughter’s second grade class. 
 

Things aren’t black and white, and people bend rules as far as possible without breaking them. I’d recommend a little less policing with a magnifying glass. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

This is a little more black and white. HDTracks v 7digital, was filed in June of 2018 and stated their business relationship ended in April of 2018. Any statement that HDTracks MQA streaming service was coming were false after April of 2018. Therefore  Lee's statements in 2019 were lies.

 

Not my problem if people don't have PACER to track federal cases, I do. 

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Chris, are you suggesting there is an actual distinction between gaslighting and lying?  Aren't they the same thing?

I have no idea through what lens you read my comments, but it's not rose colored. 

I suggested nothing of the sort. In this HDtracks example, if Lee had no idea the deal fell through and there was a lawsuit ongoing, the chances that he was lying are slim to none. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Court cases are good sources of facts. Lying is simply making a false statement and Lee made a false statement about HDTracks Streaming. Pretty simple.  Lee and I talked about this at RMAF this year.

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

[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. 

[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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

30 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

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 😋

 

This has zero to do with actual pricing and everything to do with your background and point of view. The pricing of audiophilia has never been lower. Go to the Schiit website and have a look. Go to Benchmark's site and see what kind of engineering one can get for his money. Oligarch's wouldn't be caught dead spending this little. Looking through a telescope at only the most expensive items in any category of consumer goods will lead you to your conclusion. This isn't a sound method from which to conclude anything.

 

 

 

4 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.  

 

Based on your comments in this thread, I don't believe you have any idea what the OP was getting at. Please stop suggesting otherwise.