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

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

Maybe it is. But that doesn't mean I should go around telling little kids that he doesn't.

 

There's a time and a place for everything.

I am not a radical objectivist, but I also think some of the radical subjectivist threads here are a little nuts. So I just ignore them and let the people who enjoy them have their fun - even if, IMHO, they are a bit wacko. What I think doesn't always matter. 

 

I agree with what you're saying.  I'm just curious who the "little kids" are that you're talking about 🙂

 

And I find that I have much in common with some of the fiercest haters of objectivists.

 

My presence here is actually all @daverich4 's fault.  🙂  I was blissfully unaware of this thread's existence until he @-ed me.

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

CC keeps telling us we are all adults and can make our own bad decisions, the little kids must be invisible

[Albrecht]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

Can you provide some specific examples so we can evaluate the validity of your argument?

Based on the history of your posts, - you're not really interested in the answer to the question.

 

There's never been a Meitner or SOTA Meitner level component on that bench.

His MOAR system is not a good analysis tool for tube amplification.

Comparing multi-function computers to single purpose linux boxes in only one context.

No tool to measure low levels of resistance.

 

I could go on, - but I'm saying nothing new. And the above have all been said before, and much more, by people whom you'd respect  more than myself.

[Teresa]

3 hours 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...

 

As with nearly everything else we can purchase, there are a very wide range of prices for electronic items and audiophile speakers. I've noticed the lower priced products have not only been coming down in price but offer higher sound quality as years go by. OTOH the higher priced products are getting even more expensive. So there is plenty to choose from for a poor audiophile like me, as well as rich audiophile oligarchs. As with everything else in life I choose what is within my budget and don't get concerned with what I can afford or don't want to pay that much for.

 

3 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

...Do you think it's rude to characterize irrational beliefs as such?

 

Yes!!

 

3 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

What if one believes something false to be true?

 

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

 

I agree. One has to actually know they are lying, otherwise the most we can say is they are unintentionally spreading misinformation. 

 

3 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

We have the never ending subjectivist/objectivist argument.,,

 

I have seen this is so, at least on the internet.

 

3 hours ago, crenca said:

 The inescapable, sky is blue, cold hard fact is that this subjectivism we have been discussing is a fundamental part of "the big crazy"...

 

I'm a subjectivist and I am not part of "the big crazy" as I purchase affordable components and speakers based on how they sound in my system, in my room and with my ear/brain system. And I usually don't replace audio components or speakers until they break down and are too expensive to repair. Perhaps there are two or more types of subjectivists? 

 

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I've been waiting for the "skeptics are envious peasants" trope to rear its ugly head, and there it is.

 

Wait, I'm a peasant and I'm a skeptic of everything I've not heard myself. And I am not envious of other systems, especially ones I could never afford!

 

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Can anyone find a real world example where a consumer really wanted to purchase a stereo or pair of headphones, but was so turned off by magic stones that they stopped their pursuit and elected to not listen to music?...

 

I don't know of one. I'm not even curious enough to try magic stones. Some people think all subjectivists want to throw their money away, I disagree some of us understand the value of a dollar.

 

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 I've never spent a penny on anything AQ.  No DACs, no headphones, and or course, no cables!...

 

I've spent money on AudioQuest products. Some of my favorite blues SACDs in my collection are on the AudioQuest music label, of course they were recorded using AudioQuest cables. 

 

Also decades ago I owned a pair of AudioQuest Turquoise interconnects which I purchased for $20, they had a retail price of $25. I sold them (no one had 30-day satisfaction guarantees back then) as I preferred the warmer sound of Monster Cables’s summarily priced interconnects.

 

2 hours ago, crenca said:

This is a strawman to those who reject the "big crazy" because we reject the underlying subjectivism of "who cares if no deaths are involved".  For example our wallet's are involved - not as important as death but still important.  Our real (as opposed to some suggestable subjectivist haze) enjoyment is also involved - we want real "HiFi" and not the "High End" house of mirrors.

 

So you don't believe there are thrifty subjectivists who don't buy such products? Our wallet's are also involved.

 

1 hour ago, jcbenten said:

I did...Objectivists were equated to Religious Zealots...IMO the opposite is true.  Religion is based on Faith (Beliefs)...for me this describes the true Subjectivist.  

 

Personally I like good measurements but ultimately rely on my ears.  Note other than some newer portable DACs, I have not upgraded my system in years. Still sounds fine to me.

 

IMHO it’s the other way around. I, as a subjectivist don’t believe anything I haven’t experienced with their own senses. I have no knowledge base (bible) of preconceived beliefs, like some objectivists have. OTOH perhaps I'm just a music lover as I’m not really into audio equipment per se, I consider it a means to be able to play the music I love in the most enjoyable way I can that is within my budget.

 

[esldude]

9 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I would mildly disagree here, because I believe we still don't have data of quite the quality we need, due to at least a couple of things: (1) The problem of echoic memory, where we have such a short time to recall sounds that we may miss subtleties; (2) The problem of requiring a conscious verbal response when even emotionally significant differences may register at a subconscious level; (3) The problem of having to frame a description for a difference, which may make us less likely to think we have heard one.

 

We are so tantalizingly close that I feel we may be quite tempted to think we've arrived.

The issue of echoic memory you have is one I don't quite understand.  Echoic memory is fleeting in a manner of seconds and some kinds of listening discrimination are better done quickly for that reason.  That hardly seems like a reason to think long term listening satisfaction is a result of things missed due to echoic memory.  I'm not following the reasoning there. 

 

Emotional differences at a sub-conscious level likely occur.  Is it due to the sound heard or a myriad of other reasons?  I'd place money on the other reasons being the reason.  I'd say just due to the number of other possible reasons if the gear was responsible for it it will be lost in the noise of the other reasons and could only contribute a very small portion of the emotional satisfaction or disatisfaction. 

 

A test of that could be done, but it is messy.  Listen to component A for a month, listen to component B for a month.  List your overall satisfaction.  Do this with a group of people, or have one person repeat it for months.  Probably need 2 years to get a useful result from the data.  We could pick components people have identified through the usual audiophile methods as being very different in satisfaction. 

 

As for the description, audiophiles don't seem to have a problem with some very verbose descriptions.  General blind testing helps with this as no description is needed.  Just say it is different. It can seem different due to sound or a feeling doesn't matter simply choose. You don't have to frame it for that kind of testing. 

[Albrecht]

1 hour ago, jcbenten said:

 

I did...Objectivists were equated to Religious Zealots...IMO the opposite is true.  Religion is based on Faith (Beliefs)...for me this describes the true Subjectivist.  

 

Personally I like good measurements but ultimately rely on my ears.  Note other than some newer portable DACs, I have not upgraded my system in years. Still sounds fine to me.

"Objectivists were equated to Religious Zealots."

No, - entrenched Objectivists are though.... Listening to music is a subjective experience. What is objective about "listening to this SYSTEM makes me enjoy this recording more than if i heard it on that other system over there?"

How is it possible to draw a subjective prediction of a whole system, based on, (often cursory), measurements? That is what the Entrenched Objectivist, - or anti-audiophile does.

 

""Religion is based on Faith (Beliefs)"

True

"for me this describes the true Subjectivist."

There are different types of knowledge in this area, 1 rooted in experience. The other outside of experience, (religious beliefs). I suggest that you take a closer look and question the type of testing used to evaluate what are subjective goals of any audio system. Of course the BEST tests are more thorough and include data that are both objective and subjective. There are several people who post here that see and post about the value of both types of tests.

It's sad that we hear the shouting of the entrenched objectivists who are more akin to religious zealots: who in their anger and jealousy refuse to entertain the fact that experiential knowledge is knowledge at all, - and no amount of evidence will sway them, not even objective evidence.

Yet, - the entrenched objectivist makes SUBJECTIVE speculations outside their experience. Any time that you assert with certainty that someone cannot hear something (without being there) is EXTREMELY problematic: especially on the basis of a cursory analysis of 1 component: (when it's an entire system that produces the end result). That is zealotry. "Good Sound" is not certain, nor universalizable.

 

[Ralf11]

"Good Sound" is more likely with good Scotch, and the state store had a very rare sale today.

 

Therefore...

[Albrecht]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

"Good Sound" is more likely with good Scotch, and the state store had a very rare sale today.

 

Therefore...

Whatever turns you on man....

I have no basis to ever criticize how you approach getting to the place where you wanna be enjoying the music that you (hopefully) love.

But twin bits of sarcasm aside, - I am truly sad that (on the basis of your posts) you neither seem to like your system, or the act of listening to music. So much so that you feel the need to come onto an audiophile website and attack both designers/manufacturers and the people who appreciate their equipment's performance without evidence, research, or experience: (in both subjective and objective realms).

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

And regardless of Archimago's real name

What if that’s his real name and everyone has been searching for what’s right in front of them this whole time 😁

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Maybe it is. But that doesn't mean I should go around telling little kids that he doesn't.

 

There's a time and a place for everything.

I am not a radical objectivist, but I also think some of the radical subjectivist threads here are a little nuts. So I just ignore them and let the people who enjoy them have their fun - even if, IMHO, they are a bit wacko. What I think doesn't always matter. 

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

Based on the history of your posts, - you're not really interested in the answer to the question.

 

There's never been a Meitner or SOTA Meitner level component on that bench.

His MOAR system is not a good analysis tool for tube amplification.

Comparing multi-function computers to single purpose linux boxes in only one context.

No tool to measure low levels of resistance.

 

I could go on, - but I'm saying nothing new. And the above have all been said before, and much more, by people whom you'd respect  more than myself.

 

Thanks for responding. I'm still not seeing any specific examples of inconclusive conclusions that he's reached. 

[Ralf11]

14 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

  I am truly sad that (on the basis of your posts) you neither seem to like your system, or the act of listening to music. So much so that you feel the need to come onto an audiophile website and attack both designers/manufacturers and the people who appreciate their equipment's performance without evidence, research, or experience: (in both subjective and objective realms).

 

you seem to have me confused with someone else

 

actually, you seem confused about a lot of things

[fas42]

A nice little, 'subjective', method of picking "Good Sound" - anyone vocalising, on any sort of recording, from opera to the crappiest rock thrash - sounds like a real person. That means, it doesn't sound like a PA interpretation, or a caricature of the human voice - you get a very powerful sense of it being a human being creating those sounds - it's a "direct link" to that person.

 

Which means that if it goes through some effects box that removes too much detail, the humanness switches off - older pop recordings can show this up quite dramatically; it's almost a shock when the effect "destroys" the person.

[ARQuint]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

And you still don't get the basics.

 

Many of Arhcimago's/Mansr's conclusions were based on disprovable analyses/conclusions/understandings that he and Chris invited others to disprove. No one disproved what they said on it's merits. And they still haven't, till today. 

 

Lots of people tried to say that if the source of a fact is anonymous, then then the fact itself is wrong. You seem to be implying that here. That of course is a logical fallacy.  In fact, among the people who engaged Archimago's assertions on their merits, he only received backing. 

 

The same can't be said for Lee. The fact is that you either can't - or refuse - to see the difference. 

 

And FD, I feel that you and a few others just don't understand what's at stake here. It seems so obvious to me. For the umpteenth time, my concern isn't who is right or wrong on the MQA question, but rather, the way we talk to each other about it. I assure you: I read every word of Archimago's analysis and was impressed; I'm no happier to see his abilities called into question than the integrity and competence of those in the pro-MQA camp—for example, people like my dear friend Peter McGrath.

 

I'd been reading Audiophile Style without posting—"lurking"—for months before Joel's editorial was published two days ago. I'm being genuine when I say that I'm tremendously impressed with Chris's decision to present it as he did, in a way that acknowledged the vital importance of the issue of civility. There's been an explosive response, mostly from two constituencies. The first is a large group of members that's as concerned as the OP about the manner in which a vocal minority attack those with different opinions than their own. The second are representatives of that minority who recognize themselves in Joel's essay and don't like the characterization. I can detect, from some of them, annoyance and even frank anger with The Computer Audiophile for publishing the editorial, viewing it as a kind a slap in the face.

 

I suppose it is. But it's a subject that needs addressing and that outpouring of reaction—more than 500 postings in two days!—is very telling. I'll try returning to lurking status and observe what I hope will be the growth of a corrective force.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

[Ralf11]

that's 3, Frank

[Ralf11]

2 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

the vital importance of the issue of civility. There's been an explosive response, mostly from two constituencies. The first is a large group of members that's as concerned as the OP about the manner in which a vocal minority attack those with different opinions than their own. The second are representatives of that minority who recognize themselves in Joel's essay and don't like the characterization. I can detect, from some of them, annoyance and even frank anger with The Computer Audiophile for publishing the editorial, viewing it as a kind a slap in the face.

 

I suppose it is. But it's a subject that needs addressing and that outpouring of reaction—more than 500 postings in two days!—is very telling. I'll try returning to lurking status and observe what I hope will be the growth of a corrective force.

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

 

See - now this is a way to attack people under cover of 'civility' - we need more of this

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

 

See - now this is a way to attack people under cover of 'civility' - we need more of this

 

Only a "Senior Writer" can pull it off.

 

Regular Seniors can't.

[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?  🤔

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Only a "Senior Writer" can pull it off.

 

Regular Seniors can't.

 

If only he was a "journalist", he could civily remove a president...

[Teresa]

32 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

What if that’s his real name and everyone has been searching for what’s right in front of them this whole time 😁

 

 

Archie Mago maybe?

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

Probably a better strategy for winning the debate....

 

 

Debate?  I thought this was a war... A war on Christmas!

 

 

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

my dear friend Peter McGrath

And there it is. The name-drop. What took you so long? Perhaps you need to take some instruction from Master Lee.

[Samuel T Cogley]

29 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

I can detect, from some of them, annoyance and even frank anger with The Computer Audiophile for publishing the editorial, viewing it as a kind a slap in the face.

 

This is novice-level trolling.  The skeptics challenge the very shaky ground you find yourself standing upon.  And you do everything you can to try to distract from what they're saying.

 

You never want to discuss what the skeptics are actually saying.  You just want to marginalize them.

 

For my part, I know that Chris abhors what he perceives as lack of civility here.  And I'll be the first to admit that getting to the heart of a particular matter without the requisite "social lubricant" can be antagonizing to some.  But I support Chris in the strongest possible terms.  He is the reason, to put it succinctly, that the MQA lie has been exposed.  And we ALL owe him a big debt of gratitude for that.  He has told us that owning the forum that contains the thread "MQA is Vaporware" has been at times very difficult.  If you're trying to drive a wedge between us, you'll have to do much better than this novice-level trolling.

 

To some of us, you represent everything that's wrong with HiFi culture.  Your disingenuousness is palpable.  Your agenda is transparent.  I would never trust you to be a consumer advocate because you (just like Scoggins) just can't resist the opportunity to name drop (Peter McGrath, your "dear old friend" in this case).  There's no way I would ever trust anything you say because of that relationship.  And especially because you're so quick to tout it.  Your loyalties are quite obvious.  You'll lurk until you see another opportunity to bash the skeptics with your civility cudgel, just as you're doing now.

 

See you next time.

[fas42]

35 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

Archie Mago maybe?

 

Naahhh ... Archie Leach ....

[KeenObserver]

53 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

And FD, I feel that you and a few others just don't understand what's at stake here. It seems so obvious to me. For the umpteenth time, my concern isn't who is right or wrong on the MQA question, but rather, the way we talk to each other about it. I assure you: I read every word of Archimago's analysis and was impressed; I'm no happier to see his abilities called into question than the integrity and competence of those in the pro-MQA camp—for example, people like my dear friend Peter McGrath.

 

I'd been reading Audiophile Style without posting—"lurking"—for months before Joel's editorial was published two days ago. I'm being genuine when I say that I'm tremendously impressed with Chris's decision to present it as he did, in a way that acknowledged the vital importance of the issue of civility. There's been an explosive response, mostly from two constituencies. The first is a large group of members that's as concerned as the OP about the manner in which a vocal minority attack those with different opinions than their own. The second are representatives of that minority who recognize themselves in Joel's essay and don't like the characterization. I can detect, from some of them, annoyance and even frank anger with The Computer Audiophile for publishing the editorial, viewing it as a kind a slap in the face.

 

I suppose it is. But it's a subject that needs addressing and that outpouring of reaction—more than 500 postings in two days!—is very telling. I'll try returning to lurking status and observe what I hope will be the growth of a corrective force.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

 

Yes indeed.  The world would be so much more civilized if everyone just agreed with you.  You are, after all,  the Senior Writer for The Absolute Sound.

[The Computer Audiophile]

42 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

For my part, I know that Chris abhors what he perceives as lack of civility here.  And I'll be the first to admit that getting to the heart of a particular matter without the requisite "social lubricant" can be antagonizing to some.  But I support Chris in the strongest possible terms.  He is the reason, to put it succinctly, that the MQA lie has been exposed.  And we ALL owe him a big debt of gratitude for that.  He has told us that owning the forum that contains the thread "MQA is Vaporware" has been at times very difficult.  If you're trying to drive a wedge between us, you'll have to do much better than this novice-level trolling.

 

Yes. Thanks for recognizing that I abhor the lack of civility. I really do and I'm very tempted to moderate much more heavily. That's not a threat, just me being honest about something that causes me serious pain and a possible remedy for it.

 

There are only a few people on the site who think civility be damned and winning at almost any cost is OK. 

 

In terms of the MQA issue, I am thankful to those who convinced me it was a scam. However, I know for a fact that I would've been convinced much sooner if the discussion was civil. Incivility causes almost everyone to raise defenses and seem additional ammunition. When attacked I sought more information from BS, which only amplified the ensuing incivility. 

 

I didn't do much to debunk MQA, other than host the largest collection of information about it, and receive the industry repercussions. Everyone else did all the work. I can't take any credit.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

 

And FD, I feel that you and a few others just don't understand what's at stake here. It seems so obvious to me. For the umpteenth time, my concern isn't who is right or wrong on the MQA question, but rather, the way we talk to each other about it. I assure you: I read every word of Archimago's analysis and was impressed; I'm no happier to see his abilities called into question than the integrity and competence of those in the pro-MQA camp—for example, people like my dear friend Peter McGrath.

 

I'd been reading Audiophile Style without posting—"lurking"—for months before Joel's editorial was published two days ago. I'm being genuine when I say that I'm tremendously impressed with Chris's decision to present it as he did, in a way that acknowledged the vital importance of the issue of civility. There's been an explosive response, mostly from two constituencies. The first is a large group of members that's as concerned as the OP about the manner in which a vocal minority attack those with different opinions than their own. The second are representatives of that minority who recognize themselves in Joel's essay and don't like the characterization. I can detect, from some of them, annoyance and even frank anger with The Computer Audiophile for publishing the editorial, viewing it as a kind a slap in the face.

 

I suppose it is. But it's a subject that needs addressing and that outpouring of reaction—more than 500 postings in two days!—is very telling. I'll try returning to lurking status and observe what I hope will be the growth of a corrective force.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

 

Hi Andy - I'm with you in urging civility by everyone. We get to answers / conclusions much quicker this way. We can also enjoy an intellectual back and forth, as I did with the OP over breakfast at RMAF. That's mentally stimulating and enjoyable. Lack of civility is unenjoyable and should be used in cases where a Government must be overthrown, not on a hobbyist forum where most of the people are enjoying themselves.

 

 

54 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

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?  🤔

 

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.