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

[The Computer Audiophile]

25 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

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.

I believe you're hurting your own cause with little quips like this. At no point did he say anything like that and in fact said the opposite. 

[wgscott]

5 hours ago, rando said:

 

Perhaps the reader's social skills were implied.  

 

Hey, look, the OK Rando button got implemented!

 

 

[Jud]

1 hour 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 😁

 

"Hello, may I speak to Mr. Archie Majo, please?"

[KeenObserver]

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I believe you're hurting your own cause with little quips like this. At no point did he say anything like that and in fact said the opposite. 

I don't know if I have a cause other than hoping the MQA scam is never implemented.  There may indeed be uncivil people here, but I take offense to Mr Quints passive-aggressive lumping of everyone who disagrees with him as being uncivil. It is labeling.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

but I take offense to Mr Quints passive-aggressive lumping of everyone who disagrees with him as being uncivil. It is labeling.

I haven't read all his posts, but sure hope he didn't do as you say. That would be preposterous. 

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

 

Archie Mago maybe?

 

vs.  

 

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

"Hello, may I speak to Mr. Archie Majo, please?"

 

It's like Led Zeppelin all over again.

[Ralf11]

16 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Hey, look, the OK Rando button got implemented!

 

 

 

I thought it was superseded by the UltraRando ??

[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.

[wgscott]

The word "disingenuous" came to mind when I read it.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

The word "disingenuous" came to mind when I read it.

 

The glasses in your profile photo are definitely not rose colored :~)

[Ralf11]

smugmanimous comes to mind too...

[bobbmd]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

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

 

Therefore...

BUT you need a good cigar to with that scotch plus ones subjective sense of Good Sound

[crenca]

41 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I haven't read all his posts, but sure hope he didn't do as you say. That would be preposterous. 

 

No, that's pretty much it.  He does not understand MQA though his understanding is besides the point.  I think he generally wants to understand why there has been a consumer reaction against it, but like a drunk sitting at the bar wondering why anyone would think one more would be a problem, he is too deep into the mythos of Audiophiledom to ever really "get" a skeptical, critical attitude toward it.

 

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.

 

Interesting what you say about how you are certain that you would have seen MQA for the scam it is sooner if the tone was different.  I recall your reluctance, your "giving the benefit of the doubt" 2, 3, 7 times against all evidence.  Thing is, the culture of audiophiledom sets the tone  - short of almost herculean efforts on the part of individuals.  The tone of audiophile culture being "The Big Crazy", well skeptics and objectivists are always (always always) going to be more or less "uncivil" because the culture and most of those in it want to go along with the stream - going along (often confused with getting along) is easier.  Not going along is a war on Christmas, a war on pleasure, a war on music, and a war on "live and let live", and truth be told there is a certain truth in this reaction.

 

Consumerism is about desire.  Desire of the audiophile for pleasure, reinforcement, etc.  Desire on the part of "the industry" to fulfill that desire and make $money$, and to control/direct the consumers desire.  But this sort of self-evaluation (on the part of everybody) is hard, and "live and let live" is easy.  Hard things don't happen all that often, easy things do.  This is why the objective subject divide and its side skirmishes around "civility" will remain the status quo...

[Middy]

Feel better now... I just read this thread in Ye oldie Salem style witch trial voices from a 70's hammer film, as the dialogue is about the same but without the stress involved. I suppose its a boil on the arse of audiophila that needs popping every blue moon... Who's arse or who's squeezing doesnt matter as everyone gets something out of it and then carry on regardless.....

Happy xmass all, sad to hear it died...

 

 

 

[rando]

4 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Hey, look, the OK Rando button got implemented!

 

Hindsight is (‿|‿)   In your case so is forethought.  Secondhand pop culture references are usually Ralf's bailiwick.  I think you'd be kidding me saying you two didn't work 'Ok Rando' out together.  Especially since I've made it clear in the past when one or both of you were engaging in ageism.

 

 

Predicate to this discussion was the suggestion that far from lacking any social skills.  Mans perhaps was still in a working mindset and was being ribbed to finish clocking out before he missed/discouraged too much fun in here.  He wasn't the only one being asked to loosen up, just the closest.  

[STC]

As long as you are objective with your subjective assessment of sound quality, I don’t think anyone would criticize that. Problem is they started talking about a product based on objective attributes and concludes about its sound quality subjectively. That is fine as long as you are able to demonstrate your preference consistently. 
 

I have a habit of making a playlist for each visitors listening session in the JRiver. I also make a copy of all settings in the Reaper project. In this way, I could replay the exact sound they liked or disliked in their previous session in any other occasions. 
 

During their follow up visits, I will play the previous list and then compare their subjective assessment of their previous listening and current one. Either these so called audio connoisseur are lying or simply not consistent. A track which they claimed lacking bass is now deemed to be adequate or overwhelming. A blurred centre image is now a rock solid projection. 

 

Nothing changed in between but same sound with different verdict from the same listeners. This inconsistency also applies to me and no one is exempted. 
 

 

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

The glasses in your profile photo are definitely not rose colored :~)

 

They permit seeing things as how they are, rather than as how they ought to be.

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

They permit seeing things as how they are, rather than as how they ought to be.

Awfully Donald Rumsfeld of you :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

51 minutes ago, crenca said:

Interesting what you say about how you are certain that you would have seen MQA for the scam it is sooner if the tone was different.  I recall your reluctance, your "giving the benefit of the doubt" 2, 3, 7 times against all evidence.

Absolutely. Getting pounded over the head and called a shill isn't what causes me to double check my conclusions. I think @Miska's writing was most influential for me because he delivered it like a "take it or leave it, doesn't matter to me, but here's what I see" type of thing. He was always open to answering questions without the added snark or incivility. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

32 minutes ago, STC said:

As long as you are objective with your subjective assessment of sound quality, I don’t think anyone would criticize that. Problem is they started talking about a product based on objective attributes and concludes about its sound quality subjectively. That is fine as long as you are able to demonstrate your preference consistently. 

This line of thinking interests me. 

 

Why is it a problem that, "they started talking about a product based on objective attributes and concludes about its sound quality subjectively?" And, why should they be able, "able to demonstrate your preference consistently?"

 

They aren't producing a drug for epilepsy. They are having fun in their own way.

 

What's the worst that can happen if they are allowed to discuss their listening impressions unchallenged?

[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.   

[STC]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

And, why should they be able, "able to demonstrate your preference consistently?"

If this hobby is about taking pictures of stars using long shutter speed and the discussion is revolving around cameras and sharpness of the pictures, would it be so wrong if someone suggests to use a tripod?  What is so wrong of telling that your understanding could be wrong? 
 

The object is high fidelity and bystanders are just going going to swallow hook, line and sinker based on false belief if they do not have access to the differing views. 

 

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

They aren't producing a drug for epilepsy. They are having fun in their own way.

 

What's the worst that can happen if they are allowed to discuss their listening impressions unchallenged?

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, STC said:

If this hobby is about taking pictures of stars using long shutter speed and the discussion is revolving around cameras and sharpness of the pictures, would it be so wrong if someone suggests to use a tripod?  What is so wrong of telling that your understanding could be wrong? 
 

The object is high fidelity and bystanders are just going going to swallow hook, line and sinker based on false belief if they do not have access to the differing views. 

 

 

 

It isn't that black and white. We have people enjoying themselves by using products others don't believe can possibly make a difference. They aren't interested in hearing from anyone else. 

 

Your object and many others' objects are high fidelity, but not everyones'. Even so, how one gets there shouldn't matter to anyone else. 

 

We always provide space for differing views. It just can't be done where it isn't wanted. Most people like to read all views, but they want to do it at their own pace and at the time of their choosing. We even recommend people with opposing views start their own thread and put a link in the original thread. It's a great way to keep both threads focussed and let people chose what they want to read. 

 

Also, I'm not a fan of saving people from themselves.

[STC]

32 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

We always provide space for differing views. It just can't be done where it isn't wanted. Most people like to read all views, but they want to do it at their own pace and at the time of their choosing. We even recommend people with opposing views start their own thread and put a link in the original thread. It's a great way to keep both threads focussed and let people chose what they want to read. 

I fully agree to that.

[STC]

7 minutes ago, STC said:

I fully agree to that.

But shouldn’t that request come from the OP him/herself? What we usually have is others who are objecting to the opposing views rather than the OP.