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

[emcdade]

19 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

I'm super interested where you read that at. Please post a link.

Not sure if I'm allowed to post a link to your home turf or not.

 

This is plucked out of a 24 page thread agreeing with this sentiment in general:

 

"The iPhone dongle from Apple measures exceptionally well as a DAC. So yeah, "doesn't sound terrible and just works" for sure. But I'd also add, "will sound the same as high priced, well-engineered DACs."

[plissken]

Just now, emcdade said:

Not sure if I'm allowed to post a link to your home turf or not.

 

Then P.M. it to me.

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, HiFiHeard said:

 "I like this, and it's OK if you don't like it."

 

 

I think that is a different issue.  Preferences are fine, tho worthy of discussion.  e.g. I can discuss or explain why I like some tube sound (but not too much); same for why I like the visual esthetic of Accuphase gear (panel layout and color combo), or the ergonomics of older Audio Research gear (the knobs & switches) - BTW I own The latter but not the former brand.

 

Likewise I can explain why I prefer certain tradeoffs over others (e.g. why I switched from Vandersteen to Magneplanar - it took 3-4 months of intensive listening every night...)

 

But what one likes with respect to SQ is not what is involved when someone is responding to to factors that do not affect SQ.  And that is why people od actual listening tests - to rule out extraneous factors.

 

Now, if someone likes the look of component A enough to accept a lower SQ than for the 'uglier' component B, that is different.  And I'm fine with that choice, but they can expect some contradictory posts if they make a claim that simply cannot be true, or is highly, highly unlikely.

[thyname]

The point is simple: I should be able to post in Internet without hell breaking loose that "A" sounds better to me than "B", even if I cannot support this "claim" with measurements and ABX tests. If nobody can share their (albeit totally subjective) opinion on something, for fear of being attacked, then this becomes a form of self-censure. Not a positive thing IMO

[plissken]

22 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Now, if someone likes the look of component A enough to accept a lower SQ than for the 'uglier' component B, that is different.  And I'm fine with that choice, but they can expect some contradictory posts if they make a claim that simply cannot be true, or is highly, highly unlikely.

 

Mostly my push back involves unsupported manufacturer claims.

[vmartell22]

Science is not a belief system - is the systematic activity that obtains and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. Framing the discussion of Science vs. religion in terms of opposing belief systems is incorrect. Or to put it simply, gravity does not care if you believe in it or not. You will fall.

 

v

[plissken]

44 minutes ago, emcdade said:

"The iPhone dongle from Apple measures exceptionally well as a DAC. So yeah, "doesn't sound terrible and just works" for sure. But I'd also add, "will sound the same as high priced, well-engineered DACs."

 

So this is something that could easily be blind tested for. Then the follow on question:

 

If it's inexpensive and simply measures well under various aspects that represent a well-engineered DAC then it is what it is.

The measurements I've seen paint the Apple Dongle as a competent traveling HP DAC but it's not top tier.  I wouldn't go get an AQ USB HP dongle over the Apple given the measurements. 

 

So I wouldn't go as far as that poster. 

 

[emcdade]

8 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Mostly my push back involves unsupported manufacturer claims.

I understand the sentiment.

 

Wouldn't it be more rewarding to be a crusader for the consumer if it were directed at something that actually affected people's lives?  For example predatory lending, credit cards, etc.?

 

 

I can only estimate the number of people who were persuaded by HiFi marketing, bought the product, and were unhappy and unable to return said product to be .000000001% of the population.

[Ralf11]

How did you obtain that estimate?

 

and how do you know he doesn't already do those other things?

[plissken]

2 minutes ago, emcdade said:

I understand the sentiment.

 

Wouldn't it be more rewarding to be a crusader for the consumer if it were directed at something that actually affected people's lives?  For example predatory lending, credit cards, etc.?

 

Plenty of advocates for those things. I like to advocate in areas that I have expertise in. As a network engineer that happens to be frame/packet/segment and understanding how buffered systems work.

 

If I were a banker or economist then my efforts would indeed be better spent on predatory lending etc...

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, joelha said:

By your own statement, that's not happening in our industry, Rt66indierock.

 

If you say there was a lot of anger since the 70's, the anger proposition doesn't seem to be working or is working way too slowly.

 

I'd rather have some of the bad players out there in the industry and a friendlier overall environment.

 

If you want to disagree, you can have the last word as I've made my point.

 

Joel

 

Actually it is happening. I interact with enough people that disagree with me in audio. E.g. "if it measures bad and sounds good, your hearing isn't as good as you think".  This ruffles a lot feathers but the pendulum swinging away from purely subjective analysis is ahead of schedule. 

 

I worked at stuff on the golf side (see pictures of sheep references). Bad behavior online works in my favor for MQA. The supporters of MQA have acted almost comically bad. I don't want them to stop. I'll work on audio when MQA goes away. 

 

Joel, maybe angry is the normal state for audiophiles? I'm constantly telling people nobody cares on any number of audio issues. And they don't get it.

 

 

 

 

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Very interesting Archimago. Honest questions:

 

Is there a larger "problem" if the objective people don't fight hard? In other words, what happens if they let a conversation go with people believing what they want? Will science eventually be relegated to second class? Or something completely different?

 

I believe fear is a strong motivator for both the sub and obj groups. Objectives > Fear of attacks on science (end result unknown to me) and Subjectives > fear of losing a hobby or source of enjoyment. I don't believe either is rational, but that's just me.

 

Hi Chris,

Yeah, I don't think objective people need to fight hard in an obsessive way 😉. There are plenty of fora where subjective discussions happen all the time unimpeded. Some sites ban such things as blind testing discussions, deprecate measurements, etc...

 

I have no personal problem with this in that nobody has to die nor all-out-war crusades need be waged. In fact, many of the threads on here about bizarre cables and such which I think many objective-leaning folks could say a thing or two about are left alone.

 

"Will science eventually be relegated to second class"? I don't know. Maybe there are times when some people in discussions need to be reminded of alternate viewpoints as a part of that balance I noted. Science as an empirical endeavour adds an element of rationality in discussions. Forums are open spaces and if people really do not want other input, then they can do it privately or perhaps make the forum write-only for the "card carrying" membership.

 

For us in audiophilia, it is a hobby and I think there's an element of restraint and civility we can all show regardless of direction including not getting "personal" unless we know for a fact that there are issues to be aired. But there are of course many other discussions where if scientific perspectives didn't jump in, tragedies can happen. Samoa and 70 dead due to loss of trust in the validity of vaccinations being an unfortunate recent example (tell that to the anti-vaxxers; will some of them ever change their minds?).

 

Philosophically, there are things which are metaphysical and outside of what we know about physics and science in general - God/gods/The Creator/spirits/angels & demons/Heaven/Hell/Nirvana would/could/should belong in this category IMO. I fail to see how low-jitter music servers, hi-res DACs, "noise reduction" boxes, expensive amps, lengths of cable that cost hundreds if not thousands should be treated as metaphysical, or why the scientific viewpoint seeking verification of subjective impressions should not be considered in discussions surrounding such items.

 

Of course, none of this justifies being rude. That's a personality thing.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Actually it is happening. I interact with enough people that disagree with me in audio. E.g. "if it measures bad and sounds good, your hearing isn't as good as you think".

 

If that's what you believe then you're a larger problem than purely objectivists. For the most part they don't care about personal preference. You seem to have a problem with someone saying it "sounds good" when it measures bad. Who cares if something sounds good to someone. 

 

9 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

This ruffles a lot feathers but the pendulum swinging away from purely subjective analysis is ahead of schedule. 

 

Evidence please. Schedule please. Perhaps you can share it via Google docs. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

I worked at stuff on the golf side (see pictures of sheep references).

 

Your work involves creating memes?

[emcdade]

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

How did you obtain that estimate?

 

and how do you know he doesn't already do those other things?

I created that estimate myself.  I am actually a professional estimator.  😉

 

[daverich4]

Three pages on civility without @Samuel T Cogley weighing in? S’up with that?

[plissken]

25 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If that's what you believe then you're a larger problem than purely objectivists. For the most part they don't care about personal preference. You seem to have a problem with someone saying it "sounds good" when it measures bad. Who cares if something sounds good to someone. 

 

Some people like the 2nd harmonic skirt that some devices, by nature of their topology, produce. Tube pre's and Amps come to mind. I've never had an issue with that. Obviously that's going to change some outputs on the speaker/HP side. 

 

If I have 8 or 9 measurements and I have a $10,000 and a $500 piece of gear and they are neck and neck with good results. Well all that means is someone figured out how to do it for $500. 

[kennyb123]

It's been my impression those who believe the facts support their worldview have an underlying confidence that their side will prevail.  They are happy to defend and evangelize their worldview but don't feel no need to bludgeon others into believing the way they do.  The desire to bludgeon others tends to come from the folks who don't have confidence that they have the truth on their side.  They may behave as if they have it all figured out and are in the right, but their actions, attitude and discontent repeatedly betray them.  They don't behave like they are happy or at peace.

 

I was speaking about religion but I think this applies to audio too.  It seems that those who rely on subjective impressions believe they have the truth on their side and that their side will prevail once we figure out the ways to measure what we've been hearing.  Their actions, attitudes and behaviors repeatedly demonstrate that they are having a good time and are greatly enjoying this hobby.

 

Those on the objectivist side behave as people who don't appear to behave as though they have confidence that their truth will ultimately prevail.  They are angry and bitter and take every opportunity to demean the other side. They have a diminished awareness of the dissonance between their expectations and reality as they completely discount the massive amount anecdotal evidence that challenges their truth.  If they were confident in their truth, they would feel no need to bash manufacturers because sales of snake oil should soon put those manufacturers out of business.  And likewise they would have confidence that those fooled into purchasing snake oil would eventually realize they were scammed and also buy into their truth.  Unfortunately reality keeps letting them down, hence the bitterness and anger.  Their fight isn't really with the other side - it's with reality not conforming to their truth.  They will never be at peace with the other side until reality submits to their will. 

[plissken]

4 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

They are happy to defend and evangelize their worldview but don't feel no need to bludgeon others into believing the way they do.  The desire to bludgeon others tends to come from the folks who don't have confidence that they have the truth on their side.

 

I have confidence to give an owner of a audio company $1000 in a blind test where they could come away with $9,000. I understand what you are getting and I've always put money where my mouth is. 

[thyname]

Oh boy... the Force (read: ASR lieutenants) is very strong in this one.

[The Computer Audiophile]

25 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

Three pages on civility without @Samuel T Cogley weighing in? S’up with that?

Or @crenca!

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

Those on the objectivist side behave as people who don't appear to behave as though they have confidence that their truth will ultimately prevail.  They are angry and bitter and take every opportunity to demean the other side. They have a diminished awareness of the dissonance between their expectations and reality as they completely discount the massive amount anecdotal evidence that challenges their truth.  If they were confident in their truth, they would feel no need to bash manufacturers because sales of snake oil should soon put those manufacturers out of business.  And likewise they would have confidence that those fooled into purchasing snake oil would eventually realize they were scammed and also buy into their truth.  Unfortunately reality keeps letting them down, hence the bitterness and anger.  Their fight isn't really with the other side - it's with reality not conforming to their truth.  They will never be at peace with the other side until reality submits to their will. 

 

This is why there are constant fights, this attitude of us vs. them. They are all evil, angry and bitter. We are all good and fun-loving people. They attack us, we are just here to enjoy ourselves. The more folks keep pushing this narrative about the other side, the more dysfunctional this place will become. It's not because of objectivist vs. subjectivist divide, or science vs. religion. The cause are those who can't tolerate opposing views, those who see a difference of opinion as a personal affront.

[firedog]

11 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

It's been my impression those who believe the facts support their worldview have an underlying confidence that their side will prevail.  They are happy to defend and evangelize their worldview but don't feel no need to bludgeon others into believing the way they do.  The desire to bludgeon others tends to come from the folks who don't have confidence that they have the truth on their side.  They may behave as if they have it all figured out and are in the right, but their actions, attitude and discontent repeatedly betray them.  They don't behave like they are happy or at peace.

 

I was speaking about religion but I think this applies to audio too.  It seems that those who rely on subjective impressions believe they have the truth on their side and that their side will prevail once we figure out the ways to measure what we've been hearing.  Their actions, attitudes and behaviors repeatedly demonstrate that they are having a good time and are greatly enjoying this hobby.

 

Those on the objectivist side behave as people who don't appear to behave as though they have confidence that their truth will ultimately prevail.  They are angry and bitter and take every opportunity to demean the other side. They have a diminished awareness of the dissonance between their expectations and reality as they completely discount the massive amount anecdotal evidence that challenges their truth.  If they were confident in their truth, they would feel no need to bash manufacturers because sales of snake oil should soon put those manufacturers out of business.  And likewise they would have confidence that those fooled into purchasing snake oil would eventually realize they were scammed and also buy into their truth.  Unfortunately reality keeps letting them down, hence the bitterness and anger.  Their fight isn't really with the other side - it's with reality not conforming to their truth.  They will never be at peace with the other side until reality submits to their will. 

Sorry, your post is just a bunch of baseless stereotypes. Plenty of objectivists enjoy their music and their systems. Reality? You mean the false reality people fool themselves with?

 

Btw, I can make up stereotpes too: "Objectivists are able to calmly enjoy their systems that cost them less than what subjectivists spend, and objectivists don't suffer from all the audiophillia nervosa that subjectivists do. Those poor subjectivists, always looking to spend their money on the next tweak that will 'totally transform' the sound of their system".

 

Do I actually believe that? No, but it's about as close to the truth as the string of stereotypes that you wrote is. 

 

And what you think is conclusive, a "massive amount of anectdotal evidence" is something they understand to not really be evidence at all. And why would they have confidence that their truth will come out? Based on what? The massive amounts of people who won't even consider the idea that their perceptions are clouded by expectation bias? The same way the climate change deniers, Kennedy assassination conspiracy buffs, Holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and anti-vaxxers have all come to their senses when confronted by facts? But according to your approach, we should all just accept all those ideas because then we will accept the  "reality" that doesn't conform to "our" truth.

[kennyb123]

5 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

This is why there are constant fights, this attitude of us vs. them. They are all evil, angry and bitter. We are all good and fun-loving people. They attack us, we are just here to enjoy ourselves. The more folks keep pushing this narrative about the other side, the more dysfunctional this place will become. It's not because of objectivist vs. subjectivist divide, or science vs. religion. The cause are those who can't tolerate opposing views, those who see a difference of opinion as a personal affront.

 

There are plenty of opposing view expressed amongst the subjectivist side.  In fact, we welcome such views.  For example, some might argue a particular component sounds better with power supply A while another prefers power supply B - or one might prefer running AudioLinux while another prefers Euphony.  There's a recognition amongst this group that we each hear things differently and we each have different listening preferences.  There's no anger or bitterness.  These folks are just having fun...

 

... at least until the schoolyard bullies show up to try to spoil the fun by mocking us and demeaning us and repeated telling us that we can't be hearing what we're hearing - or that we are just pissing our money away. 

 

There's a civility gap - and until that can be acknowledged by the side behaving in uncivil manner, things will never get better.

 

[pkane2001]

Just now, kennyb123 said:

 

There are plenty of opposing view expressed amongst the subjectivist side.  In fact, we welcome such views.  For example, some might argue a particular component sounds better with power supply A while another prefers power supply B - or one might prefer running AudioLinux while another prefers Euphony.  There's a recognition amongst this group that we each hear things differently and we each have different listening preferences.  There's no anger or bitterness.  These folks are just having fun...

 

... at least until the schoolyard bullies show up to try to spoil the fun by mocking us and demeaning us and repeated telling us that we can't be hearing what we're hearing - or that we are just pissing our money away. 

 

There's a civility gap - and until that can be acknowledged by the side behaving in uncivil manner, things will never get better.

 

Until you recognize to what degree this gap exists for both sides, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

[kennyb123]

6 minutes ago, firedog said:

Sorry, your post is just a bunch of baseless stereotypes. Plenty of objectivists enjoy their music and their systems. Reality? You mean the false reality people fool themselves with?

 

 

That is absolutely fair criticism.  I didn't mean all objectivists.  I should have said that there are "some on the objectivist side here".  I actually don't even consider the "some" to be objectivists.  

 

I intentionally used a generalization here.  Really there's just a few bad apples here that have been behaving like schoolyard bullies.   I have no idea how best to refer to this group.