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

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

It seems like a lot of people are misunderstanding the article. Perhaps the OP should have expressed himself better.

There is always room for that, but I wouldn't doubt some are purposely misunderstanding him and others have zero interest in understanding him. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Chris, I never made it past this little nugget (from the OP):

 

Thanks for the admission. I always find it useful to continue reading an editorial, even when I find something reprehensible, especially if the time expenditure is little. No worries though. I can see how one would be turned off by the mention of religion. I'd prefer the word God be removed from US currency, but that's a "real" issue and it is used just to show my position on religion. I still enjoy reading opposing views and have even had a great conversation with the OP about religion at RMAF over breakfast one year.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Couldn't one easily reach the conclusion that the OP, while perhaps forming a cogent complaint about incivility, doesn't seem to have the slightest idea what this eternal conflict is really all about?

 

Is the solution simply for those of us who point to the irrationality to STFU?  That seems to be what all the people who are upvoting the OP want.

 

Given our incredibly wide variety of backgrounds, cultures, languages, etc... someone could, and likely has, reached that conclusion. I disagree, but that's OK. 

 

The solution isn't just to STFU, it's to be respectful. If someone believes Santa Claus dropped off a 10% distortion amp and that it's the highest fidelity available today, let them live with their belief. It isn't OK to follow a Muslim around and constantly tell them Muhammad isn't real every time they enter a masque. I say the same isn't OK to follow audiophiles around and say they are delusional ever time they say they are enjoying a new component you don't believe in. 

 

There's a time and place for everything.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Since you bring up Schiit, Jason Stoddard (co founder/owner) disagrees with you.  He said this just yesterday:

 

"...Someone once wrote that we should decouple ourselves from "the big crazy," which I believe is a great phrase for all the magical-thinking stuff. The problem is that "the big crazy" has been extremely influential in the business (a reviewer actually used Vidar with $20,000 cables--not kidding). But perhaps it is time to start the decoupling. Because I'm really really tired of having to hold my tongue when I'm shown yet another fuse that costs more than a Magni, ethernet cables that cost more than an Yggdrasil, or magic box that connects to nothing but somehow is supposed to improve the sound....Sorry to continue the derail, but this is an excellent point: the big crazy is holding audio back.  As soon as you start talking about cables/power supplies/stones/quantum resonance machines (or, for that matter, $20K preamps, $50K amps, and $500K speakers), sane people check out. You're crazy. And they're gone...."

 

https://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/magni-3-and-magni-3-heresy-released.8604/page-7#post-282025

 

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

 

Yet the OP and to a certain extent yourself believe that "the big crazy" is "innocuous" (to use the OP's description) and not only that, the "the big crazy" is the very ground of audio (and its civil discussion) itself.  

I like Jason but disagree with him. 

 

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 think this is the easy scapegoat for people. Only those of us who are deep into HiFi know about magic stones and the like.

 

With respect to price, I don't decide to stop driving because Rolls Royce released the $13,000,000 Sweptail. If I want a car, I find one I can afford. If someone decides to stop driving, I think they have larger issues that auto manufacturers best not try to solve with lower prices. As a rational person, I look at the Sweptail and think it's a feat of engineering and luxury that I wish I could afford, then I head to the Subaru dealer and get a car loan for the Impreza I can afford. 

 

I'm all about choice. Right now we have options from an Apple dongle to a full digital stack at over $100,000. What a time we are living in. 

 

Please stop telling me what I believe. It's getting old. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

So, this forum is not the place to disabuse someone of the belief that Santa Claus actually exists?

Shhhh. It's December 11.

 

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

That isn't the issue.  The real issue is false equivalence - that science is somehow another type of religion.

 

It isn't.

I didn't get that from reading the OP's article. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

What a crazy thing to do. There's ample evidence that Muhammad was a very real person.

Yes, I should've used a better example. My lack of belief and knowledge in religion is showing. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I like how you put all this.  I admit I wish the "live and let live" subjectivism you propose here was a truly neutral ground upon which the "comradery" of audio could be based on.  Even if you don't agree with all the reasons I and others state why it is not, surely the day to day evidence and the existence of the objective/subjective divide makes you question your faith (to use a word  ) in it??  

 

 

I don't believe you wish to live in a live and let live anything It wouldn't enable you to be yourself it seems. Why would anyone want to piss in the punch bowl? I ask because you do it quite a bit.

 

I don't agree with your reasoning on much because it's wild subjective speculation, and I think it's wrong. 

 

I don't question anything like you mention in your last sentence. I question why I enable people to take part in this site for pure sport  and to argue about everything. It isn't fun for anyone except the person who thinks this is a game. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

However, crazy statements - especially if impossible under well-understood physical laws - require great civility and must be accorded absolute respect.

It seems like you guys think your saving the Earth from the next great plague. I'm all for calling out anti-vaxxers because people are literally dying. HiFi is entertainment. There hasn't been a death yet.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

To circle back to Samuel's suggestion, consumerism is not neutral and/or an expression of radical choice.  The big crazy has real consequences and is not a mere "scapegoat".  It effects the "how" - how people inform themselves and how "the industry" informs the consumer.  It also affects the "what" - the information that's available, what products are made available, if they can compeat, etc.  Magic stones exist because of a generalized "big crazy" which effects everything.  It's basic culture, economics/markets, and psychology.  Consumerism is always tied to a culture and an industry and its culture.

 

 

 

Theory is great. Please give us examples of how HiFi has cause objective information to be unavailable to the consumer and taken choice away from the consumer. If anything, I believe the opposite. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

 

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

you have erected the wrong strawman

 

No. What's the risk in letting people enjoy whatever HiFi they wish?

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I can tell you that when I read a statement from the head of Audioquest stating something like, "some of our users report that an interconnect cable replacement (with an Audioquest product of course) outperformed a source unit replacement", and then I saw many of the AQ devotees enthusiastically agreeing with that nonsense that I realized there is really such thing as "the big crazy".

 

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

 

And of course that experience has made me rather suspicious of anyone praising AQ products.

 

I don't believe that's Jason's argument. You elected to not purchase from a single manufacturer. We all do this in every industry. But, you didn't see the AQ quote and decide you no longer need music in your life. You moved on to a brand you deemed trustworthy. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

With due respect Chris, and I understand it's your prerogative, but you're trolling here.

I understand you might think this. No worries. 

 

However, I'm not. The intensity with which some people rail against HiFi, and the demands for products to be pulled form the market as if they were Thalidomide, is no different from those trying to stop global warming. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Iving said:

OT interest?

https://www.dannybrown.me/2014/01/07/social-media-bullying-and-the-growing-lynch-mob-mentality/

 

Yes, very interesting. 

 

In my opinion some objectivists can be similar to the #HashTagHeros of cancel culture. If a product is made that they don't agree with it must be removed from the market and nobody should ever purchase from the manufacturer again. This, despite many people enjoying the product(s). Perhaps this is even worse than the mainstream cancel culture because there people actually cause harm with their actions in the first place. The lady's tweet about Africa and AIDS is harmful. Listening to HiFi isn't. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Easy  - the thread that @austinpopruns here (forget the name).  The signal (true objective information) to noise (endless subjective testimony) ratio is so bad it's hard to parody.  From the opposite end, how many folks have been swayed by Amir's radical objectivism and believe that distortion measurements are the end all and be all of sound, and that after a certain point "every amp sounds the same".

 

How is the consumer supposed to weed through all subjectivist prattle in the trade publications and find the truth of MQA, digital audio, analogue audio, or anything else.  

 

Information is not "out there" in a context-less void - it's always found amongst and in a culture, which is a human reality.  I find it ironic that the very comradery that the OP and yourself are concerned about is not supported but undermined by subjectivism

 

So, you managed to "weed through all subjectivist prattle" but the mere HiFi peasants have no chance?

 

You examples weren't examples of anything ask for. 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

But are any of those things actually happening in this thread?  Aren't you stirring the pot unnecessarily?  And why in the world would you throw in "global warming" if not to stir the pot?

 

This topic and thread is about the larger picture. I also don't believe global warming should stir any pot. We're all adults and can look at the earth's temperature graph over time and see it happening. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes 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) is also involved - we want real "HiFi" and not the "High End" house of mirrors.

You may not believe it, but many grown adults are equally as astute as you and can decide for themselves what to purchase and what causes them to enjoy HiFi more. You likely have more "real" HiFi options in the world than magic stones. Your fear of losing real HiFi is unwarranted.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

It sure looks to me like a patronizing take on those who want to reverse the Earth's warming.

Bummer, I meant it in so such way. It was to illustrate intensity. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I have a headache from this thread. I’m taking a break to listen to music. 

[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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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 :~)

[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?

[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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, STC said:

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. 

Ideally yes, but in practice it isn't working how I'd like. I'm currently working on some remedies. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

30 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Then why are they posting on the internet?

The term "anyone else" refers to those who prefer to thread crap, demand ABX testing, question their sanity, and try to save them from themselves.  

 

There's a time a place for everything.