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

[Middy]

6 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

let me get this straight - the F word is not allowed, but this is?

 

Hi Ralf i hope this was taken in its context.. that even published figures or outlandish claims of synergistic research, I cling to people like your good self to interpret what I don't understand. 

Published results can be as much BS as nano quantum tunneling marketing babble.

But i cant lock Amir in my basement as my personal measurements gimp if I fancy spending money. I can't verify facts that are verifiable and i am back to try before you buy if i am lucky.

 

Piggy in the middle and people who try to help on both sides are attacked regardless as not qualified enough... Golden Ears or letters after thier name.

 

But i very much appreciate your help regardless..😁

 

All this at best... hopefully Shepparding me in the right direction with the tag line caveat emptor...

 

 

 

[crenca]

8 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

 

You just reminded me of a scene in a movie I saw again the other night, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo".  Near the end the villain (played by Stellan Skarsgård) says to the investigator, (played by Daniel Craig) something like "you people never trust your gut - you sensed danger and yet you followed me into my home anyway - so strong is your desire to not offend that you followed me in here even though your gut was telling you not to".  Great movie, by the way.

 

And how's this relevant?  There was a time when I would enter into discussions even when my gut warned that I was being bated into a trap.  So strong was my desire to treat others as I'd want to be treated myself, I would just ignore what my gut was telling me and go ahead and try to have a substantive discuss with that other person.  And, as expected those discussions never turned out to be substantive - and I often found myself losing my cool.  (I'm guessing those of you on the subjective side of this debate know exactly what I mean.)

 

I see now that equipping myself to better recognize when manipulation techniques are being employed is starting to help me avoid being bated into traps.  Consistently misrepresentnig what others say is often an attempt to deflect and provoking a negative reaction.  I believe it might even be aimed at "winning" the debate by getting others to walk away in anger.  My gut has been telling me to avoid responding to a certain individual here who keeps misrepresenting what I've written, and for once I'm thankful that I've been able to listen to my gut. Unlike Daniel Craig's character, I have no intention of following him into his house.

 

 

I sincerely upvoted this post because I agree with you, that there is indeed a "trap" in this discussion.  What is beyond the rhetorical, the back and forth comment box wrestling, and the criminalizations?  Whatever it is, it is NOT the "ethical" trap inherent in the subjective/objective divide.  The temptation is to commit to being either a subjectivist or an objectivist, in a "religious" way just as the OP put it, and then work from there.  It is not just in theory that such thinking leads to a trap - these sorts of "civility" threads where both sides accuse the other as not being ethical, denying the golden rule (i.e. treating others as one one would oneself), and the like are the real evidence of the failure of us to get out of the trap.  

 

The OP suggests a religious conversion:  All objectivists agree that the only way audio can be about audio is for them to ascent to subjective understanding of audio, art, and ethics.  Is not subjectivism "innocuous" after all (he says)?  Is not objectivism stubbornly "religious" (he says)?  The OP does not escape the trap.

 

What's beyond the trap of (largely unconsciously) of committing to either objectivism or subjectivism and then accusing the other side of ill will?  My personal take is to look at audio in terms of consumerism and desire, manipulated by ourselves and "the industry".  I would welcome other takes however.  

 

That said, even in a discussion that transcends the trap, the divide will always be in the background since it is rooted in a deep divide of our western culture...

 

The Daniel Craig move is the third take on this book, the re-re-make no?  I say the (Swedish I think) origninal subtitled in English years ago and thought it quite good.

 

 

[Rt66indierock]

6 hours ago, Middy said:

 

Hi Ralf i hope this was taken in its context.. that even published figures or outlandish claims of synergistic research, I cling to people like your good self to interpret what I don't understand. 

Published results can be as much BS as nano quantum tunneling marketing babble.

But i cant lock Amir in my basement as my personal measurements gimp if I fancy spending money. I can't verify facts that are verifiable and i am back to try before you buy if i am lucky.

 

Piggy in the middle and people who try to help on both sides are attacked regardless as not qualified enough... Golden Ears or letters after thier name.

 

But i very much appreciate your help regardless..😁

 

All this at best... hopefully Shepparding me in the right direction with the tag line caveat emptor...

 

 

 

 

Amir can be bought. Fairly cheaply actually if you read his site regularly. 

 

I view your problem as a social one. You don't have access to the right measuring equipment. Audio Precision and Rohde and Schwarz sell a lot of measuring equipment. It is your job to find a person who will occasionally test something for you. I always pay them back with meals, wine, tickets etc. 

 

 

[Ralf11]

to get back to the topic:

 

Audio stopped being about audio because some people realized they could sell worthless junk to others if they dressed it up as "hi-tech" or encased it in Bubinga wood

[tapatrick]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

 

I sincerely upvoted this post because I agree with you, that there is indeed a "trap" in this discussion.  What is beyond the rhetorical, the back and forth comment box wrestling, and the criminalizations?  Whatever it is, it is NOT the "ethical" trap inherent in the subjective/objective divide.  The temptation is to commit to being either a subjectivist or an objectivist, in a "religious" way just as the OP put it, and then work from there.  It is not just in theory that such thinking leads to a trap - these sorts of "civility" threads where both sides accuse the other as not being ethical, denying the golden rule (i.e. treating others as one one would oneself), and the like are the real evidence of the failure of us to get out of the trap.  

 

The OP suggests a religious conversion:  All objectivists agree that the only way audio can be about audio is for them to ascent to subjective understanding of audio, art, and ethics.  Is not subjectivism "innocuous" after all (he says)?  Is not objectivism stubbornly "religious" (he says)?  The OP does not escape the trap.

 

What's beyond the trap of (largely unconsciously) of committing to either objectivism or subjectivism and then accusing the other side of ill will?  My personal take is to look at audio in terms of consumerism and desire, manipulated by ourselves and "the industry".  I would welcome other takes however.  

 

That said, even in a discussion that transcends the trap, the divide will always be in the background since it is rooted in a deep divide of our western culture...

 

The Daniel Craig move is the third take on this book, the re-re-make no?  I say the (Swedish I think) origninal subtitled in English years ago and thought it quite good.

 

 

Cool post 👍

[Don Hills]

18 hours ago, Middy said:

...

Whats more the Ebay seller described to a Tee the exact changes before it arrived...

...

 

Do you understand the problem with such foreknowledge?

[Middy]

Yes of course but its reading this from many other 3rd party descriptions. 

Oh.. Increasing expectation and positive bias 🤔...

yes but its the best i can do to avoid the  payed advert shill factor as some put it..others  personal experience..

 

but.... then i am just in the mass delusion crowd feeding of each other giving credence to the product.... Cos its just a fuse...

As any one who knows ohms law knows its a con, 30 miles of 40,000v cabling...

and i know there is a lot of money made from the unsuspecting... 

 

Don

You can see the merry go round you can be trapped in with no way off. 

Better or worse there has been a change for me. My hearing hasn't changed, things are there that werent, different from subtle changes forgotten in moments.

Like a baby suddenly crying in a crowd, different from concentrating on one conversation in a noisy room .... i can list what has changed with all my gear from nothing to quite substantial. .

I use a fuse as a personal example and many here in some degree feel aggrieved for one thing or another.. that next best thing... i have personally.

 

Interesting Schitt doing the taste test on discreet v off the shelf, proving a point and to a degree with measurements don't matter if.. implementation or human preference. That can be rigged though..

 

Thanks for making me think Don if that was the implication of "foreknowledge".. All true but again i am caught in making the most informed choice i can, risking my money and having a listen.

60% objective reasoning 40% subjective listening, the fuse was against this rough principle of mine..

Sorry its a thread not a book club i am rambling...

Even if money wasn't a factor the same applies i suppose.  

I did ask to have something tested in work but no joy.

I am only posting as an example of the middle ground and find very little to argue with. I  am not even an expert at finding my ass with both hands..

 

Op statement: i dont think anything changed, its the reproduction of sound, we are just more cognizant of what it takes to get there and all that it implies...

 

Cheers my friend

 

Dave

 

[Don Hills]

By "foreknowledge", I meant that you already knew what changes to expect from changing the fuse. And you heard the changes, even if the fuse change had not actually occured. (As if you had delegated the fuse change to another person, but they did not actually change the fuse while telling you they had.)  It's a human trait often exploited by con-men / snake oil salespeople. I suspect you've fallen for it yourself more than once, I know I have...

 

I don't say that you shouldn't do things like buying the fuse, though. So long as you get your money's worth in increased enjoyment of the music, does it really matter if it actually changed the sound?

[tapatrick]

14 hours ago, crenca said:

What's beyond the trap of (largely unconsciously) of committing to either objectivism or subjectivism and then accusing the other side of ill will?  My personal take is to look at audio in terms of consumerism and desire, manipulated by ourselves and "the industry".  I would welcome other takes however. 

Thanks for a thought provoking post and a genuine offer for reflection on this complex and troubling issue.

 

I see that this issue is made from a constellation of factors, arranged in a hierarchy of value, many of them expressed and scattered throughout these threads. You have mentioned a key one - 'consumerism and desire' for sure drives all of us as that is how society is structured and where we find our place.

 

I suggest that 'identity' is one of the primary motivations and needs serious scrutiny. Labelling oneself or being labelled, being told what one can or can't do hear or say elicits strong tribal responses but only when the walls have been accepted or forced up on us. Why not hold the categories of identity lightly and see what is around the corners of our projected self. Personally I refuse to be labeled and I find this makes for a more interesting and enjoyable journey. Cheers..

[crenca]

9 hours ago, tapatrick said:

 

I suggest that 'identity' is one of the primary motivations and needs serious scrutiny. Labelling oneself or being labelled, being told what one can or can't do hear or say elicits strong tribal responses but only when the walls have been accepted or forced up on us. Why not hold the categories of identity lightly and see what is around the corners of our projected self. Personally I refuse to be labeled and I find this makes for a more interesting and enjoyable journey. Cheers..

 

I would be interested tapatrick how you think 'identity' escapes the trap.  Normally (and certainly in our modern 21st century context), 'identity' falls squarely under subjectivism - who "I" am is my own:   I am my own subject, my own will, my own value and authenticity and meaning, and in the case of audio my own ears and evaluation.  

 

I suppose there is an objective 'identity' that would emphasize all the ways you are not your own:   You are a human organism born from a long and very specific evolutionary path, on this particular third rock from the sun.  You are small and limited, living a short and insignificant life that is largely determined by the conditions of your existence.  Your will and self-determination is almost nothing as what it does influence and control does not add up to much.  In audio, the mechanism of your hearing is already determined and limited (i.e. 20hz-20khz, brain perceptually limited, etc. etc.), and while you can try to refuse this "labeling" all you want, it is reality and is what it is and to claim to "see around the corner of it" is to indulge in mysticism, delusion, or both.

 

Yes yes indeed, the issue is "a constellation of factors" and when I think of 'identity' I think of what @tmtomhpoints to here:

 

 

What is the difference between a good subjectivism that "sees around the corners" in a helpful way and a bad subjectivism that insists on hearing the "sound" of digital communication (such as ethernet to which the OP refers) and other such very (very very) implausible assertions?

 

 

[Superdad]

Over in the thread titled “Forum Decorum” I just posted and then realized that my short statement aligns more closely with the debate in this thread. So here it is:

 

The main problem I have with the objectivist/measurement/“scientists” here is that many are closed-minded to the likelihood that the current standard suite of noise/distortion/jitter tests are not telling the whole story with regards to the micro-perturbations that circulate in our audio systems and affect the clock thresholds in commonly used silicon.

 

I liken the situation to that period in medical science when we had microscopes and X-rays but not CT scanners or an understanding of the DNA and the genome. Even during that transitional period good medicine was practiced, sometimes based mostly on empirical outcomes and not full understandings of the mechanisms (in fact there still exist drugs that work without complete understanding of why).

 

And what will all the most vocal skeptics here (and in some of the very same people in another popular forum where they are FAR less civil) say when the science advances or when explanations and proof come to the fore? Will they all apologize for being so utterly dismissive and for their years of ridiculing those who have been reporting hearing differences all along?

I am not holding my breath. 

And I guess we are in for more years of being told that our ears and our audio companies are deceiving us. 

[Ralf11]

Normal practice is to issue a correction in a scientific journal.  I've never had to do that tho.

 

BTW, when will you conduct the testing that has been promised for the last few years?

 

( *I'm not saying any or all of your products improve or don't improve SQ - just that sauce for the goose is also nutrition for the gander)

[firedog]

49 minutes ago, Superdad said:

Over in the thread titled “Forum Decorum” I just posted and then realized that my short statement aligns more closely with the debate in this thread. So here it is:

 

The main problem I have with the objectivist/measurement/“scientists” here is that many are closed-minded to the likelihood that the current standard suite of noise/distortion/jitter tests are not telling the whole story with regards to the micro-perturbations that circulate in our audio systems and affect the clock thresholds in commonly used silicon.

 

I liken the situation to that period in medical science when we had microscopes and X-rays but not CT scanners or an understanding of the DNA and the genome. Even during that transitional period good medicine was practiced, sometimes based mostly on empirical outcomes and not full understandings of the mechanisms (in fact there still exist drugs that work without complete understanding of why).

 

And what will all the most vocal skeptics here (and in some of the very same people in another popular forum where they are FAR less civil) say when the science advances or when explanations and proof come to the fore? Will they all apologize for being so utterly dismissive and for their years of ridiculing those who have been reporting hearing differences all along?

I am not holding my breath. 

And I guess we are in for more years of being told that our ears and our audio companies are deceiving us. 

You could be right. 

But since we all know that expectation bias is a real thing, we don't have to "be told" that our ears can deceive us, it's simply a fact that they can - and do. To all of us. And often. It's simply part of the human "design". 

 

With respect, you seem to think that the fact that you have satisfied customers (and I've been one of them) proves your claims for your products - it doesn't. It just means that X number of people under sighted listening conditions liked what they heard. That's fine for them as individual listeners, but means nothing in terms of the actual performance of your product(s). 

 

I understand you believe "conventional" measurements are lacking, but you seem to claim that a product like the EtherRegen lowers jitter, and reduces phase noise. Neither of those are "unknown" aspects of engineering and audio. So certainly you should be able to produce measurements (either self done or done by an outside lab) that shows this to be true. 

In addition, in your  "listening impressions"  thread there are very dramatic descriptions of how the ER has improved the sound of some systems. You certainly seem to accept these descriptions as valid and reflecting the ability of your product to improve SQ: So even if we don't have (as you claim) all the relevant measurements at our disposal, shouldn't at least some of the results of such dramatic descriptions of SQ improvement show up in the known conventional measurements we do have: reduction of  jitter, distortion, or other measurements of "noise", or improved S/N ratio -  from the output of a DAC that is in a system with the ER being used as intended? 

 

It strains credulity to think that such dramatic improvements in SQ wouldn't show up in some form in the measurements currently available to audio science, at least some of the time. Your claims and suppositions would be more credible if you could show that they do. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Superdad said:

(in fact there still exist drugs that work without complete understanding of why).

 

Your statement downplays this big time. Many drugs today and drugs still being worked on and released in the future are this way. I take one that I'd like to get off of. I asked my doctor if he could just measure the level in my blood when I'm on and off the drug and I could compare this will the results of what the drug is supposed to do. He laughed and said it can't be done. 

 

I know this is medicine, not audio, but it's an interesting piece of information for those that believe one can't develop a product without knowing how 100% of the pieces fit into the puzzle. I have an open mind, but not so open my brain falls out. 

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, Superdad said:

And what will all the most vocal skeptics here (and in some of the very same people in another popular forum where they are FAR less civil) say when the science advances or when explanations and proof come to the fore? Will they all apologize for being so utterly dismissive and for their years of ridiculing those who have been reporting hearing differences all along?

I am not holding my breath. 

And I guess we are in for more years of being told that our ears and our audio companies are deceiving us. 

 

You are correct. I've been telling people since 2016 your ears are deceiving them. I have a nice little test for them at T.H.E. Show and it includes how audio companies are deceiving you. Then again you could just play Pet Sounds and All the Young Dudes get to almost the same place.

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, Superdad said:

(in fact there still exist drugs that work without complete understanding of why).

 

This is undoubtedly true but I'd be willing to bet that double blind testing has been performed on them to confirm their efficacy.

 

[crenca]

21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I know this is medicine, not audio, but it's an interesting piece of information for those that believe one can't develop a product without knowing how 100% of the pieces fit into the puzzle. I have an open mind, but not so open my brain falls out.

 

Tylenol (acetaminophen) is one.  It's not an NSAID and its core mechanism is not understood.  

 

Yet, it is not a placebo - it really is efficacious for fever and pain and these effects are measurable.  This is more than a subjective "I feel better when I take this drug".

 

To leverage the unknown in medicine, or any other human endeavor, in an open ended way "anything is possible - buy this product" is something other than engineering and science.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

To leverage the unknown in medicine, or any other human endeavor, in an open ended way "anything is possible - buy this product" is something other than engineering and science.

For the most part yes, but not always. 

[kumakuma]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

For the most part yes, but not always. 

 

We need a "please elaborate" reaction

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

We need a "please elaborate" reaction

I'm always willing to leave openings for advances that current engineers eschew. At some point, all engineering was crazy. 

[Ralf11]

58 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Your statement downplays this big time. Many drugs today and drugs still being worked on and released in the future are this way. I take one that I'd like to get off of. I asked my doctor if he could just measure the level in my blood when I'm on and off the drug and I could compare this will the results of what the drug is supposed to do. He laughed and said it can't be done. 

 

I know this is medicine, not audio, but it's an interesting piece of information for those that believe one can't develop a product without knowing how 100% of the pieces fit into the puzzle. I have an open mind, but not so open my brain falls out. 

 

There are always limitations to a mechanistic view, namely that you think you have it all understood yet there is some other factor affecting the system - often episodically.  This is common in what I call complex systems, e.g. climate science, ecology, and economics (to name one that isn't a science).

 

While "it strains credulity to think that such dramatic improvements in SQ wouldn't show up in some form in the measurements currently available to audio science" there is always some (small) possibility that some aspects of SQ are not captured by the measurements (done, made, presented to consumers or -gasp - possible today).

 

And that is why I am a Subjectivist.  But subjective analysis is not the same as guessing or "Impressionism" - to be at all valid it requires reliable comparisons, where sources of bias are removed by blind testing.

 

 

[firedog]

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

While "it strains credulity to think that such dramatic improvements in SQ wouldn't show up in some form in the measurements currently available to audio science" there is always some (small) possibility that some aspects of SQ are not captured by the measurements (done, made, presented to consumers or -gasp - possible today).

 

But audio manufacturers make claims for their devices about things we do know how to measure - but don't provide the measurements. If, for example, you say your device "reduces the jitter" produced by a DAC, then show that it does. Jitter isn't some aspect of SQ that can't be measured. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

But audio manufacturers make claims for their devices about things we do know how to measure - but don't provide the measurements. If, for example, you say your device "reduces the jitter" produced by a DAC, then show that it does. Jitter isn't some aspect of SQ that can't be measured. 

I'm with you on this. But, many people who also enjoy our wonderful hobby don't care. They use their ears and are 100% OK with this method of evaluation. This is a tough thing for many (not you specifically) to accept. 

[firedog]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm with you on this. But, many people who also enjoy our wonderful hobby don't care. They use their ears and are 100% OK with this method of evaluation. This is a tough thing for many (not you specifically) to accept. 

I understand you weren't specifically referring to me. And I have zero problem with people and their listening experiences. I'm much more interested in the claims of manufacturers. That's what results in claims of "snake oil".

The problem with the original "snake oil" patent medicines wasn't with the experiences of the users (the placebo effect is a real effect), it was with the claims of the makers about the wonderful, unproven, and scientifically unlikely effects of their "snake oil" and it's ability to cure all sorts of ailments. 

[Middy]

A stupid question but one i have never had answered.

If the measurements don't show a meaningful change but the listener can hear/perceive a change.. why not measure the sound output, not the measurement of the device post DAC. 

That is what is being subjectively measured by the listener.  A microphone and speaker dont move, the test track doesn't change.  If he can hear a change it has or hasnt been from the variable.

 

The nasal passage/eustachian tube isnt dry, he isnt fidgeting, mass deluded bias, affected my moon rays.

 

Sorry I tease but the sound is the common denominator, measure that and the human variable can be discounted. Or confirmed ? Not better just a change occured..

 

Then plot of the sound will or not be differen't and much more palatable to the average subjectivist as objective factual change...

 

Human AB.ing doesnt do this..