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

[bluesman]

On 12/9/2019 at 10:48 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

I really wish I would've been around in the days of meet-ups at audio stores to schmooze about all things music and HiFi.

After 761 responses to this well written and very interesting editorial (thanks, Joel !), I still haven't found anything to which I wanted to respond except Chris' initial comment.  I didn't respond on publication because I took that wish as no more than the innocent observation of a young man (OK - a relatively young man......) on "the good old days" that he heard about but sadly missed.  I was fortunate enough to live them to the fullest, and I can confirm that it was a great time for creative, intellectually curious thinkers and all who craved and valued sensory input of any kind.  But after reading hundreds of comments, many of which relate in some way to what Bobflood calls "the meanness of our time", I've thought a lot about what happened to those good old days and why we are where we are.

 

My family valued art, literature and music enough to have an abundance of each in our home.  When I was born in 1946, my father (an early adopter for sure) had a Stromberg Carlson audio system with a huge "Acoustical Labyrinth" speaker system built around a 12" field coil woofer.  We had hundreds of his family's 78s dating to 1920, along with my parents' collection of show tunes, assorted classics, and jazz (featuring my father's favorite performer - Nat King Cole).  He bought a Webcor 181 wire recorder in 1953 when they became available for sale, and his friend Rudy Kuba (who owned the local electronics store and was "the" local service guy) spent a lot of time at our house.  When stereo became available to the consumer (about 1958), we had the first RCA stereophonic system - and I still have "Sounds in Space", the demo record that came with it. So I started hanging around audio people & stores and learning about audio electronics at a very young age, building a 2W amplifier when I was 9 or 10.  I had several friends who shared these interests.  More than a few became amateur radio operators like the principal of our elementary school (whose call letters were K2SOX!) and we hung out together regularly.

 

I went to college in the Boston area in 1964, where I discovered a world of audio greatness that (for me) centered around the AR "sound room" and the KLH shop (both in Cambridge).  My friends and I got to see, hear, and play with the best of the day, which included the KLH 9, the ARx series, Hegeman's CItation 2, Marantz's 7& 8, McIntosh (whose stuff was far from prized by most of the audio press back then but sounded great to me) and a ton of amazingly good stuff from the likes of Eico, Dyna, etc.  We got to talk about it all with the engineers, designers, etc who made it happen. And because I was already a professional musician, I was invited to some great private listening sessions and jams.

 

When I moved to Philly for medical school in 1968, I found a new haunt called Danby Radio, owned and operated by an ex-lawyer who fell in love with audio after returning from WW II.  Dan was one of the first dealers for every major audio product that came along between his opening in about 1950 until he retired and sold the business about 40 years later.  He designed speakers with Fred Martin, and together they installed the first modern sound reinforcement system in the Phila Academy of Music.  I got to hang with his technician and customers (who included most of the known names in Philly music, from the conductor of the Phila Orchestra to the cream of the local band leaders and sidemen).  I made demo tapes of solo instruments for him on the high speed Crown SX724 he found for me, and we did extensive testing and tweaking of a lot of stuff using my instruments and these tapes side by side.

 

When I fell in love with Rogers LS3/5a speakers around the beginning of 1975 and told Dan about them, he got a hold of some and decided he wouldn't sell them because he thought they were "cold" and not well suited to his customers' listening rooms and habits. He also hated inefficient speakers and was offended by the combination of their 15 ohm impedance and limited power handling. So I found & bought a pair elsewhere (which wasn't easy) and still have & love them today.  He asked me to bring them for A-B comparison with his favorites.  I remember spending the better part of a Saturday in his showroom with about a dozen other people while I was still a resident, going back and forth comparing multiple systems to my Rogers using the AR test record, my demo tapes, and a series of very fine vinyl played on a Thorens TD125 / SME.  We tried different electronics using some great pieces, including early Sony SS monoblocks, a Yamaha B2, my Marantz 7 and 8, his Mac 275, my Citation 2, the first Apt Holman preamp (which he loved and brought in for me to try) etc. Everybody had a favorite or two and at least one combo that they hated - but voices were never raised and we were all still friends when we left.

 

Almost everybody (including my wife and my audio dealer) hated the Infinity Reference Standards I grabbed for a song from their original owner when his wife gave him the "it's me or them" ultimatum.  They remained in my home for about a year, as I recall, before I couldn't stand the "size doesn't matter" sarcasm and got rid of them.  My Crown IC150 & DC150 were equally unpleasant to many.  I also had a few guitar amps whose sound displeased my bandmates and leaders. Etc etc etc.

 

Although this could continue for another few thousand words, the narrative has reached the point at which comments in and on this thread fall into context.  Up to the middle '70s, interaction among the serious audiophiles with whom I was hanging was almost entirely well informed and politely collegial, despite some very serious differences of opinion.  Dan was so open to criticism that when I insisted I heard a slight difference in the mids between a pair of speakers he'd designed and built, he tore them open and found a bad cap in the offending crossover even though he didn't hear it.  We brought our own equipment to each others' homes and shops for comparative listening, and we used our own instruments to compare live to reproduced sound.  We learned from each other, and we often ended up trading stuff back and forth.  I even traded my modded Marantz 7c to Dan for the Apt Holman after swapping for what we thought would be a few weeks so we could each experience the other's current favorite (a frequent event).

 

Although there was no internet, there was an active community of audiophiles who expressed themselves in the analog equivalent of the web (club and professional journals).  Groups like the Boston Audio Society had monthly journals in which we wrote up and published our opinions, findings, studies, experiments, observations etc.  Letters to the editors of consumer audio publications were well used outlets for pent up thoughts, opinions, and emotions.  Some were a bit smarmy, and a few threatened to cancel subscriptions - but most were nicely written and interesting, whether or not you agreed with them.

 

When the "audiophile press" came along, reader exchanges with each other and the editorial staffs seemed to become sharper and not infrequently more strained.  This new schism was perpetuated by many condescending comments from audiophiles and their publications about the consumer audio press and its readers.   And as audio equipment became more complex and sophisticated, it did what tech does - it began to outpace the knowledge, skill & experience of many users.  

 

This hotbed of emotion boiled passions on both sides, in a kind of audio global warming.  As it inevitably began to ignite flames among the most volatile and flammable, discourse grew sharper - and the burn redirected attention from civility to reducing the distress.  Dealers like my friend Dan Greenfield have largely disappeared, and there are simply too few places in which we could gather like we did in days of old for face to face discourse, even if we wanted to do so.  I strongly doubt that many AS participants would drag their audio equipment to club meetings and gatherings of friends so we could all experience and play with it.

 

We had serious, knowledgeable people around to keep up honest and educate us when we were wrong (which was often).  The founders and designers of legendary equipment were accessible to us, and they shared their thoughts freely.  The staffs in places like the AR and KLH listening rooms and most high end dealers knew their stuff - no one was trying to say whatever they thought it took to get us to buy anything.  No one brought religion, politics, mental health, metaphysics, philosophy etc to the conversations.  No one insulted you if they didn't sell what you came to buy.  Your opinions were just that, and you had to support them if you wanted to convince others to change theirs.  It was clear to all (OK, to most) that measurements didn't describe everything we heard - so we looked for new things to measure and new ways to measure them.  Does anybody remember slew rate?

 

Getting your hands and ears on stuff became harder and less frequent, and experience shifted from the above world to whatever one could learn from the internet.  People began to express themselves in real time through web posting, which eliminated the fun factor of getting together in each others' homes and shops.  And many audiophiles found themselves left behind in the knowledge race because of all this. We're increasingly isolated from each other, which leaves us with no real time filter through which to express ourselves to each other.  And what Bobflood refers to as the "meanness of our time" crept into our little corner of the world from the otherwise unrelated realm of life in modern times.

 

Life was simpler in the good old days.  Many people seemed to feel better then about themselves and their lives than they do now.  We didn't take everything personally, and we saved our energy for the experiences we were having instead of wasting it on arguments. There was rarely any alcohol or other intoxicant present, and even those few who hated each other for business or philosophical reasons were generally civil about it.  Yes, it's a shame we can't have that world back again.  But maybe we can create a modern version by remembering and embodying at last some of what I describe above. 

 

Yes, Chris - those were great times.  They truly helped make me what I am today, and I'm forever grateful for them.  But the 21st century's also a pretty cool place to be, and I have to believe we can bring back the fun and feeling of those great days.  All it will take is some personal reflection by each of us to decide how much we want them.  I hope reading the above will ignite a better flame or two.

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, bluesman said:

After 761 responses to this well written and very interesting editorial (thanks, Joel !), I still haven't found anything to which I wanted to respond except Chris' initial comment.  I didn't respond on publication because I took that wish as no more than the innocent observation of a young man (OK - a relatively young man......) on "the good old days" that he heard about but sadly missed.  I was fortunate enough to live them to the fullest, and I can confirm that it was a great time for creative, intellectually curious thinkers and all who craved and valued sensory input of any kind.  But after reading hundreds of comments, many of which relate in some way to what Bobflood calls "the meanness of our time", I've thought a lot about what happened to those good old days and why we are where we are.

 

My family valued art, literature and music enough to have an abundance of each in our home.  When I was born in 1946, my father (an early adopter for sure) had a Stromberg Carlson audio system with a huge "Acoustical Labyrinth" speaker system built around a 12" field coil woofer.  We had hundreds of his family's 78s dating to 1920, along with my parents' collection of show tunes, assorted classics, and jazz (featuring my father's favorite performer - Nat King Cole).  He bought a Webcor 181 wire recorder in 1953 when they became available for sale, and his friend Rudy Kuba (who owned the local electronics store and was "the" local service guy) spent a lot of time at our house.  When stereo became available to the consumer (about 1958), we had the first RCA stereophonic system - and I still have "Sounds in Space", the demo record that came with it. So I started hanging around audio people & stores and learning about audio electronics at a very young age, building a 2W amplifier when I was 9 or 10.  I had several friends who shared these interests.  More than a few became amateur radio operators like the principal of our elementary school (whose call letters were K2SOX!) and we hung out together regularly.

 

I went to college in the Boston area in 1964, where I discovered a world of audio greatness that (for me) centered around the AR "sound room" and the KLH shop (both in Cambridge).  My friends and I got to see, hear, and play with the best of the day, which included the KLH 9, the ARx series, Hegeman's CItation 2, Marantz's 7& 8, McIntosh (whose stuff was far from prized by most of the audio press back then but sounded great to me) and a ton of amazingly good stuff from the likes of Eico, Dyna, etc.  We got to talk about it all with the engineers, designers, etc who made it happen. And because I was already a professional musician, I was invited to some great private listening sessions and jams.

 

When I moved to Philly for medical school in 1968, I found a new haunt called Danby Radio, owned and operated by an ex-lawyer who fell in love with audio after returning from WW II.  Dan was one of the first dealers for every major audio product that came along between his opening in about 1950 until he retired and sold the business about 40 years later.  He designed speakers with Fred Martin, and together they installed the first modern sound reinforcement system in the Phila Academy of Music.  I got to hang with his technician and customers (who included most of the known names in Philly music, from the conductor of the Phila Orchestra to the cream of the local band leaders and sidemen.  I made demo tapes of solo instruments for him on the high speed Crown SX724 he found for me, and we did extensive testing and tweaking of a lot of stuff using my instruments and these tapes side by side.

 

When I fell in love with Rogers LS3/5a speakers around the beginning of 1975 and told Dan about them, he got a hold of some and decided he wouldn't sell them because he thought they were "cold" and not well suited to his customers' listening rooms and habits. He also hated inefficient speakers and was offended by the combination of their 15 ohm impedance and limited power handling. So I found & bought a pair elsewhere (which wasn't easy) and still have & love them today.  He asked me to bring them for A-B comparison with his favorites.  I remember spending the better part of a Saturday in his showroom with about a dozen other people while I was still a resident, going back and forth comparing multiple systems to my Rogers using the AR test record, my demo tapes, and a series of very fine vinyl played on a Thorens TD125 / SME.  We tried different electronics using some great pieces, including early Sony SS monoblocks, a Yamaha B2, my Marantz 7 and 8, his Mac 275, my Citation 2, the first Apt Holman preamp (which he loved and brought in for me to try) etc. Everybody had a favorite or two and at least one combo that they hated - but voices were never raised and we were all still friends when we left.

 

Almost everybody (including my wife and my audio dealer) hated the Infinity Reference Standards I grabbed for a song from their original owner when his wife gave him the "it's me or them" ultimatum.  They remained in my home for about a year, as I recall, before I couldn't stand the "size doesn't matter" sarcasm and got rid of them.  My Crown IC150 & DC150 were equally unpleasant to many.  I also had a few guitar amps whose sound displeased my bandmates and leaders. Etc etc etc.

 

Although this could continue for another few thousand words, the narrative has reached the point at which comments in and on this thread fall into context.  Up to the middle '70s, interaction among the serious audiophiles with whom I was hanging was almost entirely well informed and politely collegial, despite some very serious differences of opinion.  Dan was so open to criticism that when I insisted I heard a slight difference in the mids between a pair of speakers he'd designed and built, he tore them open and found a bad cap in the offending crossover even though he didn't hear it.  We brought our own equipment to each others' homes and shops for comparative listening, and we used our own instruments to compare live to reproduced sound.  We learned from each other, and we often ended up trading stuff back and forth.  I even traded my modded Marantz 7c to Dan for the Apt Holman after swapping for what we thought would be a few weeks so we could each experience the other's current favorite (a frequent event).

 

Although there was no internet, there was an active community of audiophiles who expressed themselves in the analog equivalent of the web (club and professional journals).  Groups like the Boston Audio Society had monthly journals in which we wrote up and published our opinions, findings, studies, experiments, observations etc.  Letters to the editors of consumer audio publications were well used outlets for pent up thoughts, opinions, and emotions.  Some were a bit smarmy, and a few threatened to cancel subscriptions - but most were nicely written and interesting, whether or not you agreed with them.

 

When the "audiophile press" came along, reader exchanges with each other and the editorial staffs seemed to become sharper and not infrequently more strained.  This new schism was perpetuated by many condescending comments from audiophiles and their publications about the consumer audio press and its readers.   And as audio equipment became more complex and sophisticated, it did what tech does - it began to outpace the knowledge, skill & experience of many users.  

 

This hotbed of emotion boiled passions on both sides, in a kind of audio global warming.  As it inevitably began to ignite flames among the most volatile and flammable, discourse grew sharper - and the burn redirected attention from civility to reducing the distress.  Dealers like my friend Dan Greenfield have largely disappeared, and there are simply too few places in which we could gather like we did in days of old for face to face discourse, even if we wanted to do so.  I strongly doubt that many AS participants would drag their audio equipment to club meetings and gatherings of friends so we could all experience and play with it.

 

We had serious, knowledgeable people around to keep up honest and educate us when we were wrong (which was often).  The founders and designers of legendary equipment were accessible to us, and they shared their thoughts freely.  The staffs in places like the AR and KLH listening rooms and most high end dealers knew their stuff - no one was trying to say whatever they thought it took to get us to buy anything.  No one brought religion, politics, mental health, metaphysics, philosophy etc to the conversations.  No one insulted you if they didn't sell what you came to buy.  Your opinions were just that, and you had to support them if you wanted to convince others to change theirs.  It was clear to all (OK, to most) that measurements didn't describe everything we heard - so we looked for new things to measure and new ways to measure them.  Does anybody remember slew rate?

 

Getting your hands and ears on stuff became harder and less frequent, and experience shifted from the above world to whatever one could learn from the internet.  People began to express themselves in real time through web posting, which eliminated the fun factor of getting together in each others' homes and shops.  And many audiophiles found themselves left behind in the knowledge race because of all this. We're increasingly isolated from each other, which leaves us with no real time filter through which to express ourselves to each other.  And what Bobflood refers to as the "meanness of our time" crept into our little corner of the world from the otherwise unrelated realm of life in modern times.

 

Life was simpler in the good old days.  Many people seemed to feel better then about themselves and their lives than they do now.  We didn't take everything personally, and we saved our energy for the experiences we were having instead of wasting it on arguments. There was rarely any alcohol or other intoxicant present, and even those few who hated each other for business or philosophical reasons were generally civil about it.  Yes, it's a shame we can't have that world back again.  But maybe we can create a modern version by remembering and embodying at last some of what I describe above. 

 

Yes, Chris - those were great times.  They truly helped make me what I am today, and I'm forever grateful for them.  But the 21st century's also a pretty cool place to be, and I have to believe we can bring back the fun and feeling of those great days.  All it will take is some personal reflection by each of us to decide how much we want them.  I hope reading the above will ignite a better flame or two.

 

Wow, do I feel like a newbie who isn't worthy :~)

 

What a great post @bluesman

[bluesman]

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Wow, do I feel like a newbie who isn't worthy :~)

 

    

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, bluesman said:

 

    

Ha! What a great band by the way!

[Middy]

 

 

@bluesman

 

Thanks for your insight, a lovely trip through your life and thoughts. Really enjoyed reading that ... Merry christmas friend.

 

[tapatrick]

7 hours ago, crenca said:

I would be interested tapatrick how you think 'identity' escapes the trap. 

I’m responding to the specifics of what you wrote to aid understanding of each other:

What's beyond the trap of (largely unconsciously) of committing to either objectivism or subjectivism and then accusing the other side of ill will? 

This kind of conversation.. 

 

My personal take is to look at audio in terms of consumerism and desire, manipulated by ourselves and "the industry”.  
Please expand

 

I would welcome other takes however. 

You are also welcome

 

I would be interested tapatrick how you think 'identity' escapes the trap.  

Identity doesn’t escape the trap, but can be the trap. My understanding is that right relationship to identity/ies can lead to escape. Perspectives give rise to identities, I choose to see  identification as non separate from that which is seen.

For clarity I understand identity as a fluid and ephemeral process depending on deeper motives conditioned by all kind of factors, whether examined or not..

 

Normally (and certainly in our modern 21st century context), 

Okay I’ll take your definition of normally

 

'identity' falls squarely under subjectivism - who "I" am is my own:   

Not if you make subject object

 

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.  

No, if that is assumed then everything else is down stream. But I will agree that my and mine is closer to I than you or anything else.

 

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.), 

I would add that this is also a (profound) materialist perspective, a category with boundaries giving rise to everything that is not included

 

while you can try to refuse this "labeling" all you want, 

I do not refuse this

 

it is reality and is what it is 

It appears to be real and definitely is part of what is

 

and to claim to "see around the corner of it”

This was poetic licence - ‘it’ being self, which in my hierarchy of values is the subject/object most worthy of understanding due to it’s primacy 

 

indulge in mysticism, delusion, or both.

This sounds full of what you know or believe which I don’t fully understand, so for the sake of this conversation will pass

 

Yes yes indeed, the issue is "a constellation of factors” 

Yes and today I would add to this - as a dynamic kaleidoscope of shifting hierarchies

 

and when I think of 'identity' I think of what @tmtomh points to here:

Helps to understand your perspective. @tmtomh’s 1-5 points are helpful, illustrative, and make sense.

 

"But if we throw discernment out the window and make no distinction between the remotely possible, the plausible, and the probable - and in particular if we do so because we refuse to question ourselves by considering things like confirmation bias and poor auditory memory - then we are lost: we have no meaningful way of communicating with each other. “

Beautifully written, navigated and considered - I have selected this para which I take to be the main point he is making.

 

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?

One is good and one is bad by your definition

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

[tapatrick]

2 hours ago, bluesman said:

But maybe we can create a modern version by remembering and embodying at last some of what I describe above. 

Thank you @bluesman

[NOMBEDES]

I think the quality of the recording is more important than all this expensive gear.  Good recording sound good.  They can sound a bit better on a inexpensive system that pleases the consumer.  

 

 

[fas42]

The recording is a test of the system playing it. Not the other way round. "Halfway there", expensive gear does the job well enough to make you aware of every tiny flaw, in everything. But not well enough to allow one to discard the irritating shortcomings, and let the music alone come through ...

[pwhinson]

SO, I'm an occasional visitor to this site and I think I've read enough of this thread to ascertain that this LONG LONG thread is routinely repeated on every similar site/magazine/blog related to audio extant.  And has been for just about as long as I can remember.  We're ALL privileged to have the resources to indulge this hobby in varying degrees.  Be kind to each other and give up on having to be right all the time.  Moving on now.

 

[plissken]

On 12/18/2019 at 3:13 PM, 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. 

 

Except they don't 100% use their ears.

[Fred C]

You've tapped into an interesting sociological evolution withing our country.  It's not about audio, it's about the systematic de-education of our populous.  The absolute-ism to which you're referring comes from the abandonment of 'reason' as a study...the study of study.  Within that study, (Reasoning was once a subject like any other) you learn that we are a pluralist society.  You learn that hypothesis are owned through debate and experiment, not unlike the Talmudic idea that one must argue to one's faith...that faith is not static, but requires questioning. 

 

We live in a time where a large chunk of the population equates being 'wrong' as a direct slight to who they are...a slight to their character.  Nothing could be more ridiculous.  Being wrong, and having the shared experience of learning is what it's all about...It's also an empathy builder. So go forth, have some fun, make some mistakes, and remember that you are not your assertions.  And if you read something that you disagree with, go ahead and engage in debate...but you are not your opinion nor is your counterpart his opinion. if you go into that way, you may not be won over, but you may come to understand why someone sees something the way they do...or god forbid, you might learn something.