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

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

The worst? You get the entire high end snake oil industry.  Not all high end is snake oil, but these days the overwhelming majority of it is.  It is in the millions of dollars of fraudulent product.  Maybe it is like non-prescription boner supplements.  I don't see it as a good thing.  I mean maybe the people buying that are convincing themselves and having the best kind of fun.  So does it sound like praise or a compliment or a good goal to say much of the subjectivist based audio industry is just as good as Enzyte?

 

We have Enzyte Bob, and we have MQA Bob.  Maybe they are about equal.

I think your scenario is extremely far fetched. 
 

I also see no objective data that an “overwhelming majority” of the industry is snake oil. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

@The Computer Audiophile

 

Any chance we might be able to have a guest editorial from the opposite point of view?

 

Absolutely 100%. 

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

What Big Crazy?  Nothing to see here, move along move along...

 

You know Chris, I halfway expect you to soon start arguing that the labels are good corporate citizens, well run, and have the best interests of the artists and consumers at heart...

How convenient. I ask for objective data and you shoot the messenger. What's next, pour water on the guy who pulled the fire alarm?

[The Computer Audiophile]

18 minutes ago, crenca said:

I believe you, no doubt you have been made uncomfortable (i.e. "attacked") by the presences of not just "objectivism", but at times even "radical objectivism" that is the functional equivalent of the unwanted evangelist at your door.  Well cry me a river. 

 

Welcome to "The Big Crazy".

 

You could seek out a mono-culture hobby - one that does not have uncomfortable disagreements and thus evangelism? Anyone know of such a hobby?

Seriously, if you dislike it here so much, dislike 99% of the people here, dislike the hobby many people love, then it's time to move on. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

What are you even talking about - is not part of your and the OP's complaint that objectivist revel in, even make a "religion" out of disagreeing with subjectivists?  

 

Here is another cliche of the subjective/objective divide in the background of this conversation:

 

Subjectivist get along and "like" their fellow audiophiles, where as objectivists are grumpy misanthropes who just can't get along...

If you're here just for the sport of arguing or making this the front line in your war on HiFi, it's time to move on. If you're here to increase your enjoyment of HiFi and music listening, then please stay, but start to act like this is why you're here. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

32 minutes ago, crenca said:

Seriously, it just this sort of absurdity the divide leads to if either side demands capitulation and conversion from the other....wait, is that not exactly what the OP and yourself are saying is bad!

You've created the absurdity in your head. I never said anything like it.

 

If capitulation means being civil and treating people well, then capitulate.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2+2 always = 4. I don’t believe people must get out the paper and pencil in order to talk about it with others. Just my thoughts on this one. 
 

I wish some of the objectivists talked more about their listening experiences but everyone has their specialty and I’m reluctantly OK with it. 
 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

who here doesn’t even own an audio system, or doesn’t even listen to music ???

Don’t ask this question in a hipster vinyl forum. Most vinyl purchasers don’t own a turn table. 

 

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

At this point is it fair to say that the original article failed to bring about a change in behavior?  Haven’t we seem enough evidence that suggests these individuals feel their behavior is justified?  I’m not trying to stir up the dust with these questions as I think we’ve done enough talking about the problem.  I’m just thinking it be time to shift the discussion to possible solutions. 
 

The ideal solution would have been for certain individuals to agree to moderate their own behavior. But as they are either unwilling or unable to do this, might there be a solution that doesn’t have to burden others with the task of moderation?  Or do we do nothing and just allow things to continue as is?

 

I have several friends who could make wonderful contributions here that would help us all better enjoy listening to the music we love, but they either avoid posting here or do it sparingly because they have the exact same complaints that were raised in the article.  As such I hope we can find an agreeable solution.

I’m working on solutions to improve things for everyone, but perhaps a different “solutions” thread should be started, where people can offer only solutions. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, thyname said:

I am so sorry, but your reply to me does not make sense.

 

Are you stating that current owners of a piece of equipment don’t need to share their experience with what they own simply because their experience with said gear may not be repeatable by others?

 

Further, are you saying the only opinion that counts is that of His Majesty, “who do own and know how to operate that equipment to supply the testing data”?

 

With outmost respects, this is by far the most ridiculous statement I have ever read. Utterly nonsense 

 

 

I think you may have misunderstood what @tmtomh’s point was. Hopefully he can follow up. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, thyname said:

This reminds me of my friend who was enjoying his Border Patrol DAC for months. He kept telling me this is the best DAC he had ever owned. Until Stereophile posted those measurements, at which point my friend decided he did not like the DAC anymore, and sold it

That’s a personal problem unaddressable by anything anyone can do here. I’m not making light of it, just stating what I believe to be fact. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

I don't feel strongly about your use of "His Majesty" in this context.

 

But my level of feeling about you using that term has zero relevance to the question of whether or not your repeated use of that term is sarcastic and dismissive of the person you're referring to - and by extension to the measurements he does. The answer to that question is Yes, it is sarcastic and dismissive.

 

Why is that important? Only because your entire argument in this thread is that many objectivists are sarcastic and dismissive and you find that unacceptable. So I think it is hypocritical of you to make that argument given how you refer to "His Majesty."

 

I don't have to be emotionally invested in, or upset by, your use of that term in order to believe that doing so makes your argument hypocritical and therefore quite weak.

 

I don't know how you do it, but your tone and delivery of logical information is terrific. Thanks for your participation on AS over the last six years. We don't always agree, but that's the fun part because of how you communicate. 

 

If more people were like you, I'd sleep very well at night. 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, mansr said:

Building on this example, consider the following (IMO realistic) scenario. Person A starts a thread explaining that he currently uses amp X, is looking to replace it, possibly with amp Y, and would like some input from others. Person B, who does not own amp Y, points out that when person C measured it, the results were rather poor, making it unlikely to be an improvement over amp X. Here person S shows up and accuses person B of being rude because there are people who in fact like amp Y. Person S then starts ranting about linear power supplies and USB drives, lashing out at anyone who tries to get the discussion back on track.

 

Tell me, who is the one causing problems here?

 

This is an easy one. Sandy is in the wrong. Did I just say that? Yes, I did because there is no need to beat around the bush. People on the ends of the HiFi continuum need to realize this is a community that only succeeds when we are respectful and civil. People seeking a war on subjectivists or objectivists or HiFi in general need to start their own community for such endeavors. I welcome, encourage, and thank everyone else for contributing here and increasing the collective enjoyment in our wonderful hobby 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, mourip said:

 

You have perfectly described what we often jokingly call "Audiophilia". It is a pathological form of insecurity where one feels that they cannot trust their own perception. Being happy is not enough. We need the approval of others. Instead of trusting our own ears we scour forums looking for a consensus that can never happen.

 

The only cure is to listen to more music and stop reading forums.

 

The very fact that I am replying here means that I am not there yet 🙂

 

Agree 100%, but not the part about stop reading forums :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

@crenca

 

The Big Crazy (TM)

 

There, you can’t use it anymore. Have a good weekend 😁

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

I purposefully stepped away from the thread. In that interim something was nagging me. 

 

It was the title and the point that it remains fundamentally unanswered:

 

Why did audio stop being about audio?

 

When products are championed in the market place that are proven empirically to have no possible impact on audio.

 

 

I'd say this began soon after the first phonograph was invented for home use. There just wasn't an online forum for people to complain back then.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

I also worry about the argument that sonic differences are attributable to the as-yet unknown parameters that we don't measure. If you are going to put forth that argument, the burden is on you propose some type of factor or aspect that would need to be measured, which currently isn't.

But this also rises the issue of a lack of skills, interest, time, etc... on the part of the person making the argument. He may have no clue what to even propose. I'd say this is 99.9999% of people making the claim (including myself).

 

I certainly hear what you're saying, but the burden shift is never going to lead anywhere. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

I've no doubt many a bar fight around the sound a player piano makes over the type of paper the punch hole reel was made out of.

I almost spit out my tea laughing. Good one. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, plissken said:

em·pir·i·cal

/əmˈpirik(ə)l/

Learn to pronounce

adjective

adjective: empirical

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Ah, like Empirical Audio 😁

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, bluesman said:

 

    

Ha! What a great band by the way!