Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Article: Why We Need Audiophiles (Read 502555 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1100 –
So, do you think that JA has won many converts here at HA to his way of thinking?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1101 –
Of course you can be honest about a subjective opinion. (Redundant: all opinions are by definition subjective.) "I like X better than Y" is certainly subjective, but how is it in any way dishonest? (Unless I'm lying, obviously.)

It's when trying to present opinion as fact that the question of honesty can enter. "X is better than Y" may be demonstrable scientifically, it may be a statement of opinion, it may be (almost certainly is, I'd wager) an argument a-brewing about those two possibilities. But even then, if I say that, for example, uncompressed WAV files played over cables constructed by Achmed The Mad 1500 years ago and sealed up in the vaults of the Ancient City Of Mu until they were unearthed in a tale far too long and grisly to relate here sound better than VBR Mp3 files, and that I can prove it with manuscripts from the Elders of Mu, I may still be entirely honest. (And mistaken. And probably insane. But not actually lying.)

(Edit to add: I now realize I misread the earlier post, and I more-or-less agree that you need to understand your opinions and their limits to be honest about them. But the Elders of Mu demand that my post remain. So it goes.)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1103 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Stereophile is a very valuable brand and I think it is threatened by the internet much more today than it was during usenet times. There is an explosion of opinion everywhere and even when printed on glossy paper opinion alone won't sell forever. So I think we are going to see a shift towards more objective audio journalism anyway. No matter how loud we bark at him or not. Anechoic chambers and expensive measuring equipment and expertise will become more important to contrast the web crowd.


At this time, it might be interesting for those words to be held up to a comparison between Tone Audio and Stereophile.

http://www.tonepublications.com/

http://www.stereophile.com/

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1104 –
Quote from: DocBeard on
Of course you can be honest about a subjective opinion. (Redundant: all opinions are by definition subjective.) "I like X better than Y" is certainly subjective, but how is it in any way dishonest? (Unless I'm lying, obviously.)

It's when trying to present opinion as fact that the question of honesty can enter. "X is better than Y" may be demonstrable scientifically, it may be a statement of opinion, it may be (almost certainly is, I'd wager) an argument a-brewing
about those two possibilities.


In my thinking, everything we think and say has some irreducable degree of subjectivity. For example, I can read a meter and report the power output of an amplifier at clipping, but the determination of clipping, the reading of the meter, and how to set the experiment up are all somewhat dependent on my opinions.

Where most audiophile opinons go awry is not when people say "I like A better than B"  or when people say "I like A better than B because A is crisper sounding", not even when people say  "I like A better than B because A is crisper sounding because I demagnetized the CD", but when they say "I like A better than B because A is crisper sounding because I demagnetized the CD which changed how the CD sounds to anybody who has a sufficiently good audio system and discerning ears".

Even saying: "I like A better than B because A is crisper sounding because I demagnetized the CD" does not rest on whether or not demagnetizing the CD actually changed it.  Saying that the change to the CD should or will affect a broad class of people in a certain way (the usual way = improvement) presupposes that the CD was not only changed but improved.

Am I the only one who is amazed by all of the claims that so many things that are scientifically either no change or a random change, *always* turn out to be improvements?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1105 –
Quote from: Frumious B on
I don't think anyone is calling for Stereophile to go full on Spock or anything like that.  OK, maybe SOME are calling for full on Spock, but I'm sure as heck not.  However, it's certainly entirely impossible to publish an informative, lively and entertaining magazine that doesn't bullshit its readers and talk up bogus products like LP demagnetizers and such.  The subjective vs. objective argument seems to be one facet that people have latched onto here, but the issue really strikes me as more about honesty vs. dishonesty.  You can be subjective and still be honest.  As far as I'm concerned someone can be as subjective as the day is long if that's what floats their boat.  Just don't try to mask your subjectivity with a bunch of graphs to give an illusion of objectivity and don't lie to me in an effort to sell me crap.  I just want good advice, honest opinions and products that deliver something rather than nothing.  That doesn't sound like a recipe for a magazine/e-zine/blog that nobody would latch onto to me.


I don't suspect all Stereophile/TAS/high-end folk of being dishonest.  (Though I suspect some are.)  I take them to be more or less sincere in their beliefs, just as we take someone's A/B reports as sincere, even if ABX shows them to be 'mistaken'.  I don't doubt Jason Serinus really believes that whistling has healing powers either.

It's not that the products deliver nothing (except in cases where that's true), it's that what they deliver may not really be different, despite what the reviewer claims.  And that's where DBTs come in.

If the editor of Goodsound can 'come out' in favor of DBTs -- and commit to start using them in reviews -- and Stereophile's own founder can excoriate the high end for NOT using DBTs, and every month Stereophile can put stock in objective measurements (but not too much),  then is it too much to ask why they are so persistently averse to using DBT methods in their reviews?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1106 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: rpp3po on
Stereophile is a very valuable brand and I think it is threatened by the internet much more today than it was during usenet times. There is an explosion of opinion everywhere and even when printed on glossy paper opinion alone won't sell forever. So I think we are going to see a shift towards more objective audio journalism anyway. No matter how loud we bark at him or not. Anechoic chambers and expensive measuring equipment and expertise will become more important to contrast the web crowd.


At this time, it might be interesting for those words to be held up to a comparison between Tone Audio and Stereophile.

http://www.tonepublications.com/

http://www.stereophile.com/


I presume your point is that the two are just two species of the same genus.  Stereophile, Tone Audio and their ilk can probably duke it out for some time in the anti-science arena.

But ironically  it's some *online* resources that are incorporating more 'facty' stuff.  Soundstage!  already farms out its loudspeaker measurements to the NRC.  Goodsound says it's going to start using DBT methods.    Audioholics published (but does not necessarily adhere to in its reviews)  no-nonsense articles about audio. And (if you know the right names to follow) the professional , technical, hard-science expertise available on sites like AVSforum, here, Audioholics, ProSoundweb, ans some others, is far beyond what the high end mags have been offering.







Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1107 –
Quote from: krabapple on
I don't suspect all Stereophile/TAS/high-end folk of being dishonest.


I agree. The keep some very subjective animals with excellent writing skills and I think those actually do believe what they write. And they keep those for a specific share of their audience that is really out for such things. High end audio is not necessarily about 0.0001% THD differences and true DBT results. It's a lifestyle industry selling more than just physical boxes with certain specs.

Just like Coca Cola. Personally I'm able to ABX Coke and Pepsi while probably many people are not. Still I would never try to push an agenda that double blind testing would be the only appropriate way to find your favorite cola. I prefer Coca Cola, including their commercials and the white on red label. For some people high end audio is as affordable as Coke is for me. They enjoy reading classy audio magazines and are happy when they can identify their personal taste with an original like Fremer. They try this and that, choose gear with their guts and enjoy browsing through colorful reviews. It's their free time and not a truth tribunal. And they can probably either afford to make "false" buying decisions or their dealer serves in a class with a non questions ask refund policy and even picks  the stuff up at your house.

Stereophile doesn't tell you that affordable gear sounds like shit. Particular writers may others don't. If you're out for reasonable gear, look at the published measurements and what some of the saner writers have to say about it. I also often chime in to 'educate' (or rather make fun of) the hardcore fundamentalistic faction. And I also sometimes enjoy debating against Atkinson (or Fremer before we scared him away) and take a stand. But I can't really comprehend the whole Stereophile bashing thing or that some people even cheer over a bankruptcy (in the other thread). Why do you even care? Just don't buy it. There's so much 'better' to be angry about in this world than glossy magazines.
 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1108 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Stereophile doesn't tell you that affordable gear sounds like shit. Particular writers may others don't. If you're out for reasonable gear, look at the published measurements and what some of the saner writers have to say about it. I also often chime in to 'educate' (or rather make fun of) the hardcore fundamentalistic faction. And I also sometimes enjoy debating against Atkinson (or Fremer before we scared him away) and take a stand. But I can't really comprehend the whole Stereophile bashing thing or that some people even cheer over a bankruptcy (in the other thread). Why do you even care? Just don't buy it. There's so much 'better' to be angry about in this world than glossy magazines.


I'd say I've been participating in audiophilia seriously since the early-mid-80s.  From this long view I bash Stereophile and its ilk because I think they have been actively *bad* for home audio in the same way that quack 'authorities' about medicine -- say, Jenny McCarthy re: vaccination or Deepak Chopra re: anything -- are *bad* for public awareness of medical science.  They're NOISE when we need more signal.  (Which isn't to say that the consequences of quack audio are anywhere near as heinous as quack medicine.)  There;s also an element of personal offense for me, as a scientist, at anti-science and pseudoscience, being fostered in 'my' hobby.

That some of its readership has more money than reason, is not much of an excuse; I don't consider that automatically benign, especially since in this country, money too often translates to influence and 'tastemaking'.  Then there's the less economically lofty contingent that reads for information, wanting the best sound for their money, and is taught nonsense like Robert Harley's views on the proper crystal structure of cables, or how LP/CD demagnetizers really work ("who knows why? THEY JUST DO!"), or that CD player A sounds 'not quite as good' as B (with B almost always being the more expensive gear) .  Oh, and let's not forget, double blind comparisons that have been done are corrupt, and the ones that could be done are pointless, so don't bother us about that.

As for not telling its readers what sounds like shit, lately Stereophile is implying that mp3s sound the way a grossly pixellated image looks; and Stereophile has for decades been denigrating CD sound at the expense of....*LP*, and later, 'high rez'.  It's actually not even argued at this point, it's simply *assumed* that this is the case, by most of the writers.  This background hum of tendentious drivel, playing month in and out over decades in the print organs of the 'high end', *does* manage to seep into the larger public's concept of 'high end audio' (so that eventually the meme that Redbook just isn't good enough gets namechecked in unlikely places), especially when an audio ideologue like Fremer also becomes the go-to guy for reporters and bloggers looking for some audio 'authority' to explain mp3s or digital audio to them.

Feh.  Stereophile and TAS going bye-bye simply would not be a loss to me, and arguably could be a gain to home audio 'high fidelity', as it used to be called.



Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1109 –
Yikes Arnold, it seems you were right about Fremer's volatile personality. He flipped out in the comments to his BoingBoing entry, to a very mild post from another person. I now wonder if he's physically violent. If so, might need some help up there in the noggin.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1110 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Just like Coca Cola. Personally I'm able to ABX Coke and Pepsi while probably many people are not. Still I would never try to push an agenda that double blind testing would be the only appropriate way to find your favorite cola. I prefer Coca Cola, including their commercials and the white on red label. For some people high end audio is as affordable as Coke is for me. They enjoy reading classy audio magazines and are happy when they can identify their personal taste with an original like Fremer. They try this and that, choose gear with their guts and enjoy browsing through colorful reviews. It's their free time and not a truth tribunal. And they can probably either afford to make "false" buying decisions or their dealer serves in a class with a non questions ask refund policy and even picks  the stuff up at your house.

The thing is that those "audiophiles" are making claims of truth. The difference with Coke & Pepsi is that it's purely about preference. Also, there is no reason to make the claim that they taste the same. If someone said Coke tastes different, I have every reason to believe them. They would not have to invent wild explanations as to why they may taste different. There are no pseudoscientific principles at work there.

It's not like the "audiophiles" are saying, "here, we have these two different systems, and they sound different. Choose what you like better". It's like they were saying "here, if you place your cup on this magnetic cupholder, your Coke will taste MUCH better". It reminds me of something silly some members of my family believe (believed? who knows) in. They thought that placing a spoon hanging in an open bottle of soda [googling... it seems it's some kind of myth for champagne] will prevent de-carbonation. That's a more apt analogy, I think.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1111 –
Quote from: krabapple on
They're NOISE when we need more signal.

Why do we need more signal? If a person genuinely wants to find out about sound, sound perception and how audio equipment works then reliable information exists in all the normal places.

Why do you expect information, for example the content of Stereophile, to be in your interests when you have not paid for it and your interests are not aligned with those that have paid for it?

Quote from: krabapple on
There;s also an element of personal offense for me, as a scientist, at anti-science and pseudoscience, being fostered in 'my' hobby.

I also felt this strongly in the 1970s when audiophile nonsense first moved into the mainstream to the extent I changed my career path and ignored the area for the next few decades. John Atkinson also had a technical background at this time but made a rather different choice to drop the technical side, make a few compromises and work with the opportunities created by the new path of home audio. Looking back on it now, my decision to quit was not necessarily wrong but the basis on which it was made certainly was.

Like rpp3po, I do not find the current audiophile nonsense offensive because it is too silly to be believed by anyone with a moderate amount of common sense and an interest in what is going on. This does not mean that significant numbers of people do not choose to abandon common sense and believe in magic but that is a personal choice. I have no problem with people making this choice or with people like John Atkinson making a profit from such people. But I would certainly have a problem with a society where the opportunity to buy and sell overly foolish luxury goods was greatly reduced or removed.

Quote from: krabapple on
That some of its readership has more money than reason, is not much of an excuse; I don't consider that automatically benign, especially since in this country, money too often translates to influence and 'tastemaking'.

It is not a question of benign but a question of where the line should be drawn. Should the taxpayers fund action to oppose the trade in overly silly luxury goods? Does the trade in overly silly luxury goods really do harm? Does it do good in terms of the economy?

Quote from: krabapple on
Then there's the less economically lofty contingent that reads for information, wanting the best sound for their money, and is taught nonsense like Robert Harley's views on...

So should we stop the publication of nonsense? How can this be achieved without doing far more harm than good?

The audiophile industry brings both benefits and problems. People like John Atkinson, who almost certainly have a good grasp of these, are unable to post a balanced view because of the need to maintain/promote the illusions that are essential for his consumers. HA is perhaps one of the few places a semi-sensible discussion on the topic might take place if some of the regular posters were a bit more tolerant of those illusions and had a bit more confidence in the common sense of those with a genuine interest in what is going on.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1112 –
Quote from: andy o on
Yikes Arnold, it seems you were right about Fremer's volatile personality. He flipped out in the comments to his BoingBoing entry, to a very mild post from another person. I now wonder if he's physically violent. If so, might need some help up there in the noggin.
Ooo, thanks for posting that - I hadn't seen him insulting me again - let me quote it here for posterity...

Quote from: Fremer link=msg=0 date=
Quote from: 2Bdecided link=msg=0 date=

Make no mistake why it is this way: the _real_ problems of audio need real engineering to fix them. You need competence and skill to design speakers properly, or to record and replay a fully immersive sound field - whereas anyone can build snake oil products - especially the advertisers in the magazine that employs Michael.

Cheers,
David.


Most of the products advertised in Stereophile are designed by qualified engineers you dimwit. You are an imbecile.


I wonder why I manage to get him so upset? It happened here on HA too - pages full of people almost swearing at him, and yet it was my straightforward comment about room acoustics that he really took exception to.


(Of course many products in audio magazines are designed by engineers. It's takes more than magic to make a CD player work. However, some well reviewed high-end speakers are a travesty of engineering - audibly so, if you still have hearing above 10kHz! As for magic cables etc...!)

Cheers,
David.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1113 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Why do we need more signal?

Because there is so much noise.

Quote
If a person genuinely wants to find out about sound, sound perception and how audio equipment works then reliable information exists in all the normal places.


How does a normal person distinguish the signal from the noise?

Quote
Why do you expect information, for example the content of Stereophile, to be in your interests when you have not paid for it and your interests are not aligned with those that have paid for it?


I don't think that it is up to me to pay out of my own pocket for every bit of truth that gets published.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1114 –
Quote from: honestguv on
It is not a question of benign but a question of where the line should be drawn. Should the taxpayers fund action to oppose the trade in overly silly luxury goods? Does the trade in overly silly luxury goods really do harm? Does it do good in terms of the economy?
There's no problem trading "overly silly luxury goods" - it's also fine to tell people how pretty they are, how incredibly well designed they are, every details of their engineering.

What it's not OK to do is to claim that they sound better, when there is no such evidence.


There are some ridiculously expensive analogue watches out there. No one claims they are more accurate than they really are. No one claims they'll get you to a meeting more "on time" than a £9.99 digital from Casio.

There's still a market for them, because they're sexy, desirable fashion items.


In many countries, unsubstantiated claims are outlawed in advertising for very good reason. Obviously books and magazines themselves aren't censored, though I wonder if I could sue a hi-fi magazine for claiming an audible improvement, where none existed? Probably not - it would be my own stupid fault for not checking myself.


Quote
The audiophile industry brings both benefits and problems. People like John Atkinson, who almost certainly have a good grasp of these, are unable to post a balanced view because of the need to maintain/promote the illusions that are essential for his consumers.
...and it's instructive to watch his performance in various arenas.

Quote
HA is perhaps one of the few places a semi-sensible discussion on the topic might take place if some of the regular posters were a bit more tolerant of those illusions and had a bit more confidence in the common sense of those with a genuine interest in what is going on.
...the common sense to leave the industry entirely, you mean? <can't find appropriate "wry" smiley>

Cheers,
David.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1115 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: andy o on
Yikes Arnold, it seems you were right about Fremer's volatile personality. He flipped out in the comments to his BoingBoing entry, to a very mild post from another person. I now wonder if he's physically violent. If so, might need some help up there in the noggin.
Ooo, thanks for posting that - I hadn't seen him insulting me again - let me quote it here for posterity...

Quote from: Fremer link=msg=0 date=
Quote from: 2Bdecided link=msg=0 date=

Make no mistake why it is this way: the _real_ problems of audio need real engineering to fix them. You need competence and skill to design speakers properly, or to record and replay a fully immersive sound field - whereas anyone can build snake oil products - especially the advertisers in the magazine that employs Michael.

Cheers,
David.


Most of the products advertised in Stereophile are designed by qualified engineers you dimwit. You are an imbecile.



This is by the way, a false claim.  Most of the so-called engineers in the freaky segment of high end audio do not have good credentials.

This was observed some years back by a good friend of mine who reviewed equipment for the now-departed Audio magazine. He cited example after example of weird products that were engineered by people with either no credentials, or OK credentials but in a non-audio area.

Riddle me this - what would give Fremer good engineering credentials for judging other people's engineering credentials?  BTW, the source I just cited above is an AES Fellow. I think he *is* qualified to grant the opinon he gave! ;-)

Quote
I wonder why I manage to get him so upset? It happened here on HA too - pages full of people almost swearing at him, and yet it was my straightforward comment about room acoustics that he really took exception to.


IME Fremer is the classic loose cannon.

I still remember speaking some time back with a psychiatrist who also dabbled in reviewing. He said that he had never seen a segment of society with so many really disturbed people in it as high end audio. I asked him if that was a professional opinon and he affirmed it.

Quote
(Of course many products in audio magazines are designed by engineers. It's takes more than magic to make a CD player work.


Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that many high end  CD and DVD players are either mid-fi players repackaged, or are made up of off-the-shelf subassemblies. People like Phillips are very happy to sell you parts kits that only need a case and some industrial design.

Quote
However, some well reviewed high-end speakers are a travesty of engineering - audibly so, if you still have hearing above 10kHz! As for magic cables etc...!)


I have never been all that impressed with the sound quality of many very expensive high end speakers. When I was at HE2005 some of the worst-sounding speakers at the show were marketed by Bosendorfer, if memory serves. Not cheap!

In other cases  high end speakers have sounded fine, but so do Paradigm and similar brands for a fraction of the price.  So do many speakers made for the audio production market.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1116 –
[quote name='Arnold B. Krueger' date='May 20 2009, 12:46' post='635703']
>> Why do we need more signal?
>
> Because there is so much noise.

My 9-5 job involves the technical side of sound and there is no input from the audiophile world. No noise and all signal. (Actually there is plenty of noise but the source is not audiophiles). I had no idea how audiophile beliefs had evolved since the 1970s until I made the effort to enter the isolated audiophile world and find out.

You choose to seek out audiophile information and you choose to impose your view of what is signal and what is noise. Audiophiles who read the same information will classify the signal and noise rather differently and they are the intended audience not you. Why should your values and beliefs be imposed on audiophiles?

>> If a person genuinely wants to find out about sound, sound perception and how
>> audio equipment works then reliable information exists in all the normal places.
>
> How does a normal person distinguish the signal from the noise?

Assuming by normal you mean someone who lacks technical knowledge and cannot use reason directly, then by the usual method of looking for the checks and balances that counter self interest.

>> Why do you expect information, for example the content of Stereophile, to be in
>> your interests when you have not paid for it and your interests are not aligned
>> with those that have paid for it?
>
> I don't think that it is up to me to pay out of my own pocket for every bit of
> truth that gets published.

I am not sure I understand how this is a response to the above.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1117 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on

>> Why do we need more signal?
>
> Because there is so much noise.

My 9-5 job involves the technical side of sound and there is no input from the audiophile world.



Lucky you. Ethan and I do a lot of live sound and recording work, so we are also familiar with the technical side of sound where there is limted or no input from the audiophile world. Very refreshing. But not totally free of BS, especially recording.

Quote
No noise and all signal. (Actually there is plenty of noise but the source is not audiophiles). I had no idea how audiophile beliefs had evolved since the 1970s until I made the effort to enter the isolated audiophile world and find out.

You choose to seek out audiophile information and you choose to impose your view of what is signal and what is noise. Audiophiles who read the same information will classify the signal and noise rather differently and they are the intended audience not you.

Why should your values and beliefs be imposed on audiophiles?


Because they aren't just my values and beliefs, but are the best available information about how things are. And, there is no imposition, there is competition in the market for ideas and beliefs.

And, you make yourself sound like an audiophile with this "imposing your beliefs" rhetoric.  Seems like there is a closet self for you that secretly hopes that the audiophile weirdness is really true.

Quote
>> If a person genuinely wants to find out about sound, sound perception and how
>> audio equipment works then reliable information exists in all the normal places.
>
> How does a normal person distinguish the signal from the noise?

Assuming by normal you mean someone who lacks technical knowledge and cannot use reason directly, then by the usual method of looking for the checks and balances that counter self interest.


Well then the viewpoint that opposes the floobydust squad over at SP,  TAS, TA, & etc.  are part of those checks and balances.

Quote
>> Why do you expect information, for example the content of Stereophile, to be in
>> your interests when you have not paid for it and your interests are not aligned
>> with those that have paid for it?
>
> I don't think that it is up to me to pay out of my own pocket for every bit of
> truth that gets published.

I am not sure I understand how this is a response to the above.


I think that it is reasonble to expect that a publication that does not clearly label itself as fiction should have a liberal proportion of reliable information.

I think that most people who initially pick up a high end publication are seeking reliable information to guide a purchase decision.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1118 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
What it's not OK to do is to claim that they sound better, when there is no such evidence.

Why do you consider the lack of evidence to support claims about the betterness of luxury goods a significant problem? Obviously it matters in more important areas but when considering the selling of expensive audiophile equipment to audiophiles who want to be told stories about the magical properties of audiophile equipment?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1119 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
What it's not OK to do is to claim that they sound better, when there is no such evidence.


Why do you consider the lack of evidence to support claims about the betterness of luxury goods a significant problem?


Much of what purports to be high end audio is in fact audio jewelry. It may look great, but in use it has *no* functional advantages. Products like SETs are even strongly dysfunctional.

We are very familiar with  luxury items in other areas of life, one example of which is jewelry. Audio jewlery is odd because unlike regular jewelry, we have these incessant claims for audio jewelry that it "sounds better". 

Let's compare and contrast audio jewelry with just about every other kind of luxury item.

Courtesy of my zip code and financial interests, I receive a lot of ads for luxury items. With very few exceptions, *none* of them purport to have any practical advantages. The watches don't claim to keep better time, the rings don't claim to protect your fingers or even stay on better. The clothing does not puport to wear longer, be more comfortable, or allow you to move more easily. In fact, much of it makes a point of being counter-functional, such as luxury women's shoes. For the most part the canonical ad for a luxury item is composed of some great-looking person using it, in some very impressive-looking luxury context.

Quote
Obviously it matters in more important areas but when considering the selling of expensive audiophile equipment to audiophiles who want to be told stories about the magical properties of audiophile equipment?


I'd like to see the re-write of that sentence. ;-)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1120 –
Quote
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on

thanks for posting that - I hadn't seen him insulting me again - let me quote it here for posterity...

Quote from: Fremer link=msg=0 date=
Quote from: 2Bdecided link=msg=0 date=

Make no mistake why it is this way: the _real_ problems of audio need real engineering to fix them. You need competence and skill to design speakers properly, or to record and replay a fully immersive sound field - whereas anyone can build snake oil products - especially the advertisers in the magazine that employs Michael.


Most of the products advertised in Stereophile are designed by qualified engineers you dimwit. You are an imbecile. - Michael Fremer



This is by the way, a false claim.  Most of the so-called engineers in the freaky segment of high end audio do not have good credentials.


More expression of a belief not supported by the evidence, Mr. Krueger. While some designers in high-end audio are not engineers, the majority of them _are_ engineers. I note with interest some HA posters' tendency to construct castles with foundations of sand, vide, the recent agreement that Stereophile's inclusion of measurement data in its equipment reports is window dressing to delude the gullible into trusting the magazine. Yet might it just possibly be that the measurements sidebars that I work so hard to write perform a valuable function: that they allow readers to distinguish between those questionable products that are based on a shaky knowledge of audio engineering? That even if the readers are technically naive, the explanatory text I write about every product's performance allows them the necessary insight?  That the inclusion of measured perfomance data is one of the reasons Stereophile has become dominant in its field by whatever metric you care to name.

Of course, that hypothesis flies in the face of your belief system, Mr. Krueger.

And on your suggestion that one needs to be an audio engineer to judge audio engineering, this was addressed by George Bernard Shaw a century ago: "You don't need to be a carpenter to judge the quality of a table," he wrote. ie, a product should be judged an on well it performs its core function, not on how it is crafted.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1121 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on

thanks for posting that - I hadn't seen him insulting me again - let me quote it here for posterity...

Quote from: Fremer link=msg=0 date=
Quote from: 2Bdecided link=msg=0 date=

Make no mistake why it is this way: the _real_ problems of audio need real engineering to fix them. You need competence and skill to design speakers properly, or to record and replay a fully immersive sound field - whereas anyone can build snake oil products - especially the advertisers in the magazine that employs Michael.


Most of the products advertised in Stereophile are designed by qualified engineers you dimwit. You are an imbecile. - Michael Fremer



This is by the way, a false claim.  Most of the so-called engineers in the freaky segment of high end audio do not have good credentials.


More expression of a belief not supported by the evidence, Mr. Krueger.


Since you stripped off my citation of authority John, I feel that it is only right that I strip off the entirety of your unsupported comments that followed.

Got anything relevant to say?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1122 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I note with interest some HA posters' tendency to construct castles with foundations of sand, vide, the recent agreement that Stereophile's inclusion of measurement data in its equipment reports is window dressing to delude the gullible into trusting the magazine.

Presenting information in this manner is a common feature of a lot of post-modernist writing, why would your post-modernist writing be any different?

Someone should really write a poetics of audiophile quackery, most forms of rhetoric get a go it seems, but I wonder what the general rules actually are?
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Yet might it just possibly be that the measurements sidebars that I work so hard to write perform a valuable function: that they allow readers to distinguish between those questionable products that are based on a shaky knowledge of audio engineering?

You included lots of charts in your lossy encoder comparison, but all these demonstrated was your complete ignorance of how lossy encoders work. The fact you THOUGHT you were doing something scientific by comparing the charts doesn't MEAN that you were doing a scientific - or as you would say - dispassionate and objective analysis of the performance of the encoders. There are ways of doing that, but they require one to use their ears in controlled testing conditions, a methodology that you completely ignored in favour of adding lots of technical looking charts that didn't actually amount to anything.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1123 –
[quote name='Arnold B. Krueger' date='May 20 2009, 14:29' post='635742']
> Because they aren't just my values and beliefs, but are the best available
> information about how things are.

If you listen to audiophiles, you will find that they do not like your beliefs preferring their own and that they are not particularly interested in signing up for the scientific method. This is their choice and so long as their beliefs have negligible input to anything important it is hard to see much of a problem.

> And, there is no imposition, there is competition in the market for ideas and
> beliefs.

So your postings on the Stereophile forum, which is clearly an audiophile forum, is not trying to impose your ideas on an unreceptive audience? I think you will find it looks like this to rather a lot of people.

In order to become an audiophile, a person has to be both lacking in intelligence and a bigot. The former is necessary in order to fail to recognise the silliness in the first place and the latter necessary to discard the stream of contradictory information after picking up the beliefs. Such people do not want their audiophile beliefs challenged, they want them reinforced and input from people like you is generally not welcome.

> I think that it is reasonble to expect that a publication that does not clearly
> label itself as fiction should have a liberal proportion of reliable information.

In this day and age, when someone of reasonable intelligence looks at a glossy publication funded by advertising they have a pretty good idea of what to expect. Audiophile publications may be above average in terms of being misleading but they have little choice given the nature of the industry.

> I think that most people who initially pick up a high end publication are seeking
> reliable information to guide a purchase decision.

But if they have paid nothing or only a nominal sum for that information then it would be a fool that did not recognise that somebody else has paid to put that information in front of them and to treat it accordingly.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1124 –
Quote
Yikes Arnold, it seems you were right about Fremer's volatile personality. He flipped out in the comments to his BoingBoing entry, to a very mild post from another person. I now wonder if he's physically violent. If so, might need some help up there in the noggin.


I thought Fremer gave ample evidence of his instability here long ago, cf.:

1. Saying he couldn't care less what we think in spite of us being so upset, when the reverse is true on both counts

2. Repeatedly saying "this is my last post" before eschewing self-control and posting again anyway

3. Being particularly insulted by 2bdecided's response to the photo of the room -- folks with a little knowledge (in this case, about first-order reflections) emphasise what they do understand to compensate for all that they don't

4. "Buh bye" [sic] twice -- passive-aggression with infantile vocalisation?

5. Confusing gaps in scientific knowledge (concerning audio reproduction) with holes in the scientific method itself, hence the need to elevate personal subjectivity above empirical evidence -- though this one isn't just about Fremer!

It's not nice to go ad hominem like this, but the ancient Greeks say it's a legitimate rhetorical tool... a person's psychological makeup can have huge implications on the basis of his beliefs and actions.