New Yorker piece on audiophiles

[Freeway]

During my read of this rather rambling article I was wondering what David's point was to be. I had an English teacher in high school, arguably the best teacher I ever had, who pounded into our heads to not interpret, but only reflect on what the author is actually saying.
The last paragraph summed it pretty well. If I may paraphase -
". . . but I was happy . . . I had heard it . . . if you can hear it, and it matters to you musically, then it matters emotionally, too. . . . High-end audio is a pursuit, but it’s not a fake, and it has many pleasures."
I left out "luxury-class". Although much of it is, it does not have to be. I am low level and loving it.

PS I really dug his take on speaker cable - “That ends that argument.”

 

[Soniclife]

I've never written a "letter to the editor" before. Maybe I'll try that here. Who knows if they would even accept it, given that the piece is from 2018? It would be terrible if the literary types (of which I am one) find this piece a convincing

Probably better pitching them a whole new article that demolishes the tired old crap that articles like this always trot out, plus the story behind this site, and how audio is being disrupted. It's a better story, but not knowing the New Yorker quite possibly not the one they want to print.

 

[q3cpma]

Journalists.

 

[pozz]

Probably better pitching them a whole new article that demolishes the tired old crap that articles like this always trot out, plus the story behind this site, and how audio is being disrupted. It's a better story, but not knowing the New Yorker quite possibly not the one they want to print.

Now that's an idea.

 

[JeffS7444]

Who wouldn't want to take a dive into high-end audio upon reading the author's experiences:

Beautiful
Rich
Enthralling
Ecstatic
Soul-stirring
...I was happy ... it matters emotionally ... has many pleasures ...

And OTOH, It's a pity that more technically knowledgeable people as a class don't seem to be particularly engaging as writers.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

The High end Audio is at a crossroad: People are beginning to realize that there is little to no correlation between fidelity and price. Their (High End Audio) entire existence is based on the notion of “you get what you paid for”.
Thus this article and many others. I don’t even question the writer sincerity. The article is a bit beyond FUD. It is a way to suggest to those who can, that unless you spend a certain (large) amount, you can’t achieve good sound reproduction.

 

[Hammeredklavier]

Hi

The High end Audio is at a crossroad: People are beginning to realize that there is little to no correlation between fidelity and price. Their (High End Audio) entire existence is based on the notion of “you get what you paid for”.

I don't understand it at all. These 'audiophiles' are being ripped off - clearly so - and they think it's fantastic!

Then again, I think we all agree that we make purchasing decisions based on things other than functional necessity. I'll probably buy an RME ADI-2 DAC at some point, although I'm sure I won't hear a scrap of difference compared with my Arcam DACs!

 

[FrantzM]

I don't understand it at all. These 'audiophiles' are being ripped off - clearly so - and they think it's fantastic!

Then again, I think we all agree that we make purchasing decisions based on things other than functional necessity. I'll probably buy an RME ADI-2 DAC at some point, although I'm sure I won't hear a scrap of difference compared with my Arcam DACs!

Thing is most of those, (All?) do not endure financial strains from indulging in those things. The entire slew of psychological benefits is at the forefront: Pride of ownership, Feeling of appartenance to a select community, to be part of those rare people with superman hearing powers, once you can hear the differences, you belong... , etc.
In my numerous years as a subjective audiophile, I never encountered one person who became broke because of his hobby.

Most subjective audiophiles don't feel ripped off. It is only when they discover and embrace the other side, some call it, seriously, the "Dark Side", that they feel that they have been hosed, ripped, etc.

 

[Jimbob54]

What was interesting to me wasn't the content, which is par for the course in the audio world, but that this article was in the New Yorker. It's a different crowd reading and digesting that content, and it's irritating that these views and are being passed to them.

I suspect the New Yorker crowd is exactly the market a lot of high end companies are/ would love to tap.

 

[Jimbob54]

It is extremely problematic that the author put forth claims that are essentially presented as obvious truths, when they are in fact not. For instance:
.......

"Everything matters. The sound was better with different cables. "

The scary thing is that regular people have no reason to believe this is false information.

Except it is highly likely, assuming the author is sincere, that the sound was better. They perceived it as better. We all know it probably wasnt measurably different though.

 

[Hammeredklavier]

Thing is most of those, (All?) do not endure financial strains from indulging in those things. The entire slew of psychological benefits is at the forefront: Pride of ownership, Feeling of appartenance to a select community, to be part of those rare people with superman hearing powers, once you can hear the differences, you belong... , etc.
In my numerous years as a subjective audiophile, I never encountered one person who became broke because of his hobby.

Most subjective audiophiles don't feel ripped off. It is only when they discover and embrace the other side, some call it, seriously, the "Dark Side", that they feel that they have been hosed, ripped, etc.

Well, quite. If you've got money to burn and it makes you happy then fair enough.

I'm not taking the moral high ground - with pretty much all the audio gear I own or have owned, one could argue - probably correctly - that cheaper products would've done much the same thing.

 

[Hammeredklavier]

Except it is highly likely, assuming the author is sincere, that the sound was better. They perceived it as better. We all know it probably wasnt measurably different though.

I really don't know how much longer the audiophiles can keep this up. Null tests, straight wire bypass tests, any number of blind listening tests, you name it, the result is the same: you cannot hear the difference.

Nonetheless, if it makes you happy...!

 

[rdenney]

Except it is highly likely, assuming the author is sincere, that the sound was better. They perceived it as better. We all know it probably wasnt measurably different though.

I frankly don’t assume that sincerity. I don’t think all that many are actually persuading themselves that they are hearing a difference, despite their best attempts at self delusion. I think when they don’t hear an improvement, they blame the rest of their system (which is not “revealing” enough) or their own perceptual subtlety (and who wants to admit that?) and the simply parrot who they perceive are their betters and look expectantly to them for approval.

All it takes is playing their new system to a nonbeliever who they actually respect, and suddenly they hear more truthfully and wonder why they spent so much money. They suddenly perceive all the distortions and anomalies. This response occurs even when the nonbeliever makes no negative comment, because suddenly the audiophile knows in his heart of hearts that he can’t hear the effects he thinks he bought. That has happened to me.

Rick “wishing people would really trust their ears, which means being willing to close their eyes” Denney

 

[Jimbob54]

I really don't know how much longer the audiophiles can keep this up. Null tests, straight wire bypass tests, any number of blind listening tests, you name it, the result is the same: you cannot hear the difference.

Nonetheless, if it makes you happy...!

Like all things, it will persist as long as there are places/ forums for people to write and read about their experiences.

 

[sandymc]

Well, in defense of the author of the article, I agree with him on one thing - Devialet speakers are ......... not good. To be polite about it. But that's about all.

 

[Jim Matthews]

I would be more interested in something written recently.

2018 is like the other side of the Grand Canyon. It doesn't look far away until you've slogged across.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Except it is highly likely, assuming the author is sincere, that the sound was better. They perceived it as better. We all know it probably wasnt measurably different though.

Perceiving it as better doesn't mean that it was better. Perception can be fooled by all sorts of bias. Even if there was some measurable difference...the limit's of audibility are quite a lot lower than the limits of measurability.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Thing is most of those, (All?) do not endure financial strains from indulging in those things. The entire slew of psychological benefits is at the forefront: Pride of ownership, Feeling of appartenance to a select community, to be part of those rare people with superman hearing powers, once you can hear the differences, you belong... , etc.
In my numerous years as a subjective audiophile, I never encountered one person who became broke because of his hobby.

Most subjective audiophiles don't feel ripped off. It is only when they discover and embrace the other side, some call it, seriously, the "Dark Side", that they feel that they have been hosed, ripped, etc.

I've known a few people who spent considerably more on gear than was sensible given their financial situations. But it's certainly not limited to the audio market.

 

[Jimbob54]

Perceiving it as better doesn't mean that it was better. Perception can be fooled by all sorts of bias. Even if there was some measurable difference...the limit's of audibility are quite a lot lower than the limits of measurability.

Yes, I know. That was my point. Not measurably better, but perceived as better.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Yes, I know. That was my point. Not measurably better, but perceived as better.

Yeah I know what you mean. The problem is that it leaves that teensy tiny little bit of wiggle room for the deluded fool to say "see, it does measure better so I am hearing what I think I'm hearing!" lol. There are times where stuff does measure "better" to an infinitesimal degree - even cables - but the audibility of those differences is the crux of the matter, which is where blind tests come in...