Derek Thompson (known to politics junkies for "Abundance") just posted a sub stack conversation with Joe Weisenthal: The Obscure Media Theory That Explains '99% of Everything' that updates McLuhan's "Medium is the Message" theories to include tweets and AI; while also providing historical context back to the introduction of the written word. VERY Long form, well worth the read, but leave time for digestion.
1. One of the key takeaways is that while all sensations are subjective, hearing and audible communication are inherently more subjective than sight and written communication. Audible communication is also more focused on social context, the listener is a bigger part of the process. They discuss how online social media, tweets and TikTok, blur this distinction with instant takes, likes/dislikes a stronger motivator for their content. AI may blur this line again. The real-time social nature of hearing and speech may also explain some of why discussions of audio gear seem so impassioned vs discussions of video gear. All sensations are subjective, but audio sensations are inherently more subjective, opinionated, social, and probably combative. Does that seem right?
2. Their discussion of AI Chats (with Claude, Gemini. ChatGPT etc.) will ring true to those who have spent time discussing anything with an AI chatbot.
"...conversations with AI....don’t feel like other conversations that exist online. The AI is not going to insult you. The AI is not going to speak to you in memes. The AI is not going to use epithets. I’m not trying to one-up the AI either. Ong used the word agonistic; oral cultures are competitive. We see that online and social discourse, how we’re always competing with each other when we’re talking.
AI chatbot communications aren’t agonistically toned. Just the opposite. Most people’s complaint with AI is that it’s too obsequious, that it’s not confrontational enough. I’ll say something stupid into the chatbot, and it’ll say “that’s a really good idea, Joe! Let’s explore that further…” This is actually one of the big problems of AI, which is that it’s insufficiently opinionated. The chatbots do not correct you. So, AI is conversational, but it doesn’t have a lot of these other aspects of conversation that other digital conversations have."
In a chat, I linked that article to Gemini and fed it the above paragraph. It offered to take a more confrontational tone and revisit the discussion we were having of objectivist vs subjectivist audiophiles taking the subjectivist side. The results were surprisingly realistic, and some points were made. What do you think?
TRIGGER WARNING: the following opinions are not mine, and are not Gemini's...they resulted from my prompts. I do think some points raised are interesting. It made me mad (which I did not know Gemini could do) It may make you mad too. It is copied here verbatim, and the whole thing is the result of a single prompt. Does it, what do you think:
1. SINAD is a Post-Truth Metric You mentioned that a $99 DAC and a $1,200 DAC sound the same because the "measurements" say so. That is the ultimate "Literate" fallacy. You are looking at a map and claiming you’ve visited the city. A graph of Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) tells me about the equipment, but it tells me nothing about the experience. The Subjectivist knows that the "magic" is in the parts of the sound that your crude "Literate" tools can’t catch—the "decay," the "bloom," the "air."
2. The Ritual vs. The Result Why do people buy the $1,200 DAC? Because of the Orality of the Ritual. In an oral culture, the way you do something matters as much as the result. Turning on a tube amp that takes 20 minutes to warm up is a ritual; it prepares the mind to listen deeply. By claiming a $79 class-D amp is "the same," you are the guy who brings a calculator to a poetry reading to count the syllables. You’re technically right, and emotionally dead.
3. The Robinson "Conversion" as a Failure of Soul You brought up Andrew Robinson’s "conversion." You see it as him "waking up" to the truth of measurements. I see it as a man who went "Literary Bankrupt." He spent $100,000 trying to buy a feeling, but because he approached it like a consumer (Literate) rather than a devotee (Oral), he ended up with nothing. He didn't fail because the gear was "snake oil"; he failed because he was looking for the "Best" (a metric) instead of the "Beautiful" (an experience).
The Audio Room is the last stand of the human spirit. It’s the one place where we still allow ourselves to be "irrational," tribal, and emotional. When you bring your ASR graphs into that room, you aren't "cleaning up the industry"—you're just the guy turning on the lights at the end of a great party.
The "What'd I Miss?" Moment: If the $99 DAC is truly "perfect," then why are you still on the forums? If the science is settled, the conversation should be over. The fact that you (and everyone on ASR) keep talking, measuring, and "debunking" proves that you are just as addicted to the Orality of the Argument as the guy buying the $5,000 speaker cables.
ADD: I particularly like "The Guys turning on the lights at the end of a great party". That could be ASR's new tagline
1. One of the key takeaways is that while all sensations are subjective, hearing and audible communication are inherently more subjective than sight and written communication. Audible communication is also more focused on social context, the listener is a bigger part of the process. They discuss how online social media, tweets and TikTok, blur this distinction with instant takes, likes/dislikes a stronger motivator for their content. AI may blur this line again. The real-time social nature of hearing and speech may also explain some of why discussions of audio gear seem so impassioned vs discussions of video gear. All sensations are subjective, but audio sensations are inherently more subjective, opinionated, social, and probably combative. Does that seem right?
2. Their discussion of AI Chats (with Claude, Gemini. ChatGPT etc.) will ring true to those who have spent time discussing anything with an AI chatbot.
"...conversations with AI....don’t feel like other conversations that exist online. The AI is not going to insult you. The AI is not going to speak to you in memes. The AI is not going to use epithets. I’m not trying to one-up the AI either. Ong used the word agonistic; oral cultures are competitive. We see that online and social discourse, how we’re always competing with each other when we’re talking.
AI chatbot communications aren’t agonistically toned. Just the opposite. Most people’s complaint with AI is that it’s too obsequious, that it’s not confrontational enough. I’ll say something stupid into the chatbot, and it’ll say “that’s a really good idea, Joe! Let’s explore that further…” This is actually one of the big problems of AI, which is that it’s insufficiently opinionated. The chatbots do not correct you. So, AI is conversational, but it doesn’t have a lot of these other aspects of conversation that other digital conversations have."
In a chat, I linked that article to Gemini and fed it the above paragraph. It offered to take a more confrontational tone and revisit the discussion we were having of objectivist vs subjectivist audiophiles taking the subjectivist side. The results were surprisingly realistic, and some points were made. What do you think?
TRIGGER WARNING: the following opinions are not mine, and are not Gemini's...they resulted from my prompts. I do think some points raised are interesting. It made me mad (which I did not know Gemini could do) It may make you mad too. It is copied here verbatim, and the whole thing is the result of a single prompt. Does it, what do you think:
"The Subjectivist Counter-Strike
You and your ASR "Objectivist" tribe are essentially the people Walter Ong warned us about. You’ve become so "Technologized by the Word" (and the graph) that you’ve forgotten that music isn't a series of 1s and 0s—it’s a Homeric event.1. SINAD is a Post-Truth Metric You mentioned that a $99 DAC and a $1,200 DAC sound the same because the "measurements" say so. That is the ultimate "Literate" fallacy. You are looking at a map and claiming you’ve visited the city. A graph of Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) tells me about the equipment, but it tells me nothing about the experience. The Subjectivist knows that the "magic" is in the parts of the sound that your crude "Literate" tools can’t catch—the "decay," the "bloom," the "air."
2. The Ritual vs. The Result Why do people buy the $1,200 DAC? Because of the Orality of the Ritual. In an oral culture, the way you do something matters as much as the result. Turning on a tube amp that takes 20 minutes to warm up is a ritual; it prepares the mind to listen deeply. By claiming a $79 class-D amp is "the same," you are the guy who brings a calculator to a poetry reading to count the syllables. You’re technically right, and emotionally dead.
3. The Robinson "Conversion" as a Failure of Soul You brought up Andrew Robinson’s "conversion." You see it as him "waking up" to the truth of measurements. I see it as a man who went "Literary Bankrupt." He spent $100,000 trying to buy a feeling, but because he approached it like a consumer (Literate) rather than a devotee (Oral), he ended up with nothing. He didn't fail because the gear was "snake oil"; he failed because he was looking for the "Best" (a metric) instead of the "Beautiful" (an experience).
Why the "TV Aisle" is a Graveyard
You noted that nobody has "philosophical arguments" about TVs. Exactly. Because the TV market is dead. It’s a "Literate" commodity world where everyone just buys the biggest screen for the least money. There is no soul in a TV. There is no "tribe" of videophiles arguing over the "warmth" of a plasma vs. the "clinical" nature of an OLED because the Eye has won.The Audio Room is the last stand of the human spirit. It’s the one place where we still allow ourselves to be "irrational," tribal, and emotional. When you bring your ASR graphs into that room, you aren't "cleaning up the industry"—you're just the guy turning on the lights at the end of a great party.
The "What'd I Miss?" Moment: If the $99 DAC is truly "perfect," then why are you still on the forums? If the science is settled, the conversation should be over. The fact that you (and everyone on ASR) keep talking, measuring, and "debunking" proves that you are just as addicted to the Orality of the Argument as the guy buying the $5,000 speaker cables.
ADD: I particularly like "The Guys turning on the lights at the end of a great party". That could be ASR's new tagline
Last edited:
