Is the entire audio industry a fraud?

[Vacceo]

Same goes for botched job at the studio because you couldn't afford a better studio. Well, if something can be done today, why not?

Sometimes better quality in sound does not mean more artistic enjoyment. Dimmu Borgir's Stormblast, when re-recorded, lost a lot of 'artistic hook' if you may.

Since enjoyment is tied to the sound, not the objective quality of the recording, I think that having a system that is agnostic is the best way to go. You get whatever is recorded and yours is the choice for this or that version.

 

[ahofer]

We deserve a laugh in here. Pardon the vulgarities. (Not directed at anyone in the recent part of the thread)

 

[bboris77]

To go back to the original question about the audio industry - I think that the audio industry is simply in line with any other business venture operating with current-day corporate capitalism where consumer demand is created through marketing to fill an emotional void that our individualistic modern-day society has created. The promise is that buying more expensive gear will somehow make us more happy, but it eventually only gives us a temporary high when a new toy is purchased and obtained. Eventually, the emotional void resurfaces and we need a new hit, similar to any other addiction.

The reason why the audio industry is more susceptible to borderline fraudulent tactics when it comes to creating and marketing their productsis the fact that our hearing is heavily affected by all of our other senses, mainly visual stimuli (McGurk effect). The industry exploits this in all kinds of innovative ways.

The main positive effect that the objectivist approach to audio has brought is to expose the vast majority of these tactics as complete marketing BS. At the same time, it seems that ASR has become a victim to the SINAD marketing trap which is also trying to exploit the aforementioned emotional void in consumers.

The solution is simple to my mind - get the most reliable transparent DAC and amplifier, invest money in transducers because they are the lowest common denominator in the chain and be done with it. Upgrade only when you actually need specific features.

 

[Shadrach]

No I didn't say that, and I did not say that the Sam & Dave production values were a choice. But whether it is a choice or that was the best they could do at the time and with the equipment they had is irrelevant, either way it is intrinsic to the art.

A good system won't improve the production quality but it will make sense of the recording - assuming it was not made by amateurs with no idea what they were doing. But I think you would have to try hard to find a recording in that category.

Just listened to Sam & Dave, Best Of, Atlantic 7 81279-2 and it sounds fine to me.
Genelec 8030C, Genelec 7050CPM.

It was recorded on analogue equipment.
To me it sounds better than Ry Cooder's Bop Till You Drop an early all digital production that got rave reviews.

 

[ahofer]

To go back to the original question about the audio industry - I think that the audio industry is simply in line with any other business venture operating with current-day corporate capitalism where consumer demand is created through marketing to fill an emotional void that our individualistic modern-day society has created. The promise is that buying more expensive gear will somehow make us more happy, but it eventually only gives us a temporary high when a new toy is purchased and obtained. Eventually, the emotional void resurfaces and we need a new hit, similar to any other addiction.

The reason why the audio industry is more susceptible to borderline fraudulent tactics when it comes to creating and marketing their productsis the fact that our hearing is heavily affected by all of our other senses, mainly visual stimuli (McGurk effect). The industry exploits this in all kinds of innovative ways.

The main positive effect that the objectivist approach to audio has brought is to expose the vast majority of these tactics as complete marketing BS. At the same time, it seems that ASR has become a victim to the SINAD marketing trap which is also trying to exploit the aforementioned emotional void in consumers.

The solution is simple to my mind - get the most reliable transparent DAC and amplifier, invest money in transducers because they are the lowest common denominator in the chain and be done with it. Upgrade only when you actually need specific features.

As I said a bit earlier - I won’t hear the difference but I waaant it.

 

[killdozzer]

Sometimes better quality in sound does not mean more artistic enjoyment. Dimmu Borgir's Stormblast, when re-recorded, lost a lot of 'artistic hook' if you may.

Since enjoyment is tied to the sound, not the objective quality of the recording, I think that having a system that is agnostic is the best way to go. You get whatever is recorded and yours is the choice for this or that version.

I'm not unaware of using what is traditionally considered a lower quality as an expression. I thought I'd manage to convey that when mentioning lo-fi as an example, but obviously I was wrong. Some records were deliberately made noisy or messy or otherwise. The Artist was deliberately made B&W. You might be surprised but I do understand such simple and basic concepts. I'm not that stupid.

But all my questions still remain. It is a minority that wished for poorer quality as an expression. Very often you have artists themselves in charge of reissues making it obvious they wished for something more. How about a quiet passage on the "Summertime" by Armstrong and Fitzgerald with a loud crack (just an example). You think it was an artistic expression for them? I doubt that.

Anyway, I don't see much risk in this since I don't think the Dimmu Borgir's (or Fallen Angel or any of the other you mentioned, the Blasphemy, you don't have to keep changing the example) audience is waiting for a high quality release and I don't think Diana Krall's audience is waiting for that either.

Sure, you can poise a question on artist's intent, which would be fair, but honestly, superfluous in most cases. I'm often in studios watching people compromise and shrugging, saying well since that's the best we can do, let's just record it like that.

Finally, all said and done, I don't really think it's fair treating something mediocre as someone's intent. It's like... insulting. Maybe what you hear is not what he had in mind. Maybe it's just what he could afford.

 

[killdozzer]

irrelevant, either way it is intrinsic to the art.

Ah, OK then that's where we disagree. It is not intrinsic. It was a mere necessity forced onto art by context and conditions. Because performative art that needs to be memorized in order to be enjoyed again depends on means of memorizing. If it was made before some good means of memorizing it suffered a blow and was not saved for future generations even close to what was the original idea.

I wasn't talking about the reproduction equipment but remastering equipment. If such time came when you can undo some injustice done to some older work of art, you should. By all means. Saying you won't give it a chance and you'll leave it suffer bad sound even when it's not necessary, I consider simply wrong and rude. Like forcing it on a piece of music. Like saying; yes, we COULD do it closer to what you had in mind these days but we won't because... (you insert your reasons, can't think of any).

Surprised to see many people here revealed they still think that the capturing process is the artistic process which reminds me of all those audiophiles thinking they make music when they "play a cable". Many of those tapes are just blueprints and with more knowledge and better equipment, you can get more out of them.

Believing that somehow, in some magical way, every time an artist wanted to record and release an album his intentions perfectly matched the available equipment's capabilities of the era is just silly to me. I'd have less problems believing in lottery.

 

[Mart68]

Ah, OK then that's where we disagree. It is not intrinsic. It was a mere necessity forced onto art by context and conditions.

'intrinsic to the art' is not the same thing as 'artistic intent.'

Take prehistoric cave paintings - the artists had a limited colour palette and probably did wish they had more colours. That they had few colours available was not their choice, but that limiting factor is still intrinsic to the style of the art they created.

I forgot why we got into this now...

 

[ahofer]

Relevant to the last few pages:

Disguised Queries — LessWrong

Imagine that you have a peculiar job in a peculiar factory: Your task is to take objects from a mysterious conveyor belt, and sort the objects into…

www.lesswrong.com

 

[Marc v E]

To go back to the original question about the audio industry - I think that the audio industry is simply in line with any other business venture operating with current-day corporate capitalism where consumer demand is created through marketing to fill an emotional void that our individualistic modern-day society has created. The promise is that buying more expensive gear will somehow make us more happy, but it eventually only gives us a temporary high when a new toy is purchased and obtained. Eventually, the emotional void resurfaces and we need a new hit, similar to any other addiction.

The reason why the audio industry is more susceptible to borderline fraudulent tactics when it comes to creating and marketing their productsis the fact that our hearing is heavily affected by all of our other senses, mainly visual stimuli (McGurk effect). The industry exploits this in all kinds of innovative ways.

The main positive effect that the objectivist approach to audio has brought is to expose the vast majority of these tactics as complete marketing BS. At the same time, it seems that ASR has become a victim to the SINAD marketing trap which is also trying to exploit the aforementioned emotional void in consumers.

The solution is simple to my mind - get the most reliable transparent DAC and amplifier, invest money in transducers because they are the lowest common denominator in the chain and be done with it. Upgrade only when you actually need specific features.

Good point well made on the audio industry.

Concerning Sinad: I can follow your reasoning. The trouble imo is that it's a good metric* and that it was imo a concious decision to test based on scientific metrics, not on performance per dollar**.

I agree that transducers are way more important than higher or highest sinad. The same counts for eq. This information is available on this site and implicit in reviews imo. However it is not easy to find.

What happens imo is that new members first tend to be taken aback by the adherence to Sinad or tend to embrace it fully not realising it's only relevant until -110 db. That's why I usually post about eq and or speakers when giving advice or making a comment after a review.

*what could be a better alternative?
**although it is sometimes used in the subjective evaluation part of a review.

 

[bodhi]

The main positive effect that the objectivist approach to audio has brought is to expose the vast majority of these tactics as complete marketing BS. At the same time, it seems that ASR has become a victim to the SINAD marketing trap which is also trying to exploit the aforementioned emotional void in consumers.

Ah, but the SINAD craze is just fine. There is no bs associated with it, buyers know they are not getting audible benefits and are not looking down other people for having less but still completely transparent electronics. It's spending money for something useless just for fun, that's what western civilization and the economic system is based on.

 

[dshreter]

Ah, but the SINAD craze is just fine. There is no bs associated with it, buyers know they are not getting audible benefits and are not looking down other people for having less but still completely transparent electronics. It's spending money for something useless just for fun, that's what western civilization and the economic system is based on.

It’s fine….. when comparing single function DACs and amplifiers. But people are casting aside categories of products like AVRs from some manufacturers because SINAD is “too low”, ignoring the performance of the feature set of what these products actually do.

 

[Mr. Widget]

It’s fine….. when comparing single function DACs and amplifiers. But people are casting aside categories of products like AVRs from some manufacturers because SINAD is “too low”, ignoring the performance of the feature set of what these products actually do.

Exactly!

Focusing on any one specification is ill-advised. Build quality, reliability, features, and customer service are more important these days since most of the basic engineering is at such a high level. Unfortunately there are no established metrics for these differentiators.

 

[ahofer]

Build quality, reliability, features, and customer service are more important these days since most of the basic engineering is at such a high level. Unfortunately there are no established metrics for these differentiators.

It would be nice if reviewers spent more time on that than making up sound differences.

 

[bodhi]

It’s fine….. when comparing single function DACs and amplifiers. But people are casting aside categories of products like AVRs from some manufacturers because SINAD is “too low”, ignoring the performance of the feature set of what these products actually do.

You got something there. I feel targeted, running 11.2 channel Denon amp for my 2.2 setup because of the DSP features.

Still, I haven't seen anyone claim out loud that AVRs actually sound worse than stereo setups although I feel it's sometimes kind of implied.

 

[mhardy6647]

Still, I haven't seen anyone claim out loud that AVRs actually sound worse than stereo setups although I feel it's sometimes kind of implied.

There are plenty of forums who will make that very claim -- and I am not sure I would disagree with them.

That said, I have very (very) little experience with modern AVRs. Seems like way, way too much junk to jam into one box -- both from the standpoint of longevity (heat is the enemy) and obsolescence.

I do, in full disclosure, have an old Yamaha 5.1 thing I rescued from the dump that sounds pretty good as a stereo amplifier, and I do use it occasionally.

 

[Mr. Widget]

It would be nice if reviewers spent more time on that than making up sound differences.

For me the best reviews touch on the factors I suggested are important, often Amir touches on them as do the published audiophile reviewers, but I agree spending the telling us how a certain musical track made them feel is of no interest to me.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Still, I haven't seen anyone claim out loud that AVRs actually sound worse than stereo setups although I feel it's sometimes kind of implied.

In my experience (under sighted bias and uncontrolled conditions) this has precisely been my long standing conclusion. Having had several conversations here at ASR, (sometimes a bit heated) I am less inclined to definitely make that statement (or come to that conclusion) and am very interested to revisit these comparisons in a controlled blind context. Regardless, I doubt that an AVR with higher SINAD will sound better than one a bit lower down the chart.

 

[bodhi]

There are plenty of forums who will make that very claim -- and I am not sure I would disagree with them.

Of course, I was talking about ASR forums. This claim has no factual basis so in here people might be more careful.

 

[bodhi]

In my experience (under sighted bias and uncontrolled conditions) this has precisely been my long standing conclusion. Having had several conversations here at ASR, (sometimes a bit heated) I am less inclined to definitely make that statement (or come to that conclusion) and am very interested to revisit these comparisons in a controlled blind context.

Do you have a hypothesis of why this could be true? It think it must be something that cannot be found in the measurements.