• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

New Yorker piece on audiophiles

Jimbob54

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
11,066
Likes
14,700
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...
True.
 

Mart68

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
2,609
Likes
4,861
Location
England
The article is well-written although it does make a fair number of gaffes. But it is clearly not aimed at the everyman so shouldn't be taken that way.

People with huge disposable incomes do not want and are not interested in cheap stuff, even if it is as good as it can be. This is why he lists the price of everything so they know he is talking to them.

What is the point in earning/having all that money if Mr Average can get the same result for 2 percent of the cost? They would feel it was all for nothing. They might as well quit the high powered, high stress job and become a postman or a dustman.

At least there's a chance that the loudspeakers will be objectively better. And the turntable, if they want one.
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,857
Why then doesn’t he praise stuff that is expensive but also measures well? Salon2 speakers, Benchmark amps (not high-end expensive but expensive enough for those wanting to show off), Mola Mola streamers, etc. There are expensive audio components that actually perform superbly well in measurements.

Rick “the problem isn’t just spending money” Denney
 

Sgt. Ear Ache

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
1,894
Likes
4,151
Location
Winnipeg Canada
The article is well-written although it does make a fair number of gaffes. But it is clearly not aimed at the everyman so shouldn't be taken that way.

People with huge disposable incomes do not want and are not interested in cheap stuff, even if it is as good as it can be. This is why he lists the price of everything so they know he is talking to them.

What is the point in earning/having all that money if Mr Average can get the same result for 2 percent of the cost? They would feel it was all for nothing. They might as well quit the high powered, high stress job and become a postman or a dustman.

At least there's a chance that the loudspeakers will be objectively better. And the turntable, if they want one.

There's also a chance they will be objectively worse. Money doesn't in any way assure that they won't be worse.

I'm not sure I necessarily buy the assumption that rich people are stupid or that they like being "taken to the bank" either. I think quite a number of them would much prefer to actually get the sonic benefit they were being "sold" for all that dough...
 

Mart68

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
2,609
Likes
4,861
Location
England
There's also a chance they will be objectively worse. Money doesn't in any way assure that they won't be worse.

I'm not sure I necessarily buy the assumption that rich people are stupid or that they like being "taken to the bank" either. I think quite a number of them would much prefer to actually get the sonic benefit they were being "sold" for all that dough...

Well I didn't say either thing. If you take the writer of the article he clearly an intelligent man but he's bought into the whole dog and pony show nevertheless. Either he's simply unaware that there's a more pragmatic approach available, or he's aware that there is but he doesn't like the idea of that for the reasons I outlined, and so he shies away from it. I suspect the latter, and that applies to many wealthy audiophiles.
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,857
Well I didn't say either thing. If you take the writer of the article he clearly an intelligent man but he's bought into the whole dog and pony show nevertheless. Either he's simply unaware that there's a more pragmatic approach available, or he's aware that there is but he doesn't like the idea of that for the reasons I outlined, and so he shies away from it. I suspect the latter, and that applies to many wealthy audiophiles.
I suspect he's unaware, though that doesn't mean I don't think he's BSing himself and others about what he hears. Clearly, the author had MF looking over his shoulder, and I suspect he hoped for approval at some level.

It's possible that he's in the pocket of those companies whose products he placed. I think that happens when audio is written about in the popular press a lot more often than regular readers realize, though I don't think it would be much of a surprise to most here. But I would have expected this sort of article more in a magazine like the Robb Report than in the New Yorker, which has an editorial stance but still purports to be more independent from such influences.

But I do not equate being able to string together expressive sentences with great intelligence, any more than musicians who can make musical statements at a profound level are always sensible about topics expressed in words. It usually does mean wide reading (which is how writers fill their heads with good examples) but probably not at a deeply technical level.

Normally, when writing about audiophiles, an author would find examples of audiophiles of various persuasions whose experiences he would recount. That way, he's the fly on the wall and can maintain more journalistic independence. If the article is about boutique products, then he would talk about those who make such products and their backgrounds, or their business strategies, or whatever. If the article is about great debates in the audio world, he would be expected to provide quotes from competing experts.

But I think the article is only about being one of the cool kids based on how much money is spent, and that's why I think it belongs in a class-aspirational lifestyle mag like the Robb Report, rather than a magazine like the New Yorker that claims more elevated standards.

It's the same in the wristwatch community. Few of the usual authors really understand how watches work or how they are made (or their history beyond the often-manufactured histories on brand web pages), and are left only with their own opinions colored as they are by their own context. There seems to be a cadre of authors who peddle their writing to a range of magazines, but they are obviously free-lance writers who noted a market for that topic and stepped in to fill it. Lots of amateur bloggers in that world, too. At least a watch is clearly a man-jewelry accessory, so brand and aesthetics are the primary attributes and nobody with a modicum of intelligence is confused by that.

There are so many directions this article could have gone that would be more interesting than what he wrote.

Of course, the editors don't always agree with a technically accurate approach--they may be all wrong, too. Consider the challenges John Atkinson has faced all these years in trying to keep Stereophile a magazine of depth, when his corporate overlords have continually tried to change it to a broad and shallow approach. We may disagree with the way Stereophile reviews describe their impressions, but their reviews are backed up by data (and when they aren't, the mismatch between measurements and those stated impressions is noted). I know all about non-technical editors who make decisions based on their own mythology. I once wrote articles for Triathlete magazine on bicycle technology, but that came to an end after I said something the editor disagreed with, and a change in ownership had removed my chief patron on the masthead.

Rick "who has had a taste of both sides of this issue" Denney
 
Last edited:

Wes

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
3,843
Likes
3,788
I suspect the New Yorker crowd is exactly the market a lot of high end companies are/ would love to tap.

you can always judge the readers of a magazine by looking at the ads, since ad agencies work hard to target specific audiences

very few ads for jacked-up pickup trucks in the New Yawkah
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,952
Likes
8,698
Location
New York City
Again, what people do with their own money - their business.

But don't talk to me about "settling that debate", or your 65 year-old golden ears.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
Long, very long, article on audiophilia.
Just another loony-tunes that listens with his eyes and wallet.
You could read stuff like that for the rest of your life, there's billions of words on the internet and audiophool magazines.
BLAH
 

JohnBooty

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
632
Likes
1,555
Location
Philadelphia area
Here's a hint of bias: "(not cut off, as it is in most digital recordings)" when describing recorded piano decay.

More that is unsubstantiated: "Years ago, many refused to believe in the LP, but, really, anyone with a decent setup could have proved this to you: a well-recorded LP was warmer, more natural, more musical than a compact disk." Followed by the assertion that the solution to the CD "problem" was DSD, SACD, etc.--basically higher resolution digital.

Then he makes the point that MP3 was the distortion kids grew up with, not recognizing that vinyl LP's were the distortion that he grew up with.

But then he gets it partly right: "Or maybe it’s about backing away from corporate culture and salesmanship. Vinyl offers the joys of possessorship: if you go to a store, talk to other music lovers, and buy a record, you are committing to your taste, to your favorite group, to your friends." Of course, this statement equally applies to CD's.

Sounds like the usual stuff to me, so far.

Rick "got this far for now" Denney
Thanks for saving me a read. :)
I’ve never been able to get along with the New Yorker vibe, and in terms of the vibe this feels par for the course to me, though in substance it’s so poor that I am still both disappointed and surprised.
I like the New Yorker. Man, I subscribe to the New Yorker. And this article is trash.
 
Last edited:

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,952
Likes
8,698
Location
New York City
I suspect he's unaware, though that doesn't mean I don't think he's BSing himself and others about what he hears. Clearly, the author had MF looking over his shoulder, and I suspect he hoped for approval at some level.

It's possible that he's in the pocket of those companies whose products he placed. I think that happens when audio is written about in the popular press a lot more often than regular readers realize, though I don't think it would be much of a surprise to most here. But I would have expected this sort of article more in a magazine like the Robb Report than in the New Yorker, which has an editorial stance but still purports to be more independent from such influences.

But I do not equate being able to string together expressive sentences with great intelligence, any more than musicians who can make musical statements at a profound level are always sensible about topics expressed in words. It usually does mean wide reading (which is how writers fill their heads with good examples) but probably not at a deeply technical level.

Normally, when writing about audiophiles, an author would find examples of audiophiles of various persuasions whose experiences he would recount. That way, he's the fly on the wall and can maintain more journalistic independence. If the article is about boutique products, then he would talk about those who make such products and their backgrounds, or their business strategies, or whatever. If the article is about great debates in the audio world, he would be expected to provide quotes from competing experts.

But I think the article is only about being one of the cool kids based on how much money is spent, and that's why I think it belongs in a class-aspirational lifestyle mag like the Robb Report, rather than a magazine like the New Yorker that claims more elevated standards.

It's the same in the wristwatch community. Few of the usual authors really understand how watches work or how they are made (or their history beyond the often-manufactured histories on brand web pages), and are left only with their own opinions colored as they are by their own context. There seems to be a cadre of authors who peddle their writing to a range of magazines, but they are obviously free-lance writers who noted a market for that topic and stepped in to fill it. Lots of amateur bloggers in that world, too. At least a watch is clearly a man-jewelry accessory, so brand and aesthetics are the primary attributes and nobody with a modicum of intelligence is confused by that.

There are so many directions this article could have gone that would be more interesting than what he wrote.

Of course, the editors don't always agree with a technically accurate approach--they may be all wrong, too. Consider the challenges John Atkinson has faced all these years in trying to keep Stereophile a magazine of depth, when his corporate overlords have continually tried to change it to a broad and shallow approach. We may disagree with the way Stereophile reviews describe their impressions, but their reviews are backed up by data (and when they aren't, the mismatch between measurements and those stated impressions is noted). I know all about non-technical editors who make decisions based on their own mythology. I once wrote articles for Triathlete magazine on bicycle technology, but that came to an end after I said something the editor disagreed with, and a change in ownership had removed my chief patron on the masthead.

Rick "who has had a taste of both sides of this issue" Denney
 

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,078
Likes
8,916
Being an audiophile means different things to different people. If someone else's ideas don't match yours, ignore them. This is an objectivist forum. That says a lot about us. Still there are many different solutions to the problem of experiencing a satisfying musical experience. Who knows, maybe the writer is on drugs.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,213
Likes
7,592
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
Attempting to read the article leads to a wall where I'm supposed to sign up with Facebook or input some other ID. Not worth it. From what I've read here, so far, it's extoling the same money-sucking trap of the "High-End" all the folks at AV Tech Media and the Absolute Sound have been flogging for ages.
 

JohnBooty

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
632
Likes
1,555
Location
Philadelphia area
But I do not equate being able to string together expressive sentences with great intelligence, any more than musicians who can make musical statements at a profound level are always sensible about topics expressed in words.
Never met a dunce who was a strong writer or eloquent speaker. I would say that any good writer is intelligent, in a way. But, as a practical matter... I'd certainly agree that one could be a good writer and yet utterly clueless about a great many other things.

The only useful definition of intelligence I've ever found is the theory of multiple intelligences. (Admittedly it's more of a "working model" or a "perspective" than a theory -- prefer to reserve "theory" for something that can be rigorously tested)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

Most "smart" people I know are nonetheless hopeless in one or more of those areas. I once worked for a pretty brilliant CEO who was nearly illiterate. And I'm sure many of us have known strong engineer types who were lacking in other pursuits, right?

But anyway, the writer's definitely a dunce when it comes to audio. :)
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,857
Well, one isn't a "dunce" by not having "great intelligence". There seems to be quite a lot of middle ground. :)

But there's an aphorism with respect to the media: The media is always authoritative except when they write about your specialty. Meaning: They sound authoritative so we assume them to be authoritative unless we have evidence that they are not, such as when they are writing about something about which we are the authorities.

So, I never equate good writing with any particular expertise about the subject being described. What they say has to withstand expert scrutiny, no matter how well they say it.

Rick "even when I'm doing the writing" Denney
 

Rockdog

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
99
Likes
119
I like the New Yorker. Man, I subscribe to the New Yorker. And this article is trash.
I'm sorry for your loss of funds to this rag. Like audio in this case, the New Yorker, in general, has little interest in an objective view of the world. It's an ideological rag aimed at soothing the upper class white progressive crowd with the illusion of enlightenment.

Ouch, that wasn't meant as a personal attack! But, after years of reading their "great writing" I find them mostly unbearable pap.

Peace!
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
Still there are many different solutions to the problem of experiencing a satisfying musical experience. Who knows, maybe the writer is on drugs.
That's no excuse, there's lots of us here on drugs. :p
 

JohnBooty

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
632
Likes
1,555
Location
Philadelphia area
I'm sorry for your loss of funds to this rag. Like audio in this case, the New Yorker, in general, has little interest in an objective view of the world. It's an ideological rag aimed at soothing the upper class white progressive crowd with the illusion of enlightenment.

Ouch, that wasn't meant as a personal attack! But, after years of reading their "great writing" I find them mostly unbearable pap.

Peace!
I wouldn't disagree with any of that. I went on a mini-spree of subscribing to a handful of magazines / sites / content producers last year. That is one I regret. And in that spirit....

...done. Just canceled my sub. :)
 

David Harper

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2019
Messages
359
Likes
434
Intelligence is a lot like pornography; no one can define it but we all know it when we see it.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,201
Likes
11,817
Speaking of audiophile writing, I was just reading a speaker review and came across this paragraph:

"They are one of the most involving loudspeakers on the market and music comes across with feeling and great emotional connection. That is probably the most important aspect of their design. That level of emotional connection with the music."

This is the kind of audio writing that drives me nuts! The ridiculous conflation, or projection, of the reviewer's emotions to that of the gear being reviewed, as if it was the GEAR that possessed the quality of "emotional connection" and not the reviewer.

Cripes! Having an emotional connection isn't of course something possessed by a speaker, and it doesn't tell me a damned thing about the sound of the speaker at all. My wife and kids have emotional connections to the music on our smart speaker or from their laptops! Audiophiles have emotional connections to the music via every single type of speaker design you can mention. So, mr reviewer, it tells me nothing that you felt emotional about the music. Tell me what the damned thing sounds like.

(Here I can understand where many just skip all such subjective reports to measurements. I understand that, but I find that subjective reports can in fact convey aspects of the sound of a hi fi system).
 
Top Bottom