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