Was this aimed at ASR?

[Wes]

If you like your cables, you can keep your cables.

Just don't try to lure others down a money wasting rabbit-hole.

 

[Jas0_0]

I realise I slightly regret posting that initial link. In doing so I completely played into Stereophile’s hands. If they are losing magazine sales and web traffic due to ASR and similar’s audiophile deradicalisation efforts, then by linking to their site I am just giving them back what they, and the advertisers who support them, want.

I have a feeling that, like the left-leaning journalists at the Daily Mail, few at Stereophile and other hifi magazines really believe in what they write. But, like the Mail’s editors, they know controversy gets them clicks, and the opportunity for success trumps their ideals.

 

[Jas0_0]

Also, I don't like the latest design bling of the equipment. Bling. Bling. Bling.

Is this because it’s aimed at extremely rich people with neither taste nor subtlety, who want their super-expensive systems to shout ‘I’m loaded!’ at their house guests?

While the genuine music lover is a more reserved being, prizing good engineering and high fidelity to the recording over labels-out conspicuous consumption?

 

[StevenEleven]

Yes, that's true. But I capitalized the words "Objectivists" and Subjectivists" for a reason. I wanted to note that many people wanted to be part of a group or "camp". They receive comfort from this the same way they receive comfort from a religion. You state well what the scientific method entails, but some throw around the term "Science" simply to support their own views ..... rational or not.



I see what you mean. That's much better than my analogy. I should have thought it through more. Let me re-state what I wrote:


"Basically, some people feel the need to evangelize other people. If they're successful, it gives them self-confirmation. And audio is one of many, many opportunities to do that.
So for some, the reproduction of sound doesn't really matter at all. It's just an excuse ... a platform, if you will .... to use in an attack on others who don't have the same belief system. In these cases, the opportunity for attack (or counter-attack) is more important than truth.

There! I think that states more clearly what I was trying to say. It's not really a comment on audio so much as it's a comment on the nature of humanity.

I think there is something to what you are saying—there is certainly some tribalism in the interwebs between objectivist-leaning and subjectivist-leaning audio enthusiasts, as well as some evangelism.

There is always a bit of a whisper of doubt, I think, that one side or another may have a point about something. Listen to it!

Elite scientists, for example, may tend to a particular religious dogma, and feel that their intellectual acheivements validate that dogma. But in the end, perhaps it is more an article of faith than they would care to allow for. For what experiment proves or does not prove the existence of God (or multiple gods, etc.)? And what is the first cause of all things? I am not arguing for or against, I am just illustrating how one might consider the other side of the argument.

And I think the objectivist-leaning camp in audio, on a much less grandiose scale no doubt, knows it has the better end of knowledge, learning and facts of audio, and correctly so, but may tend nevertheless to succumb to tribalism and overconfidence and take their inferences and dismissals of “others“ at least one step too far.

That being said, yeah, the audio press is for the most part a pretty sorry lot. IMHO.

My goodness that is pretentious writing on my part. Oh well. It‘s late and I’m amused.

 

[raistlin65]

"Believe in your stories, but don't take them too seriously.

Trust your ears, but verify. If you hear something that you can't explain—some improvement, say—don't reject it outright. Instead, ask yourself, "Are you sure you heard that?" and listen again.

Or don't—it's up to you"

Please feel happy to reject science if it suits you.........I suppose that is anyone's prerogative .

You can even "do a Trump"

Didn't you just love it where he said,

We're all consenting adults; there really aren't any victims. Maybe some undeserving entrepreneur gets a little bit richer at our expense. I can live with that.

Of course he can live with that. He's making a living off of this. lol

People do get harmed, though. Consumers are spending money on equipment that doesn't do what the manufacturer, and Stereophile, claim it does. There's no justification for that.

 

[SIY]

Of course he can live with that. He's making a living off of this. lol

If only he had said, "Trust your ears, but verify. If you hear something that you can't explain—some improvement, say—don't reject it outright. Instead, ask yourself, "Are you sure you heard that?" and listen without peeking. Ears only." But that might be honest and not conducive to ad revenue.

 

[raistlin65]

Yes, that's true. But I capitalized the words "Objectivists" and Subjectivists" for a reason. I wanted to note that many people wanted to be part of a group or "camp". They receive comfort from this the same way they receive comfort from a religion. You state well what the scientific method entails, but some throw around the term "Science" simply to support their own views ..... rational or not.



I see what you mean. That's much better than my analogy. I should have thought it through more. Let me re-state what I wrote:


"Basically, some people feel the need to evangelize other people. If they're successful, it gives them self-confirmation. And audio is one of many, many opportunities to do that.
So for some, the reproduction of sound doesn't really matter at all. It's just an excuse ... a platform, if you will .... to use in an attack on others who don't have the same belief system. In these cases, the opportunity for attack (or counter-attack) is more important than truth.

There! I think that states more clearly what I was trying to say. It's not really a comment on audio so much as it's a comment on the nature of humanity.

I disagree with the idea of lumping objectivists and subjectivists together that way.

Objectivists seek to inform people so that they can make an educated decision for themselves.

 

[Robin L]

I disagree with the idea of lumping objectivists and subjectivists together that way.

Objectivists seek to inform people so that they can make an educated decision for themselves.

An objectivist sez: "It's there."

A subjectivist sez: "It's all so much more mystical and complicated than that."

 

[watchnerd]

Objectivists seek to inform people so that they can make an educated decision for themselves.

That doesn't explain the tribal behavior that happens when "objectivists" gang up to ridicule, moan, and groan about how dumb subjectivists are for believing in some placebo snake oil (cables, AC power conditioners, etc).

That's not seeking to inform.

Behaviorally, objectivists can be just as pack-minded and irrational as subjectivists.

It's not all benign education.

 

[raistlin65]

That doesn't explain the tribal behavior that happens when "objectivists" gang up to ridicule, moan, and groan about how dumb subjectivists are for believing in some placebo snake oil (cables, AC power conditioners, etc).

That's not seeking to inform.

Behaviorally, objectivists can be just as pack-minded and irrational as subjectivists.

It's not all benign education.

I never implied that it was.

However, instances of tribalism does not make something a religion. Which the other poster was saying that objectiveism is.

 

[watchnerd]

However, instances of tribalism does not make something a religion. Which the other poster was saying that objectiveism is.

I think the difference between tribes, cults, and religions is not all that wide.

There is an in-group / out-group social dynamic at play for all of them.

Us vs them.

 

[teched58]

Looks like 'we're' continuing to get under his skin.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/truthiness-hi-fi

It wouldn't be so bad, him posting the same column every couple of months (with the words rearranged slightly), except that he is a BORING WRITER. There's no life in his prose. I think he wants to be a good essayist but unfortunately his stuff is dull reading and a tough slog to get through.

Also, in the whole time he's been editor-in-chief, he doesn't seem to have acquired any new insights into audio (or at least nothing interesting enough to share with us readers).

I really miss Atkinson as head guy. I still enjoy him in his role as tech editor, how he's like the Fed chairman of the audio world -- you have to parse the careful pronouncements that accompany his measurements to get whether it's meant as a thumbs up or thumbs down. Of course, if you know how to read the graphs, you know exactly what he means to say!

 

[raistlin65]

I think the difference between tribes, cults, and religions is not all that wide.

I do think there are differences. Important ones that should not be trivialized. Although I do understand how it's easier sometimes for people to just generalize things.

So we're just going to have to agree to disagree

 

[raistlin65]

"However, instances of tribalism does not make something a religion. Which the other poster was saying that objectiveism is."

There are many definitions of "religion". Some have nothing to do with spirituality at all, but commitment to a
behavior or system of thought.


from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
noun: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

from The Century Dictionary.
noun: A conscientious scruple; scrupulosity.
noun Sense of obligation; conscientiousness; sense of duty.

from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
noun: Any practice that someone or some group is seriously devoted to.

I think that the last (and least restrictive) definition is the one that applies here. As I said before, I had deliberately drawn a distinction by using the upper-case capitalization, which in common uses of English denotes a particular and possibly affective use of a word or term. If you notice, I used that device for both words, "Objectivists" as well as "Subjectivists."

In that light, I stand by my statement. Jim Taylor

Choose the least restrictive definition that offers the least precision in order to make your case???

Just because two things share some common characteristics, that does not make them the same thing.

 

[Inner Space]

I think the difference between tribes, cults, and religions is not all that wide.

I think they're sequential. The tribe kept us alive for millions of years and became an inescapably baked-in instinct, which morphed into broad-based religions, which bred credulity and introduced charismatic leaders, which together led to cults. What's most interesting in the time of the internet is new-style cult leadership, visible on forums everywhere, not least this one - partly shared and collegial, partly depending on a small handful of perceived "senior figures".

 

[maverickronin]

That doesn't explain the tribal behavior that happens when "objectivists" gang up to ridicule, moan, and groan about how dumb subjectivists are for believing in some placebo snake oil (cables, AC power conditioners, etc).

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them

 

[watchnerd]

I don't care what Jefferson said.

I find it to be an ugly behavior, especially for something as trivial as other people's hobby preferences.

We're not talking about fighting for a lofty cause, here.

 

[maverickronin]

I don't care what Jefferson said.

I find it to be an ugly behavior, especially for something as trivial as other people's hobby preferences.

We're not talking about a lofty cause.

It doesn't really matter who said it. The point is that ridicule is entirely appropriate in some situations.

 

[watchnerd]

It doesn't really matter who said it. The point is that ridicule is entirely appropriate in some situations.

People can justify all sorts of nasty things as being appropriate in some situations.

It makes me disappointed every time I witness it, and usually lowers my opinion of those climbing on to the dog pile.

 

[MediumRare]

I do think there are differences. Important ones that should not be trivialized. Although I do understand how it's easier sometimes for people to just generalize things.

So we're just going to have to agree to disagree

I think this side-debate/conflict is interesting and helps us understand the nut of the bigger issue. Of course, there are several uses of the word Religion which actually are not consistent with each other and could even be offensive if applied to someone who identifies with one definition but not another. So of course the definitions of "Excellent HiFi" and "audiophile" can be written in two ways, each equally supported, mutually exclusive, and offensive to the other tribe.

noun: religion

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
2. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
   "consumerism is the new religion"