Is it Possible to Properly Evaluate a Product if one Doesn't Like how it Sounds? Are Experts just Preaching Their Tastes?

[pk_LA]

I think it's an insightful quote. It makes sense to me. I don't know who wrote it.

But I don't think it makes the hobby fundamentally dishonest

I do not agree that the hobby or the industry are fundamentally dishonest.

But, I do think that the pricing v performance of gear in this hobby is more seemingly random than any other industry I can think of. As such, I would describe the hobby as highly inefficient. Where else can you find the equivalent to speaker cables for $100,000 with total cost of goods (inclusive of r&d) being $1,000? Better yet, the aforementioned cables do not necessarily sound better than $2,000 cables.

After some product placement reviews and respected audiophile "influencers'" endorsements on forums there are fish (sigh, I suspect I am one of these) that buy the cables. Then, after spending $100,000, one is understandably biased to like them. So, they post of the sonic nirvana on sites like WBF and the circle is complete.

 

[tima]

Your claim was that the WBF had some sort of social credit score, Tim. This, I took issue with. There is no social credit score in the US. In other words, your accusation against the WBF is false....and honestly, not appreciated.

That said, let's stay on topic.

 Tom

So, you feigned ignorance and have your understanding of a social credit score. I kinda figured as much, so I had no interest in replying as I was concerned you would take it personally. You jumped in to my response to Ron's post. I understand you are defending your employer and that is okay, but your declaration is your opinion not some truth apart from your belief.

Categorizing people by total donations, highest reaction score, most points, etc. certainly feels like a social credit score. Rating posts through a range of 'likes' allows readers to express opinions/feelings on other readers -- not dissimilar to reporting on your neighbors. (Unfortunately there is no dis-like; the angry emoji is not the same as dislike.)

But the topic Ron introduced is contentiousness in the audio hobby. Would there be more contention or less, would there be less adverserial commentig if the WBF 'system' was different? People will still argue and act with self-righteous indignation, sure, but imo a system that does not formally list or rate people or their messages will cause less contention or friction than what there is now.

Now whether you find contention is a desirable to attract readers or otherwise is a different question, but the WBF system is designed to promote it. I also understand that WBF as a business does not like this to be an open topic, but if one wants to raise the issue of contentiousness in the hobby it may help every once in a while to look in the mirror.

I have no clue if audio is more contentious than other hobbies, but there is contention in audio forums. And I suppose I need to say that this is not about you.

 

[tima]

Tim,

Unfortunately people are reading the quote out of context , and IMO misunderstanding it. This interesting quote must be understood in the context of the Circle of Confusion as referred by Floyd Toole, addressing the limitations of stereo, how they are overcome and the lack of standardisation in the stereo recording process .

Talking about the relative reality of music reproduction and the limitations of stereo, there is a recent discussion about this on the Audiophile Style forum. In that thread there is a post I found interesting from Kal that also references Toole. He also references the first column in his "Music in the Round" articles.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Categorizing people by total donations, highest reaction score, most points, etc.

When I read this my reaction was: "what is he talking about?" I honestly don't even know what the most points thing means.

Almost 100% of my WBF screen time is on the iPhone, so I guess that's why I either virtually never see this, or I never pay attention to it.

I would be very shocked if anybody pays attention to these categories.

It is silly to suggest that these categories increase contentiousness in this hobby.

 

[Al M.]

It is silly to suggest that these categories increase contentiousness in this hobby.

I agree, Ron.

WBF has been just as contentious before all these categories were implemented upon revamping the site a number of years ago (in 2018 or so?).

We sure had heated, mean and nasty analog vs digital discussions already back then . In fact, current such discussions can seem civilized in comparison.

 

[tima]

When I read this my reaction was: "what is he talking about?" I honestly don't even know what the most points thing means.

Almost 100% of my WBF screen time is on the iPhone, so I guess that's why I either virtually never see this, or I never pay attention to it.

I would be very shocked if anybody pays attention to these categories.

It is silly to suggest that these categories increase contentiousness in this hobby.

The link pointed to pages on this forum that show scores accumulated for people in different categories, ranking high to low. I have not seen this elaborate of a presentation on other audio forums, but point those out if you know. You say you don't know what they mean, which seems a bit odd given you are a co-owner and this is a part of the forum It is not profound to say these are scoreboards, implying competition.

The Like system allows people to rate other people's posts -- to score an individual's post or the individual.

I call it a social credit system -- call it what you like. I'm not say this is either a good thing or a bad thing, but there it is.

I agree with Ted here. This hobby seems more contentious than the average hobby.

As one example I've read on-line off-roading forums where the registrants have in their signatures long list of specialty parts they've added to their SUVs -- like we have for audio components. They have strong discussions about the advantages and disadvantages of vehicles and parts. But I don't sense the level of self-righteousness or arrogance or misplaced ego I see from some audiophiles.

Since you are comparing, do the off-roading forums have a social credit system? I don't know. If they don't, could they be less contentious because of that?

 

[wil]

So, you feigned ignorance and have your understanding of a social credit score. I kinda figured as much, so I had no interest in replying as I was concerned you would take it personally. You jumped in to my response to Ron's post. I understand you are defending your employer and that is okay, but your declaration is your opinion not some truth apart from your belief.

Categorizing people by total donations, highest reaction score, most points, etc. certainly feels like a social credit score. Rating posts through a range of 'likes' allows readers to express opinions/feelings on other readers -- not dissimilar to reporting on your neighbors. (Unfortunately there is no dis-like; the angry emoji is not the same as dislike.)

But the topic Ron introduced is contentiousness in the audio hobby. Would there be more contention or less, would there be less adverserial commentig if the WBF 'system' was different? People will still argue and act with self-righteous indignation, sure, but imo a system that does not formally list or rate people or their messages will cause less contention or friction than what there is now.

Now whether you find contention is a desirable to attract readers or otherwise is a different question, but the WBF system is designed to promote it. I also understand that WBF as a business does not like this to be an open topic, but if one wants to raise the issue of contentiousness in the hobby it may help every once in a while to look in the mirror.

I have no clue if audio is more contentious than other hobbies, but there is contention in audio forums. And I suppose I need to say that this is not about you.

Let's be honest here. This has something to do with DDK, doesn't it?

 

[Ron Resnick]

The Like system allows people to rate other people's posts -- to score an individual's post or the individual.

I think the "Like" button is fine. It allows members to express a view without taking their time and without taking up visual space on the forum to make a textual reply post when all they want to do is to express a simple thumbs up or a thumbs down.

Since you are comparing, do the off-roading forums have a social credit system?

I do not know. If they did, I am certain I did not pay attention to these kinds of things on those forums either.

What I am certain about is that the contentiousness level is more closely correlated with the mentalities, egos and personalities of a forum's members than it is to features coding on an internet forum operating system template.

 

[Rt66indierock]

I do not agree that the hobby or the industry are fundamentally dishonest.

But, I do think that the pricing v performance of gear in this hobby is more seemingly random than any other industry I can think of. As such, I would describe the hobby as highly inefficient. Where else can you find the equivalent to speaker cables for $100,000 with total cost of goods (inclusive of r&d) being $1,000? Better yet, the aforementioned cables do not necessarily sound better than $2,000 cables.

After some product placement reviews and respected audiophile "influencers'" endorsements on forums there are fish (sigh, I suspect I am one of these) that buy the cables. Then, after spending $100,000, one is understandably biased to like them. So, they post of the sonic nirvana on sites like WBF and the circle is complete.

Easy answer golf. People buy expensive exclusive limited-edition copies of the Ping Anser 2 putters, Scotty Cameron Tour Rats come to mind. You never see these putters at amateur tournaments where players must pay for them.

As for your example, there is an old saying if you walk into a room and can’t instantly tell who the mark is, it’s you and you better watch out. As you suspect, you are the mark.

What you call inefficient is manipulating the market, which is inherently dishonest.

 

[Rt66indierock]

I would not say fundamentally dishonest , but I understand that an hobby that aims at creating an illusion that is extremely difficult to quantify can be perceived as such as soon as we introduce the words "better than" and rankings.

Lack of transparency and abusive marketing are not forcefully an indication of dishonesty, but does not help the high-end image.

Lack of transparency and abusive marketing are fundamentally dishonest. And it can be illegal. Examples are MQA and Mobile Fidelity for both. The open secrets about Pet Sounds and banjos are examples of dishonestly when it comes to transparency.

 

[Rt66indierock]

I think it's a bullsh▪︎t quote. Recordings are not liars, they are reproduction. Reproduction is not reality. But I agree that fundamentally the hobby is not dishonest.

Tim, if you think this is a BS quote then you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge and history. Knowledgeable people have been talking about the limitations of two channel stereo since stereo was invented.

 

[microstrip]

Lack of transparency and abusive marketing are fundamentally dishonest.

But not in high-end end audio. They are accepted and many people even defend it. Surely others love carrying crusades against it. But IMO in general audiophiles are not bored with it, they are pragmatic.

And it can be illegal. Examples are MQA and Mobile Fidelity for both.

Is MQA illegal? I know it is controversial, but never heard about being illegal. The issue with MFSL was simply fraud and went through a class-action law suite or similar - I am not a lawyer. But curiously, their LPs still sell for a lot of money!

 

[microstrip]

Talking about the relative reality of music reproduction and the limitations of stereo, there is a recent discussion about this on the Audiophile Style forum. In that thread there is a post I found interesting from Kal that also references Toole. He also references the first column in his "Music in the Round" articles.

Yes, but it is not a new subject - the Floyd Toole book was published more than 15 years ago and he addressed this subject before. Unfortunately most audiophiles do not care to read it and some are allergic to the book.
J .Atkinson and Kal referred to it in past several times.

 

[tima]

Tim, if you think this is a BS quote then you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge and history. Knowledgeable people have been talking about the limitations of two channel stereo since stereo was invented.

Tempting as it may be to respond with another ad hominem, I realize it is your nature and you probably can't help yourself.

It's BS not because of debate over two-channel limitations. It's BS for describing recordings as lies and recording engineers as liars.

 

[microstrip]

Tempting as it may be to respond with another ad hominem, I realize it is your nature and you probably can't help yourself.

It's BS not because of debate over two-channel limitations. It's BS for describing recordings as lies and recording engineers as liars.

Although I also dislike insults and fee unhappy with such attacks, again you are misunderstanding the quote because it is out of context and was simply figurative style. Fortunately Jim Watson is a well known recording engineer, musician and composer, respected by the industry and no one with proper knowledge will take your comment seriously.

 

[PeterA]

When I read this my reaction was: "what is he talking about?" I honestly don't even know what the most points thing means.

Almost 100% of my WBF screen time is on the iPhone, so I guess that's why I either virtually never see this, or I never pay attention to it.

I would be very shocked if anybody pays attention to these categories.

It is silly to suggest that these categories increase contentiousness in this hobby.

Ron, you co/own WBF. I am surprised by this post. How can you know little about this?

 

[microstrip]

It is silly to suggest that these categories increase contentiousness in this hobby.

IMHO it is not silly - IMO the WBF category system is non transparent, not scrutinized and intrinsically contentious, unless people consider it so ridiculous that they ignore it - my attitude on it.

As far as I know, it is the only forum I have visited that has such an hierarchy system.

 

[tima]

Although I also dislike insults and fee unhappy with such attacks, again you are misunderstanding the quote because it is out of context and was simply figurative style. Fortunately Jim Watson is a well known recording engineer, musician and composer, respected by the industry and no one with proper knowledge will take your comment seriously.

Your appeal to authority aside, I know exactly what is being said and it is said poorly. Better to speak of verisimiiltude than dishonesty.

 

[microstrip]

Your appeal to authority aside, I know exactly what is being said and it is said poorly. Better to speak of verisimiiltude than dishonesty.

Sorry, as far as I see, you do not know. IMO when accusing someone of being dishonest you must say in a clear way, not insinuations and bravery.

Again, the word "lies" and "liards" were used in a figurative sense, in a a sense that is frequently used by scholars and and sound professionals, addressing the fact that the stereo sound stage is illusionary, not a physical sound stage.

A second aspect of the quote is the so called "circle of confusion" - professionals have different standards in recording and mastering and do not know how consumers will reproduce recordings - how can they be sure the "tricks " will result?

High-end stereo is a cumulative application of "tricks", in some sense high-end designers are like magicians creating illusions for our enjoyment.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, you co/own WBF. I am surprised by this post. How can you know little about this?

I own my iPhone. I am sure that there are trivial, ancillary features I don't pay attention to on my iPhone.

I never paid attention to the points thing here.