|Make sure to consult this site if you see anyone ever consumer one of these mushrooms BTW... :-)|
When I say that those mushrooms are actually "bad for ya", I trust nobody would disagree, right? After all, it's easy to say that as humans, since these mushrooms will damage our health, we can easily judge them to be "bad" and should simply avoid getting near.
I could not help thinking about this a week back when I read Jonathan Scull's article "Something's Coming" in Stereophile.
In the article, he speaks about the "deadly serious" nature of "high-end audio" for those passionate. He talks about "some measurement types defend their turf without thought - without mercy". He doesn't say who these "measurement types" are and seems to want to ascribe foul intent to these "types" of audio people. He's unhappy that "subjectivists, like (him)" get derided but gives no specific example of what derision he's referring to (is this article then an example of such derision?). He then claims that objectivists "say if you can't measure it, then it doesn't exist". Again, no example, no links, nothing to explain what he's referring to or whom; is it ever that simple? Is this not a beautiful example of an audiophile magazine writer trying hard to construct a cookie-cutter image of the "measurement types"?! Is this a mature way to conduct meaningful dialogue or debate?
Then he drags up the "ferociousness" of the debates "especially regarding cables" - sure. Here's a good example of why cables can be contentious: check out this supposedly-great "JCAT Signature Lan" 1 meter ethernet cable for a mere US$1000. Apparently according to the subjective author: "Keep in mind this cable is directional. When flipped the other way, the sound is denser, softer, and warmer – but trades resolution, detail, and depth." Thank you sir, duly noted.
As one who has been writing about audio for a few years as a hobbyist, I believe I'm rather passionate about this stuff (but not necessarily "deadly serious" since this is still a hobby, right?). As a passionate hobbyist who enjoys sharing ideas with fellow travelers on this journey, I wonder how Mr. Scull expects me and others disgusted by the "High-End" industry to respond to blatant falsehoods such as those cables above?
While thankfully those JCAT cables are not being reviewed in the pages of Stereophile, is it not reasonable that the "struggle continues to this day" with arguments among audiophiles exactly because the Industry/magazines/reviewers seem to be complicit in their silence against such fraud? If magazines like Stereophile had the balls to stand up and say that stuff like those and much of Synergistic Research's product line (obvious example) at least "appear to be BS, folks", then maybe there's no need for emotions to be elevated by those of us who see these products as highly suspect. Instead, we see that accessories like the Synergistic Atmosphere (+ Red ATM [Automated Teller Machine for Synergistic to get cash from audiophiles?]) and bizarre HFTs get the nod in the Fall 2020 Recommended Components list. In fact, check out the description and marvel at Stereophile repeating speculations about "low-frequency dither to overpower a listening room's ambient fields of ... (RFI and EMI)" which as far as I am aware has not been demonstrated and seem more like "lead designer" Ted Denney's flights of fancy.
With this background, the fact that Mr. Scull's next paragraph starts with:
Was simply laughable!
1. What is "High-End" audio?2. What does "High-End" audio provide to high-fidelity enthusiasts?
To close off, let's consider a concrete example of a product that I assume would be classified as "High-End", that's not a cable, and not some "tweaky" accessory. Check out this Stereophile review by Kal Rubinson of the Pink Faun 2.16x music streamer.