MUSINGS: "People, please, you want to grow our industry?" - Comments on Jonathan Scull's Stereophile article and what is "High End" audio good for?

Make sure to consult this site if you see anyone ever consumer one of these mushrooms BTW... :-)

As you can see, I have a picture of George Carlin (from 2008, RIP), known for the quoted comment beside some arguably "pretty" Amanita mushrooms above. These pictures represent some ideas I'll be talking about in today's post. The mushrooms by the way grow around these parts of Southwestern British Columbia and Pacific Northwest US. They look quite pretty in the wild, but these are toxic if consumed. They're bad for ya... Of course, there are many things (and people) in life that look good on the surface, but ultimately unwise to be enmeshed with, pretty mushrooms are just an innocuous example. :-)

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:

"People, please, you want to grow our industry?"

Was simply laughable!

What industry is Scull talking about? The audio industry where already plenty of music lovers are buying affordable, reasonably-priced, and excellent DACs from Topping, SMSL, Schiit, realistically priced ELAC speakers, reasonable Emotiva amplifiers and basically best-of-the-best quality Benchmark amplifier for US$3000? Or is he talking about the "High-End" industry with back-breaking 5-figure speakers, exotic and typically costly tweaks, fancy dressed-up cables, $20,000+ DACs, and amplifiers that cost "$500 per watt" or something like that?

Seriously, I enjoy fancy looks, exquisite workmanship, and expensive materials can indeed be very nice. Yes, these things cost money. Sports cars cost money. Great wines cost money. Jewelry costs money. Some of these things I enjoy and own as well for what they are and for esthetic reasons. The problem when it comes to audio is that the purveyors insist that these products sound better typically with no evidence or plausible rationale. Simply put, much of this stuff just doesn't seem to provide "higher fidelity" which usually is the primary selling point aimed at audiophiles. So, when a guy comes along and offers a piece of ethernet wire that has magical properties claiming that it sounds better and has other properties like "directionality" for best quality at an insane price, isn't that striking at the heart of the passionate audiophile? Suddenly, he/she is confronted by such unusual ideas that do not resonate with the rest of life or behave like any other engineered product!

When Scull then claims that emotional debates "drive music lovers away from a potential joy of a lifetime", is he serious? Does he actually not think that so many of the products reviewed in Stereophile would simply scare music lovers by the price tag coupled with often obviously bizarre beliefs? As I've said in the past, I believe "music lovers" are not the same as "hardware audiophiles". Many a music lover would just look at the ridiculous products being peddled and walk away, intuitively recognizing that there's a very deep, perhaps dangerous, "bad for ya" rabbit hole here that's not worth exploring!

As for more affordable gear, he mentions Steve Guttenberg's YouTube channel which I think is okay in some ways although there are clearly questionable parts given his associations and past work. I'm not so sure about Herb Reichert's idiosyncratic ways and at times unusual philosophies. If you want a more down-to-earth YouTube channel that's quite balanced, I would suggest checking out the highly accessible Andrew Robinson or the new Erin's Audio Corner (very cool that he's an '80s music guy as well) - these guys are by no means "kids", but it's nice to see younger people taking audio in different directions from the "old guard". I don't think there's anything wrong physiologically to suggest that "Golden Ears" do have a shelf-life and there is a time when old male audiophiles simply should retire especially from subjective-only reviewing. By the way, what does it mean when Scull talks about "affordable systems that make music the high-end way"?

There's no point arguing about every item Scull tried to make in the rest of that article because his train of thought meanders here and everywhere (like Harley's a few weeks back). Comments like "Dealers, retailers, please realize that these people are out there and need their music..." seems to be referring to stores which sell music - what does this have to do with "high-end" hardware? People can access and enjoy music just fine. The part about "I made the mistake of telling one audiophile what I thought of his system, and he nearly killed me. Even his wife insulted me, saying that my system sounded too big" has nothing to do with objective/subjective debates nor do limp white asparagus or ugly children. He suggests that "It would be great if objectivists would just withhold prejudgment and listen to a high-end system built with sound in mind" with again no specifics or examples whatsoever! Come on man, don't leave us in suspense, who are you talking about?

Despite his allegations, can we not accept that "objectivists" do listen as well? Objectivists do go to audio shows, they visit dealers, they might be curious and check out cable demos. Heck, even some borrow relatively expensive cables to listen to and test, even Synergistics ;-).

Again, who's engaged in: "Mark your turf, defend at all costs, us against them, never even listen to those on the other side (that's so ridiculous)"? Hang on, Mr. Scull, didn't you just stereotype the "measurement types" above? Isn't that a little hypocritical to now say "us against them" when you just literally did this moments earlier? How inconsistent, even within the same article!

Consider this, who seems to have the upper hand in this debate when it comes to having a good understanding of reality? Is it the objective-leaning folks who actually respect science and will run their own measurements and do listen to the gear as well (we too are music lovers!)? Or is it the pure subjectivist who supposedly hears all kinds of things but questions objective testing, are unable to run their own technical measurements, and typically are critical of controlled listening including blind testing to minimize psychological biases? Suppose this is truly a "deadly serious" (to use Scull's own words) matter like say curing an illness, which type of thinking would be more likely to lead to a worthwhile treatment? 

The rest of the the article seems to be some plea to get businesses going again amongst dealerships, audio shows, and playing one's kids' music so they might be interested (in spending money on audio hardware?). Sure, OK. We can certainly enjoy music now and hopefully soon businesses will get past the pandemic. [I actually hope next year's Pacific Audio Fest happens in Seattle, I might do a little trip down with friends.]

To me then, after reading this article, thinking about "growth", about the little growing patch of Amanita mushrooms along my jogging trail... I think the questions that need to be asked of a "subjective audiophile" apologist like Scull are simply:

1. What is "High-End" audio?

2. What does "High-End" audio provide to high-fidelity enthusiasts?

You see, I cannot answer these questions. The only people that presumably can would be someone like Jonathan Scull himself, or maybe Robert Harley, perhaps others in Stereophile and TAS. Indeed we can look at the Wikipedia page for "High-end audio" and see a rather paltry entry suggesting stuff like "high price or quality", "esoteric or novel sound reproduction technologies", and "the subjective or objective quality of sound reproduction" as hallmarks. With regards to that last item, it doesn't seem that Scull is advocating for objectivity as being the "high-end way".

As for myself, being more interested in high-fidelity as a core philosophy, I'm not sure that "High-End audio" adds much if anything of value.

Therefore, when Scull asks: "People, please, you want to grow our industry?", I suppose I could simply answer in all honesty: "No, let's not grow the Hi-End industry as it stands today."

Why would audiophiles enthusiastically sign up to help "grow" something that is this poorly defined? Don't you think some of the products in the "High-End" simply look pretty on the outside like those Amanita mushrooms, but at the end of the day could actually be bad for you? I might feel better if "High-End" magazines actually did a good job with separating snake oil from worthwhile but expensive goods and actually helped consumers determine the value of products. Instead, even if we casually thumb through an issue of any audiophile magazine, it's quite routine to see unusual ideas about what is claimed to be subjectively audible. We can look at the reviewers' "Associated Equipment" list and notice strange items in the listening room. Do you not think that silly beliefs in $1000 ethernet cables, "quantum" products, "Resonance Synchronizers", $640 LAN switches, or even blindly believing in nonsense like the almost universally-loved MQA among "High-End" magazines might actually also be harmful to the hobby because these are simply dishonest schemes; to put it bluntly, scams? IMO, these exist just to extract dollars from the audiophile/music lover, nothing more.

Let's simply allow customers to have access to great sounding, high-fidelity gear at rational prices! That's the kind of "industry" I hope grows.

The fact that "objectivists" hold such passionate disdain, at times emotionally charged during discussions, is not a bad thing. It's simply a reflection of a need to insist at times that there be balance between factual truths and subjective opinions.

Remember dear readers, the power is always with the consumer. It is not up to the Industry to demand anything. They do not have any "right" to growth, this must be fought for by convincing customers that the Industry is of value in some way and companies are able to compete within themselves to be successful and gain the trust of those in the market. The consumers are the ones who ultimately decide and have the power and right to accept or reject the offers. Writers like Scull need to work harder but not on this kind of messaging. Why not work harder to actually show readers why "Hi-End" products make a difference and are worthwhile? If this article is a reminder to us that the "Hi-End" might be an ailing Industry, the sickness in all likelihood began before the pandemic.

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.

It's an 8-core Ryzen computer, has 32GB of RAM, is fanless (good), and appears to be overbuilt with expensive linear power supplies, and custom OCXO clocks (but has no DAC). For more details, you can see this older article, it looks like Pink Faun used the ASRock Fatal1ty X370 motherboard back then at least. It runs Linux, and for all the power under the hood, you need to buy a Roon subscription to take advantage of that. Furthermore, the price "starts at" €12,000 (>US$14,000!). This thing is supplied with only 256GB SSD which means it can't store a decent sized music library unless you add drives. As it is, who's this product targeted to? Does this not seem like an insane amount of money for what's basically a Ryzen 7 computer in a huge, heavy fanless case? Even with all the power supplies and low-latency RAM and tuned Linux and OCXO clock, there is nothing here to suggest your music will sound any different compared to a low-power Raspberry Pi connected to the same modern USB DAC. Heck, it wouldn't even be tough to argue that the Raspberry Pi is superior with lower potential for EMI/RF.

Furthermore, based on our survey here earlier this year, since >60% of respondent say they have <2TB of audio data, surely for the asking price, Pink Faun could have included a decent 4TB Samsung SSD drive for around $400 that would have at least given the user some local storage given the size of the box and expense. Even with a 4TB SSD, the profit margin would surely remain healthy for the company!

Feel free to read the quasitechnical nonsense about turning buffers off and such on their web page. Where is there any evidence that such a thing is true? A warning to those at risk of taking this stuff seriously... It's bad for ya. (BTW, we discussed the computer audio mythos awhile back with a related type of product.)

To end off, while this article is highly critical of the "High-End", to a large part, it's because the definition is so vague that I think it actually has become a catch-all such that Audiophile High-End = Expensive Stuff + Crazy Stuff. Maybe the audiophile magazines need to rebrand a better category that actually reflects highest performance, and yes, expensive, but make sure they disqualify Crazy Stuff. I'm not sure if this is even possible any more with most of these "high-end" brands because I suspect evidence-based analysis would rather quickly exclude a massive number of the names that currently consider themselves to be members of any elite "class".

-----------------------------

Well, it's amazing that we're down to the last month of 2020!

Truly a rollercoaster year in so many ways. While it certainly won't be at the same level of family festivities here at Chez Archimago over Christmas, I don't think there's anything wrong with celebrating the season with silent nights and restful contemplation.

Despite the absence of long-distance family visits, ironically, this December will probably be busier than most on account of Zoom conferences and meetings, plus getting some research work in. Just in case I don't get to post much over the next little bit, I hope you're all having a great December...

Enjoy the music.