Our Responsibility


As my music system competes with fireworks in the background (4th of July, after 9 pm) I’ve been reflecting on John Darko’s recent post (linked below). Specifically this section:

"Being a hi-fi enthusiast isn’t about the gear we own, the music we listen to or in which format. It’s about how we listen: attentively and mindfully, to the music AND to others."

Perhaps the significance and import of this very special day in our national history has opened up a window within me, to explore this further.

I’m asking our community: What is it that we can do to share and expand our interest and hobby, and this special love of music, with others?

From Darko.Audio: https://darko.audio/2019/07/the-know-it-all-audiophile-threatens-community-expansion/
david_ten
I think it’s human nature to share with others what you enjoy, and just like many of us in this forum. We were somewhere where we could be introduced to a music system that captured our attention.

Hoping that we can pass the baton on, by introducing quality playback to others who may embrace the passion we have shared, I think it’s brilliant.

What that person may or not do if they get such an experience, it’s up to them I suppose.

Elizabeth, 

I generally appreciate your remarks and insight, and you're usually right.  But, there's 6 standards to meet the threshold of Fraudulent Representation, as opposed to "Puffery" and the court system takes a pretty dim view of the fraud part.  It's actually quite illegal.

Overselling may be a part of the audio culture, but if the wheels are set in motion by the manufacturer and it involves outright lying,  it puts the manufacturer in a very vulnerable spot.  All it takes is for somebody to get screwed, then get mad and be able to document what happened... and there's either a quiet settlement or court case that resonates throughout the industry.  Watch what happens with this one.
@kosst_amojan, great initial post. Well worth a second read.


"This hobby has something in common with religion. Denial of reality. Just like religion, this is a dying hobby, and plenty of folks want to deny it along with the reasons it's dying. I've never seen a problem get solved when the nature of the problem is denied.

A BIG problem, and the basis of the most vitriolic exchanges, is the rabid embrace of snake oil by so many in this hobby. The general public really does think most of this hobby is snake oil and vanity and the kinds of advice I see lobbed at self-described freshman here does nothing to dismiss that perception.

This snake oil nonsense that gets pawned off as "legitimate" audiophilia is distinctly different than the various philosophies on what constitutes a good system. Genuinely different philosophies are based on technical knowledge and personal priorities in what the listener is trying to accomplish. The line gets crossed into snake oil when "tweaks" are elevated to the importance of core technical specifications. For instance, imaging is poor, and rather than address the acoustics of the room (the real problem), idiotic solutions like cables, isolation footers, and fuses get suggested. That not only discredits the hobby, but it inevitably instigates debates to try to disprove and shut those nuts down.

I make it a point NOT to employ such snake oil tweaks so that when I put somebody in this listening chair they know there's no hocus pocus at work. It's nothing but basically competent equipment in a treated room doing what it does. It's not the prettiest, but it sounds really good. The amp doesn't have a top so they can see it's guts and I can explain what it's doing with very simple analogies. The speakers are what they are, Focal 936's on their factory spikes. My gear sits on a solid oak table. There's NO magic beyond ordinary comprehension at work here.

I've had several people in their early and mid 20's here to hear this thing. One guy has been lusting after it ever since, but doesn't have the space. The 23 year old girl was legitimately stunned after believing it couldn't be THAT good for 2 years. We sat together and she seriously listened for almost 45 minutes. She was so into it that she forgot I was even there. When she finished she asked me what everything in the room cost, piece by piece and I told her. She said it seemed "wise" even given the cost. She explained to me that she's spent so much on "frivolous" things like clothes and drinks and jewelry, but I have something that allows me THIS experience any time I want and that seems "wise".

Young people, in my estimation, are groping for legitimate value in this world. All too often they're sold a perception of value. Insanely prices coolers that don't work any better than my Coleman. iPhones that crack and break if you look at them wrong and are worthless in 2 years. Outrageously styles cars that ape the looks of classics or track cars, but made mostly of plastic with their fake vents and scoops. Even their friends are fake digital friends. Put these people in front of something real and legitimate that legitimately moves them and they do not forget.

That's how I cultivate the next generation. Give them an experience. Give them knowledge and explanations they can understand. The first thing I do before somebody listens is have them listen to the room. Let them hear the difference between my listening room and my dining room just talking. It's obvious. They instantly get it. There's no snake oil to it. It's not cheap stuff, but it's definitely worth what it cost in the experience it creates."



"Put these people in front of something real and legitimate that legitimately moves them and they do not forget."

Let me help you guys out a little bit.

First of all you can’t debunk something that’s not bunk. But don’t let that stop you. Here are a few tips.


• Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous," "trivial," "crackpot," or "bunk," in a manner that purports to carry the full force of scientific authority.

• Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will send the message that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it -- and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

• By every indirect means at your disposal imply that science is powerless to police itself against fraud and misperception, and that only self-appointed vigilantism can save it from itself.

• Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a pre-emptive holy war against invading hordes of quackery-spouting infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending it.

• Reinforce the popular fiction that our scientific knowledge is complete and finished. Do this by asserting that "if such-and-such discovery were legitimate, then surely we would already know about it!"