The High End and Glubglub

I'm saying I have absolutely no problem with skeptics -- especially when it comes to high end audio. I wouldn't trust any "movement" which would seek to do away with skepticism. So, I am saying, if you find yourself frustrated when others won't suspend their disbelief and accept your argument or -- gads -- movement -- you're probably trying too hard. IMO, the goal shouldn't be to convert others to your "movement" -- I like to be spared from 99% of the TRUE BELIEVERS in the world --
you can usually count on me to move to the other end of the bar just as the foam starts to collect at the corners of the angry zealot's chops --
long before they start stretching my lapels -- the goal should be to trust your own ears, like what you like, vote with your pocketbook, express your opinion as passionately and entertainingly as possible and let the quality of your argument be your reward, rather than the number of converts one has made. That's my opinion.

I hope that's more clear.

Let's bear in mind that while scepticism is healthy and necessary, the sceptic in the quotation above is an irrational and biased sceptic, and this is not healthy. In the '70s there was a "movement" for pure measurement, which placed such things as intermodulation distortions and such-like at the forefront, thus making the arrogant claim that all that could be identified in the reproduction of music had been identified in labs, end of story. This was a "movement," led by a group of fanatics, which came from somewhere, i.e. the scientific/engineering community, and which negatively affected music reproduction for more than a decade. These were not recognized as fanatics at the time because they were "scientific". It was a "movement" founded in grass roots which said that such measurements did not explain the whole story, thus leading to today's much more liberal approach in which it is recognized that many components which "measure" badly are in fact incredibly musical, while others that measure very well in fact are musical disasters. Eventually this more liberal approach will lead to the identification of the phenomena which are responsible for the good sound, and we will then be able to design them more reliably into future equipment: advancement of the art. So today, measurements are taken with a grain of salt by the entire industry. Does this mean that there are no more problems now and so no more room for improvement? There are many professional reviewers trying to focus our attention on aspects of music reproduction for which they have no precise language, but which they consider important, a Factor X. We should kick this ball around, try to identify Factor X.

Gregm, you make some good points. But it is the big corporations that dictate what recording formats we will listen to, and what players will be available to play them. And a lot of the new technology they develop eventually trickles down to the smaller niche companies, usually starting with specialty companies modifying their existing models (e.g. Modwright or Bolder Cable Co.). In the case of tube electronics, I agree that this is a niche area that the big corporations don't see as a big enough market for them to concern themselves.

And I don't think it is the skeptics who are buying DIY, horn-loaded speakers... The skeptics are buying gear that comes with specifications, pie-charts, graphs, and good ratings in Consumer Reports.

Geeze, I guess I better sell my class-A amps before 2008... either that, or stockpile more of them. :)

The problem with any movement is that eventually it will seek to identify itself as the in group with god or logic on its side and to demonize all others. IMO, replacing one "movement" with another is not the answer.
IMO, the answer is to realize that every ear hears music differently. I get
tired of seeing these little movements and efforts to create "in groups."
Vinyl versus digital, tube versus solid state, measurement versus golden
ears, etc. There was a couple of weeks awhile ago where I saw repeated references to "those who listen to music" versus "those who listen to their systems." IMO, this is all very human, but also very silly. We are talking about the enjoyment of music. The message I get from the
measurement movement isn't that it was the wrong movement, it is that
there should always be a variety of approaches to this hobby and those
within it would do well to express all of their passion, while practicing tolerance. Just my opinion.

What you say is true about people identifying with movements, but we do not live in a vacuum, and movements surround us all the time and at every level: they are just so pervasive we do not see them. Science is a movement which started with Bacon, Galileo & co., but it can be taken too far. Capitalism is a movement, as is democracy and so on...it is the human condition. But new movements bring with them new ideas. Was not the American revival of the Greek idea of democracy called The Great Experiment? Russian Communism was also a movement and an experiment. Our hobby itself is a movement. No getting away from it, as you say, the human condition. In audio we are living in all sorts of movements, and the measurement camp is still very much alive, and does pervade it at various levels and in various ways. It's not all so innocent, as we are often persuaded by our peers and the media into bad decisions, which we then justify in various ways, while being musically unfulfilled (this has economic consequences as well). Movements are necessary, and affect philosophy, how we choose equipment, and design. They also teach us what is possible: one of the first "audiophile" experiences is the discovery that two-channel stereo creates an "image". New movements may, no make that "will", reveal things we do not yet know which will improve future designs for our musical edification. Empirical science was such a movement. Narrowness of thought reduces choice.