As pointed out in the last post, there seems to still be some old school high-end audio exclusionary tactics in our profession:

“High Fidelity is only for rich [need we say old, white, men?], classical-music lovers only whose system must only be evaluated by comparing their system to the sound of acoustical instruments.”

Somewhat shocking that these attitudes still exist.

The typical stuff one can read posted by Bored Angry Self-Absorbed Guys in the forums is more egalitarian, but still exclusionary: Only tubes, only solid-state, only ‘my favorite brand of the week’, only panels, etc.

But, in our experience, people are much more reasonable in practice. Real people with real systems have their preferences, but they laugh about them, or they are forthcoming about the trade-offs that their preferences require compared to the alternatives.

Real Audiophiles seem to be much more pragmatic and practical and not as fanatic as the people posing in forums, and the audiophile ‘public persona’, would indicate.

This is too understated… When people think about audiophiles, and when they read the forums, it seems like 99% of us are wacko and unpleasant to boot. But people with real systems that they care about and work on are only occasionally unpleasant and rarely audiophile bigots.

[Now, it doesn’t help that the anti-audiophile brigade are some of the most bigoted people one would hope never to meet – but it being unfashionable to pick on people of color or the foreign born – they turn their hate to us.]

It is my stipulation that 99% of the people are nice people and that this 1% is not only unpleasant, and has chased away most people off the forums, but that they have chased away most of the people who might otherwise be interested in this hobby.

So, I am not for censorship, but um, can’t we keep a handle on publishing hate-filled diatribes? The anti-audiophiles on AVS Forum and the angry men on Audio Asylum have already chased away many of the reasonable 99%. If Stereophile, many of whose members live on AA, continues going this direction, I predict that they will 1) soon close their doors, and 2) it will just solidify a number of people’s attitudes towards audiophiles as being exclusionary, unfriendly, holier-than-thou, and not too rational.

The point then, is that all music can be good [and bad], including Rap for those of you who are over 35. All technologies can sound good [and bad]. All people, including audiophiles, can be good [and bad].

OK, if you haven’t read this As We See It editorial at the front of this month’s Stereophile [November 2007], don’t.

It is a startlingly transparent view into how a bitter old man can embarrass himself in public. I would suggest to JA to avoid doing any more of these to try and preserve whatever generous status history will assign Mr. Holt at this point.

This “high end audio is what I say it is and anybody who disagrees with me is a __________” is so, so, … so speaking to the adolescent males of the species with too much testosterone and an undying sense of self-importance [yes, it plays right into the hands of the forums where similar modes of thinking rule. On purpose? I don’t know. The topic of how Stereophile is more and more often targeting this same audience is for another post].

Reminds me of the similar people on car forums [I go there every 4 years or so when I need to find out about the current state of the auto market].

These people shout that cars are only supposed to:

1) Handle well [engines in the center, please], or
2) Go fast [in a straight line, of course, you Corvette owners know best], or
3) Be reliable [aka not American made], or
4) Be American made, or
5) Have good mileage [Hybrids], or
6) Have 10 ton towing and hauling capability [here in the west, *sigh*], or
7) … many others

and any other reason to evaluate how good a car is is angrily shouted down and flamed.

For those of us not fanatic about cars [I figure 80% or so of our readers], we can see that this is ridiculous. All of these reasons may be valid for different people, and that a weighted mix of these features is most often what is important to most individuals.

Yes, double blind testing has its uses [but mostly its abuses]. And certainly there is a place for science in high-end audio [though remarkably few of the people advocating this have any clue what science is. And besides, funding is, uh, lacking? AWOL? Laughable? But needed if any real research is to be done in the public domain.]

But the ideas thrown around in the article about ‘disciples’, ‘gospel’ and ‘talented reviewers’ smacks of traditional patriarchal dominance of our hobby and that day is thankfully, long gone, dead, buried, and composted. [the net gave the ignorant a voice for the first time in history, and it is obnoxious; but this is better, in my opinion, than a few moldy olds pontificating from on high].

So, in case it wasn’t clear, it is OK to evaluate your system subjectively, objectively [as if this really exists], a mix of the two, by color scheme, weight, size, technologies used, maximum SPL, origin of manufacturer, personality of manufacturer, towing capacity, or what have you. Sure it may not sound good [If you want it to sound good, use subjective evaluations. Duh.]. Welcome to the free world. Welcome to high-end home audio.