J. Gordon Holt - On the state of hifi

[aerius]

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

Excerpt:

Do you still feel the high-end audio industry has lost its way in the manner you described 15 years ago?

Not in the same manner; there's no hope now. Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real thing" had sounded like. Today, "good" sound is whatever one likes. As Art Dudley so succinctly said [in his January 2004 "Listening," see "Letters," p.9], fidelity is irrelevant to music.

Since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different people rarely agree about sound quality. Abandoning the acoustical-instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science, were not parts of my original vision.

Thoughts? Comments?

[ph0rk]

I find his lament of the hostility towards double-blind testing to the most interesting comment. To be honest I wasn't expecting it from the man that founded what is now Stereophile, but times change.

I think that the nature of the changing music business is the unspoken subtext in the interview though - we can't really look at hifi completely separate from the music (re)production industry, and that half has clearly let things slide in terms of fidelity.

Oh, and hi everybody

(flame away, thin skin, etc)

[grawk]

I know I did, and my whole excuse for it?a love for the sound of live classical music?lost its relevance in the US within 10 years. I was done in by time, history, and the most spoiled, destructive generation of irresponsible brats the world has ever seen. (I refer, of course, to the Boomers.)

I love it.

[jinp6301]

Judging by online forums and by the e-mail I receive, there are currently three areas of passion for audiophiles: vinyl playback, headphone listening, and music servers. Are you surprised by this?

I find them all boring, but nothing surprises me any more.

really? those are the three areas of passion for audiophiles?

[Dusty Chalk]

Thoughts? Comments?

The word, "curmudgeon" comes to mind.

[amb]

Judging by online forums and by the e-mail I receive, there are currently three areas of passion for audiophiles: vinyl playback, headphone listening, and music servers. Are you surprised by this?

Hey, I resemble that remark...

[0medon]

Interesting interview. I would like to read the full article when it is written.

[boomana]

The word, "curmudgeon" comes to mind.

You beat me to it. The exact word, and it's not one that pops out daily in my brain.

He's neither right nor wrong, but it seems he's looking at popularity as a frame for his thoughts on fidelity, which make his points bitter more than accurate. To think that there aren't as many people as before interested or trying to accomplish the same goals he names as his own is to be, well, a curmudgeon, and an inaccurate one at that; but if framing his views around the emergence, in force, of everything he's against, and the commercial power it wields, then everything he says is true. I do agree with him when he more or less says that people now want a personalized audio experience, and aren't as interested anymore in agreeing upon an ideal of accurate reproduction, but focusing instead on what is pleasing to them.

I found this quote telling:

No audio product has ever succeeded because it was better, only because it was cheaper, smaller, or easier to use. Your generation of music lovers will probably be the last that even think about fidelity.

I've been thinking a lot about the dumbing down of audio appreciation lately (convenience vs. quality, economics vs. appreciation), and those thoughts started that whole inane Disturbing Trend thread as well as another on head-fi (now probably erased). I doubt it's any different than in the 80s, except that the digital age and age of convenience hadn't yet taken over completely. I can see why he feels its all going down the wrong path.

[Jon L]

"Judging by online forums and by the e-mail I receive, there are currently three areas of passion for audiophiles: vinyl playback, headphone listening, and music servers. Are you surprised by this?

I find them all boring, but nothing surprises me any more."

Hey, JGH called us headphone people "boring" :'(

And since many of us are into music servers, that's double-whammy

On a more serious note, I would like to point out to JGH and JA that Stereophile and other big audio mags and their staff over the decades have played a substantial part in the apparent demise of the "high end" by:

1. Endlessly and shamelessly promoting stratospherically overpriced boutique gear that eventually turned off most of the sensible public.

2. Passively crushing the little guys and high-value products by simply pretending they don't exist.

3. Endlessly preaching that "the absolute sound" can only be live unamplified acoustic music while the entire PLANET has embraced many other types of music just as valid.

4. Promoting half-truths, non full-disclosures, questionable dealings based on personal relationships among reviewers/staff and manufacturers. Personally knowing some of these folks, I'm amazed by how much (negatives) is left out of reviews when I KNOW the reviewer feels he can't put down a certain product b/c of various personal/business reasons.

5. But most of all, for being arrogant, closed-minded, believing that only THEIR ears and opinions matter, especially after they've lost all hearing above 10kHz and/or are on the verge of requiring hearing aids (I kid you not)...

[granodemostasa]

he's generally right.

[spritzer]

He's right that the high end, as in the companies that make it up, will many die as a lot of them have missed the point but the hobby will live on.

[Dusty Chalk]

No, I agree with boomana -- he's right if you take it at a "pop" level, but he's wrong to do so. Audiophilia has always been a niche market, and having mp3's vs. FLAC vs. DSD and high-rate PCM just points out the differences between the lengths people will go to to get high fidelity. Most people -- either out of having a low budget, or out of not caring enough -- will go the low fidelity route, but there will always be a subset of the population -- both out of elitism, and out of actually caring -- that will be interested in "better". He completely leaves the niche-ness out of his analysis, and thereby misses the mark.

[Elephas]

The word, "curmudgeon" comes to mind.

I thought so too. He seemed to me an arrogant, crotchety old man complaining about everything.

[Icarium]

I think the lack of differentiation between what is "good/likable" and what is "accurate" is a problem in the high end. Not saying I'm a perfect judge of accuracy but I think it is something that high end/cutting edge/state of the art designers should seek if they want to fall into that category.

I don't think music appreciation and being an audiophile is the same thing. People who say things like "Don't forget to enjoy the music" aren't seeking the same things I am. I love music. Music isn't so hard for me to like that I need a multi-thousand dollar system to enjoy it. Me being an audiophile is why I need that system.

[laxx]

I think the lack of differentiation between what is "good/likable" and what is "accurate" is a problem in the high end. Not saying I'm a perfect judge of accuracy but I think it is something that high end/cutting edge/state of the art designers should seek if they want to fall into that category.

I don't think music appreciation and being an audiophile is the same thing. People who say things like "Don't forget to enjoy the music" aren't seeking the same things I am. I love music. Music isn't so hard for me to like that I need a multi-thousand dollar system to enjoy it. Me being an audiophile is why I need that system.

I agree with this whole heartedly. I can enjoy music from my car speakers, from my friend's 1 earbud when we're taking the subway, or out of the stock speakers on a 32" CRT TV from the 90's.

[deepak]

A Stereophile article on the demise of audiophilia and not one mention of the word "iPod", this is an all time first

[spritzer]

I think the lack of differentiation between what is "good/likable" and what is "accurate" is a problem in the high end. Not saying I'm a perfect judge of accuracy but I think it is something that high end/cutting edge/state of the art designers should seek if they want to fall into that category.

I don't think music appreciation and being an audiophile is the same thing. People who say things like "Don't forget to enjoy the music" aren't seeking the same things I am. I love music. Music isn't so hard for me to like that I need a multi-thousand dollar system to enjoy it. Me being an audiophile is why I need that system.

The sad part is the most designers have lost that drive towards more accurate systems and have instead landed on some strange plateau of manufactured hi-end sound. This is why this there are all these small niche markets to satisfy the true music lovers that don't buy into the high-end crap. I can listen to music on just about anything but I have my rigs to get closer to the music, not to paint a pretty picture of how it should be.

[ph0rk]

A Stereophile article on the demise of audiophilia and not one mention of the word "iPod", this is an all time first

Frankly, I think it takes a twisted kind of logic to argue that the ability to take over a hundred hours worth of music with you is in any way "bad" or a regression.

Sure, an ipod isn't the pinnacle of fidelity, but it's portable!

Imho there are more options for high fidelity listening now, not less.

[hungrych]

As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don't matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don't always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing.

Yes! This is exactly what is wrong with the "high-end audio" world. Just look at the recent controversy over Pear cables. It's as if logic, common sense, and the laws of physics don't apply to audio in the eyes of it's manufacturers and consumers.

[lupus]

A Stereophile article on the demise of audiophilia and not one mention of the word "iPod", this is an all time first

"No audio product has ever succeeded because it was better, only because it was cheaper, smaller, or easier to use."

Sounds like iPod territory to me.

Rather than a curmudgeon, Holt comes across more as exasperated and frustrated. He seems to simply be distinguishing between high-fidelity and musicality, two distinct terms that tend to be misappropriated by audio companies, and then further confused in audio forums.

Strictly speaking, he is a purist. And while many may claim to be an audiophile, they are often misusing the term, describing sound preferences that may have nothing to do with true to life sound reproduction.

[ph0rk]

Strictly speaking, he is a purist. And while many may claim to be an audiophile, they are often misusing the term, describing sound preferences that may have nothing to do with true to life sound reproduction.

au?di?o?phile   /ˈɔdiəˌfaɪl/ 

?noun

a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction.


high fidelity 

n.  The electronic reproduction of sound, especially from broadcast or recorded sources, with minimal distortion. 


high fidelity

?noun Electronics.

sound reproduction over the full range of audible frequencies with very little distortion of the original signal.

I see nothing in particular that precludes a favored EQ signature in those definitions. One man's "true to life" is quite possibly another man's audiocrap.

Of course, it could just be that I've dealt with enough drunk/stoned/deaf sound men to no longer hold live music on the audiophile pedestal.

[hYdrociTy]

^ is it coincidence?

/ˈɔdiəˌfaɪl/ 

look carefully. helps to be dyslexic.

[lupus]

I see nothing in particular that precludes a favored EQ signature in those definitions. One man's "true to life" is quite possibly another man's audiocrap.

Of course, it could just be that I've dealt with enough drunk/stoned/deaf sound men to no longer hold live music on the audiophile pedestal.

I interpret the "minimal distortion of the original signal" as often contradictory to a preferred sound signature. I thought that was what Holt was pointing out.

As for subjectivity deciding what is "true to life" and what is crap, I couldn't agree more.