This is the subject that keeps bothering me over the years and I have no idea why I never have written about it within my site. The subject of this article will be a completely irrational, located at the boundary of idiocy, behavioral pattern of the absolutely dominating majority of audio people: their incapacity to deal with critiques of audio that they own or they care about.

Really, try to meet any manufacturer and engage with him/her (let talk about him from now and on) in a conversation about the specific performance weaknesses of their audio. Try to visit a dealer or a distributor and point out the sonic absurdness of some decisions that he took in organization of his demonstration or to question performance of specific configuration. Try to visit a listening room of a private audio person and point out to him the very specific and very tangible unconstructive moments of sound reproduction of his system… In all those and many other cases you will face with open hostilely and with a situation when people feel severely personably insulted and behave as you hurt them. What the bunch of Morons!

That always puzzled me and frankly speaking turned me off a lot in my desire to socialize with audio community. How more idiotic a person should be that he accepts purely audio critiques as evidence of ANYTHING ELSE BESIDES JUTS AUDIO CRITIQUES! How fool people should be that they avoid using somebody else’s interpretations of audio efforts for MUTUAL EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES? Isn’t it the reasons why we demonstrate our playbacks to each other: to learn?

I’m seen it all. I have seen manufactures who scrammed to me that I’m idiot because I was no impressed with the sound that they did. I have seen privet parties who proudly invited me to audition their playback and who literally tossed me out of their homes, as soon I did not express enthusiasm about the Sound that I heard. I do not remember that I EVER expressed dissatisfaction with Sound without referring to the very specific and very EXPLICIT FACTS of my auditable experiences. I’m also always very open to negotiate and to discusses those facts or to correlate our observations about the moments that we liked or disliked. The reason for my willingness is because I use any my trips to listen somebody else’s systems, as well as visits of any person in my listening room for nothing else beside SELF EDUCATIONS.  However, the average audio people are not equipped to do use audio critiques for education. They use audio for ego boosting of what whatever else reasons… but only not for advancing of ourselves in audio understanding. That makes them very very boring…

Year after year I receive those idiotic phone calls form friends of mine: “Romy, I was in “X-city” and went to listening room of “Mr. Y”. The system performed very badly, with the following problems: A, B, C, D, E, F… Of course I did not tell him about it and said that it sounded Great” I always question this behavior: why do a person if he has a rational judgment should not share this judgment with another person who in fact DO EXPECT someone’s opinion? You do not say that somebody kids look ugly you juts point out the very specific, objective, mutually notable facts of sound reprodaction. It is it!!! Why you, the audio people, have built for yourself this completely idiotic communication protocol according to which you participate in mutual flattering of own stupid egos?  You, the audio people, for whatever damn reasons, project your personal attachment to whatever doing on in your listening rooms, isn’t it stupid? It would be fine if you demonstrate personal attachments to Results but unfortunately you demonstrate those attachments to Methods and to the empty Marketing Inflictions.

It is not secret that in some cases a playback system builder, designer or the owner has more evolved comprehending of the REASONS of cons or pros of his installation/components and can interpret them more deeply. But this is exactly what it is: get a different perspective on the subject (if criticizing person is wiling and capable (happen hardly ever) to demonstrate HIS REASONS) and expose the subject to the diversity of exposures. When I have audio people in my home I ALWAYS ask them what it wrong with Sound in my listening room. I might agree or disagree with the opinions. I might or might not know what made my visitor to feel good or bad and what made them disagree with my assessments. However, I find it always, ALWAYS (!!!)educational to hear people if they express their NATIVE PERCEPTION to what they feel. (Instead just hearing how they quote for me in my room the paragraphs from an audio reviews that they have read. Although I try to do bring Audio Morons ™ in my listening room but sometimes I let them to break through).

What the point of this article? The point is to suggest you, the audio freaks, to loose the fear of yourself and start to accept Sound in your listening rooms like nothing else then JUTS SOUND IN YOUR LISTENING ROOMS. I have great interest to audio people who NOT JUST DO AUDIO but have an INTEREST OF DOING AUDIO. I have great respect to manufactures (regardless the results they produces) who now juts support their status quo but wiling to see themselves in the EVERLASTING CONTINUATION OF AUDIO EDUCATION, who stays behind what they do USING THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND THE RESULTS AS A REFERENCES POINTS INSTEAD OF THEIR EGOS.

I always say that Audio is not a purpose but juts a tool. Unfortunately many audio Morons ™ use audio as a tool FOR WRONG PURPOSE. I was very far from suggesting that audio is a tool for improving sense of self, or patting own ego. I juts wish more Audio people able to discover that OTHER MEANING OF AUDIO PURPOSE… Perhaps then, criticizing other’s Audio efforts we would be able to find nobler objectives and might allow themselves to become more attentive listeners of each other… Just little bit more honesty and little bit less fear…

Amen!
Romy the Cat

jweiss wrote:

As you sent me a link to this thread, I imagine you would like a response. It seems to me that creating a useful thread on this subject on this website would require you talking about sound systems you have heard and liked, as opposed to the long list of things you despise which comprise a good deal of the territory here. It is true that audio is a disaster area, and you are a chronicler of its destitution. Personally, I enjoy your Don Quixote antics. But it would stretch the imagination that in all your travels and experiences, you have not heard good sound anywhere but your own home system, which is often the received impression. Perhaps you can share with us some of the high points of systems you have heard and liked in your peregrinations, both in small rooms and in large ones? Maybe you can even be specific in describing what you liked? As a newcomer here, perhaps I just missed your happy reviews, and only have read the sad ones. I would appreciate being pointed in the right direction as to how to locate your positive comments about anything in audio, minus of course what you yourself have built, bought or otherwise claimed as your own. Having an idea of what you indeed liked, in contrast to what you hate, might give a better picture of what you are up to, no?

I do not think you “got” the subject of this thread. It is not about what I have heard and what I might like. It is not about the sound in my room (that I admire much less then you might believe), your room or anybody else's rooms. What my proposed by you description of reportedly good sound would add to the fact of audio people’s disability to talk honesty and without egos about audio and about the actual results that they accomplish or experience? Once again it is not about “happy reviews” and not about me. It is more about us and, we everybody should look at ourselves and learn how our fears and ego effect our better judgments.

The CaT

Guy,

I absolutely disagree and I think there is a huge difference between lettings your wife to know that skin in her neck remind you sesame chicken and letting a play director know that his new production stinks. Of course we moderate our behavior in order do not hurt (for instance I do not make public comment about private visits) but what kind damage might be involved if one person present his efforts and another person pass his observations on the RESULT of those efforts. Pretend that collect stamps (bear with me I know nothing about stamps) related to US constitution and after someone looked through your collection tell you that you have missed entire period from 1920 and your stamps from 19 century are Brooklyn made fake. Does it mean that it put you is a suicidal mode or it means that you god educated and your stamp-collecting skills go evolved? If you written a book and somebody, after reading it, inform you about the self-contradicting facts in this book, or about hideous language or about kitschy plot or about shallow developed characters then does it mean anything else beside that fact that a person invested his time into results of your labor and share with you’re his observations. What is the difference in audio? You spend day of you live in your listening rooms trying to make that cable elevator between your phonostage and cartridge to “sound better” and someone after listening your setup inform you that your cartridge loaded insultingly sharp or your loudspeakers have midrange driver that does not fire up. Does it mean that your ego hurt so hard hat you should put in your will a vendetta obliging you children to kill all me children? Doesn’t it mean that you should take advantage of learning something and do not waste your time in the unfruitful actions?

Do we toss the baby with water when we “take a small pleasure in telling them that it's either incredible or unbelievable and let them take from that the meaning they want to”. Does it deliver anything else besides diminishing expectations and create an opportunely for ignorant and devious idiots (means audio-dealers) to flourish their operations? In the end, dose it mean that after the visit you, despite that your phonocorrector that has no LF section of RIAA curve, should return back to playing with your cable elevator to “get more bass”? (Bear with me as well:  all audio examples are not fictional)

It is not about the “audio hasn't evolved as far as it could have if everyone had been ruthlessly honest to everyone else”. Audio has no own evolvement and evolvement of audio critique is a subject of individual consciousness. Are we looking forward to be “right” or “happy” in our marriage? Are we looking forward to be “right” or “happy” in our calculations of ballast for our yachts? I’m sure those two question would have very different answers.

The Cat

Romy the Cat wrote:

What is the difference in audio? You spend day of you live in your listening rooms trying to make that cable elevator between your phonostage and cartridge to “sound better” and someone after listening your setup inform you that your cartridge loaded insultingly sharp or your loudspeakers have midrange driver that does not fire up. Does it mean that your ego hurt so hard hat you should put in your will a vendetta obliging you children to kill all me children? Doesn’t it mean that you should take advantage of learning something and do not waste your time in the unfruitful actions?

yoshi wrote:

In case of fake stamps or self-contradiction in a story, it is rather easy to point out how it is so by introducing an evidence.  In case of audio, usually there's only his system/result that is present.  When one points out what's wrong with the system/result, most likely the owner doesn't get what that criticism means until he actually listens to another system/result that doesn't have that particular problem. Same thing with your website or your opinion.  If the reader has some experience and understanding of audio, he may realise it's not a bogus but a serious attempt to achieve a serious result, but unless he is already deep into a similar pass, it is almost impossible for him to realise what can be achieved without actually listening to your system/result.  So unless you can actually show him a better result, your criticism is pretty much wasted.  I agree there are cases that their mind is so fixated on their own system/result, they won't accept any criticism even after being presented with a better system/result, but that's their own problem.

the criticism NEVER wasted as criticism is a tool for self-edification. Criticizing somebody’s playback, or trying to determine what was wrong with a playback or trying to provide any contractive advise upon somebody Sound is a HUGE source for self-education. I learned a LOT looking other playback and trying to realize what was wrong. Interesting that it is it is kind of irrelevant to me if I expressed my judgment to the system owner or not. I do prefer to express and then to collaborate together on the reasons of the problems and possible solution. Unfortunately it seldom happens as mostly the audio freaks after they heard the “expressed opinion” go fanatical and any constructivism go down to toilet. Ironically I cat testify that when the audio freaks did not behave like idiots but when we though together about sound then ALWAYS when I left the room the playback sounds better then before my visit. I would like do NOT bring this fact as my desire for self-admiration but rather as my evidence that the psychoticly-Moronick reaction of the Audio Morons to audio critique does herd them…

Also, I do not fell that “show him a better result” is only way to go. Unquestionably it is useful but Audio people have no place where they can learn about the boundaries of possible in sound reproduction. Dealer, show, demo rooms and the rest avenues do deliver very poor result, the local friend are frequently are not qualified and the internet people or reviewers are juts running their mouths with now ability to demonstrate any worthy results. So, I would not advocate the “seeing somewhere better result” but rather developing own objective evaluation methods, with referencing anybody’s achieved results.

Rgs,
Romy The Cat

jweiss wrote:

Hi Romy, Here is a hypothetical question. If someone sent you an email telling you, in quite a clear way, how you had made an enormous mistake in one of your audio projects, for example an exercise in modifying a speaker, detailing all the mistakes you had made in not correctly understanding the design of such a type of driver, how your misunderstanding led to wrong paths in modification, and so forth, I would imagine you would want to post that information in the relevant thread on that subject, so that everyone could learn from the process, and progress could be made? Is that the kind of thing you are talking about here? Jonathan

Yoshi,

I am not sure what you mean and I am not quite getting what Jonathan was wiling to express. To affirm my observation on the subject I would like to add my view that was shaped by my observations of numerous and numerous subjects in Audio.

It was unavoidable in my experience that any individual who took audio criticism personally were the people who did not take audio seriously. I NEVER have seen any person who had a natural interest in audio who was not wiling to collaborate on the criticism, look deeper into the reasoning or criticism or to express his outlook on the criticism’s subject.

Certainly I’m not saying that people obliged have in interest in audio but I am generally under impression that if people do thighs (as expansive and as time-consuming as audio) then they should have some sense of action instead of exercising own infatuation to moving audio components in space.

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Romy the Cat wrote:

I always say that Audio is not a purpose but juts a tool. Unfortunately many audio Morons ™ use audio as a tool FOR WRONG PURPOSE. I was very far from suggesting that audio is a tool for improving sense of self, or patting own ego. I juts wish more Audio people able to discover that OTHER MEANING OF AUDIO PURPOSE… Perhaps then, criticizing other’s Audio efforts we would be able to find nobler objectives and might allow themselves to become more attentive listeners of each other… Just little bit more honesty and little bit less fear… Amen! Romy the Cat

yoshi wrote:

This is how I took Jonathan's post.  He (Janathan) is mocking you (Romy) by presenting a hypothetical situation assuming your ego would be hurt in that situation and get pissed the same way some audio people react hysterically to your criticism of their system.

jweiss wrote:

If someone sent you an email telling you, in quite a clear way, how you had made an enormous mistake in one of your audio projects, for example an exercise in modifying a speaker, detailing all the mistakes you had made in not correctly understanding the design of such a type of driver, how your misunderstanding led to wrong paths in modification, and so forth…

yoshi wrote:

It seems to happen so easilly that the recorded music and its presentation becomes just a tool to evaluate a system.  Audio critics talk about particular recordings to show case the pros and cons of a system (a component) in review, audiophiles put on a disc only to evaluate or admire what his system can or cannot do.  When someone's in this mode, the system itself becomes the purpose.  It is like the church itself becomes the purpose instead of it being a tool to serve your faith.  So when the church is criticized, they take it as if their faith is critisized.

yoshi wrote:

I wonder if what we (I) need is a different perspective and wordings to talk about audio, instead of the typical separate sonic parameters like high/mid/low, soundstage, imaging, etc., etc.  Something in higher order that can put those separate parameters in perspective (can be multiple perspectives) and that can penetrate and disarm the church, but that'll be a separate topic.

livemusic wrote:

You are absolutely right, saying "audiophile" which is not capable to hear any criticizm about his system….

Well, there is another side of the medal in it. The fact that they are not capable to bear criticism is bad but not harmful. The harm comes from the fact that they use faulty positive criticism in the situation where it should not be use. Each time when those Morons positive a positive feedback about an entire system or about a performance of a components they use that positive self-cheerleading that has no relation to the actual state of Sound from that component. Everything that they do sounds “fabulous” and the problem her is that that dilutes worth of any analysis. I have seen again and again how the Morons herring different installation at showrooms, at show or in private home provided growling feedback with spectacular adjectives but in private conversation they admitted that it was absolutely crappy sound. In those situations I can recognize the double harm: firth there is not educational value in throe experiences and second the stupid glorification of poor results crates an unavoidable feedback to own consciousness that dilutes the senses.

livemusic wrote:

But, there is a point I cannot fully agree with you, saying "music and audio are absolutely not related entities and audio is a purely self-contained and encapsulated field".

I know what you are saying and I knew that it would be folks who might object. Still, knowing and feeling the objection you made and that other might do I insist that music and audio at certain level stop to be not related. It might be longer conversation and it properly should be abstracted into another thread if it goes further.

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

clarkjohnsen wrote:

I have made it a policy never, ever to critique anyone's system unless I have been presented with sufficient knowledge that I won't be hurting the guy's feelings. But he has to initiate that procedure.