Hiding in Plain Site | The Audio Cynic

Приховування просто перед очима | The Audio Cynic

https://ift.tt/tiCT0pR

Hiding in Plain Site (sic) Is Chickenshit. (That spelling is intentional. Take a deep breath, armchair editors.)

Riddle me this: how does love and appreciation of the beauty of music morph into the out-of-control anger, rage, and completely unhinged psychopathy that we often see exhibited in online audio discussion groups, and in comments on audio websites and YouTube channels? (Phew. Gimme a moment.)

Let’s consider the first part of that: “love and appreciation of the beauty of music.” I think that all artforms aim for an emotional response from the listener/viewer/reader, and emotional responses can be volatile, intense, and unpredictable. Similarly, opinions are often based upon emotions and are, not purely. Having a strongly held opinion challenged can provoke an intense or violent response.

While there may be vigorous discussions online about which version of Fleetwood Mac was best (easy: none of them), or whose Ring cycle was truest to Wagner’s “artistic vision”–what, are you using a Ouija board to ask Richard?—they tend to be relatively harmless. The real nastiness shows up in music-adjacent topics (Adjacent. Jeez.). In other words, audio.

The Consequences of Hiding in Plain Site

Then we get into painful, droning discussions about the relative merits of the sound qualities of 27 varieties of Kind of Blue, whether or not correcting the speed inaccuracies of the original recording is respectful or contrary to what the artists intended—again, Ouija?–and so on. Once discussions of sound quality come into play, things often become more aggressive—but still not truly nasty until we get into the really tech-y side of music reproduction.

I got no dogma in this fight.

I am by no means an expert in speaker design, electronics, analog playback, or any particular field of audio. BUT—I have been around the audio world long enough to have had experience with a wide variety of gear, and I’m fortunate to know a lot of folks who ARE expert designers or accomplished musicians. Perhaps because of those connections and what I’ve come to understand, courtesy of those folks— I don’t believe that there is only one right way to do anything, one true path. I think there are many different ways to turn a record, drive a speaker, and so on.

In another lifetime, I worked in auto racing as a tech consultant. I advised folks on selection and combinations of engine components, tuning choices, and so on. Most of the folks I dealt with were using big ol’ American V8s. At the same time, my personal choices were Alfa Romeos and the like—and from my friends in that realm, I’d hear about what stone-age technology pushrod engines were, compared to dual overhead cam, four-valve engines.

Like many audio folks, they were focused on the method, not the results. I would tell them that the then-new Chevy LS1 engines I specialized in had volumetric efficiency and output per liter of displacement that rivaled or were superior to most overhead cam engines, and were lighter and less-complex, as well.

Remind you of the audio world at all? The problem is that many folks pick a methodology or school of thought, and decry, degenerate, and denounce all others—and that’s just the “d”s. Those other ways, ALL other ways, are WRONG. No ifs, ands, or buts. It’s not a judgment based on a pragmatic analysis, it is a belief system. A religion, really.

You can see this in discussions of every area of audio design: planars vs. cones, cones vs. domes, single-ended vs. push-pull, tubes vs. transistors, and on and on. One is right, the other—ANY other—is wrong. Period.

Well—that just ain’t so. Much depends on how and where a particular methodology is used. The absolutist viewpoints are often based upon limited experience, or in defense of what the person happens to own. Granted, everyone’s entitled to their own personal preference or opinion—but even in today’s world, opinions are not facts.

I got no dogma in this fight.

I recently read an online discussion of a tube headphone amp. One poster slammed every single design choice made by the well-known designer, from input stage to coupling method to choice of driver tubes to choice of output tubes, transformer type and spec, and on and on. Now—had the writer addressed each aspect respectfully, and said, “I can see why they’d do that, but I would’ve…” That would’ve been okay, to me.

But the writer didn’t do that. They said every choice was “stupid” or “idiotic.” The well-known designer with decades of experience, who had been behind many highly-regarded products, was “a moron.” And then the keyboard buddies piled on with virtual high fives.

That’s not productive. It’s simply arrogant and dismissive and offers no indication of the writer’s reasoning, or explanation of why his thoughts should be respected. It’s dogmatic and reductionist and…well, RUDE. It’s Animal Farm: “Four legs GOOD, two legs BAD.”

Having worked with designers and engineers for decades, written white papers and hundreds of product press-releases—my attitude can be summarized in the most-useful phrase I learned in high school German classes—well, other than “Zwei Bier, bitte”—”Es kommt alles darauf an.”

It all depends. Almost any technology can be used successfully. It all depends on how and where it’s used. (No doubt my German friends will snicker at the stiff school-speak. So be it.)

Are tubes better than transistors? Sometimes. Is idler-drive better than belt drive? It all depends. Armchair experts are annoying, but do you know the worst part of that crap?

Anonymous isn’t just a bunch of hacktivists.

Monikers. Screen names. Whatever you want to call them, I hate the goddamned things. This is the “hiding in plain site” part.

Shocking though it may seem, I can be a real bastard. I also can express myself quite forcefully, and (I think) eloquently. I know this about myself.

Because of that, when I began posting on the internet back in the ‘90s, I decided that I would never post under any name but my own. If I’m unwilling to attach my name to my statements or opinions, I shouldn’t post them. And I don’t. So those brilliant statements? Yup, that’s me. Those idiotic pronouncements? Also me.

When I see someone posting insulting or damning comments under the name “Onlinestud76” or some such crap, I immediately think of them as cowardly. Chicken shit. Sometimes that’s not fair—but at least I stick my name on my stupid statements. You know who to talk to.

Anonymity empowers idiocy. Anonymity shields hatred. Those are two dogmatic statements I’ll stick to. And that’s why you see comment areas disappearing from a lot of audio websites. If your website depends upon hateful interactions to survive—it doesn’t deserve to survive. Hiding in Plain Site (sic) is Chickenshit.

Is there a solution? Can there be kinder, gentler discourse in our realm? Possibly. Maybe. But it is a reflection of our society as a whole. Polite interaction requires a certain amount of humility, and patience. “I don’t understand that, could you please explain it to me?” “I like your design. How did you come up with that?”

Not, “I saw —— in the RCA tube manual 40 years ago, and you’re an idiot.” Or, “you obviously have never read Harry F. Olson. You’re dead wrong, you moron.” Or, “paper cones? Are you effing kidding me?”

If you think of it as needing to be more like Mr. Rogers? I’m fine with that.

Really, just fine. Won’t you be my neighbor?

HI-FI News

via Confessions of a Part-Time Audiophile https://pt.audio

March 26, 2026 at 08:00AM

March 26, 2026 at 08:00AM