The High End 2020 show, scheduled to take place in Munich in mid-May, was canceled due to concerns about the coronavirus. The California Audio Show, which usually takes place in late July, is also off, although the reason for its cancelation isn’t clear. And as we’ve just learned, AXPONA, the biggest show in the Western Hemisphere, has been postponed from its original dates (around the time this issue hits mailboxes and newsstands) to the second weekend of August.
The reason, of course, is concern about the spread of COVID-19.
The AXPONA organizers have the peace of mind that comes from being in good company. Events are being canceled all over the world: scientific meetings, home shows—even SXSW, the giant music, tech, film, and culture festival that takes place each year in Austin, Texas. Colleges and universities are canceling classes, and we’re going to go sit in a hotel room voluntarily just to listen to some random hi-fi tunes?
I doubt I’m the only one not eager to stand in line to try on headphones right about now. There isn’t enough disinfectant on the planet. Toilet paper either, apparently, judging by news reports and grocery store shelves.
A show like AXPONA attracts people from all over the world, so it’s a prime venue for virus transmission—not just from person to person but also from place to place. Go for the music and the gear, bring back a virus for the family and the neighborhood.
As I write this, on a Monday afternoon in mid-March, the stock market has just had its worst day since 2008—which is relevant only in that the coronavirus was the proximate cause of the sell-off, and also in that it seems to suit the character of these days, which have an Old Testament, end-times feel.
Fortunately, we audiofolks know how to handle times like these—just crank up the stereo and put on a record; REM’s Document would be a solid choice (footnote 1). Self-quarantine suddenly doesn’t sound so bad.
“Too many of today’s audiophiles think audio is a numbers game. They discredit direct experience and deny the concreteness of observation and memory. Instead of listening and trusting their impressions, they block them out with graphs and numbers and sonic check-lists, all based on preconceived notions about what is correct or incorrect. . . . Never once considering why they can’t measure the cause of these effects.”
So wrote Stereophile‘s Herb Reichert in his March Gramophone Dreams column. What’s the reason for the sad state of affairs he describes? Herb blames “bean-counters” and “advertising hucksters” whose “relentless blabber is convincing people to think abstractly and quantitatively about devices whose only designated purpose is to make recordings tangible and engaging to a listener.” C’mon Herb, tell us what you really think!
If Herb—bless him—were less passionately committed to his perspective on what makes audio great, I’d be far less interested in publishing what he writes, and his readers would, surely, be less interested in reading him.
Stereophile is a big tent—big enough to encompass several circus rings of high-wire opinions. Including mine.
Are elements in audio indeed “convincing people to think abstractly and quantitatively” about audio? Why would they do such a thing? Maybe it’s because, for the last several centuries, that is how human progress has been made in most areas relevant to the human experience. That’s how diseases get cured, for example. It’s the reason why today we can stream in high-rez—indeed, why we can stream at all. It’s what led to the invention of the very first audio-recording devices and then to decades of subsequent improvement—even if, as some believe, audio stopped improving decades ago.
Perhaps those bean-counters understand that substantial deviations in measured frequency response—or, let’s say, a particularly high level of harmonic distortion—is proof that the device is altering the music that passes through it. Maybe hucksters don’t consider that an acceptable trade-off, even if they do hear and acknowledge a certain feeling of immediacy and recognize that it could be lost in a more technically accurate system (although not necessarily: I’ve heard astonishing presence and vividness from conventional, measurably accurate hi-fi systems).
More than once, our community has been waylaid by numbers and measurements—by the tyranny of THD+N. When that has happened, advocates like Herb have provided a necessary corrective. Maybe it’s happening again.
Herb certainly is right about some things. Measurements can be a crutch. When I first started reviewing, I often felt a strong impulse to measure something—anything—because I knew I could depend on measurements.
Herb is also right—I’m sure of this—when he says that graphs, numbers, and sonic checklists can get in the way of listening—and, hence, of hearing. The improvement in my listening skills over the years has resulted mostly from my increasing willingness to set aside critical analysis—not forever, but in the moment—and just listen. I don’t understand how this works, but somehow my desire for certainty distances me from the experience.
Is perfectionist audio being waylaid again by a preoccupation with numbers and measurements, at the expense of careful listening? Or—an alternative perspective—is audio being held back by subjectivists who refuse to consider quantitative notions of fidelity and evidence about what constitutes good sound?
Or—a third alternative: Are engineers and designers doing just fine, focusing on what matters most, and creating devices that are capable of producing recorded music that sounds better than it ever has before? Send letters to [email protected].—Jim Austin
Footnote 1: Or stream live music. You can find a regularly updated list of live streaming music events here.—Ed.
Click Here: stade francais rugby jerseys