Does Everything Make a Difference?

[Ron Resnick]

Good post!

I hold these two propositions:

1. The scientific method, and knowledge gained from it, as well as from engineering, is deeply relevant to claims made about audio gear. It is the most reliable method of vetting such claims.

however

2. No audiophile is required to use a scientific method, or engage in any such rigorous methods of inquiry, when practising this hobby. Every audiophile is, and should be, free to enjoy audio gear in any way he/she pleases.

The problem I've found in ever introducing the relevance of science/engineering to purely subjective audiophiles, is that they tend to see a defence of #1 as an attack on, or undermining of #2. Like "who are YOU to browbeat others in to how to do this hobby!?? You are only out to troll and ruin people's enjoyment!" When that is not what is happening at all.

As for #1, the scientists in this thread should appreciate why the scientific method arose in the first place, and why it has been so successful in gaining us reliable and predictive knowledge. We humans are basic empiricists, we have managed to survive by doing basic forms of testing and inferences (e.g. how to grow crops, raise animals, build homes, etc). However we have massive liabilities that mean we also produce a huge amount of error. It was the honing of the scientific method, where we really take seriously the ways we can go wrong (e.g. biases, sloppy inferences) in to the method itself, so you control for variables, including bias, and you have others trying to prove you wrong, checking your work. It is a FAR more rigorous method than everyday empiricism. Everyday empiricism of "try this claim and see if it works" is sloppy enough to have people believing in untold number of false, wacky, unscientific beliefs. "Skeptical" people tried astrology, New Age medicine, spirit readings, palmistry, you name it, "and found it worked!" And the reason was their sloppy method of "testing" and inference making and ignoring the skeptical scrutiny of others checking their work.

This is why "I tried it and it worked" doesn't reach anything like scientific confidence levels.

It's why it doesn't matter, for any claim, or anyone "experimenting with things at home," it doesn't matter if one is a scientist in their day job. What matters is the METHOD, the rigour, they are using. That's why it's their in their day job as a scientist!

That said...and speaking to #2 above: The fact is none of us are in in a position to scientifically vet our every decision. That's impossible. So we have to recognize we can relax our standards to allow rational inferences using "every day empirical insights."
And after all, engineers through time have often not been doing science per se, but a lot of "try and see what happens."

For me, the way I reconcile and balance these two issues - 1. science is the gold standard for testing and 2. We can not use this method for much of what we are doing in life - is to use a heuristic what we all tend to use: Extraordinary Claims require extraordinary evidence. Applied to audio, if I'm evaluating two loudspeakers like a B&W vs a Revel speaker, and detecting a rising high end in the B&W and it's sonic consequences in the recordings, it's possible there is a bias effect going on. But it's also an extremely plausible phenomenon! So I can accept what I perceive (with the appropriate background caveats and confidence levels). But if I'm 'hearing' differences between usb cables, or some AC cables or things that I know to be quite controversial among technical experts, then I'm much more cautious in my confidence levels. I'd prefer to see more rigorous evidence, both technically and in listening tests (which is why I have done blind testing).

But as I said, no audiophile is REQUIRED to even think like that. I love my tube amps and have done tube rolling, which seems to alter the sound. I also seemed to have heard some difference between the same amp design with different capacitors. I understand this is controversial among some technical experts, but I'm fine going with my impressions because I acknowledge I'm not practising science, just trying to have fun and please myself.

However, IF someone says "it's possible you think your tube amps are just bringing 'warmth' to the sound because you expect it, or because of how they look with the glowing tubes" etct, I am NOT going to rail at the skeptic saying "What do you know? You must have ears of cloth if you can't hear what I hear! Or your system must suck in terms of resolution!"

No, I will happily acknowledge they are right - it COULD be my imagination, and without a more rigorous test, I'm not in a position to claim otherwise to anyone else. (Which btw, is one reason I did blind test my tube pre-amp against my solid state preamp, and easily passed that blind test).

So I don't care how any audiophile enjoys tweaking his system. But if they are going to leverage that to making objective claims about the sound really changing, or proposing dubious technical stories about how that is happening, then my critical thinking cap goes on.

Thank you for this sober and nuanced essay. This is how I think of most of these topics as well.

 

[COF]

This line of questioning which has been there since the opening post, strikes me as neurotic. There is no spoon.

I'm listening to the Quartetto Italiano play Beethoven's String Quartet Op. 131 In C Sharp Minor and I say to myself "I really enjoy that performance." Then someone asks "Are you really enjoying it or do you just believe you are enjoying it."

Within your suspension of your disbelief, does it really matter?

Your example speaks to a different issue, though.

The phenomenology isn't under question: the claims made based on how we feel, how things "seem," is rightly under scrutiny.

So, if you say you enjoyed one version of Beethoven's String Quartet Op. 131 more than another, no reason to question that.

If, in audiophile mode, you say you enjoyed Beethoven's String Quartet Op. 131 when you swapped in your new AC cable, or even perceived aspects of the sound to change in ways you liked, that too is entirely believable as a report of your subjective impressions.

It's when you introduce an explanation, like "I enjoyed music with the AC cable more BECAUSE the AC cable altered the sound in the ways I perceived"...that it is worth putting on the critical thinking cap if you really want to understand what is going on.
Because you have at least two possible explanations: that the cable really did alter the sound, or that you imagined that it altered the sound - each create the same perception.

Now, plenty of audiophiles are incurious on this matter "who cares, as long as I enjoy my system more with the new cable, what should it matter?"

But I don't think it should be any surprise at all that many other audiophiles actually care about what is true in regard to the claims made for such cables. That they actually want to understand how audio gear ACTUALLY works, and use that knowledge in their own decisions. And of course the development of audio gear often necessitates actually trying to understand how or if something changes the sound, so new products can be developed. The luxury of "just not caring about the truth of any of this" is not one everyone can have.

Personally, I greatly appreciate the information provided by technically knowledgeable people (who aren't trying to sell me something) on these matters, which have also spurred some of my own tests to weed out bias effects sometimes. I actually want to know if a $1,000 or $5,000 AC cable would likely produce any sonic benefits at all. If they don't, I don't want to spend that money. YMMV of course.

 

[COF]

Placebo effect, emotional bias, or wishful thinking are catch phrases that the measurement aficionado's throw around way too frequently as a psychological cause for any perceived sonic changes that measurements don't support. How is it that placebo effect never explains the changes I've made that had a negative effect on sound, when I truly wanted it to be an improvement?

Because that's a misunderstanding of how bias effects work, and the range of bias effects.

"Expectation Effect" or "confirmation bias" - forms of expecting something to sound better - is not at all the only way you can misperceive things. Look at this list of known bias effects:

List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Our conscious attention is nowhere near some strict, reliable machine or interpreter. Perceptions often arise based on how we feel, or how our attention happens to be directed, consciously or unconsciously, at any given time.

So let's take, for the sake of argument, that you have two different AC cables. Both are exactly the same design, but one has been made to look more expensive, and it has a higher price.

As you listen, you may experience something like the primacy, or recency effect: you may be more cognizant, or remember details when you first began to listen better than subsequent listening. So if you listened to the "cheaper" cable first, you may perceive or remember detail that was different from listening to the "expensive" cable next. And then "hey, what do you know? I thought the cheaper cable sounded better! Clearly it must be true, because it wasn't what I was expecting!"

But there's all sorts of ways to misperceive. Merely setting out to compare the sound of two different items already sets up a bias for hearing differences. Our attention is not completely under our control, and just in how you find yourself concentrating on one vs the other, can lead you to "hear" differences. You can have the experience when you are least expecting it. One morning you are listening to a piece of music and based on your mood, or just how your attention happened to be directed at that time you think "Wow, I've never heard that horn part in the back of the orchestra so clearly, or with such burnished beauty..." and then the audiophile impulse is to think "well, what did I change in my system that might explain this?" And you attribute it to the new cables you bought, or that your amp is finally "burning in" or whatever.

There are just so many ways your perception can be influenced, to misunderstand the basis for an impression, that go beyond mere placebo/expectation effects.

Nobody is immune, nobody can totally predict it, that's why science involves controls for bias, even for the scientists who are acutely aware of such biases.

And the "measurement aficionados" - I'm guessing the ASR crowd would be implicated - already know this. It's usually the purely subjective based audiophiles who are under the misunderstanding and make assumptions like "I didn't expect what I heard, therefore it wasn't a bias effect."

Cheers.

*(And none of the above, the mere discussion of bias effects, means you therefore are NOT hearing real differences. Of course we hear real things all the time. But IF one is trying to get to the truth of such matters, it will involve acknowledging that there is "bias noise" to deal with as a variable, in one's method of investigation).

 

[Al M.]

Because that's a misunderstanding of how bias effects work, and the range of bias effects.

"Expectation Effect" or "confirmation bias" - forms of expecting something to sound better - is not at all the only way you can misperceive things. Look at this list of known bias effects:

List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Our conscious attention is nowhere near some strict, reliable machine or interpreter. Perceptions often arise based on how we feel, or how our attention happens to be directed, consciously or unconsciously, at any given time.

So let's take, for the sake of argument, that you have two different AC cables. Both are exactly the same design, but one has been made to look more expensive, and it has a higher price.

As you listen, you may experience something like the primacy, or recency effect: you may be more cognizant, or remember details when you first began to listen better than subsequent listening. So if you listened to the "cheaper" cable first, you may perceive or remember detail that was different from listening to the "expensive" cable next. And then "hey, what do you know? I thought the cheaper cable sounded better! Clearly it must be true, because it wasn't what I was expecting!"

But there's all sorts of ways to misperceive. Merely setting out to compare the sound of two different items already sets up a bias for hearing differences. Our attention is not completely under our control, and just in how you find yourself concentrating on one vs the other, can lead you to "hear" differences. You can have the experience when you are least expecting it. One morning you are listening to a piece of music and based on your mood, or just how your attention happened to be directed at that time you think "Wow, I've never heard that horn part in the back of the orchestra so clearly, or with such burnished beauty..." and then the audiophile impulse is to think "well, what did I change in my system that might explain this?" And you attribute it to the new cables you bought, or that your amp is finally "burning in" or whatever.

There are just so many ways your perception can be influenced, to misunderstand the basis for an impression, that go beyond mere placebo/expectation effects.

Nobody is immune, nobody can totally predict it, that's why science involves controls for bias, even for the scientists who are acutely aware of such biases.

And the "measurement aficionados" - I'm guessing the ASR crowd would be implicated - already know this. It's usually the purely subjective based audiophiles who are under the misunderstanding and make assumptions like "I didn't expect what I heard, therefore it wasn't a bias effect."

Cheers.

*(And none of the above, the mere discussion of bias effects, means you therefore are NOT hearing real differences. Of course we hear real things all the time. But IF one is trying to get to the truth of such matters, it will involve acknowledging that there is "bias noise" to deal with as a variable, in one's method of investigation).

Well said.

That's why I always like to go back and forth, in order to make sure I do not deceive myself, which so easy to do (and yes, this holds for everyone).

A single impression mostly doesn't cut it.

 

[wil]

Placebo effect, emotional bias, or wishful thinking are catch phrases that the measurement aficionado's throw around way too frequently as a psychological cause for any perceived sonic changes that measurements don't support. How is it that placebo effect never explains the changes I've made that had a negative effect on sound, when I truly wanted it to be an

When I first started on this Audio quest some eleven years ago, I explored the pro audio world and their perspective. I got mixed results. And they had a pretty arrogant attitude toward Audiophiles. I then got a quite different experience when I sought out a local audiophile dealer -- a golden-eared veteran with strong opinions and emotions about Audio. He also wasn't afraid to get tweaky.

I heard the most compelling sound so far at his place through some Avantgarde Duo Grossos. However, with other gear I found his process of evaluation to be questionable. I innocently asked him once, "have you ever considered un-sighted evaluation?" This obviously touched a live nerve where-upon he lit into a tirade against "objectivists."

This was a signal to me that perhaps he doth protest a little too vigorously?!

I've since, with some experience now, concluded that for me, un-sighted comparisons (where practical) is more reliable. Not infallible, just more reliable than the alternative.

It's curious to me that some refer to un-sighted listening to be stressful and they feel that makes it more difficult to listen effectively. I find it to be just the opposite. Comparing sighted adds stress for me as I feel I have make more of an effort to counteract or beware of bias. When I listen un-sighted I feel more free to relax and give my attention to the listening in a less analytical way.

To me, it's a little disturbing how over the top many audiophiles react to a new this or that. I don't trust these kind of reactions for the most part and attribute them to overly emotional wish fulfillment.

 

[Gregadd]

Good post!

I hold these two propositions:

1. The scientific method, and knowledge gained from it, as well as from engineering, is deeply relevant to claims made about audio gear. It is the most reliable method of vetting such claims.

however

2. No audiophile is required to use a scientific method, or engage in any such rigorous methods of inquiry, when practising this hobby. Every audiophile is, and should be, free to enjoy audio gear in any way he/she pleases.

The problem I've found in ever introducing the relevance of science/engineering to purely subjective audiophiles, is that they tend to see a defence of #1 as an attack on, or undermining of #2. Like "who are YOU to browbeat others in to how to do this hobby!?? You are only out to troll and ruin people's enjoyment!" When that is not what is happening at all.

As for #1, the scientists in this thread should appreciate why the scientific method arose in the first place, and why it has been so successful in gaining us reliable and predictive knowledge. We humans are basic empiricists, we have managed to survive by doing basic forms of testing and inferences (e.g. how to grow crops, raise animals, build homes, etc). However we have massive liabilities that mean we also produce a huge amount of error. It was the honing of the scientific method, where we really take seriously the ways we can go wrong (e.g. biases, sloppy inferences) in to the method itself, so you control for variables, including bias, and you have others trying to prove you wrong, checking your work. It is a FAR more rigorous method than everyday empiricism. Everyday empiricism of "try this claim and see if it works" is sloppy enough to have people believing in untold number of false, wacky, unscientific beliefs. "Skeptical" people tried astrology, New Age medicine, spirit readings, palmistry, you name it, "and found it worked!" And the reason was their sloppy method of "testing" and inference making and ignoring the skeptical scrutiny of others checking their work.

This is why "I tried it and it worked" doesn't reach anything like scientific confidence levels.

It's why it doesn't matter, for any claim, or anyone "experimenting with things at home," it doesn't matter if one is a scientist in their day job. What matters is the METHOD, the rigour, they are using. That's why it's their in their day job as a scientist!

That said...and speaking to #2 above: The fact is none of us are in in a position to scientifically vet our every decision. That's impossible. So we have to recognize we can relax our standards to allow rational inferences using "every day empirical insights."
And after all, engineers through time have often not been doing science per se, but a lot of "try and see what happens."

For me, the way I reconcile and balance these two issues - 1. science is the gold standard for testing and 2. We can not use this method for much of what we are doing in life - is to use a heuristic what we all tend to use: Extraordinary Claims require extraordinary evidence. Applied to audio, if I'm evaluating two loudspeakers like a B&W vs a Revel speaker, and detecting a rising high end in the B&W and it's sonic consequences in the recordings, it's possible there is a bias effect going on. But it's also an extremely plausible phenomenon! So I can accept what I perceive (with the appropriate background caveats and confidence levels). But if I'm 'hearing' differences between usb cables, or some AC cables or things that I know to be quite controversial among technical experts, then I'm much more cautious in my confidence levels. I'd prefer to see more rigorous evidence, both technically and in listening tests (which is why I have done blind testing).

But as I said, no audiophile is REQUIRED to even think like that. I love my tube amps and have done tube rolling, which seems to alter the sound. I also seemed to have heard some difference between the same amp design with different capacitors. I understand this is controversial among some technical experts, but I'm fine going with my impressions because I acknowledge I'm not practising science, just trying to have fun and please myself.

However, IF someone says "it's possible you think your tube amps are just bringing 'warmth' to the sound because you expect it, or because of how they look with the glowing tubes" etct, I am NOT going to rail at the skeptic saying "What do you know? You must have ears of cloth if you can't hear what I hear! Or your system must suck in terms of resolution!"

No, I will happily acknowledge they are right - it COULD be my imagination, and without a more rigorous test, I'm not in a position to claim otherwise to anyone else. (Which btw, is one reason I did blind test my tube pre-amp against my solid state preamp, and easily passed that blind test).

So I don't care how any audiophile enjoys tweaking his system. But if they are going to leverage that to making objective claims about the sound really changing, or proposing dubious technical stories about how that is happening, then my critical thinking cap goes on.

I admire your diplomacy. I have been reading measurement based blind test arguments since the '70's. They range from rude and condescending too polite and informative. But they all reach the same conclusion.

 

[JeromeFrancis]

When I first started on this Audio quest some eleven years ago, I explored the pro audio world and their perspective. I got mixed results. And they had a pretty arrogant attitude toward Audiophiles. I then got a quite different experience when I sought out a local audiophile dealer -- a golden-eared veteran with strong opinions and emotions about Audio. He also wasn't afraid to get tweaky.

I heard the most compelling sound so far at his place through some Avantgarde Duo Grossos. However, with other gear I found his process of evaluation to be questionable. I innocently asked him once, "have you ever considered un-sighted evaluation?" This obviously touched a live nerve where-upon he lit into a tirade against "objectivists."

This was a signal to me that perhaps he doth protest a little too vigorously?!

I've since, with some experience now, concluded that for me, un-sighted comparisons (where practical) is more reliable. Not infallible, just more reliable than the alternative.

It's curious to me that some refer to un-sighted listening to be stressful and they feel that makes it more difficult to listen effectively. I find it to be just the opposite. Comparing sighted adds stress for me as I feel I have make more of an effort to counteract or beware of bias. When I listen un-sighted I feel more free to relax and give my attention to the listening in a less analytical way.

To me, it's a little disturbing how over the top many audiophiles react to a new this or that. I don't trust these kind of reactions for the most part and attribute them to overly emotional wish fulfillment.

Confirmation bias is a real thing. Testing an audio system is rather complex as compared to a wine tasting session where you just blindfolded wander into a room and undertake 20 A/B tests. To avoid bias, I usually ask a third person, without skin in the game, if the (perceived) difference is real. If so, it is also important to evaluate that the difference is an actual improvement (also confirmation bias). Further, it is very system dependent. An upgrade of a certain component to another can make a huge difference in your personal system depending on the other components it is comprised of but could as easily be a non-event for someone with a different system... Out of my subjective and biased personal experience, my 20+k DAC in my previous system sounded only marginally better than a <1k DAC whereas a recent upgrade from my 8k preamp to a 17k preamp (even the same brand) was huge as the new preamp seems to suit the speakers better. Then, others reported the same upgrade not to be as impactful.. The same mentioned DAC in my current system makes a huge difference compared to the <1k variant. To note: If you ask your wife, she might be biased and say there's no difference to avoid you spending money and consider her prospective Chanel bag instead.

 

[COF]

To note: If you ask your wife, she might be biased and say there's no difference to avoid you spending money and consider her prospective Chanel bag instead.

Ha! My situation exactly. My wife's first thought in all situations is "what will save money?" So if I ever ask her which she thinks is best her first question will be "how much does it cost" and I already know her answer

 

[COF]

I admire your diplomacy. I have been reading measurement based blind test arguments since the '70's. They range from rude and condescending too polite and informative. But they all reach the same conclusion.

Thanks!

I'm not sure about the measurements crowd always reaching the same conclusions. I see plenty of debate on ASR, regarding things like the plausibility of various audio claims, what is audible or not. For instance, there are a few ASR technical members who think that for the most part tube amp sound is a myth, but there is plenty of others who argue it isn't, and there is technical back and forth. I demonstrated at least in my system it wasn't a myth, by easily discerning a tube preamp from a solid state benchmark preamp, in blind testing (because it had the character I had originally identified in sighted listening). Most participants in the thread seemed to accept the results

Dogma can be found any any group, whether it's the measurements-first folks, or the "golden ear" subjectivist crowd. And of course audiophiles can be found along a spectrum between them.

Personally, I am philosophically aligned with the general thrust of the ASR forum, in terms of the best methods of understanding audio gear. But I am also a long time, old school audiophile who revels in exchanging notes and subjective descriptions of "what we hear" with our gear. Many on ASR and other such groups are allergic to subjective impressions, subjective reviewing, and subjective descriptions of sound. It's not hard to understand why: A forum like ASR has been set up as an antidote to the wild west of the purely subjective approach, where b.s. can easily flourish. Finding a group devoted to more rigorous methods and standards, where b.s and snake oil don't get an easy pass, can be like an oasis. I get it. And I appreciate it.

However, this can lead to, what to me, is taking things too far: a fair amount of close minded rejection of the worth of subjective impressions, subjective reviewing, subjective description. I think they can throw the baby out with the bathwater, so I'm often defending it on that forum (to the chagrin of many there...though many also appreciate bringing that balance).

So for instance, many ASR members will say that if a reviewer ever lauded something they believe to be b.s., say some expensive AC cables, then that automatically puts the reviewer in the "untrustworthy" category and they will never pay attention to what the reviewer says on anything else.

My attitude is not to do that. A reviewer may indeed imagine differences that aren't there in reviewing the tweakier side of stuff. But the fact is every human is susceptible to that, even the best listeners or most "objective" audiophiles in the world. It does not therefore mean the same person can't hear REAL differences when they are there, and can't therefore be perceptive and describe those differences. For me, Michael Fremer is such an example. He's written some stuff I just don't believe. On the other hand, I have found him to be very perceptive in regard to describing the sound of loudspeakers - he's usually bang on with what I hear from the same speakers.

Along the same lines, it's my position that even IF an audio manufacturer promotes, or believes in some level of incorrect ideas (or "b.s."), it doesn't mean they can't produce a fine sounding product. A perfect example for me is the Shun Mook Bella Voce loudspeakers that I once reviewed. I didn't find any difference with their notorious, supplied mpingo discs on top of the speakers. And their explanation for their design ranged from plausible to deeply dubious. And yet...they were one of the most beautiful speakers I'd heard! Among the virtues was a rare level of coherence. My take away is that even people who may have some wacky ideas can nonetheless know enough about product design, and be perceptive enough listeners, to produce a good sounding product.

So I'm not prone to just dismissing what subjective reviewers write: my descriptions have been responsible for a number of audiophiles making very happy purchases, and visa versa.

And I don't care for the "take one approach and winnow out any loudspeakers that don't meet those standards as "poor," that one sees on ASR. I like seeing all sorts of different takes on audio design. In fact right now I'm defending John Devore's speakers, which don't measure textbook, against the ASR critics . (I like Devore's speakers, and love the O/96s).

Cheers.

(And sorry for the length. I'm passionate about this stuff and have to get it off my chest).

 

[Gregadd]

No need to apologize. Have at it. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am banned from ASR. I have debated with Amir and Ethan and countless others on this subject.

 

[JeromeFrancis]

Thanks!

I'm not sure about the measurements crowd always reaching the same conclusions. I see plenty of debate on ASR, regarding things like the plausibility of various audio claims, what is audible or not. For instance, there are a few ASR technical members who think that for the most part tube amp sound is a myth, but there is plenty of others who argue it isn't, and there is technical back and forth. I demonstrated at least in my system it wasn't a myth, by easily discerning a tube preamp from a solid state benchmark preamp, in blind testing (because it had the character I had originally identified in sighted listening). Most participants in the thread seemed to accept the results

Dogma can be found any any group, whether it's the measurements-first folks, or the "golden ear" subjectivist crowd. And of course audiophiles can be found along a spectrum between them.

Personally, I am philosophically aligned with the general thrust of the ASR forum, in terms of the best methods of understanding audio gear. But I am also a long time, old school audiophile who revels in exchanging notes and subjective descriptions of "what we hear" with our gear. Many on ASR and other such groups are allergic to subjective impressions, subjective reviewing, and subjective descriptions of sound. It's not hard to understand why: A forum like ASR has been set up as an antidote to the wild west of the purely subjective approach, where b.s. can easily flourish. Finding a group devoted to more rigorous methods and standards, where b.s and snake oil don't get an easy pass, can be like an oasis. I get it. And I appreciate it.

However, this can lead to, what to me, is taking things too far: a fair amount of close minded rejection of the worth of subjective impressions, subjective reviewing, subjective description. I think they can throw the baby out with the bathwater, so I'm often defending it on that forum (to the chagrin of many there...though many also appreciate bringing that balance).

So for instance, many ASR members will say that if a reviewer ever lauded something they believe to be b.s., say some expensive AC cables, then that automatically puts the reviewer in the "untrustworthy" category and they will never pay attention to what the reviewer says on anything else.

My attitude is not to do that. A reviewer may indeed imagine differences that aren't there in reviewing the tweakier side of stuff. But the fact is every human is susceptible to that, even the best listeners or most "objective" audiophiles in the world. It does not therefore mean the same person can't hear REAL differences when they are there, and can't therefore be perceptive and describe those differences. For me, Michael Fremer is such an example. He's written some stuff I just don't believe. On the other hand, I have found him to be very perceptive in regard to describing the sound of loudspeakers - he's usually bang on with what I hear from the same speakers.

Along the same lines, it's my position that even IF an audio manufacturer promotes, or believes in some level of incorrect ideas (or "b.s."), it doesn't mean they can't produce a find sounding product. A perfect example for me is the Shun Mook Bella Voce loudspeakers that I once reviewed. I didn't find any difference with their notorious, supplied mpingo discs on top of the speakers. And their explanation for their design ranged from plausible to deeply dubious. And yet...they were one of the most beautiful speakers I'd heard! Among the virtues was a rare level of coherence. My take away is that even people who may have some wacky ideas can nonetheless know enough about product design, and be perceptive enough listeners, to produce a good sounding product.

So I'm not prone to just dismissing what subjective reviewers write: my descriptions have been responsible for a number of audiophiles making very happy purchases, and visa versa.

And I don't care for the "take one approach and winnow out any loudspeakers that don't meet those standards as "poor," that one sees on ASR. I like seeing all sorts of different takes on audio design. In fact right now I'm defending John Devore's speakers, which don't measure textbook, against the ASR critics . (I like Devore's speakers, and love the O/96s).

Cheers.

(And sorry for the length. I'm passionate about this stuff and have to get it off my chest).

Very well laid out there. A Tesla has crazy fast lap times, high top speeds, crazy acceleration, stability and traction controls... a 1997 993 911 Porsche driving up a mountain pass requires attention to the feedback from the road, to the sound of the air cooled engine, there's wind and tire noise, only rear wheel drive, it's an engaging experience ... the brain can easily cope with imperfect things, its even designed to do so. What would you prefer? There's my take towards perfect measurements. Btw. i like Devore's too. That was not a perfect analogy but there's some unquantifiable truth to it I suppose.

 

[Al M.]

No need to apologize. Have at it. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am banned from ASR. I have debated with Amir and Ethan and countless others on this subject.

There is truth to be found everywhere. I do find Amir and Ethan to be extremist zealots who are often just plain wrong, but Ethan has pointed out in discussions some facts that would be hard to argue with. And from Amir, while he was still on WBF, I have learned some fundamental understanding of digital technology that I am very grateful for. This was about issues that are gotten wrong by many, including vinyl fans. While I don't have a vinyl rig myself, I have nothing against vinyl and even have vigorously defended it against digital fundamentalists. Yet when vinyl fans bring up bad technical "arguments" against digital, based on fundamental lack of understanding of the technology, in order to allegedly boost vinyl's superiority, it's cringeworthy and doesn't help their cause at all. On the contrary.

 

[knotscott]

Having measurement capability at our finger tips could be both a curse and a blessing IMO. Most audiophiles/audio buffs I know have no method other than listening to evaluate any new items they may add to their systems. I could anticipate measurements becoming sort of a crutch that could hinder developing listening skills and trusting your ears....listening is a skill. Is it harder to learn to trust our ears if our subjective observations don't sync with objective ones? Reviews and specs are mildly useful, as are recommendations from other audio insiders, but many of us don't put much credence in a recommendation from others, even if well qualified. It's just too personal a decision for anyone else to make in most cases.

When something changes in my system, in order to overcome as many variables and biases as possible, I listen for weeks (sometimes months) before drawing long term conclusions. I'm no more immune to bias than anyone, but long term evaluations are the best way I know of to get familiar with something new, hear subtle characteristics, and get past the "honeymoon" phase. It helps reduce any impact from minor changes in voltage, physiological, psychological, atmospheric, and concentration variables (etc), and reduces possible concerns with break-in or burn-in. One of the reasons A/B comparisons have never held much weight with me...it's usually just too short term to be meaningful for anything but larger differences. I guess I'm ok if bias was part of a decision as long as that bias remains permanent in what I hear.

 

[treitz3]

I am so glad that when I listen to music? None of this BS is in my mind. I can only hope that the vast majority of the WBF members......let me stop there....

I am so glad that the majority of the WBF simply listens and gets enveloped into the music. That they get drawn into it.

Does everything make a difference? Yes and no. Who cares? Just listen and enjoy. At the end of the day? It's all about the music. These are my thoughts for tonight. Take it or leave it.

Tom

 

[COF]

I am so glad that when I listen to music? None of this BS is in my mind. I can only hope that the vast majority of the WBF members......let me stop there....

I am so glad that the majority of the WBF simply listens and gets enveloped into the music. That they get drawn into it.

Does everything make a difference? Yes and no. Who cares? Just listen and enjoy. At the end of the day? It's all about the music. These are my thoughts for tonight. Take it or leave it.

Tom

First, I know that the above post was made with the best of intentions.

But I have to say, whenever discussions turn to finicky gear stuff, at least one audiophile shows up to tell everyone "who cares, just listen, it's all about the music."

And I don't think everyone needs to be told that. I'm quite sure we all enjoy listening to music, and all have the priorities that make us happy. If one person wants to never think of gear at all...well that person is probably not an audiophile...but in any case that's great. Swinging to the other side, if an audiophile just loves audio gear, he's got reel to reels he's fixed up and dotes over, he's built his own server or whatever, audiophiles who build or mod their equipment from amps to speakers, audiophiles who have various sets of speakers and amps because they like variety...everyone is different, everyone has their own bliss, and nobody really needs to be "reminded" otherwise IMO.

So..who cares? We do, the people discussing the issues in this thread. It's fascinating. Why would someone who doesn't care bother commenting? .

The other thing is that Tom, and again I'm not trying to kill your buzz, but given the quotes under your name, clearly you think about this stuff...what has made a difference in your system...since that's the only way you'd have come to such strong opinions about how close or not your system sounds to real music, and about the sonic qualities of vinyl vs digital.

We can all spend time thinking about this interesting stuff without entailing we aren't also very much enjoying music on our own time. And remember, this is where we come to hash over these kind of things - doesn't mean we are constantly distracted when we are actually in front of our system listening.

Cheers.

 

[treitz3]

Please allow me to digress. You are 100% correct. (Can I borrow your writing style?)

My hat is off to you for said post. Thank you.

Tom

 

[tima]

Your example speaks to a different issue, though.

The phenomenology isn't under question: the claims made based on how we feel, how things "seem," is rightly under scrutiny.

So, if you say you enjoyed one version of Beethoven's String Quartet Op. 131 more than another, no reason to question that.

If, in audiophile mode, you say you enjoyed Beethoven's String Quartet Op. 131 when you swapped in your new AC cable, or even perceived aspects of the sound to change in ways you liked, that too is entirely believable as a report of your subjective impressions.

It's when you introduce an explanation, like "I enjoyed music with the AC cable more BECAUSE the AC cable altered the sound in the ways I perceived"...that it is worth putting on the critical thinking cap if you really want to understand what is going on.
Because you have at least two possible explanations: that the cable really did alter the sound, or that you imagined that it altered the sound - each create the same perception.

Now, plenty of audiophiles are incurious on this matter "who cares, as long as I enjoy my system more with the new cable, what should it matter?"

But I don't think it should be any surprise at all that many other audiophiles actually care about what is true in regard to the claims made for such cables. That they actually want to understand how audio gear ACTUALLY works, and use that knowledge in their own decisions. And of course the development of audio gear often necessitates actually trying to understand how or if something changes the sound, so new products can be developed. The luxury of "just not caring about the truth of any of this" is not one everyone can have.

Personally, I greatly appreciate the information provided by technically knowledgeable people (who aren't trying to sell me something) on these matters, which have also spurred some of my own tests to weed out bias effects sometimes. I actually want to know if a $1,000 or $5,000 AC cable would likely produce any sonic benefits at all. If they don't, I don't want to spend that money. YMMV of course.

You write well but I think your reply misses the mark.

The 'issue' I address is the notion put forward that when you hear something you can hear it or you can imagine that you're hearing it.

... Are we really hearing the subtle differences in sound from tweaks we believe we are hearing?

Or our beliefs about subtle differences in sound from tweaks due to one or more biases or prejudices or self-delusions or cognitive dissonance?

For hearing to occur presumably there is some external action modulating the air that temporally associates to the claim of hearing it. We can test a person's hearing to learn if it is working. (I suppose people may fall under certain conditions where they 'hear sounds' when no air pressure changes or timpanic changes occur, but I assume those are not part of this discussion.)

So when you use audio thing X in your stereo you say "I hear a deeper soundstage from that music than when X is not in my stereo system."

And along comes someone from this forum who asks: "do you really hear a deeper soundstage or are you delusional or biased and simply imagine you hear a deeper soundstage?"

Or, in your words dear COF, "you have at least two possible explanations: that the cable really did alter the sound, or that you imagined that it altered the sound - each create the same perception." Two radically different "explanations" for the same data -- the same neurons fire .

This is where you launch your paean for truth - "other audiophiles actually care about what is true in regard to the claims made for such cables. That they actually want to understand how audio gear ACTUALLY works, and use that knowledge in their own decisions." Speaking as if there are ways to tell if the person's claims about a deeper soundstage are true or simple a mental aberration. If I can truly know how X works I can tell how people will experience it.

That seems to imply you believe there is some test or some way to determine if audio thing X does cause a person to experience a deeper soundstage - to have a certain deeper soundstage experience. That there is an "objective" way or understanding about how X "ACTUALLY works" -- meaning independent of any one person's hearing -- to know if the listener is imagining a deeper soundstage or actually experiencing one. What is that test?

Of course you could ask a bunch of listeners what they hear but that assumes they report what they hear and gets nowhere toward learning if they really hear it or imagine they hear it. No matter how desperately "audiophiles actually care about what is true in regard to the claims made for such cables" no insight to individual perceptions is available. I cannot know your experience while you listen and you cannot know mine.

So we can argue for the neurotic audiophile -- be cautious you might simply imagine what you hear when you listen at the dealers, even if you go back several times. You may have bias or prejudice or be delusional and so might be everyone around you. How many gear reports on this forum are delusional? My advice: Be cautous when someone questions your hearing, have belief in yourself - when in doubt trust your ears.

 

[Gregadd]

Truth + False= Myth

 

[knotscott]

I am so glad that when I listen to music? None of this BS is in my mind. I can only hope that the vast majority of the WBF members......let me stop there....

I am so glad that the majority of the WBF simply listens and gets enveloped into the music. That they get drawn into it.

Does everything make a difference? Yes and no. Who cares? Just listen and enjoy. At the end of the day? It's all about the music. These are my thoughts for tonight. Take it or leave it.

Tom

I understand that there's a faction of audio enthusiasts who take the subjectivism to an extreme, and it can be difficult for others to follow and triggers well founded skepticism, because sometimes it's simply a neurosis that found an outlet.

Most of the time I listen to the music for the same reasons anyone does, but there are also times when I listen to the system itself to evaluate any changes that have been made. Those occasions when I listen to the system are done with the intent of evolving the system so I can get totally carried away in the music, and not be reminded of the system limitations. There's method to that madness...

 

[Ron Resnick]

I understand that there's a faction of audio enthusiasts who take the subjectivism to an extreme

What do you mean by "take the subjectivism to an extreme"? Do you mean reporting hearing a sonic difference from some tweak or change that seems too ludicrous to be credible?