Audio Myths.. food for thought

I have done thing not so extreme, but hopefully as effective with blindfolds and my son assisting… or even random push switching by myself

1 Like

Is that the effect of room treatment application, from left to right?

4 Likes

I’ve said as much in other threads. There’s a common theme in system pics where people buy systems because they can as opposed to should.

I fully understand the constraints of practical living or the constraints of an inflexible other half, but I don’t think it excuses how some people build massively exoensive systems, shove speakers behind a sofa and say “these are the cards I was dealt but it still sounds better than a much lesser system”. That’s a great example of expectation bias.

Such compromised configurations will often sound worse than much lower cost alternatives by virtue of the fact they are so hi fidelity as to be sensitive to correct placement, cable choices, dressing, mains etc.

I totally stand by that. I recently moved to a fairly nasty apartment. Horrible thin boomy walls, uneven wonky floors, just horrific mains, and the list goes on, not to mention space constraints. I was under no illusion how my 7 Naim boxes and big PMC speakers would fare. So I decided not to use them. Stick the lot in storage and do what I call “downgrade to upgrade” with a far lower cost system at 1/8th the cost that simply won’t reveal the environmental shortcomings as much. Once the environment changes, the big system can come out again.

6 Likes

Dead-on. Great summation.
I have the opposite conundrum in that I have a dedicated room that is ideal for audio and was designed in almost every way around existing as such a room, geometrically and size-wise, really. Measurements are just outstanding. Besides the system, itself, it has an area rug, a loveseat/ottoman, a few bookshelves and album storage—that’s it. I’m extremely lucky in this respect. However, the Naim part of my system is pretty modest in comparison to many here and will likely be that way until I either expire or divorce. I am realistic in that I’ll never be able to afford the level of many of these systems; and honestly it makes me wonder what the full potential of the music listening experience in this room would be like if I had the funds. What I have sounds great and I am thankful to no end, but it always seems like we have too much of something and not enough of the other, for lack of a better way to explain it.

3 Likes

Vey interesting, Simon - thanks for posting this (I’d not seen it before). I notice he is scornful of audiophile cabling and mocks terminology such as ‘Pace, Rhythm, and Timing’.

It’s hard to know what to believe if you are told different things by different people and you can’t trust your own ears. But I suppose in the end, nothing matters except that we are happy with what we hear.

3 Likes

It’s our brains that we shouldn’t trust.

If a person likes the sound of something, they like the sound of it but it’s difficult to ascribe that to anything specific such as, for example, cables.

Science and scientists conduct double blind tests for a reason and the rank and file Joe Public ought to understand why but I get the impression the vast majority are just ‘believers’. Some thought enters their head and they immediately accept it as a fact because they thought it. So it must be.

It doesn’t matter the topic, believers just believe and don’t understand the concept of the weight of evidence or the effects of the various biases.

Sometimes it’s just a failure to see all the possible causes and then throwing all their eggs into the basket of the only one thing they can think of. There’s a great many errors of thinking that humans can fall into, and it happens to everyone all the time and we just aren’t aware we’re doing it so it’s not a deliberate thing.

It can become a problem when believers, of any particular thing whether it be audio myths or politics or whatever, seek out the echo chamber of like minded individuals because they cannot accept their world view being challenged. This can just reinforce their approach to thinking.
I’m thinking many Trumpanzees here who demonstrate a blanket refusal to countenance anything that’s contrary to the way they choose to think.

Back to audio myths (and other topics in general), I tend not to accept things as written unless there’s been some rigorous methology in the workings. Even then I’m still open to further evidence down the line countering previous assertions.

I’d probably sum it up as don’t live or die by the latest fact!

4 Likes

Two of the most powerful words in the English Language are Why? and How? For some reason ‘believers’ often get irritated by tgese words…

7 Likes

Very well said. I’d like to add something that IMHO is too often ignored in audio: Blind tests might not be the best tool. This is sad because we don’t have very many tools.

Blind tests are different for other fields, let’s say pharmaceutics: You do a double blind test and then objectively measure (as far as your tools allow) the results.

It is different in audio: Putting a person on the spot and pressing them for perceived subjective differences already changes the test subject’s state of mind and there come many influences into is (as always in such interview situations). E.g., the person may perceive a difference but be reluctant to commit to it because they cannot put the finger on it. Or, conversely, they may not perceive a difference but might feel expected to hear one, so will say just anything.

Another thing is that the differences we hear subjectively in our own trials on our own systems very often yield only subtle differences that we have trouble putting the finger on. Which is why it is typically recommended to not A/B cables in short spurts, but keeping them for several months and then swapping back. The typical blind test scenarios are not well equipped to deal with such things.

I am sure there are other influences I can’t think of right now.

3 Likes

People were immensily enjoying their hifi systems in the 70s and 80s, and there were no high end CD players, streamers, DACs and cables back then. A lot of the audiophile hobby (or addiction) boils down to investing in the idea that to enjoy music fully, a recurring cycle of improvements and upgrades are necessary. Every time the peak of a mountain is reached, a new mountain looms in the background haze, waiting to be climbed.

With that mindset there is always something to improve, so people start looking for it and then obviously find it too. It doesn’t matter if it’s an actual ‘improvement’ or just ‘different’, the changes and upgrades are a necessary part of the experience. The subconcious goal is not to actually reach contentment, but for it to always feel one or two steps away.

So a toast to the people in the “Anybody else NOT upgrading?” thread, they are the real heroes of the community and an inspiration to the rest of us. Maybe they have climbed the highest mountain already and are smiling down on us. Or maybe they are just fine with the way things are in the valley and at peace with themselves and the universe, which is even more admirable. :tropical_drink:

9 Likes

When Edison demonstrated his phonograph, he had an opera singer on a stage in an auditorium, and his phonograph. It was claimed that people could not tell the difference between the opera singer singing and the same piece of music (I assume it was the same piece) played on his phonograph…

3 Likes

I was into hifi in the 80s and I can assure that there was just as much upgraditis then as there is now although it would have been.for different types of components. I can also assure that very few people went to hifi shops with blind folds on and they were still able to make informed decisions. Funny how we progress over the years

1 Like

Either that, or like me they have spent so much on a stereo already that they are simply not allowed to change it! :0)

4 Likes

There are ‘philes’ in any era and in any field obviously. What i meant is that back then those audiophiles were also convinced about their systems and their subjective assessments. Many things in audio are relative and dependent on taste and circumstances, and yet in all scenarios you see a lot of folks that are quite convinced about their opinions. That just a seems a bit silly.

2 Likes

Edit: As so often with XKCD, the enlightening punchline is in the mouseover text, but I see now that it is automatically shown below the comic in the embedded link

2 Likes

I’d agree with that. At the end of the day all we can ‘measure’ is with those ears and that brain and it’s not like a scientific instrument that can be calibrated before each test so we are exposed to the vagueries of how our body is each day. Even that may have a bearing on how we hear something. The idea though is to reduce the amount of variables when trying to make a subjective assessment.

A blind test does guarantee you are removing observer bias, a bias where often something as simple as price or the value of an item can alter our perceived expectation of performance of said item.

But at the end of the day, as I said in my post, if a person likes the sound their hifi is producing, they like the sound of it. The mistake can come when ascribing that to a specific item in the HiFi chain when it could be down to observer bias or one of the many other biases.

3 Likes

Sure, I totally agree, also that a blind test removes some variables. My intention was just to add that it also adds other variables in certain scenarios, unfortunately those that are available when doing blind tests in audio.

I don’t think there is any issue of subjective assessment… I think the observation was more about, in the wider sense, how pseudo science is used to manipulate preference… it’s not new however… the Victorian era was the height of pseudo science manipulating consumer demand… buts it’s a free world, people can spend their money on what they want.

19th Century (The Carbolic Smoke Ball)
image

21st Century (Obscurum Ultima https://audiophile.rocks/obscurumultima.html)
image

2 Likes

Presumably a Chinese Opera singer (you’ll know what I mean if you’ve heard it), and on first replay of the wax there would have beenno pops and clicks…

The worst thing is that I cannot tell if the Obscurum is satire or not :cry:
If satire, it is very well done. “Unlike our old tweaks, the Obscurum works best for every component in the audio system” is genius.

Otherwise I don’t disagree at all (as usual with you :slight_smile: ) I just wanted to point out that there is no panacea to testing, even blind

I know what you mean :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:… I wasn’t sure before I posted but I suspect it is … but it’s a great example or though farcical example of what some get sucked into… wasn’t hard on your favourite search engine to find numerous real examples. Also didn’t want to offend many if any so choose a more extreme, think made up, example… I do think it’s funny… I suspect the Carbolic Smoke Ball was really sold to consumers… probably safe to say none of them alive any more to be offended :blush: