Trust my ears? I think not.

[jaxwired]

This hobby is so full of self delusional suckers it's ridiculous. I mean if you are in this hobby and you don't constantly say to yourself "can I trust my ears?" then you are a bit of a sap IMO. There's a lot of guys that trust their ears entirely. This is unwise (again IMO) because that leads you to two things:

 

1. Constant merry go round of gear.

 

2. Lots of money spent for no good reason.

 

It's a matter of precision. How precise is a person's ability to distinquish over all sound quality. Sound quality is comprised of many components that lead to over all quality. Yet many audiophiles implictly trust their ears to decipher every element of sound quality with absolute precision.

 

I trust my ears to give me general information about sound quality. Like that sounds brighter and that sounds darker. That sounds a bit boomy and that sounds cleaner. But I don't trust my ears to report sound quality differences like I've got a built in oscilloscope.

 

It should be obvious that our ears cannot be trusted to report with that degree of precision. Yet, audiophiles will explain tiny, tiny nuanced differences as being due to things like voltage irregularities or cable breaking in. Please, it's ridiculous to think that we can not only detect such tiny changes, but that we can do so with such precision and consistency.

[wgscott]

That's not quite fair. I just picked up the current issue of Phys Rev Lett and half of the articles in there report new, unexpected breakthroughs in our understanding of quantum electrodynamics.

 

Were these contributions made by physicists in our best universities and national labs? No. Most of the pubs are authored by individual audiophiles in their own homes armed only with expensive speaker cables, USB cables, and tuning fuses, and of course, their ears.

 

So show a little respect, huh?

[DigiPete]

This hobby is so full of self delusional suckers it's ridiculous. I mean if you are in this hobby and you don't constantly say to yourself "can I trust my ears?" then you are a bit of a sap IMO. . . .

 

It is interesting to note that Daniel Weiss is quite honest about the fact that he mainly goes by measurements and what he finds a scientifically good design/topology.

And yet he has a very large and devoted audiophile following.

[Paul R]

Suckers? I think the suckers are the ones who buy gear, especially expensive gear, based upon measurements alone. Bring on those CDs with absolutely perfect sound...

 

-Paul

 

 

This hobby is so full of self delusional suckers it's ridiculous. I mean if you are in this hobby and you don't constantly say to yourself "can I trust my ears?" then you are a bit of a sap IMO. There's a lot of guys that trust their ears entirely. This is unwise (again IMO) because that leads you to two things:

 

1. Constant merry go round of gear.

 

2. Lots of money spent for no good reason.

 

It's a matter of precision. How precise is a person's ability to distinquish over all sound quality. Sound quality is comprised of many components that lead to over all quality. Yet many audiophiles implictly trust their ears to decipher every element of sound quality with absolute precision.

 

I trust my ears to give me general information about sound quality. Like that sounds brighter and that sounds darker. That sounds a bit boomy and that sounds cleaner. But I don't trust my ears to report sound quality differences like I've got a built in oscilloscope.

 

It should be obvious that our ears cannot be trusted to report with that degree of precision. Yet, audiophiles will explain tiny, tiny nuanced differences as being due to things like voltage irregularities or cable breaking in. Please, it's ridiculous to think that we can not only detect such tiny changes, but that we can do so with such precision and consistency.

[Jud]

This hobby is so full of self delusional suckers it's ridiculous. I mean if you are in this hobby and you don't constantly say to yourself "can I trust my ears?" then you are a bit of a sap IMO. There's a lot of guys that trust their ears entirely. This is unwise (again IMO) because that leads you to two things:

 

1. Constant merry go round of gear.

 

2. Lots of money spent for no good reason.

 

It's a matter of precision. How precise is a person's ability to distinquish over all sound quality. Sound quality is comprised of many components that lead to over all quality. Yet many audiophiles implictly trust their ears to decipher every element of sound quality with absolute precision.

 

I trust my ears to give me general information about sound quality. Like that sounds brighter and that sounds darker. That sounds a bit boomy and that sounds cleaner. But I don't trust my ears to report sound quality differences like I've got a built in oscilloscope.

 

It should be obvious that our ears cannot be trusted to report with that degree of precision. Yet, audiophiles will explain tiny, tiny nuanced differences as being due to things like voltage irregularities or cable breaking in. Please, it's ridiculous to think that we can not only detect such tiny changes, but that we can do so with such precision and consistency.

 

Well, this is very obviously bait put out by someone who's trolling, but perhaps a nice sensible answer will avoid the usual very dull repeat of past arguments.

 

- I don't have anything like a "constant merry go round of gear." I have cables older than some of the members of this forum. I've changed amps once in 20 years, preamps the same, DACs the same, speakers the same (from an older model of the same speakers I have now to the version I have now), turntable never in 30 years.

 

- I'm quite thrifty. Changed from a $2000 DAC to a $450 DAC. When I bought my most recent amp, it was a used one that was new in 1996.

 

My theory, which seems to have worked for me, is that listening to equipment over an extended period of time should give a good indication of whether you will enjoy listening to it over an extended period of time. Radical, I know.

[Jud]

That's not quite fair. I just picked up the current issue of Phys Rev Lett and half of the articles in there report new, unexpected breakthroughs in our understanding of quantum electrodynamics.

 

Were these contributions made by physicists in our best universities and national labs? No. Most of the pubs are authored by individual audiophiles in their own homes armed only with expensive speaker cables, USB cables, and tuning fuses, and of course, their ears.

 

So show a little respect, huh?

 

:-)

 

"Armed" with their ears, eh? You mix a nice metaphor. ;-)

[Jeff In San Diego]

My theory, which seems to have worked for me, is that listening to equipment over an extended period of time should give a good indication of whether you will enjoy listening to it over an extended period of time. Radical, I know.

 

Love this.

 

No doubt somebody will come back and say that you run the risk of getting to the end of your lifetime never really knowing whether or not you enjoyed the music.

[mav52]

A sucker is someone that calls others suckers

[jaxwired]

Suckers? I think the suckers are the ones who buy gear, especially expensive gear, based upon measurements alone.

-Paul

 

I agree, that would also be foolish. My premise is simply that some audiophiles put too much trust

in their innate abilities and that results in incorrect conclusions and a lot of wasted money.

[souptin]

Well, this is very obviously bait put out by someone who's trolling, but perhaps a nice sensible answer will avoid the usual very dull repeat of past arguments.

 

Fingers crossed that a civilised discussion might break out... but *cough* objective observation tells me that there's a far greater chance of tipping a barrel of fish parts into the ocean and finding the sharks have formed an orderly queue.

 

For me the key word is "hobby". I'm interested in the theory and the measurements, I rather enjoy seeing the experts (self appointed or otherwise) challenged to prove their claims, but personally if something sounds good to me then I'd consider buying it no matter what the double standards police and the measurements say. Unless the measurements say I'd have to sell my body to afford it, then I might pause for a moment, what with the scrap metal market being a bit weak even for quality tin such as myself.

[jaxwired]

if something sounds good to me then I'd consider buying it no matter what the double standards police and the measurements say

 

What if I had a product called "accurate sound" that was an aerosol spray used in the room prior to listening? And that sounded good to you? Would you buy that? And what if it costs $1000 for a can? I can pretty much guarantee that such a product would find audiophile buyers with the correct marketing approach. Why? Because they "trust their ears".

[souptin]

Vanilla or sandalwood, definitely. I'd even pay extra if it smelled like Rickie Lee Jones's armpits. Mmmmmm! Not sure if there'd be many takers for wgscott three-day-old crusty socks, no matter how good your "marketing approach".

[jaxwired]

Vanilla or sandalwood, definitely. I'd even pay extra if it smelled like Rickie Lee Jones's armpits. Mmmmmm! Not sure if there'd be many takers for wgscott three-day-old crusty socks, no matter how good your "marketing approach".

 

Well, in that case you'll be needing my paypal id. : )

[esldude]

That's not quite fair. I just picked up the current issue of Phys Rev Lett and half of the articles in there report new, unexpected breakthroughs in our understanding of quantum electrodynamics.

 

Were these contributions made by physicists in our best universities and national labs? No. Most of the pubs are authored by individual audiophiles in their own homes armed only with expensive speaker cables, USB cables, and tuning fuses, and of course, their ears.

 

So show a little respect, huh?

 

You forgot brains Wgscott. They also are armed with their brains. Or....well....did you mean to leave that part out?

[wgscott]

They also are armed with their brains. Or....well....did you mean to leave that part out?

 

You talking to me, or God?

[DanRubin]

A sucker is someone that calls others suckers

No, that would be a dick.

 

A problem with what you are saying is that, for most people, I expect it would be very difficult to stop trusting their ears when that's been the basis of the hobby for them -- even the reason it's their hobby in the first place.

[4est]

No, that would be a dick.

 

+1

[esldude]

Boy, WGSCOTT wasn't kidding. Look over this synopsis in Phys Lett. S Rev.

 

Synopsis: More tau lephons than expected

 

National Acoustical Laboratory

 

 

As reported in Physical Review of Sound Letters, the collaboration at NASL has analyzed a large data set and found an excess of events containing tau lephons in the decay of bottom mesones that doesn’t agree with the predictions of the standard model of acoustical physics.

 

Barr looked for the decays of bottom mesones (a bound state of a bottom quark and an audible quark) into a charm mesone, a charged lephon, and a neutrino. Compared to a previous analysis, they were able to increase the efficiency with which they identified signal events by more than a factor of 3. Barr determined the ratio of those decays that contained tau lephons to those that contained acoustical charged lephons (electrons or muons), obtaining a larger ratio than predicted by the standard model by 3.4 standard deviations. The NAL using sophisticated listening procedure further reduced the difference to only .2 standard deviations with appropriate connector cabling.

 

This deviation could be due to some new particle, such as a charged Higgs bosone, which couples more strongly to heavy particles like taus than to electrons or muons (though Barrr shows that one of the most commonly studied models with a charged Higgs bosone does not work). Systematic errors or statistical fluctuations could also give rise to the apparent excess of tau lephons. Finally, it could be that the standard model theoretical prediction Barr compares their data to will change. In a recent paper researchers re-auditioned one of the theoretical inputs into that prediction, and their results reduce the discrepancy Barr finds to the same.2 standard deviations in the curve for Bels. It is believed this new understanding at a sub-atomic level is only possible with appropriate materials procedures and only when decisions are guided by extremely critical listening evaluations.

 

With my apologies to Physical Review Letters.

[jaxwired]

No, that would be a dick.

 

Well, ok, maybe "sucker" is too loaded a word. But, I think most people agree that snake oil products do exist in high end audio. I think we can also agree that some people buy them, often at great expense. What word would you like to use for these people? I don't think they are "unfortunate" since that implies a lack of responsibility.

 

Dictionary.com defines "Sucker" to mean a person easily cheated. Seems to apply here. Is there another less offensive word for this? I'd be glad to use it.

[spdif-usb]

Is there another less offensive word for this? I'd be glad to use it.

Maybe try the word fool.

[esldude]

Well, ok, maybe "sucker" is too loaded a word. But, I think most people agree that snake oil products do exist in high end audio. I think we can also agree that some people buy them, often at great expense. What word would you like to use for these people? I don't think they are "unfortunate" since that implies a lack of responsibility.

 

Dictionary.com defines "Sucker" to mean a person easily cheated. Seems to apply here. Is there another less offensive word for this? I'd be glad to use it.

 

One could call them victims. And you don't necessarily have responsibility if you are a victim.

 

Misguided is another. Or mistaken consumers. Now the people you are referring to are not going to be pleased with any of these labels. Though any are a bit less immediately offensive than sucker or sap.

 

Some compassion is in order I think. As one who has been there, (and probably will be a mistaken consumer again I am sure), no need to be overtly brusque with those who trust only their ears (as I once did).

 

It goes back to a one time signature quote Julf used from Mark Twain:

It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.

 

So they might be victims, they might have been taken in, their own prejudices and life experiences put them in that position. It resulted in them fooling themselves or leaving themselves open to being conned by others. And I do believe some of the people doing the fooling believe it thoroughly at least as often as not. So they are not volitional con men.

 

I too forget these things on these forum 'debates'. Very hard to convince them you are on their side, and more than trying to show they are wrong, you are trying to enlarge everyone's understanding and benefit from it. Most people, myself included, tend to cling to a position taken and take it too personally.

 

But unless you are pretty sure they are trying to really con you (like some companies do for their own benefit and enrichment) try to remain compassionate and with them. Not out to get them or embarrass them. (Does take some patience at times by both sides even). Calling them suckers isn't likely to help. It does however very clearly communicate how you feel. So if you don't mind the other baggage in exchange for clarity then it isn't a wrong word.

[johnemcgregor]

Well, ok, maybe "sucker" is too loaded a word. But, I think most people agree that snake oil products do exist in high end audio. I think we can also agree that some people buy them, often at great expense. What word would you like to use for these people? I don't think they are "unfortunate" since that implies a lack of responsibility.

 

Dictionary.com defines "Sucker" to mean a person easily cheated. Seems to apply here. Is there another less offensive word for this? I'd be glad to use it.

 

Just out of curiosity, what is the motivation for such a post? Is it strictly altruistic? You're trying to save the poor consumer from neglecting his children's needs to satisfy some delusional need for his system to sound better?

If an audiophile spends his money on something that he thinks sounds better, what's the harm? And what's the difference between thinking something sounds better and something sounding better because of measurable differences? If I'm walking down a dark alley at night and I think there are bad guys following me to harm me, the fear is the same whether the bad guys are there or not.

I just wonder about people who act concerned for others they don't know based on a behavior that is relatively benign.

[spdif-usb]

[esldude]

Just out of curiosity, what is the motivation for such a post? Is it strictly altruistic? You're trying to save the poor consumer from neglecting his children's needs to satisfy some delusional need for his system to sound better?

If an audiophile spends his money on something that he thinks sounds better, what's the harm? And what's the difference between thinking something sounds better and something sounding better because of measurable differences? If I'm walking down a dark alley at night and I think there are bad guys following me to harm me, the fear is the same whether the bad guys are there or not.

I just wonder about people who act concerned for others they don't know based on a behavior that is relatively benign.

 

Cannot speak for the OP.

 

But using your bad guys and fear example. If there are guys there, and you are afraid and you end up shooting or stabbing them out of fear, and they turn out not to be bad guys.....well, you see the harm.

 

But bad example. Not like audio spending exactly.

 

One thing is to ask what is the good from snake oil products? Sure makes shopping for effective equipment more difficult if over-priced equipment with no real benefits dominate or extensively makes up the market.

 

Imagine you had a company that made a DAC that was as good as any such could be and sold it for $300. I don't know this to be the case, but if it were, you couldn't get people to take it seriously at that price and if it didn't use all this audiophile jewelry in the design. In time you might have to fancy it up and raise the price or go out of business, then the product either isn't available to those with only $300 or isn't available at all. Isn't the end of the world if a perception even if not real sells for more money and makes the buyer happy. It isn't beneficial either that I can tell.

 

Or imagine this. You make a pretty good USB-SPDIF converter. It buffers the output side pretty well from the input side including the noisy power it gets from the USB cable. Your customers start asking when you will offer either a battery power option or external power option so you won't have to use power from the nasty USB source. You are a small company and some of the more precise and difficult measures of jitter and other aspects you do with rented time on some very, very expensive measuring equipment. So far your experiments with battery or other power haven't turned up anything you can hear. But so many customers keep insisting it is so. Next time you test you include some test runs using the different power schemes for your converter box. You can turn up no difference. Even down into the rather low pico-second range, no noise difference at the output otherwise over a wide bandwidth. Simply no difference at all with some of the most sensitive testing apparatus available to anyone. And still your customers are clamoring.

 

In time you maybe, say "okay, beats me, I will design a nice external supply, extra nice, charge a reasonable price and see if they like it." And you do, and they do and you get lots of glowing reports about the big improvements. Lets say it raises the base cost 30%. A bit more profit for you to make, customers are happier than ever. Good business will make customers happy. Sure seems to you like it does nothing. Customers are happy, profits are up, folks speak better of your device than ever before.

 

Now maybe these customers hear more than you the manufacturer do, and maybe they are delightfully mistaken. Still, doesn't sound like a good result all things considered. More money, more expense to the customer, more resources used for no actual result. Yet that is the high end business sometimes.

[Zakus]

This hobby is so full of self delusional suckers it's ridiculous. I mean if you are in this hobby and you don't constantly say to yourself "can I trust my ears?"

 

Quite simply my hobby is listening to music with you guessed it my ears not measuring it.