Jump to content
IGNORED

Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?


crenca

Recommended Posts

What is the difference between something written by Michael Lavorgna and Lewis Carroll?

 

 

Lewis Carroll knew he was writing nonsense and fantasy. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Well now I don't need to respond to ML's pm to me.  No it wasn't like the one he was banned for not even close.  Just one that illuminated who he is.  Not in a good way to my thinking and probably was to his thinking.  So not sure what set him off so inappropriately on Ralf.  Most definitely not called for though.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:


 

 

Now, what's the big deal about steel frames?  My system is insufficiently resolving to see why it might be better than say CF...

 

We talking bike frames or speaker frames?

 

Don't you know?  Steel is Real.  Plastic is fantastic.  At one time titanium was unobtainium.  

 

Before anyone accuses me of bias, I own steel, carbon fiber, titanium and hybrid CF/Ti framed bikes.  My most expensive watch was $140.  It tells time with admirable accuracy whether riding a bike or listening to audio.  Even worked in an art museum the last couple times I visited.  Church's and sacred religious spaces too.  And like me the watch is powered by sunlight. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, sdolezalek said:

When it comes to bike parts, I apply a fairly simple test: Did it improve my Strava time without making my rear end massively more painful (I prefer speed but I do not ignore comfort).  The first is measureable, the second is largely my opinion.  In audio, I generally apply the opposite standard: does it sound better to me; and only then, can I find a rational basis for why it should (i.e. is it measurable?).  

 

The more we acknowledge most choices we make in life involve a combination of fact and belief, the more tolerant we become of others choices being different, and the more justified we become of questioning whether those others are simply trying to impose their belief vs. enlighten us to better facts.  Frequently, those with the most strident and unbendable opinions are selling belief, while those positing ideas but admitting the possibility of doubt are selling fact. 

 

 

In this thread off topic may be good.  Never been a pro rider just a dilettante. Like in audio.  Around 6 years ago, I had a current for the time better than average bike.  Carbon, current goodies on it etc.  I also still had the bike I rode in college.  An entry level Motebecane road bike.  Not top of the line even then.  I liked riding and it was what I could afford.

 

Anyway, tuned up the old bike, put on some new tires, and decided to alternate identical routes between the new and old.  One week on each for 6 weeks or 3 weeks on each.  Kept track of my time on average on them.  The newer one was more comfortable, felt more nimble, more alive and felt like it was so efficient getting power to the ground.  The old one felt rather wooden, heavy, stiff and uncomfortable (though to me when I purchased it in 1980 it seems like the description of the new one at the time). 

 

So the end result, my average speed on the new bike was 1.00 mph faster.  It was easy to figure out where most of it was coming from too.  The old bike only had 6 rear gears instead of 10 like the new one.  Too often I would have preferred being in a higher gear, and one gear up was a bit too much on the old bike.  I do believe had I stuck with the older bike my muscles etc would have acclimated in time reducing the 1 mph speed difference even if it never erased it completely.  So that 1 mph difference isn't nothing, and in a racing context would be a big deal.  Yet for a recreational rider it didn't exactly justify the high tech and high expense of the newer bike.  The niceties of comfort is something definitely worth paying for on the new bike.  A bicycle is a pretty basic bit of machinery.  The new tires probably made it nearly equivalent to the new bike in efficiency.  So older isn't better, but it isn't much worse either.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, wgscott said:

35765575844_8a10c45616_k.jpg 

Seems like a potentially confusing situation.  What if the tagged condor eats some tagged carcass.  Some trackers might get very confused about how a deer was flying and this before they learn he is going everywhere a condor goes. 

 

BTW, which one represents Michael L.?  I vote for the condor and the deer is the carcass of old-school audiophiledom.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, wdw said:

 

this is a reasonable portrayal of what happened in this thread...don't think ML was looking for a fight at all but the pack was out in force...once he's using the F bomb his argument was lost but the increasingly personal attacks from the usual cadre of posters is unprofessional (and I am not really much of a fan of Audiostream to begin with) 

His PMs to me were along the lines of "let me spell it out for you, I have been paid to do this for years.  You are some poster with some posts on a forum."  Definitely seemed to think his opinion was better than others even if it was irrational.  That it was therefore an irrational act to disagree with him. 

 

If my actions were unprofessional, it might be because I am not an audio professional.  I also didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

I wonder if it's possible some of these manufacturers that are on board maybe surprisingly, are onboard because they've heard what recorded MQA (not converted) sounds like and like it?

 

So maybe preparing for what's coming next, after this initial wave of music that's been converted to MQA?

 

I ask this as a bit of a stupid person because I don't even know if there is a difference between recording in MQA and just converting to MQA. I've assumed there is a difference but could be very wrong and am happy to learn more.

 

Why would that be covered and held back by an NDA?  If MQA can provide recorded in MQA showing great improvement why would they not have done so already?

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Ok, fair enough. Please allow me to attempt to voice an alternative perspective. The provocative title of the thread proposes that we consider a pretty strong take and judge the overall ethos of this hobby as pretty awful and condemn it.

 

As if that weren't enough to consider, there is lurking right underneath the surface of that take, a very strong indictment of what is referred to here as "subjectivity", even "radical subjectivity", as being closely connected to the snake oil business, playing its part in the what you percieve as a creepingly relativistic (including moral relativism), narcissistic, surrealistic way that some of us behave as audiophiles and , by extension at times, as human beings.

 

Michael Lavorgna, with whom you have a long history of antagonism, which is not, imo, onesided, steps in to say that this industry is far from unique in its problem with corruption...and the battle ensued.

 

I think that subjective is the wrong word for the approach of some people in this hobby. I would suggest aesthetic instead, and aesthetics are, in my view, far from being simply subjective, but are social, cultural, traditional and in dialectic against tradition, to some extent linguistic, and are centered in our encounters with art,  including music. This is to be distinguished from scientifically -oriented approaches that are very important regarding music reproduction. The difficulty seems to me to be about sussing out the relative roles and legitimate options for both scientific method, and aesthetic event or encounter.

 

And the typical Procrustean bed simply won't due (thanks ralf).

 

I had a thread some five years ago.  Water flows uphill.   Where I detailed I knew water flows uphill because I have seen it. 

 

Yes it was meant to get attention that some people insist vehemently on what "they hear" against evidence it can't be so not much less established than the laws of gravity and the surety that water does not flow uphill.   Doesn't seem we are any closer to separating things that simply don't happen from things that do happen or might happen.  In that large in between some people play hard on the confidence game in the audio world.  

 

From good ole wikipedia:

 

A confidence trick (synonyms include confidence game, confidence scheme, ripoff, scam and stratagem) is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence, used in the classical sense of trust. Confidence tricks exploit characteristics of the human psyche, such as credulity, naïveté, compassion, vanity, irresponsibility, and greed.

 

 

 

 

 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 

 Shit Creek ? :P

Nah, the creek was clean and pristine, Alex.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

like I said don't paint them all with the same brush, particularly the wrong brush:

Definition:

I like the urban dictionary one best....and yes, the sarcastic comments will probably ensue>:(

 

Audiophile | Define Audiophile at Dictionary.com

www.dictionary.com/browse/audiophile
1. a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction. Origin of audiophile. 1950-1955. First recorded in 1950-55; audio- + -phile.
An audiophile is a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction. Audiophile values may be applied at all stages of music reproduction: the initial audio recording, the production process, and the playback, which is usually in a home setting.

Urban Dictionary: audiophile

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=audiophile
Top Definition. audiophile. One who enjoys sex acts involving the ear. After they stopped kissing, Jenny felt something touch her ear. She sighed. Why did she ...
Define audiophile: a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction.

Audiophile definition: a person who has a great interest in high-fidelity sound reproduction | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples.

 

How many times did we see high fidelity in the above definitions? 

 

Now define high fidelity and you may start to get somewhere. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

I found it interesting at RMAF that people were very uneasy with just volume matching and using a consistent set of reference albums. Pretty basic stuff for listening comparisons.

That one continues to amaze me.  I usually can't get finished asking for matched volumes until I am told how it is unnecessary or even detrimental to worry with it (????).    The other is the related listen to three tracks, change something, listen to three different tracks and evaluate sound quality afterwards.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, wgscott said:

Sounds very similar to those who get hooked on USB de-evilizers.  Take away the de-evilizer and music becomes intolerable. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

There is a huge difference between proving that two things are the same and proving that they are different.

 

To prove A and B different, all I need is one verified datum of difference. To prove the same I need all possible data.

 

If the above test shows a difference, then there you go -- the cable makes a difference when connected. If not, the above test doesn't prove anything.

 

For example, this test could possibly only work with a wave file of pure 1kHz?

Well you have to start somewhere.  Looks like plenty of people clearly don't want to actually test anything.  The placebo is too addictive.  

 

I find it curious so often we hear of people saying I don't want to spend time listening for X this way.  Yet they usually are the same who say they listen for weeks to evaluate the effect until they are comfortable with it and make judgments that way.  Sounds inherently contradictory to me.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

Jud hasn't been around for a while.

I have noticed that.  I wonder if it is related to moving to New Mexico?

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, firedog said:

 

Or they just don't like doing such tests and aren't really interested in putting time and effort into it. 

Yet (not speaking of you in particular) they put orders of magnitude more time and effort and money into the same thing in a way that can never be anything other than comforting placebo effects.  Spending 30 minutes listening carefully is too much time and effort while spending weeks listening and worrying and thousands in money is not too much?

Quote

 

I can't properly "test" anything at home. I compare the best I can and  make up my mind. Then I don't worry about it anymore, and ignore what everyone else says. I'm interested in whatever sounds best to me. Don't care if someone else thinks it makes sense or not. Obviously, I don't want to spend thousands on snake oil-but exclusive of that I don't really care. 

So where do you get the ideas you do try out?  I don't know your normal methodology, if you could improve it why wouldn't you? Again don't know how you do it, but I almost never can get anyone to do level matching.  That one thing really improves results.  Somehow that is too much.  Touchy, feely makes me feel good approaches are the rule.  

 

Quote

 

I've spend a bit of money on various power improvements. Do I know from DBT's that they sound better? No - but I think they've improved the SQ for me. Maybe I'm fooling myself. Some people would say so.

But I'm satisfied that within the limits of my room and my finances, I've done the best I can, and I've prevented additional episodes of  "audiophillia nervosa". Any of you can tell me you've DBT'd one of my devices and it has no real effect. I won"t care.

 

Yet most people do care if someone tries a device and says it has a real effect.  Even when the method determining that effect is horridly flawed.  That is what seems strange, the ill will toward better methods.  Methods that can dramatically shrink the nervosa issues. 

Quote

 

 

Even the placebo effect is "real" to the person hearing it. We keep forgetting we actually hear with our brains and how they interpret sound, and not with the receptors in our ears.

They have to account for "the placebo effect" in medical research b/c it actually exists - i.e., it can actually cause improved outcomes. The person in the trial who is given the sugar pill and gets better doesn't really care about the pill in the end. He cares that he got better. His/her experience may not be applicable to anyone else, but the outcome is still an actual outcome for him/her.

 

So maybe that is the secret.  If you get cured of nervosa once that is all well and good.  But if you can get the nervosa now and again, and have a sure fire method that always cures it (though always temporarily) then you get the repeated placebo high of fixing your problems.  A cure that never ends and an emotional payoff that happens over and over.  Something like forgiveness from sin in a religion. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Technically unexplainable.

 

Expanding from the civility thread this is probably the most "technically accurate" and I suspect least offensive. It says, "all my data and *available* scientific evidence cannot explain your experience". Of course others can submit other evidence if available or argue the point. Evidence also changes over time."Delusional" is simply incorrect.

 

 

there are too many proposals here all wrapped up in conjecture, but fair enough, it is a question after all.

Technically unexplainable, and technically highly unlikely is more like it for most things in audio.  

 

My data and scientific evidence cannot explain your experience is an overreach in regards to most audiophile 'controversies'.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

It remains equally valid in either circumstance. No overreach at all. It is objective because it does not come with an attached opinion or bias, nor insult for that matter.It admits the possibility of both outcomes, the technical evidence is lacking or the experience is somehow influenced by other factors eg bias, madness, tiredness, bad fast-food take-away, price tag. It appears to me Dennis like you are after something more punitive, as in "you can't let em get away with that!"

Yet, when there is no possibility of both outcomes, or even if one outcome is extremely unlikely then this is not objective.  It is instead a valueless ill-informed state.  I don't have to be punitive or say you can't let them get away with that.  Physics will do that all by itself.

 

Now if we restrict this to people buying gear, what would you call it if claims are made that aren't real yet some people will choose to take that route anyway.  Will feel better as a result.  Will spend money and effort that results in only the illusion of improvement.  What is the very definition of confidence game?

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Okay I apologize in advance if I have misunderstood something. I am talking about the chosen way people decide to buy one piece of gear over another.Some listen in a way they have determined yields the best outcome for them (as well as defer to measurements, whatever). This is in an environment that hearing audible differences cannot be proven one way or another.

 

Are you saying there is a scientific methodolgy that dictates how they should buy their gear?

 


snippage..........

You have changed what I thought the conversation was.  Is audiophiledom a confidence game?  That is more than just the chosen way people buy gear. 

 

A scientific methodology will not dictate how people should buy gear or any other voluntary activity.

 

The science will dictate if their method is effective in the aim of getting better playback quality.  Sometimes it is another aim.  Having cool looking unusual gear.  Or a unique sound.  Showing off.  The consumer's urge to get something new being satisfied. 

 

The grossly overwhelming amount of marketing of expensive audio gear is you get better or best sound.  That if you do otherwise you have worse sound.  There are approaches to making decisions informed by science and some leaving yourself wide open to confidence scheming. 

 

Scientific fact.  If you audition two items and one is slightly louder than the other it will be preferred even if there are no other differences.

 

Does this mean scientific methodology dictates people buy gear by level matching during auditioning?  No.  If they wish to reduce polluting or confusing influences and hear how the basic quality differs, they are well advised to follow this practice. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, jabbr said:

snip....

You've complained that I keep saying this is hard, well these are some of the reasons ... let me reiterate that the DAC-ADC-DAC loop is a full stop deal breaker as far as making me believe anything unless your ADC has 5-10x the resolution as your DAC. Non negotiable.      snip.........

 

 

I understand your thoughts here.  And when possible the measuring ADC if you will needs to be better.  I do think if you have no other options it can narrow down the range in which things could matter. 

 

In any case, out of curiosity, what parameters would you accept as 5x better in an ADC?  5x less distortion, noise, bandwidth, what all would you need to make you happy with such a test?

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I’m throwing that out — the current DACs have such high resolution DSD512, DSD1024 that it would be unreasonable. Perhaps you could do something very exotic with RF transistors & logic but you know, why??? Better to skip the loop. Actually easier to do good measurements.

 

(Not going to get into bitdepth etc because it would have to be SDM)

 

This is similar to: if you are going to measure a signal bandlimited to X, what us the required minimum resolution of the scope ...

Well I was thinking about the opposite approach.  Is what I had in mind doing 8th generation copies.  Every parameter was at least 8x worse.  Is that audible versus the pristine original.  Didn't seem to be.  

 

Now that doesn't definitively show something 8x better rather than worse wouldn't be an improvement.  But we are already into the realm where some physical constraints of air and sound won't allow that level of improvement.  

 

I never posted the files as it seems people here mostly like to make claims from uncontrolled listening rather than actually listen to something.  I kept doing additional generations of copies.  What eventually made them obviously different is when the noise floor was reaching audibility.  That isn't a surprising result.  

 

 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Best.

CA.

Quote.

Ever.

I concur. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, jabbr said:

1) this introduces a slew of other variables. I haven't gone through the math in detail but there are interactions between the ADC and DAC that could obliterate what I would expect would be subtle differences between Ethernet cables. 

2) if you aren't going to do the test properly, why bother? get Cat 6/6a and don't worry about it.

3) If you insist, first you will essentially write a paper on why ADC/DAC generational copies don't make a difference. Have you measured phase noise? What accuracy? we can go on and on...

4) Basic principle of measurement is that the equipment you use to measure is better than the device you are measuring, if you want me to give up this rule of thumb, you are first going to need to do alot of work to convince me. 

Now I don't know if you worked at it or not.  

 

Every single one of your points is an indication of a misreading/misunderstanding of what I had in mind. 

1)  Yes it introduces a slew of other variables.  I wasn't using ethernet at the time, but USB.  Yes I would expect differences to obliterate subtle cable differences.  Yet if such obliteration at a measurable level is audibly of no consequence those obliterated differences would seem well below being an issue.  

 

2)I was testing with what was available as my estimation of finding something with USB was well below making sense to invest heavily in expensive test equipment.  Ethernet cable is an even lesser probability. 

 

3)This one simply doesn't apply.  ADC/DAC generational copies make lots of differences.  Except to the human ear that is. 

 

4) I never asked you to give up that so you made that one up. 

 

One reasonable approach when you don't have the measurement gear, but have a way of degrading signal quality in terms of perceptions like sound is to degrade a signal progressively and see if a difference is noticed perceptually.  If you degrade things one step and it is noticed you may have a hard time learning anything. If it takes several steps that tells you more.  Determining which parts cause the eventual perception of degradation may or may not be clearcut. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...