Article: Guest Editorial: Why did audio stop being about audio?

[firedog]

I'm perfectly willing to accept what anyone else says they hear. My only issue is when they present their individual experience as somehow applying more generally, or as "proving" something. Just as I'm willing to accept what they hear, I expect them at a minimum to acknowledge that they may be subject to expectation bias during sighted listening. 

 

I think I've succeeded in the more recent past in not arguing with anyone's perceptions, but rather with how the personal perceptions are presented in some cases. That at least is my intent. 

 

I also realize that very few of us can reliably conduct a DBT or even an SBT at home; so the most practical fallback is to audition stuff in the best way we can and then make a decision on what we hear. That's what the vast majority of us do most of the time. And if that's expectation bias coloring our perceptions, that's also okay. After all, just like the placebo effect can sometimes cure disease, what we hear and enjoy is what we in reality are hearing, no matter the reason. 

 

My problem in the more recent discussion here is not so much with listeners as it is with manufacturers. Many audio manufacturers make claims about their devices that defy known engineering and scientific principles. Could they be telling the truth? Yes, and certainly some of them genuinely believe they are. But those extraordinary claims should be backed up by more than anecdotal sighted evidence. If you want me (us) to spend big bucks on a device that costs 2X, 5X or 50X, the price of a "conventional" equivalent, shouldn't you have an ethical obligation to base those claims on more than sighted and - by definition biased -listening?

 

Isn't that, for instance, one of our gripes about the MQA fanboys and their claims of vastly improved sound - that all those claims are based on sighted listening, manipulated shows, groupthink, etc? Why is it okay to doubt those claims, but not the claims made about "Device X", when the claims about "Device X" are fairly outlandish, according to accepted engineering/scientific norms? But that (MQA directed) skepticism isn't seen  as something illegitimate, for some reason. 

 

And as far as manufacturers measuring devices, I also get that some of these very small operations can't reasonably be expected to shell out multiple tens of thousands for testing equipment - at least not until they've been in operation quite a while. But they could pay a much smaller fee to someone else to measure/test their products. (And if they didn't like the results they could always not publish them, anyway). 

So I find it very telling that we almost never see such measurements. Even from some of the bigger operations that certainly know how to do them and can afford to. Again, get some testing that backs your claims up and publish them - it will only enhance your reputation and increase your sales. Doubters, and maybe even some of the ASR crowd will buy your stuff. 

 

[firedog]

8 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

One of the problems with running a forum is that it is no longer just like minded individuals trading information. There are people and machines whose job it is to influence internet users.  They are paid, or are programmed, to promote products or ideas that they have no real belief in.  They are simply following a script.  There are giant corporations now that are paid huge amounts to influence people.  These are who you may be arguing with.  It is no longer a matter of having a difference of opinion with someone.  It is a matter of someone wanting to sell you a product or an idea. It is no longer friendly conversation, it is business,  and the direction can get heated.

But do you think that's what's going on here? It doesn't appear to me that the arguments here have much to do with the commercial interests of the posters. Most are just hobbyists having a discussion. 

[firedog]

6 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

 

How many times did the MQA shills post the same inane and untrue bs talking points over and over?

Yes, but that's about the only thread here like that, AFAIR.

[firedog]

11 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

It's been my impression those who believe the facts support their worldview have an underlying confidence that their side will prevail.  They are happy to defend and evangelize their worldview but don't feel no need to bludgeon others into believing the way they do.  The desire to bludgeon others tends to come from the folks who don't have confidence that they have the truth on their side.  They may behave as if they have it all figured out and are in the right, but their actions, attitude and discontent repeatedly betray them.  They don't behave like they are happy or at peace.

 

I was speaking about religion but I think this applies to audio too.  It seems that those who rely on subjective impressions believe they have the truth on their side and that their side will prevail once we figure out the ways to measure what we've been hearing.  Their actions, attitudes and behaviors repeatedly demonstrate that they are having a good time and are greatly enjoying this hobby.

 

Those on the objectivist side behave as people who don't appear to behave as though they have confidence that their truth will ultimately prevail.  They are angry and bitter and take every opportunity to demean the other side. They have a diminished awareness of the dissonance between their expectations and reality as they completely discount the massive amount anecdotal evidence that challenges their truth.  If they were confident in their truth, they would feel no need to bash manufacturers because sales of snake oil should soon put those manufacturers out of business.  And likewise they would have confidence that those fooled into purchasing snake oil would eventually realize they were scammed and also buy into their truth.  Unfortunately reality keeps letting them down, hence the bitterness and anger.  Their fight isn't really with the other side - it's with reality not conforming to their truth.  They will never be at peace with the other side until reality submits to their will. 

Sorry, your post is just a bunch of baseless stereotypes. Plenty of objectivists enjoy their music and their systems. Reality? You mean the false reality people fool themselves with?

 

Btw, I can make up stereotpes too: "Objectivists are able to calmly enjoy their systems that cost them less than what subjectivists spend, and objectivists don't suffer from all the audiophillia nervosa that subjectivists do. Those poor subjectivists, always looking to spend their money on the next tweak that will 'totally transform' the sound of their system".

 

Do I actually believe that? No, but it's about as close to the truth as the string of stereotypes that you wrote is. 

 

And what you think is conclusive, a "massive amount of anectdotal evidence" is something they understand to not really be evidence at all. And why would they have confidence that their truth will come out? Based on what? The massive amounts of people who won't even consider the idea that their perceptions are clouded by expectation bias? The same way the climate change deniers, Kennedy assassination conspiracy buffs, Holocaust deniers, flat earthers, and anti-vaxxers have all come to their senses when confronted by facts? But according to your approach, we should all just accept all those ideas because then we will accept the  "reality" that doesn't conform to "our" truth.

[firedog]

3 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

That's clear-eyed, honest, and a breath of fresh air, Chris. Change the word "companies" to "writers" or "magazines" and direct the observation toward a half-dozen or so participants on a very few Audiophile Style forums and you'll be taking an even more principled stand. Manufacturers help keep AS afloat; TAS and Stereophile and Michael Lavorgna and Lee Scoggins and John Darko are merely competitors. Unfounded claims of dishonesty and unethical behavior should be no more acceptable with these targets, even if you disagree vociferously with what they have to say. "…a fear of something, jealousy, or something else at play" ?  I'd say so.

 

Sorry Andrew, false analogy.

 

"The Magazines" and some of the writers insist on repeating corporate claims they know have been shown to be false, or at least extremely dubious. And often with no caveats. The Magazines and the writers are operating in a commercial arena with profit motives. Most individual posters here are not.

 

So I'd say repeating such claims in a magazine is clearly unethical, and in some cases crosses the border into lying. 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

He's really a gentle and thoughtful person who tried to engage in a serious discussion about the merits of you-know-whati

Nope. He continually obfuscated, ignored direct questions, quoted marketing speak as fact, opinionated on technical issues he clearly didn't understand, and when specific points of his were successfully challenged - he simply ignored it and created a new argument.

 

I don't think his participation in that particular thread was in any way thoughtful, serious, or in good faith - it was simply (for whatever reason) an attempt at propaganda/influencing.  

[firedog]

1 hour ago, rickca said:

I think that's accepted by anyone who has experimented with both.

No it hasn't been. 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

In the real world this is done every day by data scientists who are working with huge sets of data about how we behave.  

And this has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. What is acceptable as an "observation" in one situation isn't in another. Experimental design matters. 

 

And btw, how about the "sets of data" showing how all human beings are subject to expectation bias, and specifically in audio comparisons?

 

Did you go the link posted above from Harman about expectation bias?

 

Did you happen to see the recent experiment showing that users perception of loudness changed acc'd to the color of the loudness knob? The actual volume didn't change, only the color of the knob. Yet users reported certain colors had louder volume, and others has softer volume. 
 

Until subjectivists are willing to acknowledge the role of expectation bias, there isn't much hope for this discussion. That's the big truth being ignored here.
Just because 200 or a thousand users of a product report they heard something in sighted listening, it doesn't prove anything. The number of people reporting it isn't relevant. Each one is an individual reporting under conditions of expectation bias - their collective biases don't make each individual response more accurate. 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Think of it as signal to noise ratio. In today's hi-fi market, there is so much noise (snake oil) that it is difficult to find the signal (honest products that simply do what they say for a reasonable price). There's a hi-fi store a couple of blocks from my house. They sell only snake oil interconnects (AudioQuest and such), and the salesmen say silly things about silver. This isn't even a "high end" store. If I need an interconnect, my options are to buy bulk cable and mount connectors myself, or I can take my chances on Amazon with the risk of being scammed in the other direction (cheap crap that falls apart if you look at it the wrong way). Do you find this situation desirable? I do not.

Well there are other alternatives to your example. There is Bluejeans cable and a couple of other online vendors who make quality cables of all types to order. More expensive than cheap clam shell stuff, but only tens of dollars instead of hundreds. BlueJeans even measures every cable to prove it 's up to spec and include the measurement with the shipment. No "silver" or "quantum" cables need apply. Based on stock like Belden and a few other reputable types. 

[firedog]

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

Lee's detractors maintain that he just kept repeating MQA, Inc doggerel. The case could be made that many of the most aggressive (and often anonymous) Vaporware participants spent a awful lot of time citing Archimago's conclusions, using the same language over and over.

And you still don't get the basics.

 

Many of Arhcimago's/Mansr's conclusions were based on disprovable analyses/conclusions/understandings that he and Chris invited others to disprove. No one disproved what they said on it's merits. And they still haven't, till today. 

 

Lots of people tried to say that if the source of a fact is anonymous, then then the fact itself is wrong. You seem to be implying that here. That of course is a logical fallacy.  In fact, among the people who engaged Archimago's assertions on their merits, he only received backing. 

 

The same can't be said for Lee. The fact is that you either can't - or refuse - to see the difference. 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

So, this forum is not the place to disabuse someone of the belief that Santa Claus actually exists?

Maybe it is. But that doesn't mean I should go around telling little kids that he doesn't.

 

There's a time and a place for everything.

I am not a radical objectivist, but I also think some of the radical subjectivist threads here are a little nuts. So I just ignore them and let the people who enjoy them have their fun - even if, IMHO, they are a bit wacko. What I think doesn't always matter. 

[firedog]

8 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

And FD, I feel that you and a few others just don't understand what's at stake here. It seems so obvious to me. For the umpteenth time, my concern isn't who is right or wrong on the MQA question, but rather, the way we talk to each other about it. I assure you: I read every word of Archimago's analysis and was impressed; I'm no happier to see his abilities called into question than the integrity and competence of those in the pro-MQA camp—for example, people like my dear friend Peter McGrath.

 

I'd been reading Audiophile Style without posting—"lurking"—for months before Joel's editorial was published two days ago. I'm being genuine when I say that I'm tremendously impressed with Chris's decision to present it as he did, in a way that acknowledged the vital importance of the issue of civility. There's been an explosive response, mostly from two constituencies. The first is a large group of members that's as concerned as the OP about the manner in which a vocal minority attack those with different opinions than their own. The second are representatives of that minority who recognize themselves in Joel's essay and don't like the characterization. I can detect, from some of them, annoyance and even frank anger with The Computer Audiophile for publishing the editorial, viewing it as a kind a slap in the face.

 

I suppose it is. But it's a subject that needs addressing and that outpouring of reaction—more than 500 postings in two days!—is very telling. I'll try returning to lurking status and observe what I hope will be the growth of a corrective force.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

I guess that's all fine. I try not to be an attacker. But most of your posts have a bit of finger wagging in them, and in spite of what you write here, you've often sided with the "if it isn't civil or is under a pseudonym, I don't have to relate to the merits of the argument" camp.

 

And your various friends' professional competence has rarely been attacked: what's been attacked are positions they take, and marketing spin being presented as truth and fact. Even some of the most professionally competent people in the world can be guilty of that.

[firedog]

3 hours ago, tapatrick said:

We live in hope... at least I do. 

The corrective force quote was ARQ, not me.

[firedog]

7 hours ago, Wilderness said:

If I understand you correctly, I find that sometimes exactly the opposite happens.  I went to a audio dealer this summer to listen to some speakers from a respected brand thinking I would like them.  I didn't.  They sounded somewhat dull and congealed.  Then the dealer played the same songs I requested with a different set of speakers, and I thought I would not like them.  I did.  They sounded dynamic and balanced and had good tone and a fantastic soundstage.

 

We don't always have expectation bias when we listen without double blind testing.  Sometimes we are surprised by what we hear.  And when we have a chance to compare, we wind up getting what what we want or close to it.

 

I have experience using the scientific method with studies, and so I understand the argument for using it.  If I submit a study to an academic journal, I will have used the scientific method with coders, rigor, etc. to keep my opinions out of it as much as possible.  When I listen to music, however, I want to feel something.  Emotion.  Goosebumps.  Awe.  Acoustic instruments and vocals played over equipment that can convey good tone, decay and attack make me feel compassion and appreciation for the artistry and the audio equipment.

 

I'm listening to Sondra Sun-Odeon right now, and she is carrying me away.  That can't be measured (or can it?).  I think it would be cool if someone would invent a device that could measure how we are affected by music and the equipment we use to listen to it.

If you understand science, then you should understand that you don't know what expectation biases are operating on you. It's really simple: repeated tests show that all of are subject to bias from sighted listening. What that bias is, is a different question- and it can be different biases at different times.

[firedog]

49 minutes ago, Superdad said:

Over in the thread titled “Forum Decorum” I just posted and then realized that my short statement aligns more closely with the debate in this thread. So here it is:

 

The main problem I have with the objectivist/measurement/“scientists” here is that many are closed-minded to the likelihood that the current standard suite of noise/distortion/jitter tests are not telling the whole story with regards to the micro-perturbations that circulate in our audio systems and affect the clock thresholds in commonly used silicon.

 

I liken the situation to that period in medical science when we had microscopes and X-rays but not CT scanners or an understanding of the DNA and the genome. Even during that transitional period good medicine was practiced, sometimes based mostly on empirical outcomes and not full understandings of the mechanisms (in fact there still exist drugs that work without complete understanding of why).

 

And what will all the most vocal skeptics here (and in some of the very same people in another popular forum where they are FAR less civil) say when the science advances or when explanations and proof come to the fore? Will they all apologize for being so utterly dismissive and for their years of ridiculing those who have been reporting hearing differences all along?

I am not holding my breath. 

And I guess we are in for more years of being told that our ears and our audio companies are deceiving us. 

You could be right. 

But since we all know that expectation bias is a real thing, we don't have to "be told" that our ears can deceive us, it's simply a fact that they can - and do. To all of us. And often. It's simply part of the human "design". 

 

With respect, you seem to think that the fact that you have satisfied customers (and I've been one of them) proves your claims for your products - it doesn't. It just means that X number of people under sighted listening conditions liked what they heard. That's fine for them as individual listeners, but means nothing in terms of the actual performance of your product(s). 

 

I understand you believe "conventional" measurements are lacking, but you seem to claim that a product like the EtherRegen lowers jitter, and reduces phase noise. Neither of those are "unknown" aspects of engineering and audio. So certainly you should be able to produce measurements (either self done or done by an outside lab) that shows this to be true. 

In addition, in your  "listening impressions"  thread there are very dramatic descriptions of how the ER has improved the sound of some systems. You certainly seem to accept these descriptions as valid and reflecting the ability of your product to improve SQ: So even if we don't have (as you claim) all the relevant measurements at our disposal, shouldn't at least some of the results of such dramatic descriptions of SQ improvement show up in the known conventional measurements we do have: reduction of  jitter, distortion, or other measurements of "noise", or improved S/N ratio -  from the output of a DAC that is in a system with the ER being used as intended? 

 

It strains credulity to think that such dramatic improvements in SQ wouldn't show up in some form in the measurements currently available to audio science, at least some of the time. Your claims and suppositions would be more credible if you could show that they do. 

[firedog]

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

While "it strains credulity to think that such dramatic improvements in SQ wouldn't show up in some form in the measurements currently available to audio science" there is always some (small) possibility that some aspects of SQ are not captured by the measurements (done, made, presented to consumers or -gasp - possible today).

 

But audio manufacturers make claims for their devices about things we do know how to measure - but don't provide the measurements. If, for example, you say your device "reduces the jitter" produced by a DAC, then show that it does. Jitter isn't some aspect of SQ that can't be measured. 

[firedog]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm with you on this. But, many people who also enjoy our wonderful hobby don't care. They use their ears and are 100% OK with this method of evaluation. This is a tough thing for many (not you specifically) to accept. 

I understand you weren't specifically referring to me. And I have zero problem with people and their listening experiences. I'm much more interested in the claims of manufacturers. That's what results in claims of "snake oil".

The problem with the original "snake oil" patent medicines wasn't with the experiences of the users (the placebo effect is a real effect), it was with the claims of the makers about the wonderful, unproven, and scientifically unlikely effects of their "snake oil" and it's ability to cure all sorts of ailments.