Audio Science Review = "The better the measurement, the better the sound" philosophy

@prof

"...that comes across as a dogmatic statement "You Can’t Change Our Minds!" Do you really want to seem that inflexible? Isn’t being open minded a two way street? It often seems that people using a purely subjective ("Golden Ear") paradigm will castigate the "objectivist" for not being open to their claims, but will remain stubbornly opposed to being open to the objectivist side."

 

That’s just it, some people are more than ready to accept opinions ahead of scientific evidence. To them it doesn’t seem to matter whose subjective opinion it is, or whether there are even conflicting subjective opinions, only the ones that they want to read or hear.

 

You could call it an entirely subjective confirmation bias.

 

This subjectivist v objectivist debate is one of the oldest in audio but when did it all begin?

 

Perhaps someone with a good knowledge of audio journalism could help here? Was it something to do with Gordon J Holt and Harry Pearson, the 2 big names of US journalism that I’ve heard of?

 

I’ve read that in the early days UK reviews were mainly focused around measurements. At some point, like much else, the American influence crossed the Atlantic and the UK magazines quicky followed suit in promoting increasingly subjective reviews.

A situation that has persisted for decades and is only now being challenged by sites such as ASR, Erin’s Music Corner, Archimago’s Musings, Audioholics etc.

The likes of Ethan Winter and late great Peter Aczel made a concerted effort to restore the balance back towards an objective approach but their efforts met with considerable resistance, derision and even personal attacks.

 

Doesn’t this sound a little familiar now?

 

Why is this the case?
Dare I suggest it’s a simple matter of vested financial interests?

 

The subjectivists approach actively encourages consumers to spend, spend, spend ever increasingly large amounts of money on equipment and cabling.

Most of them usually include an ad hoc performance league masquerading as a buyer’s guide that always correlates with increasing prices.

Spend, spend, spend!

This buyers is regularly updated with ’new and better’ products as they become available for purchase and quite callously renders yesteryear’s highly rated products as ’old news’.

Everyone from the manufacturers, the dealers, and the journalists seems to be happy with this state of affairs. Few dare to challenge this unwritten dictat.

 

Why bite the hand that feeds you?

 

Everyone, that is, apart from a growing number of consumers who are beginning to ask a few questions and demand a little more proof of these claims.

And this is where the main issue seems to lie.

An increasing demand for evidence based reviews and recommendations will inevitably threaten the livelihood of some of those with vested financial interests.

Some will no doubt adapt and adopt a more science based approach but others will be prepared to fight to the death rather than renounce their views.

Especially when it means a loss of earnings and income.

History has many examples of folks willing to die for their beliefs, usually political or religious, rather than renounce them. However, the pursuit of money is another powerful driving force that also seems to be incredibly difficult to renounce.

Such are the ways of mankind.

@cd318 What have I repeated infinitum. I at least want manufacturers to post test measurements of their own rather than puffery or minimal specifications. Furthermore, high end cable and nearly all tweak manufacturers have no specs. That’s why I opened another forum.

Another thing, since when is older, used equipment to be dismissed in place of new equipment? For those who want great sound without breaking the bank, I strongly suggest good to high quality used equipment instead. This goes for amps, pre-amps, phono stages, SUTs, speakers and cabling. Why pay top dollar (or even bottom dollar) when there are ample alternatives. I made this point yesterday. No comments about it.

@prof You’re doing it again, twisting my words. Most music listeners (many friends who perform music as well) don’t care about measurements or audiophile equipment. If they like what they hear they will buy it. (Often, if they like what they see, buttons or nice finish, they may prefer that). You can’t change our minds refers to people hearing differences. We are not deluding ourselves although many audiophiles do have problems hearing and/or do not have sufficiently trained to hear or understand what differences there are to be heard. Dramatic differences can be heard by (nearly) everyone. Subtle differences are of course more difficult for most people. My golden ear friends are better than I am in ascertaining subtle differences but after 50+ years of listening to so many systems and making recordings, I am quite good at detecting and comprehending differences.  Dramatic differences are like hearing Disney Hall versus Dorothy Chandler or Wilson versus Magnapan speakers.  How about Bose versus Magicos?   That's how dramatic a digital cable change can be.  Amir hasn't heard it.  Sad!

@kota1 Loved your link. Great quote-Every scientific genius in history was been subjected to viscous derision by the scientific dogmatists of their generation who were often laughably wrong in retrospect. History is filled with examples and this debate of break-in/burn-in is no different.

Great quote-Every scientific genius in history was been subjected to viscous derision by the scientific dogmatists of their generation who were often laughably wrong in retrospect.

That is it though. They were scientific geniuses. You are not. Neither are all the detractors of science writing here on this topic, nor the cable vendors, nor the amp designers, nor designers of probably any of the audio equipment we buy. Those scientific geniuses and certainly all the ones from the last 50 years, all had one thing in common. Before they had their defining moment of genius, they already had a very strong theoretical background in their field of study/work. My plumber is not going to get lucky and perfect cold fusion, and my dentist is not going to cure cancer. Those advances do not happen in isolation, they happen because those geniuses studied the work of those who came before them, and to study that requires the knowledge and language to understand that prior effort. Ergo, it will be the user base of ASR who makes advances in audio, not the ones here.

@crymeanaudioriver Well that was stupid! How many actors have great inventions? Paul WInchell, Hedy Lamarr come to mind? No. Winchell became the first person to build and patent a mechanical artificial heart, implantable in the chest .Hedy Lamarr was an Austrian-American actress and inventor who pioneered the technology that would one day form the basis for today’s WiFi, GPS, and Bluetooth communication systems.

I am not a genius, but I am very smart from book learning and experience. Touche your greatness!

@fleschler

 

You can’t change our minds refers to people hearing differences.

Yes, that’s precisely what I thought you meant, and that is my point.

This is the dogmatism buried in to the pure subjective mode of vetting audio gear.

If you are of the "ASR" state of mind, you start of by immediately acknowledging our fallibility. You may perceive that the music signal is audibly changing between, say, two different USB cables.

 

But you will understand "I could be wrong. I’m fallible." So it STARTS with acknowledging I Could Be Wrong, and then appeals to ways in which you can find out you are wrong: For example if someone measures the signals from both USB cables and they are precisely the same. This is some evidence the signal was likely not changing at all. But if you want even further confirmation that the measurements aren’t missing something, you can do a blind test where you are truly relying on what you can hear (and not + what you can see). If you can’t detect any sonic difference, then you have a good basis for learning "Hey, looks like I was wrong in thinking one USB was altering the signal vs the other."

Similarly, if you are SKEPTICAL that, say, Amplifier A will sound audibly different from amplifier B, then you have ways of changing your mind there too. If someone presents measurable evidence that Amplifier A has distortion levels in the audible range and B doesn’t, then you have some evidence for changing your mind. And, again, blind tests in which the difference is reliably identified adds more evidence.

So from the ASR point of view, one always starts with some humility WITH REGARD to the confidence we have in our own judgements of perception, acknowledging from the outset we could be in error. AND it provides ways of "Learning I was wrong, through evidence."

Anyone taking the ASR approach is in principle open to being wrong; they just ask for good evidence. In other words "Here is what I believe, but I could be wrong, and HERE is how you can show that I’m wrong."

But what you have just re-iterated states the problem with pure subjectivity perfectly. Your stance seems to be ’If I hear it, I am not wrong. No way! And you can’t bring ANY of your arguments or evidence that will change my mind!"

Can you see now where the actual close-mindedness resides?

That approach is unfalsifiable. If "My Own Perception Is Reliable" is the ultimate litmus test, then even when someone else uses precisely the same method to "disprove" your belief - he listens to the same set up and declares ’There is no sonic difference," you can always say ’Well, the only shows your hearing is not as perceptive as mine, because I Know What I Hear And You Can’t Show I’m Wrong!"

Can you tell me in a case where you are "sure" you are hearing sonic differences, how...using your method of relying on sighted perception!... someone could show that you’re in error, so you’d change your mind?