Why Are We Breaking Our Brains?


A master sommelier takes a sip of red wine, swishes it around a bit, pauses, ponders, and then announces: “…. It’s from a mountainous region … probably Argentina … Catena Zapata Argentina Malbec 2020.” Another sommelier at a fine eating establishment in a major city is asked: “What would you pair with shrimp?” The sommelier hesitates for a moment then asks the diners: “What shrimp dish are you ordering?” The sommelier knows the pairing depends on whether the shrimp is briny, crisp, sweet, or meaty. Or some other “house specialty” not mentioned here. The sommelier can probably give good examples of $10 wines and bad examples of $100 wines. And why a good $100 wine is worth … one hundred dollars.

Sommeliers do not have a master’s degree in biochemistry. And no one from the scientific world is attempting to humiliate them in public forums for “claiming to know more than a little bit about wines” with no scientific basis to back them up. No one is shouting “confirmation bias” when the “somm” claims that high end wines are better than cheap wines, and well worth the money.

Yet, guys and gals with decades of involvement in high performance audio who claim to “hear differences” in various elements introduced into audio chain are pulled thru a gauntlet of scientific scrutiny, often with a great deal of fanfare and personal invalidation. Why is there not a process for “musical discovery” for seasoned audiophiles, and a certification process? Evaluator: “Okay, I’m going to change something in the system. Tell me what you hear. The options are interconnect upgrade, anti-skate calibration, removal of acoustical materials, or change in bitrate. Choose one.”

How can those with pretty “sensitive antennas” and years of hands (and, ears) on good gear convince the technical world that they are actually qualified to hear what they are hearing?

Why is it viewed as an inferior process for seasoned professionals to just listen, "swish" it around in their brains for a bit, and comment?

128x128waytoomuchstuff

I recall reading a news story about beer aficionados and their preference towards intense, high hop content brews.  They were bartenders and had gained experience with a wide variety of beers and similar libations.  As a result of all that drinking they came to prefer beers that most people would consider harsh and unappealing.  The aficionados would call what those people liked bland.  I too wonder whether something similar happens with many audiophiles and their sound preferences.

@ghdprentice 

In my younger days, I could go to the drag strip and differentiate the burnt exhaust smell of nitro, alcohol, or high octane pump gas.  Does that count?

Imagine if you had the technology to put tone controls on a bottle of wine. That changes everything it’s too bad we don’t have the technology to put tone controls on audio equipment. That would change the whole world of audio don’t you think?

@ebm

"This thread says absolutely NOTHING!!!"

Okay then, let me take a another whack at it.

Someone with extensive experience with high performance audio, ventures into the world of the "unknown" and installs something NEW in his system. He leaves his preconceived notions and biases on the back porch, ready to engage in a "neutral" evaluation of said component. After a couple of evenings of careful evaluation, he is torn with his impressions, and asks himself: "Was this the musical equaliviant of being shot out of the canon? Or, was it more like skydiving naked?" Still conflicted, he does the unthinkable and posts his enthusiastic remarks on an audiophile forum - not just embracing a (contraversial) product category, but the actually recommending the component!

Then, someone with the personality of a wounded leopard responds and rips him a new orifice -- because he CAN. Afterall, it IS a public forum.

The antagonist here has a pedigree as long as his arm and not afraid to use it. The OP has a mere 50 years of critical listening experience including professional stints in something Hif-fi related. But no accreditation. He is outguned. So, he’s sitting there with fingers frozen on the keyboard, having one of those God vs Moses moments, not sure how to response to the antagonist. After all, advisary has professional credentials. He does not.

The question, then becomes, what is more valid? A growing and evolving scientific knowledge base with tons of empiracal data? Or, human interaction and experience. To the OP, his musical experience was REAL. To him, denying what just happened would be the equalivant of someone driving a vehicle over his foot and trying to convince him it didn’t happen.

Which is the greater culprit? Gaps in our scientific knowledge base offset by accompanying degrees and certifications? Or, flaws in the human experience greatly minimized by thosands of hours of listening impressions and implimentation of musically significant, sonically predicable solutions in the field?

I’ll go with the human experience, with a high degree of optimism that our ability to measure, theorize, and comment with a degree of respectability will catch up to it someday.

 

 

Why is it viewed as an inferior process for seasoned professionals to just listen, "swish" it around in their brains for a bit, and comment?

It's not. That's why audio stores allow auditioning and direct sale companies allow 30 day auditioning..