Sonic Relativism?


It seems that over the last few months there has been alot of contention about whether we can hear differences in the equipment we buy. This point-of-view has been propounded by a small number of amateur psychologists who insist that we are deluding ourselves into thinking that we hear improvements, when actually Double-Blind Testing(in their opinion) would show that we actually cannot discern anything, and that everything sounds the same. To go further into their profundity, just seeing the equipment will lead us to believe which one sounds better. And then we will manufacture that difference in our minds.

I believe that being an Audiophile is, by definition, one who pursues more faithful reproduction of music by using better performing equipment as his means. This requires that there be some differences in capabilities of gear to provide better sonic qualities.

Years ago, there was a group that insisted that specifications meant everything about the capability of the equipment. Once a certain level of low-distortion was attained, they all sounded the same. After that failed, I believe that this same group formed the double-blind study cult, that is simply designed to introduce doubt in people's minds as to whether their perceptions of audio products are valid, or imagined.
This is identifiable, because if a person hears a difference between the items, it is considered to be a "flawed" test or anomaly, and if they do not, it becomes part of the "useful" data. In any case, the data is presented with the obvious goal of introducing doubt in the listener of his own abilities to judge sounds on his own, in absolute terms.

The goal of this activity is the end of the Audiophile. Once absolutes are replaced with subjective relativism, there is no anchor, and everything declines into a morass of subjectivism, with no truths considered valid. Personally, I consider this to be nothing less than an attack on my hobby. It will also be the end of this website forum, since nobody will agree on anything, and thus nobody's advice, tweaks or experiences could be considered valid for anyone else.

If I were to engage in a little "amateur psychology", I would say that these "relativists" are those who cannot hear differences on their own, and who strive to convince others that they, also, cannot hear differences. And they have even manufactured a "pseudo-science" called DBX to advance their activity.

It is my opinion that this is a destabilizing activity to the audiophile community, for whatever reason, and should be looked upon with great suspicion. I see no possible good that can come of it. Ultimately, it would strive to destroy the high-end industry, since, by their methods, they would seek to ridicule anyone who would pay more for a product when there is no difference that wasn't(in their opinion) imagined.

I oppose this movement. I oppose it based on the invalid nature of their precepts and the destructive nature of the inevitable goal(if they were to succeed with the deception).

If they hear no differences between equipment, fine. They can enjoy whatever they are capable of hearing. But, this is not about that. It is about convincing the rest of us that we can't hear. And no amateur psychologist is going to tell me what I can hear. I have had about all I can take of this.

Your comments please.
twl
the flat earth society has been around for a long time and they don't confine their endeavors to audio. fortunately, because of the closed minded nature of their thinking they are not transparent and can be easily ignored. i believe in 1st amendment rights and believe that they should be free to talk to each other any time they want. i just don't answer the door bell on sunday mornings any longer.
Listening is subjective by defenition. Nobady can tell you what you can and cannot hear. We filter all information coming into our 5 sences through one very crucial system that not even the most empirical experts have come to completely understand; the brain. We can devise studies and tests that try to rule out the brains ability to imply the exixtence of stimuli, but that still doesn't mean that we have not truly experienced that stimulus. Phantom limb syndrome is a good example of this. Amputees truly feel their missing thumb itch, but we all know that the thumb is gone, so it cant possibly itch. That doesn't mean that I dont believe that they cant still feel the itch. This hobby assumes a modicrum of faith, and boils down to what makes you happy. If your new cables make your system go to the next level then GREAT! You found something that makes you happy and has value to you. Who the hell cares what you spent for them, and who the hell cares if they cant hear what you hear? It's your ear/brain, your money, and your time. Now, if you paid for those cables instead of, say, your kid's tuition, then maybe you should re-evaluate your ego/brain connection.
Having been in this hobby for 3+ decades, my feeling is that there are many instances where perceived differences in gear are imagined; and when not imagined they are overblown in importance ( for example: a less than 1% actual improvement in a given parameter might translate into a staggering "night/day" difference in audiophile terms).

I also feel that small differences between wires, amplifiers, capacitors, and other components do exist and are important to the critical listener. However, because of the way the brain works, such differences are not readily evinced in "double-blind" tests.

I have a friend who tells me that in double-blind tests that he's personally conducted with a few of his audiophile friends, his experienced panel could not reliably differentiate between cheap and expensive CD players, preamps, amplifiers, and other gear. Does this mean that there are no differences of any significance. I think not.

I believe that the classic "double-blind" test is simply a flawed vehicle for audiophile applications. My opinion is that this is related to two factors: 1) the very real limitations of short-term memory, and 2) the brain's adaptability in filling in missing items in a sequence.

One who relies solely on double-blind data to make equipment choices will inevitably end up with a cheap system that sounds like crap. Those who can discern small incremental improvements will inevitably end up with the most impressive sounding rigs.

I/you may not be able to reliably differentiate between two competent amps in a double-blind test -- but let me (or you) live with both candidates for a day or two and I'm confident that a clear preference for one over the other will emerge.

TWL, I hope this helps to calm your "demons". :)
Twl: I think just about every sentence of your post here is factually wrong, so responding would take me all day. You've mischaracterized the assertions of those you disagree with, which is a clever but illegitimate form of argument.That said, I'll repeat a recommendation I've posted elsewhere: Anyone interested in learning something about what humans can and cannot hear, and why we know it, should go find a basic psychoacoustics text, rather than reading web postings.

People here seem to get bent out of shape whenever anybody makes an objectivist argument about something. Well, if you don't like it, just ignore it, and don't start threads like this one.
(I would prescribe ten of Haldol & one of Ativan for now, and two daily of Risperdol. No benzos, they are addictive to those with an addictive nature. See you back in six weeks.)

Hey, I hate everyone that disagrees with me to. As far as impact, though, I think high-end audio industy is staring at real issues right now. And with all the grandiose crap products comming out, there is nothing wrong with a little counter-insanity. But when ABXers do show up in this tiny, little town, don't you worry, Albert and Arnie will ship 'em out. So your saying, 'Follow me!' shouldn't suffer.
More to discover