What is wrong with audiophiles?

LOL!!! it looks like nobody can make a claim (read: share his/her own experience) about any audio component, unless he/she can:

1 - Show detailed measurements on said components. Including proof / validation of the instruments used in the measurements,

and

2 - Show proof of scientifically controlled, ABX test, with a large enough pool of people to have any statistical meaning

If not, every claim is null and void! LOL!!!!

Thyname:


Here is my take, to show why I don't agree with that statement.


No one has to make themselves in to a scientist in order to enjoy or discuss high end audio.  That doesn't suit many people's interest or goals here, and even among those who are more skeptical than others, it's impractical.


So it's up to any individual if he wants to avail himself of any engineering or scientific knowledge concerning the performance of equipment, psychoacoustics and the like.  And to what degree he/she wants it to inform their own views.


I think the exchange of subjective experiences with equipment is wonderful.  I love it.  Whatever the mechanics involved, the fact is a sound system "sounds like something" and I like exchanging notes on "how things sound."


However, as I am aware of the numerous ways in which our perception can be fallible, and how our inferences from our subjective experience can be unreliable, I will sometimes look to what is plausible based both upon engineering and scientific grounds, in terms of if a claimed phenomenon is plausible, or whether it's audibility is plausible. 
And I use that to put my confidence in a reasonable place about a specific claim.


So....when it comes to, say, loudspeakers, it's well known and well demonstrated in terms of engineering and psychoacoustics that different loudspeaker designs tend to sound different.   So if someone is claiming "I heard speaker A and B and preferred speaker B for these characteristics" that's an entirely plausible claim.   It COULD be that the person is in error somehow, and bias influenced his perception.  If I think I hear a difference between speaker A and B it's possible I could be mislead by some sighted bias.  It's simply being intellectually honest to admit that, and to admit that if I really wanted to warrant deeper confidence in my claim, double-blind testing is a tool to get that deeper level confidence.


But as a practical matter, since the claim of sonic differences are plausible, and such sonic speaker differences are expected, and we don't all have double-blind labs to test our speaker perceptions, it's reasonable to proceed making claims and exchanging notes based on our anecdotal, sighted experience. IMO.  For similar reasons we exchange notes on our experiences for countless things everyday (and it would not be practical to try to scientifically test everything we do!).


This situation changes the more the claims move in to more contested territory - contested by people who have relevant technical and/or psychoacoustics knowledge.   Not all claims are equally plausible.


This moves in to the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" territory.   If you tell me you just bought a new 4K TV from Best Buy, since this is a completely plausible and uncontroversial claim, it's reasonable for me to accept the claim.  But if you tell me you just bought a full grown, living Tyrannosaurus Rex...well...your say so isn't good enough.  Given what is known about dinosaurs, the claim isn't plausible.  And people lie.  So any rational person would want to be more rigorous in the demands for evidence.


I employ that same rule of thumb for proportioning my confidence in both my own experience, and in the claims made by other people, in this case other audiophiles.  If an audiophile is claiming that fuse A has different sonic characteristics than fuse B, or AC cable has a "smoother sound with tighter bass" then I'm looking for a plausible explanation for how that is the case, and will consider the method by which those claims were arrived at.  If the technical claims seem implausible, if the general claims are "fishy" sounding (as they are from most high-end companies selling AC cables), and if the only method of vetting the claims have been "I'm sure I heard a difference" then I'll wait for better evidence.It's just intellectually honest to admit that the variables involved are problematic for establishing the claims GIVEN a lack of reliable, objectively verifiable basis for the claims.


That DOES NOT MEAN that anyone needs to stop making claims about their experience about ANYTHING.  If you put a new AC cable in to your system and perceive some particular sonic character change, by all means, spread the word!  This is *some* evidence towards the phenomenon.  And people having repeatedly similar experiences also constitutes *some evidence* towards the claim.  But to the degree anyone wishes for a more warranted level of confidence, he would have to admit that, depending on the claim, it's not terribly reliable evidence, where more controlled methods could yield results warranting greater confidence.


So long as you are open to a nuanced position, I hope that this clears up at least one person's position here.

prof-
Yes I'm well aware of the rich history and layers of meaning behind the word audiophile. Problem is audiophiles are not all cut from the same cloth as J Gordon Holt. In fact it seems hardly any of them are. (And I bet a lot here don't even recognize the name of the Stereophile founder.)

There are no straw man arguments here. None. The soundstage example, to pick just one at random, there was a whole long thread here not so long ago on the topic with a whole bunch of people, presumably audiophiles, who let's just say hold views clearly at odds with you and me. 

In fact, I will show you just how NOT straw man my arguments are. Look no further than this very page. Scroll up and you will find:

And I would say “what’s wrong with subjective audiophiles” Who the heck else would spend multi thousands of dollars for something that has no measurable difference?  Or that they cannot repeatedly identify without visibly knowing it’s there?

This one arrogant post does exactly what I've been saying: ridicules subjectivity (what people actually hear!) in favor of measurements, AND throws in double-blind testing, all in one beautifully condemning post. The poster should read Holt, and feel the shame.

I'd look for more but to read cleeds, glupson, geoffkait, well they're just not paying me enough to endure that level of suffering. Being as all these are audiophiles only makes me want to scream from the roof tops- What is wrong with audiophiles!?!?!?!

Anyone care to guess how long it will be before these kinds of arguments pollute all the categories here?

Sorry, but there comes a point when the usual suspects (see above) do such a fine job of ruining things I just tune out and skip over and so if I miss something, sorry. Anyway, another one, caught at random as it were:

Six people in a room, when the cable elevators are removed, 3 hear a difference and 3 don’t. Who’s right?

Is this a joke? Because its clearly stated everyone, no exceptions, hears the difference. So far at least everyone has. In fact its so starkly obvious that to drive the point home I took the time to describe how Leo not only could hear all 6 to nothing, but even could hear each individual one as they were being removed and replaced. So either this is a joke, or incredibly awful reading comprehension.

Either way, here we go again: What is wrong with audiophiles???

Yes I'm well aware of the rich history and layers of meaning behind the word audiophile.

Then why not be more clear and say "what's wrong with some audiophiles?"


And I remain skeptical that any significant number of audiophiles hold the position at odds with the one I expressed on soundstaging.In fact, not once in my entire life (decades of on-line in audiophile forums) can I remember an audiophile who was truly at odds with the account I gave.


As to the quote you produced, given the context you started of complaining about "what's wrong with audiophiles?" that quote is just as reasonable a question.  It's entirely valid to question the reasonableness of audiophiles paying tons of money thinking they are getting audible performance gains from an item that measures no different than the one they are replacing.   In fact, it's fairly bizarre if you don't even recognize the validity of that type of question!

This one arrogant post does exactly what I've been saying: ridicules subjectivity (what people actually hear!)

And that's where you are conflating issues - equating people's subjective experience with what they "ACTUALLY" hear.


They are not one and the same.  If I say "I heard a dog barking" that typically is a claim that there was actually a dog making that sound.Similarly, when audiophiles say "I heard tighter bass" from that cable, that typically is a claim that the cable actually REALLY did change the sound, not merely that the person imagined it.


But people's inferences from their subjective experience can be wrong.That's both obvious, and well established scientifically.  And it's frankly weird as hell how strenuously many audiophiles want to deny this variable, particularly when it comes to their own perception.


And if you think simply speaking honestly that way about the fallibility of our perception and inferences entails that I promote some scientific dogmatism must control this hobby, please read my previous post on that subject.