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
I agree with Bomarc. The scenario presented is outrageously flawed in its premises. Again, same as Bomarc, to counter each premise of TWL's argument will take all day. However, I just like to add, researchers, particularily statiticians, form their research in a way that their procedures will pass or fail their hypothesis. When they reach a result that supports their hypothesis, the data "passes" but with the understanding that there is a certain degree of error based on sample size and standard deviation.
There is probably more truth to the statement that says: When their results meet their presupositions, the data passes.
I have had people come over to listen to music that have not been over for several interations of the system and they (being non-audiophiles) often describe the same improvements I have noticed.
I mailed a DIY PC to a friend and asked him to use it and listen. After nearly a week of use and no input from me, he described the exact same sonic impression of the cord I experienced. Isn't it funny that we suffer the same dillusion!
The biggest problem with the 'measurement' crowd is they don't know what they are measuring, or how to quantify it. It would be akin to measuring distance in grams.
TWL makes many valid points none of which have been disproven by any of those who responded. bomarc and viggen use an ad hominum arguement rather than addressing the issue. No two systems sound alike. How can the same basic system sound the same when pieces have been replaced.
If anyone really bought into this relativism, why would they be here, on a site designed to improve the sound of their system?
This defies logic!
The physical make-up of every speaker or piece of equipment is different! How could they sound the same?
Is every car the same? Do they all sound the same?
Get serious!
I don't think anyone here is saying all like equipment sounds the same. At least, I hope not. I do think that the audio believer is all too eager to jump on the latest gadget band wagon, in hopes of finding a magic bean that will cure all major equipment faults.

I trust my ears, when it comes to audio. I was lucky enough to have heard an ultimate system when I first started my quest. What I heard was so real, if you told me it wasn't, I'd call you a liar. That was in a day when silver wires, massive plugs, and cones did not exist. All I wanted to do was replicate that experience.... I have.... And that is without succumbing to cable swapping, DAC tweaking, or TacT correction.