Saturday 23 July 2022

Summer Musings: On Stereophile's "Quackery, Gullibility, and Open-mindedness". Nature of audio devices. Truths in audio (and medicine).

Well ladies and gents, I guess it's official. Stereophile, at least in part, is not a journalistic venture based on a recent "My Back Pages" article. In the opening 3 paragraphs of "Quackery, Gullibility, and Open-mindedness", Rogier van Bakel basically discards the importance of skepticism as a journalist, and seems to set the stage for audiophiles to accept basically all manners of quackery and snake oil.

For those who have been on this blog over the years, you probably know that I'm a physician working here in Vancouver, Canada. I write these audio musings and technical review articles as part of my audio hobby/journey to go beyond enjoying the music as a consumer, towards further understanding of how the technologies work, with the hope that the results of the explorations may be helpful for other pilgrims along this path as we discuss hardware and improving sonic fidelity.

On quiet evenings when the kids are asleep and my wife is enjoying her TV dramas, examination of electrical devices and their waveforms can provide a much-needed distraction from the marvelous yet frequently incomprehensible complexity of human physical and mental states.

A response...

It is out of this background that I left a response in the Stereophile comments regarding what was written in that article.

Submitted by Archimago on July 7, 2022 - 3:04pm

As a doctor, I am a bit concerned about all this stuff around alternative medical practices, beliefs in all kinds of things that probably make no difference (even if some people feel strongly about them), etc...

We are talking about electrical devices created by engineers, right? Digital music is based on mathematical sampling theorem, right? Streaming and playback devices, networks, are based on technologies developed from computer science, right? Vinyl LPs are products of the material sciences, phono cartridges and turntables were invented by someone based on engineering principles, and can be evaluated using certain standard metrics, right?

If the origin of the audio products we buy came forth from human ingenuity, based on the laws of physics, developed using engineering principles, why are we using medical science examples around not-fully-explained medical conditions or idiosyncratic responses using atypical treatments (like Rife) into the discussion here? Are we that desperate to keep minds "open" in this hobby!? Do we not trust that audiophiles have a level of understanding already about audio science and that common sense prevails; recognizing that there's a lot of nonsense in this hobby?

In principle, we can at least say that biological processes came from millions of years of evolutionary change (or divine inspiration if one believes - that works just as well in my argument). So the medical sciences still have much to learn about diseases, infectious processes, the immune system, treatment options, etc. which we as humans did not design but can observe, and empirically test. Amps, DACs, speakers in contrast were not the result of natural processes but created "artificially" by us using understood principles, and also can be empirically tested with controls in place. Those audio products created by "alternative" principles (eg. much of Machina Dynamica, Synergistic Research), should by right be met with skepticism, awaiting evidence.

Why not keep this simple when it comes to unexplained "subjective" phenomena which have not been verified by measurements (eg. after all these decades, some claiming that expensive cables make significant audible differences)?

IMO, here are a few items I hope audiophiles can generally agree on:
1. We understand and accept that the placebo effect happens. This is the nature of our brains and the fact that we're all psychologically affected by the multimodal perceptual systems and shaped by our own internal schema of the world. In the capitalistic world of consumer products, the intent of advertising is of course to affect psychology.

2. Given (1), empirical testing is needed if we are to claim that something is indeed audible. Let's make sure to isolate sound quality by itself. In order to do that, we must do blind testing since the human visual system is our primary sensory modality (for example the power of the McGurk Effect as an obvious example) before accepting something as "fact". This is especially important for subtle differences since IMO, obvious changes would not be controversial after all this time! "Blind testing" doesn't just mean "double blind" - single blind or ABX techniques likely would be just fine. The nice thing about measurements is that it provides evidence that a difference exists - but often the differences are not audible.

3. We accept that each of us has a right to own and like whatever device we desire. Emotions are relative. Price is relative. I can say whatever I want about a product being "right for me", but if we are to make a general claim about sound as if the difference is audible for others, I think we each have the responsibility of making sure that items (1) and (2) have been seriously weighed.

Alas, broad comments like "This $3000 cable sounds so much better than 12AWG OFC speaker cable..." is an example of a controversial statement that should be confronted with some skepticism unless basic evidence is available. (Or specifically qualified as "This might only sound good to me".)

IMO, vague, unexplained, often empirically unsupportable medical treatments should have nothing to do with this.

I trust that the main points above are self-explanatory to most audiophiles and is generally common sense (which sadly appears to be lacking these days with surprising frequency in all kinds of places beyond audiophilia).



Let's specifically consider this article further though...

If we analyze the article in greater detail, the problems with it begin early on I think with this statement:

If you say X, and X sounds the least bit unlikely to me, I may go looking for proof. If I don't find it, I'll be disinclined to believe you.

Setting the stage for what is to come - open vs. close-mindedness, skepticism - a lot rides on what "least bit unlikely" means, doesn't it? I think most audiophiles whether objective or subjective-leaning are actually quite open-minded and can accept many things that seem unlikely to the general public. Most also have a good sense of humor, able to acknowledge that a US$20,000 pair of speakers (chump change compared to what many "hi-end" companies want) is a significant but potentially sensible investment for such a hobby even if family members or friends might think it excessive. Furthermore, I believe we audiophiles have more in common than our differences. So when intense arguments erupt over controversial topics, it's usually around highly unlikely claims, not just some trivial "least bit unlikely" detail.

Audiophiles by nature, as passionate hobbyists, are likely a bit on the neurotic, perfectionistic, obsessive-compulsive spectrum so things can get out of hand quickly on a virtual forum; but yet nobody dies and I think we can still settle arguments over a beer. Even the most "objective" audiophiles I know will willingly try all kinds of "over-engineered" things which many consider unnecessary. If we look at the equipment profiles of many objectivist-leaning audiophiles, do we not see multi-thousand-dollar amps, expensive speaker systems, complex networked digital playback, maybe even unnecessarily expensive cables (heck, for 10' of speaker cable, forget 12AWG, that's already over-engineered!)? The issue is not whether we are open-minded enough to try new things; the issue is to what degree are we audiophiles supposed to be so open-minded that we give up on skepticism when presented with ideas bordering on if not intruding into the absurd?

[Ironically, I believe that the least open-minded audiophiles are ones who have no willingness to go beyond 2-channel audio, never tried high quality DSP to improve playback, and insist on old technology like LPs and tube amps; yet gleefully "open-minded" enough to applying controversial tweaks.]

As you can see, Mr. van Bakel, like many magazine "journalists", is only too happy to tell us to be "open-minded" but lacks the ability to draw boundaries. Boundaries to remind us that this willingness to accept all kinds of claims from an Industry aiming to derive profit will at some point take advantage of naïveté, dissuade discernment of facts that do not jive with their interests, or worse even foster delusions. Where's the reminder to "keep an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out"? Where are the magazine editorials and columns dedicated to helping audiophiles seek value, learn to discern evidence, exercise caution when faced with unlikely claims or to activate one's critical thinking skills with controversial products?

This is the lack of balance we've seen in the "mainstream" audiophile media over the last few decades and likely reflective of media interests working with the Industry for product promotion rather than striving to educate hobbyists. To express a truly balanced viewpoint will automatically dampen excess enthusiasm and unrestrained hype which advertisers seek to create with each new product. Would magazines like Stereophile survive without strong support of advertisers these days? If the answer is "no" to this question, then clearly maintaining Industry relationships are essential to them. Would some YouTube review channels survive without the good graces of companies sending products and they in turn accommodate with at least some favorable subjective comments?

IMO, there's nothing wrong with what "objectivists" do. They (I would include myself of course) are just using all the tools at their disposal (including their own brains) to explore claims to see if there may be a factual basis behind them, outside of emotions or faith in what someone else says. I believe balanced audiophiles recognize that even if a subjective review is wildly positive, that would not override grossly abnormal objective test results; if abnormal results can be verified, it probably means the listener either did not notice or might even like the unexpected anomalies.

Whether it's because test results threaten sales potential, could reduce clicks to websites or YouTube videos, or just subjectivists feeling insecure about being believed since they don't have more concrete evidence in their reviews, attempts have been made by some to channel that angst against those darn "objectivists" who don't listen to music but just look at meters and graphs. This assertion is patently absurd; high quality listening skills do not just belong to pure subjectivists who imagine themselves to possess "golden ears". Like it or not, if the only measurement device are those "golden ears", then we do need to also consider other factors like the age of the listener, room quality, etc.

An example "bioresonance" Rife frequency generator machine shown. More fancy machines costs ~$2500+. Here's a typical website for such devices. Bizarre testimonial video on the page about remote treatment based on one's DNA, and using "quantum entanglement" (typical mechanism in snake oil audio as well). All kinds of "protocols" for Rife treatments with various frequencies and durations for numerous disorders and diseases from cancer to ADHD to Lyme. Even Morgellons.
For reference, here are some claimed Rife frequencies for killing Borrelia burgdorferi with 312Hz commonly said to be useful. IMO, this path of magical thinking is not credible nor healthy.


A few words on subjectivity in medicine and audiophilia...

Since Mr. van Bakel brought it up with his reference to Ross Douthat's Lyme disease treatments and the Rife machine, let's consider the similarities between medicine and audiophilia when arguing about the objective vs. the subjective.

First, let me just say that I see people afflicted with illness every day and acknowledge that there is much suffering in this world so these words are not in any way meant to apply to any individual's state or make light of complex circumstances.

In medicine, while the objective and subjective results of illness often correlate, I think we can appreciate that the human experience does not have to follow the biological pathology. Hypothetically, two persons can have the exact same pathology, but the sense of subjective suffering could be extremely variable.

Suffering is a subjective state, determined to a large extent in the words of an author by "cognitive awareness, interpretation, behavioral disposition, as well as cultural and educational factors". Do we as audiophiles acknowledge that our subjective perspectives may also be determined by those similar factors?

Sure, Ross Douthat may be brave in writing about his suffering having Lyme disease and his anecdote about the value of the Rife machine (among other treatments) seems interesting, but there is much we don't know about his particular circumstance. Just because a person is brave doesn't necessarily make him prudent, or wise, or even right. (For further background, have a look at this Slate article on Douthat's book.) I don't believe Douthat's medical story is compelling as an example to nudge us to be open-minded, or that this might have any bearing on our debates about expensive cables, "greening" of CD edges, foil bits, or spending exorbitant amounts on vibration-reduction "solutions".

Assumptions, ethics, bravery, and foolishness...

There are parts in this article where van Bakel makes assumptions which I believe are without merit.

Cables are mild compared to some of the more bizarre audiophile tweaks: clocks in freezers, special creams, bottles of tiny rocks. Proponents of such products endure the stifled giggles of those who simply know this to be quackery. But there's a difference between unproven claims and unprovable claims. They shouldn't all be lumped together.

Indeed, we have all kinds of bizarre beliefs in the world of audiophile tweaks. When someone says that a cable made the bass sound "even deeper", that the background noise was "quieter", that jitter "was reduced", that the magical rocks did wonders to the "pace, rhythm and timing", then by all means, please enlighten these unproven claims with evidence using hypothesis-driven, controlled methodology. However, he then makes an assumption that there are such things as "unprovable claims" (italics his). What truly unprovable (or unfalsifiable) claims are there in the world of audio equipment being referring to? Are there factors within the audio system beyond electronics and audio frequency vibrations that cannot be detected, yet actually heard using human ears in a sound room or over headphones? Maybe van Bakel would like to devote his next article on exploring this theme. By the way, what's there to even "lump together" if one of these two types of claims may not even exist!?

Regarding those supposedly "unproven claims", I'm not sure if there's really anything in audio that can't be explored with an excellent chance of finding answers. The main issue I see is that of an obstructionist attitude by some who automatically refuse to consider things like blind testing or believe without reason that measurements somehow are not as sensitive as their own hearing (again, those amazing "golden ears"). For such individuals, there's no proof because they don't care to look, much less try testing assumptions themselves, and do not believe in the results of those who actually run tests and seek truth seemingly out of an unspoken preconceived cynicism towards the objective endeavour.

Finally, let's address the last 3 paragraphs of this article. In these final words, we clearly continue to see obvious issues.

In his response to an early draft of this column, Stereophile Editor Jim Austin was spot-on in saying: "In medicine as in hi-fi, there are some seriously crooked entrepreneurs aiming to take advantage of human credulity. In medicine, they're also exploiting desperation. In hi-fi, people are spending their own money on entertainment—not on the very survival of themselves or a loved one."

Great, I'm glad that Mr. Austin believes there are shady entrepreneurs in hi-fi as well selling snake oil. I don't think they're too hard to spot so I hope in the future Austin will let us know about some of these "crooked" individuals and their companies as a service to audiophiles everywhere.

More concerning is that Austin appears to be making an unethical claim suggesting that just because hi-fi crooks are exploiting money used for "entertainment" equipment, this is less bad than unscrupulous medical practitioners. (Which could include your friendly Rife machine salesman, and the complementary health practitioner recommending such things, right?) So, is the author and Jim Austin saying that it's somehow more palatable to defraud people of thousands of dollars so long as it doesn't kill them?

Jim, I think you better think about having higher standards of morality in light of your responsibility as a representative for Stereophile, and the leadership position you have among hobbyists.

That important distinction noted, Douthat's account very nearly knocked me off my show-me-the-data perch. He nudged me closer to audio's subjectivists, the brave (or foolish) folks who argue that if our senses can perceive it (whatever "it" is) but modern machinery can't measure it, it's the measuring machines that are wrong. To put it another way, maybe rigorous proof isn't always necessary—maybe it's okay to approach these things as a whole human being and not as a scientist. Maybe it's better, because doing so sometimes opens us up to experiences we miss out on if we cling to certainty, and there's little real risk.

There is another option here, right? Some subjectivists could be both brave and foolish. Bravery isn't a virtue if applied foolishly is it? Just because someone claims to "perceive it" and boldly shares his experience on audio forums and social media, did he actually perceive anything special? Do we blindly accept all comments on faith or do we take a moment especially these days to consider the placebo effect and possibility of misperceptions? If we do, then why is the only option "it's the measuring machines that are wrong"? Can the person making unlikely claims not be just as likely wrong? We all make mistakes, but some individuals are also not as insightful as others.

In the same way, maybe Douthat is wrong to put faith in the Rife machine and his prayers to saints (according to the Slate article above) might not really be triggering the Jarisch Herxheimer reaction at all; even if the story makes for an interesting book. Furthermore, imagine not using "measurement machines" in medicine - no bloodwork testing, no heart tracings, no EEG, no ultrasounds, no X-ray, and forget about more advanced techniques like CT/MRI/PET/MEG/etc...

Then there's van Bakel's suggestion to "approach these things as a whole human being and not as a scientist". Hang on, aren't scientists also "whole human beings" (notice the artificial split van Bakel is creating)? As audiophiles, do we really have a choice but to accept that we all need to think scientifically when we're reading reviews about technological products designed using scientific principles? To split off the importance of scientific curiosity and knowledge as if only certain types of audiophiles are scientists would be rather foolish in my opinion. It's like saying to doctors - "approach the patient as a whole human being, but don't use science". That's absurd!

IMO, the health of the audiophile hobby going forward demands that "we" are not seen as "audiophools", willingly ignoring the scientific principles that made high-fidelity audio possible in the first place! While we don't need to all be "geeks" who spend money on measurement gear or use jargon like THD+N, FFT, picosecond this, and femtosecond that, it behooves us to acknowledge that many qualities we're listening to can also be quantified if we looked into it. What we cannot as easily quantify of course are the individual psychological effects of perception (psychoacoustics) which still can be measured to a certain extent using controlled listening tasks and remains an important area of ongoing research.

In Joe Abercrombie's novel Before They Are Hanged, a character spits out this aphorism: "An open mind is like to an open wound. Vulnerable to poison. Liable to fester. Apt to give its owner only pain." I'd counter that possessing an open mind lets people develop an ability to steer clear of unshakeable dogma. I admire those who are truly open-minded. The human brain is forever on a search-and-destroy mission against ambiguity—some human brains, anyway. For some of us, it takes effort to tolerate some doubt and cognitive dissonance, keeping us safely away from what our gray matter craves: dead certainty.

What "unshakeable dogma" are we to steer clear from? Is it the often-observed assertion among audiophile magazine writers that "this very expensive <fancy brand name> cable sounds better than that cheaper one half its price", or "Thou shalt not spend less than 10% on cables for your high-end system."? Or is this "dogma" he speaks of referring to something factual like "2+2=4", the Earth is spherical, and speaker cables do indeed have quantifiable LCR parameters which those darn "objectivists" stubbornly refuse to let go of?

Being open mindedness is inadequate if one is devoid of knowledge or understanding. In life, there will always be ambiguities, but not necessarily with everything we do, or every hobby we partake in because not everything is that complicated. The audio system doesn't need to be shrouded with all kinds of mysteries as if the best consumer electronics exist on a metaphysical plane. That some people go to extremes with certain audiophile beliefs more likely suggests an element of psychological health that needs to be addressed. I don't think the gray matter craves "dead certainty". I think for most of us, a reasonable amount of understanding is probably good enough, at least to steer clear of some of the most "crooked entrepreneurs" out there who claims to have magical, unproven solutions.

"Truth" is not something that is owned by any one person. Rather, its nature and value becomes more powerful when tested and shared. These days, including in van Bakel's article, we see the use of phrases like "his truth", which is simply a distorted way to say "his opinion", "his belief", or "his feeling". While opinions and feelings may be owned and important for the individual, the value of an opinion however cannot be imposed on others.

Audiophiles, make sure to be honest with ourselves, applying a bit of humor liberally when needed because indeed this is supposed to be fun. We must always respect the inalienable rights of others. Beyond that, nobody can tell us how to feel or what to like; I believe we can accept each other's preferences in sound quality even if we don't agree or necessarily respect those positions. Nobody said we have to respect every opinion, but we can and should choose to be civil in our disagreements whenever possible. Ultimately, it is always a personal responsibility to discern external truths and facts from internal opinions, preferences and feelings, always being vigilant of the nature of opinions. In the words of Jöns Jacob Berzelius, chemist with an interesting observation of the human condition:

"The habit of an opinion often leads to the complete conviction of its truth, it hides the weaker parts of it, and makes us incapable of accepting the proofs against it." (1827, translated)

I hope you're all enjoying the music and the summer months if you live in the Northern Hemisphere.

--------------------

Let's end off with a song related to the topic matter in this post - from Jack Johnson off his latest album, Meet The Moonlight (2022, DR6), "Open Mind":

38 comments:

  1. On target, as usual... there's no "qualitative" attributes that couldn't be blind A/B tested if not for obstructionism of the industry / media cabal, which is obviously to protect their wallets. If claims of this $8,000 amp vs. that $800 amp were allowed to be debunked with simple scientific testing, the high end industry would shrink to a fraction of its peak size.
    One concept I feel is really under-examined, is that everyone's ears/hearing are wildly different. A detailed measured frequency response of individual's hearing could account for the vast majority of disagreements over "audio quality". Even, I'd assume, the wide variation in ear shapes will respond differently to various room responses. (So blind A/B testing would have certain limits unless the n-size is large enough.) It's hilarious how many "Golden Ear" audiophiles are in their 40's and 50's, and have lost the upper 1/3 of their hearing range.

    The audio industry has a vested interest in being able to claim that an $8,000 amp is much better than $800 one. They lose their jobs or businesses if too many people believe otherwise. This is unfortunately the case in many industries...

    On a related scientific/medical front - you might find this article interesting: https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease . I had a close look at the blots in question, and they are OBVIOUSLY altered/copied - yet few of the journals, or the NIH, or other researchers/CUNY will step up and admit they were "had" for the past 15 years.

    Having a good summer here - just got a pair of Wilson Watt/Puppy 5's that need tweeters rebuilt and woofers refoamed, at auction for $43. And I'm going to redo the tweeters with parts that haven't been sprinkled with Wilson fairy dust! I guess they'll suck according to the audiophile industry, but I'll enjoy them anyway. 🤪

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greetings Chip,
      Well said and I think you're right about measurements of the idiosyncratic hearing abilities that we all have. I count myself as an audiophile just entering the 50s and would happily admit that my hearing ability isn't up to the standards of decades back...

      These days we have all kinds of subjective audio reviewers who are in their 60s and 70s writing about things that are clearly extremely priced. Who knows if these folks have a routine cleaning of the ear canal or if they have serial audiological tests to understand the limits of their hearing ability.

      If audio reviewing does constitute one's income to any substantial degree, it would be hard to admit when the main "instrument" of these listening tests is deteriorating (ie. "Golden Ears" starting to transmute to lead in an act of reverse alchemy).

      Fascinating article in Science - big news is the neuroscience world in the last week regarding the Aβ work! Clearly very important to clear this up to move forward in the research around cognitive degeneration.

      Have fun with the Watt/Puppy 5 - lovely summer project! Wowzers, $43!? Talk about depreciation over the years. Hope the cabinet is in really good shape.

      Delete
  2. I've been pondering the favorable reviews of overpriced Ethernet switches, like Silent Angel's Bonn N8 or the English Electric 8switch. On the face of it, these things seem absurd, and one wonders why the reviewer would even consider looking at them.

    The answer, I'm afraid, is ignorance. 99 out of 100 consumers do not know how Ethernet works, or indeed have a firm idea of what it is. Nor do they know what an Ethernet switch is, exactly, or how one works. The proportion may even be higher in reviewers, I'm afraid. They do not understand the a priori pointlessness of an "audiophile Ethernet switch". They have no way of evaluating it other than plugging one in, and trying it. Which means involving their imagination.

    Arthur C. Clarke once wrote that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." And once magic enters the arena, all things are possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice Arthur C. Clarke quote Vlad.

      One of the greats of sci-fi writing; watched 2001: A Space Odyssey with my son recently, great to see the young ones be fascinated by sci-fi that's not about light sabers, laser guns, and superheroes who obviously do not need to conform to the laws of physics. ;-)

      Fascinating to see whole "classes" of devices like ethernet switches entering the audiophile world. A good example of "where are the journalists" in audiophile magazines willing to take a stand and educate hobbyists on how absurd the claims are! At least be clear with hobbyists that these devices are obviously controversial and may not make any difference whatsoever.

      Tacit approval by staying silent when things are absurd is not a healthy stance IMO.

      Delete
    2. Aahhhh but Archimago young Grasshopper - HiFi "journalists" do not even understand digital and computer audio. You seriously expect them to understand packet switching, networking and data communications? Best leave them be I say. Audiophile review culture is a train wreck.

      Delete
    3. :-) Gordon.

      Perhaps you're right, perhaps best to let the inevitable train wreck of an "audiophile review culture" continue to play out to the bitter end.

      I believe the sad part is that there are some knowledgeable folks in the press. But they do nothing to contain the insane factions, and instead perpetuate it whether by giving credence or often simply in silence.

      Delete
    4. You know, its a shame really... I have a love/hate relationship with the audio hobby... First and foremost I love music, but also really dig the gear and tech. The sound quality that can be had from the most basic and cheap gear blows my mind (I grew up on cassette players and record players)...They both blew. Anyway, my point is that whilst still liking the hobby, I've always felt a sense of "being had" when perusing HiFi reviews by the regular subjects (no need to name names)..we all know who they are. Sad really where the mainstream seems to have lost the plot. But when you look at it logically - how are these reviewers making a living? From the very companies they are reviewing. Says it all really...Lastly (and if I'm completely honest)... Modern "cheap" audio gear is so good now - its all rather boring ain't it? At least I still have the music. Audio hardware/reproduction has reached level of maturity that is as good as we all need I think.

      Delete
    5. Indeed Gordon,
      A number of factors at play and I appreciate the "love-hate" relationship, same with me. It's a hobby so there's some need to foster excitement and joy emotionally, but at the same time, also the need to make sure we don't go insane over meaningless or even delusional beliefs fostered by unscrupulous salesmen out to make a buck... Presumably because there's no other service they can render to make the world a better place.

      Yeah, audio performance is at such a high level now that I think anything beyond small evolutionary improvements has become very rare. It's fun testing and describing better resolution, lower noise, higher power, etc. over time nonetheless. I think this "measured" perspective, recognizing the evolutionary change in many product categories, would be a characteristic of an actual "audio journalist" if one were to have such a person in print magazines. Not someone always excited about a company or the next "greatest" product to grace the front page. And not quick to jump on nonsense like MQA which remains the mark of the failure among the major magazines and the leadership in them without truly testing out claims independently.

      Lower cost, more energy efficient, smaller size I think are the more important characteristics to focus on going forward, although "looks great" and "sounds great" will psychologically always be important for us.

      Delete
  3. Thanks for an interesting essay. You mention that "Audiophiles by nature, as passionate hobbyists, are likely a bit on the neurotic, perfectionistic, obsessive-compulsive spectrum..." I would add that a significant portion of audiophiles, in my experience, also seem to be intensely competitive. I would conjecture it's their competitiveness, even beyond any perfectionist impulses, that is most closely related to their neurotic, obsessive need to demonstrate knowledge that other, lesser mortals don't possess, and to show that they can discern and appreciate fine distinctions that others are too obtuse to hear or value. I've had hifi salesmen try to work spiels on me more than once that obviously try to take advantage of either or both of these audiophile foibles, and much of the audiophile, high end accessory business seems to be founded on the second one, in particular. I can understand why you, as a physician, were offended by van Bakel's ignorant nonsense, but for me, his piece simply wasn't worth the time it took to read it. It most reminded me of an observation by Upton Sinclair that "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
    However, as someone preparing to purchase what could very well be my last music playback system, van Bakel's account of his conversion from journalist to shill made me uncomfortable. As brick and mortar hifi stores are disappearing, and along with them the opportunity to actually hear new equipment and learn ways to optimize set up, reviews are becoming more important for consumers. The old TAS, under HP, was quite expensive, the reviews were purely subjective, and the magazine seldom mentioned, let alone often reviewed equipment I could afford. But the reviews that I did find relevant were done by people who had a great deal of experience listening to extremely good equipment, even if I couldn't be sure I shared their tastes in the necessary compromises. And the fact that TAS did not accept any advertisements from equipment manufacturers and allowed "Not one word from any review" to be quoted in advertisements gave me confidence that the opinions of equipment were not biased by commercial considerations. Of course, that business plan failed in the end, but only after 20+ years of success. Now, TAS is so cheap I can read just the music reviews (which I find to be quite reliable) without feeling guilty and pretty much treat the rest as infomercials.
    I had taken reviews in Stereophile more seriously, since John Atkinson does test the products, but now that he has stepped down as editor, I can only hope his role as chief tester will last until I have no more need of equipment reviews.
    Thanks again for an interesting discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! I don't read any of these anymore, but even in my younger days, I would usually skip right to the back of the "review" and read JA's measurements and comments.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the note Mike,
      I agree with you and Chip on the importance of JA's measurements and wonder about the future of Stereophile as well.

      That psychological observation you made about audiophiles being "intensely competitive" I agree has strong merit. It's certainly good for the ego to keep up with one's audio buddies around the $$$ spent on audio toys. ;-) At some point, one has achieved enough with the big-ticket items like speakers and heavy amps, so attention might get paid to the little things like cables and ethernet switches.

      Obviously, good money can be made on those smaller budget items with great margins for both dealers and the manufacturer!

      Delete
  4. Hi Archie

    Top Notch. Very Sharp. Great. Enjoy.

    Juergen

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Arch- very interesting article, as ever. My tuppence worth, which does not really add anything to what you have written, but perhaps operates as a focus, is that the two key points in this soup of unreason are as follows. First it is obvious that an open mind would require someone to have at least some interest in what specialist scientific knowledge in the field might have to inform one's understanding. And here I don't mean physics and enginering but perceptual science. One sees constant hand-waving about what science doesn;t know , but almost invariably audio writers seem to have little if any interest in the extensive rearch on the limits of hearing, the mechanisms of sound location or the reliability of sound quality judgments. The second point, related to the first, is that expressions like "plausible", "reasonable", "likely"/"unlikely" can only have any useful meaning in the context of what "we know " ie what some at lest general study of the basics of perceptual science might teach us. All kinds of nonsense seem plausible to people who know nothing, even if they are very intelligent people. I am often reminded in this context of Richard Dawkins devasting dissection of Bishop Hugh Montefiore's faux profound, laughably stupid musing that evolutionary theory could not explain why polar bears are white because they have no land predators.
    Audio forums as well as Audiophile editorials are full of beard-stroking appeals to open-minded thinking which amounts to small-minded self-regard which privileges the ability to imagine in a knowledge vacuum that something might be the case over a sensible analysis, looking at the evidence, of whether there is any reason to suppose that it is the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent Shoddy. Appreciate the points of focus.

      Yes, the lack of attention or interest (or even acknowledgement!) placed into the importance of psychoacoustics is interesting. I think this is purposeful deflection from the "real" issues here. That there is an intrinsic and powerful link between perception, psychological state and whatever we're aiming for in audiophilia (I try to keep it simple and say "high fidelity" as the goal) might be uncomfortable for the mouthpieces of this hobby.

      To be open and say that there are multiple factors as play - including the psychological ones - perhaps dilutes opportunities for some to hype up a product as making "huge" differences. Of course for audiophiles, I trust that most of us know this intuitively! We make a joke about listening with an alcoholic beverage in hand all the time and recognize how much difference that might make in our appreciation of the sound/music (others of course have talked about more controversial substances like THC, etc ;-).

      Good point about the fact that intelligence does not necessarily correlate with a propensity to be caught up in the "woo". Just as there are very smart people caught up in various scams and cults. I think the *truly* smart folks once they think about it and maybe read a bit about alternate viewpoints might be able to test out the perspectives and choose the one that seems to be most informed and likely true.

      Some of those debates with folks like Dawkins can be very interesting!

      Delete
  6. As a man of data science for over 22 years I am appalled by the amount of quakery and generally accepted nonsense in the audiophile community. I am enthusiast and after years of disregarding my data driven thoughts when it comes to audio I finally had the aha moment while visiting my local audio dealer and hearing him go on and on about his new audio rack being transformative. Mind you, his system was already levels higher than my system and already on these ridiculously expensive isolation footers but somehow this new rack cured every ill in his system. You can believe what you want and let your confirmation bias carry you until you read the next article about some new isolation method, but at some point you are just spending money for the sake of spending money. Of course this is the consumers perogative but it's a game I no longer choose to participate in, I am quite happy with my setup and see no need for cables, doo hickeys, risers or whatever else Fremer and company claim to be auditory revolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good job BDC,
      Those are the words of a smart, and wise man.

      Enjoy the music!

      Delete
  7. I'm not at all surprised by the Stereophile article or surprised by the various comments from its readers. This notion that the brain is possibly some sort of super instrument for hearing or that perceived differences between gear that's implausible to be different has been a staple of Stereophile for decades.

    It surfaces, time and again, every time some woo woo claim is made with the writer asserting that a difference was heard, and therefore, there must be something going on that we just can't measure. Usually with some reference to the investigative journalists duty to report these "truths" in the hopes that science can provide the supporting evidence later and pointing out how science has proven hypotheses that seemed unrealistic many times over. With due credit given to the marvel that is the human brain being able to hear things we can't measure.

    Somehow those same journalists can never martial the effort to actually do the investigations even though the tools are readily at their disposal. Placebo effect exists. Measurement gear is readily available. Human audio capabilities are thoroughly documented. Stereophile has a stable of reviewers and staff to participate and could easily do up some reasonable testing.

    Just doing something as elegant as Arch's AMPT test tracks would be an easy and impactful start. I think audiophiles would greatly value the chance to hear the differences between exotic cables, music streamers, et al with the AMPT approach. One could have known A track, known B track, and X tracks; even a track that switches between signal paths throughout the song. To me, investigative journalism would look closer to that instead of the reporting we have today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Usually with some reference to the investigative journalists duty to report these "truths" in the hopes that science can provide the supporting evidence later and pointing out how science has proven hypotheses that seemed unrealistic many times over. With due credit given to the marvel that is the human brain being able to hear things we can't measure."

      Well said, Doug.

      There's an a priori fallacy here isn't there in that the "audiophile journalist" has decided that the human ears/brain is more than just sophisticated, but actually accurate such that it could not be wrong? As such, reporting (often one's own) subjective experiences therefore must be "truth". And as you noted, it's then left to science to confirm the belief/truth/madness. And if science is unable to confirm, then the only option left is that science is not advanced/sensitive/capable of detecting that "truth". Perverse, yet prevalent throughout these magazines over decades written by all kinds of (IMO) uninsightful writers, or just plain liars because I suspect many know what they're doing.

      As a subjective reviewer talking about what one (supposedly) heard with no measurement data to correlate with, that requires remarkable confidence in one's own hearing abilities (which is amazing when we know some of these guys are quite advanced in age)! I don't believe I would ever be so bold as to write the kind of things I've seen in many reviews about what one "heard".

      Of course, confidence is bolstered when "My wife heard the same thing in the kitchen when I changed the speaker cables!". Sure... ;-)

      Delete
  8. Here's another one to debunk: https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/letters-digital-and-analog-resolution-rh-replies
    Is it me or is RH's reply pure techno-gobbledygook? What does this definition of resolution even mean?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Phil,
      Yeah, RH continues to provide silly responses and plays with a definition of "resolution" to confabulate those who are unclear about how digital audio works.

      The bottom line is that even 16-bit audio has >90dB dynamic range as opposed to even the best pro quality reel-to-reel at 30ips (brutally expensive) around 80dB if we're generous.

      Frequency response of tape is also not "ruler flat" - see here:
      http://www.endino.com/graphs/

      As we've discussed for years, the time-domain resolution of CD is already ~60 picoseconds:
      http://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/10/musings-meditations-on-limitations-of.html
      No idea what "time domain smearing" the guy is talking about. Wow and flutter of tape machines and even interchannel alignment of the tape heads might add more in time-domain performance issues than the tiny jitter we find in digital!

      The only thing reel-to-reel has over 16/44.1 is extension of the frequency response to maybe around 25kHz +/-3dB in old tech manuals. Obviously distortion levels also higher.

      I'm sure many people love the sound of R2R but that's of course not how "resolution" is technically defined.

      Delete
  9. Have you ever sat down in your carefully aligned chair and put on your favorite song and placed your pointer fingers behind your ears and pressed them forward slightly? That tweak (along with a recent move of existing equipment to a new room) tells me that there is a hell of a lot to audio distinctions and audio pleasure that has little to do with magic markers, fairy dust or equipment that is, I acknowledge, measurably better (whatever the "better" parameters might be). Of course I cultivate my skepticism and curmudgeonly character to protect my retirement funds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good tweak Jay,
      Yup, modifying the pinna to "improve" our head related transfer function for hearing can result in definite subjective improvements.

      Maybe we can start a new subspecialty for "audiophile plastic surgery" to permanently modify the pinna. ;-)

      Delete
    2. Oh yes, and protection of retirement funds is *very* important! That's what the snake oil salesmen are after - a "transfer of wealth" into their retirement accounts of course!

      Delete
  10. Hi Archimago,

    You mention McGurk effect, and I can add a couple more. The first is the ventriloquist effect. I personally tested it when I was participating in a video conference with mono output, but still the voice of the guy talking was coming not directly between the stereo speakers, but from the side where his avatar was placed on the screen. I thought—the balance on speakers is wrong, let me fix that—and adjusted the balance to move the voice to the center. Still, after a few seconds the voice, as I heard it, has moved back to where the guy's image was on the screen.

    The second is the power of self-persuasion. This time no video to dominate over audio perception, I was listening to a mono playback in headphones and again wanted to use a balance to center the image. I adjusted the control and started hearing the image where I expected it to be—from the center. Then guess what—I've looked at the bus in the DAW and noticed that the effect chain was actually off, thus my adjustment made no actual change to the sound at all! The change has happened entirely in my mind.

    So yes, it would be great if every time a reviewer has heard "a striking difference" in sound due to change in equipment, they could actually confirm it with some blind testing or a measurement, to make sure it's not just their illusion.

    BTW, I wasn't aware that you are a doctor :) With your background and your interest in audio you will probably find this book about modelling human hearing to be very insightful: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Machine-Hearing-Extracting-Meaning/dp/1107007534/.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cool Mikhail!
      Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll have a look.

      Thanks also for the other psychoacoustic "effects". The mind is one heck of a powerful machine! Well, it has to be since ultimately all our thoughts and experiences are derived from those electrical impulses and chemical messaging.

      As I believe Richard Feynman said - "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool". I wish more purely-subjective audio reviewers would be wise enough to be mindful of that and just make sure to take a few more steps to be sure that impressions are likely true.

      Delete
  11. Trust be verify. not to rain on your parade.
    I completely agree with the quote of the philosopher Karl popper who invented falsification principle. It's a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false. For example, the hypothesis that "all swans are white," can be falsified by observing a black swan.

    But people (including physicians ournalist and scientists) are not completely objective and unbiased and can be nfluenced by marketing material and other percs. (free samples)

    One of the most famous examples is the use of drug Thalidomide It was used to in the treatment of morning sickness (among other things) in pregnant woman It turned out that it can cause serious birth defects. The drug still subscribed in the treatment of cancer because it acts a teratogen. Sorry for the medical jargon but i like to be accurate.

    Another example is oxycontin. The marketing of the manufacturer Purdue claimed t"that the risk of addiction from OxyContin is extremely small". That claim turned out to be false. The consequences were severe and many people especially in the US died of overdoses.

    So be very sceptic of marketing claims. They are designed to sell more products.

    Loved the article though. keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right, thanks Freddy,
      Indeed in the history of medicine like with thalidomide and OxyContin, we have many examples of marketing and falsehoods.

      Effects like teratogenesis and thalidomide I think only came out in post-marketing. Back in the 1950's drug testing was certainly not as rigorous and who knows what kind of tests they did on pregnancy prior to the drug release.

      OxyContin was certainly pushed onto physicians as well around the idea of abuse being low. I remember those days in the early 2000's when colleagues would be of the opinion that so long as there's pain, abuse potential was low; there were a number of doctors who were also evangelical about this idea of safety from abuse. I think this flew in the face of common sense for many of us.

      Even these days, if we look at pain specialists we can see cocktails of drugs and questionable procedures that don't seem to have strong scientific merit or high likelihood of abuse being used mostly out of desperation.

      Delete
  12. Hey Bruce,
    A pleasure and thanks for that well thought out comment as well!

    Yikes, I didn't know about SteinMusic paper mat thing. Wow, talk about some expensive paper there. I wonder if by the ounce how that paper compares with the price of gold!

    Good points and I certainly agree. Must be mindful of the nature of audio magazines and what they might want us to know and sift through the words to look for nuggets of truth "between the lines".

    ReplyDelete
  13. Arch, may I interest you in some of the 'musings' about you, and about doctors generally, going on at ASR?
    https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/anyone-read-the-latest-from-archimagos-take-on-stereophile-editorial-linked-here.36014/post-1268898

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link Steven,
      I was going to respond but see that the thread has closed. Bummer. Would have been fun interacting with the boys.

      @anmpr1: Notice that it's quite rare on this blog for me to ever bring up anything about being a doctor. Coming into this as a "more objective" guy means I do not believe who I am to be important in these discussions. This is why I've always written as a pseudonym as well... I'd rather remind people that we're in the realm of thought, reason, discussing philosophical beliefs at times and being open to exploring psychological states as it may pertain to measurable and empirical evidence. I remember in 2018 when Chris Connaker gave his MQA talk at RMAF, some were insisting to know "Who is that Archimago guy?" as if this is important in the face of evidence questioning the claimed benefits of MQA. Who I am doesn't matter, so long as the findings can be understood and replicated.

      The only reason I mentioned being a doctor in this post is because Mr. van Bakel leads us into a territory which I do know a thing or two about. Over the years I have seen some of the kinds of patients he alludes to and have my beliefs about what we're dealing with. I have examined some of the devices that are sold to the unsuspecting desperate patients (like the Rife machine, there are others...). Medicine has to deal with human beings so subjectivity matters and this needs to be accounted for in order to extract truths in clinical research - medical science does have mechanisms to curb the extreme, baseless beliefs of quacks and snake-oil salesmen.

      @Mojo Warrior:
      "This discussion (Archimago, ASR, Stereophile) are all a reflection of the debates currently in Western Societies.".

      EXACTLY!

      I believe we are at a time in our cultural where all kinds of taken-for-granted "truths" are being challenged in multiple directions in the West particularly. For me to say more would be opening up a can of worms into political correctness, and just plain politics that need not be on this blog ;-). This is why it's a fun exercise, and not that threatening to engage in fundamental discussions about what is truth within the audiophile hobby. At least we won't get "cancelled" debating about this stuff, right?

      I believe audio is the first technologically-based hobby to have "jumped the shark" after attaining a certain level of technical fidelity such that esthetic appeal, use of subjective anecdotes as evidence, and luxury marketing have become the primary driving forces in the "High End" (with potential $$$$ to be made!). Denying these drivers under the guise of "sounding better" is the key psychological hook of the snake-oil salesmen to entice those who are susceptible.

      Because the audiophile hobby is not large, over time, I think "rational audiophiles" can make a positive cultural contribution. Let's have fun with this without becoming extreme! We can be assertive and argue intelligently, but in the process, let's not end up being "jerks" in the eyes of others.

      Finally as for medical doctors (and dentists!) as audiophiles. I have met all sorts. Most audiophile doctors I know of are "subjective" folks. Yes, some among us can be rather narcissistic, dropping names, CVs, and such, but that goes for all professions and I think it's more of a feature of higher socioeconomic status (lawyers, businessmen, etc...) as well. Very important not to make assumptions about a man/woman's character just based on profession.

      Anyhow, I don't know of any other audiophile doctor more "objective leaning" than myself around here though. ;-)

      Delete
    2. Count me as one of your fellow objectivist audiophile doctor. I play tennis as well and at least some of the phenomena that I read about in audio happens when one switches to a new racket in tennis. All of a sudden, shots that you couldn't hit before, you are able to. You're playing better than ever. This lasts around a couple of weeks and then you go back down to the level that you actually were.
      There's a lot of superstitious behavior in medicine too. So many times, even when you show another doctor the studies that show antibiotics(for example) are not needed, they still put people on the antibiotics that they have always used.

      Delete
    3. Greetings fellow colleague in objectivist audio and medicine bkat,

      The human mind is a funny and powerful thing isn't it!? All the more reason to be reasonable and mindful of the variables that affect our perceptions and shape out opinions.

      Yeah, I hear you about the antibiotics angle. It's almost impossible to tell some people they don't need meds - things like antibiotics. Certainly in the domain discussed above (eg. chronic tick-borne illnesses), it's a hard battle if the person insists/knows/have faith that antibiotics (especially IV) is the "only way".

      Delete
    4. Your reply here has been added to the ASR thread (though it's still closed).

      Delete
  14. Robert Harley is obviously an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. His editorial "the law of accelerating returns" is, perhaps, the dumbest thing I ever read. It implies that astronomically priced gear is worth it's cost in terms of sound quality which is absurd. Think of $10K for a digital interconnect. Absolute nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, David,
      I think he and the "High End" audiophile press need to believe that. So important in fact that it shows up twice!

      April 2022:
      https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-law-of-accelerating-returns

      Sept 2014:
      https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/from-the-editor-the-law-of-accelerating-returns

      I seriously hope that in the months and years ahead, less and less people stay within the "culture" of the "High End" and can see that the (mildly cult-like) system of beliefs to be based on fallacies, shifting sand with no foundation based on reality testing.

      While I have great hope in the future of high-fidelity audio, I would "short" the magical High End Industry. ;-)

      Delete
  15. Yes both Stereophile and Absolute sound are becoming narrow visioned. I've canceled my Absolute Sound sub and about to can Stereophile. Bar the odd letter, news events and record review just about nothing has my attention anymore. Interesting Fremer has now joined AS after being with Stereophile for what seems years. I suppose HiFi may have come to a plateau with little real progress over what we have achieved in the last 10 years. So more devices of dubious progress hit the market at ever increasing prices. A recent review on a single footer for equipment at $500US each has me really wondering. There is no relevance between the actual cost to make and the retail. I recently replaced the power supply capacitors(with Rubycon and Panasonic low ESR) in both my JLAudio F12's at a cost of $100 for parts. I wonder how the latest retail of $5000US equates for one?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Robocop,
      Yeah I see it as the mainstream audiophile magazines are losing their base as I think overall, those audiophiles sophisticated enough to read and explore beyond the material being fed to them by companies recognize the disconnect between fidelity and price.

      Even if they refuse to recognize the universal principle of "diminishing returns" in all things technological, the reality is that audiophiles themselves do (because we're not audiophools despite their attempts at dumbing down the average IQ).

      Times change and unless TAS and Stereophile honestly accept basic principles and act like they truly care about the interests of the audiophile consumer, IMO, their days are seriously numbered.

      Delete