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":