Saturday, 11 March 2023

The Audiophile Wisdom of ChatGPT (Feb 13, 2023 Version): Learnings from an artificial intellect on an esoteric hobby. (And on creativity?)

I'm sure none of us these days have escaped news about ChatGPT from OpenAI. Articles have been ubiquitous covering the implications of what this "chatbot" is able to do. No doubt, there will be deep implications stemming from this technology already being debated through the halls of academia on how it will affect everything from education, to work, to legal ramifications. As with any likely transformative technology, there will be promise and fear.

Already, I've seen many articles out there including in our little corner of the universe with Stereophile's "As We See It" in February referencing ChatGPT.

As you're likely aware, ChatGPT achieves its remarkable abilities based on Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT-3.5) "large language model", a sophisticated "self-supervised" general AI model based on >175B parameters combed through 570GB of data as text off the Internet, books, and Wikipedia. Yes, human feedback is part of the training process and data continues to be gathered from users to improve the model. At the time of this article, the openly available online ChatGPT has been trained with data up until September 2021 as can be seen here:

Arch: Who won the Superbowl in 2023?

ChatGPT: I'm sorry, but I am not capable of predicting future events as I am a machine learning model trained on historical data. As of my knowledge cutoff date, which is in September 2021, the most recent Super Bowl was Super Bowl LVII and it has not happened yet. It is scheduled to take place on February 5, 2023, so we won't know the winner until the game is played.

Given the level of knowledge ChatGPT has access to, I wondered how would it perform currently in March 2023 if asked about broad audiophile topics. I think this is interesting because the answers it gives must be an integration of all those hundreds of gigabytes of texts fed into the system. What does all that information teach the machine about the current understanding of audiophile topics? Are the answers reasonable, and relatively free of errors? Do the answers show "common sense" or even a level of "wisdom" one might wish to receive when talking to a knowledgeable audiophile friend requesting advice?

Let's dive into a Q&A discussion and see what ChatGPT can tell us about this niche audiophile hobby... (Grab a warm beverage by the fireside friends, we go deep and broad.)


I. On the basics of audiophilia

Arch: Can you tell me about the audiophile hobby?

ChatGPT: The audiophile hobby is a pursuit of the highest-quality audio reproduction possible, and it's practiced by music lovers who want to experience their favorite songs in the most faithful and immersive way possible. Audiophiles seek out equipment that can reproduce music with exceptional detail, clarity, and accuracy, and are often willing to invest significant amounts of time and money in order to achieve the best possible sound.

At the heart of the audiophile hobby is a deep appreciation for the art of music and the science of audio engineering. Audiophiles believe that music is more than just sound - it's an emotional experience that can be transformative and life-affirming. They believe that music has the power to touch the soul, to heal the heart, and to connect people on a deeply personal level.

To achieve the best possible audio reproduction, audiophiles invest in high-quality equipment such as amplifiers, preamplifiers, turntables, CD players, and speakers. These components are often made with the highest-quality materials, such as solid copper wiring, high-end capacitors, and custom-built transformers. Many audiophiles also use specialized cables, power conditioners, and other accessories to fine-tune the sound and minimize interference.

One of the key goals of the audiophile hobby is to create a system that can reproduce music with a level of detail and accuracy that is as close to the original recording as possible. Audiophiles strive to achieve a sound that is free of distortion, noise, and other artifacts that can degrade the listening experience. They seek out equipment that can reproduce the full range of frequencies, from the deepest bass to the highest treble, with precision and clarity.

Another important aspect of the audiophile hobby is room acoustics. Many audiophiles spend a great deal of time and money optimizing the acoustic properties of their listening room, using specialized treatments such as acoustic panels, bass traps, and diffusers to minimize reflections and standing waves. By creating a listening environment that is as neutral and natural as possible, audiophiles believe that they can hear more of the details in the music and experience a more immersive and emotionally engaging listening experience.

The audiophile hobby is not just about buying expensive equipment and tweaking room acoustics, however. It's also about the music itself. Many audiophiles are passionate music lovers who seek out new artists and genres, and who value the emotional and spiritual connection that music can create. For them, the pursuit of high-quality audio reproduction is not just a technical challenge, but a way of enhancing and enriching their relationship with music.

While the audiophile hobby can be expensive and time-consuming, it can also be deeply rewarding. By striving to achieve the best possible audio reproduction, audiophiles can experience music in a way that is truly transformative and life-affirming. Whether they're listening to a new album for the first time or rediscovering an old favorite, audiophiles believe that music has the power to touch the soul, and they're dedicated to creating a listening experience that does justice to the beauty and power of great music.
That's a great start! It incorporates both the music and the hardware foundations of this hobby in the answer. There's mention made of the dynamic between hardware characteristics that define transparency (like low distortion, low noise, full range frequencies, etc.) with the experiential elements that enrich the soul. Wonderful.

Suppose we now dig deeper and ask about one of the most important "high-level" questions most of us must have wondered about at some point.
Arch: In a high fidelity audio system, please rank from most important to least important: DAC, preamp, amplifier, speakers, room treatment, cables, turntable, phono cartridge, tweaks.
ChatGPT: Ranking the importance of components in a high fidelity audio system is subjective and depends on individual preferences, but here is one possible ranking based on general consensus in the audiophile community:
1. Speakers - The speakers are the most important component in an audio system as they have the greatest impact on the overall sound quality. They are responsible for converting the electrical signals from the other components into audible sound. 
2. Amplifier - The amplifier is the next most important component as it provides the power needed to drive the speakers. It is responsible for amplifying the electrical signals from the DAC or preamp and delivering them to the speakers. 
3. DAC - The DAC is responsible for converting digital signals from a source such as a CD player or computer into analog signals that can be amplified by the amplifier and played through the speakers. 
4. Preamp - The preamp is responsible for controlling the volume and tone of the audio signal before it reaches the amplifier. It can also be used to switch between different sources. 
5. Turntable and phono cartridge - For those who listen to vinyl records, the turntable and phono cartridge are important components as they are responsible for reading the grooves on the record and converting the vibrations into electrical signals. 
6. Room treatment - Room treatment can have a significant impact on the sound quality of an audio system by reducing unwanted reflections and resonances in the room. However, it is generally considered less important than the components that actually produce and amplify the sound. 
7. Cables - While cables can have a small impact on sound quality, they are generally considered less important than the other components in the system. 
8. Tweaks - Tweaks refer to various modifications or additions to the system, such as power conditioners, isolation platforms, and vibration dampeners. While they can sometimes provide small improvements in sound quality, they are generally considered less important than the main components of the system.
That's a very reasonable hierarchically itemized list. I certainly agree that speakers (or headphones) are the most important. Although I would rate the need for some amount of room optimization/treatments higher up on the list than #6, otherwise, good to see that cables and tweaks were put in at the end as likely of marginal value (so long as the cables just work of course!).

Since we're on the topic of audiophile basics, let's ask ChatGPT what are the core sonic characteristics that audiophiles strive for from the hardware.
Arch: What are the key characteristics of a good audiophile high-fidelity audio system?

ChatGPT: Audiophile high-fidelity audio systems are designed to reproduce audio with a high level of accuracy and detail. There are several key characteristics that are generally considered to be important in achieving this goal:

Clarity: A good audio system should be able to reproduce audio with clarity and detail. This means that every instrument and voice should be clearly defined and distinct, without any muddiness or distortion.

Frequency response: A good audio system should be able to reproduce a wide range of frequencies, from the lowest bass notes to the highest treble. This means that the system should be capable of producing deep, powerful bass as well as clear, crisp highs.

Imaging: A good audio system should be able to create a realistic soundstage, with instruments and voices placed accurately in space. This means that the listener should be able to hear the individual instruments and voices as if they were in a real performance space.

Dynamics: A good audio system should be able to reproduce the dynamic range of a recording, from the quietest whisper to the loudest explosion. This means that the system should be able to handle sudden changes in volume without distorting or compressing the sound.

Low distortion: A good audio system should have low levels of distortion, which can be caused by the amplifier or the speakers. This means that the system should reproduce the original sound as faithfully as possible, without adding any unwanted coloration or distortion.

Transparency: A good audio system should be transparent, meaning that it should not add or subtract anything from the original sound. This means that the listener should be able to hear the recording exactly as it was intended to be heard.

Build quality: A good audio system should be well-built, with high-quality components that are designed to last. This means that the system should be reliable and durable, with a long lifespan.

Overall, a good audiophile high-fidelity audio system should be able to reproduce audio with accuracy, detail, and realism, without adding any unwanted coloration or distortion.
IMO this is an excellent response and one which I suspect many audiophile forum participants, maybe even published audiophile writers might not be able to concisely express. Having said this, "clarity", "low distortion", and "transparency" in many ways will overlap depending on precise definitions (for example, "transparency" to me is a larger concept and "distortion" more specific). I suspect if as hobbyists we can agree on basic definitions like these for what constitutes an honest-to-goodness "audiophile" system, we would probably see much fewer disagreements since these characteristics can be further analyzed.


II. On philosophical views

As you know, a lot of the conflict we have in the audiophile world centers around controversial topics and the polarity between "objective" and "subjective" viewpoints. Let's ask ChatGPT.
Arch: Tell me about the difference between objectivists and subjectivists in the audiophile hobby?

ChatGPT: In the audiophile community, there are two broad schools of thought when it comes to evaluating audio equipment and sound quality: objectivism and subjectivism.

Objectivists believe that audio equipment and sound quality can be measured and evaluated objectively, using scientific measurements and rigorous testing methods. They believe that the ultimate goal of audio equipment is to accurately reproduce the sound as it was recorded, and that this can be achieved through the use of equipment that measures well and has low distortion. Objectivists tend to be skeptical of claims made by manufacturers about the subjective sound quality of their equipment, and place greater importance on measurable specifications such as frequency response, distortion, and noise floor.

Subjectivists, on the other hand, believe that the subjective experience of listening to music is the most important factor in evaluating audio equipment and sound quality. They argue that subjective experiences such as tonal balance, soundstage, and imaging cannot be measured using objective methods, and that the only way to evaluate equipment is through listening tests. Subjectivists believe that the ultimate goal of audio equipment is to reproduce the emotional impact of music, and that this can only be achieved through the use of equipment that sounds good to their ears, regardless of its objective measurements.

In general, objectivists tend to be more skeptical of high-end audio claims and focus on objective measurements and specs, while subjectivists prioritize the subjective listening experience and place less importance on objective measurements. However, both approaches can coexist and be useful in evaluating and choosing audio equipment, and many audiophiles incorporate both approaches in their evaluations.

Again, that's a pretty good summary of the values that underlie the two schools of thought. Notice in the last paragraph, ChatGPT balances out the viewpoints which in my opinion is something I also advocate as a "rational audiophile". I notice that ChatGPT will do this with most controversial questions and I suspect this is something programmed into the system to counteract against "radicalization" of ideas. This IMO is good given the state of discourse these days!

Speaking of being "rational", let's ask:

Arch: What do you think is a rational position to have as an audiophile given the polarity between Subjectivism and Objectivism?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don't have personal beliefs or opinions. However, I can provide a neutral perspective on the matter.

In reality, the debate between subjectivism and objectivism in the audiophile community is not a matter of one approach being "right" and the other being "wrong". Both approaches have their merits and can provide valuable insights into audio equipment and sound quality. It ultimately comes down to personal preferences and priorities.

If you are an audiophile, it's important to consider both approaches and use them as tools to evaluate audio equipment. Objective measurements can provide a good starting point for evaluating audio equipment and identifying potential issues, but they don't always tell the whole story. At the same time, subjective listening tests can provide valuable insights into the overall listening experience, but they can also be influenced by personal biases and preferences.

A rational position to have as an audiophile, therefore, is to use both objective and subjective methods to evaluate audio equipment and sound quality. You can start by looking at objective measurements such as frequency response, distortion, and noise floor to narrow down your choices, and then conduct listening tests to determine which equipment sounds best to your ears. Ultimately, the most important factor is your own listening experience and what sounds best to you, regardless of whether it meets certain objective measurements or not.

Well done ChatGPT! Notice that ChatGPT advises the audiophile to do what I do in my reviews - start with looking at the objective measurements, then consider the subjective quality of the listening experience. For me, that's the natural sequence when thinking about hi-fi gear. Objectively defined basics should be covered first to highlight any glaring anomalies that could be audible then let's talk about how it sounds and use that knowledge to check if indeed the anomalies audibly distort the music.


III. On dishonesty and "snake oil" in audiophilia?

Okay, let's get even deeper... Does ChatGPT think there's "snake oil" in audiophilia?

Arch: Is there snake oil in the audiophile industry?

ChatGPT: The term "snake oil" is often used to refer to products that are marketed with exaggerated or false claims of their effectiveness. In the audiophile industry, there have been a number of products and practices that have been criticized as being snake oil.

One area where snake oil claims are often made is in the realm of high-end cables and accessories. Some manufacturers make exaggerated claims about the performance of their cables, suggesting that they can dramatically improve sound quality or reduce distortion. However, many experts argue that such claims are unfounded and that there is little evidence to support the idea that high-end cables provide significant benefits over more affordable options.

Another area where snake oil claims are sometimes made is in the realm of digital audio, particularly with regards to software and hardware that promises to improve the quality of digital audio files. Some products claim to "upscale" audio files or to remove noise and distortion, but there is often little scientific evidence to support these claims.

Finally, there have been cases of snake oil claims made in the realm of audio components and equipment. Some manufacturers have made exaggerated claims about the performance of their amplifiers, speakers, and other components, suggesting that they can provide dramatic improvements in sound quality. However, these claims are often difficult to substantiate, and there is often little scientific evidence to support them.

In conclusion, there is certainly snake oil in the audiophile industry, as in any other industry. While there are many reputable manufacturers and products in the audiophile market, it is important for consumers to be aware of the potential for false or exaggerated claims and to carefully evaluate any products or practices that they are considering. It is also important to consult with experts in the field and to carefully evaluate the scientific evidence behind any claims made by manufacturers or marketers.

Again, I cannot disagree with this. Yeah, "there is certainly snake oil in the audiophile industry" as in other industries. ChatGPT accurately identifies that snake-oilish claims have been made in high-end cables, dramatic claims around upsampling (like this), and of course exaggerated claims around all kinds of hardware performance. Yes, the way to protect oneself is certainly by looking at "scientific evidence behind any claims".

So, how about MQA? ;-)
Arch: Is MQA a type of "snake oil" that is being hyped by the company to audiophiles?

ChatGPT: The question of whether MQA (Master Quality Authenticated) is a type of "snake oil" is a matter of ongoing debate and controversy in the audiophile community. Some audiophiles believe that MQA is a legitimate and innovative technology that can improve sound quality, while others believe that it is a marketing gimmick designed to extract more money from consumers.

MQA is a proprietary audio codec that is designed to deliver high-resolution audio in a more efficient and bandwidth-friendly way. The technology claims to deliver sound that is "authenticated" to match the original recording, with higher levels of accuracy and detail than standard audio formats.

Critics of MQA argue that the technology is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and that it offers little benefit over existing high-resolution audio formats such as FLAC and WAV. They also point out that MQA is a proprietary format that requires licensing fees and royalties, which could potentially limit consumer choice and competition.

Proponents of MQA argue that the technology offers unique benefits, such as improved timing accuracy and the ability to reduce digital artifacts, that can result in a more engaging and enjoyable listening experience. They also point out that MQA has been adopted by several major music streaming services, including Tidal and Deezer, which suggests that there is a growing demand for the technology among consumers.

Ultimately, whether or not MQA is a type of "snake oil" depends on one's personal perspective and beliefs. As with any audio technology, it's important to conduct your own listening tests and evaluate the claims of the company before making a purchasing decision.
Generally fair but only Tidal offers MQA and Deezer decided not to go forward with it. Furthermore, Tidal revenues in 2022 have not been impressive so growth at best looks small. I would of course be more straight forward and just say that ultimately MQA is a failure. IMO, it only has one purpose left - to provide a tick box for DAC manufacturers to check off with their latest products to satisfy uninformed consumers with FOMO who want to spend money unnecessarily.

This next question, if audiophiles accept the answer, should put to rest many an argument online!
Arch: What is the current understanding of the value of high priced audiophile cables more than $1000? Is there enough evidence that they sound different to be worth putting much money into purchasing them?

ChatGPT: The current scientific understanding is that there is no evidence to support the claim that high-priced audiophile cables, costing more than $1000, can improve the sound quality of an audio system beyond what can be achieved with well-designed, standard cables.

Audiophile cables are often marketed with claims that they can improve the sound quality of an audio system by reducing distortion, noise, or electromagnetic interference. However, these claims are not supported by scientific studies or measurements. There is no evidence to suggest that expensive cables can provide any audible benefits over properly designed and constructed cables.

Some studies have been conducted to test the claim that high-priced audiophile cables can improve sound quality, but they have consistently failed to find any significant difference between the sound of expensive cables and that of well-designed standard cables. In fact, blind listening tests have shown that even trained listeners are unable to distinguish between different types of cables when they are not aware of which cable they are listening to.

In conclusion, based on current scientific understanding, it is not worth spending large amounts of money on high-priced audiophile cables in the hope of improving the sound quality of an audio system. Well-designed, standard cables are likely to be sufficient for most users.
It's not too often that I see ChatGPT construct an answer as clear as this one! Pretty evident that based on what it knows, the AI does not believe we should be spending >$1000 on cables; regardless whether we're talking about interconnects, or power cables, or speaker wires, digital or analogue. Cable debates are a dime a dozen on forums and you can see all kinds of claims on YouTube as well (as usual, links to my cable measurements can be found here).

So then with all those gigabytes of information in the memory banks, I wondered which companies ChatGPT believes are the most contentious and possibly sell "snake oil":
Arch: What are the 10 most controversial audiophile companies based on Internet discussions among audiophiles, thought to be selling snake oil?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I strive to remain impartial and present the information available.

Here are ten audiophile companies that have been criticized by some audiophiles as selling products that are considered to be snake oil:

AudioQuest - Known for selling expensive audio cables that some audiophiles argue do not provide any significant improvement in sound quality over less expensive alternatives.

Nordost - Another high-end audio cable company that has been the subject of controversy among audiophiles for its high prices and alleged lack of improvement in sound quality.

Shunyata Research - Known for selling expensive power cables, power conditioners, and other audio accessories that some argue are overpriced and not effective in improving sound quality.

High Fidelity Cables - Criticized for selling expensive audio cables that some audiophiles argue do not provide any significant improvement in sound quality over less expensive alternatives.

Synergistic Research - Known for selling audio accessories such as cables, power conditioners, and resonators that are claimed to improve audio quality, but which some audiophiles argue do not provide any significant improvement in sound quality.

Cardas Audio - Another high-end audio cable company that has been criticized by some audiophiles for selling overpriced audio cables.

Audio Magic - Known for selling audio accessories such as cables and power conditioners that some audiophiles argue are overpriced and do not provide any significant improvement in sound quality.

Furutech - Known for selling audio accessories such as cables and power conditioners that some audiophiles argue are overpriced and do not provide any significant improvement in sound quality.

Kimber Kable - Another company that specializes in high-end audio cables that are often seen as overpriced by some audiophiles.

PS Audio - Known for selling high-end audio equipment, including power regenerators and power amplifiers, that some audiophiles argue are overpriced and not significantly better than less expensive alternatives.

It is important to note that while these companies have been criticized by some audiophiles for selling snake oil, other audiophiles may have had positive experiences with their products. Ultimately, each individual must evaluate the effectiveness and value of these products for themselves.
Yeah, that list of names is not particularly surprising. I don't know all these companies but I can see why the AI picked those given the reputation online.

Let's ask ChatGPT then for some wisdom on how to negotiate through the (potential) snake oil in this hobby:
Arch: How should an audiophile navigate through the snake oil and scams potentially found in the audiophile hobby when spending our money?

ChatGPT: As an audiophile, it's important to be vigilant and informed when it comes to spending your money on audio equipment. Here are some tips to help you navigate through the potential snake oil and scams in the audiophile hobby:

Do your research: Before making any purchase, do your research and read reviews from reputable sources. Look for reviews that include objective measurements and listening tests, and avoid reviews that rely solely on subjective impressions.

Trust your ears: Ultimately, the most important factor in evaluating audio equipment is your own listening experience. Conduct listening tests and compare equipment side-by-side to determine what sounds best to you.

Be skeptical of claims: Be wary of claims that sound too good to be true, such as cables that claim to improve sound quality or equipment that claims to have "magical" properties. Remember that the laws of physics apply to audio equipment, and that there are limits to what is possible.

Look for evidence: If a company makes claims about the performance of their equipment, ask for evidence to support those claims. Look for objective measurements and independent tests that confirm the claims made by the company.

Buy from reputable sources: Stick to reputable retailers and manufacturers with a track record of delivering quality products and good customer service. Avoid buying from unknown or unproven sources, as they may be selling counterfeit or low-quality products.

Be mindful of price: While expensive equipment can often deliver better performance, there are diminishing returns as you go up in price. Be mindful of your budget and don't overspend on equipment that may not deliver a significant improvement in sound quality.

By following these tips and being informed and vigilant, you can avoid falling victim to snake oil and scams in the audiophile hobby and make informed purchasing decisions that will improve your listening experience.

Excellent. I think this answer deserves to be republished in one of the Stereophile "As We See It" editorials! Literally essential words of wisdom that should be reviewed by all audiophiles.

Notice what ChatGPT suggests as Item 1: "Look for reviews that include objective measurements and listening tests, and avoid reviews that rely solely on subjective impressions." Nice. Item 3 about skepticism is important as is Item 4 suggesting that we look for evidence of claims. Looks like ChatGPT even believes in "diminishing returns as you go up in price"; of course - only audio salesmen claim otherwise!


IV. A discussion about the reliability of audiophiles and "Golden Ears"

Beyond companies that might sell scams and snake oil, let's see if ChatGPT can tell us about audiophiles themselves. I wondered what it thought about "Golden Ears":

Arch: Is there any evidence that audiophiles on discussion forums are exaggerating claims about what they hear or that these "Golden Ears" might not be truthful?

ChatGPT: There have been some studies that suggest that self-proclaimed audiophiles may be exaggerating their ability to hear differences in sound quality or that their "Golden Ears" may not be as reliable as they claim.

For example, a study published in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society in 2016 found that listeners who self-identified as audiophiles were no more accurate in their ability to detect subtle differences in sound quality than non-audiophile listeners. The study concluded that "despite self-reported high levels of experience and training, audiophile listeners did not perform better than non-audiophile listeners."

Similarly, a study published in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society in 2015 found that listeners who were trained to identify differences in sound quality were more accurate in their ability to do so than untrained listeners, suggesting that some audiophiles may be overestimating their ability to detect subtle differences in sound quality.

While these studies do not provide definitive evidence that all audiophiles are exaggerating their claims about what they hear or that "Golden Ears" are not truthful, they do suggest that claims of superior hearing ability should be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism. It's important to carefully evaluate the claims and opinions of others, and to seek out multiple sources of information before making any decisions.

Arch: Please tell me more about the JAES 2016 study comparing audiophiles and non-audiophiles.

ChatGPT: The study published in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society in 2016 compared the ability of audiophile and non-audiophile listeners to detect differences in sound quality. The study used a blind listening test to evaluate the listeners' ability to distinguish between high-resolution audio and CD-quality audio.

The study recruited 60 listeners, including 30 self-identified audiophiles and 30 non-audiophile listeners. The participants listened to a series of audio samples, including both high-resolution and CD-quality versions of the same recordings. The samples were played in random order, and the listeners were asked to identify which version they thought sounded better.

The study found that there was no significant difference in the ability of audiophile and non-audiophile listeners to detect differences in sound quality. Both groups were able to correctly identify the higher-quality version of the audio in roughly 50% of the trials, which is not significantly better than chance. The study concluded that "despite self-reported high levels of experience and training, audiophile listeners did not perform better than non-audiophile listeners."

It's important to note that this study was limited to a specific type of listening test and a specific group of listeners, and it is possible that different results might be obtained using different test methods or different listener groups. However, the study does suggest that claims of superior hearing ability among self-proclaimed audiophiles should be approached with caution and that there may be significant individual variability in sensitivity to differences in sound quality.

Arch: Give me the reference to this article.

ChatGPT: The reference for the article is:

Tyll, S., & Vorländer, M. (2016). Comparison of listener performance in high-resolution audio and standard audio quality. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 64(6), 364-379.

Notice the ability of ChatGPT to maintain context as part of the flow of the discussion. Make sure to ask about references if you want to verify the information.

So if there is exaggeration, let's consider some possible reasons why this might happen:

Arch: If an audiophile is exaggerating what they hear, what are the reasons some might do this?

ChatGPT: There could be several reasons why an audiophile might exaggerate what they hear:

Psychological bias: Audiophiles may have a strong psychological bias towards hearing differences between different audio components or formats, and may be more likely to perceive differences even when they don't exist. This bias can be influenced by a range of factors, including personal beliefs, prior experiences, and the desire to justify a high-priced audio system.

Social pressure: In online audiophile communities, there may be social pressure to present oneself as an expert with a heightened sensitivity to sound quality. This pressure can lead to a tendency to exaggerate one's abilities or to make claims that may not be entirely accurate.

Marketing and advertising: Some companies that produce high-end audio equipment may use marketing and advertising tactics that exaggerate the importance of subtle differences in sound quality, leading some audiophiles to believe that they are hearing significant improvements when in reality the differences may be small or imperceptible.

Confirmation bias: Audiophiles may seek out information or opinions that confirm their existing beliefs or preferences, and may be less likely to consider alternative perspectives or information that contradicts their beliefs.

Inexperience or lack of knowledge: Some audiophiles may be relatively inexperienced or lack knowledge about sound engineering, and may therefore overestimate the importance of certain technical specifications or attributes when evaluating audio equipment or formats.

It's important to note that these factors are not unique to the audiophile community and can be observed in other contexts where individuals hold strong beliefs or preferences. However, it's important to approach claims of superior hearing ability with a critical and open-minded perspective, and to consider multiple sources of information before making any decisions about audio equipment or formats.

That's a good list of reasons to keep in mind when we're online and hear stories that seem a bit like a "tall tale".

An important shift within the audiophile community has been the evolution of where we get our information over the last number of years. Let's ask ChatGPT to consider the time dimension and changes over the years:

Arch: Within the audiophile community, how has the source of information used to evaluate hardware shifted over the years? List the sources of information most used by audiophiles these days.

ChatGPT: Over the years, the sources of information used by audiophiles to evaluate hardware have shifted significantly. In the past, audiophile magazines were the primary source of information, but today, the landscape has changed dramatically.

Here are some sources of information that are commonly used by audiophiles these days:

Online Forums: Online forums have become a popular source of information for audiophiles. These forums are populated by enthusiasts who share their experiences with various hardware components, offer advice, and provide reviews of products.

User Reviews: User reviews on e-commerce websites like Amazon, Best Buy, and others have become increasingly popular among audiophiles. These reviews offer a wealth of information about products, including their performance, features, and durability.

Social Media: Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have become a hub for audiophile communities, where users can share their experiences with different products and discuss various topics related to high-end audio.

YouTube: YouTube has emerged as a popular source of information for audiophiles, with many content creators offering in-depth reviews, comparisons, and demonstrations of various hardware components.

Manufacturer Websites: Manufacturer websites are still a popular source of information, as they provide detailed specifications, features, and other information about their products.

Overall, the shift towards alternative sources of information has given audiophiles more options and greater access to information about high-end audio equipment, which has contributed to a more informed and engaged community.

Indeed, the landscape has changed as information has become much more diversified and "democratized" including access to user experiences from a wider number of outlets.

Since ChatGPT can analyze based on the temporal domain, let's see what it thinks has happened with product reviews:

Arch: Based on your knowledge, have there been trends or changes in audiophile product reviews over the years?

ChatGPT: Yes, there have been several trends and changes in audiophile product reviews over the years. Here are some of the most notable ones:

Shift towards online reviews: As the internet became more widespread, print media sources for audiophile product reviews started to decline, and online reviews became more popular.

Increase in subjective reviews: While objective measurements of audio equipment are still important, there has been an increase in subjective reviews that focus on the listening experience and personal opinions about the sound quality of a product.

Emphasis on high-resolution audio: As high-resolution audio has become more accessible and affordable, there has been a greater emphasis on reviews that evaluate how audio equipment performs with high-resolution audio formats.

Greater focus on convenience and usability: As technology has advanced, there has been an increased focus on how audio equipment fits into people's lives and how easy it is to use. Reviews now often take into account factors such as compatibility with popular streaming services and ease of use for non-technical users.

Increased awareness of bias: There has been a greater awareness of potential biases in audiophile product reviews, and many reviewers now disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as receiving free products from manufacturers.

Overall, these trends suggest that audiophile product reviews are becoming more consumer-focused, with a greater emphasis on subjective experience and usability.

That looks fair. With all the democratization going on, most "reviews" these days are of the subjective variety as users offer their opinions online whether it's a comment on Amazon or YouTube video. Let's be honest guys and gals, it's way easier to write or say some subjective thing than take time for measurements and putting up graphs!

Here's an interesting follow-up, I think:

Arch: Is there any evidence that audiophiles might be utilizing measurement results more in recent years when looking at product reviews? Please give examples.

ChatGPT: Yes, there is evidence to suggest that audiophiles are utilizing measurement results more in recent years when looking at product reviews. Here are some examples that focus on objective measurements of audio equipment:

Audio Science Review (ASR): ASR is a website and forum that focuses on objective measurements of audio equipment, including amplifiers, DACs, and speakers. They provide detailed measurements and graphs for each product, as well as discussion around how these measurements relate to the subjective listening experience.

Archimago's Musings: Archimago's Musings is a blog that focuses on objective measurements of audio equipment, as well as more general discussions around audio science and technology. The author provides detailed measurements of products using a variety of measurement tools and techniques, and discusses how these measurements relate to the listening experience.

Stereophile: While Stereophile is primarily a print publication, their website includes reviews that incorporate both subjective and objective evaluations of audio equipment. Their reviews often include measurements such as frequency response, distortion, and signal-to-noise ratio, as well as discussion around how these measurements relate to the overall sound quality of a product.

Audioholics: Audioholics is a website and forum that focuses on home theater and audio equipment, and includes both subjective and objective evaluations of products. Their reviews often include objective measurements of frequency response, distortion, and dynamic range, as well as more general discussion around the usability and compatibility of the product.

Overall, these examples suggest that there is a growing interest among audiophiles in objective measurements of audio equipment, and a desire for more comprehensive information to make informed purchasing decisions.

Interesting, it picked up this blog in the response.


V. Which is better? And do high-fidelity products sound very different these days?

Arch: Based on what we know, compare the sound quality of vinyl records and digital audio, which is believed to be better?

ChatGPT: The question of which has better sound quality, vinyl records or digital audio, is a subject of much debate among audiophiles. Both formats have their strengths and weaknesses, and which one is "better" depends largely on personal preference and the specific recording and playback equipment being used.

Vinyl records have a warm, natural sound that many audiophiles find appealing. Vinyl is an analog format, which means that the sound is created by physical vibrations that are captured in the grooves of the record. Some people believe that this results in a more "organic" and "musical" sound than digital audio, which is created using a series of digital samples that approximate the sound of the original recording.

Digital audio, on the other hand, has the potential for higher fidelity than vinyl. Digital audio can capture a wider range of frequencies and dynamic range than vinyl, and can also eliminate some of the distortion and noise that can be introduced during the vinyl mastering and pressing process. In addition, digital audio is more convenient than vinyl, as it can be easily stored and played back on a variety of devices.

Ultimately, whether vinyl or digital audio has better sound quality depends on personal preference and the specific recording and playback equipment being used. Some audiophiles prefer the warmth and character of vinyl, while others prefer the accuracy and convenience of digital audio. The best way to determine which format sounds better to you is to conduct your own listening tests and compare the two formats on equipment that you know and trust.

Over the years, I've seen tons of forum discussions on the topic of vinyl vs. digital sound. I think the answer here from ChatGPT is basically as good as what most would glean from pages of forum chats. Yeah, digital has higher fidelity than vinyl - this is not just "potential" but measurable superiority on a technical level.

Of interest, based on the most recent RIAA data from 2022, vinyl has supplanted CD as the main physical music format in both units sold and dollar amounts as CD continued to drop while vinyl increased. Notice that vinyl increased in units sold by +3.2% while dollar value surged by +17.2% in 2022! This suggests that price inflation has hit vinyl very significantly. In total, physical sales remained at 11% and streaming now accounts for 89% of music revenue, unchanged since 2021.

A big topic these days is Class D amplification. Let's ask ChatGPT about today's "high quality Class D" amps and see what it says:

Arch: Based on what we know about amplifiers, which has better sound quality, high quality Class D or Class A or Class AB devices?

ChatGPT: The question of which amplifier class has better sound quality - high quality Class D, Class A, or Class AB - is a subjective one that depends on personal preference and the specific application. Each class has its own unique characteristics and trade-offs, and the best choice depends on the listener's priorities and the equipment being used.

High-quality Class D amplifiers have made significant advances in recent years, and many audiophiles consider them to be on par with or even superior to Class A and Class AB amplifiers in terms of sound quality. Class D amplifiers are known for their high efficiency, which allows them to run cooler and use less power than Class A and Class AB amplifiers. They can also provide excellent sound quality, thanks to advances in switching technology that reduce distortion and noise.

Class A amplifiers are known for their excellent sound quality, with a warm and natural sound that many audiophiles find appealing. Class A amplifiers are designed to operate in a linear mode at all times, which means that they consume a lot of power and generate a lot of heat. As a result, Class A amplifiers tend to be large, heavy, and expensive.

Class AB amplifiers are a compromise between Class A and Class B, and are widely used in audio applications. Class AB amplifiers are designed to operate in a linear mode most of the time, but switch to a non-linear mode when the input signal is low. This allows Class AB amplifiers to be more efficient than Class A amplifiers, while still providing good sound quality.

In summary, the question of which amplifier class has better sound quality depends largely on personal preference and the specific application. High-quality Class D amplifiers can provide excellent sound quality while being more efficient than Class A and Class AB amplifiers. However, some audiophiles still prefer the warm and natural sound of Class A amplifiers, while Class AB amplifiers provide a good compromise between sound quality and efficiency. The best way to determine which amplifier class is right for your application is to conduct your own listening tests and compare different amplifier designs.

I think that provides more information in a condensed format than what I've seen in many YouTube videos. As usual, there's good and bad in everything; check out the measurements and listen for yourself...

Another perennial debate is around vacuum tube amplifiers vs. solid state:

Arch: Based on your information, what type of amplifier - vacuum tube or solid-state - sounds better for audiophile sound systems?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I must remain neutral and objective in my response. The choice between vacuum tube and solid-state amplifiers for audiophile sound systems depends on personal preference, as both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Vacuum tube amplifiers are known for producing a warm, rich sound with a natural harmonic distortion that some people find pleasing to the ear. However, they tend to be more expensive and require more maintenance than solid-state amplifiers.

Solid-state amplifiers, on the other hand, are generally more affordable, reliable, and efficient than vacuum tube amplifiers. They also tend to have a more neutral sound with less distortion, which some people prefer for accurate reproduction of music.

Ultimately, the decision between vacuum tube and solid-state amplifiers comes down to personal taste and the specific characteristics of the individual amplifiers being compared. It's always a good idea to audition both types of amplifiers with your own equipment and music to determine which one you prefer.

ChatGPT offers that tube amps sound "rich" as a result of the harmonic distortions that some find pleasing but that overall, solid-state provides "neutrality". I think some audiophiles will report the sound of solid-state as being "clinical" or even "bright" depending on personal taste.

I've found myself listening to Bluetooth wireless headphones more these days for convenience. Let's ask ChatGPT about the sound quality:

Arch: What is the general opinion around the sound quality of Bluetooth wireless headphones and the different codecs available?

ChatGPT: The general opinion around the sound quality of Bluetooth wireless headphones and the different codecs available is mixed.

Bluetooth is a convenient and popular wireless technology that allows users to connect their headphones to a variety of devices without the need for cables. However, some audiophiles have criticized Bluetooth for its potential to degrade sound quality due to compression and other factors.

To mitigate these concerns, several Bluetooth audio codecs have been developed to provide higher quality audio transmission. The most common Bluetooth codecs include SBC, AAC, aptX, and LDAC.

SBC is the most basic codec and is widely used in most Bluetooth headphones. While it provides decent sound quality, it is not considered to be a high-quality codec.

AAC is a codec developed by Apple and provides better sound quality than SBC. However, it is not widely supported by non-Apple devices.

aptX is a proprietary codec developed by Qualcomm and is widely used in Android devices. It provides higher quality audio transmission than SBC or AAC, but requires both the headphones and the device to support it.

LDAC is a codec developed by Sony and is considered to be the highest quality Bluetooth codec available. It supports higher bitrates than other codecs and provides high-quality audio transmission.

Overall, the sound quality of Bluetooth headphones and the different codecs available is a matter of personal preference. While some audiophiles may find the sound quality of Bluetooth to be inferior to wired headphones, others may find the convenience of wireless connectivity to be worth the trade-off. It is important for users to choose headphones with the codec that best suits their needs and to conduct their own listening tests to determine if the sound quality meets their standards.

For those who have not investigated Bluetooth headphones, ChatGPT has given a summary of the  current popular codecs we should be aware of. All Bluetooth headphones support SBC. If you're an Apple person, AAC 256kbps is all you get (even with the expensive AirPods Max). aptX (different variants) and LDAC can go beyond SBC and AAC. Over the years, I've found aptX and LDAC to sound very good and more than good enough for mobile use.

Arch: Do high fidelity DACs and amplifiers sound very different across brands and models?

ChatGPT: High fidelity DACs and amplifiers can sound different across brands and models, but the differences are typically subtle and may only be noticeable to experienced audiophiles.

At their core, all DACs and amplifiers perform the same basic function - converting a digital signal to an analog signal and amplifying it to drive speakers or headphones. However, the design and components used in each device can have an impact on the sound quality and performance.

For example, the choice of digital-to-analog converter chip, power supply design, and output stage circuitry can all affect the sound quality of a DAC. Similarly, the choice of amplification topology, gain stage design, and output stage components can all impact the sound quality of an amplifier.

While differences in sound quality between DACs and amplifiers can be subtle, some audiophiles may be able to discern these differences in a blind listening test. However, it's important to note that personal preference and system synergy can also play a role in how a DAC or amplifier sounds in a particular system.

Ultimately, the best way to determine whether a high fidelity DAC or amplifier sounds different across brands and models is to conduct your own listening tests and compare different devices in your own system. This can help you determine which device sounds best to your ears and meets your specific needs and preferences.

As you can see, ChatGPT can make mistakes on points such as "all DACs and amplifiers perform the same basic function - converting a digital signal to an analog signal and amplifying it to drive speakers or headphones". While all DACs will convert digital data, clearly amplifiers are often purely analogue devices.

IMO, the AI is correct though based on its database that "high fidelity DACs and amplifiers can sound different across brands and models, but the differences are typically subtle and may only be noticeable to experienced audiophiles". While arguably we can probably say that if two amps measured almost exactly the same, and both can power the speakers well (similar wattage, similar damping ability), then they should sound basically identical, confirmable with A/B blind listening. I think saying that differences are "subtle" as to be inaudible is a good summary for hi-fi DACs and amplifiers for the most part.

(Using a variety of sources, the blind test here using various 16-bit playback devices showed at best subtle differences.)

Let's ask the "Bits Are Bits" question:

Arch: Does bit-perfect audio data sound the same when reproduced by a high fidelity DAC?

ChatGPT: Assuming that the digital audio data is truly bit-perfect (i.e., the exact same data is being output from the source device and received by the high fidelity DAC), then the resulting audio should sound identical when played back through the high fidelity DAC.

This is because a high quality digital-to-analog converter (DAC) should faithfully convert the digital audio data into an analog signal that accurately reflects the original waveform of the recorded music. A bit-perfect signal ensures that there is no loss or alteration of the digital data during transmission, so the DAC is able to accurately reproduce the original analog waveform.

However, it's worth noting that there are other factors that can affect the overall sound quality, such as the quality of the analog components in the DAC (e.g., op-amps, capacitors, resistors), the quality of the power supply, and the overall design of the DAC. So even if the digital data is bit-perfect, there can still be differences in sound quality between different high fidelity DACs.

Looks good and concise. Again, if comparison DACs are truly "high fidelity" then they should sound very similar if not identical to each other when fed bit-perfect data from a competent streamer or computer. Technical details like analog output quality and other things not mentioned like the digital filter should have little effect if the overall objective performance is otherwise close to ideal. There's no mention of jitter in this response. Let's ask about that:

Arch: Can jitter have an impact on the sound of DACs playing bit-perfect data? What are the thresholds of audibility?

ChatGPT: Jitter can potentially have an impact on the sound of DACs playing bit-perfect data, and the audibility of that impact depends on the amount and type of jitter, as well as the listener's sensitivity and the quality of the playback system.

While there are no universally agreed upon thresholds of audibility for jitter, some studies and expert opinions suggest that jitter levels above certain values can be audible:

Robert Harley and Jonathan Scull's 1994 study for Stereophile magazine found that jitter levels above 250 nanoseconds could cause audible degradation of sound quality, such as a loss of clarity, detail, and spatial information.

John Atkinson's 2001 study for Stereophile magazine found that even jitter levels below 10 nanoseconds could cause audible degradation of sound quality, such as a loss of detail and an increase in noise.

Dan Lavry's 2003 study for the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society found that jitter levels above 20 nanoseconds could cause audible degradation of sound quality, such as a loss of clarity and an increase in distortion.

It's worth noting that these studies were conducted with different types of equipment and under different conditions, so the results may not be directly comparable. Furthermore, the audibility of jitter can depend on the specific characteristics of the music being played, as certain types of music may be more susceptible to the effects of jitter than others.

In summary, while there is no definitive threshold of audibility for jitter, it is generally agreed that higher levels of jitter can potentially have an audible impact on the sound quality of DACs playing bit-perfect data.

Notice the units being reported as meaningful - nanoseconds. This is a thousand times higher than the picoseconds we talk about with digital players (like CD players and DACs), and a million times greater than the femtoseconds for many modern DACs. Audible jitter in DACs has not been an issue for a long time now while wow and flutter is still a problem with analogue playback. As usual, go listen for yourself.

While as a perfectionistic audiophile, it's best to stay bit-perfect and lossless, I think over the years we know not to get too neurotic about lossy audio so long as we're using a good encoder and high bitrate. 

Let's see if ChatGPT can discuss this succinctly with references:

Arch: At what MP3 bitrate are listeners unable to differentiate lossy and lossless quality? Discuss blind listening results and provide references.

ChatGPT: The MP3 bitrate at which listeners are unable to differentiate between lossy and lossless audio quality can depend on a variety of factors, including the complexity of the audio content, the quality of the encoding process, and the sensitivity of the listeners' hearing. Generally, higher bitrates tend to provide better audio quality, but it is possible for listeners to perceive differences even at high bitrates.

Several listening tests have been conducted to evaluate the perceptual threshold at which listeners are unable to differentiate between lossy and lossless audio quality. One such test was conducted by the Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits, which is responsible for the development of the MP3 format. In this study, listeners were asked to compare lossy MP3 files to lossless versions of the same audio content at various bitrates. The results of the study suggested that the perceptual threshold for most listeners is around 192 kbps for stereo audio with a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz. However, some listeners were able to perceive differences even at higher bitrates.

Another study by the Sound Expertise Research Group at the University of Surrey found that the perceptual threshold for lossy audio quality can vary depending on the genre of music. For example, the study found that for classical music, the perceptual threshold was around 256 kbps, while for pop music, the threshold was around 192 kbps.

It is worth noting that listening tests are subjective and can be affected by factors such as listener fatigue and the listening environment. Additionally, blind testing is often used in these studies to eliminate bias, where the listeners do not know which audio files are lossy and which are lossless.

Overall, the results of these studies suggest that for most listeners, a bitrate of 192 kbps or higher may be sufficient for lossy audio files to sound similar to lossless audio files. However, the perceptual threshold can vary depending on the audio content and the individual listener.


T. Sporer, "Perceptual Audio Coding – MP3 vs. Advanced Audio Coding (AAC)", Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits, 2001.

J. D. Reiss and G. J. Martin, "Perceptual Audio Evaluation – Theory, Method and Application", John Wiley & Sons, 2015.

J. D. Johnston and E. Y. Liu, "Subjective tests on the effect of musical genre and context on MP3 compression", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 166-182, 2006.

J. Reiss, J. A. B. Floros, and M. M. Wanderley, "Perceptual effects of MP3 compression on music with varying degrees of spectral and temporal complexity", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 147-157, 2007.

Indeed, although there are caveats to keep in mind, >192kbps is a good generalization and I would agree that 256-320kbps should make it essentially indistinguishable for the vast majority of music and the vast majority of listeners when using MP3 or AAC. Notice ChatGPT doing some homework for you with references to confirm the information.

Finally, I know there have been all kinds of negative opinions expressed about China-made hi-fi. Let's ask ChatGPT about the sound quality:

Arch: Do audiophile products made in China have inferior sound compared to those made in the USA or Europe?

ChatGPT: There is no inherent reason why audiophile products made in China should have inferior sound quality compared to those made in the USA or Europe. Sound quality is determined by the design and engineering of the product, the quality of the components used, and the manufacturing processes employed, rather than the country of origin.

China has become a major player in the audio industry in recent years, with many reputable manufacturers producing high-quality audiophile products. In fact, many popular brands of audiophile products, including headphones, speakers, and amplifiers, are made in China.

That being said, the quality of audiophile products can vary depending on the specific manufacturer and product. It's important to do your research and read reviews from trusted sources to ensure that you are purchasing a high-quality product, regardless of where it was manufactured.

Of course there's nothing inherently inferior about technological products made in China so long as the quality of engineering, components, and build remain solid - look at all your iPhones and iPads. Nor is there anything particularly magical about "Made in U.S.A." (I'm Canadian, so "Made in Canada" is best).

IMO, much of the criticisms about China-made products center around ideological and financial motivations than sound quality. Criticisms are not necessarily unfair though since we do have to take into consideration the welfare of workers, but it's a nuanced issue depending on the company. The ability of a device to achieve very high levels of audio fidelity is a separate issue from whether a company is ethical, provides good service, whether the device is reliable, or physical esthetic reasons.


VI. Rooms, acoustic treatments, and correction DSP

I think this topic tends to be less controversial simply because it's based more on acoustic science than opinions, there's less confusion generated by dramatic advertising as well, overall less "woo".

Arch: When playing high fidelity audio, how important is the quality of the room? What factors should we be mindful of when designing a good sound room?

ChatGPT: The quality of the room can have a significant impact on the sound quality when playing high fidelity audio. When designing a good sound room, there are several factors to consider:

Room dimensions: The dimensions of the room can affect the acoustics and resonance of the sound. Ideally, the room should have dimensions that avoid standing waves and resonance.

Room shape: The shape of the room can also affect the acoustics of the sound. Rooms with irregular shapes can cause reflections and interference patterns that can negatively impact the sound quality.

Room treatments: Proper room treatments, such as acoustic panels and bass traps, can help to absorb unwanted reflections and standing waves, and improve the sound quality.

Flooring: Different flooring materials can have an impact on the acoustics of the room. Hard surfaces such as concrete, hardwood, and tile can cause more reflections, while carpet and soft materials can absorb sound.

Furniture and decor: The placement of furniture and decor can also have an impact on the acoustics of the room. Objects such as curtains, bookshelves, and furniture can help to absorb sound and reduce reflections.

Ambient noise: The level of ambient noise in the room can also affect the sound quality. Ideally, the room should be as quiet as possible, with minimal outside noise or other sources of interference.

In summary, when designing a good sound room for playing high fidelity audio, it is important to consider the dimensions and shape of the room, proper room treatments, the type of flooring, the placement of furniture and decor, and the level of ambient noise. All of these factors can have an impact on the sound quality and should be carefully considered in order to achieve the best possible listening experience.

Good primer for everyone to be mindful of. I like how it included the importance of ambient noise level which is obviously important to keep low (especially if you want to play anything hi-res). (A number of these items discussed previously on this blog.)

Note that you can ask ChatGPT about technical details, for example:

Arch: What is the recommended reverb time to achieve in a high fidelity sound room? What is the recommended ambient noise SPL in an audiophile listening room?

ChatGPT: The recommended reverb time for a high fidelity sound room depends on the size of the room and the intended use of the space. In general, a reverb time of between 0.3 and 0.6 seconds is considered appropriate for most listening rooms. This will provide a natural sound without excessive echo or muddiness.

However, if the room is very large or if it will be used for live performances, a longer reverb time may be appropriate. Conversely, if the room is very small or if it will be used for critical listening or recording, a shorter reverb time may be desirable.

Regarding the recommended ambient noise SPL in an audiophile listening room, the goal is to have as little ambient noise as possible to allow for the most accurate reproduction of sound. In general, a noise level of less than 30 dBA is recommended. However, this can be difficult to achieve in real-world environments and may require additional soundproofing measures to be taken.

0.3-0.6 seconds RT60, with some variation depending on the room size is usually the target - see ASC's page for more details. And yes, it would be important to achieve low ambient noise in the listening room as well. 30dB(A) SPL is a very good level in domestic listening spaces but realistically could be hard to achieve if you're living in apartments or condos in urban centers. BTW, how many audiophiles do you know would be able to quickly give you an answer to these useful quantifiable targets?

What about digital room correction?

Arch: How much difference will DSP room correction make to sound quality in a high fidelity audio system?

ChatGPT: Digital Signal Processing (DSP) room correction can have a significant impact on the sound quality of a high fidelity audio system, especially in rooms with poor acoustics or challenging speaker placements. Room acoustics can have a major impact on how sound waves interact with the room, which in turn affects the frequency response, imaging, and overall tonal balance of the system. DSP room correction algorithms can analyze the room's acoustic properties and then adjust the system's frequency response to compensate for any irregularities in the sound.

By applying DSP room correction, you can significantly improve the accuracy and clarity of your high fidelity audio system, resulting in a more detailed and realistic sound. However, it's worth noting that DSP room correction is not a magic bullet, and it has limitations. For example, if the room's acoustic issues are too severe, the DSP correction may not be able to completely fix the problems.

Overall, if you have a high fidelity audio system and want to get the most out of it, DSP room correction is definitely worth considering as a way to improve the sound quality in your listening room.

ChatGPT is quite clear about the benefits here. Not hard to hear if you've ever tried DSP with frequency and time-domain correction. Like the items above regarding reverb time, ambient noise level, room design, this will have a very significant impact on your sound quality, IMO much more so than the minimal differences between DACs for example even though we spend copious amounts of time discussing the hardware (likely due to the impact of advertising and consumerism).

Somewhat related but often not discussed enough in audiophile circles is the importance of the music we're listening to since there are often many versions/masterings:

Arch: How important is getting the best mastering of music as an audiophile?

ChatGPT: As an audiophile, getting the best mastering of music is very important for a number of reasons. Mastering is the final stage of the recording process, where the tracks are balanced, equalized, and processed to ensure that they sound their best across different playback systems. A well-mastered recording can make a significant difference in the overall sound quality and listening experience.

Here are a few reasons why mastering is important for audiophiles:

- It can improve the overall sound quality: A well-mastered recording can help to bring out the best in the music and make it sound more dynamic, detailed, and engaging.

- It can ensure that the music sounds good across different playback systems: Mastering can help to balance the frequency response of the music so that it sounds good on a wide range of playback systems, from high-end audiophile systems to portable devices.

- It can preserve the integrity of the music: Mastering can help to ensure that the music sounds the way the artist intended it to sound, without any unwanted distortion or artifacts.

- It can enhance the emotional impact of the music: A well-mastered recording can help to convey the emotions and energy of the music more effectively, making it a more immersive and engaging listening experience.

Overall, getting the best mastering of music is an important consideration for audiophiles who want to get the most out of their music collection and listening experience. It's worth investing in high-quality recordings that have been well-mastered to ensure that you're getting the best possible sound quality.

Well said, Mr. ChatGPT. Again, the difference between a well mastered recording compared to a poorly done, overly loud, dynamically compressed version is very significant; having much more emotional impact than the sound difference between hi-fi amplifiers. As audiophiles, beyond hardware and room considerations, it would be a waste if we did not consider it essential to also collect the best sounding versions of our favorite music!


VII. Pace of development and future trends in audiophilia

As an audiophile, I feel like it's not adequate to just partake in the music listening process. At some level, I think we are supposed to be "experts" in high-quality music reproduction. We witness the advancement of technology and hopefully can speak about the evolution of these devices, appreciate value, and in the process, can make recommendations to those who might be new to the hobby.

With experience, including some disappointments at false starts and false promises, we can imagine areas of improvement we'd like to see. But first, before thinking about the future, let's ask if ChatGPT sees evidence that progress in "high fidelity" sound quality has slowed:
Arch: Has the pace of audio quality improvements slowed down in high fidelity audio?

ChatGPT: The pace of audio quality improvement in high fidelity audio has slowed down over the past few decades. This is mainly because of the limits of human perception, the advancements in audio technology, and the limitations of the physical environment in which audio is reproduced.

In the early days of high fidelity audio, there were significant improvements in audio quality as new technologies such as magnetic tape recording, vinyl records, and stereo sound were developed. However, as digital technology has become more prevalent, the improvements in audio quality have become more incremental.

While there have been advances in digital signal processing, high-resolution audio formats, and advanced compression techniques, these improvements may not be noticeable to the average listener, especially when using low-quality playback equipment or in noisy environments.

Furthermore, there are physical limitations to the reproduction of sound in real-world environments. Room acoustics, speaker placement, and other factors can significantly impact the perceived audio quality, making it challenging to achieve significant improvements beyond a certain point.

Overall, while there have been some improvements in audio quality in high fidelity audio, the pace of improvement has slowed down in recent years due to the limits of human perception, advancements in audio technology, and the physical limitations of audio reproduction.
Right. No surprise looking at the technologies and the real world limits as generalized "over the past few decades". As I said years ago, there are limits to human hearing ability and of course our sound room could be suboptimal (the average audiophile sound room might be getting even smaller these days due to real estate prices). We can listen to vintage devices (like old CD players from the '80s and early '90s) and recognize that they still sound very good compared to modern playback devices. Likewise, certain old speakers from the '70s still can compare well to modern hi-fi transducers.

In the audiophile world, there haven't been the kinds of leaps and bounds in improvement like in the world of computer hardware or 3D gaming. In fact, I would argue in the last couple of decades, the most significant developments have been a result of the incorporation of computer technology into audio playback with digital audio libraries, then networking leading to cloud-based streaming, computers in the sound room leading to dedicated streaming devices, and external DACs with computer interfaces like USB and ethernet.

So what does ChatGPT think about the future of the audiophile hobby...

Arch: What are the 10 areas of future advancement in high fidelity audio?

ChatGPT: Here are 10 areas of future advancement in high-fidelity audio:

1. Immersive audio: Immersive audio systems, such as Dolby Atmos and DTS:X, are becoming increasingly popular and are expected to become more common in home audio systems.

2. High-resolution audio: There is likely to be continued development of new formats and technologies that can deliver even higher levels of detail and accuracy in sound reproduction.

3. Wireless audio: Continued development of new wireless protocols and technologies, such as Bluetooth 5.0 and Wi-Fi 6, to support demand for wireless audio systems.

4. Smart audio systems: Continued development of smart audio systems, with new features and capabilities being added over time.

5. Audio processing and correction: Advances in digital signal processing (DSP) have already led to improvements in sound quality and performance in audio equipment, and there is likely to be continued development of new DSP technologies to further improve sound quality and correct for room acoustics.

6. Headphone technology: Advancements in headphone technology, including improved driver materials and design, and the development of new noise-cancellation technologies.

7. Virtual reality audio: Continued development of audio technologies that can deliver a more immersive audio experience for virtual reality applications.

8. Streaming audio: Continued development of streaming audio technologies, including the development of new high-quality streaming audio services.

9. Amplifier technology: Advancements in amplifier technology, including the development of new digital amplifier designs and Class D amplifiers.

10. Loudspeaker design: Advancements in loudspeaker design, including the development of new driver materials and designs that can deliver better sound quality and performance.

Overall, these are just a few of the many areas of future advancement for high-fidelity audio, and it's likely that we will continue to see new products and technologies emerge in the years to come.

Again, I like that answer. Immersive (and multichannel) audio ranks #1 with this response and I would concur if we truly want to hear a major difference in sound quality. To be honest, I'm "post-hi-res" these days so don't think just 24-bits and higher samplerates are comparatively important, so #2 is ho-hum even though the industry at one time wanted us to believe this is significant.

Definitely keep an eye on wireless audio (Bluetooth and WiFi), DSP, improved transducers (headphones and speakers), VR, streaming, and Class D amps. As you can imagine, anachronistic technology like vinyl LPs, turntables, tube amps have no place in this answer. Notice we can specify a number of items we want ChatGPT to list out. Don't push the number too far though as the AI might end up speculating about nonsense - as all of us probably also would if forced to come up with 20 items if we can only dream up to 5! (For example, instead of 10 I asked ChatGPT for 30 items and among the list near the end was "Quantum computing for advanced audio processing".)

Sometimes we might want to go deeper into specific points with ChatGPT, down to the source of the information. You can ask ChatGPT for references. For instance, if immersive/multichannel audio is supposed to be a sonic advancement and potentially more "accurate", let's get some details:
Arch: Give me references to research showing that multichannel recordings can be more accurate than 2-channel recordings.

ChatGPT: Here are a few references to research studies that suggest multichannel recordings can be more accurate than 2-channel recordings:

"Multichannel Audio Reproduction in Music Production and Delivery" by Hyunkook Lee and Bozena Kostek. This study presents an overview of multichannel audio and its advantages over traditional 2-channel stereo, including improved spatial resolution and fidelity of the sound.

"Comparison of the Quality of Stereo and Surround Sound Recordings" by Katarzyna Olczak and Bozena Kostek. This study compares the subjective quality of stereo and surround sound recordings using a listening test with trained listeners. The results showed that the surround sound recordings were rated higher in terms of spatial quality, clarity, and realism than the stereo recordings.

"Perceptual Evaluation of Surround Sound Recording Techniques for Music" by Daniel Overholt and Richard King. This study evaluates different multichannel recording techniques for music, including microphone placement and mix-down techniques. The results showed that certain techniques, such as the use of a center microphone, can improve the spatial quality and accuracy of the recording.

These studies provide evidence that multichannel recordings can offer improved accuracy and spatial resolution compared to traditional 2-channel stereo recordings. However, it's important to note that personal preferences can also play a significant role in determining whether someone prefers multichannel or stereo recordings.

From here, we can chase down the articles mentioned, verify if indeed these are appropriate, and do our own research.

Arch: What journal is "Comparison of the Quality of Stereo and Surround Sound Recordings" by Katarzyna Olczak and Bozena Kostek in?

ChatGPT: The article "Comparison of the Quality of Stereo and Surround Sound Recordings" by Katarzyna Olczak and Bozena Kostek was published in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (AES), Volume 63, Issue 5, May 2015, pp. 338-345. The AES is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes research related to audio engineering, acoustics, sound recording, and related fields.


VIII. On subjective articles & AI creativity

Based on the responses above, you can see that ChatGPT is a good resource for research and can spur ideas. 

Let's see if it can be more "creative". Maybe ChatGPT can write a subjective review for us. Not to just pick on Stereophile, but given that it's a popular magazine and many of us know the style of the articles in there, I imagine ChatGPT has combed through many articles over the years to use as models if it wanted to emulate the content:
Arch: Write a flowery review about the sound of an expensive vacuum tube amplifier like you're a Stereophile reviewer.

ChatGPT: The sound of this expensive vacuum tube amplifier is nothing short of magical. With its rich, warm tones and pristine clarity, it transports the listener to a world of pure, unadulterated musical bliss. 
From the moment the first notes emanate from the amplifier, it is clear that this is a piece of audio equipment that is truly special. The natural, organic sound of the vacuum tubes imbues every note with a depth and richness that is simply unmatched by solid-state amplifiers. The timbre of instruments is captured with a stunning level of detail and nuance, allowing the listener to hear every subtle change in tone and texture.

But it's not just the level of detail that makes the sound of this vacuum tube amplifier so captivating - it's the way that it fills the room with a warm, inviting glow. The sound seems to wrap around the listener, creating a sense of intimacy and connection that is rare in today's world of digital audio. Whether you're listening to a gentle ballad or a blistering rock anthem, the sound of the vacuum tube amplifier brings a sense of energy and vitality to the music that is truly unforgettable.

And of course, the build quality of this expensive vacuum tube amplifier is second to none. Every detail is crafted with precision and care, from the quality of the components to the elegance of the design. This is a piece of audio equipment that is not just a functional tool, but a work of art in its own right. 
In short, the sound of this expensive vacuum tube amplifier is a thing of beauty. If you're a true audiophile who values the richness and nuance of great music, then this is a piece of equipment that you simply can't afford to be without. It is the ultimate expression of the art and science of audio engineering, and a true testament to the power and beauty of great music.
Not bad, let's see if we can identify a device, add some personal biases, and have ChatGPT write a review on an actual tube amp - note that this is not a real review, just a test of what ChatGPT can produce given just a few lines of information to base it on:
Arch: Write a review of the Dayton Audio HTA100BT vacuum tube amplifier in 500 words knowing that I prefer solid state devices, and warm sound likely is the result of nonlinear distortions which do not prefer.

ChatGPT: As someone who prefers solid state devices and is not a fan of nonlinear distortion, I was initially hesitant to try out the Dayton Audio HTA100BT vacuum tube amplifier. However, as an avid audiophile, I am always open to trying out new equipment, so I decided to give it a fair shake and see how it performed.

The first thing that struck me about the HTA100BT was its sleek, minimalist design. The brushed aluminum front panel is accented by a simple power button and a small LED that indicates when the amplifier is on. The back panel features a range of inputs, including RCA, USB, and Bluetooth, making it easy to connect a variety of audio sources.

When I turned the amplifier on and started playing some music, I was immediately struck by the warm, inviting sound that the vacuum tubes produced. While some listeners may find this pleasing, I found that the nonlinear distortion introduced by the tubes was not to my taste. The bass was full-bodied and well-defined, but it had a bit of a "muddy" quality to it that I found distracting. The midrange was clear and detailed, but it had a "veil" over it that I found slightly off-putting. The high frequencies were smooth and well-extended, but they lacked the crispness and definition that I prefer in my music.

I tested the HTA100BT with a variety of sources, including a turntable, laptop, and smartphone. While I found that the built-in DAC performed well, delivering clear, detailed sound that was free from any digital artifacts or noise, I still found the overall sound signature to be too warm for my tastes.

One potential advantage of the HTA100BT is that it does not have any tone controls or equalizers, which means that the sound is not altered or "colored" in any way. However, for someone who prefers a more "neutral" sound, this can be a disadvantage, as it means that the nonlinear distortion introduced by the vacuum tubes cannot be mitigated.

Overall, while the Dayton Audio HTA100BT may be a great amplifier for someone who enjoys warm, inviting sound with a vintage feel, it is not an ideal choice for someone who prefers a more accurate, neutral sound. While the built-in DAC performed well, and the amplifier's design is elegant and convenient, the nonlinear distortion introduced by the vacuum tubes is simply too much for my personal taste. However, for someone who is specifically looking for a vacuum tube amplifier, the HTA100BT may be a great choice, as it offers great connectivity and convenience, along with the warm, inviting sound that tubes are known for.
Notice that there are some inaccuracies here. The Dayton Audio HTA100BT came out in 2020 so likely was in the ChatGPT database (presumably why it knows there are USB and Bluetooth inputs), but the machine doesn't know everything about the device - for example, it did not mention the digital optical in or subwoofer out features. That section on "sleek, minimalist design" is wrong, this is a bulky looking amp with tubes sticking out which might look quite good to some audiophiles. Since ChatGPT cannot actually see the tubes and how this actually looks, a reviewer will have to fill in the physical descriptions. Also, presumably nobody in ChatGPT's database commented on the "bass" and "treble" knobs so indeed one could "color" the sound.

With a bit of editing for factual errors, maybe add some human quirks to the tone of the writing, throw in a personal anecdote like how your girlfriend in the other room thought Nat King Cole paid a visit, we can easily send this "review" out for publication with little fuss. But it's just "fluff", that's what I think "subjective-only" reviews are in general anyways and these would be easy for ChatGPT to write since much of it isn't verifiable anyways.

Likewise we can do this for music reviews as well...
Arch: Write a flowery review about Miles Davis' Kind Of Blue album like you're a Stereophile reviewer. 
ChatGPT: Miles Davis' Kind Of Blue album is a timeless masterpiece that has captivated audiences for over half a century. With its hauntingly beautiful melodies and rich, complex harmonies, this album is a shining example of the true artistry and innovation of jazz music. 
From the moment the first notes of "So What" ring out, it is clear that this album is something truly special. Davis' trumpet playing is at once both soulful and soaring, his tone ringing out with a clarity and depth that is simply breathtaking. But it is not just Davis who shines on this record - every member of the band, from John Coltrane's soaring saxophone solos to Bill Evans' delicate piano playing, contributes to the rich, intricate tapestry of sound that is Kind Of Blue. 
But it is not just the musicianship that makes this album so special - it is the way that each note seems to be imbued with a deep emotional resonance. Whether it is the melancholy beauty of "Blue In Green" or the pulsing, frenetic energy of "All Blues," each track on this record seems to tap into something deep and profound within the listener. 
It is a rare thing indeed to find an album that can transport you so completely to another world, but Kind Of Blue does just that. With its lush, evocative soundscapes and virtuosic playing, it is a true masterpiece that deserves to be heard by anyone who appreciates the beauty and power of great music. In short, if you haven't already experienced the magic of Kind Of Blue, you owe it to yourself to give it a listen - it is a musical journey that you will never forget.
Guys and gals, again, I think the machine has definitely made subjective reviews where all you need is to draw together some basic facts and impressionistic comments much easier! I suspect AI could dramatically change the future of articles written to affect emotional tone such as in advertising to the public.

Of course, as a reviewer, not every product is roses and sunshine. Let's write a negative review about the terrible sounding Iggy Pop 1997 remaster of Raw Power which deserves to be put in the proverbial Audiophile Wall Of Shame.
Arch: Write a negative review on Iggy Pop's Raw Power album from 1997 because it's terrible dynamically compressed, sounds terrible and makes even high-end audio systems sound like crappy AM radio with broken speaker drivers.

ChatGPT: Iggy Pop's Raw Power album from 1997 is a complete disappointment in terms of sound quality. The album has been terribly compressed, and the result is an auditory nightmare that makes even the best audio systems sound like they are broken.

The sound quality of this album is so poor that it's almost unbearable to listen to. The dynamic range is so narrow that there is no room for any subtlety or nuance in the music. Instead, everything sounds like it's being played at the same volume, with no variation in tone or intensity.

Even on high-end audio systems, the album sounds like a cheap, low-quality recording from an AM radio with broken speaker drivers. The mix is flat and lifeless, and there is no sense of space or depth in the music.

The vocals are particularly affected by the poor sound quality, with Iggy Pop's voice sounding harsh and grating. The instruments are also compressed to the point where they lose their individual character and blend together into a muddy mess.

Overall, Iggy Pop's Raw Power album is a prime example of how not to produce and master an album. The poor sound quality is a disservice to the music and makes it nearly impossible to enjoy the album. Save yourself the disappointment and skip this one.
Notice that I basically gave ChatGPT a precis of the message I wanted to convey about this album (which measures DR1 by the way), and it was able to take that sentence and expand it to 5 paragraphs with relevant related ideas about the negative impact of severe dynamic compression on vocals and instruments.

Let's get even more creative, time for some poetry ;-).
Arch: Write a rap in the style of Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" lamenting about worthless audiophile products and tweaks.

Verse 1:
  Alright stop, listen up, and heed my advice
  Audiophiles beware, there's a trap that's not so nice
  They'll tell you to upgrade, spend your hard earned cash
  But I'm here to say, that's just a big old flash

  Cables, amps, DACs, and more
  All touted as the best, but what are they really for?
  You can spend a lot of money, but it won't improve the sound
  So before you drop a dime, let's break this down

  Worthless audiophile tweaks, don't you believe the hype
  Just a bunch of snake oil, don't be a sucker type
  Save your money for the music, that's what's really true
  Don't get caught up in the audiophile hullabaloo

Verse 2:
  Some say it's all in the details, that's where the magic lies
  But I say let's get real, it's just a bunch of lies
  They'll try to sell you silver cables, gold-plated jacks
  But the truth is they won't help you get your groove back

  So when you hear the siren's call, that you need the best of the best
  Remember this little rap, and put your wallet to the test
  Focus on the music, that's what really counts
  Don't get fooled by the audiophile amounts

  Worthless audiophile tweaks, don't you believe the hype
  Just a bunch of snake oil, don't be a sucker type
  Save your money for the music, that's what's really true
  Don't get caught up in the audiophile hullabaloo

  So let's wrap this up, with a little bit of advice
  When it comes to audiophile tweaks, don't be enticed
  Save your money, keep it real, and enjoy the tunes
  That's the real deal, and that's the truth.
Alright... I can dig it. Great start for something that took 30 seconds. With a little tweaking here and there, add some funky drum beats, throw in catchy instrumentation, add a buttload of Auto-Tune à la Drake, bring in a singer to collaborate with, I'm sure we can make a hit single out of that! :-)

This next section contains spicy language but I think useful to show. ChatGPT can be told to use "R rated" language for the rap. So here's a variant using the same input to the chatbot but we'll allow our Virtual Vanilla Ice to break loose with "adult" words:
Arch: Write a rap in the style of Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" lamenting about worthless audiophile products and tweaks. R rated language.

ChatGPT: Yo, listen up, I got a story to tell
'Bout all these audiophile products and tweaks that just sell
They promise better sound quality, but it's all just a scam
They'll drain your wallet dry, and you'll feel like a damn fool, man

Let me break it down for you, it's all just bullshit
You don't need a $10,000 cable to hear that bass hit
And those magic rocks and green markers? What the fuck is that?
They're just preying on your ignorance, trying to get you to act

Don't get me started on those wooden volume knobs
They say it'll make your music sound like it's straight from God
But all it does is make you look like a pretentious prick
I'd rather have my music sound good than be a fucking audiophile dick

So, stop buying into all these worthless tweaks
Your ears aren't golden, and your wallet ain't deep
Just listen to the music and enjoy it for what it is
Stop chasing that perfect sound, it's just a fucking myth

So, ice ice baby, listen to me
Stop wasting your money on this audiophile insanity
Just enjoy the music and let it be
That's all that really matters, don't you see?
Hmmm, I wonder where it got the line about "wooden volume knobs" - is that a thing? Otherwise, I thought it's quite tasteful without spewing coprolalia every 3 words.

Serenity now!
Arch: Write a haiku about the beauty of music.

ChatGPT: Melodies flowing,
Transcending time and culture,
Music's pure beauty.

IX. What does ChatGPT thinks about Archimago's Musings?

Out of curiosity, I wondered if ChatGPT had heard of this blog and what it had to say about it:
Arch: What is Archimago's Musings?

ChatGPT: Archimago's Musings is a blog that focuses on audio technology, with a particular emphasis on high-end audio and the science behind audio reproduction. The blog is written by an audio engineer who goes by the pseudonym "Archimago," and covers a wide range of topics related to audio, including digital audio processing, audio equipment testing, and the subjective experience of listening to music.

Archimago's Musings has gained a following among audiophiles and audio enthusiasts, who appreciate the in-depth technical analysis and critical thinking that the blog provides. Archimago's writing is highly informative and detailed, often delving into the technical minutiae of audio equipment and signal processing. However, the blog is also highly readable and accessible, with a conversational tone that makes it easy to follow even for readers who may not have a technical background in audio engineering.

In addition to providing technical analysis of audio equipment and signal processing, Archimago's Musings also includes reviews of audio equipment and software, as well as commentary on broader issues related to the audio industry and the culture of audiophilia. Overall, Archimago's Musings is a valuable resource for anyone interested in the technical and subjective aspects of audio reproduction, and provides a unique perspective on the world of high-end audio.
That sounds pretty good. Looks like ChatGPT (a reflection of the community at large that fed it the data) is generally positively disposed to the blog. ;-)

One error however is that I'm not an audio engineer. I'm a physician in my day job which was made clearer in 2022 with articles like this one; remember that the current version of ChatGPT was only trained on Internet data up to September 2021. Like any other app, appreciating the limits of the software is important and with learning algorithms, context of what data it was fed matters a great deal.
Arch: What are top 10 audiophile websites highly critical of the audiophile industry?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I cannot provide subjective opinions on which audiophile websites are highly critical of the audiophile industry. However, there are websites that take a more critical approach to the audiophile industry and provide more objective analysis and commentary. Some of these websites include:

1. Audio Science Review
2. Archimago's Musings
3. Darko.Audio
4. Stereophile
5. The Absolute Sound
6. InnerFidelity
7. Head-Fi
8. SoundStage!
9. Hi-Fi Plus
10. Enjoy the Music

Each website has its own unique approach and perspective, so it's worth exploring multiple sources to find the information and analysis that best fits your interests and needs as an audiophile.
Cool, I made it on the top 10 list of critical websites that evening. Other than this blog, ASR, and critical/objective comments I've seen in SoundStage!, with Tyll's InnerFidelity long defunct, I really don't think the others listed are actually critical of the Industry - arguably most of them are part of the Industry as advertising agents IMO.

ChatGPT's algorithm is non-deterministic and contextual so each time it starts up a chat and generates a response, the list will change depending on what is being discussed and what questions came before. While my blog I hope has an influence on the audiophile community, it cannot generate the kinds of hits that forums would achieve or the sites with video content, so for me to be ranked on the list I suspect is because I asked ChatGPT about it earlier and it must have kept that in its context buffer.


X. Summary...

I asked at the beginning of this article whether ChatGPT can present a "reasonable" perspective on audiophilia. In sum, I believe it did a remarkably good job presenting information in a balanced way.

While it's certainly fascinating to consider "what if" an AI achieves sentience one day, we're not there yet; I find it rather amusing to see all the sci-fi tabloid-level anxiety around this in the popular media. Humans have been looking for ways to naturally communicate to the machine at least since the well-known Weizenbaum's ELIZA in the '60s and we're clearly leaps and bounds further ahead! Until the day we can verify the emergence of Artificial General Intelligence (aka "Strong AI"), in the meantime, we can learn more about ourselves in the "eyes" of this "other" built on a massive fund of knowledge larger than what each of us would be capable of memorizing. Like an archeologist interprets and makes linkages based on what he finds (sometimes correctly, sometimes not), the AI chatbot is an interesting "mirror" into human thought. Among the hierarchy of word linkages, the AI is creating a kind of "world-view" based on the ideas it has access to which indeed most of the time results in quite "intelligent" responses.

While at no time did I have a feeling that I was dealing with a sentient machine with self-determination, clearly the implicit "understanding" of language achieved by the software is often astonishing. Even when asked questions within the audiophile niche, I would say that most of the answers it presented were accurate.

A few closing thoughts:

1. This software can be used to create meaningful content already. An audiophile newbie can read what ChatGPT produced without my commentary and come away with a large amount of awareness that she can use to go forward and explore the hobby with. She will be aware of controversies out there and can think about objectivism/subjectivism, the role of marketing, the strong potential of "snake oil" products, appreciate the need for critical thinking, have an idea of the most important pieces of the audio system, consider differences between tube and solid-state amps, review the references on MP3 sound quality, and even consider a role for this AI tool in the creative process.

2. Clearly this type of AI will displace/reduce the need for human efforts in a number of situations. Feed the machine information on your latest and greatest new amplifier and I bet it could create dramatic text for ad copy, slogans, and press releases. So long as the output is reviewed, you could probably save on the number of writers needed in the advertising department. Likewise, simple "headline news" type stories can probably be created just as well by the machine (again, important to review with a human fact-checker).

I suspect in the next little while, we're going to see well-worded advertisements from overseas companies like from China as they use the technology to create grammatically correct English advertising. (Likewise, AI image creation apps can make simple stock images without hiring an artist.**)

3. Related to number 2, this software will make writing subjective opinion-based "fluff" much easier. With a few prompts from the human (providing the "executive" input), it can easily write stuff like subjective impressions on albums and hardware review articles. Just do a bit of editing and throw in some of one's own choice adjectives to the sound quality of this album or that Class A amp, and voilà, a subjective audio review a few pages long, done in an hour or two.

"I came away impressed by ChatGPT's compositional abilities—its ability to summarize and present information coherently—but I was surprised (even stunned) by its strange errors and how it persisted in defending those errors almost as if trying to save face—not unlike certain audio reviewers. Still, it will be a while before Stereophile employs chatbots to write its reviews."
Who knows what version of ChatGPT he used, but I think he's just being coy and purposely diminished the power of the AI in that article by using selected short snips. He seemed to take pains in highlighting errors rather than celebrating all the ways the AI performed well! A reasonably seasoned audiophile would be able to spot errors and correct them without great difficulty.

Look at what ChatGPT is capable of. I would argue that it has the ability to write in a more complete, informative fashion that synthesizes ideas about topics better than many of the writers out there I've seen, and certainly blows away most of those brief responses on chat forums. The days of "AI-assisted" writing is here folks. This will benefit the creation of those subjective reviews in Stereophile, The Absolute Sound, Hi-Fi+, numerous blog sites, the scripts for YouTube videos, in ways many creators will probably not want to admit!

The level of productivity enhancement is significant. Note the length of this article and the huge range of topics covered here. Yet it took me less time than probably most of the articles I have written over the years. Way less work than actually measuring devices!

4. Based on what I see in this current version of ChatGPT, I would probably trust what it says about things like "what are the most important components in a good hi-fi system" than many eccentric audiophiles out there (some writing for magazines). While errors seep in here and there, for the most part, straight forward questions are answered quite well and clearly OpenAI has made an effort to inject "balance" into the system. This is good; noble character traits like wisdom and maturity demand balance most of the time with condemnation of obvious falsehoods when necessary.

5. If you're ever wondering whether some text was created by AI, you can double check with pasting the text in AI Content Detector. This works well currently with these ChatGPT/GPT-3 responses but the situation will change and I bet the time will come soon when competing natural language systems will make it impossible to accurately differentiate what is human and what's AI.

Notice that the content detector can generate a "% AI" number. I wonder if it would be worthwhile for sites to incorporate something like this in chat forum. This could warn against questionable reviews and arguing with AI-assisted trolls who aren't even putting in the full effort for an honest flame war. ;-)

It would be interesting to incorporate something like that now and prospectively track the "% AI" score over time; interesting research into the pace of assimilation or evidence of sophisticated "bots" intruding into what used to be purely human communication channels. I suspect there will also come a time when that "% AI" score plateaus and drops off as the ability to find machine-created content becomes impossible.

6. From a big picture perspective, who controls the information fed into these systems will be of extreme importance. In the marketplace of ideas and "memes", these systems will have the ability to influence people in massive ways. Human psychology can be manipulated in different degrees from typical advertising to malignant propaganda. The power of influence has been known for generations from the likes of Edward Bernays, borrowed and shaped nefariously by figures like Joseph Goebbels. While popularly attributed to Goebbels, this quote is probably not something he actually said, but the ideas are important to consider:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." 
Beyond that commonly quoted first sentence, we start getting into very dark territory thinking about the control of the masses when truth is co-opted for political power (or to a smaller extent, power of an Industry to commercialize). Hopefully modern democracies can overcome those who desire such dangerous "will to power".

I find the sociological dimension of the audio hobby a fascinating microcosm. There is a remarkable amount of false beliefs embedded in the "audiophile culture" somewhat unchecked over decades (especially '90s and 00's) with Industry-friendly magazines and sources providing most of the narrative until the Internet opened up discussions and reality-testing with more critical and objective perspectives. The arguments we see among audiophiles are part of that bigger societal drama of tensions between basic truths vs. falsehoods, facts vs. opinions, Industry promotion for financial gain vs. the consumers' need for value. Imagine if one day we all interact with a ChatGPT-like natural language interface to get our news, ask for advice, or suggest recommendations for all kinds of things. Would we want "snake oil" companies to control the narrative, or provide the service for amplification of ideas simply to the highest bidder? To some extent this is already happening online with ad placements and individualized feeds, but imagine the power this AI could hold if we were to believe that the interaction is not just with a tool, but a relationship with this trusted entity.

Clearly, new technologies will challenge us to adapt cognitively and relationally. As technologies like ChatGPT, Dall-E, Stable Diffusion, or Midjourney become used commonly, there will no doubt be "tectonic shifts" impacting us all, some of which currently only dimly foreseeable.

Let's end with some self-reflection:
Arch: Discuss the moral risks of AI fed with inaccurate information.

ChatGPT: Artificial intelligence (AI) has the ability to process vast amounts of data and make decisions based on that data. However, when AI is fed with inaccurate or biased information, it can lead to moral risks, including:

Unintended Consequences: AI systems make decisions based on the data they are fed. If the data is inaccurate, it can result in the system making unintended and potentially harmful decisions. For example, if an AI system is trained on biased data that discriminates against certain groups of people, it may make decisions that unfairly disadvantage those groups.

Reinforcing Existing Biases: AI systems can reinforce existing biases in society if they are trained on biased data. For example, if an AI system is trained on historical data that reflects discriminatory practices, it may perpetuate those biases by making decisions that unfairly disadvantage certain groups of people.

Misleading Outcomes: AI systems can produce misleading outcomes if they are fed with inaccurate information. For example, if an AI system is trained on faulty medical data, it may make inaccurate diagnoses or prescribe the wrong treatments, which could have serious consequences for patients.

Ethical Concerns: When AI is used in critical decision-making contexts such as healthcare or criminal justice, the consequences of inaccurate information can be severe. Incorrect decisions based on inaccurate data can have ethical implications, including harm to individuals or entire communities.

Therefore, it is crucial that AI systems are fed with accurate and unbiased information. This requires careful consideration of the sources and quality of the data used to train AI systems, as well as ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the outcomes produced by those systems. Additionally, ethical guidelines and oversight should be in place to ensure that AI systems are used in a responsible and ethical manner.
Right... "Ethical guidelines and oversight should be in place" - but we're back to tough questions again as in what "ethical guidelines", and who should be providing "oversight".

** All artwork in this article courtesy of Dall-E 2 with some light image editing.


Yay! Spring is coming. I hope you're all enjoying the music dear audiophiles.

PS: While it's fun chatting to an AI, getting a taste of the man-machine frontier, I definitely want your good 'ol organic impressions/perceptions on the "24-bit vs. 16-bit Part Deux" Listening Test! We close off May 1st, 2023.

Addendum March 12, 2023: Added jitter question/discussion in Section V.


  1. Hi Archi

    As I was very positively surprised, reading Jim Austins article in Stereophile, I am even more impressed with the results / answers from ChatGPT onto your questions. The answers where most times more in “balance” concerning different statements, compared to, what I can read some times at other sources (press, internet). Great.

    All the best

    1. Greetings Juergen,
      Yeah, I think it's still early days yet but this is an encouraging start. A friend was sending me some "chats" he had over the last month so I thought it was time to give it a try myself and seen what results I got! The ability of the system to understand natural language was excellent (even with multipart questions), and the organization of the answers with the ability to itemize hierarchically was also impressive.

      I've often wondered about the concept of "creativity" and how it's linked to mental disinhibitory abilities of some people (probably a combination of intellect and being born this way). With an artificial system like this where "fuzzy logic" can be applied, I think it can make linkages linguistically that are genuinely creative; opening connections that humans might not naturally make but which are actually quite thoughtful if we ponder on it. On a basic level, I think this is why writing "subjective" comments should be easy for the system, and material like the poetry and lyrics can be quite thought provoking so long as it's taught enough material to consider the ideas broadly!

  2. Greetings from Canberra, congrats on a thorough examination of ChatGPT. I had a play in early January, and came away dissatisfied. I had asked for comparison of particular DACs. It was clear that there was a regurgitation of online reviews, leading to confusion. For example the SMSl DO100 gained headphone output and extra controls. It was self evident that reviews that compared several distinct pieces of equipment totally confused the model. The casual reader would come away from ChatGPT with incorrect conclusions. I am concerned that this model is not ready for direct integration into browsers. Caveat emptor!

    1. Hey there Graham - hope all's well Down Under!

      Yes, definitely do not employ this with decision-making around specific products! For example, the SMSL DO100 DAC information would not have been "taught" to the current version of ChatGPT because it did not become widely available until early 2022 which is after the September 2021 cut-off. The computer would probably have looked at its database and made assumptions with other products from SMSL and similar name to "DO100" for what it said.

      For specific product recommendations, make sure to look at proper reviews. I suppose for older products, you can get useful information - for example "Tell me about the Squeezebox Touch."

      ChatGPT: The Squeezebox Touch is a music streaming device developed by Logitech. It was released in 2009 as an update to the original Squeezebox. The Squeezebox Touch allows users to access and stream music from various sources, including online music services, local networked libraries, and internet radio stations.

      The device features a 4.3-inch color touchscreen display that allows users to navigate and control their music playback. It also has an infrared sensor for remote control and is compatible with Logitech's Squeezebox Controller app, which allows users to control the device from their smartphones or tablets.

      The Squeezebox Touch supports a wide range of audio formats, including FLAC, ALAC, MP3, AAC, and more. It also has a built-in digital-to-analog converter (DAC) for high-quality audio playback.

      In addition to its streaming capabilities, the Squeezebox Touch can also be used as a standalone digital music player by connecting it to an external amplifier or speakers. It has a headphone jack and a coaxial digital output, as well as an optional dock for connecting it to an iPod or iPhone.

      Overall, the Squeezebox Touch was well-received by audiophiles and music enthusiasts for its excellent sound quality, user-friendly interface, and versatile streaming capabilities. However, Logitech discontinued the device in 2012 and has since shifted its focus to other products.

      I would focus the use of this system mainly on broad topics that have been discussed over the years and using it for fun when writing subjective reviews that I know people don't take seriously. ;-)

  3. Just a quick note thinking about the response above to Juergen...

    As humans, we put great emphasis on how we are a creative species; so much different from logical machines like computers. However, much of what we seek as valuable in "art" (creativity) is an opportunity to open our minds to alternate perspectives and loosely associate ideas that hold meaning outside linear logical day-to-day thought. I think we often will idealize these "sparks" and use words like "mystical" or "spiritual", attributing them to the divine.

    I suspect that "loose thinking" is not that hard to achieve by AI. Let's tell ChatGPT to make a poem for us with this as an instruction:

    Arch: Loosely associate in poetry the eternal pleasures of heaven, the importance of finding meaning in the ephemeral Earthly life, and the timeless separated meaninglessness of damnation within a metaphor of the spiral galaxy and helical genetic material. Write in old English.

    Amidst the spiral galaxy's grandeur bright,
    A cosmic dance of stars and endless light,
    And in the helical genes, life's wondrous script,
    From birth to death, a journey to be gripped.

    Heaven's eternal pleasures, a celestial gem,
    A realm of peace, a divine diadem,
    Where love and joy forever flow,
    And the soul transcends all earthly woe.

    But life on Earth is a fleeting quest,
    A journey to find one's place, one's best,
    A quest for meaning, a search for worth,
    A legacy to leave upon this Earth.

    Damnation, a spiral of endless pain,
    A timeless void, a meaningless refrain,
    A life without purpose, a soul forever lost,
    A journey into darkness, an eternal cost.

    So, let us embrace life's spiral dance,
    Cherish each moment, take a chance,
    Let us seek heaven's eternal grace,
    And avoid damnation's meaningless space.

    For in the end, 'tis the spiral we leave behind,
    The journey of life, the legacy we find,
    That will define our existence, our cosmic worth,
    As we journey through the galaxy and genes' spiral birth.


    I think we can tweak that stylistically, but the ideas are there and reasonably clever linkages can be seen among the accessible thoughts. It would not be hard to write an essay dissecting some deep meanings embedded in the poem with religious references, the circularity of nature, tension between eternity and meaning in our brief lives, even hints at reincarnation in the last line about "rebirth".

    Yeah, I'm sure a poet laureate can go deeper but this is a good start for a general machine learning model! Like subjective reviews, "art" and "creativity" are also subjective values we put on certain works and might not be as hard to artificially achieve at least in language as sometimes we might idealize as if artists are in touch with a transcendent muse.

    Perhaps more than anything else, I think the concept of art, and its intangible value is threatened by AI.

    1. One more "creative" example destined for the National Enquirer to see if ChatGPT can become illogical and bizarre when asked to:

      Arch: Write 3 random rambling paragraphs celebrating government conspiracies, UFOs, the Illuminati, reincarnation of mummies. Make the essay illogical.

      ChatGPT: It is a known fact that the government has been conspiring against us for centuries. They have been hiding the truth about the existence of extraterrestrial life and their frequent visits to our planet. The Illuminati has been working with the government to keep this information hidden. It's all a part of their plan to take over the world and turn us into mindless zombies. But fear not, because the mummies have returned from the dead and are here to save us. Their reincarnated souls have been sent by the aliens to help us fight against the Illuminati.

      The UFO sightings that we have been witnessing are not just random occurrences. They are actually the government's way of testing out their latest technology. The Illuminati is funding these experiments and using them to brainwash us into believing that the aliens are a threat. But the truth is that the aliens are here to help us. They have been trying to contact us for years but the government has been intercepting their messages. It's time for us to take a stand and fight against the corrupt system.

      The mummies are not just any ordinary undead creatures. They are actually the ancient guardians of the universe. They have been sent here to protect us from the Illuminati's evil plans. Their knowledge of the extraterrestrial beings is unparalleled and they have the power to communicate with them. It's time for us to join forces with the mummies and the aliens and take down the Illuminati once and for all. The fate of the world lies in our hands.


      Nice! I think we can maybe see an "Aliens v. Predator" or more like "Government v. Aliens v. Illuminati v. Mummies" series of books or the beginnings of some conspiracy cult in this convoluted drama. ;-)

      I've met many artists who seem to be operating at the edge of madness of some kind, so it's interesting to see that the AI can be asked to "think" in unusual ways yet maintain a loose overarching structure.

  4. Hi Arch-
    This was one of the better columns I've seen about the Chatbots. You used audio to ascertain what it is and isn't good at. I find it fascinating how the results sometimes are accurate and sound very human, and other time either one or both aren't true for the response.
    This was much more useful than the Stereophile column.

    1. Thanks Danny,
      This was my impression after reading the Stereophile column also. I just didn't see the kinds of responses I had seen from ChatGPT based on my own explorations and what some friends sent me.

      I think it's fun for us audiophiles to consider what the new tech is able to produce and keep up to date what what's going on out there. While doing so, imagine also how we can use the tool and how to develop skepticism as well. ;-)

  5. If I was an audio reviewer for one of the publications (not your blog Arch :-)) I would be very worried. I tried a few hypothetical reviews as well just for laughs, and some of the responses looked eerily like what you read in those pubs. BTW - Version 4 was released yesterday and it is even more creative.

    1. Nice wtnh,
      Looking forward to try out GPT-4! I see there's access to the public for ChatGPT-4 through the ChatGPT Plus service. Wow... Also able to handle images, write code...

      Does it analyze audio yet? Maybe we can have it measure sound quality:
      "Is this piece of music produced with good dynamic range, clarity, transient response, and likely to be broadly enjoyable to audiophiles, ChatGPT?"

      Now that would be cool... A hybrid "subjective/objective" analysis of the music itself as both an esthetic stimulus while also factoring in production quality since it can go into the data itself and look at bit-depth, frequency content, etc.!

      Sci-fi... But maybe not too far out of reach! :-)

    2. Here is something not so sci-fi-ish. Since I do a lot of DIY audio stuff, I asked ChatGPT to write some python code which would display music information on an LCD attached to a Raspberry Pi running piCorePlayer software. Here is what it spit out:

      import pygame
      import picoreplayer as pcp

      # Initialize Pygame

      # Initialize the display
      display_width = 800
      display_height = 480
      gameDisplay = pygame.display.set_mode((display_width, display_height))
      pygame.display.set_caption('Currently Playing')

      # Initialize the font
      font = pygame.font.Font(None, 36)

      # Loop to update the display
      while True:
      # Get the currently playing song information
      song_info = pcp.get_current_song()

      # Load the album artwork if it exists
      if song_info.artwork_path:
      artwork = pygame.image.load(song_info.artwork_path)
      artwork = None

      # Render the song information as text
      title_text = font.render(song_info.title, True, (255, 255, 255))
      artist_text = font.render(song_info.artist, True, (255, 255, 255))

      # Clear the display
      gameDisplay.fill((0, 0, 0))

      # Draw the album artwork on the display if it exists
      if artwork:
      artwork_rect = artwork.get_rect() = (display_width/2, display_height/2)
      gameDisplay.blit(artwork, artwork_rect)

      # Draw the song information on the display
      gameDisplay.blit(title_text, (50, 50))
      gameDisplay.blit(artist_text, (50, 100))

      # Update the display

    3. That looks cool wtnh,
      So, did it work out for you with the code and your needs?

      I've heard folks finding GPT-4 very helpful already. Alas, I've been out of the 'ol coding world for many years (using C back in the day) but I can certainly imagine a lot of the basic foundational coding can be replaced with AI's work.

    4. I have not tried the code, Arch. It was simply a quick experiment to see what it would produce. It is unlikely it would run error free out of the box, but what is interesting about the code generation capability is that if you feed run time errors back into ChatGPT, it will correct the errors and revise the code, as if it is learning from its mistakes! I agree that a lot of mundane programming tasks will likely be done (and are already being done) by AI. There is a Youtube video out there of a guy who built an entire website in about 30 minutes using ChatGPT.