MUSINGS: On various characters in the audiophile hobby, debates, opinions and the Hearing Test.

Hey everyone, once awhile I'll take a look at stuff YouTube offers me in the feed that might be interesting. I see that in the last few months, there has been this channel called "The HiFi Five" and in Episode 6 (November 19, 2025) they invited Dennis Burger of SoundStage! for a discussion. I found this video actually quite interesting as an illustration of objective/subjective mindsets, biases, and the personality styles that come through in communicating such ideas.

Check this out if you have time for a deeper dive with discussion to follow, related to the contents and characters:

It looks like most episodes feature the 4 regulars + 1 guest. Of the four regulars, I don't really know who Ron Resnick is; I see he's the co-owner/admin of What's Best Forum which I've visited infrequently - clearly an ad-driven audiophile forum with many company-sponsored subfora. Inevitably, if there is investment from Industry, this will affect the tone and content of discussions among moderators and participants. Ron acts as the moderator for these videos. There's Danny Kaey who has been around for awhile, apparently these days representing EMM Labs and the YouTube channel Sonic Flare, but I remember when he gave a talk encouraging adoption of MQA at RMAF'2017. I trust we've all moved on from that nonsense. 😒

Then we have a couple of dealers/sellers Elliot Goldman of Bending Wave USA who sells high-end stuff, and Jay Caceres from Jay's Audio Lab channel who's also a representative of cables, power conditioner products, does consultations, and I guess sells various pre-owned stuff on his website. We've talked about Jay's opinions here over the years (here, here), and I see these days he's building his listening space out in Texas - hope the money invested into this works out for him in this economically volatile time.

Obviously, with the background of these four regular members, one should not be surprised to find viewpoints that would show stronger allegiance to the high-end Industry. If you've spent time with audiophiles of this variant, such as the local dealers or at audio shows talking to sales reps, you're probably going to find one or more of these ideas pop up during discussions and debates:

1. They generally claim that there are a number of unmeasurable audible sound system characteristics: typically things like subjective sound stage, depth, warmth, presence, PRaT, etc. cannot be quantified in their minds. (Obviously many of these are measurable even if they are composite properties of a number of tests as suggested by Dennis Burger when asked about measuring "depth of soundstage".)

2. Ergo, the only 'instrument' they trust that an audiophile needs for system evaluation is their ears. There's a tendency to disparage the use of instruments to measure sound even though it seems that many of them have no direct experience running measurements themselves to really make that statement based on fact.

3. The idea of the Industry or "heroes" of the industry selling snake oil is typically denied - because they claim to hear the differences of course, and that such devices affect the sound system outside the realm of typical physical measurement and analysis. The idea that the Industry might be dishonest in all kinds of ways I guess isn't something they want to openly entertain.

4. Common reasons given for others not hearing what they claim they hear include: others are not experienced enough, their systems are not good enough (often code for the system isn't expensive enough or using the 'best' favored hi-end brands).

5. When asked to discuss a claim that might seem unlikely, often these individuals will show superficial understanding of the science behind audio technologies, psychoacoustics, or I've come across ones who seem literally phobic of even talking about an explanatory model for what they believe!

6. When pressed further, you might see a defensive posture in these individuals as if they literally believe they possess "Golden Ears" and their experiences tower above all else with name-dropping of products they've owned and who they know in the industry over the years. As if mere opinions constitute truth.

7. Eventually they might want to claim that others have not "learned the difference between hearing and listening" - which they apparently have mastered in some way. This kind of implication might then get uncomfortable, and unnecessarily personal because apparently you are lacking this person's skills.

If you watch the video and have read some of my writings, I think you'll appreciate when I say that I'm impressed by Dennis Burger's rational stance on the questions (and challenging postures) he's presented by the others without getting overly defensive and sticking to his position when needed. Well done asking probing, respectful questions when given the opportunity. A wonderful demonstration of how to get the job done as an objective-leaning audiophile without letting immaturity devolve the debate into personal attacks! I love his comment about the irrationality of "audiophile" ethernet switches. (As usual, I'm sticking to the Bits Are Bits story when it comes to basically any half-decent digital gear these days including those switches. 😁)

I was positively surprised by Danny Kaey's position for much of this discussion and I think he's absolutely right that dealers believe in expensive products simply because they make money. Obviously a no-brainer that this is the most likely reason given the self-interest and desire to perpetuate beliefs that lead to sales. It was funny seeing him call Elliot "you're so full of s*it man, it's hilarious". Danny's repeated suggestion for a blind test is also nice to hear! Let's see if this happens in Jay's future sound room. And yes, well done multichannel is better than stereo; it's obvious. 🙂

Probably for most objectivists, the positions held by Jay and Elliot are the most unreasonable even if their positions are absolutely not surprising! I suspect in a heated debate, they would show most or all of those 7 points above that characterize what I see as an extreme, but common, form of audiophile subjectivism, especially when applied to snake oil. It does not help when Elliot states his opinion that "musicians generally and recording engineers are some of the worst hi-fi listeners that I have ever met" (and I guess Danny agrees). Hmmm guys, I really don't think this kind of gross generalization is helpful especially if we want musicians and engineers to do good work - if you can't be part of the solution, at least don't be part of the problem by creating divisions.

One is free to hold opinions and express whatever ideas (within legal boundaries), but it obviously does not look good when one holds on strongly to ideas without reasonable justification in a debate. To say that the discussion of something is "higher above my pay grade" (Jay) might sound honest, but not to show wiggle room or willingness to consider that one is perhaps wrong I don't think speaks well to the viewpoint or one's character. To imply that because a more-objective-leaning person has explanations for what they hear (or not hear) and being educated about the science blinds them to the truth (ie. a false-negative position that there's actually something to hear if they only had an open mind, is a rather anti-intellectually despicable assertion by Jay towards Dennis' position) doesn't work because it's still the objective-leaning folks who are consistently open-minded enough to embrace things like doing blind listening tests to seek answers using methods that control for biases. What kind of "honesty control" does Jay apply when making his listening claims about $100k this or that? The most likely explanation for why Jay hears the effects of speaker risers and stuff like his expensive Critical Mass speaker/component footers is that he wants to believe (like others who "talk their book") and probably would like to make a few bucks off this stuff selling his inventory.

By the way, Elliot claims "to say there is no art in audio... what I'm doing is art" seems silly. Sure, as a dealer, setting up a fancy sound room might include application of the art of interior decoration, but picking out a few components that perform well together at the customer's price point, placing the gear in more-than-likely pretty normal, typical stereo configurations likely with some trial-and-error to optimize sound at the main listening position while listening to music isn't exactly a high level art. The art is primarily in the music itself; the devices operate based on scientific principles, and the room set-up is also mostly explainable by science. While room set-up and component selection will incorporate personal preferences, I would not call making such choices an artistic endeavor.

Finally, it's great to see that Danny Kaey brought up his audiogram result at 17:20. Yeah, with the new AirPods Pro 2 and Pro 3, Apple has added a feature that allows you to measure your hearing threshold similar to the procedure used by an audiometrist. Years ago, I also raised the importance of something basic like the pure-tone audiogram as something that should be a pre-requisite for those who want to review gear and claim to have Golden Ears. This is especially true when we come across articles by older reviewers. If not an audiogram, maybe some kind of certification? 😉

Beyond the Apple ecosystem, if you're like me and use an Android phone primarily, there's also the app Hearing Test which I have found to be excellent! Check out their website. And they have some published journal articles using this app.

Since each headphone will have a different frequency response, calibration data is needed and it's great that many popular headphones have entries in the software's database. They recommend that for best results, use the Sennheiser HD 450BT or Soundcore Life Q30. I used my 1MORE SonoFlow which is a very reasonably priced, enjoyable Bluetooth headphone with LDAC support, and excellent battery life. For this test, I turned noise cancellation off (remove potential DSP effects), listening in my quiet sound room after work later one evening. Since auditory thresholds change based on sound exposure and perhaps fatigue, early in the morning testing looks a little better when I've done it but since it's evening that I usually enjoy music, let's go with this result:

It took around 6 minutes to test both ears between 125Hz to 8kHz. The software can plot the final results with age norms to make sure your hearing is as expected. I had some mild ear infections as a child in my right ear so I'm not surprised by the slight left ear high-frequency superiority. Otherwise, I've avoided attending too many loud concerts. Low-frequency acuity is excellent and the high-frequency is consistent with what one would expect for a guy in the 50's.

There's another hearing test available in the app called the "Digits In Noise" test which assesses the intelligibility of spoken numbers when obscured by background noise. As you can imagine, this is useful to primarily assess speech recognition. I wonder as audiophiles whether this might also be beneficial to ensure that we're able to pick up details in the important mid-range frequencies. I would imagine that "Golden Ears" should be able to excel at this test also.

Here's my curve (tested binaurally) compared to normative data:

The graph's roll-off is well in the green "correct intelligibility" zone rather than in the red "impaired" zone so I'll take that as a having a good ability to discern the voice from background noise. 🙂

I hope serious audiophiles and especially audio reviewers take the time to think about their hearing ability before making claims about this noise anomaly, that distortion, or the other "jitter" issue they ostensibly hear in audio systems. Whether one wins debates on-line with a quick wit or use the most eloquent of arguments, it's meaningless, maybe even a bit pitiful at the end of the day if we do not even understand our own limits. For guys like Elliot Goldman and Jay Caceres who seem to believe they're able to discern unlikely audible differences from all kinds of things (like fancy wires, cable risers, maybe even the ethernet switch!), I certainly hope they can prove to themselves that they're doing well in these basic self-test measurements of hearing. Their results better reflect phenomenal acuity considering what they're claiming!

Nice that they have a music recommendation portion at the end. That can be meaningful for those watching.

And there you have it. An interesting video "debate" showing off various characters and viewpoints we'll run into in the audiophile world. Obviously, I'd be siding with Dennis Burger when it comes to the majority of his comments and in taking on those questions. I think his responses made the most sense as he appreciated human biases, the use of techniques whether it be blinded listening, or measurements to find the answers (also as "sanity checks"), and using science-based understanding to rationally explain phenomena or argue against mystical properties.

I'm looking forward to that blind ethernet switch listening test with Jay's "$375-thousand dollar speaker" 🤣. Clearly, he's too fixated on the money - I do not believe this reflects the spirit of the music-loving rational audiophile. Besides, who cares if a system "measures" $1M if one cannot even be sure that one's hearing isn't objectively crap?

[An extreme subjectivist can complain all they want about guys who measure with dBs, Watts, Volts, Hz, Ω, milliseconds, etc. But they have to realize that the '$' is the worst unit of measurement of sound quality.]

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

Obviously, the big movie out this week is Wicked: For Good (2025, DR8 stereo, DR12 multichannel/Atmos soundtrack). My favorite track from the musical, the sweet "For Good"; a 'good' one for karaoke night maybe... 😏

[While I typically prefer multichannel albums, not the least of which because of less dynamic range compression, unfortunately, here's an example that's inconsistent and many tracks like the first one "Every Day More Wicked" just doesn't sound great. Center vocals are fine through most of the album, but the mix has a disappointingly unfocused, and unbalanced soundstage. IMO, whoever did the mix should go back to the studio and try again.]

The 5-disc Elvis Presley compilation Sunset Boulevard (2025, DR11 average - nice!) features his recordings and rehearsals at the RCA Sunset Boulevard studio which now is the site of the L.A. Film School. Here's "Burning Love (Take 2)", circa 1972:

Hope you're enjoying the music, audiophiles! Happy Thankgiving to our American friends.

Addendum: November 23, 2025

In the discussions below, I was reminded that I have an old audiometry "screen" device here that a grumpy, neuropsychologist at the University gave me a few years back when he retired. I suspect he used it back in the 1980-90's for some research:

It's a Maico MA25 (here's the latest version) audiometer with its power supply and it can be used fully portably with a 9V battery. I see that it has ISO 389 and ANSI S3.6 certification. The left knob selects output level ranging from 0 to 80dBHL at 5dB intervals. The right knob is the frequency knob with standard 250Hz to 8kHz. Buttons are for power, left/right selection, whether the stimulus is a pulsatile tone, and the "Stimulus" button to send the tone. Pretty simple in operation.

Those are some of the most uncomfortable headphones with the rubber ear pads I've ever put on my head ☹️. I guess for sanitary reasons they're easy to clean between subjects. Poor noise isolation so definitely need to be in a quiet room when testing.

One "classic" audiometric headphone BTW is the Beyerdynamic DT-48A which was based on the first dynamic studio headphone released in 1937. I see there are Inner Fidelity measurements of the Beyer DT-48E headphone from 2011.

I played with this for a little bit and I would say the modern Hearing Test app's results using my Bluetooth headphones correlate quite well!