After writing the articles looking at room acoustics over the last month, I thought this would be a good time to discuss another observation about the psychology and culture of the audiophile hobby and some of the claims that people make.
As I noted last time, room treatments like the IKEA Mittzon absorption panels are far from the exciting products highlighted in magazines each month or even popular forum topics commonly discussed. While they do review realistic, non-controversial room treatments once awhile (like this), I would find it shocking if one day I opened an issue of The Absolute Sound and saw an article reviewing the Mittzon panel!
But suppose TAS did review the IKEA Mittzon in another universe, and in there, the reviewer offered this impression:
"... sonically the (IKEA panels) do precisely what they claim to do. Even with the highly effective (components) already in the system, the (IKEA panels) deepen background silence ... allowing everything ... to stand out with higher clarity and contrast, richer color, tighter focus, stronger sock, fuller dimensionality, and more continuous imaging and staging."
Such a description I think would be a fine summary, plausibly describing the objectively verifiable effects that the absorption panels could subjectively change for the reviewer's system. Of course, in this universe, the words quoted above are not about any orthodox room treatment, but from Jonathan Valin's TAS review of US$800-$12,500 Audio Realignment Technologies passive voodoo "electro-magnetic treatment" tweak pads!
The irony is that while all kinds of products like room treatments, IKEA branded or otherwise (like GIK, Primacoustic, ASC, RealTraps, Vicoustic, among others) could very significantly improve the sound of our systems, "we" as in the audiophile community and publications unfortunately say comparatively little about them likely because there's little profit for the Industry to gain on such things that just "work" and audiophiles are in turn likely drawn to more glamorous items. As highlighted recently, even reviewers in major magazines seem to use suboptimal spaces for very expensive products that in real life, one would hope those who buy such things would put more attention into.
As I've "matured" in this hobby starting from my 20's and into my mid-50's now, I have greater respect for audiophiles who put thought into their room treatment efforts than whatever fancy new Wilson Audio speaker or dCS DAC they have. It doesn't take much thought to just buy stuff because someone says it's good. Just as the Audio Realignment Technologies pads have no evidence of benefit beyond Jonathan Valin's mere words or simply because it received the "2025 The Absolute Sound Product Of The Year" and "Editors' Choice" awards touted on their website! 🤣
Are we audiophiles to be impressed by or even at some level be compliant with whatever new thing is being "pushed" on us without evidence?
It's no mystery that the magazines and online "professional" reviewers want us to be impressed by shiny new things because that's their livelihood and unless the money flows, there's no advertising dollars to fund the publications and no salary to draw. Creating hype and maintaining interest is their job. This is all well and good if the products truly are valuable and improve sound quality. But what if technological progress has reached a point of stagnation? What if the technologies are mature and basically these things have become interchangeable commodities?
For example, is the sound from a Chord DAC any different from Linn, or MSB, or dCS, or even an inexpensive Topping when it comes to high-fidelity reproduction in the 2020's? On the objective side, the argument is that highly detailed measurements well beyond human auditory limits, and blind listening tests like this, suggest there is really no difference now between hi-res/hi-fi DACs. This of course does not - cannot - sit well with the luxury "high end" Industry and those who push for product turnover to make their livelihood. This implies that the magazine reviewers and online personalities are now in the business of promoting a narrative that has no evidence beyond individual testimony - in other words, selling fancy toys with very low level evidence of utilitarian value beyond the price tags and psychology of exclusivity.
For some audio writers and personalities, the doubts that objective-leaning audiophiles express about products become transformed into the idea that skepticism is some form of envy and that these doubts are a result of such individuals (myself included in this category, I suppose) trying to "cope" due to latent jealousy towards those who can afford expensive products. We've seen this kind of position from Industry salesmen like John Darko who perhaps has been affected by Michael Lavorgna due to their association. I touched on this theme back in 2015 when Lavorgna was running Stereophile's now eradicated AudioStream site.
Maybe this feeling of envy is a true psychological dynamic for some folks who lust after shiny, expensive things. But does someone like Darko really think this is the primary underlying reason "objectivists" complain about snake oil or luxury products advertised as the latest and greatest sounding thing with basically zero evidence in support of often dramatic claims?
At it's heart, we are talking about critical thinking, a skill which sadly has not been promoted by the mainstream audiophile media for decades. We see audiophiles who have lost the ability to know when they're being lied to. This "cope" claim is just another stab at painting (even demonizing) those who criticize many of the claims in this Industry as just being contrarian and envious people, thus devaluing critical thought further among participants in the audiophile culture. As a result, many representatives have been allowed to perpetuate lies, unchecked and in fact aided by media cheerleaders - so-called "reviewers" and "editors".
As I've said before, luxury does not imply functional superiority. And just because something costs more, also does not imply superior fidelity. I have absolutely no problem with a person who desires to spend US$800k on the new Wilson Audio Autobiography speakers because it looks great to them and they sense pride in owning it. Likewise, I have no issue with one who lusts after an amazing $250k Jaeger-LeCoultre Duometre Heliotourbillon wristwatch or $40k Hermès purse. Just don't lie to me that the Jaeger-LeCoultre tells time better and the Hermès is better at holding 'stuff' than that $50 digital wristwatch and $100 purse.
Tell me again without exaggeration what's "better" if an audiophile spent $12k on the Audio Realignment Technologies 9X pad?
[Related: Here's a great question being asked of some MSB Technology guys who claim that their DAC sounds different and what measurements show evidence for this. They stumble: "I'm not going to go into exact details... In the digital processing section... Even if I explained it... So far over 99.99% of people's heads... Not even worth explaining..."
Are 99.99% of all audiophiles lacking in intellect? Why is this so complicated to answer or show? For an asking price of over US$100k with their higher end models, why not show audiophiles just how high-tech you are and explain something mind-blowing? Otherwise I think we would not be blamed if we come to the conclusion that you guys got nothin'. 😂
The question on digital interfaces (USB, S/PDIF, I²S, etc.) left the MSB boys looking a little uncertain how to best answer. I certainly hope a very expensive MSB DAC basically sounds the same through any of their digital inputs! The only difference really should be features like what sample rates or whether DSD is accepted through them. Why can't these guys just confidently say immediately - "Our $100k DAC is so awesome and is so isolated from noise and other interference that every digital input sounds amazing and beyond your hearing ability. Come buy one now!!!"
Of course we know why they can't say that regardless of asking price. Such a statement would imply an end-of-the-line DAC. And they need to sell you more.
Finally, related to the above is the question of diminishing returns and whether DAC design is hitting a wall resulted in hilarious answers from the MSB guys; go watch for yourself. Sure, of course there's something better than the MSB Sentinel with its US$375k asking price! Supposedly it sounds "wildly better" with just some code changes! Maybe bug fix in their firmware? 🤣
I thought both Doug Schneider and Steven Stone generally did good jobs representing reasonable audiophile reviewers in the portions of the video I watched. Maybe even at some level keeping their composure.]
Audiophiles by nature are passionate about sound quality and as far as I am aware, have always prized high-fidelity sound as the performance target although I acknowledge that we are welcome to deviate from this in the service of individual preferences. If this makes sense to you, then let's make sure to speak honestly when we see "snake oil" and call out hyped up gear based on zero evidence. This is not envy. This is not some kind of aggressive projected coping mechanism resulting in frustrated arguments over forums and the like. It's just speaking truth as (typically) older guys who have already been around the block a few times and know how the world and these technologies work.
[And sure, many of us middle-age and older guys who have been around the block are rich enough to buy these things if we want. The more crucial issue is whether we have answers to the questions of "why bother?" for each device under consideration. 😉]
At some level, I think it's about maturation - surpassing the state of the early naïve audiophile, possessing critical thinking, being self-aware, able to clearly see the benefits and relative values of the toys we choose to spend our time playing with.
--------------------
 |
| [Even if silver cable did make a difference in an audiophile's system (which I have not seen/heard happen), would we honestly think LP-quality playback is the way to perceive such a resolution change if this were a real audiophile making such proclamations? 🤔] |
And the ongoing Danny Richie / GR-Research drama...
As one writing in 2026, it's interesting sometimes to follow the contemporary drama and individuals operating in the current zeitgeist as examples of what I'm getting at with thoughts about the "culture" we're living in.
For example, I see the YouTube theater continues with Danny Richie / GR-Research vs. ASR specifically about the criticisms against his work on Ascend Acoustics speakers. As Danny admits, he doesn't listen to his upgrades. So he basically uses measurements to tell him what he thinks are audible based on numbers, graphs, presumably quantifiable thresholds; that's a very "objectivist" position I suppose. But then in a very "subjectivist" move, he believes his expensive parts make an audible difference (but uses no measurements to point to!); as usual, he worries about ferrous parts, his tube connectors, issues with cheap resistors, etc. I don't see anything new in the >1 hour long video beyond what's discussed here and also the UberBUSS silliness.
His arguments meander all over the place and ultimately circles back to his listening ability and his treated room even though he still doesn't actually listen to his upgrades!
[For completeness, here's Ron/New Record Day's video on the supposed sound difference between using a crossover with high-end parts vs. stock, supposedly audible over YouTube. Hmmm, if it's so audible over YouTube and represent real physical change, why can't these guys just show the measured difference? Again, Danny uses measurements and designs his crossovers just using the graphs without listening! It almost feels like we're being gaslit. 🤣]
Danny Richie's videos can be interesting when he breaks apart and shows us hyped speakers and low-priced stuff that can help demystify what's inside expensive luxury products. But when it comes to his business side of selling questionable crossover upgrades, power tweaks, strange beliefs, and weak methodologies, there's just a lot of unsubstantiated claims and because "I've spent thousands of hours comparing each and every part..." rationale. Really weak thinking, made worse when he calls people who disagree with him "Flat Earthers" - a beautiful but ultimately sad example of failure of self-awareness.
Be careful when doing business with someone holding on to such inconsistent (and at times incoherent) views.
[Just as Danny Richie co-ops science, we're seeing YouTubers try to use science in some of their videos to extend stretches of the imagination by people like Galen Gareis who should know better than to hype up mΩ differences over a few feet. Anyhow, we're seeing videos like this rehashing miniscule differences. Likewise, we learn nothing from such "blind tests" as they are often just another vehicle for marketing stuff to the viewer.
Much of the content on YouTube and other social media sites seem to be going in this direction as we get more and more "slop", whether human-generated or of AI-genesis with little truly new usable information. One can imagine this worsening as it looks like we have passed the threshold now where >50% of web traffic comes from AI agents rather than humans. So Darko - are you sure those 700,000 are humans!?]
 |
| Good effort boys, but I think the room for one needs to be better if you think you're going to hear power cord differences in blind listening! 🤔 |
I hope you're all having a great time listening to music, audiophiles. Beware the allure of the salesmen, especially the supposed charm of the snake oil grifters; longtime rational audiophiles know who they are.
--------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment