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 the skeletal aesthetic looks great to him, he experiences joy and pride in owning them. 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. And definitely don't lie to audiophiles that the 6' $10,000 cable "sounds better" than good quality US$100 generic wire.
Tell me again without exaggeration what has become "better" if an audiophile spent US$12k on this 8"x10" Audio Realignment Technologies 9X pad?
[Related: Here's a great question being asked of some MSB Technology guys who claim that their DACs sound different (better) and to discuss 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? What is your purpose for being on the podcast if not to explain things? Otherwise I think we would not be blamed if we come to the conclusion that you guys got nothin'. 😂
No boys, I don't think "everybody's talking about jitter these days". Hasn't been a major concern for hi-fi audiophiles for years now. Show us otherwise.
The question on digital interfaces (USB, S/PDIF, I²S, etc.) left the MSB boys looking perplexed how best to 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 supported 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-road DAC. And they have more new stuff to sell to you!
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.]
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 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.
 |
| Oooh, what amazing hearing of the soundstage! Good effort boys, but I think that room, for one, needs to be better if you think you're going to hear power cord differences in blind listening! 🤔 |
Much of the content on YouTube and other social media sites seem to be going in this vacuous 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!?]
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.
--------------------
Hi! Thanks Archi for the nice article, maybe I'll quote you somewhere. It's worth it, because stupid audiophiles are probably the majority and their truth ends at the door of their living rooms. Cheers! Jrd
ReplyDeleteOf course, feel free to quote jarda...
DeleteMy hope is that in time audiophiles are able to get back to a more sensible way of looking at things. We should all be passionate about our hobby without losing touch with reality! 😉
"But what if technological progress has reached a point of stagnation?"
ReplyDeleteSmartphones are already there, much less audio electronics.
Yup, Jonathan,
DeleteEventually at some point all technological products reach a point of saturation in satisfying consumer needs. Audio was probably the first of our media technologies to have reached the threshold of human perception. Large screen hi-res TVs already satisfy with 4K - hence 8K is going nowhere. As for smartphones, yeah, we're getting further and further away from when we "needed" to upgrade every couple years.
Beyond the saturation point, manufacturers compete on some of those "non-utilitarian" lifestyle factors like esthetics, "coolness", personalizations, sense of luxury, etc... In "high-end" audio, we're well in that territory.
• “Sounds good to me” reviews are of virtually no value
ReplyDelete• Most of the reviewers on audio websites have few to no journalistic integrity
• Many of the audio sites today have one goal: sell banner ad space. This means that they must promote advertisers with glowing reviews about magical equipment. The system is almost completely corrupt.
• Most of the people writing audio reviews are incredibly ignorant of the science (or lack there of) behind the equipment they audition
Sadly, I think you're correct on all accounts there Jeff.
DeleteSadly, audio magazine and site articles/videos typically are not produced using accurate fact-based journalism principles.
Audiophiles need to remind ourselves of this basic fact. This doesn't mean it's all worthless of course, just that we need to always engage our critical thinking skills.
Hey, Arch, I don’t fault people for not having enough knowledge.
DeleteI do, though, fault them for being so arrogant that they think they have enough knowledge to state poorly researched opinions as fact.
This is bordering on fraud when you’re a douche bag reviewer like Jim Austin or Michael Fremer, but just plain sad when you spout off on AudioScienceReview and turn out to know nothing about the topic you’re posting about.
I bagged on ASR for that reason. It’s a waste of time and energy to educate people who don’t want to learn or just can’t comprehend.
In the age of AI, you can get info about almost anything and get more than you even want with just a prompt. Asking people on ASR for their opinions or just accepting what a reviewer spouts as fact is over.
AI is going to be more correct than most of what you read on line. Of course, your site is one of the exceptions. You actually document what you’re on about.
Most of us didn’t start out chasing gear — we just wanted better sound. Curiosity grows. Obsession grows. That’s normal in any hobby.
ReplyDeleteFor many, it’s not only about fidelity but identity. We enjoy tinkering, upgrading, comparing, collecting, customizing, even chasing “better” when it’s subjective.
And once a hobby grows, commercialization follows. Some products make sense, some don’t — that’s true in every passionate community. The same goes for reviews: some are genuine, but many exist simply to keep traffic moving and the ecosystem alive.
But this mix of curiosity, identity, and even a bit of excess is part of what makes the hobby enjoyable. When you reach a stage all good and that’s it for me you are no longer in that circle.
ST
I suppose ST,
DeleteI just wish not so much of the industry sold snake oil. And surely it would be nice to see the most respected news sources (like mainstream magazines) not perpetuate questionable stuff... 🙁
Well… maybe we should start with the notion that they are no longer truly “respected news sources” but rather influencers (or even industry-adjacent promoters).
DeleteA manufacturer can claim that they made a special single-crystal copper cable capable of transmitting the signal with minimal loss, but they often do not claim that it is audible or distinguishable in listening. Then these influencers give their enthusiastic opinions, and the manufacturers quote those remarks as validation. The cycle feeds itself.
That said, we cannot expect the influencers to be 100% scientifically oriented , if they were, most equipment would show no meaningful difference under normal listening conditions, and few people would bother reading them. Still, as you said, it would be nice if the bigger publications did not help perpetuate so much questionable stuff. Less snake oil all around would be better. 🙁
ST
Ha: "we just wanted better sound". Well well well. What a huge topic isn't it?
DeleteAs always, we should start from defining what 'better sound' is. Is it actually
1. a more true to life sound? (read what I hear resembles what I heard in live music)
We have to assume the audio engineering crew made just a hell of a good job in recording/mixing/mastering the record and that the listener is used to real life music listening in order to be ale to compare things.
2. a more pleasing to the ear sound? (read toe tapping music, PRAT, etc.)
We don't give a sh.. to what hokus pokus has been made by the audio engineering crew. We just like what we hear and that's fine
3. a soundwave closer to the one submitted to our audio system? (read less distorted, whatever that distorsion is)
It means that the work of the audio engineering crew is just out of the equation. What matters is only the influence of the audio system.
Hang on a mo … Did someone listen to a remastered version of an original piece of music? Where is the greatest difference? Some kind of distorsion or the audio characteristics of the remastered material?
On the one side, we have the objectivists who just "listen to (and allegedly hear) distorsion values" and think that we are capable of measuring everything that matters (really? How arrogant are they) and on the other subjectivists who have no clue to anything and are ready to believe in whatever a self proclaimed guru claims. It's all faith and not science. How blind are they)
Subjectivists are somewhat interesting because they say they hear something (whatever it is), objectivists just discard it because they have no measurement to assess the reality of what was told or explanation for it.
I'm a science educated person (objectivist left brain), but also a musician with a trained ear (subjectivist right brain). And believe me, no matter how good a pair of Hypex NC250 amplifier or a TEAC UD501 DA1C can measure, they are just boring and lifeless compared to a (good) integrated class AB amplifier, for which I have no reasonable explanation. The latter makes music, the former combo a (sometimes) little less distorted (measured) sound. Period.
Of course, objectivists object (pardon the pun) that ABX comparison is king. This is certainly true for drug testing. Alas, audition just does not work like that.
Hearing evolved to allow us to recognize sounds (raw similarity to specific learned patterns), not to remember and compare similarities between 2 versions of a given sound/pattern.
And now we're back to square one: is what we are hearing close enough to a known pattern (recognizable?). If we are listening to music, can we abstract from sound patterns and enjoy the melody and all the characteristics of music?
I'l leave the reader to answer that question.
PS: Certainly coherence in points is paramount
A genuinely well-framed post, and I appreciate that you opened by asking us to define 'better sound' before arguing about it — that's exactly the right starting point and something this community too often skips.
DeleteYour three definitions are useful, and I'd argue they're also the source of most audiophile disagreements: people are often arguing about different goals without realising it. Definition 1 (fidelity to live music) and Definition 3 (signal fidelity) are measurable in principle. Definition 2 (pleasing to the ear) is entirely valid but is a preference, not a performance metric — and that distinction matters when we start making claims about which component is 'better.'
Your remastering observation is sharp and often overlooked. The coloration introduced at the source dwarfs what most amplifier stages contribute — which actually makes the case for transparency at the amplifier level stronger, not weaker.
On your central claim — that the Hypex NC250 sounds boring and lifeless compared to a good Class AB integrated — I don't doubt you've heard a difference. But I'd gently challenge the conclusion drawn from it, for a reason you yourself supply: you admit you have no reasonable explanation. In psychoacoustics, an unexplained perceptual difference under sighted listening conditions is a hypothesis, not a finding. The explanation most consistent with the evidence is that the Class AB amplifier is adding something — most likely low-order even harmonic distortion — that reads to trained ears as 'warmth' or 'musicality.' That's a preference for a specific coloration, which is completely legitimate. But it's the opposite of fidelity.
On ABX: I think your critique of the methodology is partially fair — same-track rapid switching does impose artificial memory demands and can fatigue listeners. But your alternative framing — that hearing is about pattern recognition, not comparison — actually argues *for* blind testing, not against it. Recognising whether something sounds 'right' relative to internalised musical memory is exactly what a well-designed listening test probes.
Which brings me to something I tried myself. I ran an informal blind test comparing a Classe Audio amplifier against a Crown XLS — one the kind of 'musical' Class AB design you'd likely favour, the other a pro-audio unit that measures well but carries no audiophile prestige. Rather than same-track A/B switching, I used a different structure: listeners submitted their own favourite tracks, which were played in randomised order, each assigned randomly to one of the two amplifiers. No switching, no direct comparison — just natural listening, with no knowledge of which amplifier was in use.
Listeners could not identify which amplifier was playing at better-than-chance rates. Including the ones with trained ears.
This doesn't prove amplifier differences never exist. But it does suggest that when expectation and visual cues are removed, what felt like a clear and obvious difference becomes statistically invisible. That's not a dismissal of subjectivist experience — it's an invitation to take it seriously enough to test it properly.
You asked for coherence in points. I'd say the most coherent position available to us is this: if a difference is real and repeatable, it should survive modest blinding. If it doesn't, we should at least consider that what we're hearing may be constructed as much by our expectations as by the signal chain.
ST
Thanks for your kind words. Your post is really interesting and just made me wish to add my 2 cents.
DeleteAs to boring sound, some electronic stuff just plays music as mundane sounds, where other add some sort of musical meaning to it which, as a musician is the name of the game for me.
IMHO, the cause is rather related to signal microdynamics (particularly sound attack). Tough to recognize a piano if you tweak the attack of a note via ADSR modulation in a digital synthesizer... But this is a separate topic which is beyond the scope of this post.
I used technology just to illustrate my point. My bad, it was just misleading.
As to ABX (blind recognition of A or B after a (rather short) training, I do not critique the method per se. It is, IMHO, just inadequate to the auditory mechanism. It is like establishing blindly if a voice record is performed by a person you know (A) or by an impersonator (B). In either case, you will recognize this person (A)(recognition pattern, provided the impersonator is skilled enough), but recognizing blindly if what you hear is the person or the impersonator is another story. It is not the purpose of hearing and its evolution. The point of the impersonator is to fool the brain through resemblance of the audio patterns.
Thus, audio tests involving audition should be based on what audition is made for and good at, which is pattern recognition and transient signals analysis.
Interestingly, recognizing the voice of a known person through a telephone is usually a no brainer despite the limitations (the phoneband has purposefully been limited to 300-3000Hz aka the midrange) and I bet the recognition of the impersonator would be more difficult due to less cues for it (band limitation).
Finally, I agree with you that, broadly speaking, psychology plays a major role, especially since it's related to expectations.
FMP
PS: For the fun, I used to listen in the 90s to a pair of speakers with a treble regulation. A friend of mine wanted to better the sound through tweaking the level which we did. Interestingly, the day after his visit, I remembered that I had already disconnected the potentiometer and replaced it by fixed resistors... Really embarassing. Lesson learned
Hej Arch,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the effort you put into this post. I asked Copilot to explain why audiophiles trust snake-oil products, and I was impressed by its response. It was detailed and informative, covering several factors that together offer a plausible explanation for why these products exist and continue to have a market.
Here is the link which is well-worth a read.
https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/JuvRBCrHxfZA7t4FiCSP4
https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/yGD4NxMBLWqoV1XkxWxsn
https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/fvmgxb3N1vp1FPnM3moir
The answers above are certainly familiar to us all but I thought it explained it in a logical structured fashion making it very readable. The text also taught me new concepts I had not encountered before. Bias blind spot and sunk cost fallacy.
Lazy of me but these AI tools are sometimes extraordinarily helpful. Unfortunately, these tools have also been used to create products that are then promoted as original ideas in the search for monetary reward. Several books have won prestigious awards and later been revealed as being partly or completely Ai written.
"The Serpent in the Grove": This short story by Jamir Nazir won the Caribbean regional category for the prestigious Commonwealth Short Story Prize. Shortly after it was published by Granta magazine, readers and AI researchers suspected it was created almost entirely by AI. AI detection software flagged the text with severe warnings, though Nazir has denied using AI.
There are several bands enjoying great success but are entirely AI created. Some will admit to using the technology, but some insist they are “real” despite all the evidence.
https://youtu.be/Dy9pMjiXaqc?si=yYYDjTcnBqRtlq8A
https://youtu.be/EuFT0B63kCM?si=GQDxGxskAlJSWhHs
I hope you had an enjoyable trip to Asia. I enjoyed the articles and it strengthened my desire to go back to Malaysia and Singapore some day soon.
Take care
Cheers, Mike
Hey thanks Mike.
DeleteFascinating changes that we're seeing as AI becomes used increasingly in every way humans can put our imaginations to!
On the one hand, I think there's a good chance that those looking into finding science-based answers will very quickly become more versed in the issues of pure subjective evaluation, limits of human hearing and the psychology of perception as shown by your Copilot links. Excellent summary of the issues! As one who leans more to the "objective" side of audiophile evaluations, I believe AI is a phenomenal asset that is more likely to bias towards the objective side rather than partake in bad speculative fiction when asked straightforward questions about the technology.
As for the "creative" side of arts and music, yeah, most of it is seen as just "entertainment" for the masses. Much of pop and pop-adjacent music is derivative and folks like Max Martin have their own "formulas" already for churning out pop hits for decades. A powerful AI can analyze all the songs of the last 50 years and make something credible and likeable to many. It's inevitable and humans are likely quite predictable when the data is analyzed for themes, group preferences, and societal trends.
I know music listeners who are very open with the fact that in their playlists they have songs they know are AI-generated already and happy to listen to them. Likewise I'm sure one day AI will play a major role in blockbuster movies and hybrid AI-human collaborations will become the norm. Inevitable regardless of the hand wringing.
My worry is the "dumbing down" of students in school as it's much easier to "offload" cognitive demand to ChatGPT and the like... Already happening.
Thanks for the reply, Arch,
ReplyDeleteYour closing link at the end of the comment made for a sad read. The trend it describes has become widespread since digital tools entered the classroom, but a reversal now seems to be taking place in parts of Europe. Several countries are returning to more traditional teaching methods, with renewed emphasis on reading, handwriting, printed books, and sustained written work—the return of the textbook and the mighty pen.
When I attended school in the sixties and seventies, almost all homework outside mathematics required written essays in response to questions. Exams also demanded lengthy written answers. Multiple-choice tests existed, but they were rarely used. By contrast, when my children attended school in Sweden, I was surprised by how frequently multiple-choice exams were used and how seldom students were asked to write essays.
I do not think technology failed because it was inherently bad. I think it failed because it was introduced too early, too broadly, and without enough guardrails. The foundations—handwriting, printed books, deep reading, uninterrupted focus, and structured writing practice—need to be firmly in place before digital tools are widely introduced.
International assessments and reports, including those from PISA, PIRLS, and the OECD, point to several worrying trends:
• Reading comprehension has declined across many Western countries.
• Writing proficiency has weakened, particularly in structure and grammar.
• Vocabulary breadth appears to be shrinking.
• Attention spans seem to be decreasing.
• Critical thinking appears weaker in some areas.
Countries with the highest levels of classroom screen use often appear to show the steepest declines, which strengthens the case for a more cautious and balanced approach.
I am old enough to remember when fountain pens were the only accepted writing instrument at school. Ballpoint pens were banned, while pencils were allowed mainly in mathematics, where mistakes needed to be erased.
Today, I am a fond user of fountain pens and quality paper. I find writing with ink soothing and relaxing, and I have naturally fallen into the rabbit hole of pens and paper. In some ways, it resembles the hi-fi hobby: pens can cost thousands of dollars yet perform the same basic task as a forty-dollar pen. The difference often comes down to how refined you want the pen to look, or whether you feel the need for a gold nib—even though a good steel nib can write just as well.
Cheers!
Hey Mike,
DeleteWhat a great response!
Yes, I too feel saddened by the state of education in many Western nations and I hope some of those changes you're speaking of will spread quickly.
I remember this news item earlier this year - Back to books: Sweden's schools cutting back on digital learning. Yup, foundations need to be built and once the skills are proficiently achieved, then should we be using the technology as a time-saving tool rather than as a replacement thinking tool. For years we've known to not let kids use calculators until basic arithmetics and understanding have been laid down, yet for some reason some schools allow work to be done on phones, tablets, and laptops in the elementary years. No wonder there are concerns about "never-skilling", much less "de-skilling"!
I sit on one of the post-graduate medical education committees here and there have been good debates on this and glad to see decisions to set limits on use of AI tools that might impede physician communications, planning, and thinking skills in their earlier years of training.
Cool interest in those fountain pens! So you're telling me that a diamond-encrusted, gold tipped, $22k Montblanc can be matched by my Papermate's scribblings? 😅
"Some guy doesn't like my objects of conspicuous status-driven consumption? Must be jealous. No other explanation."
ReplyDeleteLOL, yeah something like that Phil. 🤣
DeleteImagine how narcissistic, maybe even paranoid a guy must be if they see criticisms as examples of people being envious of what they have or desire!
Hi Archie,
ReplyDelete"Critical thinking" is dead.
AI just gave the last knock.
Audio is a miniscule part of the problem...
I'm really frightened when I read audio forums members having asked questions to generic AI
Who knows how this plays out Propanidid. In time, I suspect we'll see 2 "classes" of people emerge out of this; those who off-load too much of their cognitive abilities and those who find a level of creative mastery over the tools.
DeleteAs usual, there will be "winners" and "losers" based on creativity and intellectual ability. To the second group I suspect we'll see great things as they collaborate with the AI tools and can impose a vision, direct and delegate tasks.
I try to remain optimistic that most humans have the ability to adapt to challenges...
This is exactly why I always try to separate measurable improvements from marketing hype in the audiophile world. Acoustic treatment can genuinely transform a listening room, improving clarity, imaging, and overall balance in ways that are easy to hear and often easy to measure. On the other hand, products that make extraordinary claims without solid evidence deserve a healthy dose of skepticism.
ReplyDeleteThe discussion around GR-Research and Danny Richie highlights a bigger issue within the hobby: sometimes people become emotionally attached to products, brands, or theories, making objective conversations difficult. At the end of the day, the goal should be enjoying music, not arguing over expensive accessories that may or may not make a difference.
Speaking of entertainment, when I need a break from endless audio debates, I usually switch gears and explore other hobbies online. Recently I came across https://casino-infinity.eu/, which offers a different kind of excitement altogether.
Interesting article and definitely a topic that keeps the audiophile community talking!
Wow what a response! Normally I delete comments like this that looks like advertising - URL to a casino!?
DeleteBut this response looks like the best AI-generated comment advertising thus far with incorporation of the article elements and context! Let's hope most of the Internet doesn't end up looking like more and more of this.
Hi Archimago, thank you very much for your great article. The reduction of skepticism to envy is the most absurd, yet the most revealing part of the high-end audiophile mentality. If they have the mindset to just plainly and honestly discuss performances (as they claim they do), then the conversation should be strictly limited within discussing functions, engineering, and verifiable listening experiences (through A/B blind test, however imperfect that can be). Yet many people are so committed to associating audio gear price tag with wealth and prestige that their reaction against skepticism of expensive gears is that accusation of jealousy! To be honest, I don't think a mind without subconscious obsession with using gears as a vindication wealth and prestige would ever come up with the jealousy claim.
ReplyDeleteI think people have many valid reasons to buy expensive audio gears. For example the good looking chassis, extraordinary engineering, etc. They are all part of the subjective experience of listening to music through gears. But they are subjective, and imposing one's subjective claim on others as if everyone ought to feel the same way arises out of the anxiety about the justification of their consumption behavior, which is tied to their identity.
This is what I really value about the objectivists: not that it "everybody should by equipments with this or that measurement excellence"; but rather that it performs a kind of phenomenological therapy. It tells people to stop being anxious about how good their gears are simply because of the price tag. Thus, it actually enables a better phenomenological experience of anxiety-free, music-focused listening.