The other day I saw a recent Stereophile "As We See It" article by Ola Björling (one of the magazine's new writers?) - "New Dimensions in Hi-Fi".
One might imagine that an article of that title in an audio magazine with discussion in the text of 3D objects intruding into 2D space (referencing Flatland) and the evolution of audio hardware might at least hint at progress like multichannel audio? Especially now in late 2026 with thousands of albums available in 5.1, 7.1, and Atmos (see Hello Atmos site for available content including streaming titles on Apple Music and Tidal).
[As discussed previously (here, and here), if one truly desires an elevated reproduction of audio in a real-sounding space, one must explore spatial immersion beyond typical 2-channel stereo which has its limits.]
Alas no, this is Stereophile and they're stuck still on the question of how to entice young people to spend money in the "hi-end" 2-channel Industry.
Sadly, there's nothing new being expressed in this commentary and there are no helpful new ideas being offered that we haven't already thought about for years. If that was all, then it would be easy to just move on. However, there are clearly other issues with the article and the mindset of writers like this in the audiophile magazines worth dissecting a little deeper, hopefully in time correcting.
You see, there's a paragraph near the end that I thought was interesting about young people entering the hobby and summarizes what the author is I guess "worried" about. Here's the text (emphasis mine):
"There is, however, one thing I worry about: that too many will be alienated early on. If they seek advice about sound on YouTube and Reddit, as many do, they'll encounter many confident assertions, among them that everything's a scam. They'll hear self-anointed priests of ABX orthodoxy preach that ears are not to be trusted. But let's not get too comfortable on that high horse: We, too, can alienate the young. Being made to sit at our knee, absorb our wisdom, and do things the way we did can disillusion newcomers and send them fleeing toward some other pursuit."
Notice that I highlighted two phrases there.
First, let's talk about a logical fallacy.
You see, when those in the "ABX orthodoxy" (presumably more objective-minded and skeptical audiophiles) suggest to others that we should be using blind listening tests (whether ABX or single/double blind testing), the "orthodoxy" IS actually asking audiophiles to just use their ears!
If we insist that the ears are the instruments best suited for assessing sound quality, then Mr. Björling should be celebrating the use of ABX-listening because blind testing is built on keeping the auditory perception separate from other sources of bias. Sighted listening lets non-auditory inputs leak into the judgement: what the listener sees, the price, the brand, other expectations, by knowing which device is playing.
When audiophiles seeking evidence for sonic preference/quality ask for ABX results, what’s distrusted is perception contaminated by bias, not hearing/listening itself. When the author turns what is actually control for bias into the implication that some “don’t trust their ears”, this rhetoric swaps the real claim for a weaker one that is easier to dismiss. This is a kind of straw man argument that oversimplifies the opponent's position to make it easy to attack. The author subsequently pretending that he has now taken some kind of "high horse" position, as if he is the champion of using his ears! I hope most readers already can easily recognize this presumptuous position as false.
If the author insists on using the word “ears” as if he meant the whole listening experience - sight and expectation included - well, then just say so! Instead of saying something like "trust your ears", I think what Mr. Björling and other purely subjective audiophile writers should be saying is "trust your whole sensory experience" when deciding preference for sound quality. If he said that, then it would be a more honest statement of his position and he can claim that those in the "ABX orthodoxy" is too restrictive in just trusting their ears instead of caring about the pedigree of the product, the genius designer/team behind it, the obviously impressive price tag, and beautiful furniture-grade exterior! There's nothing wrong with embracing the idea that if we love a product, what it represents, sound good to us, and makes us feel happy, then it's subjectively "good" regardless of what anyone says, or what measurements find, right?
Be honest with audiophiles. Blind testing is only threatening to markets where there's the claim that only the sound quality matters, but much of the price premium is not based on technical abilities but rather non-utilitarian functions and esthetics. To writers who service the luxury industry, they need to imply that it's not possible for a "cheap" product 1/10th the price of an amazing looking "high-end" loudspeaker/amp/DAC/streamer/cable to sound just as good - if not better. Of course it's always possible that luxury build does not imply better sound quality as technology improves and quality can be achieved at lower cost.
Secondly, beyond the illogical assertion above, let's consider: Which position may be the better one for young audiophiles to have as they start their journey?
Is it better for young people who love music to learn about the science behind the technologies, know how experiments are conducted with controlling variables, be aware of scientifically useful techniques to document evidence, discover posts/videos suggesting that indeed $2000 speaker cables make no audible difference and certain companies sell snake oil? Or, is it better for them to absorb old "wisdom" from magazines telling them that they should have faith and confidence in certain reviewers who can hear all kinds of differences? That buying expensive computers for streaming is normal? That bits are not bits despite the ubiquity of high-speed streaming and billions of bit-perfect bank account transactions? That it's perfectly normal for companies like Synergistic Research and the high-end cable vendors to be selling their products without ever needing to show evidence of greater benefits beyond sighted testimonies with ever-higher prices?
I have 2 kids, both of them love music, both play instruments, both enjoy listening in my sound room, and both appreciate high quality audio. One of them already has a simple turntable and DAC system I put together using an inexpensive TPA3255 Class D amp I reviewed a few years ago. He already will occasionally borrow my more expensive headphones to listen to audio projects he's working on. In time, once his own career gets going, has his own place, has more disposable income to spend on adult toys, he'll probably enjoy the luxury of having some high quality audio hardware as well.
Young music lovers in time will seek out quality products; I see no reason to be worried. They have access to the music they love in ways I could never have imagined when I was getting into this stuff, and in time, many will realize that quality always matters, just as we have in every older generation! The only worry from the standpoint of a magazine like Stereophile for today I think is that the younger folks might not be choose the traditional luxury brands they represent and might not be falling prey to snake oil as easily. Certainly the latter is not a bad thing, perhaps a refreshing sign of progress.
The main piece of wisdom I hope to impart to my kids is that luxury and prices do not have to correlate. And therefore as consumers, we need to practice diligence to avoid becoming that proverbial "sucker born every minute" attributed to P.T. Barnum (you know... the 'audiophool').
There's absolutely nothing wrong with acquiring luxury items with value, but in some hobbies like audiophilia, there are literally whole sub-industries (like the luxury cable companies, extremely high-priced music servers and DACs, ethernet switches, "audiophile" USB cards, magic fuses, extreme power conditioners, etc.) based on nothing more than irrational hope in a utilitarian outcome that does not objectively exist - the claim that it just "sounds better".
[As with the older generations of audiophiles, the younger generations will also have to negotiate hype and myths targeted for their demographic. For example, the Ojas/Devon Turnbull stuff is a bit anachronistically silly.
Maybe there's still need to figure out the sonic fidelity of vinyl and the positive physicality aspects as the younger generations "rediscover" them and the initial novelty at least.]
To end, speaking of YouTube, questionable audiophile salesmen, and TI TPA3255 amps, I see Danny Richie at GR-Research realized that inexpensive Class D chip amps can sound good (we've known that for years as discussed here, here, here).
He's seemingly hyping the Aiyima A20 Mono amps now (I guess Aiyima is sending him stuff?) and also talking about mods for these - bringing with it his usual questionable crossover parts and connectors beliefs:
Danny deserves some kind of YouTube Influencer Emmy for the presentation dramatics around how amazing he claims to have made the US$120 chip amp box sound! 😕
We see his ongoing evangelization of the benefits of those tube connectors, the horror of distortion from ferromagnetic parts, unsubstantiated op-amp rolling beliefs, and just plain expensive stuff like Sonicaps, again with no evidence of benefit. Basically US$300 bucks for his suggested upgrades to inexpensive Class D switching amps that cost $300 total for a pair!
Of course he doesn't provides measurements - he claims benefits are not in the frequency response, "It's in the time domain" (as he dramatically looks at us in the camera delivered in the Southern drawl), eh? He then tries to illustrate this with some short 16AWG cable varieties that would make no meaningful difference in the audio frequencies anyways.
With a video running time of 30 minutes, at no point did he show any time-domain evidence with his mods and these amps despite the dramatic claims. All we have are statements of what a man in the Senior Games T-shirt believes he hears. There's simply no "tech" in this talk! In fact, nothing more than another chapter in his repertoire of faith-based sermons apparently delivered to parishioners who don't seem to be curious as to why he believes such things based on something he can actually show. Why can't he seem to show results - like phase shifts in audible frequencies - when instruments can measure down to microseconds these days in the time-domain without difficulty?
So it looks like Danny's getting into the world of Chi-Fi modding. Maybe this is the next big up-and-coming money-making scheme! 🤣
Parting music - "Opportunities (Let's Make Lots of Money)" by the Pet Shop Boys:
And for those who enjoy the disco sound, here's some modern 2026 disco - Mister Lonely ft. Systems In Blue - "When Two Hearts Collide": 🕺
Finally, for the U2 fans, they just released the album Carnaval de Luz "Carnival of Light" (2026, average DR7-8 stereo mix, DR12 average in multichannel/Atmos). Here's the duet with Dolly Parton, "Torn", the last song she recorded:
Hope you're having fun and enjoying your music of whatever genre, dear audiophiles!
No comments:
Post a Comment