SUMMER MUSINGS: What could possibly be wrong with the High-End Audiophile Industry?! 🤔 (The supplier side of audiophoolery.)

Alas all good things end including summer, so this will be the last instalment to my "Summer Musings" series for the year. For completeness, since we talked about the "audiophool" consumer hobbyist last time, let's make sure to address the other side of the coin when it comes to audiophile silliness - the supplier - manufacturers, and the media that sell us stuff.

As a pre-emptive comment against sounding like a grumpy old man who doesn't want audiophiles to have fun, let me just say that this commentary is not against "having fun". If fun means enjoying your music, trying out different hardware, exploring the various sounds you can achieve at all kinds of price points, I'm totally on board with that!

However, freedom to do all kinds of things obviously doesn't imply that we shut down our brains and accept that "anything goes!". Many things can be a lot of fun at the time but not good for us, the hangover could be nasty, and regrets more common than we might want to admit. So if there's foolishness when it comes to the Industry itself, let's make sure to think about that and come to terms with it for ourselves.

In the recent post about audiophoolery, Solderdude and Mikhail wrote the following comments:

Solderdude 18 August 2025 at 23:13

I have often wondered how many snake-oil sellers actually believe in what they are selling and are equally 'misguided' by their hearing (they are human after all). Examples could be Paul McClown and Danny.

Some, for sure, are just unscrupulous money grabbers (think Machina Dynamica and absurdly priced cable sellers).

And, oh boy, most audiophools as well as audiophiles usually have plenty of money to spend on their hobby and being human and lacking actual knowledge are very easy to 'hear' things that aren't there just as they are equally fooled by optical illusions.

Some might simply have fallen for the same 'perception effects' and fully believe in what they are selling. Are these sellers also unscrupulous ?

Perhaps only the ones that sell their wares at way too high margins for what it costs to manufacture ?

Mikhail 19 August 2025 at 07:18

Should we start calling this sector of the audio industry "alternative engineering"? If there was Federal Audio Administration they would require putting labels like "Claims not verified by double blind testing" and "This product is not intended to actually improve the sound of your audio system" on their products.

Interesting points. Let's talk about this.

SUMMER MUSINGS: Who/What is an "Audiophool"? (And old quad album mixes.)

Hey guys and gals. This week, I thought it'd be fun to just talk about something that was brought up over at the Audiophile Style forums in this thread "Who or What Is An Audiophool?". Seeing that there were a number of comments already, I figured why not jump in over the past week and engage?

Doing this brought back memories of the early 2010's when I would spend more time on the forums to chat with fellow audiophiles. As you can imagine, over time with work, family life, having fewer questions to ask as I progressed through the hobby, and turning to writing articles here, my time on the forums have significantly been reduced. I'll still pop in once awhile but not like in the early 2010's to read and participate.

So this past week, as you can see from Page 6 of the thread onwards, it was fun to get back into the weeds a bit and liberally engage. Over many pages, we got into quite a few topics including ideas around blind testing, importance (or not depending on whose opinion) of objective measurements, anecdotes, human behaviors, the role reviewers play in the Industry, examples of bizarre pseudo-science, why we enjoy audio as a hobby, JG Holt's interview from 2007, personal values, anti-vaxxers, agreeing to disagree, ASR, website traffic numbers, quotes from Richard Feynman, what is knowledge, etc.

nVidia RTX 5070 Ti GPU - a look at the lowest-priced version. And imagine, relinquishing "lossless" orthodoxy.

Hey everyone, as usual, every once awhile I'll look at other tech than audiophile stuff. In late 2024, I wrote about the nVidia GeForce RTX 4070 Super GPU and mentioned in that article about the upcoming RTX 5070 Ti and some of the expectations I had about this interesting card in comparison to the previous generation. Well, now in 2025, the new generation is here and as you can see above, I've got one to test out.

The box above is the Gigabyte GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Windforce SFF 16GB model which is probably the lowest-priced "MSRP" version of this class of cards; I got one of these at a local dealer. This is similar to the Gigabyte GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Windforce SFF OC (Canada) I see available online at places like Amazon but you'd save some money with a non-OC model if you can find it. (As usual, check out other brands like MSI, ASUS, Zotac, PNY for comparisons and relative deals.)

The only difference between OC and non-OC that I can tell for the Gigabyte Windforce is that this card is obviously not pre-overclock from the factory and I believe software like Afterburner power limits at 100% instead of 110%. Since I really have no desire to overclock GPUs (if anything, I do the "Power Limited Overclock" thing by pushing up GPU/Memory clocks but lower the power limit), I'm willing to stick with stock speed and tweak if I have the inclination.

MUSINGS: Trust, empirical testing, and evidence in the Audiophile hobby. And the Double Blind Test (DBT) strawman argument.

For this post, let's spend a little bit of time thinking about "levels of evidence" in audiophilia. This is important because it helps determine how we gauge the veracity of the articles we read and how we build confidence as we create our own internal models of the topics covered in this hobby.

Inevitably, if we stick around this hobby of audio gear and products long enough, we'll come across the abbreviation 'DBT' - that dreaded Double Blind Test; that seemingly ultimate methodological scientific "gold standard" in human research to tell us whether an intervention or change in our systems actually resulted in a worthwhile difference.

But do audiophiles actually throw around the comment "You need to do a DBT!" very often? Or insist that "I don't believe that unless a DBT proves it!". The answer is 'NO!'- of course not!

Let's start by zooming out a bit and thinking about the very big picture...

High Frame Rate (HFR) movies: time to overcome resistance? Also, on anachronistic nostalgia. And why I rarely go to movie theaters these days.

This week, indulge me in staying a little longer with discussions on the video theme; since I view audio and video technologies as members of the same family, there will be references and detours made about audio in this post.

Although I think 4K is plenty of spatial resolution already for home use (discussed years ago at the advent of UHD BluRays), there is one obvious way to increase the perceived resolution of video playback - improve the "time domain" performance.

While basically everything about motion picture technology has evolved - aspect ratio changes from 4:3 (silent film) to widescreen, frame sizes (35mm various forms, 65/70mm, various digital sensor sizes), B&W to color, higher effective resolution, transition from analog film to digital - isn't it amazing that the cinematic framerate has remained at a mere 24fps, and commonly 180° shutter rule for motion blurring (more geeky testing here)? Since the dawn of the "sound film" in 1926 - almost exactly a century ago! 

High Frame Rate (HFR) movies - movies that were filmed and projected at more than the "cinematic" 24fps - typically 48fps or 60fps - have been simply uncommon for feature presentations to this point. Perhaps reminiscent of multichannel music which had its starts and misses over the decades (eg. 4.0-channel quad back in the '70s), HFR also had a time in the '70s and early '80s when the company Showscan was trying to achieve higher image quality with 65-70mm film at 60fps. But like quadraphonic audio, the technology of the day wasn't really good enough for practical, economical, trouble-free high-fidelity visual reproduction.

Imagine what kind of physical demands would have been necessary for this. Showscan ran the film at 4.68ft/s or 281ft/minute! Clearly a costly endeavor (estimated $2-3M just for the negatives and processing to make a movie back in the '80s) plus imagine the pounds of film to send out to all the theaters, maintenance needs, plus potential damage to the film after a number of runs. How many showings would have been needed for a decent return on investment?!

No surprise then that full-length films were never released in this format. (Here's an interesting brochure from 1990 of their High Impact Cinema prototype, and their 1987 company prospectus.)

Frustration of the Euphonophile Salesman. Audiophile evaluation methods & intentions.

Through February 2025, and with today's third post of the month, I've been exploring the current audiophile culture with videos from contemporary YouTube channels. While never exactly the same among participants, we can see "archetypal" characteristics shared among personalities in this hobby.

We've talked about the technical channel that presented facts but also blurs boundaries into unusual beliefs to make sales and justify products, the subjective-only hobbyist channel willing to do listening tests (great!), and today let's talk about the audiophile who appears to insist on purely subjective-based evaluation, rejects objective measurements, and is a salesman in the Industry.

I'm talking about OCD Hi-Fi Guy who's quite an entertaining fellow. He calls it like he sees it - "no BS" - I can respect that to a point. His name is Mike "Mikey" Powell and he runs a company called 11 Stereo. His followers are known as the "HiFi Tribe" and in the videos, we see promotions of the companies and products that he represents including Playback Designs DACs and Fischer & Fischer speakers, prominently mentioned among others. 

Every once awhile you'll see on my blog a reference to something on his channel that I found entertaining - like this post addressing the interview with Machina Dynamica guy. His use of diction suggests an intelligent fellow but I suspect he comes across a bit "spicy" in his language for many audiophile gentlemen and gentleladies. At other times, some of his viewpoints around politics and towards other cultures might be unpalatable.

If you watch his videos, I think it becomes quite clear that his moniker is inaccurate because he is neither "OCD" (his answers are far from perfectionistic), nor is his philosophy towards audio particularly "Hi-Fi" (high fidelity). Let's have a deeper look at this with a recent video that's entertaining, yet highlights the frustration that I think some salesmen might experience online these days as they try to assert unsubstantiated beliefs.

Do CD and lossless streaming sound the same? A response to ana[dia]log video. And on excessive complications in the audiophile culture.

Today's blog post was inspired by Mister MB in a comment he made on the post last week (about GR-Research, and the hype around passive crossover components):

Hey Arch,

Slightly unrelated, but I thought you'd be interested in this recent video about CDs vs Streaming by Guido of Anadialog:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY8PeMpT2DE

What do you think? ...

Thanks for the link MB. I've come across the ANA[DIA]LOG YouTube channel but admittedly haven't spent much time watching the contents. I certainly appreciate the host, Guido's, passion and energy! I see the content caters more to physical music media, especially tapes and LPs. As you probably know, for me, subjective preferences aside, analog media represent lower-resolution sound; no offence to vinyl/tape lovers, it's just a statement of fact (especially with LP/vinyl) given the much higher resolution capabilities of modern digital ADC and DACs, achieved with less hassle.

Good to hear about the interest around CDs these days. I guess what's old eventually becomes new (maybe even trendy) again at some point after a couple of generations! Although I have a feeling Edison's wax cylinders might have a tougher time staging a comeback. 🙂

Loudspeaker crossover parts and sound quality. (Regarding Danny Richie / GR-Research's claims, of course.)

At the heart of most subjective vs. objective heated audiophile debates is the concern about the ease by which a person can dramatically exaggerate claims about sound quality without controlled listening tests, measurements, or any other higher level of evidence beyond personal testimony.

Without any meaningful repercussions, we can say almost anything, claim we experience almost anything, regardless of whether it's true, misperceived, or intentionally exaggerated for financial gain, status among peers, or other benefits. It is necessary therefore that audiophiles who read, watch, or listen to such comments develop the skills for critical thinking to assess such "testimonies"; acceptance without critical thought is simply blind faith, potentially leading us in directions we regret or might even be unhealthy. (See also the article on the types of "subjectivisms" in audiophilia.)

For this post, let's talk about a topic which has been around awhile but perhaps more notable over the last few years about passive speaker crossovers. In particular, the idea that at times quite expensive parts upgrades make desirable, even "huge" differences toward better sound quality.

Grab a seat, open up a beverage, sit by the fireplace if it's cold outside, and let's think about this stuff for a moment, dear audiophiles...

MUSINGS: Words, worldviews, and the multimodal expansion of AI. [Let's have some fun with generative AI in 2024.]

"If language is as inextricably tied up with consciousness as it seems to be, then the continuing diminishment of our inclination to use it to express in letters the times in which we live could mean that an element of human consciousness itself is on the verge of disappearing."   --- Anonymous

I saw this interesting comment above during my readings across the Internet this past week. I guess it triggered in me some thoughts around writing articles these days with the rise of audience engagement with video, the bold new world of AI "generative" technologies, and trust in the sources we read/listen/watch. In this post, let's just "shoot the breeze" with some meandering musings around these themes and navigate through some complex ideas... 🤓

Years ago, during the heat of the MQA Affair, I talked about writing these blog pages using a pseudonym. That was in response to MQA's issue around anonymity; perhaps they were paranoid that I was an industry player or working for a competitor. These days, in the face of increasingly sophisticated artificial agents roaming the Internet, foreign influences, machine-generated content (including artificially generated audio and video), I think it's quickly becoming old-fashioned to worry about just mere human anonymity having nefarious intent!

Now that my writings have spanned more than a decade, I trust that readers know that I'm actually very much a "real" guy behind the keyboard who's passionate about audio reproduction, sharing my perspectives on the high-fidelity pursuit as an audiophile of the early 21st Century. I have my philosophical views, thoughts on the importance of objective hardware fidelity and adequacy, the importance music itself as the origin of the art we admire and the emotions evoked rather than attributing too much of this to the hardware.

Furthermore, I trust my writings have been internally consistent in presenting my audiophile worldview, built up based on objective fundamentals. Comparatively, I think this is quite different from what we typically read elsewhere coming from most magazine writers. My beliefs are often at odds with the interviews given by Industry experts, and I hope these accumulated articles have been vastly more in-depth than superficial opinions on social media.

Pacific Audio Fest 2024: Part II. [About that MACHINA DYNAMICA, and mental health. 🫣]

PAF'24 - the balcony shot on a Sunday afternoon as things start to wrap up...

So let's continue with the September 6-8, 2024 Pacific Audio Fest show-and-tell (Part I last week) at Seattle. These are my visits to the rooms on Sunday September 8th. You've probably seen from my previous show reports that Sundays tend to be less busy than Fridays and Saturdays. Often this is not a bad day to visit because it means that the crowds are smaller, you'll be able to linger a bit longer to enjoy the music, are more likely to be able to request music, and the reps are easier to access if you have questions (or concerns). It's also a good day to make deals since many rooms would rather sell you the gear than pack stuff up and take home that evening. I know some folks scored some barely used room treatments.

Let's spend some time on Wing 2 of the main floor, and then the larger 2nd Floor "Cascades" rooms to finish off. As with last week, all prices are in US dollars unless specified otherwise.

Part II: Fosi Audio V3 Mono Amp; Class D + PFFB, TI TPA3255 - Retail box with single 48V/10A power supply and filter. [Power, Distortion, and Subjective Impressions.] And on rejoicing over "Solved Problems" in audio.

Gotta love those Nordost-like flat speaker cables from AliExpress. The 90° locking banana connectors are a bit on the large side however. 😉

As we saw last week in Part I, I started reviewing the Fosi Audio V3 Mono amplifier, early August 2024 retail release, in the form of the stereo with 48V/10A power supply kit. We've already had an extensive look externally and inside the device, seen the benefit of PFFB for load invariance as well as discussed a couple of the issues I ran into (inverted polarity and the ground noise with 2 amps connected to one battery).

This time in Part II, let's proceed deeper into the measurements to explore the amount of power this little amplifier can provide, some details on distortion characteristics, and as usual, ending off with subjective impressions and summary of the product.

SUMMER MUSINGS: What are the most important audio components? Domains / dimensions of the audiophile pursuit.

[Available as audio podcast summary.]

The other day, I came upon another common question we run into within the audiophile forum communities. The thread topic on the Steve Hoffman Forums read: "What is more important? The quality of the source devices or the quality of the amp and speakers?"

Among the pages, in response to the question, there was this one listing items as such:

1 (tie). Source material, i.e. the recording, the mix and master, etc.
1 (tie). Speakers
3. Your hearing
4. Analog source playback device
5. Your room
6. Your mood
7 (tie). Digital source playback device
7 (tie). Amplification

A good list to start with! Let's spend some time in this post thinking more about this, adding more details, and broadening it out. Clearly, this (and variants of this) topic is one of those "classic" big-picture questions that demand a more nuanced and complete take. Specifically, let's make sure to contextualize the response with what I believe are relevant dimensions or domains to include.

SUMMER MUSINGS: Defining "subjective" and "objective" audiophile evaluations.

Hey everyone, I thought I'd make a "quick" post in response to this comment in the recent "SUMMER MUSINGS: On the perils of subjective opinions in High-End Audio (dCS v. GoldenSound)" article:

SY 24 July 2024 at 13:07

Could I beg and plead with you to join me in refusing to misuse the term "subjective" to mean "uncontrolled?" Something can be subjective and absolutely valid and rigorous (e.g., subjective reactions made with basic ears-only controls) or subjective and absolutely invalid (e.g., subjective reactions made with peeking, preconceptions, and non-auditory inputs).

Subjective =/= uncontrolled. So much fuzzy thinking has arisen because of that conflation of terms.

Greetings SY,

Sure! I agree with you that "subjective" (when referring to audio hardware reviews specifically) is simply a reference to the form of evaluation and does not imply whether the evaluation is valid or invalid, nor whether controls were applied or not. Certainly some subjective opinions are clearly valid if the difference is obviously detected by the listener. I trust no audiophile worth his street credibility would have difficulty telling the difference between AM mono and FM stereo sound quality for example and will accurately point to the stereo FM playback being of higher fidelity.

Indeed, subjective reviewers listening under controlled conditions also can produce highly valid reports. I hope I have not confounded that over the years. For clarity, let me expand the position in some (pedantic) detail for those who like reading this stuff. 😉

MUSINGS: On Hardware Audiophilia and Wine Tasting.

Across the years of audiophile discussions, we sometimes will see parallels drawn between the world of the oenophile (wine connoisseur) and hardware audiophile. While both pursuits involve a strong subjective component since the ultimate intent is enjoyment, there are also clearly differences when we take the time to compare them. I actually don't think many of the heated debates among audiophiles have meaningful analogues within the wine-tasting world.

Recently, in this thread on Steve Hoffman Forum about "snake oil", J-Flo made a nice comment on this; let's have a look at his post and I'll add my observations and thoughts with some opportunity to expand upon the ideas.

Expensive Audio & Medical Quackery: Mark Levinson promoting Daniel Hertz "C Wave Technology". And the Maria amps. [Including company response.]

[Available as audio podcast summary.]

While perusing news updates the other day over Spring Break on my Google news feed, there was a suggestion to check out this YouTube video of an interview with Mark Levinson; apparently Levinson had something to say about "Let's Fix PCM Audio".

Clearly, this should be a fascinatingly insightful video, right? After all, we have one of the most well-known names in the high-end audio industry, and who doesn't want PCM "fixed" if indeed there is something to be done to improve the experience from decades worth of music!

Boy, was I disappointed by this "iconic" name in the audiophile world... Anyhow, grab a drink, have a seat. Let's talk about the many interconnections between technology, health, consumer psychology, and truth-in-advertising with this name and company.

Cautionary Tale: Audiophile's dream's end... Make sure to find balance, audiophiles.

 I remember a couple of years ago, I saw this YouTube documentary on Ken Fritz:

[Available as audio podcast summary.]

That is certainly an impressive demonstration of dedication and passion poured into the sound room and audio system! Few would have such tenacity, disposable financial resources, or apparent family support. Admittedly, I wondered while watching that video just how well those massive DIY speakers integrated into the room and what measurements would have told us about frequency response and time-domain performance. There's a low resolution frequency response graph here. Yeah, I'm sure the system could play loud with 35,000W* of amplification.

And 2 years later, sadly, the final chapter of the life story was published a few weeks back:

He spent his life building a $1 million stereo. The real cost was unfathomable.

I guess we'll never know exactly how that system sounded like now that everything has been taken apart. What looks like 27 years of labor and $1M original price was dismantled and sold off for $157k total in a comparatively short time. Clearly, neither the family nor the new home buyers had need for the extravagant system in the large room. The dead might at best influence, but cannot declare the will of the living.

Here's a detailed description and list of components. Obviously, audio/music items are generally not investment vehicles unless it's attached to someone very special (like maybe say Hendrix's guitar amp). These things we talk about are for the consumption of music primarily. The non-investable nature of these products is especially true of DIY items given that the quality of such items are unknown even if the bits and pieces like speaker drivers could be from a reputable brand. Over time as components degrade, it could be difficult performing repairs on non-standard builds.

MUSINGS: On YouTube listening tests and the sound of "high-end" vinyl vs. streamed digital playback.

The Internet is wonderful, isn't it?!

In the span of a few decades, we can all make our presence known to the far corners of the world and express (almost) anything we want whether it's sharing what we had for lunch, whether we're "available", our political/moral/ethical affiliations, or even esoteric blog topics. 🤪

Even better, we can project sounds and videos on YouTube and the like, opening up the opportunity to reach others though a modern "boob tube" where instead of the TV station programmer telling us what to watch next, good-ol' YouTube algorithms choose what we might desire from tracked search preferences. Amazing, if not also creepy...

Of course, if we have an entrepreneurial spirit, one could receive great rewards. Monetization potential can be impressive as witnessed by some of the elaborate content on YouTube channels! That's great so long as we're seeing knowledgeable, verifiable content presented in fair ways that can help teach and promote understanding. Not so great when information is perpetuating falsehoods, potentially destructive conspiracies and propaganda.

For this post, let's talk about something we've seen presented over the years on a number of audio channels. There is at least an implied idea out there, thanks to YouTube, we can now "hear" the sound quality of an audiophile system. Furthermore, that we can make comparisons of the sound quality. Is this true?

MUSINGS: Fidelity, Immersion, and Realism (FIR) - Levels of Audiophile Attainment

As we start 2024, let's think about a "big picture" topic. Like with most things in life, I find it useful to think about the overarching philosophy - the "forest" if you will - alongside the details - the "trees" - which is when we get down to measurements and tests of specific products. Hopefully by doing this we can develop a more comprehensive understanding of whatever it might be we're engaged in.

As discussed years ago, I don't think the audiophile hobby is a monolithic entity based on only one core pursuit. In reality, it's a multitude of hobbyist pursuits ranging from the "music lover", to the "hardware audiophile", to subgroups like the "gear hoarder", "LP collector", even "high end (luxury) enthusiast", each of us at varying levels of emotional intensity; even resulting in more "fetishistic" extremes! 🙄

We're not a particularly large group of hobbyists. Sure, there are billions of music lovers out there, but when it comes to guys (mostly) wanting to talk about audiophile hardware, geeky high-fidelity (transparency) reproduction, and things that appear extravagant to the general public, there really are not many of us. It's also hard to know if this hobby is growing, stagnant or diminishing in numbers.

As I look around at magazine reviews and YouTube videos, that idea of stagnation has entered my mind many times over the last few years. Not just wondering about the numbers of audiophiles and whether the hobby is growing, but rather, in what directions are we as hobbyists going forward, if even at all!

Approaching the mid-2020's, are we still in search of "High Fidelity" after all these decades and the multitudes of products? Maybe, maybe not... Let's talk about some ideas which I believe are the goals that audiophiles can aspire to which I've acronymized as FIR - Fidelity, Immersion, and Realism.

MUSINGS: Beyond "High Resolution" recordings. Into "Immersive" and "High Reality" content.

The other day, I was reading this interesting article about someone upgrading his computer gaming gear to the latest and greatest, only to find that it ultimately made no meaningful difference for today's games that he's playing. No surprise? (As discussed a couple months back, I upgraded to the nVidia RTX 4090 but not for gaming.)

As tech hobbyists, it's important not just to be aware of what we could buy, but more importantly, what is it that buying the hardware would achieve.

Human sensory systems are not infinite - whether it's the angular resolution of vision, or how many frames per second we need for gaming before it's no longer noticeable (upper limit I've seen maybe 75fps?). So too, there's only so much audio frequency bandwidth or dBs of dynamic range we need to more than saturate our auditory limits.

To me, it's not good enough to just be fed information from the usual magazines or advertisers or reviewers, it's more important to understand what it is that the technology is able to do and by doing so, we understand what we really need, and have a chance to anticipate what we might be looking for ahead instead of being unduly externally influenced.

In this spirit, let's take some time to consider the road ahead. After all these years, where is progress to come from? Let's think about this...

A Psychoacoustic Rationale for the Subjective Evaluation of Stereophonic Sound Systems by Reviewers and Audiophiles (Ralph Glasgal)

With the discussion of ambiophonics ("ambio") and crosstalk cancellation (XTC) last time, I came across a number of fascinating writings from Ralph Glasgal in the Ambiophonics Facebook group. The one below is one of them I think worth considering that I had not seen before, explicitly written as copyright-free. I've made some mild formatting edits and wording substitutions/additions for clarity as well as emphasis in areas I felt of importance. I trust this mildly edited version retains the full meaning and intent of the original found at the group above. A copy of this has been sent to Mr. Glasgal but I'm not sure if he's reviewing his E-mails or active in audio discussions these days in his 90s.

A Psychoacoustic Rationale for the Subjective Evaluation of Stereophonic Sound Systems by Reviewers and Audiophiles

By Ralph Glasgal, BEP, MSEE, AES, IEEE

glasgal@ambiophonics.org

(original text posted on Facebook - October 15, 2015)

The oft repeated assertion that high end components of stereo systems can only be truly evaluated by listening rather than by measurement or blind A/B testing by listening panels has been argued for decades now. The following text will, I believe, provide a psychoacoustic explanation of why this position is largely correct and not a question of practicing voodoo audio.

Very few audiophiles will want to read what follows since it is rather long, too technical, and not what they are used to reading in Stereophile or The Absolute Sound. But this article is for the record, for discussion forums, and to have it available for future debates. Anybody is free to use or forward this text. It is not copyrighted. Supporting technical references by a variety of authors are available at ambiophonics.org (mirrored).