Why Are We Breaking Our Brains?


A master sommelier takes a sip of red wine, swishes it around a bit, pauses, ponders, and then announces: “…. It’s from a mountainous region … probably Argentina … Catena Zapata Argentina Malbec 2020.” Another sommelier at a fine eating establishment in a major city is asked: “What would you pair with shrimp?” The sommelier hesitates for a moment then asks the diners: “What shrimp dish are you ordering?” The sommelier knows the pairing depends on whether the shrimp is briny, crisp, sweet, or meaty. Or some other “house specialty” not mentioned here. The sommelier can probably give good examples of $10 wines and bad examples of $100 wines. And why a good $100 wine is worth … one hundred dollars.

Sommeliers do not have a master’s degree in biochemistry. And no one from the scientific world is attempting to humiliate them in public forums for “claiming to know more than a little bit about wines” with no scientific basis to back them up. No one is shouting “confirmation bias” when the “somm” claims that high end wines are better than cheap wines, and well worth the money.

Yet, guys and gals with decades of involvement in high performance audio who claim to “hear differences” in various elements introduced into audio chain are pulled thru a gauntlet of scientific scrutiny, often with a great deal of fanfare and personal invalidation. Why is there not a process for “musical discovery” for seasoned audiophiles, and a certification process? Evaluator: “Okay, I’m going to change something in the system. Tell me what you hear. The options are interconnect upgrade, anti-skate calibration, removal of acoustical materials, or change in bitrate. Choose one.”

How can those with pretty “sensitive antennas” and years of hands (and, ears) on good gear convince the technical world that they are actually qualified to hear what they are hearing?

Why is it viewed as an inferior process for seasoned professionals to just listen, "swish" it around in their brains for a bit, and comment?

128x128waytoomuchstuff

Showing 1 response by jsalerno277

I hope this will not be a second post. I think first time failed.  Apology if it is.
 

I also love your analogy and complement you on starting this provocative thread. I agree with your position.  Herewith, is my prospective. 

 

The education of a sommelier involves not only coursework on wine and tasting theory but practical training comparing types, vintages, and brands to develop an analytical pallet.  Practical training involves tasting standards to develop the pallet-brain database.  The variables that may impact taste, and ultimately developing an analytical pallet, such as storage, age, decanting, temperature, etc. are controlled to the best degree possible during training.

 Audiophile training involves developing an analytical ear-brain database using the absolute sound of live performances.  The standard has many more uncontrolled variables.  I am sure you have sat in different seats in your favorite venue where acoustics were different.  Therefore, the standard is subjective than that used to train a sommelier.  Perhaps, a recording musician has the advantage since this situation controls the variables and if sound is manipulated for purpose, the effect is known.  However, most of us have not had that experience.   That said, a professional audiophile journalist or us hobbyists do use controlled experimental techniques when comparing components to each other.  We can, successfully, as a sommelier, train our connection to discern differences in designs, brands, etc.  We can accurately characterize a component compared to another component under the controlled experimental conditions in real time that we use.  We should not be criticized for doing this.   We fall short and should be criticized when we attempt to adamantly convince others that a component sounds more like absolute sound since this cannot be a well-controlled objective experimental observation. It involves subjective impressions of our individual ear-brain connection of a variable standard (absolute sound) we heard in the past.  We can give our subjective observations on approaching absolute sound, but they should be couched as such. We should rationalize our position with contextual examples.  This is the hard part of our hobby. Finally,  we should not be criticized for presenting counterpoint or rebuttal  if done correctly.