Why HiFi Gear Measurements Are Misleading (yes ASR talking to you…)

Love this example. It doesn’t disprove what we might call the "objective" approach, but what it does is

(a) include sensory perception as a valid part of that approach and

(b) preclude over-confidence and overly-quick determinations by "objective" (i.e., mathematical, measured) approaches which judge too quickly what is "real" and what "in our heads."

Cable debates frequently go sour because of this division, but what’s clear to me is NOT that people don’t hear differences but that the differences heard are not yet measurable with the tools and/or metrics available. Skeptics like to call "placebo" on people who hear things, but not everyone who hears something is delusional.

@mastering92 

Long ago, there was proof of collusion between said site admin and now-popular Chi-Fi audio brands (execs and designers) on various forums.

This is a very, very serious accusation. I had not heard it before. @amir_asr might need to defends ASR on that one.

@snilf 

Thanks for your insightful remarks. I really enjoyed reading them.

In particular, the anecdote about umami, and the various factors which enter into how we hear music (including circumstances and mood). Not only is it notoriously hard to describe what we're hearing at any given time, it's also quite difficult to control our attention so that when we listen a second (or third) time, we attend to the same particulars very closely. The mind wanders even when we try to stop it — and when we do try to stop it (e.g. fix it on, say, "that cymbal crash") we are effectively in a different state of mind (we're in a controlling state of mind, not a relaxed one).

This comment bears out for me, as well:

The most important element: quality of the original recording. Number 2: room acoustics. Number 3: speakers. After that, it’s all marginal effects. The debates about power cords, interconnects, even fuses is, well....

The way I understand the situation with many (not all) audiophiles is as follows: They're into the hobby. They want to hear changes and make improvements. But they cannot or will not listen to only well-recorded material (who can blame them) or deal with their room acoustics (practical obstacles or laziness). They also want to gear shop. So, in order to pursue the hobby, they have to exaggerate the differences made in what they can actually change. And that leads to debate of what (most will not admit) are marginal differences — compared to the ones which will really change things.

@falconquest   -- 

Each one of us is therefore unique. We simply will never perceive something, visual, auditory etc. the same way. That is why we cannot agree on "what's best" or what is the best method for determining "best".

I suppose the question becomes how we can ever agree on anything or even converse. My guess is that we are not only brains but creatures sharing a language and a culture. Thus, despite our manifold differences, we find ways to agree and disagree. 

@nyev 

Our subjective sensory experience IS flawed.

I know what you mean. I would use the word "fallible" and "subject to reconsideration when used as the basis for judgments."

Like you, I've made many mistakes in characterizing and evaluating what I was hearing. Talking to others and also just taking more time before judging has been the key for me. But your point is well taken.

The funny thing about the subjective/objective divide is that it's ALL subject to scientific evaluation.

E.g. "burn-in" may be a mechanical phenomenon and measurable with tools we have or it may not yet be measurable.

Or, "burn-in" may be something which happens in the brain/mind of the listener. We certainly lack to the tools to measure brains that precisely, yet.

Or it may not be a phenomenon at all, either objectively or subjectively. But science cannot prove negatives.

If the phenomenon exists, it falls under the remit of science, which will do the best it can, be it physics, psychology, or whatever.

Amir really lives rent free in a lot of heads here.

I don't understand the animus or energy directed against him or his site.

If it's as ludicrous as you think, dismiss it and ignore it. 

If it's credible, at least in part, give some credit where that is due and then explain why it needs to improve.