Horse race is a poor analogy. Whilst there can be differing opinions before the race as no-one knows the winner, after the race there can only be one opinion because there is only one winner and everyone knows which horse (and rider) it is.
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?
- ...
- 108 posts total
More thoughts: I agree with a poster that mentioned that product development is mostly "trial and error." The "Hey, lets try THIS and see what happens" may be a common occurrence. So, it sounds better. Now what? Then the task of objective assignment of cause and effect takes place. I can see several scenarios here when significant a sonic benefit is achieved: 1) They nailed it!! The SQ is there, they are highly confident in their engineering, the science aligns with empirical data and scientifiy community, and there’s a strong concensus in the technical community that something valid just happened. The item get great reviews and glowing technical writeups. 2) They have a pretty good idea what just happened from an engineering perspective, and do their best to describe it, but understand there may be other variables. The possibility also exists that some of their assignment of the "whys" are not correct. White papers are presented, they are met with some pushback. Critics may listen, compare and comment. 3) It sounds awesome, they have no idea why, and are left providing their "best guess" of why it sounds like it sounds. The scientific community’s propellers spin so fast their collegues have grab hold of them to keep them going airborn. The product is widely adopted, gets favorable reviews from those willing to listen. The item is shunned, ridiculed, and mocked by those that can’t attach the correct metric to the outcome. Or, reject the premise of "better sound" altogether. Then, there’s a 4th possibility: - They nailed it! Wonderful sonic improvements across the board. The science is spot on, yet does not agree with some in the scientific community whose education, training and experiences differ. We find ourselves here quite often, in my opinion, where gaps in knowledge bases are unacknowledged. It brings up the question: If the wrong ’why’ is assigned, does it justifiably disqualify the premise that the item has real world sonic benefits? Or, does it just make life more difficult for those producing and marketing the item? Someone, for example, introduces a brilliant speaker with highs so delicate you’re terrified to move your head from side to side in fear you’re going to break something. Their explanation of the ’why’ is: "Compared to the lower-priced models in our line, we’ve found that the symphathetic resonances of genuine zebrawood veneers produce more musically satisfying even order harmonics compared to simulated vinyl materials." Giving the above "technical explanation", should we disqualify the item? Or, just rough up the technical writer a bit, and give them a listen? The correct technical explanation is buried deep in there -- somewhere. They just haven’t found and/or properly communicated it. They could be sitting on a breakthrough product.
|
clearthinkerI think you may be missing the point of my analogy. There is no objective or final measure or determination as to the correctness or incorrectness of the opinions of others as to certain audio issues. |
@chcook, I like the title of your post, especially your comments quoted below. Because I share this 'philosophy'. ---> KISS I don't care too much about (..............). I care how it tastes. If I like it, and the value proposition works for me I purchase it. I will just have to rely on my ears with the helpful advice and experience of others. I fully recognize that this will always come with inherent confirmation bias, but as long as I am enjoying what I hear I can live with that :)
A 'live' example: Right now, I am listening to music from active bookshell speakers (Edifier 1380BD). I am sure, from an 'audiophile's' point of view, there are one million reasons why I should not (even must not) like the sound coming out from these speakers. However, right now, I like it very much. I could switch to my others, more costly stereo setup. And it would sound different (well, most certainly better). But I do not see the reason why to do it. Because for now, I like what I hear. And I do not question the 'why'. I am pleased/happy right now. For my, that is what counts. Because I want to have such moments on the plus side in my life. Certainly, this could be (over)discussed in a separate tread 😉 Greetings to all eagledriver
|
@eagledriver_22 ....*G* Yup.... In the final analysis, at the end of the day... ...is the end of the day. And what made it through it... ;) |
- 108 posts total