Audiophiles

[Julf]

I came across and old but still amusing article called "Golden Ears and Meter Readers - The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia" by Marc Perlman in "Social Studies in Science", October 2004 vol. 34 no. 5.

Abstract

Scientific claims to knowledge and the uses of technological artifacts are both inherently contestable, but both are not usually contested together. Consumers of ‘specialty’ audio equipment (known as the ‘high end’), however, connect both forms of resistance. These ‘audiophiles’ construct their own universe of meaning around their equipment; they cultivate a distinctive vocabulary and set of attitudes. In this they resemble other groups of users dedicated to supposedly antiquated technology. But they also engage in controversy to defend themselves against knowledge-claims that would delegitimize their universe of meaning. These debates concern recording formats or media (the relative merits of the compact disk [CD] and long-playing record [LP]), user ‘tweaks’ of purchased equipment, and the supposed audibility of differences between different brands of amplifiers, cables, or CD players. In all of these cases, audiophiles resist the claims of audio engineering by privileging their personal experiences, and they argue against scientific methodologies that seem to expose those experiences as illusory. Some of these patterns of epistemic contestation resemble those in non-musical domains (such as biomedicine). But audiophiles also make epistemic use of values crucial to their identity as music-lovers. They appeal to a common understanding of music as an exemplary locus of subjectivity, emotion, and self-surrender, in order to ward off the criticisms directed at them from a science they construe as objective, detached, and dispassionate

Sounds familiar?

[prufrock]

Sounds like a good thread to me.

[prufrock]

The Wikipedia page for "Audiophile" has this section in it.

"Controversies

There is substantial controversy on the subject of audiophile components; many have asserted that the occasionally high cost produces no measurable improvement in audio reproduction. For example, skeptic James Randi, through his foundation, has offered a prize of $1 million to anyone who can demonstrate that $7,250 audio cables "are any better than ordinary audio cables".[12] In 2008, audio reviewer Michael Fremer attempted to claim the prize, and said that Randi declined the challenge.[13] Randi said that the cable manufacturer Pear was the one who withdrew.[14]
Criticisms usually focus on claims around so-called "tweaks" and accessories beyond the core source, amplification, and speaker products. Examples of these accessories include speaker cables, component interconnects, stones, cones, CD markers, and power cables or conditioners.[15][16]
There is disagreement on how equipment testing should be conducted and as to its utility. Audiophile publications frequently describe differences in quality which are not detected by standard audio system measurements and double blind testing, claiming that music contains elements which cannot be measured by electronic instruments[17], but without providing an explanation for those claims."

So how has this situation arisen? Why is an "Audiophile" now frequently looked upon as a figure of fun?

[orgel]

So how has this situation arisen? Why is an "Audiophile" now frequently looked upon as a figure of fun?

Certainly one part of it is that we tend to fetishize the gear. From the audiophile's perspective, this is understandable and not that uncommon. After all, people do it with musical instruments, cameras, cars, computers. But from the outside looking in (I'm thinking of some audiophiles' spouses I know well), it just seems like bizarre (not to say batshit) behavior, barely distinguishable from that of any other kind of fetishist.

--David

[jhwalker]

Audiophile publications frequently describe differences in quality which are not detected by standard audio system measurements and double blind testing, claiming that music contains elements which cannot be measured by electronic instruments[17], but without providing an explanation for those claims."

So how has this situation arisen? Why is an "Audiophile" now frequently looked upon as a figure of fun?

I think the last sentence quoted sums it up perfectly. "Audiophiles" make a lot of claims that cannot be measured and do not stand up to blind testing. This automatically puts them into the category of "pseudoscience" or even "woo" for skeptics, no different from homeopathy, belief in Bigfoot, etc. The fact that audiophiles spend so much money chasing these ephemera makes them the subject of pity and / or scorn.

Before anyone goes ballistic, I must admit I include myself in the "audiophile" class, at least compared to 99% of the population. I have replaced the USB cable between my Mini and my DAC with a more expensive one, and have upgraded my RCA cables with more expensive alternatives, feeling that the small additional amount I spent would perhaps yield "better" performance across these components. To date, though, I haven't heard / noticed any improvements, and I suspect even these minimal upgrades were, in the final analysis, not necessary. In fact, I've recently gone back to my original USB cable, given some apparent signal transmission errors I'm getting with the Wireworld.

So I continue to believe that if the signal gets from one end to the other with minimal distortion / interruption, the output will be just fine. In the future, I'd rather spend my money on "upgrades" that clearly *can* make a difference: DACs with better chips, code, and jitter reduction, amplifiers with better / cleaner output and, especially, better speakers (and room interaction modifications). I feel these are where I will get the most "bang for the buck".

[prufrock]

My Pocket Oxford 1969 defines fetish as :
"Inanimate object worshipped by primitive peoples;principle &c. irrationally reverenced."

[Julf]

"Audiophiles" make a lot of claims that cannot be measured and do not stand up to blind testing.

Another factor is the terminology used to describe subjective perceptions of the sound - they do easily sound like a bad parody of wine terms.

[orgel]

My Pocket Oxford 1969 defines fetish as :
"Inanimate object worshipped by primitive peoples;principle &c. irrationally reverenced."

That will do, but you should consider getting a bigger Oxford. The two-volume one has a much better slew rate than the Pocket edition, and the difference in resolution is not subtle.

--David

[prufrock]

Dont start me on the wine cognoscenti. Nuances of elderberry.

[prufrock]

I wonder if this issue is inevitable in audio due to its nature, i.e not verifiable in real time like say image for example. So the figure of fun deal was always on the cards.
Or whether it just arose due to a particular set of events, circumstances.

[Julf]

Or whether it just arose due to a particular set of events, circumstances.

I guess another part of the problem is the conflict of using technical equipment (that are a product of science, technology and engineering) for the purpose of enjoying music - a very subjective and emotional experience. I guess the line between the two gets blurred.

Then we have high-end manufacturers, dealers and publications that live from and feed the audiophile mystique...

[prufrock]

Then we have high-end manufacturers, dealers and publications that live from and feed the audiophile mystique...

Sounds like were destined to be lambs to the slaughter. BTW, if you admit that you too are an audiophile of sorts, you can get away with more.

[orgel]

I wonder if this issue is inevitable in audio due to its nature, i.e not verifiable in real time like say image for example.

Even with images, a huge percentage of people just don't care ... about exposure, color rendition, resolution, or distortion due to non-proportional scaling. I'm confronted with this every day at work, often with people whose job it is to work with images. For a real-world example, how many times have you seen an SD picture stretched to fill an HD screen? I can only conclude that most people just aren't especially sensitive to finer perceptual distinctions in these contexts. So when a "regular" person encounters someone who makes a big deal about details that seem almost (or completely) imperceptible, it seems strange to them.

I guess what I'm saying is that even if audiophiles were completely rational about their hobby (not much chance of that), most people would still think it a strange way to spend time and money. I think oenophiles are nuts, but maybe it's just because my palate isn't discriminating enough.

--David

[Julf]

BTW, if you admit that you too are an audiophile of sorts, you can get away with more.

I think I have made it pretty clear that I am - and why else would I spend so much time here?

Have fiddled with audio equipment (and computers) for at least 40 years...

[Julf]

is that even if audiophiles were completely rational about their hobby (not much chance of that), most people would still think it a strange way to spend time and money.

Ummh... If we were completely rational about our hobby, we wouldn't spend so much time and money on it in the first place...

[prufrock]

But in photography do you have people fussing and spending large amounts on cables and interconnects? And other viewers saying stop wasting your money, its snake oil?

[JohnMH]

For a real-world example, how many times have you seen an SD picture stretched to fill an HD screen?

--David

Incorrect aspect ratio on HD TVs bugs the hell out of me, too. Apparently many (maybe most people) just want the image to completely fill the available screen regardless of how it is stretched and distorted.

[Garf]

That will do, but you should consider getting a bigger Oxford. The two-volume one has a much better slew rate than the Pocket edition, and the difference in resolution is not subtle.

--David

This is probably the best reply I have read to date on these forums, kudos David!

[jhwalker]

But in photography do you have people fussing and spending large amounts on cables and interconnects? And other viewers saying stop wasting your money, its snake oil?

Not nearly to the same extent. I saw a comment earlier in this thread about the difference between a static product (i.e., a photo file) vs. an ongoing "stream" (i.e., audio), and I think this may be apt.

It's very easy to sit down with a 36MP photo and a 12MP and see the difference in detail between the two, especially given time to examine the photo at 100% (or higher) and carefully point out the evident differences. Much more difficult (for me, at least) to hear (and later recall) fleeting impressions of a moving audio stream, even with repeated hearings.

[orgel]

But in photography do you have people fussing and spending large amounts on cables and interconnects? And other viewers saying stop wasting your money, its snake oil?

Photography enthusiasts are at least as nutty about their gear as are audiophiles (e.g., google "bokeh"), although to be fair, they're creating (more or less) rather than just consuming, so I guess that changes the dynamic.

--David

[orgel]

It's very easy to sit down with a 36MP photo and a 12MP and see the difference in detail between the two, especially given time to examine the photo at 100% (or higher) and carefully point out the evident differences. Much more difficult (for me, at least) to hear (and later recall) fleeting impressions of a moving audio stream, even with repeated hearings.

That's true -- you need to resort to indirect means (e.g., Audacity and the like) to do similar analysis with audio (and then you might not be "seeing" everything ). And I think that pictures (still or moving) are inherently less abstract than music is.

But my point is that very few people would see any value to sitting down and comparing the two images, and even fewer would take anything away from the exercise. So being focused on these kinds of details in photography is not all that different from being focused on the details of sound reproduction. In both cases, they're niche pursuits, and as such, are well suited to being made fun of.

--David

[wgscott]

Large percentages of the population think "Intelligent Design" is just as valid as Darwinian Evolution theory, and that "Climate Change" (aka "global warming") is a hoax perpetrated by a cabal of scientists and commies that are out to destroy the Free Market™ economy. The public school system has pretty much dropped the idea of teaching critical reasoning skills.

It really is small wonder then why more people aren't drawn in by the hucksters claiming the physically impossible.

At least with designer watches, no one claims the expensive ones keep more accurate time.

[prufrock]

Much more difficult (for me, at least) to hear (and later recall) fleeting impressions of a moving audio stream, even with repeated hearings.

So maybe its not a level playing field. Maybe snake oil is easier in audioland. Means you have to be realistic or make allowances for the audiophile. Not like this was a chance series of events that happened to the audiophile community but could just have as easily have happened to the photography crowd.
The oilmen saw the opportunity, and cast their nets. The Hi Fi mags came along for the feast. As someone else mentioned, retail doesn't subscribe to AES stuff.
I have spent around $600 more than I needed on cables I reckon. I am not mad as hell. But it makes me feel a bit of a sucker. It pains me to think I could return to this or similar forum a decade hence and see exactly the same con in operation.
The obvious retort is that I didnt have to be a sucker if I so chose. Just buy lampcord. and shut up. I guess I had the uncertainty in the back of mind. The remembered reviewer that sounded like he knew his stuff mentioning a cable over another. Its like you decide an amount to waste - I usually go for cables that are not expensive but probably 3 times the price of what will adequately do the job. Just an amount to make me feel mildly peed off but also somehow more able to forget it and move on. Totally irrational.

[jhwalker]

But my point is that very few people would see any value to sitting down and comparing the two images, and even fewer would take anything away from the exercise. So being focused on these kinds of details in photography is not all that different from being focused on the details of sound reproduction. In both cases, they're niche pursuits, and as such, are well suited to being made fun of.

--David

Sure - even on photography forums (my other hobby), folks who obsess on squeezing every last detail out of photos exist - we're called pixel-peepers So I got "the sickness" there, too :/

[jhwalker]

I have spent around $600 more than I needed on cables I reckon. I am not mad as hell. But it makes me feel a bit of a sucker. It pains me to think I could return to this or similar forum a decade hence and see exactly the same con in operation.
The obvious retort is that I didnt have to be a sucker if I so chose. Just buy lampcord. and shut up. I guess I had the uncertainty in the back of mind. The remembered reviewer that sounded like he knew his stuff mentioning a cable over another. Its like you decide an amount to waste - I usually go for cables that are not expensive but probably 3 times the price of what will adequately do the job. Just an amount to make me feel mildly peed off but also somehow more able to forget it and move on. Totally irrational.

Yes, sounds like me. I usually tell myself I'm "investing" in "quality" cables, but commodity cables are probably just as effective and a whole lot cheaper to replace if needed.

FWIW, my USB and RCA cables are in the "2-3x too expensive" range, while my speaker cables are in the "as cheap as possible" category, mainly because I haven't gotten around to replacing them since we moved into our present space 10+ years ago. My speaker cables are in the "lamp cord" category and I have yet to hear any deficiency in them - admittedly, I'm not trying to drive Wilsons through them, either