Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Article: Why We Need Audiophiles (Read 493936 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1250 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
The larger point, of course, that is illustrated by the exchanges with Mr. Krueger, is that the denizens of this forum, despite the adherence to Science that they share with Mr. Krueger, are also human and thus equally likely to be led by their beliefs as those they criticize. I am in Mr. Krueger's debt for offering me the opportunity to illustrate what would otherwise be unsupported opinion with an actual example.


Just another example of John's misunderstanding of science and belief.

The idea that people who try to follow the lead of scientific findings are necessarily otherwise any different from anybody else is a myth. Basically, most people just wake up in the morning, and  get on with their lives.  When presented with a new question, most of us rely on what we have learned and experienced up to that point to guide us. On occasion, some of us will do a little research or ask a better informed person about things we have recently experienced that we have not yet reached many conclusions about. One of the places where people differ is what they already know and have experienced and how they perceived those things. The other is how they resolve questions about things they are as yet unfamiliar with - how they research those questions and what references they use.

On HA, there seems to be a high proportion of people who have varying but generally above-average amounts of being well-informed about the findings of science and how they apply to audio. But they are not exactly alike in terms of belief or practice.  If for example you go onto the Stereophile forum, you find a completely different kind of person - people who are largely ignorant of the findings of science and how they apply to audio and seemingly pretty proud of it. While there is an obvious attitude of respect and interest in science on HA, over at SP the findings of science are routinely belittled, and in general the posters could be less interested in science, but only if they tried really hard.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1251 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
Quote from: honestguv on
Quote from: nlsteele on
As an active and participating experimental scientist, I can tell you without qualification that scientific progress and science itself is often adversarial debate.

In which case you should be able to put forward some examples. But I am going to add a qualification and that is not examples from the "soft sciences" but examples from the real sciences that are based on scientific laws/hypotheses. The qualification is important because it is basing reasoning on a pyramid of established, self-supporting and agreed "facts" that makes adversarial debate meaningless. In order to disagree one side has got to believe one thing while the other believes something else but if both sides have signed up for the scientific method then this is not an option.


Well, for one example from the "hard" science of physics: http://www.theory.caltech.edu/~preskill/jp_24jul04.html

The debate over Hawking's Information Loss Paradox.


Thanks very much for the link.

Quote
Do I really need to provide you some more or is this satisfactorily far enough away from those bad old "soft" sciences I'm part of?


There is also the fact that the rotation of spiral galaxies does not conform to their calculated masses, requiring either the existence of a mysterious dark matter or an adjustment to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, neither of which sit comfortably with established viewpoints.

And someone mentioned the Placebo Effect. In that connection, I have been reading about Valium, which is a very successful drug. However, it appears that in blind clinical trials, if the patient does not know he is being given Valium, it shows no improvement over the placebo. But if the patient _does_ know he is being given Valium, it has a _greater_ effect than the placebo. These two results strike me as being paradoxical in the extreme.

I admit that this is getting distant from audio issues, however.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1252 –
Thing is, 10 placebo pills won't kill you. But, no matter what you think you are getting, 10 valium will first relax your mind, then your lungs... 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1253 –
Quote
Krabapple, is Machina Dynamica real or just a spoof site? Those pebbles were the deal breaker for me. I can't believe anyone would really tape pebbles to their interconnects. That's pet rock bad. Thanks for providing all the links (though I feel my faith in humanity dwindling again).


I've wondered for years if Machina Dynamica's a work of performance art.  But there are audiophiles that certainly do buy into it -- visit a place called AudioAsylum.com and see.

Geoff Kait (apparently the person behind MA) also posts to Stereophile's forum, and seems to believe his own nonsense.

Stereophile itself takes an editorially 'agnostic' approach to Belt and MA...which I find equally amusing.  (Are they merely 'agnostic' about unicorns too?)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1254 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
And someone mentioned the Placebo Effect. In that connection, I have been reading about Valium, which is a very successful drug. However, it appears that in blind clinical trials, if the patient does not know he is being given Valium, it shows no improvement over the placebo. But if the patient _does_ know he is being given Valium, it has a _greater_ effect than the placebo. These two results strike me as being paradoxical in the extreme.


Pubmed link?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1255 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Thing is, 10 placebo pills won't kill you. But, no matter what you think you are getting, 10 valium will first relax your mind, then your lungs... 


Not only that, but as usual Atkinson did not tell the whole truth about his anecdote if it is referrring to this study:

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conten...tract/121/8/809

The study related only to the use of Vallium for treating people with neurotic disorders (e.g. anxiety). However, Vallium is also used to treat many situations including:
agitation, shakiness, and hallucinations during alcohol withdrawal and to relieve certain types of muscle pain. The study does not seem to relate to them at all.

So Atkinson's summary was (no surprise!) overly-broad to the point of being misleading.  The study's results probably relate as much if not more to general issues involved with the treatment of anxiety, as to any situation related to the use of placebos.


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1256 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Stereophile itself takes an editorially 'agnostic' approach to Belt and MA...which I find equally amusing.  (Are they merely 'agnostic' about unicorns too?)


Mostly agnostic, but not entirely.  They did publish the 'Chips for Chumps' article.  This brought out a lot of very angry responses from, among others, industry insiders engaged in nominally legitimate pursuits.  Yet for some of these insiders, challenging the "suspension of disbelief" concept of high-end audio was getting just a bit too close to home I guess.  For examples of these responses, see here.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1257 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote
And someone mentioned the Placebo Effect. In that connection, I have been reading about Valium, which is a very successful drug. However, it appears that in blind clinical trials, if the patient does not know he is being given Valium, it shows no improvement over the placebo. But if the patient _does_ know he is being given Valium, it has a _greater_ effect than the placebo. These two results strike me as being paradoxical in the extreme.


Thing is, 10 placebo pills won't kill you.


Of course, no-one is denying that Valium affects the body's chemistry.

Quote
But, no matter what you think you are getting, 10 valium will first relax your mind, then your lungs... 


But according to the article, if you take _one_ Valium pill of the appropriate dosage, despite the change in the body chemistry, there is no effect on the patient's state of mind - the desired outcome, which is the reduction in anxiety to which Arny Krueger has referred - that can be distinguished statistically from placebo. It is only when knowledge of the treatment is combined with the chemical change that the effect of the drug becomes statistically different from that of the placebo alone. I find that _very_ strange.
 
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1258 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Actually the earth still is the center of the universe.


As a matter of fact I have read that there is a way to consistently map the observed universe onto a model that does indeed have the Earth at it's center. But though it works perfectly well and explains all our observations, it is little believed because it involves things that go counter to our common sense views of reality.  If I recall right it involves, for instance, believing that objects actually do get smaller as they recede from the observer.

Ed Seedhouse
VA7SDH

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1259 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
And someone mentioned the Placebo Effect. In that connection, I have been reading about Valium, which is a very successful drug. However, it appears that in blind clinical trials, if the patient does not know he is being given Valium, it shows no improvement over the placebo. But if the patient _does_ know he is being given Valium, it has a _greater_ effect than the placebo. These two results strike me as being paradoxical in the extreme.


Pubmed link?


The link to the original paper was provided by Arny Krueger. The results, of course concerned treatment for anxiety, which is the primary purpose of the drug.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1261 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: rpp3po on
Thing is, 10 placebo pills won't kill you. But, no matter what you think you are getting, 10 valium will first relax your mind, then your lungs... 


Not only that, but as usual Atkinson did not tell the whole truth about his anecdote if it is referrring to this study:

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conten...tract/121/8/809


Sorry, I'm missing something.  The 1965 study in that link concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between the three treatments (two drugs and one placebo).

What paper (or papers, since JA refers to "blind clinical trials", plural) is JA referring to?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1262 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
But according to the article, if you take _one_ Valium pill of the appropriate dosage, despite the change in the body chemistry, there is no effect on the patient's state of mind - the desired outcome, which is the reduction in anxiety to which Arny Krueger has referred - that can be distinguished statistically from placebo. It is only when knowledge of the treatment is combined with the chemical change that the effect of the drug becomes statistically different from that of the placebo alone. I find that _very_ strange.


Given the state of denial of the connection between mind and body that you believe in John, I can understand how you are mystified.

Here is what I see.

Anxiety is a state of mind. Train some people to believe that Valium changes their state of mind by reducing their anxiety. Then give them what they think is Valium. Their pre-existing state of mind which is to believe that Valium reduces anxiety  reinforces the actual receipt of Valium. Their state of mind changes, and they are now less anxious.

Valium is a very old drug (> 40 years) , and AFAIK there is no reliable science about how it directly works on the chemistry of the brain in ways that are uniquely and specifically related to anxiety. I'm not saying that we don't know what Valium does to brain chemistry, rather I'm saying that Valium's effects are very generalized and non-specific. 

This is different from many newer drugs whose direct chemical effects on various aspects of the operation of the brain were predicted from their chemistry, and specific chemical events in the brain related to the malady that they seem to address.

I'm kinda hip to this because I have two kids with PhDs that are directly related to biochemistry.

This applies to Audio Golden Earism quite directly. The essence of Audio Golden Earism is that very generalized changes to audio gear are said by many to make changes in people's brains that seem to be very non-specific.  "Vastly Improved Soundstaging" seems to me to be about as non-specific as "reduced anxiety".  We've already found that in a similar way that this study finds Valium being indistinguishable from a placebo in blind tests, many of these non-specific changes to audio gear turn out to be indistinguishable from a placebo in blind tests.

One of the strong indicators that Golden Earism involves psychological, not technical effects is the fact that everything seems to make things "sound better". This is contrary to my experience with recording where some things make things sound better, some make things sound worse, and some things have no effect.

The art of recording informs many people about placebo effects because it is fairly easy to catch yourself adjusting a knob that seemingly makes a difference, and then finding out that the function that the knob adjust is bypassed.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1263 –
Quote from: andy_c on
Quote from: krabapple on
Stereophile itself takes an editorially 'agnostic' approach to Belt and MA...which I find equally amusing.  (Are they merely 'agnostic' about unicorns too?)


Mostly agnostic, but not entirely.  They did publish the 'Chips for Chumps' article.  This brought out a lot of very angry responses from, among others, industry insiders engaged in nominally legitimate pursuits.  Yet for some of these insiders, challenging the "suspension of disbelief" concept of high-end audio was getting just a bit too close to home I guess.  For examples of these responses, see here.


This is a fantastic read in a magazine that most folks would presuppose to be *the* purveyor of snake oil itself rather than an occasional critic of such. Thanks for sharing it, Andy C.

John, is there any chance of getting Jim Austin onto HA? A PhD in Physics would probably contribute positively to our discussions of gravity and QM.

Although I suppose we might want to shoot for getting one of Arnold's kids on here since we seem to be pushing over into a discussion of Valium. Zzzzzzz........

Not to bring up an awkward topic, but at the end of the day, Stereophile is a magazine and they have ad copy to sell. I'd guess they'll sell more ad copy by maintaining some loyalty to all the entrenched camps that read it as well as by raking up some controversy amongst the other ones. That may be a little cynical, but most business models seem to be a little cynical at their core in the guise of pragmatism. If they were a technical journal, I could see differently, but this is along the lines in my mind of arguing over why USA Today is such a banal paper; it's banal because it sells as such.

-------------------------------

Krabapple, after reading through more of your links today, I'm really on the fence about Machina Dynamica. The thing that keeps me thinking it a spoof are the posters on each page. I'm hopeful, though, because I love things like the Museum of Jurassic Technology: http://www.mjt.org/ (entirely spoof/art, but they commit so much it makes you wonder sometimes)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1264 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
This is a fantastic read in a magazine that most folks would presuppose to be *the* purveyor of snake oil itself rather than an occasional critic of such. Thanks for sharing it, Andy C.



I was referring to what the editor in chief has written in his 'As We See It" take on this topic:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/787/index.html

Peter Belt's arrant nonsense is dismissed on the grounds that not only is it scientifically nonsense -- which should be sufficient -- but it's *too expensive*.  (This is kinda like 'the food was terrible and the portions were too small')

But see in particular the report about the Tice clock that ends the essay.

The ability to dismiss the claims on excellent scientific and logical grounds, and then suggest in effect 'but try it, if you can afford it -- you might like it', and also report a difference from sighted evaluation as if it had any force, is classic Stereophile wriggle.


Quote
John, is there any chance of getting Jim Austin onto HA? A PhD in Physics would probably contribute positively to our discussions of gravity and QM.


Yes, that's what HA needs more of: discussion of the roles of gravity and quantum mechanics in audio. And let's not forget string theory.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1265 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
But according to the article, if you take _one_ Valium pill of the appropriate dosage, despite the change in the body chemistry, there is no effect on the patient's state of mind - the desired outcome, which is the reduction in anxiety to which Arny Krueger has referred - that can be distinguished statistically from placebo. It is only when knowledge of the treatment is combined with the chemical change that the effect of the drug becomes statistically different from that of the placebo alone. I find that _very_ strange.


Given the state of denial of the connection between mind and body that you believe in John, I can understand how you are mystified.


Your comments might be taken more seriously, Mr. Krueger, if you refrained from putting words in others' mouths or restrained your attempts at reading minds. I have not said anything that pertains to the connection or lack of connection between mind and body, whether on this forum or anywhere else.

Quote
One of the strong indicators that Golden Earism involves psychological, not technical effects is the fact that everything seems to make things "sound better".


Not in Stereophile, Mr. Krueger. We have found that some things have no effect, and that others sometimes make the sound worse, as you would know if you actually read the magazine you routinely criticize.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1266 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
John, is there any chance of getting Jim Austin onto HA? A PhD in Physics would probably contribute positively to our discussions of gravity and QM.


Jim posts regularly to Audio Asylum. I'll suggest he lurk on HA for a while.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1267 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
This is a fantastic read in a magazine that most folks would presuppose to be *the* purveyor of snake oil itself rather than an occasional critic of such. Thanks for sharing it, Andy C.

Well, this kind of article is not something they do very often.  And since it violated Salvatore's Rule #1, I don't see them repeating an article like this anytime soon .

Even though I am a pretty harsh critic of Stereophile, I don't consider them to be a "purveyor of snake oil" per se.  I consider them overall to be skilled obfuscators whose main purpose is to support and justify what the industry is doing, while falsely claiming to be all about the readers.  There are exceptions with individual writers though.  I'd consider John Marks, Kal Rubinson and Jim Austin to not fit this pattern.  I'm referring to the overall editorial tone and direction the mag has taken.

Quote
John, is there any chance of getting Jim Austin onto HA? A PhD in Physics would probably contribute positively to our discussions of gravity and QM.

Since neither gravity nor QM have much of anything to do with audio, I assume you're joking?  Jim is a good guy though.

Quote
Krabapple, after reading through more of your links today, I'm really on the fence about Machina Dynamica. The thing that keeps me thinking it a spoof are the posters on each page.

I'm not Krabapple, but I assure you it's quite serious.  If you're interested in a spoof of audio tweaks, look here.  In a similar vein, one guy tried "scamming the scammer" with the Machina Dynamica "Teleportation Tweak".  That experience was described here, and got the user booted from Audio Asylum.  (Warning!  That site has no rules and is not for the faint of heart!)  Also, Machina Dynamica discontinued the money back guarantee for that "product" after the incident.  Note that links to audioasylum.com from audioannex.com don't work.  To follow the links, you need to copy the link, then paste it into your browser.  This is because the audioasylum.com code looks at the referrer and redirects to Taco Bell if the referrer is audioannex.com.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1268 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
Well, for one example from the "hard" science of physics: http://www.theory.caltech.edu/~preskill/jp_24jul04.html

The debate over Hawking's Information Loss Paradox.

Do I really need to provide you some more or is this satisfactorily far enough away from those bad old "soft" sciences I'm part of?

Let us consider your example. Recalling the scientific method from your school days, how much of that process is involved in what is presented on the page? And the adversarial debate, if one may stretch to calling it that, determines precisely what in terms of the eventual output from the scientific method?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1269 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
>> What do you think John Atkinson is trying to achieve by braving the bullying and posting here?
> Honestguv, open discussion from all perspectives?

It would be a more informative answer without the question mark. No, I would judge that he is quite strongly constrained by his job as to what he can or wants to be open about.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1270 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
The larger point, of course, that is illustrated by the exchanges with Mr. Krueger, is that the denizens of this forum, despite the adherence to Science that they share with Mr. Krueger, are also human and thus equally likely to be led by their beliefs as those they criticize.

I would disagree with the equally and it is obviously going to vary between individuals but otherwise I think it is a fair point.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1271 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Just another example of John's misunderstanding of science and belief.

Obviously he gets some things wrong, we all do, but is it mainly misunderstanding or understanding and misdirection? I have tended to pick up more of the latter although this is based on a relatively small number of postings and articles.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1272 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Quote from: nlsteele on
Well, for one example from the "hard" science of physics: http://www.theory.caltech.edu/~preskill/jp_24jul04.html

The debate over Hawking's Information Loss Paradox.

Do I really need to provide you some more or is this satisfactorily far enough away from those bad old "soft" sciences I'm part of?

Let us consider your example. Recalling the scientific method from your school days, how much of that process is involved in what is presented on the page? And the adversarial debate, if one may stretch to calling it that, determines precisely what in terms of the eventual output from the scientific method?


Honestguv, not to get too far OT (and yes, I was joking about Jim Austin contributing to physics discussion, Andy C; though I think he could contribute on many levels) I think you're oversimplifying science as a human pursuit if you limit it to only those particular instances in which someone forms a falsifiable hypothesis based on empirical observation and goes about attempting to falsify it and then provides enough information to allow others to replicate it (i.e., only those situations in which the scientific method is directly applied and ignoring all discussion around the findings made via this method, as you seem to propose).

There's this whole thing often referred to as a scientific community, since as human beings we are limited in the spans of our lives, we often have to rely on others to complete the work we begin in ours. This makes science an inherently social process (this is even ignoring arguments like Reid would make regarding the "common sense" and how it defines science; I would also point out that James Burke has made similar arguments recently). Any social process is prone to the same kinds of dynamics that your basic relationships are: fighting, politicking, argument, biases, etc.. I'm not saying that all science is produced by this process, but what an individual chooses to pursue in their research, what conferences it gets presented at, what outlets it gets published in, who you work with, and who you study under are all defined by these kinds of relationships. I've seen Watson arguing with other researchers over the nature and interpretation of genomic findings, I've seen more physicists arguing amongst themselves over string theory, m theory, QM, than I can shake a stick at, and over in the nasty soft sciences, I've been first hand witness to some of the most venemous interactions over scientifically testable postulates I've ever heard of. There are scientists that refuse to talk to one another for entire lifetimes.

They're people at the end of the day, and to paraphrase Hume, it's fine to be a philosopher when you're in your study, but when you put your slippers on and get ready for bed, you still have to live as a man.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1273 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
The larger point, of course, that is illustrated by the exchanges with Mr. Krueger, is that the denizens of this forum, despite the adherence to Science that they share with Mr. Krueger, are also human and thus equally likely to be led by their beliefs as those they criticize.

I would disagree with the equally and it is obviously going to vary between individuals but otherwise I think it is a fair point.


I actually agree with John - we are also human and thus equally likely to be led by our beliefs as those we criticize. Even though the GE regulars on the SP forum behave in childish and occasionaly subhuman ways, we're all taking about things that we believe.  The difference is mostly in the beliefs themselves, and to a lesser degree how we are led by out beliefs.

To a large degree, our beliefs are based on formal learning (e.g. books and classes) and informal learning (e.g. life's experiences).

My point is that most people with formal training in science and technology find Stereophile to be a  mixture of reasonably well-informed truth and poorly-informed speculation presented to the readers in such a way as to lead them to believe that it is all fact.

Behind the scenes Stereophile's management at least occasionally tell advertisers etc, that it is "opinon".  If anyone were to prove that Stereophile has made a false claim and sue them, Stereopile would no doubt claim protection under the First Amendment as protected speech - opinon.

One other difference is that a person who is well-informed about science knows that all findings of science are provisional until better knowlege is obtained. IME Stereophile true believers believe that the fantasy-science they have learned from reading Stereophile is immutable truth. After all, so many of them have invested so much money in that pseudo science.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1274 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Just another example of John's misunderstanding of science and belief.

Obviously he gets some things wrong, we all do,


True, but few of us have based a magazine empire on so much fantasy published as if it were fact.

Quote
but is it mainly misunderstanding or understanding and misdirection? I have tended to pick up more of the latter although this is based on a relatively small number of postings and articles.


Well, that's the $64,000 question. You know this ABX thing has been going on for 30 years. In the beginning, the ignorance defense obviously had a lot going for it.

At this point I read John as being completely lost in his own posturing.  I think he does not think that he is wrong, even though a reasonable insightful person in his situation would at least suspect something about himself and what he is doing.

IME, a few million dollars can sway most people, particularly when the sway is in the direction of believing that they are right.  I see this in a lot of my peers - they've made a lot of money so the 60 foot yacht and megabuck home says that they did it right and are doing it right.