The introduction of the luxury goods analogy tends to suggest that some rich audiophiles are basically exhibiting conspicuous consumption habits and it's not *really* about the music at all.

Quote from: Canar on 2009-09-18 14:39:41

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2009-09-18 14:28:24

I got to get you guys trained. Sighted bias is an illusion, not a delusion or hallucination.  ;-)

We're kind of splitting hairs. I agree that "illusion" is also a fine term for what we're describing, but the connotations of "hallucination" are why I use it!

Well, call it what you like, but don't forget that stereo sound is only possible at all because of what you are calling a "hallucination".  When you hear that nicely centered image of your favourite singer hanging in space between your two front speakers you are, under your definition, hallucinating.  There is no singer and no sound at that location.  The sound is coming from  two entirely separate speakers.  Even if you have a center speaker there is still normally sound coming from the side front speakers anyway, and the fact that you hear only one singer is, again, what you call a hallucination.  Dammed useful hallucination, though.

Fremer got a much better time slot. (You're going to that, right?  )

if I buy a $6K Rolex watch which actually has poor time-keeping accuracy, but has remarkable build quality, adds prestige and strokes my ego, have I been stupid?

http://www.aes.org/events/127/workshops/session.cfm?code=W13

OK, OK, so Mikey is "just" the chair, but if the abstract at all represents the tone of the roundtable, this is going to be a fun 90 minutes.

• Main Entry:   hal·lu·ci·na·tion
• Pronunciation: \hə-ˌlü-sə-ˈnā-shən\
• Function:  noun
• Date: 1629

1 a : perception of objects with no reality usually arising from disorder of the nervous system or in response to drugs (as LSD) b : the object so perceived
2 : an unfounded or mistaken impression or notion : delusion

The word is "illusion".
Not hallucination.

Quote from: Axon on 2009-09-17 19:31:33

Fremer got a much better time slot. (You're going to that, right?  )

Yeah, how lame they give a guy who is not even an audio professional prime time exposure, and the stuff that actually matters is relegated to the back of the bus.

--Ethan

Quote from: Richard Greene on 2009-09-15 23:32:22

What's the psychology behind the audiophile "everything sounds different belief?

Where's JJ?

odyssey nailed it - placebo effect. And when you prove it's just placebo with a blind test, the believers attack blind testing as flawed. You can't win.

JJ and I are presenting a workshop at the AES show in New York next month on exactly this topic:

Audio Myths - Defining What Affects Audio Reproduction

--Ethan

Quote

You're correct that it's the Placebo effect. However, note that the Placebo effect is a weird and wonderful thing with quite deep implications and often misunderstood. For example, the placebo effect doesn't make you *think* stuff sounds better, it will actually make it sound better to you.

I'm not ready to credit only the placebo effect.  In my own experiences as an audiophile,
I've found that if I listen to a song twice, it never sounds exactly the same to me even if no audio components changed!

For example, listening to a new song in the morning, compared with listening to the same song after eight hours at work -- the song doesn't sound exactly the same to me, probably because my ears were exposed to noises over the day, which affects my hearing, and/or  my mood couldn't possibly have been as good after work, as it was first thing in the morning!

For another example, listening to a new song the first time I tend to focus on the vocals. The next time I play that song, even if I play it twice in a row, I will tend to focus more on the band, and less on the vocals -- so the song sounds different the second time because of what instruments/voice I focus on. The audio equipment hasn't changed.  The volume hasn't changed.  ...  If the audio equipment was changed, AND I listened to the same song twice in a row to compare two audio components, I suspect they would sound "different" simply because I'm not perfectly consistent when listening to music (the sound quality will change with my mood, and what instruments in the song I chose to focus on, which could change several times during a song!)

So that's another explanation (in addition to the Placebo Effect) of why I think "everything sounds different" to audiophiles.  In addition, different components will play music at slightly different volumes, which could be audible and thought to be something else!

The introduction of the luxury goods analogy tends to suggest that some rich audiophiles are basically exhibiting conspicuous consumption habits and it's not *really* about the music at all.

Quote from: MaxSeven on 2009-09-18 16:13:11

if I buy a $6K Rolex watch which actually has poor time-keeping accuracy, but has remarkable build quality, adds prestige and strokes my ego, have I been stupid?

Yes! Even if it kept time flawlessly that's a crazy purchase IMO. If I had $1 Billion dollars I still would never buy anything that falls under the category of expensive jewelry.

--Ethan

That's true about most expensive hobbies, isn't it?

I've got friends who buy ten times as expensive cameras and lenses as me, while I take ten times as many photos as they do - and others who spend a small fortune on a dozen other hobbies that they rarely have time to actually spend any TIME on.

And your average rapper probably doesn't  buy a bentley because of his genuine interest in english cars.

Seems to me this is a relic from the stone age. The male hunter-gatherer gene combined with "Look I have shiny item, I will make a better mate than my neighbor"

Absolutely, but when the requirement for the shiny item is justified by saying that is "obviously makes the sound better" I have a problem. Shiny for the sake of shiny - no problem, people are free to spend their money on what they want to. Dubious unsubstantiated statements regarding perceived improvement to audio quality as a justification for buying the shiny item - big problem.

LOL!  This whole situation reminds me of an old article that's one of the funniest pieces of writing about audio I've ever read.  It's by Peter Aczel, called "The 91st Audio Engineering Society Convention; or, The Invasion of the Credibility Snatchers".

there's something special about owning items of quality and craftmanship. It lets you share a little bit of the pride of the original watchmaker (or loudspeaker builder). It has nothing to do with keeping time, and only partly about high end sound.

Quote from: hybris on 2009-09-19 09:39:53

there's something special about owning items of quality and craftmanship. It lets you share a little bit of the pride of the original watchmaker (or loudspeaker builder). It has nothing to do with keeping time, and only partly about high end sound.

I agree, but to me $100 is an expensive watch!

--Ethan

Yes, but a Rolex is something of a status symbol - not just a timepiece. The fact that a $5 digital watch can keep as good time makes the expenditure on a Rolex unimaginable to someone of limited means.

Quote from: Axon on 2009-09-17 19:31:33

Fremer got a much better time slot. (You're going to that, right?  )

Yeah, how lame they give a guy who is not even an audio professional prime time exposure, and the stuff that actually matters is relegated to the back of the bus.