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: Anti-science in audio journalism (Read 20303 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #25 –
Quote from: Dark_wizzie on
I don't really understand why cable myths exist though.


One word: Ignorance of EE principles. Which makes the point that it is unreasonable to expect everybody to be a well-trained EE.

Quote
Sure, it's harder to ABX compared to FLAC vs MP3, but with a good enough testing scheme you could eventually ABX cables.


It has been done, but the problem is that if people believe in magic cooties everywhere and for no scientific reason, there is no such thing for them as a valid test.

Quote
It being inconvenient to do so doesn't mean it's not possible and not doing the test means making an article and claiming things as facts without proper testing. People that go on and on about these audio stuff based on faith, paying tons for cables, they give audio-lovers a bad name.


There is always going to be a lunatic fringe, partially composed of people who are otherwise reasonable, but overcome by emotional issues.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #26 –
Quote from: allnoyz on
But, to be perfectly fair, if it makes them happy, more power to them. A good old-fashioned placebo never really hurt anyone, right?


Placebos cause harm when they distract people from effective solutions.

In my life I've recast the golden ear claims as being distractions from real serious issues like room acoustics and loudspeakers.  This works.

People start out looking for improved sound quality. It's harder to distract people from junk science if you don't have an viable alternative in hand.

 

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #27 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Dark_wizzie on
I don't really understand why cable myths exist though.


One word: Ignorance of EE principles. Which makes the point that it is unreasonable to expect everybody to be a well-trained EE.

I am not sure that EE training is needed (or even sufficient). My EE training tells me that "skin-effect" is a real physical thing, but does not (in itself) tell me under what conditions this effect can lead to audible degradation.

I think it comes down to "openness" vs "scepticism".

Some people are easy to convince. Or, rather, they seem to be easy to convince about certain things. Other people are hard to convince.

"Science" may serve as a guide, but cannot be taken as a coherent, absolute reference on everything. This can be seen in controversial matters such as climate change or alternate medicine, where different publishers and scientists may point in different directions, and people tend to cherry-pick those papers that seems to support their beliefs. What is needed in such cases is often an "expert" that can give a reasonable summary of existing science, filtering out obvious outliers (the "average" view? The "best" view). But then we have to trust this expert, and what if some lobbyist group manage to find an expert with an alternate view? Do we then choose the expert with the most prestigous university affiliation, the one with the best publishing ranking or what?

I think that we believe whatever we are prone to believe. And even (especially?) academics tend to believe that their beliefs are based on a rational analysis, when that is perhaps only part truth.

-k

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #28 –
Quote from: JJZolx on
It won't, because the vast majority either don't care what you think or they think you're misguided. This certainly isn't the first time someone got their panties in a bunch over an audio press article or opinion. One would have to think it's somewhat futile when every issue of every audio publication has multiple articles displaying the exact same viewpoint. If it's a "crisis" then it's one that has been ongoing for quite some time and one against which the naysayers have made absolutely no impact.


The naysayers make no impact for fairly simple reasons. There are "common sense" arguments to be made that expensive cables make a difference and people often fall for them. The fact that multiple audio publications contain multiple articles saying this is so does not make it correct.

Quote from: JJZolx on
The most widely held opinion (in fact, it's pretty much universal) is that ABX testing is substantially flawed and very close to useless. So your idea is one that only really makes good sense to those who already believe ABX is the be all and end all. That debate has been held hundreds, if not thousands, of times in other forums, and I'm not attempting to debate the point at all. I'm just suggesting to you why what you think is so obvious is anything but obvious.


The opinion that ABX-ing is substantially flawed and close to useless is "universally" held in fields where science in general is untrusted, such as religion and the mis-named "audiophiles". In areas of science it is universally accepted as being valid. I for one fail to see how the obvious is not obvious unless there's a denial of same. I'm reminded of Benjamin Franklin's comment: "the way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason".

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #29 –
A guy I know has a "chain" of computer supply stores (he actually has three small shops).

Those are very small shops, a 25m² room, cash register in one corner, and walls filled with computer hardware, boxes, etc. Like a small local shop.

Now they had maybe twenty or so laptops on display, they were hanging on the wall from the ceiling to the floor. Clearly, you couldn't test the uppermost laptops. Other parts were on locked shelves, so no chance to try them out, etc.

I asked him, if that isn't inconvenient, since customers can't try them (the laptops were running either a screensaver, or a video in a loop). He said, no, that's not even how people shop.
People buy stuff, by listening to their gut feeling. There's very little rationale going into a decision like that. One part of the gut feeling is the price point. The price point is about as important, as the build quality of the case and the color. The actual innards, come in or third or so, after the date of manufacture.

When it comes to things like audiophile equipment (for instance the infamous 400 dollar Ethernet cable) It is mostly a gut feeling as well. Audiophiles just pay attention to that, and let themselves fool by a high price point, just like other people let fool themselves by a nice picture on the package.

Audiophile equipment usually does one thing: It doesn't distort the sound as much. That's it. Except for tube amps. the "warm sound" you see people so often cite as being so nice, is actually distortion by the tubes. If that's the sound you're after, that's fine.
But then again, a lot of reasonably priced equipment doesn't distort the sound much either. In case of digital lines, this isn't even an issue.

The problem is, a lot of people get sick, and even though they have no idea about medicine, Homeopathy gives them a good gut feeling. Most doctors would tell you it's basically quackery, but usually not harmful at all. Just like Audiophile stuff doesn't introduce distortion, homeopathic drugs wouldn't make you sicker. Audiophiles usually don't know much about signal processing, the same way homeopathy users don't know much about pharmacology. This is where my analogy ends, though.

It is a very big market though, so naturally companies want to cash in on it. The dude that wrote the article basically admits he has no idea about the technical things, and that he believes in the audiophile quackery, but feels good about it. I'm not gonna tell him to change, ever. At least he seems conscious about the stuff he says.

I'm not sure just what kind of bad influence publications like that are. I'd assume, that they should clearly state, that their article are uneducated statements, without background knowledge or research. It's just someone talking subjectively out of their... certain orifice.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #30 –
I didn't know Benjamin Franklin said that. Interesting.

I've read an article speaking out against ABX testing and I left the article getting no better than I was expecting. Look, in the end, if the cables make a noticeable difference, you will be able to tell it apart. If you can tell it apart, you can ABX it.

Beliefs inform our actions. And a general mentality of not accepting rational thought and reason and evidence is problematic not just to you, but to everybody you affect in the world. If you can't see past $1000 cables, what else can you not see past? Sure, if you want to say, I LOVE my $1000 cables, I know I can't really tell the difference but I just want it just because, then ok. That's like collecting cables, some people collect stamps, some people collect model trains. But otherwise, it's denial.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #31 –
Quote from: knutinh on
"Science" may serve as a guide, but cannot be taken as a coherent, absolute reference on everything. This can be seen in controversial matters such as climate change or alternate medicine, where different publishers and scientists may point in different directions, and people tend to cherry-pick those papers that seems to support their beliefs.


I think these are poor examples. Just like with creationism (a.k.a. "Intelligent Design") vs evolution, in both those topics the "controversy" is not scientific. Sometimes there just aren't two sides.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #33 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Placebos cause harm when they distract people from effective solutions.

In my life I've recast the golden ear claims as being distractions from real serious issues like room acoustics and loudspeakers.  This works.

People start out looking for improved sound quality. It's harder to distract people from junk science if you don't have an viable alternative in hand.


But you're missing the greater point: it hurts no one. This has nothing to do with effective solutions, because there is no problem to be solved. It's a hobby, not a geopolitical incident.

I have no problem showing such folks pity, but I also have no problem taking a live and let live stance.

Now, if they try to spread any infections to the unsuspecting, then I will step in. But, what they do with their own money, in their own home, and it makes them happier people? Who am I to say anything? Let 'em be happy.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #34 –
Quote from: allnoyz on
But you're missing the greater point: it hurts no one.


That is true.  It's no different than someone with money stepping out and buying a BMW over someone who can only afford a Ford Focus.  Sure, they can spend the extra money, chase unicorns, and believe in nonsense so long as it's not hurting anyone.  However, a lot of people in said group often make outrageous claims when helping others and giving out advice.  They are making false claims and basing the foundations of their beliefs (because that what all they do is) on nonsense and then they are roping other people into their "cult."  Doing so, in the end, hurts people.  Now, if someone buys their unicorn platinum speakers, $1,000 ethernet cable, and $30,000 vacuum tube amp all while staying quiet, that is fine.  It's when they start to spread the "infection" when it becomes an issue and I have yet to come across a placebophile that didn't try to enforce their dominance and prove everyone wrong with their (lack of) science.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #35 –
Quote from: knutinh on
"Science" may serve as a guide, but cannot be taken as a coherent, absolute reference on everything. This can be seen in controversial matters such as climate change or alternate medicine, where different publishers and scientists may point in different directions, and people tend to cherry-pick those papers that seems to support their beliefs. What is needed in such cases is often an "expert" that can give a reasonable summary of existing science, filtering out obvious outliers (the "average" view? The "best" view). But then we have to trust this expert, and what if some lobbyist group manage to find an expert with an alternate view? Do we then choose the expert with the most prestigous university affiliation, the one with the best publishing ranking or what?


I disagree. There is no need to trust anyone and I consider that to be fallacious reasoning.

You don't just accept the conclusions of "experts", but rather look at their arguments and evaluate them. And if, as is common with technical questions, you lack the background to evaluate their arguments, then you just have to admit you don't really know the answer.

The problem is people want it both ways - they want to know the answer without actually really knowing much.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #36 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
That is true.  It's no different than someone with money stepping out and buying a BMW over someone who can only afford a Ford Focus.  Sure, they can spend the extra money, chase unicorns, and believe in nonsense so long as it's not hurting anyone.  However, a lot of people in said group often make outrageous claims when helping others and giving out advice.  They are making false claims and basing the foundations of their beliefs (because that what all they do is) on nonsense and then they are roping other people into their "cult."  Doing so, in the end, hurts people.  Now, if someone buys their unicorn platinum speakers, $1,000 ethernet cable, and $30,000 vacuum tube amp all while staying quiet, that is fine.  It's when they start to spread the "infection" when it becomes an issue and I have yet to come across a placebophile that didn't try to enforce their dominance and prove everyone wrong with their (lack of) science.



Right, all fine points.

I think we skeptics can sometimes get a little out of hand as well. On another audio forum when I simply stated that when I added a standalone DAC to my 15 y.o. receiver, and heard an improvement) I was called an idiot and a troll, ABX tests were demanded, etc.


Good lord, people. I can't hear the difference between a 256 AAC and CD. I'm not one to simply convince myself I hear something that I don't (I actively TRIED to convince myself I heard a difference in the AAC, for example). And I wasn't trying to influence others to add standalone DAC's to their receivers. Just voicing an opinion from my own experience.

Hell, these days I'm overly careful not to even mention what equipment and brands I own for fear of angering moderators, violating TOS, etc.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #37 –
Quote from: allnoyz on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Placebos cause harm when they distract people from effective solutions.

In my life I've recast the golden ear claims as being distractions from real serious issues like room acoustics and loudspeakers.  This works.

People start out looking for improved sound quality. It's harder to distract people from junk science if you don't have an viable alternative in hand.


But you're missing the greater point: it hurts no one. This has nothing to do with effective solutions, because there is no problem to be solved. It's a hobby, not a geopolitical incident.

An argument can be made that while it "hurts no one" in the audiophile context, this type of thinking does hurt people when applied in other areas (such as Alt med). And if one lacks the tools (what Carl Sagan called the "baloney detector", but we all know he really meant bullshit detector) to stop themselves from following this path, it's likely that this thought process will spill out into other areas as well.

Quote
Now, if they try to spread any infections to the unsuspecting, then I will step in.

Isn't that what they always do, though? Just take a look at any other audio forum.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #38 –
I hear you, Andy. I guess I'm just not looking to save people from themselves. Life is too short, IMO. Saving a newcomer from the frustration and expense is one thing, but true believers are beyond my pay grade.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #39 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
Quote from: allnoyz on
But you're missing the greater point: it hurts no one.


That is true.  It's no different than someone with money stepping out and buying a BMW over someone who can only afford a Ford Focus.  Sure, they can spend the extra money, chase unicorns, and believe in nonsense so long as it's not hurting anyone.
...but what if there are better cars to be made, but no market for them, because the people with the time and money to seek "better" cars are all being directed to more expensive cars that are no better?

If the better cars never get made and adopted by the people with money, those improvements can never trickle down and become mass market.


It's a lousy analogy, but it's where audio is at. Do we see dynamic range on normal recordings? Do we heck. Do we see the problem of transducers being the worst part of the chain by far being solved in a cost effective way? Do we heck. Do we see a musically rewarding surround sound format getting any traction? Do we heck.

Do you really think that these problems can't be solved in the early 21st century?

But if people can be sold "inaudible" improvements (that may or may not be measurable improvements) - things that don't require any real scientific advance, that's far more profitable in that market.

Meanwhile, audio sounds worse than the 1960s in recording studios, and worse than the 1980s in many homes.


Obviously I'm overstating my case. Portable audio has never been so good. There are some amazing small speakers out there. The interface to music, and the availability of music, has never been better. That's where the mass market has gained. But since CD, what has come along to make audio sound better and made it in to even 20% of people's homes?

Or, to put it less dramatically, what improvements do you think we'd get sooner if the high end wasn't distracting the industry with non-improvements?

Cheers,
David.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #40 –
Quote from: allnoyz on
I think we skeptics can sometimes get a little out of hand as well. On another audio forum when I simply stated that when I added a standalone DAC to my 15 y.o. receiver, and heard an improvement) I was called an idiot and a troll, ABX tests were demanded, etc.

The first two are uncalled for, but I think the latter is a reasonable thing to ask.


Quote
Good lord, people. I can't hear the difference between a 256 AAC and CD. I'm not one to simply convince myself I hear something that I don't (I actively TRIED to convince myself I heard a difference in the AAC, for example).

I don't think you fully appreciate placebo effects. You can't just will yourself into not being affected by them even if you're fully aware of them, or you believe the opposite. That's why proper blind testing is necessary.

Quote
Hell, these days I'm overly careful not to even mention what equipment and brands I own for fear of angering moderators, violating TOS, etc.

That seems exaggerated.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #41 –
Andy, it's not an exaggeration. I was banned from a forum because of it. They said I was spamming. And I never posted a single link.

As for the DAC, I made sure I kept the box when I bought it because I had a feeling it wasn't going to make any noticeable difference. Just like other things in the audio world I have tried over the years that I had to return. At 43, I've been down a multitude of audio paths. I've bought things that made minor improvements, and things that were promptly returned. I don't believe in snake oil, and have come across a lot of it.

I don't recommend anyone else buy what I buy, and shouldn't have even mentioned my DAC.

But, I'm my own worst ABX. I demand something prove itself to me conclusively. Some things have, many have failed. I just dig audio and enjoy talking to others about it. Not presenting spread sheets scientifically proving myself.

If people tell me they can hear a difference between a 256 AAC and a CD, that's fine with me. I don't need to prove to them I can't, nor do I need them to prove to me they can.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #42 –
Quote from: knutinh on
"Science" may serve as a guide, but cannot be taken as a coherent, absolute reference on everything. This can be seen in controversial matters such as climate change or alternate medicine, where different publishers and scientists may point in different directions, and people tend to cherry-pick those papers that seems to support their beliefs.


Nice 'false balance' fallacy  there.   

There is nothing near an equivalence of data supporting both sides of those two issues. There's a huge disparity favoring one 'side' in each case, actually.

You can explain that two ways:
1) research and supporting data against the reality of anthropogenic global climate change (AGW), and for the efficacy of alternative medicine (AM),  are being systematically suppressed
2) AGW is real and AM is mostly bunk

Good luck demonstrating #1 and invalidating #2

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #43 –
Quote from: allnoyz on
I think we skeptics can sometimes get a little out of hand as well. On another audio forum when I simply stated that when I added a standalone DAC to my 15 y.o. receiver, and heard an improvement) I was called an idiot and a troll, ABX tests were demanded, etc.



They would be 'demanded' (required) here too, if you were to claim that the standalone DAC sounded better than your vintage 1998 receiver, without any other supporting evidence. It's in the HA Terms of Service.

That's what makes this place different from most other audio discussion forums.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #44 –
Fair enough. I suppose it is pretty outrageous to even think of suggesting digital to analog conversion has been improved upon over the last 15 years.

It strikes me as somewhat odd, to be perfectly honest. It's like saying I went from my previous $400pr loudspeakers to my current $1200pr speakers but can't say I hear any difference between the two without charts and graphs to prove it?

Why ever buy anything beyond each initial purchase you made?

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #45 –
I can see it's best for me to go back to lurking where I belong, so I'm going to get back to reading and enjoying the thoughts and insights here.

Happy listening, folks! 

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #46 –
As I see it, most of the mainstream and science-minded audience abandoned high-end audio a long time ago, leaving behind fewer but more vocal hardcore audiophiles. And many of them likely already suspect that their so-called knowledge won't be borne out in proper DB ABX tests.

So why cling to a subjectivist, anti-ABX mindset?

Because it seems like more fun to believe, as it opens up all kinds of avenues for "discovery", whether it be NOS vacuum tubes, isolation feet, cables or what-have-you. Even something as humble as a household power outlet can become a source of wonder in a never-ending audiophile journey.

And let's face it, a person who wants to spend 10,000 USD on a digital front-end isn't going to be satisfied with a $40 Sandisk!  They want something Nice, or at least something more interesting than a small lump of ABS plastic. Something that feels special to them. For example, turntables and tube amplifiers give the audiophile more opportunity to feel like he (and it's almost always a "He") is a part of the process, rather than a mere button-pushing spectator or a consumer of products.

The "problem" with a more scientific approach to hifi? Aside from speakers and room acoustics/correction, there's little to be done, and much of the rest can be had at a nearby Best Buy store for a modest sum of money. Where's the adventure in that? Shopping for electronics is reduced to a matter of features and appearance. We have created a void in the audiophile's life, but we haven't given them anything new to fill it with. (And please don't suggest that they find better ways to spend that $10,000, because if they had better ideas, they probably would've done it.)

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #47 –
Quote from: allnoyz on
It's like saying I went from my previous $400pr loudspeakers to my current $1200pr speakers but can't say I hear any difference between the two without charts and graphs to prove it?

The difference there is that it's known speakers sound audibly different to human ears and is easily demonstrable. DACs may all measure differently but usually the difference is below what you would expect a person to be able to detect at non-deafening volumes, so if you think you hear one you should be skeptical and test it. You may be right that there was an audible difference, but the way to be sure is to ABX. I suppose people might be flexible if RMAA tests showed one DAC to be flawed to the point that it would likely be audible. I know an ABX test could probably be difficult to achieve with hardware like that and doing a test may be more work than you wanted to do, that you just wanted to share your thoughts, but there are places where certain things are appropriate and some aren't. Yeah, here you would be required to back up that claim and that's because the way discussion is maintained at a higher quality level than that of the sites of audiophile magazines is through enforcement of the rule that claims about differences where scientifically-guided expectation would say there should be none must be backed up with hard evidence. I'm probably telling you things you already know, sorry if so.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #48 –
Quote from: allnoyz on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Placebos cause harm when they distract people from effective solutions.

In my life I've recast the golden ear claims as being distractions from real serious issues like room acoustics and loudspeakers.  This works.

People start out looking for improved sound quality. It's harder to distract people from junk science if you don't have an viable alternative in hand.


But you're missing the greater point: it hurts no one. This has nothing to do with effective solutions, because there is no problem to be solved. It's a hobby, not a geopolitical incident.

I have no problem showing such folks pity, but I also have no problem taking a live and let live stance.

Now, if they try to spread any infections to the unsuspecting, then I will step in. But, what they do with their own money, in their own home, and it makes them happier people? Who am I to say anything? Let 'em be happy.

Yet here we have a guy writing an article, spreading falsehood about magic cables. That's not keeping it to themselves, that's spreading misinformation and possible misleading people.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #49 –
Also, saying we shouldn't be bothered by such audiophile's delusion just because "it hurts no one" is as ludicrous as expecting an astronomers's community not to debate some bogus claim stating say, men has never been to the moon; or biologists not being bothered commenting on a public statement on creationism, for instance.

I guess no one over here is willing to start a war over it, but we will not, as you can see, let this sort of fallacy go unnoticed (even if only for laughs) or worse: pass as genuine, scientifically-supported truth when it is obviously not.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
União e reconstrução