Fluffy
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2019
- Messages
- 856
- Likes
- 1,425
I stumbled upon this imaginary conversation that was written by a self-declared subjectivist, as he tries to argue with an objectivist about why he believes there is a difference in sound between USB cables. The answers he gives to this imaginary friend are pretty awkward, and the friend itself is written as a fool who falls casually into the writer's rhetoric traps. So here is my response to that conversation, as how I imagine an actual objectivist would answer those questions (my answers are in bold font):
Barry: Hey John. Let’s dispense with the small talk today. My gears are grinding.
Me: OK, Barry. Nice to hear from you. What’s got you all bent out of shape?
Barry: You!
John: Me?!
Barry: Yes. YOU.
John: How so?
Barry: You claim that you can discern small audible differences between USB cables. Everyone knows it’s only ones and zeroes.
John: Hmmmm. Everyone? Do you know ‘everyone’ to speak on their behalf?
Saying that "everyone knows" and therefore it's true is a rookie mistake and no serious debater would probably ever use this argument.
Let’s put the theory to one side for a moment and focus on reality. Or rather, my reality! Yes, I hear differences between certain USB cables in certain high-end audio systems.
Barry: I’m calling bullshit on this.
John: On what basis? Have you taken, say, a Curious USB cable or an AudioQuest Carbon and compared either to the USB cable that comes with your printer?
Barry: No, of course, I haven’t. I don’t need to.
Just as I don't need to get on a rocket and launch myself into space to know for certain that the earth is round. There are measurable physical truths in this world that you don't need firsthand experience with to know they are true.
John: You don’t need to? Would you pass comment on the food in Spain without ever setting foot in the country?
Barry: What’s food and Spain got to do with it?
Exactly. Changing the subject or using outlandish analogies is a sign that you have no real basis to your claims.
John: OK. Let’s bring it back to hi-fi. Tell me, Barry: do you ever sit down and compare amplifiers?
Barry: Of course I do!
Let me stop you right here. "amplifier sound" is already a very debatable topic. This is a shaky foundation to start an argument on. Lets just say that well-built amplifiers should have no sound of their own, and comparing between them and hearing obvious differences is already requiring a lot of psychological biasing.
John: What about loudspeakers — do you ever compare them at a hi-fi store or at an audiophile friend’s house?
There is foundation to comparing loudspeakers, but that's because the differences between them are orders of magnitude greater than the ones between electronics. and anyway, a true listening comparison should be blind even in speakers.
Barry: Dude, I’m not an idiot! But USB cables are different. Any differences you hear between them are the result of psychoacoustics.
John: OK. Go on…
Barry: Yup: the placebo effect. You’re imagining things.
John: Let me make sure I understand you correctly: when I compare two different USB cables, hear a difference between those two USB cables and then report on that difference, my findings are, in fact, all in my head?
Barry: You got it.
John: Right. What about when I compare two DACs, hear differences between them and then report on those differences? Are those differences also all in my head?
Yes. Simple as that.
Barry: No, that’s different.
This imaginary friend is obviously not an actual objectivist. If amplifier sound differences are questionable, differences between DACs are an outright myth (mostly). That's unless the DAC is so broken that it creates artifacts above the audibility threshold.
John: And what about when I hear differences between two amplifiers and report on the same? Am I once again the victim of the placebo effect?
Barry: Of course not!
Sometimes. There are probably broken amplifiers that add enough distortion to be audible, but you should avoid these anyway.
John: And loudspeaker differences?
Barry: Come on. Even my Mrs can hear the difference between loudspeakers!
Of course. his wife heard it from the kitchen. You just couldn't go half a conversation without using that old cliché, now could you?
John: To confirm: when I assess loudspeakers, amplifiers and DACs and report on their differences, that’s OK with you. But when I apply that same review process to USB cables and report on their differences, that’s not OK with you.
No. speakers makes sense, but preferably blinded. Amplifiers can be validated by measuring to see there are no obvious defects, and probably would sound the same if built well. DACs don't sound different 99.99% of the time.
Barry: BINGO!
John: But Barry, my dear chap, I apply the same review process to all gear: up to 12 weeks of listening. One week with product A, then a week with product B, then A, then B…and so it goes on.
Yeah, because our brain is a perfect recording machine that can remember all the nuances of how something sounded a week ago. Oh wait, no it's not. This is a silly unreliable reviewing method.
Barry: Doesn’t matter. USB cables are pure placebo. When you listen to a new cable, you imagine the difference because it’s a sighted test. That’s what the psychoacoustics experts tell us. You can’t ignore the science!
Sighted tests can cause all kinds if imagined differences in everything, not only cables.
John: OK. I agree with you. The science of psychoacoustics is very real. As is the placebo effect. Floyd Toole explains in this video how sighted listening can distort loudspeaker tests. To get around it, he had a machine built at the HARMAN research facility that automatically moves loudspeakers in and out position as the listener sits behind a curtain. The test subjects listen to only one loudspeaker (not a pair) at a time. Anyway, I digress. Per Toole’s findings and following your logic, if sighted tests are flawed for USB cables and loudspeakers then, assuming the same conditions, sighted tests are similarly flawed for amplifiers and DACs.
Yes, you got that right. Sighted tests are flawed period.
Barry: Huh? Come again, mate.
John: If you claim that all USB cables sound the same and that any sighted test saying otherwise is wholly unreliable due to psychoacoustics, then it follows that all sighted tests executed under the same conditions are psychoacoustically flawed. In other words, if we are to acknowledge the placebo effect as real for subjective reviews of USB cables, then, assuming the same test conditions, we should acknowledge the placebo effect for all product types: DACs, turntables, cartridges, amplifiers etc.
Yes we should. How is he making this very sensible approach sound so laughable? The power of rhetorical fallacies, I guess.
Barry: Errrrr…
John: Why didn’t you (or anyone else) message me about the fallibility of sighted tests in the wake of my reviews of the Rupert Neve Precision DAC, the Bluesound Powernode 2i and the Meze Rai Penta?
Barry: Because those sighted tests are OK. It’s just the USB cable tests that are not.
Again, not a real objectivist. This guy is a cartoon of an objectivist, and he is purposefully created to play right into the writer's hands.
John: So, according to you, the differences that I hear between two amplifiers are real but the differences that I hear between USB cables are imagined?
Barry: That’s because the delta between any two loudspeakers models is relatively large and between two USB cables relatively small.
"relatively small"? well technically, 0 is relatively small. so if there is 0 differences he is technically correct. But of course, this is an intentionally stupid response.
John: I agree but I thought you said USB cable differences didn’t exist?
Yeah. They don't. your imaginary guy is contradicting himself because you made him do that.
But seriously, if the subjective listener is to take into account the possibility of the placebo effect and that possibility varies according to product type, I have three questions: 1) To what degree does the placebo effect consideration vary?; 2) For which products?: and 3) According to whom?
There is no "possibility of placebo effect". It's a real effect, and it simply states that if there isn't a difference and yet you hear one, it's in your head. So the questions you then present are pointless and unanswerable.
Barry: Didn’t we cover this already?
John: I’m just making sure that I don’t misunderstand you. So you’re saying that despite the very real possibility of placebo effect affecting all product reviews, you know with certainty when I am imagining things and when I am not? Because I don’t!
You got it backwards, buddy. What you should be thinking of is not the possibility of placebo, but the possibility of an existence of a perceptible difference. The possibility is high in speakers, low in amplifiers, and virtually nonexistent in everything else (including cables of all types). If a component such as s USB cable is utterly dysfunctional, the effect on the sound would be very obvious – there would be no sound, as simple as that. as long as it's functional and built to specification, no amount of fancy materials and money spent on it would affect the sound in any way. At least, not in the real world – in your head, maybe.
Barry: Errrrrrrm. Yeah, that’s what I am saying.
John: Dearest Barry. You are perfectly entitled to see some of my reviews as valid and others not but in exercising that prerogative you take matters into your own hands (and out of mine). An inconsistent outlook on my (or any other reviewer’s) work
the only inconsistent view is the one of your imagined caricature objectivist.
that induces a feeling of internal aggravation
Oh, so you aren't aggravated at all? Isn't this why you bothered to sit down and write this silly passive-aggressive article?
, coupled with an ongoing refusal to engage first-hand with the very product types whose reviews you call into question,
If I can borrow your own analogy – I don't need to personally go to Spain to know that it's real.
means the only person grinding your gears is you.
And by you, I guess you mean you as the writer who started this whole debate with yourself.
Barry: Hey John. Let’s dispense with the small talk today. My gears are grinding.
Me: OK, Barry. Nice to hear from you. What’s got you all bent out of shape?
Barry: You!
John: Me?!
Barry: Yes. YOU.
John: How so?
Barry: You claim that you can discern small audible differences between USB cables. Everyone knows it’s only ones and zeroes.
John: Hmmmm. Everyone? Do you know ‘everyone’ to speak on their behalf?
Saying that "everyone knows" and therefore it's true is a rookie mistake and no serious debater would probably ever use this argument.
Let’s put the theory to one side for a moment and focus on reality. Or rather, my reality! Yes, I hear differences between certain USB cables in certain high-end audio systems.
Barry: I’m calling bullshit on this.
John: On what basis? Have you taken, say, a Curious USB cable or an AudioQuest Carbon and compared either to the USB cable that comes with your printer?
Barry: No, of course, I haven’t. I don’t need to.
Just as I don't need to get on a rocket and launch myself into space to know for certain that the earth is round. There are measurable physical truths in this world that you don't need firsthand experience with to know they are true.
John: You don’t need to? Would you pass comment on the food in Spain without ever setting foot in the country?
Barry: What’s food and Spain got to do with it?
Exactly. Changing the subject or using outlandish analogies is a sign that you have no real basis to your claims.
John: OK. Let’s bring it back to hi-fi. Tell me, Barry: do you ever sit down and compare amplifiers?
Barry: Of course I do!
Let me stop you right here. "amplifier sound" is already a very debatable topic. This is a shaky foundation to start an argument on. Lets just say that well-built amplifiers should have no sound of their own, and comparing between them and hearing obvious differences is already requiring a lot of psychological biasing.
John: What about loudspeakers — do you ever compare them at a hi-fi store or at an audiophile friend’s house?
There is foundation to comparing loudspeakers, but that's because the differences between them are orders of magnitude greater than the ones between electronics. and anyway, a true listening comparison should be blind even in speakers.
Barry: Dude, I’m not an idiot! But USB cables are different. Any differences you hear between them are the result of psychoacoustics.
John: OK. Go on…
Barry: Yup: the placebo effect. You’re imagining things.
John: Let me make sure I understand you correctly: when I compare two different USB cables, hear a difference between those two USB cables and then report on that difference, my findings are, in fact, all in my head?
Barry: You got it.
John: Right. What about when I compare two DACs, hear differences between them and then report on those differences? Are those differences also all in my head?
Yes. Simple as that.
Barry: No, that’s different.
This imaginary friend is obviously not an actual objectivist. If amplifier sound differences are questionable, differences between DACs are an outright myth (mostly). That's unless the DAC is so broken that it creates artifacts above the audibility threshold.
John: And what about when I hear differences between two amplifiers and report on the same? Am I once again the victim of the placebo effect?
Barry: Of course not!
Sometimes. There are probably broken amplifiers that add enough distortion to be audible, but you should avoid these anyway.
John: And loudspeaker differences?
Barry: Come on. Even my Mrs can hear the difference between loudspeakers!
Of course. his wife heard it from the kitchen. You just couldn't go half a conversation without using that old cliché, now could you?
John: To confirm: when I assess loudspeakers, amplifiers and DACs and report on their differences, that’s OK with you. But when I apply that same review process to USB cables and report on their differences, that’s not OK with you.
No. speakers makes sense, but preferably blinded. Amplifiers can be validated by measuring to see there are no obvious defects, and probably would sound the same if built well. DACs don't sound different 99.99% of the time.
Barry: BINGO!
John: But Barry, my dear chap, I apply the same review process to all gear: up to 12 weeks of listening. One week with product A, then a week with product B, then A, then B…and so it goes on.
Yeah, because our brain is a perfect recording machine that can remember all the nuances of how something sounded a week ago. Oh wait, no it's not. This is a silly unreliable reviewing method.
Barry: Doesn’t matter. USB cables are pure placebo. When you listen to a new cable, you imagine the difference because it’s a sighted test. That’s what the psychoacoustics experts tell us. You can’t ignore the science!
Sighted tests can cause all kinds if imagined differences in everything, not only cables.
John: OK. I agree with you. The science of psychoacoustics is very real. As is the placebo effect. Floyd Toole explains in this video how sighted listening can distort loudspeaker tests. To get around it, he had a machine built at the HARMAN research facility that automatically moves loudspeakers in and out position as the listener sits behind a curtain. The test subjects listen to only one loudspeaker (not a pair) at a time. Anyway, I digress. Per Toole’s findings and following your logic, if sighted tests are flawed for USB cables and loudspeakers then, assuming the same conditions, sighted tests are similarly flawed for amplifiers and DACs.
Yes, you got that right. Sighted tests are flawed period.
Barry: Huh? Come again, mate.
John: If you claim that all USB cables sound the same and that any sighted test saying otherwise is wholly unreliable due to psychoacoustics, then it follows that all sighted tests executed under the same conditions are psychoacoustically flawed. In other words, if we are to acknowledge the placebo effect as real for subjective reviews of USB cables, then, assuming the same test conditions, we should acknowledge the placebo effect for all product types: DACs, turntables, cartridges, amplifiers etc.
Yes we should. How is he making this very sensible approach sound so laughable? The power of rhetorical fallacies, I guess.
Barry: Errrrr…
John: Why didn’t you (or anyone else) message me about the fallibility of sighted tests in the wake of my reviews of the Rupert Neve Precision DAC, the Bluesound Powernode 2i and the Meze Rai Penta?
Barry: Because those sighted tests are OK. It’s just the USB cable tests that are not.
Again, not a real objectivist. This guy is a cartoon of an objectivist, and he is purposefully created to play right into the writer's hands.
John: So, according to you, the differences that I hear between two amplifiers are real but the differences that I hear between USB cables are imagined?
Barry: That’s because the delta between any two loudspeakers models is relatively large and between two USB cables relatively small.
"relatively small"? well technically, 0 is relatively small. so if there is 0 differences he is technically correct. But of course, this is an intentionally stupid response.
John: I agree but I thought you said USB cable differences didn’t exist?
Yeah. They don't. your imaginary guy is contradicting himself because you made him do that.
But seriously, if the subjective listener is to take into account the possibility of the placebo effect and that possibility varies according to product type, I have three questions: 1) To what degree does the placebo effect consideration vary?; 2) For which products?: and 3) According to whom?
There is no "possibility of placebo effect". It's a real effect, and it simply states that if there isn't a difference and yet you hear one, it's in your head. So the questions you then present are pointless and unanswerable.
Barry: Didn’t we cover this already?
John: I’m just making sure that I don’t misunderstand you. So you’re saying that despite the very real possibility of placebo effect affecting all product reviews, you know with certainty when I am imagining things and when I am not? Because I don’t!
You got it backwards, buddy. What you should be thinking of is not the possibility of placebo, but the possibility of an existence of a perceptible difference. The possibility is high in speakers, low in amplifiers, and virtually nonexistent in everything else (including cables of all types). If a component such as s USB cable is utterly dysfunctional, the effect on the sound would be very obvious – there would be no sound, as simple as that. as long as it's functional and built to specification, no amount of fancy materials and money spent on it would affect the sound in any way. At least, not in the real world – in your head, maybe.
Barry: Errrrrrrm. Yeah, that’s what I am saying.
John: Dearest Barry. You are perfectly entitled to see some of my reviews as valid and others not but in exercising that prerogative you take matters into your own hands (and out of mine). An inconsistent outlook on my (or any other reviewer’s) work
the only inconsistent view is the one of your imagined caricature objectivist.
that induces a feeling of internal aggravation
Oh, so you aren't aggravated at all? Isn't this why you bothered to sit down and write this silly passive-aggressive article?
, coupled with an ongoing refusal to engage first-hand with the very product types whose reviews you call into question,
If I can borrow your own analogy – I don't need to personally go to Spain to know that it's real.
means the only person grinding your gears is you.
And by you, I guess you mean you as the writer who started this whole debate with yourself.
