An alternative philosophical framing for audiophile subjectivism

[Mort]

I’m kind of an armchair philosopher. I came across this paper and thought I would take a shot at summarizing. It seems relevant to the community, and I didn’t see it mentioned in depth anywhere.

You may be familiar with the research paper by Frédéric Brochet ( “La dégustation: Étude des représentations des objets chimiques dans le champ de la conscience” (2001) in which trained oenology students used red-wine vocabulary to describe a white wine that had been dyed red. Contrary to popular legend, Brochet does not interpret this as proof that wine experts are frauds, that tasting is meaningless, or that wine quality is imaginary.

Instead, he concludes that vision strongly influences olfactory representation, that this influence operates below conscious awareness, and that the effect is a genuine perceptual illusion rather than dishonesty or incompetence. It is not, however, in any way, a direct measurement of chemical reality. The difference is ontological (reality), not phenomenological (sensory).

He goes further to point out that perception does not equal measurement. Brochet is raising the ‘hard’ problem of cognizance and consciousness. What we experience in the neurons of our brain is not the actual sound energy hitting our eardrum (although Reductivism would conveniently make that true, few are convinced.)

Brochet notes that wine tasting expertise is real. It just relies on learned patterns and is demonstrated through language, memory, and categorization. It can even be objectively studied. It’s more about recognizing patterns than quantifying substances.

If Brochet is right, the approach can be easily applied to (trained) subjectivist audiophiles, who might, for instance, genuinely believe they are hearing a cryogenically lowered noise floor in the cable. Both wine tasting and audiophile listening involve genuine human perceptual experiences that are strongly shaped by tradition, cognition, and expectation —yet are often mistaken for direct detection of objective, unmeasured physical properties.

If an audiophile said to Brochet “Measurements don’t capture what I’m hearing.” He would say ‘That’s correct. Measurements can’t capture experience.”

But he wouldn’t invalidate what the audiophile thinks he heard.

 

[Leporello]

I think most of these points are well known to most "objectivists". No one is denying the experience per se.

 

[DSJR]

It's all EYE-FI I tell ye

Oh, and 'knob-feel' too (oo-er missus)!

I'll get my coat.

 

[Axo1989]

... Contrary to popular legend, Brochet does not interpret this as proof that wine experts are frauds, that tasting is meaningless, or that wine quality is imaginary.

This popular reduction is easy to post and ventilate as a signal of objectivist tribal affiliation, of course. Some do it here, but not all, fortunately.

Instead, he concludes that vision strongly influences olfactory representation, that this influence operates below conscious awareness, and that the effect is a genuine perceptual illusion rather than dishonesty or incompetence. It is not, however, in any way, a direct measurement of chemical reality. The difference is ontological (reality), not phenomenological (sensory). ...

These certainly are factors—I think—explaining why reviewer narratives informed by audiophile 'tradition, cognition, and expectation' retain their entertainment value and their kind of veracity for the right audience. It's a shared culture. I'm not particularly troubled by it, and sometimes enjoy well-written examples. My cognition overlaps somewhat, but not entirely of course. I'm generally more interested in the acoustic and psycho-acoustic factors than the traditions/expectations.

 

[JiiPee]

As far as I know, this phenomenon is fairly widely accepted as part of human nature, at least in the "objective camp".

I have no problem with an audiophile who prioritizes his own experience over objective measurements, as long as he does not claim that his experience represents objective truth.

 

[Mart68]

As far as I know, this phenomenon is fairly widely accepted as part of human nature, at least in the "objective camp".

I have no problem with an audiophile who prioritizes his own experience over objective measurements, as long as he does not claim that his experience represents objective truth.

Or comes up with improbable technical explanations to support what he perceives?

That's where it starts to become misinformation, or even deception. No-one doubts he had the perception he claims to have had. Funny enough, many who dismiss measured performance as totally irrelevant still like to hang their hat on some technical reason for the difference/improvement.

 

[bmc0]

at least in the "objective camp"

And not so much in the "subjective camp", at least in my experience. They often (not always) insist that what they hear is objective reality, independent of their perception. If objective measurements show no difference, well, that's just because the measurements are incomplete or not sensitive enough.

 

[Timcognito]

I think Amir has pointed this out on several occasions, just like palette training for wine, trained listening results higher levels of perception and closer recognition of idiosyncrasies of playback sound.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

This is one of the things that psych experiments and especially psychophysical experiments need to deal with in their design. Anything involving consciousness, a concept that's pretty darned slippery in itself, is difficult to deal with. It's like there's a blur around causation.

 

[HalSF]

But he wouldn’t invalidate what the audiophile thinks he heard.

“Invalidate” is doing a lot of work in this concluding sentence.. Is a strong perception of a powerful change in sound quality introduced by a sighted audition of a new interconnect or speaker wire “invalidated” if the change can’t be identified or heard and disappears in a blind comparative test? I would say it is.

I just had an exchange with a guy on another forum who said the great sound of his system was ruined when he lifted his components off the floor and put them on two open equipment shelves. The psychological and visual cue for a profound change was seemingly far more powerful than any credible acoustic effect of such a minor change. A lot of audiophile “training” is arguably a deeply ingrained expectation that *any* system change transforms or notably alters sound quality, an expectation that overwhelms the possibility that nothing has audibly changed.

 

[tmtomh]

I’m kind of an armchair philosopher. I came across this paper and thought I would take a shot at summarizing. It seems relevant to the community, and I didn’t see it mentioned in depth anywhere.

You may be familiar with the research paper by Frédéric Brochet ( “La dégustation: Étude des représentations des objets chimiques dans le champ de la conscience” (2001) in which trained oenology students used red-wine vocabulary to describe a white wine that had been dyed red. Contrary to popular legend, Brochet does not interpret this as proof that wine experts are frauds, that tasting is meaningless, or that wine quality is imaginary.

Instead, he concludes that vision strongly influences olfactory representation, that this influence operates below conscious awareness, and that the effect is a genuine perceptual illusion rather than dishonesty or incompetence. It is not, however, in any way, a direct measurement of chemical reality. The difference is ontological (reality), not phenomenological (sensory).

He goes further to point out that perception does not equal measurement. Brochet is raising the ‘hard’ problem of cognizance and consciousness. What we experience in the neurons of our brain is not the actual sound energy hitting our eardrum (although Reductivism would conveniently make that true, few are convinced.)

Brochet notes that wine tasting expertise is real. It just relies on learned patterns and is demonstrated through language, memory, and categorization. It can even be objectively studied. It’s more about recognizing patterns than quantifying substances.

If Brochet is right, the approach can be easily applied to (trained) subjectivist audiophiles, who might, for instance, genuinely believe they are hearing a cryogenically lowered noise floor in the cable. Both wine tasting and audiophile listening involve genuine human perceptual experiences that are strongly shaped by tradition, cognition, and expectation —yet are often mistaken for direct detection of objective, unmeasured physical properties.

If an audiophile said to Brochet “Measurements don’t capture what I’m hearing.” He would say ‘That’s correct. Measurements can’t capture experience.”

But he wouldn’t invalidate what the audiophile thinks he heard.

I very much appreciate the clarity and focus of your excellent summary of this line of thought! I'd agree with others here that there's nothing particularly controversial about it - most ASR members readily agree.

It's not about whether someone's individual experience is real - it's about what it means. The main question is what it means for others: if the cryogenically treated speaker cable improves the sound for you but not for me, then your experience is real but it is of no meaning to me, since that cable is of no use in improving my experience of the sound of my system.

As for "valid," I'd advise caution in too quickly jumping to the conclusion that we can simply say each person's experience is valid. The reason is that, following your wine example, it leads to potentially absurd and tautological conclusions: if someone consumes subjectivist audio media, participates in subjectivist audio discussion, and becomes steeped in the terminology and culture of boutique subjectivist audiophilia, then they are likely to have real experiences with all kinds of obscenely expensive gear, cables, and tweaks making a real, experienced sonic difference. What that essentially ends up doing is turning every kind of communication and means of acquiring information into a drug or a religion (pick your preferred analogy), so if you take the subjectivist drug you will have a fantastic audio "trip" and it will be "real" as long as you keep taking the drug. Conversely, if you rely on measurements, that's just your "drug" or your "religious belief" and you won't hear improvements that can't be measured - in this line of thinking, not because your experience is more aligned with the objective reality, but rather because you "simply have chosen the objectivist measurement religion." I'd say that's not a great or useful road to go down in terms of trying to have some kind of a proper relationship to reality.

One aspect of this that I've found very helpful in reorienting this kind of discussion is to temporarily forget about other people's experience, and to instead focus on the subjectivist's experience by itself. The problem with relying on subjectivist terms, norms, and cultural expectations isn't ultimately that your experience can't be reliably replicated by others - it's that it can't be reliably replicated by you yourself over time. This is the entire reason for "the journey" that helps sustain the market for endless upgrades and equipment swaps. Age, energy level, sleep quality, time of day, season, mood and stress levels - all of this is well-known (and well-documented) to impact our sensory perceptions, including hearing, sometimes to pretty radical degrees. If we remind ourselves that our own hearing experience - including the role of visual cues and all the other sensory stuff Brochet includes - is by no means static and unchanging, the entire subjectivist edifice crumbles.

So for me the bottom line is that the subjectivist "drug" isn't going to give you the same "high" or "trip" every time, while the objectivist "drug" or "religion" isn't going to delude you about why you might be hearing differently from time to time, and instead it's going to give you a baseline you can rely on, so that you can more sensibly correlate what you're hearing with how you're feeling vs what your gear might be doing and thereby avoid needless stress and expense constantly swapping and "upgrading" your gear to "improve" sonic "issues" that are likely to change in character as you listen over time.

 

[Wesseling Audio Lab]

Hyperfocus on particular characteristics that were already present before cables got changed out! No actual change in sound for anyone.

 

[kemmler3D]

It's not about whether someone's individual experience is real - it's about what it means. The main question is what it means for others: if the cryogenically treated speaker cable improves the sound for you but not for me, then your experience is real but it is of no meaning to me, since that cable is of no use in improving my experience of the sound of my system.

Yep, this. I have often said lately that I certainly believe the subjectivist commenter heard what they say they heard. Of course they heard it, but we care more about why something is heard than whether it was heard.

I think we should also keep in mind - maybe the subjectivists need to hear this more - illusory heard differences don't sound illusory. They sound completely real, solid, convincing. In discussion I think it's easy to imagine straining to hear something until you convince yourself you hear something that isn't there, like seeing vague shapes in the dark when you stare into space long enough. In practice, you simply hear a small or not-so-small change that is no less real-feeling than if you turned the tone knobs on a preamp.

This is why it's so hard for subjectivists to accept the "placebo effect" explanation. They hear something distinctly, they also may have spent $X,000 to hear it, so being told their brain is playing tricks on them and their expensive gear does nothing is quite hard to accept. It's not as if they were fighting doubts up until that point.

 

[Mr. Widget]

I’m kind of an armchair philosopher....

Thank you for posting this.

Yep, this. I have often said lately that I certainly believe the subjectivist commenter heard what they say they heard. Of course they heard it, but we care more about why something is heard than whether it was heard.

I think we should also keep in mind - maybe the subjectivists need to hear this more - illusory heard differences don't sound illusory. They sound completely real, solid, convincing. In discussion I think it's easy to imagine straining to hear something until you convince yourself you hear something that isn't there, like seeing vague shapes in the dark when you stare into space long enough. In practice, you simply hear a small or not-so-small change that is no less real-feeling than if you turned the tone knobs on a preamp.

This is why it's so hard for subjectivists to accept the "placebo effect" explanation. They hear something distinctly, they also may have spent $X,000 to hear it, so being told their brain is playing tricks on them and their expensive gear does nothing is quite hard to accept. It's not as if they were fighting doubts up until that point.

100%

And I think this is true for some of those who many ASR members are quick to call charlatans. I think people like Paul McGowan really believe in what they are selling. These people are not selling meme coins but actual hardware they believe will perform as advertised.

 

[kemmler3D]

Thank you for posting this.

100%

And I think this is true for some of those who many ASR members are quick to call charlatans. I think people like Paul McGowan really believe in what they are selling. These people are not selling meme coins but actual hardware they believe will perform as advertised.

When someone is running a business selling snake oil, the benefit of the doubt is a small hand towel instead of a large blanket, and we shouldn't spend too much energy wondering if they take the snake oil themselves.

Or in other words, lying because they believe it's true or just regular lying, it doesn't really matter if you're trying to combat snake oil.

 

[Oddball]

I would not go so far to call this philosophical. It's just nature of things with some chaos on the side.

People can persuade themselves into hearing anything and it will be true - to them.

My neighbour imagines great many things - amongst some is that by bass is too loud. Go figure.

 

[MattHooper]

I like to avail myself of visual influences !

For instance, my two channel speakers sit out in front of my home theatre projection screen, and I like to listen with the lights down low and coloured lights on the projection screen in between and behind the speakers. I find this pleasurably influences my perception of the sound. The sound becomes a bit more…. “Colourful”…. What a surprise.

Since I’ve been into home theatre as well as two channel audio, I’ve paid very careful attention to presentation and the effects it has on the experience.

Various elements that we are not paying strict attention affects our perception or experience.

One obvious example from the home theatre world is the colour of a wall on which a home the display is placed. The colour of the wall, while the viewer doesn’t think she is noticing it, nonetheless can influence the perception of the colour in the image. Or of course, how bright or dark it is can affect the perception of contrast.

It’s like before projectors are displays could produce truly deep black levels, a lot of of us were using black masking, to mask off the “ not quite fully dark” black bars for cinema, scope, widescreen movies (the infamous “ black bars” that people used to complain about).

A lot of people think “ well I’m not even paying attention to the black bar so it doesn’t matter if they are there.” But if you fully get rid of them and mask them off the perceptual difference is obvious (including its effects on contrast),

For similar reasons I found with my home theatre system that objects within the field of view of the image affect the perception even when you’re not thinking about it or focussing on those other things in the field of view.
I had my cinema screen surrounded by black velvet, so the image really “ popped” in terms of contrast, but once I started taking other objects out of view around the image - covering up the Home theatre speakers in black velvet, etc. The better the perception of the image and the more immersion I felt as a viewer. I got to the point where I literally blacked out the ceiling and all the side walls and everything around the image, including even the floor so it’s like a big projected image in black space, and the effect is amazingly three-dimensional, and “ you are there.” I’ve had many guests say that they’ve never experienced quite as strong visual effect as this system, and that is simply because I paid some fanatical attention to presentation and perception.

I’m just bringing this up it seems of a piece with the phenomenon of contextual perceptual effects, where visual stimuli can change auditory perception, and visual stimuli one does not aware of can change visual perception.

 

[Mort]

Interesting responses.

I think I failed to show a key point. Brochet makes a strong case for the social validity and perceptual innocence of subjectivists. It's a compassionate and respectful take. I think he would advocate for more co-existence of objectivists and subjectivists.

 

[MattHooper]

(I’m a bit of a philosophy nerd so the OP would appeal to me, though I think the information is pretty much standard wisdom around here that didn’t necessarily require philosophy, but more science)

If an audiophile said to Brochet “Measurements don’t capture what I’m hearing.” He would say ‘That’s correct. Measurements can’t capture experience.”

But he wouldn’t invalidate what the audiophile thinks he heard.

I think I would want to quibble with the part I have bolded above.

I guess it’s a bit of a language thing but…

Measurements can often explain specific experience, eg a measurable big peak in the high frequencies can explain and correlate to what an individual audiophile is experiencing.
And of course, we know from Toole and other’s work that measurements can be highly predictive of many listeners experience of loudspeakers (predicting which loudspeaker they will prefer under controlled conditions).

It seems to me, perhaps a bit of semantics as to whether we choose to describe this as measurements “ predicting” “ correlating to” “explaining” or “ capturing” experiences.

Now in terms of the audiophiles experience….

It’s interesting to ponder how durable non-sonic influences in perception can be, and how one might rule that into choices of gear.

I pointed out before that I have owned my Conrad Johnson tube amplifiers for about 25 years, because they seem to me - in my perception - to add a certain type of colouration that I find very pleasing. This colouration has been consistent in my perception for all these years, and across any number of loudspeakers, I’ve used in my room.

**Because I’ve never been able to do a blind test between my CJ amps and a solid state amplifier (lots of informal sighted shoot outs, but no blind testing), I’ve always carried with me the caveat that I could obviously be experiencing some bias effect “ tube amps sound warm” and all that.

But as I’ve also said, in the absence of any such definitive test, if it’s a bias effect, it is so reliable and durable over 25 years that I’m happy to have integrated that into my listening perception and experience.

Likewise, I auditioned the speakers I currently use (Joseph audio speakers) in a number of different set ups at an audio store before I bought them.

Without blind testing, I can never be sure that what I perceived about those speakers is totally accurate to the actual sound.

However, in terms of my perceptual experience, they had the same essential characteristics in each of the set ups I heard at the store, and exactly the characteristics I bought them for showed up in my listening room since I’ve owned them.

Against this is that we know, again from Toole et al, that the knowledge of what you’re listening to or the visual impressions of a loudspeaker can actually overwhelm real sonic differences due to differences in room placement.

So I guess it remains plausible that some sort of visual bias from these loudspeakers is doing some work to make them “ sound essentially the same to me” in my room as they did at the store (although of course, I believe I’ve tweaked the sound on my room to sound better).

Which again brings me back to the same theme: if my perception is being influenced by a non-Sonic factor such as how the speakers look or something about my attitude towards the brand, it’s been an extremely reliable and durable effect. I’ve had the speakers for eight years and they sound the same to me essentially as when I first got them, and I would describe all of their essential characteristics precisely the same now as when I first got them.

So if there is a bias effect at work, it seems to be quite durable and I’m fine if that’s factoring in to my experience.

** (as I’ve detailed in this forum, I was eventually able to do a proper blind test between my Conrad Johnson tube preamp and a solid state preamplifier I own, and it did seem to have the characteristics under blind conditions that I heard under sighted conditions which allowed me to reliably identify that preamplifier. I’d like to blindest the power amplifier, but that’s just too much of a hassle) .

 

[tmtomh]

Interesting responses.

I think I failed to show a key point. Brochet makes a strong case for the social validity and perceptual innocence of subjectivists. It's a compassionate and respectful take. I think he would advocate for more co-existence of objectivists and subjectivists.

I personally think you pretty clearly communicated that aspect too. Regarding "perceptual innocence" of subjectivists, yes, I think folks understand that, and many of the responses you got affirm that - specifically, no one (well, almost no one, anyway) is claiming that subjectivists are lying, and even the idea of consciously "lying to oneself" because one spent a lot of money is not the main point most folks make when it comes to subjectivists' claims. Most folks here acknowledge that folks really perceive what they claim to hear. The experience is real and except for trolls (and perhaps some other folks who are so obviously defensive one suspects they're trying to convince themselves), people honestly hear what they hear.

As for "social validity," I'd echo an earlier comment: I think this kind of phrasing is being asked to do a lot of heavy lifting meaning-wise. If by "social validity" one means that in a community like ASR we cannot be "compassionate and respectful" unless we treat subjectivists' sonic claims as just as valid as measurement- or evidence-backed claims, then no - with respect (and compassion! ) I would say no. Their personal experience is valid in that it really happened (or at least I am prepared to believe it really happened). But while it's real, it's not "true" in that it's not reliably repeatable for others. (And as I've argued previously, it's not reliably repeatable even for themselves, but that's another discussion.) I have no particular emotional investment in using the term "truth," and I certainly agree that we don't need to get heated or angry or nasty or mocking about it. Nevertheless, coexistence is a two-way street, and we need to be careful about formulating the issue in a way that unwittingly would ask us to check our beliefs in measurements and psychoacoustics at the door as the price for "respect and compassion."

To be clear, I am not saying you're advocating that we do that. I'm talking more about the way that the somewhat imprecise use of a term like "social validity" here can inadvertently open the door to that. It's exactly what happened at AudiophileStyle.