The root of audiophile myths (and how we fell for them)?

[Pugsly]

Hey all,
I was wondering about how various myths began and became entrenched. Sheer placebo is not quite enough in some instances, it seems to me. Granted, I know that I, to admit my own failings, wanted to believe certain things 'made a difference' and was talked into some (thankfully relatively inexpensive) 'upgrades' when I could not really hear a difference. (Specifically, I bought a CD player from someone which I was not sure then (and am quite certain now) sounded no different than my then current unit due to sales pressure from a 'friend'.) But it appears to me that some myths might be grounded in in other causes. For example:

-The 'synergy' myth makes little sense assuming that one is talking about well-measuring, stable units. (On the above note, I was once at an audio boutique and remember the salesman trying to a couple of years later prime me with an 'I think you will really like this (more expensive) unit more,' and telling them that I actually preferred the cheaper one - when in reality neither sounded any different to me.
But now wait: Some of the most expensive boutique audio gear that populates the high-end is anything but well-measuring. So, imagine that one has just dropped quite a bit of cash on something (say headphones) that objectively measures like crap, but which interacted with another piece of poorly measuring equipment with which one first auditioned them at the local boutique, and that the failings of each unit evened each other out. Now one buys the headphone, gets it home, is disappointed. I am sure these headphones cannot be bad, I tell myself, as I remember how they sounding great with the equipment at the store. Thus, I search for something that has that same mythical 'synergy' - except now this is not quite a myth because the right amplifier/dac/etc. when it is flawed in the right way does correct the issues. Of course, this means that finding this 'right' gear that will 'synergize' is a crap-shoot and a matter of offsetting failings. But now I have 'heard the difference with my own ears', and at this point am not just emotionally invested in my purchase, but have become accustomed to the idiosyncrasies of my new baby so that other things begin to sound 'off.' Moreover, I now 'know' that measurements are not reliable - since two pieces of crap measuring gear produced audio bliss! Ergo, all hail synergy and anyone who appeals to objective measurements is deaf and/or has not had experience with the really good, expensive stuff while that cheap stuff that measures well falls apart when paired with the really good equipment I own (sniffs own farts and smiles knowingly...)

Any other hypotheses, or any more specific hypotheses or research that go beyond mere delusion and placebo effect? For example, I can imagine that crosstalk might be advantageous with some recordings, as well as that gear which acts as an eq, or which muffles sounds, or adds reverb in the right region for a particular kind of music, might be highly advantageous. We need to remember that many people do not audition gear either with a broad spectrum of material, and even don't bring their own recordings for auditions!
Now, if someone could nail down in a predictable manner what effects/distortions are advantageous in which circumstances/instances so that they could be applied in an easily reproducible and predictable manner, that would really be interesting and valuable...
Pugs

 

[pozz]

Delusion, etc. suggest the problem's an individual thing. It's not.

You get fooled because there's a whole culture, very developed, which persists in every area of audio. Boutique stores, shows, the entire pro scene, commercial and retail settings and the attachment to the music industry, online venues of various kinds, popular publications and some amount of poorly done scientific articles. Plus books of various levels of seriousness. Endless discourse.

There's an economy linking it all, and the barrier to entry is low.

In contrast, all of the science and the perspectives, the reasoning has been very hard to access until recently.

 

[abdo123]

I think it’s about how big the kernel of truth is in the core of the myth.

I mean a lot of people would be okay with the idea that cables make no difference but say that Spotify is just as good as lossless streaming services and CDs and you might get rocks thrown at you.

 

[PierreV]

Music is considered the language of emotions. The way we experience it is completely subjective. ( note: this does not invalidate the need for objective reproduction if coming closer to the intended subjective result is the goal)

(mandatory "sciency" link)

Any field that is fundamentally emotional is wide open to all kinds of manipulations of the "experience". There is a market. The barrier to entry is very, very low in many cases. This is the perfect recipe for monetary abuse.

That being said, while spending $2000 on speaker cables makes no sense, can fairly be described as "dumb" in a utilitarian framework, spending the same amount to go from a 110dB SINAD DAC to a "SOTA" 124dB SINAD DAC doesn't really make sense either, at least in my subjective opinion . Some people find psychological comfort in heavy cables, others in numerical specifications...

I feel very lucky in the sense that I can appreciate music on sub 50 EUR in-ears when cycling just as much as I can appreciate it on an overpriced objective SOTA system. In fact, I am more often disappointed by my objective SOTA system than I am with my cheap earbuds because of the quality of the recordings.

I am really open to the subjective side of things but what I really dislike in the subjective market is its dishonest side, which unfortunately is widespread.

 

[anmpr1]

Music is considered the language of emotions. Any field that is fundamentally emotional is wide open to all kinds of manipulations of the "experience".

I've read that, but would rather say that musical 'language' is not necessarily or even primarily 'emotional' (but it can be emotional at times, no doubt about that). Instead, music may in fact express intellect, and even just as much evoke a base, or alternately a subtle, physiological motor response (assuming that emotions are not reduced to mere physiology). Historically, music was also seen as both creating and demanding a reason based social or political response--> for instance Plato (in Republic and Laws) held how music had to be carefully considered, and sometimes proscribed, for the good of the polity. So to delimit music, filing it solely under the rubric of 'emotions', is in my view too limiting.

Music has traditionally been viewed as a 'gift of the gods' (et al, the Muses, Apollo, Orpheus); a gift offering a direct link to the transcendental known as Beauty. Transcendentals (Beauty, Knowledge, the Good) were never viewed as subjective in the usual sense of the word, but rather were they conceived as properties of Being. One can say that as an 'experience' it is subjective, since the subject is the one who perceives and interprets the experience. But unless we are willing to support a radical idealism, music (or any fine art, or even any basic experience at all) is not subjective in the sense that it is a private or privileged view of the world, especially anent the creating artist. So in that sense, musical understanding is objective, existing as a category of knowledge and is not just a simple or arbitrary taste. As such, it can be parsed via the 'science' of aesthetics, via an underlying philosophy of art.

Obviously we cannot 'measure' our knowledge of an aesthetic musical hierarchy the same way we can measure THD and IM. But we 'know' for certainty that Shakespeare represents higher literary art than the primary reader, Fun With Dick and Jane; and we know that Bach approaches the transcendental, Beauty, better than ______ (fill in the blank). Again, knowledge of this is not derived from, nor is it grounded upon, a 'subjective' judgement flowing from emotion.

That said, I certainly agree with you that 'any field that is fundamentally emotional is wide open to all kinds of manipulations', although I would not include music as an artform in that category.

As far as 'audio myths'? Those can be quite subjective. Little if any of the 'tweako' stuff holds up, once experience is controlled. And controls certainly ought do away with any 'emotional' factors preceding the listening test (that's why you hide the brands). On the other hand, if an 'emotional factor' (say, pride in owning the Mark Levinson instead of the Pioneer receiver) is gratifying to the listener, and helps him enjoy his music, then I mostly look the other way. However, in that case, the person ought to have the sense (or is it shame?) to keep quiet about his proclivities for gear fetishes.

 

[PierreV]

we know that Bach approaches the transcendental, Beauty, better than ______ (fill in the blank).

everything else, here we are in complete agreement

 

[anmpr1]

everything else, here we are in complete agreement

I was going to fill in my name, playing guitar. But I'm at the Fun with Dick and Jane primary reader level in the musical talent department!

Pro tip: If you turn it up and add enough overdrive, it all starts to sound good. Or at least you can convince yourself of that! And don't listen to your detractors. What do they know!

Value in gear tip: I've lately been using a relatively inexpensive Boss Katana Mk2. If you like a lot of knobs, and like to make adjustments, and even hook it up to your PC, then your 'audio' dollar is much better spent on something like that, than it is on a new preamp or DAC, for your stereo system. Believe me, a new DAC won't give you nearly as much hands on or listening pleasure!

 

[Doodski]

Audio myth or good design? Why is this open back speaker open when the audio myth(?) is that the front and back of the speaker's energy will cancel each other out and cannot function this way?

 

[tomtoo]

The question is great, and we should do more investigation and writing on ASR.
Many of that truthes had there sense at there time.

Its true to have a TT in a stable rack, even for a tube amp this is true. But is this still true for a SS amp and a Dac?

There are many of this truths, that where right in there time. But dont hold under changed circumstances.

 

[Doodski]

Its true to have a TT in a stable rack, even for a tube amp this is true. But is this still true for a SS amp and a Dac?

No it is not. In my experience checking for intermittent connections in very some very intermittent Sony SS receivers I used my 10" xceLite screwdriver to hit the chassis to seek out intermittent connections. There was no microphonic effect noticed audibly or on the O-scope.

 

[krabapple]

Any other hypotheses, or any more specific hypotheses or research that go beyond mere delusion and placebo effect? For example, I can imagine that crosstalk might be advantageous with some recordings, as well as that gear which acts as an eq, or which muffles sounds, or adds reverb in the right region for a particular kind of music, might be highly advantageous. We need to remember that many people do not audition gear either with a broad spectrum of material, and even don't bring their own recordings for auditions!

Except , what you described at such length is at root...delusion and placebo built on suppositions.

For all you know, what was heard at the store was simply a bit louder than what you listened to at home. Or maybe there was some EQ going on in store. Without solid data it's all just a mess of uncontrolled variables. Nothing to draw conclusions from. Enter: delusion and placebo.

 

[tomtoo]

No it is not. In my experience checking for intermittent connections in very some very intermittent Sony SS receivers I used my 10" xceLite screwdriver to hit the chassis to seek out intermittent connections. There was no microphonic effect noticed audibly or on the O-scope.

Thats why i say that thread title is good. Some of that myths had there truth 50 and more years ago. So catch the roots of them, explain why thats not the truth any more, would be helpfull for many.

 

[MRC01]

Common areas for audiophile myths that I've seen over the years:

• Timing and transients
• Distortion: HD and IM
• Negative feedback
• Noise, bit depth and dither
• Measurements and audibility: what you can hear and what you can measure
• Blind testing: especially how to conduct tests and interpret results

 

[Madjalapeno]

Common areas for audiophile myths that I've seen over the years:

• Timing and transients
• Distortion: HD and IM
• Negative feedback
• Noise, bit depth and dither
• Measurements and audibility: what you can hear and what you can measure
• Blind testing: especially how to conduct tests and interpret results

Personal annoyances:

• placing amplifiers on heavy isolating platforms
• door stops on DAC's
• raising speaker cables

 

[Pugsly]

I've read that, but would rather say that musical 'language' is not necessarily or even primarily 'emotional' (but it can be emotional at times, no doubt about that). Instead, music may in fact express intellect, and even just as much evoke a base, or alternately a subtle, physiological motor response (assuming that emotions are not reduced to mere physiology). Historically, music was also seen as both creating and demanding a reason based social or political response--> for instance Plato (in Republic and Laws) held how music had to be carefully considered, and sometimes proscribed, for the good of the polity. So to delimit music, filing it solely under the rubric of 'emotions', is in my view too limiting.

Music has traditionally been viewed as a 'gift of the gods' (et al, the Muses, Apollo, Orpheus); a gift offering a direct link to the transcendental known as Beauty. Transcendentals (Beauty, Knowledge, the Good) were never viewed as subjective in the usual sense of the word, but rather were they conceived as properties of Being. One can say that as an 'experience' it is subjective, since the subject is the one who perceives and interprets the experience. But unless we are willing to support a radical idealism, music (or any fine art, or even any basic experience at all) is not subjective in the sense that it is a private or privileged view of the world, especially anent the creating artist. So in that sense, musical understanding is objective, existing as a category of knowledge and is not just a simple or arbitrary taste. As such, it can be parsed via the 'science' of aesthetics, via an underlying philosophy of art.

Obviously we cannot 'measure' our knowledge of an aesthetic musical hierarchy the same way we can measure THD and IM. But we 'know' for certainty that Shakespeare represents higher literary art than the primary reader, Fun With Dick and Jane; and we know that Bach approaches the transcendental, Beauty, better than ______ (fill in the blank). Again, knowledge of this is not derived from, nor is it grounded upon, a 'subjective' judgement flowing from emotion.

That said, I certainly agree with you that 'any field that is fundamentally emotional is wide open to all kinds of manipulations', although I would not include music as an artform in that category.

As far as 'audio myths'? Those can be quite subjective. Little if any of the 'tweako' stuff holds up, once experience is controlled. And controls certainly ought do away with any 'emotional' factors preceding the listening test (that's why you hide the brands). On the other hand, if an 'emotional factor' (say, pride in owning the Mark Levinson instead of the Pioneer receiver) is gratifying to the listener, and helps him enjoy his music, then I mostly look the other way. However, in that case, the person ought to have the sense (or is it shame?) to keep quiet about his proclivities for gear fetishes.

@anmpr1 - While I am sympathetic to the idea that aesthetic claims are not merely subjective, and there is a genuine sense in which one can judge, say, Bach to be better than the Bee Gees, I am not sure that trying to justify this claim on the grounds of Platonic metaphysics and the Medieval conception of the transcendentals, much less contemporary philosophy of art would clarify issues, rather than be 'explaining the obscure by the more obscure.' At any rate, there are certainly people whose aesthetic judgments are completely out of sync with my own, and I am happy to admit that there are some genres and styles of music that I have no particular attraction to - for example, I have never been able to get excited by Opera, and know people who find Jazz utterly alien. Whether John Coltrane's A Love Supreme or Bizet's Carmen is closer to 'the beautiful' would be a difficult, if not impossible question to answer, much less establish scientifically. I'm happy to thus admit that the question of the value of a particular art work is difficult if not impossible to establish on a scientific basis. By contrast, air vibrations are what they are, and there is a clear path for defining if and when a piece of electronic equipment manages to reproduce the electronic signal, and even the original sonic character, accurately or not. Part of the issue is that, just as we don't actually see much of what our brain 'fills in' on a visual level (we have blind spots in our visual field that our brain fills in, for example, and likewise, because our brain is always a little behind what is going on in the world, we makes up for this by projecting consequences that we don't actually see - which is part of the basis of optical illusions) so our auditory perception is susceptible to all sorts of errors and suggestions that do lead to real experienced differences even when the phenomenon in question is identical. The failure to recognize all of the shortcuts our brains make are, I would say undoubtedly, behind a good deal of audio myths and their recalcitrance, coupled with the fact that we really do experience things differently despite there being nothing different at an auditory level when we concentrate on something, are auditioning something and so listening for a difference, or see a new shiny piece of equipment that we really really want to believe was not a mistake to buy. Confirmation bias is also quite powerful...

Nonetheless @krabapple, I don't think it is fair to say that the phenomenon I described is mere placebo and delusion (although it could be in some cases.) Please note: until someone is able to demonstrate that they can reliably identify two different electronic signals that measure identically by all known standards, I hold that our default can and should be to reach for known factors, including confirmation bias, rather than assume some as-yet unmeasured, unnoticed, and elusive factor. However, when we are talking about audio equipment that includes, in some instances, such factors as variable interactions due to impedance which in particular cases results in audibly superior results in special circumstances. Take the way that, according to Amir's own account, the Bottlehead amplifier and Sennheiser HD650 together resulted in a measurably improved (and more accurate!) reproduction of lower frequencies. Now, his conclusion was that, as far as he could tell, this was the only thing that changed. Nonetheless, his sample size of one person is far from sufficient to establish that this is the only difference that would be audible in all applications. After all, even assuming that all known factors are captured by current measurements, which is rightly the default give Occam's razor, there are measurable levels of distortion that could both be audible, at least to some people beyond this sample size of one, and could even sound more accurate or life-like sonic experience, at least for some sample of people in some circumstances given difference in HTF, the highly variable quality of recordings (which are themselves more 'art' than 'science' given differences in how something might sound to one person than another, not to mention that one is talking about reproduction and mixing that will involve both the judgment of the audio engineer, their studio space, the way they will hear things in that studio space as sounding the same as in a live space, etc. - and this is still even assuming that they are aiming to reproduce what they heard in the live space rather than attempting to 'improve' it according to their own lights, taste, etc. Granted, I am not someone who is well versed either in the current psychoacoustic literature or an electronic engineer, so maybe I am assuming that this is all far more messy than it appears from my lay-standpoint... in which case I would be happy to be corrected! But if this is even slightly correct, then in order to begin to make genuine advances, we need to begin to nail down what matters to people and assume that if it is measurably different and some people prefer it, that there is something to figure out. The null hypothesis should be 'it measures differently, and in the audible band, and some people prefer it, so why? Can we reproduce this in a manner that is predictable and consistent? What are the relevant factors?' (e.g., lack of experience with real live sound, the way in which some recordings are poorly mastered in a dead space and need added reverb to sound right, or...?)

 

[JSmith]

Look all I want to know is who came up with this bullshit about veils being lifted... maybe something happened at a wedding and it stuck.



JSmith

 

[JRS]

The question is great, and we should do more investigation and writing on ASR.
Many of that truthes had there sense at there time.

Its true to have a TT in a stable rack, even for a tube amp this is true. But is this still true for a SS amp and a Dac?

There are many of this truths, that where right in there time. But dont hold under changed circumstances.

Probably not, but it might. After all how can we be sure? And since we can't be sure, lets at least make sure we have done everything we can do to make sure it's not a problem. This is one aspect of "myths" which result from an improper transfer of concepts from one area and particular set of circumstances to another. It's a symptom of audiophile nervosa, by which I mean that the lack of mastery in understanding the principles underlying audio reproduction manifests itself as a neurotic fear that the sound might be spoiled by neglecting some of these principles, and results in ridiculous overkill. Nevermind that there is a very real phenomenon when tubes are concerned, but much less so when various capacitors are subject to vibrations experienced by a 25 lb amplifier. To wit, consider this gem:

For audio components to achieve their best potential, they must synergize well together. Cables connecting them should deliver a full-spectrum, linear result without coloration. Components must be isolated from shelves, rack, and floor, which can introduce "character" into the system via their interaction with vibrations. Also, components must be isolated from one another to allow each to work independently in order to synergize well together.

The following products are helpful for achieving the highest degree of operating synergy and ultimate system performance.

So the problem has been defined--unwanted vibrations interfering with harmonious synergy. Whats the solution?

Read the description as this is rich:

SuperSonic Stabilizer is a fluorocarbon and metallic composite for use on top of components to increase overall efficiency of compliant isolation feet like Herbie's Tenderfeet and Iso-Cups. Not a mass-loading weight, components are stabilized similarly to resting your palm gently on top of a component, reducing upper-chassis vibration considerably. A strategic, non-magnetic blend of ferrous and non-ferrous particles helps to weaken and disperse RFI and other electromagnetic interference. A thin decoupling layer of black elastomer on the bottom protects component surfaces and prevents the Stabilizer from sliding.

We recommend two Stabilizers for most audio and video components. They can be stacked together or spaced separately on the component. For smaller components like some DACs, power supplies, and small CD players, one Stabilizer will do. (Additional weight can be placed on your Stabilizer if you like (e.g., lead fishing weights, sand bag, decorative objects); the Stabilizer will decouple your component from the added weight while still transferring more virtual mass to the component.)

Now we are going way, way deep--it's a weight, but one that isn't mass loading. Imagine all the advantages of weight but none of the mass. Like WTF? From this I surmise that we can add weight making the item less susceptible to air borne vibration, but yet will not impact the natural resonance of the component under stress. It's more like a gentle pressure of a reassuring hand. Notice too that one can safely add regular weight to the component--which because of the prior placement of the superdisc-- now shares this property of being non mass loading. At this point I have a headache, and will (maybe) take this up again tomorrow--such is the price of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Pugsly]

@JSmith
Here is the origin story, with an appropriate 'big reveal'

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

 

[JRS]

Look all I want to know is who came up with this bullshit about veils being lifted... maybe something happened at a wedding and it stuck.



JSmith

And there are those occasions when the veil is better left undisturbed.

 

[Phorize]

Delusion, etc. suggest the problem's an individual thing. It's not.

You get fooled because there's a whole culture, very developed, which persists in every area of audio. Boutique stores, shows, the entire pro scene, commercial and retail settings and the attachment to the music industry, online venues of various kinds, popular publications and some amount of poorly done scientific articles. Plus books of various levels of seriousness. Endless discourse.

There's an economy linking it all, and the barrier to entry is low.

In contrast, all of the science and the perspectives, the reasoning has been very hard to access until recently.

In other words bad ideas spread more easily than good ones, it’s not just audio I’m afraid.