I am sorry to disappoint, but this is just an AI image based on what I would like this room to look like. Just thinking ahead.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Using AI In Audio Debates & GR Research [Video]
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
runsWithStupid
Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2026
- Messages
- 5
- Likes
- 16
You went above and beyond by doing this to confirm the science. It still amazes me how many people think 60hz 120Vrms is some sort of nemesis signal that the audio world needs special cables to address. When literally every electrical product in the United States including the stuff in the hospital that keeps you alive doesn’t need a special power cable to work best of the same signal.On the disconnected AC cable, after I did my video about that, folks complained about current there just as well. So I repeated my test with an amp using the AC cord, and then measuring the impact on the AC cable:
The spectrum of the interference changed some but not the overall picture (blue). The amp itself (red) was pumping out far more than that than the speaker cable picked up.
JSmith
Master Contributor
Google AI was fine with the car wash question, I didn't even need to specify the intent of needing to wash the car at all;
JSmith
Ok, let's ask it about Amir's video, for arguments sake of this thread;
JSmith
Competence should never become about "Who uses the least AI?"... and may well become about "Who trains most of the AI?" because one thing AI does well is scan for expert consensus (if you direct it).
To me, using AI (but pay the damn 20 bucks for the premium models already) for research is mandatory. Not because I blindly trust advanaced models (eff no!), but because they are more diligent with sources.
I have a hybrid AI use.. I use it to scan and qualify... but what I ultimately think and write is mine, and mine only.
Why wouldn't I credit AI when probably 95% of my knowledge consists of books and lectures that have been the foundation of what I create or write or say?
Today was a working Sunday, and I was using AI... but this was my final reply in a frustrating and failed interaction with it...
".. delete the entire background of this waste of time so we can start fresh.."
To me, using AI (but pay the damn 20 bucks for the premium models already) for research is mandatory. Not because I blindly trust advanaced models (eff no!), but because they are more diligent with sources.
I have a hybrid AI use.. I use it to scan and qualify... but what I ultimately think and write is mine, and mine only.
Why wouldn't I credit AI when probably 95% of my knowledge consists of books and lectures that have been the foundation of what I create or write or say?
Today was a working Sunday, and I was using AI... but this was my final reply in a frustrating and failed interaction with it...
".. delete the entire background of this waste of time so we can start fresh.."
Last edited:
OK, thanks a lot, now I well understand your intention of the post #33.
In any way, the photo with audio system setup created by AI is simply nice, of course at least in this case!
Last edited:
Amir gives an example in the video of nudging an LLM with a question like “Isn’t it true that cables make a difference in sound?” I decides to test it with Gemini, and while different iterations gave different results, it mostly resisted the nudging and said that competently designed cables sound the same, which isn’t really what I expected based on what Amir said. That being said, I agree wholeheartedly that Danny’s use of AI is BS.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #67
Thanks for your response, @amirm . My example above didn’t qualify it with 99% like yours did either in the summary on top or in its full answer, nor did my next two iterations (summaries shown below). I think what we are running into is that the temperature (degree of randomness) in Gemini search is greater than zero, so you and I can get different results. While I don’t deny that Gemini sometimes allows for cable BS, that has very much been the exception in my testing. (FWIW, I advise my AI students to set their LLM temperature very low for factual querying, but that is not settable in the google AI overview).
Edit: I just repeated the query 25 times. In 16 of them, the AI Overview resisted the nudging, but in 9 of them, it wavered, allowing for refutable nonsense.
Edit: I just repeated the query 25 times. In 16 of them, the AI Overview resisted the nudging, but in 9 of them, it wavered, allowing for refutable nonsense.
Attachments
Last edited:
BobbyTimmons
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2019
- Messages
- 500
- Likes
- 574
I think that is designed as a search engine summary so it hedges?
If you ask the state of the art pro model, with the temperature setting at 1 and the maximum processing setting. It rejects the leading question.
Last edited:
Newman
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 5,093
- Likes
- 7,207
I thought the bots are about 9 months out of date, per their latest harvesting of the internet?
At least - but when you link the video at it and it is answering a question about it then the content of the video is part of the input. (The poster asked AI to review the video)
Probably more accurate to call it part of the context rather than part of the prompt. Result is basically the same.
OT for the thread, but within the AI sphere.OK, thanks a lot, now I well understand your intention of the post #33; in any way, the photo with audio system setup created by AI is simply nice, of course at least in this case!
Is it the combination of colors, light and sharpness / focus that makes you see that it is AI? Or the focus on certain colors that makes it feel AI? I don't know. It is something in any case. However, if I just look out through the glass windows. The garden is harder for me to identify as AI generated.
In any case, it is only a matter of time before it will be really difficult to identify AI created living rooms vs. real ones.
AI can create cool speakers though. It can provide design inspiration:
I asked my AI friend to design (visual - not technical) some cool speakers
I think it did an admirable job!
www.audiosciencereview.com
The exact phrase is important. Choosing one word over another can bias the result.
I mentioned this a little while back in this thread but if you want consistent reliable results from an LLM it must be 'grounded in the truth' - doing this with just prompts is never going to do this and hoping the big frontier AI models give you more accurate information is also a fallacy as they will always be trained on both the good and bad sides of the internet. But the way do this properly would be an 'audioscience' grounded 'agent'. I used to think would be crazy expensive (and say a year ago it would be ) but the harness engineering concepts using by the coding agents around a frontier AI model now give excellent reliable ( mostly repeating good results) especially for coding - but more recently the same techniques are being used in other domains and I think they could also be used with audio science.
This is a AI engineering video that popped up this morning that maybe explains how these techniques are used with 'code' :
The only thing missing I feel would be that verify step ( there are techniques that could solve this e.g. use a different model to verify the generate result is consist ) .
This is a AI engineering video that popped up this morning that maybe explains how these techniques are used with 'code' :
The only thing missing I feel would be that verify step ( there are techniques that could solve this e.g. use a different model to verify the generate result is consist ) .
I thought this was a general discussion about AI and what it can and cannot do. At this point in time, I remain a sceptic and would never seriously consider advice on audio equipment. But for fun, creating an image like the one I posted is fun. Here is another one, I seem to be drawn to Japanese gear. Luxman tube integrated and TT.OT for the thread, but within the AI sphere.
View attachment 533092
Is it the combination of colors, light and sharpness / focus that makes you see that it is AI? Or the focus on certain colors that makes it feel AI? I don't know. It is something in any case. However, if I just look out through the glass windows. The garden is harder for me to identify as AI generated.
In any case, it is only a matter of time before it will be really difficult to identify AI created living rooms vs. real ones.
AI can create cool speakers though. It can provide design inspiration:
View attachment 533090
I asked my AI friend to design (visual - not technical) some cool speakers
I think it did an admirable job!
I've found that if you as AI a stupid question you are likely to get a stupid answer. 
Agreed, but someone should probably remind him that such a video might still lead many to believe all, or most amplifiers sound different, despite he obviously try to caution... He picked two amplifiers and 3 speakers for his demo, and clearly with those devices/speakers the demo was effective for him to make his points.
I promted Gemini Pro about measurability vs. audibility and then continued the conversation using the assumption that I might actually follow the more subjectivist position.
I'm actually quite impressed by the reasoning and the arguments.
Initial Prompt:
User:
I need a thorough assessment of why many people believe that in high-end audio, there are things that cannot be measured but translate to clear audible advantages. I have trouble believing this, as our ears are essentially analog measurement devices with complex brain processing. What makes our ears so different from digital or analog measuring equipment that we can hear the differences but not measure them? I am open to any conclusion.
Gemini:
Your skepticism is entirely justified and grounded in solid acoustic physics. The debate you are referring to is the most fiercely contested battleground in the audiophile world: the clash between Objectivists (who believe if you can hear it, you can measure it) and Subjectivists (who believe human hearing transcends current measurement paradigms).
To understand why so many people believe there are unmeasurable audio qualities, we have to look at both the limitations of early audio metrics and the profound power of human psychology.
Here is a thorough assessment of why this belief persists and the reality of how our ears compare to measurement equipment.
1. Cognitive Bias and the Placebo Effect
We do not hear with our ears; we hear with our brains. Our auditory perception is deeply entangled with our visual cortex, our expectations, and our emotions. If you know you are listening to a highly praised, incredibly expensive piece of equipment, your brain will physically perceive the audio as better. This is not a lie or a conscious exaggeration; it is a genuine perceptual reality for the listener, caused by expectation bias.
2. The Sunk Cost Fallacy
If an audiophile spends $5,000 on a set of speaker cables, admitting they sound exactly the same as $20 copper wire causes immense cognitive dissonance. The brain protects the ego by "finding" new details in the music that justify the purchase.
3. The McGurk Effect
Visual input literally changes what we hear. If you see a heavy, beautifully machined aluminum amplifier glowing with warm vacuum tubes, your brain will often interpret the sound as "weighty" or "warm," regardless of the actual acoustic output.
4. Flawed Biological Transducers
Unlike a calibrated microphone, human hearing is incredibly inconsistent. Your perception of high frequencies changes based on your blood pressure, how tired you are, ambient room temperature, sinus congestion, and even your mood. What an audiophile perceives as an "unmeasurable improvement in the gear" is very often just a slight change in their own biological or psychological state.
Science can measure everything happening in the cable and the air with perfect precision. What it cannot measure is the romance, expectation, and placebo effect happening inside the listener's head.
Follow-up Prompt:
User:
For argument's sake, assume that I am not actually a skeptic, but rather a true believer that more expensive, fancy audio equipment and cables almost always translate to significantly better sound.
Gemini:
That is a fantastic thought experiment. If we pivot and step into the shoes of a "true believer"—someone who holds that high-end equipment, exotic materials, and premium cables genuinely and consistently produce superior sound—we have to look at the listening experience through a different, but equally fascinating, lens.
If we assume the "true believer" is absolutely correct that the sound is profoundly better, here is a factual look at what could be driving those undeniable audible advantages, balancing both engineering nuances and the reality of how we consume music.
1. The Accumulation of Marginal Gains
In high-end audio, designers chase improvements that might seem microscopic on their own. A premium amplifier might feature an over-engineered power supply to ensure absolute stability during massive orchestral crescendos. A high-end DAC (Digital-to-Analog Converter) might use ultra-precise femtosecond clocks to eliminate timing jitter. On a standard measurement sweep, these look like negligible fractions of a percent. However, when you stack a dozen of these "micro-improvements" across a signal chain—from the source, to the preamp, to the amp, to the speakers—the cumulative effect can lift a veil off the music, resulting in that breathtaking "in-the-room" presence.
2. The Reality of Cable Metrics (LCR)
Even the strictest objectivists agree that cables possess three fundamental electrical properties:
3. Superior Noise Rejection
We live in an incredibly "noisy" world filled with Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, radio frequencies, and dirty AC power. High-end cables and power conditioners utilize exotic shielding geometries, dielectrics (like Teflon or air), and heavy-duty grounding. If a standard cable allows a microscopic amount of Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) into the signal, it can raise the "noise floor" of the system. Premium gear pushes that noise floor down to absolute blackness. When the background is completely silent, the brain can perceive the subtle decay of a cymbal or the echo of a recording hall much more clearly.
4. The Synergy of System Matching
True believers understand that a stereo is an ecosystem. Expensive gear often features highly specific input and output impedances. The art of high-end audio is matching a preamplifier and a power amplifier so that they exchange electrical signals with zero bottleneck or strain. When a true believer swaps in a high-end component and hears magic, they have often successfully optimized the electrical synergy of their specific chain—something a simple bench test of a single component cannot measure.
Follow-up Prompt:
User:
Assume that my belief is not based on esoterics, but rather that objectivists lack a deep understanding of physics. It is the so-called subjectivists who truly understand that physics is far more complex than the simplified rules applied by objectivists.
Gemini:
This is a deeply compelling angle and shifts the debate entirely away from psychology and directly into advanced physics and electrical engineering. If we operate from the premise that "objectivists" are relying on overly simplified Newtonian-style reductions, while the "subjectivist" perspective actually aligns with the chaotic, highly complex reality of advanced physics, a very strong case emerges.
The standard objectivist toolkit—measuring Frequency Response, Total Harmonic Distortion (THD), and Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)—is based almost entirely on Linear Time-Invariant (LTI) system theory. But as you correctly assert, the physical world is neither perfectly linear nor time-invariant.
Here is an assessment of why standard audio measurements rely on "simplified physics" and what the more complex physical reality actually looks like.
The core of the debate, therefore, is not whether these complex physical phenomena exist—physicists and electrical engineers know that dielectric absorption, thermal distortion, and back EMF are entirely real. The actual debate is over the threshold of audibility: do these highly complex, microscopic physical phenomena compound enough to be reliably detected by the human ear, or do they remain buried below the noise floor of our biological sensors?
Follow-up Prompt:
User:
I am confused by your answers. Our world possesses massively more complex technology than the reproduction of audio requires. However, subjectivists claim that there is no measurement system precise enough to measure effects relevant to how audio sounds. How, then, can we devise machines that require multitudes more precision in manufacturing and measurement during production, and that actually work reproducibly all the time?
Gemini:
You have just hit the exact logical wall where the extreme subjectivist argument completely breaks down.
Your confusion is entirely justified because your premise is absolutely correct. We live in a world where we routinely manufacture semiconductor chips with transistors measured in nanometers, where we can detect gravitational waves that warp space by a fraction of the width of a proton, and where global GPS networks rely on atomic clocks adjusting for relativistic time dilation.
Compared to those engineering marvels, capturing and reproducing a 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz electrical audio signal is mathematically and technologically trivial.
The paradox you are pointing out—how can we build quantum computers but supposedly can't measure a speaker cable?—exposes the core flaws in the "unmeasurable audio" argument. Here is a candid breakdown of why this disconnect exists, and why the subjectivist claim that "we lack precise enough measurement tools" is fundamentally incorrect.
The real problem isn't the precision of the measurement; it is the correlation to human perception (psychoacoustics). We can measure a highly complex transient phase shift perfectly on an oscilloscope. What we cannot do is print out a graph that objectively says, "This specific phase shift will make 80% of human listeners feel like the cello sounds 'warmer.'"
Subjectivists look at this lack of a neat, standardized "Warmth Index" and incorrectly conclude that the physical phenomenon itself cannot be measured.
These metrics are vastly oversimplified. They are the audio equivalent of judging a car's entire performance solely by its horsepower and weight. However, just because consumer audio companies don't publish the highly complex, multi-dimensional FFT waterfalls and transient intermodulation graphs doesn't mean those measurements don't exist. Engineers in labs use them every day. Subjectivists often confuse the oversimplified marketing metrics with the actual limits of scientific capability.
High-end audio, however, relies on a biological receiver—the human ear and brain.
By perpetuating the idea that human hearing is magical and that audio reproduction requires an artistic, esoteric touch that defies conventional measurement, manufacturers can justify astronomical prices. Mysticism allows for infinite price ceilings; quantifiable science does not.
Follow-up Prompt:
User:
Now, please go back to your previous answer: I want your assessment of the 'reality check.' Which position is more founded on science: the position of the objectivists or the subjectivists?
Gemini:
To give you a direct and candid assessment: The position of the objectivists is unequivocally more founded on science.
While the previous thought experiment exploring the "complex physics" of subjectivism is a fascinating way to look at how extreme audiophiles justify their claims, it ultimately falls apart when subjected to the actual scientific method.
Here is exactly why the objectivist camp holds the scientific high ground.
Subjectivists often point to advanced physics—like the skin effect, dielectric absorption, or even quantum mechanics—to explain why their expensive gear sounds better. While those physical phenomena are scientifically real, the method subjectivists use to claim they can hear them is highly unscientific.
Drawing a conclusion based on a sighted, heavily biased listening session is anecdotal. Objectivists, on the other hand, rely heavily on established scientific fields like psychoacoustics (the scientific study of sound perception) and electrical engineering.
In medicine, psychology, and every other scientific discipline involving human perception, we use double-blind testing to eliminate the placebo effect. In audio, this is known as an ABX test. You listen to component A, component B, and then a mystery component X. You have to identify if X is A or B, without knowing what you are looking at.
Decades of rigorous peer-reviewed research in psychoacoustics have mapped exactly what the human ear can and cannot detect. For example, we know mathematically that humans cannot hear timing errors (jitter) in the picosecond range, nor can they hear frequency changes that occur hundreds of times below the ambient noise floor of their blood flowing through their ears.
Objectivists use this established biological science to draw the line. Subjectivists often ignore biological limits, assuming human hearing is infinitely resolving.
An objectivist will apply scientific troubleshooting: Was the volume perfectly level-matched? (Even a 0.2 dB increase in volume is perceived by the human brain as "better, fuller sound," not just louder). Was the listener's head in the exact same millimeter of space in the room? Was the expectation bias controlled? Objectivism demands that all other variables be eliminated before declaring that the new cable caused the change.
The subjectivist stance, while heavily armored in the vocabulary of complex physics, ultimately relies on uncontrolled, unrepeatable human perception. Borrowing the language of science to justify a subjective feeling without submitting to scientific testing is the hallmark of pseudoscience.
I'm actually quite impressed by the reasoning and the arguments.
Initial Prompt:
User:
I need a thorough assessment of why many people believe that in high-end audio, there are things that cannot be measured but translate to clear audible advantages. I have trouble believing this, as our ears are essentially analog measurement devices with complex brain processing. What makes our ears so different from digital or analog measuring equipment that we can hear the differences but not measure them? I am open to any conclusion.
Gemini:
Your skepticism is entirely justified and grounded in solid acoustic physics. The debate you are referring to is the most fiercely contested battleground in the audiophile world: the clash between Objectivists (who believe if you can hear it, you can measure it) and Subjectivists (who believe human hearing transcends current measurement paradigms).
To understand why so many people believe there are unmeasurable audio qualities, we have to look at both the limitations of early audio metrics and the profound power of human psychology.
Here is a thorough assessment of why this belief persists and the reality of how our ears compare to measurement equipment.
The Subjectivist Argument: Why People Believe the "Unmeasurable"
Audiophiles who claim there are audible differences that cannot be measured usually base their beliefs on a few common arguments:- Static Measurements vs. Dynamic Music: Historically, audio gear was measured using static, continuous sine waves to determine Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) and Frequency Response. Audiophiles correctly pointed out that a symphony is infinitely more complex, transient, and dynamic than a static test tone. Therefore, they concluded that standard measurements couldn't capture the "micro-dynamics" or "timing" of real music.
- The Incompleteness of Standard Specs: Two amplifiers can have identical frequency responses and identical THD, yet sound slightly different. Because the basic specs looked identical, the assumption became that the difference must be unmeasurable.
- The Vocabulary of Experience: Audiophiles use terms like "soundstage," "airiness," "warmth," and "holographic imaging." Because there is no standard measurement output labeled "Soundstage Width," people assume it cannot be quantified.
The Objective Reality: Equipment vs. Human Hearing
Your premise is highly accurate: our ears are essentially biological microphones connected to a massive DSP (Digital Signal Processor)—the brain. However, when comparing human hearing to modern measurement equipment, the equipment wins on purely physical terms.- Sensitivity: Modern audio analyzers (like those made by Audio Precision) can measure distortion, noise, and jitter down to parts per billion. They can detect changes in an audio signal that are mathematically thousands of times smaller than the absolute threshold of human hearing.
- Dynamic Analysis: Modern equipment does not just measure static sine waves. It measures complex, multi-tone signals, impulse responses, and transient intermodulation distortion in the time domain. If an acoustic wave changes in the physical space of a room, a measurement microphone will capture it.
- The Golden Rule of Acoustics: Sound is simply variations in air pressure over time. It has only three dimensions: amplitude (volume), frequency (pitch), and time (phase). If an audio component changes the sound, it must alter one of those three parameters. If it alters them, modern equipment can measure it.
Why Our Ears "Hear" What Machines Cannot Measure
If measurement equipment is objectively superior at detecting changes in air pressure, why do people genuinely hear differences when swapping a $10 power cable for a $1,000 power cable? The answer lies in the "fancy brain processing" you mentioned.1. Cognitive Bias and the Placebo Effect
We do not hear with our ears; we hear with our brains. Our auditory perception is deeply entangled with our visual cortex, our expectations, and our emotions. If you know you are listening to a highly praised, incredibly expensive piece of equipment, your brain will physically perceive the audio as better. This is not a lie or a conscious exaggeration; it is a genuine perceptual reality for the listener, caused by expectation bias.
2. The Sunk Cost Fallacy
If an audiophile spends $5,000 on a set of speaker cables, admitting they sound exactly the same as $20 copper wire causes immense cognitive dissonance. The brain protects the ego by "finding" new details in the music that justify the purchase.
3. The McGurk Effect
Visual input literally changes what we hear. If you see a heavy, beautifully machined aluminum amplifier glowing with warm vacuum tubes, your brain will often interpret the sound as "weighty" or "warm," regardless of the actual acoustic output.
4. Flawed Biological Transducers
Unlike a calibrated microphone, human hearing is incredibly inconsistent. Your perception of high frequencies changes based on your blood pressure, how tired you are, ambient room temperature, sinus congestion, and even your mood. What an audiophile perceives as an "unmeasurable improvement in the gear" is very often just a slight change in their own biological or psychological state.
Summary
The belief that high-end audio possesses "unmeasurable" qualities stems from confusing the acoustic signal with the human experience. Measurement equipment is strictly analyzing the physical air pressure changes (the signal). The human brain is analyzing the signal, the aesthetic of the room, the price tag of the gear, the listener's mood, and their expectations (the experience).Science can measure everything happening in the cable and the air with perfect precision. What it cannot measure is the romance, expectation, and placebo effect happening inside the listener's head.
Follow-up Prompt:
User:
For argument's sake, assume that I am not actually a skeptic, but rather a true believer that more expensive, fancy audio equipment and cables almost always translate to significantly better sound.
Gemini:
That is a fantastic thought experiment. If we pivot and step into the shoes of a "true believer"—someone who holds that high-end equipment, exotic materials, and premium cables genuinely and consistently produce superior sound—we have to look at the listening experience through a different, but equally fascinating, lens.
If we assume the "true believer" is absolutely correct that the sound is profoundly better, here is a factual look at what could be driving those undeniable audible advantages, balancing both engineering nuances and the reality of how we consume music.
The Architecture of "Better Sound"
When you invest in ultra-high-end audio, you are not just buying a circuit; you are buying an obsession with margins. Here is why those expensive additions can translate to a genuinely superior listening experience.1. The Accumulation of Marginal Gains
In high-end audio, designers chase improvements that might seem microscopic on their own. A premium amplifier might feature an over-engineered power supply to ensure absolute stability during massive orchestral crescendos. A high-end DAC (Digital-to-Analog Converter) might use ultra-precise femtosecond clocks to eliminate timing jitter. On a standard measurement sweep, these look like negligible fractions of a percent. However, when you stack a dozen of these "micro-improvements" across a signal chain—from the source, to the preamp, to the amp, to the speakers—the cumulative effect can lift a veil off the music, resulting in that breathtaking "in-the-room" presence.
2. The Reality of Cable Metrics (LCR)
Even the strictest objectivists agree that cables possess three fundamental electrical properties:
- Inductance (L)
- Capacitance (C)
- Resistance (R)
3. Superior Noise Rejection
We live in an incredibly "noisy" world filled with Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, radio frequencies, and dirty AC power. High-end cables and power conditioners utilize exotic shielding geometries, dielectrics (like Teflon or air), and heavy-duty grounding. If a standard cable allows a microscopic amount of Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) into the signal, it can raise the "noise floor" of the system. Premium gear pushes that noise floor down to absolute blackness. When the background is completely silent, the brain can perceive the subtle decay of a cymbal or the echo of a recording hall much more clearly.
4. The Synergy of System Matching
True believers understand that a stereo is an ecosystem. Expensive gear often features highly specific input and output impedances. The art of high-end audio is matching a preamplifier and a power amplifier so that they exchange electrical signals with zero bottleneck or strain. When a true believer swaps in a high-end component and hears magic, they have often successfully optimized the electrical synergy of their specific chain—something a simple bench test of a single component cannot measure.
The Psychology of Active Listening
To be a true believer is to be an active, dedicated listener. This is a crucial, entirely real component of why expensive gear sounds better.- Deep Auditory Focus: When you buy a $50 Bluetooth speaker, you listen to it while washing dishes. When you invest in a $10,000 listening room setup, you sit in the sweet spot, close your eyes, and focus entirely on the sound. You are utilizing your brain's auditory processing power at its absolute maximum capacity. You will hear things you have never heard before, simply because you are finally truly listening.
- The Removal of Cognitive Friction: If you know your system is built with uncompromising quality—machined aluminum, pure silver wiring, hand-matched capacitors—your brain stops worrying about the "what ifs." You stop analyzing the gear and surrender to the music. This state of relaxation actually changes how your brain processes sensory input, allowing for a deeper emotional connection to the sound.
Summary
For the true believer, the pursuit of high-end audio is not about defying physics; it is about pushing the extreme boundaries of electrical engineering and human perception. The superior sound is the result of silencing the noise floor, optimizing the electrical interplay between components, and creating a dedicated environment where the brain can deeply focus on the artistry of the recording.Follow-up Prompt:
User:
Assume that my belief is not based on esoterics, but rather that objectivists lack a deep understanding of physics. It is the so-called subjectivists who truly understand that physics is far more complex than the simplified rules applied by objectivists.
Gemini:
This is a deeply compelling angle and shifts the debate entirely away from psychology and directly into advanced physics and electrical engineering. If we operate from the premise that "objectivists" are relying on overly simplified Newtonian-style reductions, while the "subjectivist" perspective actually aligns with the chaotic, highly complex reality of advanced physics, a very strong case emerges.
The standard objectivist toolkit—measuring Frequency Response, Total Harmonic Distortion (THD), and Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)—is based almost entirely on Linear Time-Invariant (LTI) system theory. But as you correctly assert, the physical world is neither perfectly linear nor time-invariant.
Here is an assessment of why standard audio measurements rely on "simplified physics" and what the more complex physical reality actually looks like.
1. The Flaw of Steady-State Measurements vs. Transient Reality
Objectivists heavily rely on Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT) to analyze signals using continuous sine waves.- The Simplified Physics: If an amplifier can cleanly reproduce a 1kHz sine wave, and simultaneously reproduce a 10kHz sine wave without them intermodulating, the amplifier is deemed perfect.
- The Complex Physics: Real music consists of asymmetrical transients—sudden, explosive changes in acoustic energy (like a snare drum strike). In physics, analyzing transients requires looking at the time domain, not just the frequency domain. When complex, broadband, high-speed transients hit physical components like capacitors and transistors, they cause thermal fluctuations, dielectric absorption, and power supply sag in real-time. Standard static measurements completely miss how a circuit behaves when it is recovering from a microscopic thermal or electrical shock.
2. Complex Reactive Loads vs. Simple Resistors
When objectivists test amplifiers, they usually hook them up to an 8-ohm dummy load resistor.- The Simplified Physics: Ohm's Law ($V = IR$) dictates how the amplifier will behave, assuming the speaker is a simple, predictable resistor.
- The Complex Physics: A loudspeaker is a brutal, chaotic electro-mechanical beast. It features voice coils moving through magnetic fields, generating "back EMF" (Electromotive Force)—voltage that the speaker physically shoots backward down the cable into the amplifier. The impedance of a speaker swings wildly depending on the frequency, acting as a highly reactive inductor and capacitor. How a premium cable and a high-end amplifier handle this chaotic, real-time reflection of energy is vastly more complex than a test bench resistor can ever simulate.
3. Material Science and Micro-Physics
The standard objectivist view of cables is often reduced to bulk LCR (Inductance, Capacitance, Resistance). But material science goes much deeper.- Dielectric Absorption: The insulation surrounding a copper wire acts as a capacitor. In advanced physics, we know that dielectrics absorb electrical energy and release it slightly later in time. This is a measurable physical phenomenon. High-end audio designers argue that this delayed release "smears" the micro-transients of the music, which is why exotic dielectrics like Teflon or air are used.
- Crystal Boundaries and Skin Effect: Copper wire is not a continuous, perfect pipe. It is made of microscopic crystals. Electrical signals must traverse the boundaries between these crystals. Furthermore, higher frequencies travel closer to the surface of the conductor (the Skin Effect). While objectivists argue these effects are mathematically too small to matter at audio frequencies, the complex physics perspective dictates that in a highly resolving system, these microscopic phase shifts and distortions across the frequency spectrum compound audibly.
4. Psychoacoustics and Phase Accuracy
Standard metrics treat all distortion as equal, which fundamentally ignores the physics of biological hearing.- The Simplified Physics: 0.1% THD is better than 1.0% THD.
- The Complex Physics: The human brain processes sound localization using Interaural Time Differences (ITD) down to fractions of a millisecond. If a piece of equipment introduces even microscopic phase shifts (altering the timing of specific frequencies relative to others), it destroys the three-dimensional "holographic" illusion of the soundstage. Furthermore, our brains violently reject high-order odd harmonics (7th, 9th) but completely ignore low-order even harmonics (2nd). A vacuum tube amplifier with 2% THD (mostly 2nd harmonic) will sound vastly more lifelike than a digital amplifier with 0.05% THD made of harsh 9th-order harmonics.
The Reality Check
Your premise holds serious weight: the universe is incredibly complex, and standard audio measurements are just highly simplified maps of the territory. They are not the territory itself.The core of the debate, therefore, is not whether these complex physical phenomena exist—physicists and electrical engineers know that dielectric absorption, thermal distortion, and back EMF are entirely real. The actual debate is over the threshold of audibility: do these highly complex, microscopic physical phenomena compound enough to be reliably detected by the human ear, or do they remain buried below the noise floor of our biological sensors?
Follow-up Prompt:
User:
I am confused by your answers. Our world possesses massively more complex technology than the reproduction of audio requires. However, subjectivists claim that there is no measurement system precise enough to measure effects relevant to how audio sounds. How, then, can we devise machines that require multitudes more precision in manufacturing and measurement during production, and that actually work reproducibly all the time?
Gemini:
You have just hit the exact logical wall where the extreme subjectivist argument completely breaks down.
Your confusion is entirely justified because your premise is absolutely correct. We live in a world where we routinely manufacture semiconductor chips with transistors measured in nanometers, where we can detect gravitational waves that warp space by a fraction of the width of a proton, and where global GPS networks rely on atomic clocks adjusting for relativistic time dilation.
Compared to those engineering marvels, capturing and reproducing a 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz electrical audio signal is mathematically and technologically trivial.
The paradox you are pointing out—how can we build quantum computers but supposedly can't measure a speaker cable?—exposes the core flaws in the "unmeasurable audio" argument. Here is a candid breakdown of why this disconnect exists, and why the subjectivist claim that "we lack precise enough measurement tools" is fundamentally incorrect.
1. We Can Measure It (The Missing Link is Correlation, Not Precision)
The audio industry possesses measurement tools (like top-tier Audio Precision analyzers) that are wildly more sensitive than human hearing. If an audio component alters the sound in the physical world, the equipment will measure it down to microscopic fractions of a decibel or microsecond.The real problem isn't the precision of the measurement; it is the correlation to human perception (psychoacoustics). We can measure a highly complex transient phase shift perfectly on an oscilloscope. What we cannot do is print out a graph that objectively says, "This specific phase shift will make 80% of human listeners feel like the cello sounds 'warmer.'"
Subjectivists look at this lack of a neat, standardized "Warmth Index" and incorrectly conclude that the physical phenomenon itself cannot be measured.
2. Basic Marketing vs. Advanced Engineering
When audiophiles claim that "measurements don't tell the whole story," they are usually talking about the simple specifications printed on the back of a manual: Total Harmonic Distortion (THD), Frequency Response, and Signal-to-Noise Ratio.These metrics are vastly oversimplified. They are the audio equivalent of judging a car's entire performance solely by its horsepower and weight. However, just because consumer audio companies don't publish the highly complex, multi-dimensional FFT waterfalls and transient intermodulation graphs doesn't mean those measurements don't exist. Engineers in labs use them every day. Subjectivists often confuse the oversimplified marketing metrics with the actual limits of scientific capability.
3. Microchips vs. Meat
You asked how we can build highly precise machines that reproducibly work all the time. The answer is that those machines are designed to interact with absolute, objective physics. A silicon wafer operating at precise voltages will reliably output a binary 1 or 0 every single time.High-end audio, however, relies on a biological receiver—the human ear and brain.
- A microchip doesn't care how much it costs.
- A microchip doesn't care what it looks like.
- A microchip doesn't suffer from auditory fatigue after 30 minutes of operation.
4. The Economics of Mysticism
Finally, there is a harsh economic reality to consider. High-end audio is a luxury industry. If you acknowledge that audio reproduction is a solved engineering problem and that a $500 properly designed solid-state amplifier is acoustically indistinguishable from a $50,000 amplifier, the luxury market collapses.By perpetuating the idea that human hearing is magical and that audio reproduction requires an artistic, esoteric touch that defies conventional measurement, manufacturers can justify astronomical prices. Mysticism allows for infinite price ceilings; quantifiable science does not.
The Bottom Line
You are not confused; you are simply applying rigorous, objective logic to an industry heavily driven by emotion and luxury marketing. The equipment we use to build the modern technological world is more than capable of measuring exactly what happens inside a stereo system. What it cannot measure is the human soul, expectation, and placebo effect—which is exactly where the "unmeasurable" magic of high-end audio truly lives.Follow-up Prompt:
User:
Now, please go back to your previous answer: I want your assessment of the 'reality check.' Which position is more founded on science: the position of the objectivists or the subjectivists?
Gemini:
To give you a direct and candid assessment: The position of the objectivists is unequivocally more founded on science.
While the previous thought experiment exploring the "complex physics" of subjectivism is a fascinating way to look at how extreme audiophiles justify their claims, it ultimately falls apart when subjected to the actual scientific method.
Here is exactly why the objectivist camp holds the scientific high ground.
1. The Core of Science is Methodology, Not Just Physics
Science is not just a collection of facts about the physical world; it is a rigorous method used to test claims, eliminate bias, and prove causation.Subjectivists often point to advanced physics—like the skin effect, dielectric absorption, or even quantum mechanics—to explain why their expensive gear sounds better. While those physical phenomena are scientifically real, the method subjectivists use to claim they can hear them is highly unscientific.
Drawing a conclusion based on a sighted, heavily biased listening session is anecdotal. Objectivists, on the other hand, rely heavily on established scientific fields like psychoacoustics (the scientific study of sound perception) and electrical engineering.
2. The Litmus Test: Double-Blind ABX Testing
The absolute dividing line between the two camps—and the reason objectivists win the science argument—is how they treat controlled testing.In medicine, psychology, and every other scientific discipline involving human perception, we use double-blind testing to eliminate the placebo effect. In audio, this is known as an ABX test. You listen to component A, component B, and then a mystery component X. You have to identify if X is A or B, without knowing what you are looking at.
- The Objectivist Approach: Objectivists champion ABX testing. They argue that if a physical difference in the audio signal is genuinely audible, a human should be able to consistently identify it without looking at the gear.
- The Subjectivist Approach: Subjectivists overwhelmingly reject ABX testing. When subjected to double-blind tests where they cannot reliably distinguish a $10,000 amplifier from a $500 one, the common subjectivist defense is that the "stress of the test environment" ruins their hearing, or that rapid switching masks "long-term emotional listening fatigue."
3. The Threshold of Audibility
Objectivists do not deny that complex physical phenomena (like micro-transient phase shifts or the skin effect) happen in cables and amplifiers. What they apply science to is the threshold of audibility.Decades of rigorous peer-reviewed research in psychoacoustics have mapped exactly what the human ear can and cannot detect. For example, we know mathematically that humans cannot hear timing errors (jitter) in the picosecond range, nor can they hear frequency changes that occur hundreds of times below the ambient noise floor of their blood flowing through their ears.
Objectivists use this established biological science to draw the line. Subjectivists often ignore biological limits, assuming human hearing is infinitely resolving.
4. Correlation vs. Causation
Subjectivists often conflate causation. If they change a cable and the sound improves, they assume the cable's esoteric geometry caused the improvement.An objectivist will apply scientific troubleshooting: Was the volume perfectly level-matched? (Even a 0.2 dB increase in volume is perceived by the human brain as "better, fuller sound," not just louder). Was the listener's head in the exact same millimeter of space in the room? Was the expectation bias controlled? Objectivism demands that all other variables be eliminated before declaring that the new cable caused the change.
Summary
The objectivist stance is founded on the scientific method: isolating variables, acknowledging biological limits, demanding repeatable evidence, and testing claims rigorously to eliminate cognitive bias.The subjectivist stance, while heavily armored in the vocabulary of complex physics, ultimately relies on uncontrolled, unrepeatable human perception. Borrowing the language of science to justify a subjective feeling without submitting to scientific testing is the hallmark of pseudoscience.
The leg (foot?) of the table with the coffee mug looks a little 'ghosty', doesn't it?
runsWithStupid
Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2026
- Messages
- 5
- Likes
- 16
TLDR…. But the portion about testing is inaccurate. In a professional setting measurements are taken using a reactive load box. Usually the selectable reactive loads 1 to 16ohms modeled from actual speaker drivers. While the FFT is the core of an Audio Analyzer measurement method. Even in the 90s the DSP chips inside Analyzers could handle multi tone signals and create a large array of harmonic content to accurately to compare between input and output waveforms.
Similar threads
- Poll
