JohnK,
Thanks for the links.
I read the analysis by Doug Self and WHOLE HEARTEDLY believe his ideas about audio subjectivism.
His short definition of the subjectivist position is EXACTLY what i encounter each time i throw out a comment to 'audiophiles' to the effect of doubting whether there is a difference b/w amp X&Y, or cd player A&B, etc.
* Objective measurements of an amplifier's performance are unimportant compared with the subjective impressions received in informal listening tests. Should the two contradict the objective results may be dismissed out of hand.
* Degradation effects exist in amplifiers that are unknown to engineering science, and are not revealed by the usual measurements.
* Considerable latitude may be used in suggesting hypothetical mechanisms of audio impairment, such as mysterious capacitor shortcomings and subtle cable defects, without reference to the plausibility of the concept, or gathering any evidence to support it ."
His idea is very much supported by the ABX blind tests (although some of their results come from a low number of test subjects). I find it very interesting how 7 of 10 amps tests provided no significant, detectable difference in sound when most audiophiles describe EVERY amp as having this or that different characterstic. Of course the cable tests were even more decisive. The DAC tests were short but again, interesting to note how a VERY old cdp (14bit DAC) is distinguishable from a newer model (16bit DACs?), but the 2 newer models resulted in the same sound.
Mr. Self's general conclusion on the acoustic psychological principle is also sound (and note how it applies to any science in general):
"It has been universally recognised for many years in experimental psychology, particularly in experiments about perception, that people tend to perceive what they want to perceive. This is often called the 'experimenter expectancy' effect; it is more subtle and insidious than it sounds, and the history of science is littered with the wrecked careers of those who failed to guard against it. Such self-deception has most often occurred in fields like biology, where although the raw data may be numerical, there is no real mathematical theory to check it against."
Crunching through scientific databases has shown me personally that this is all too true. Always trying to find a pattern or an explanation for the numbers to fit a hypothesis when none may exist in the first place.
Ask sushi if he has ever written up a journal paper where the bottom line was how your experiments revealed nothing at all.
So then we come full circle again. Why do 'hifi" components exist and why do ppl buy them?
As Mr. Self so clearly states again:
"there will always be people who will believe what they want to believe despite the hardest of evidence."
I believe this describes "religion" does it not?
Very interesting reading indeed.
Thanks again JohnK. That was refreshing.
