In short, the way I look at it is thus:
1. Differences are proclaimed to be heard which we would not expect from our current understanding of what we can measure and the extent to which it is audible. An example would be claiming the NE5332 is not transparent even when used appropriately, or that an opamp has a distinctive sound stage which it imparts on to the music.
2. From there, we look at the differences heard and see if there are any explanations for them. As it happens, they can generally be explained quite adequately with reference to reasonably well-documented bias effects, which have scuppered far more carefully performed observations than those of audiophiles in their time. In other words, the uncontrolled observations of audiophiles and the conclusions that some reach from them are met with the same healthy skepticism that accompanies any other body of uncontrolled observations, for simple logical reasons.
3. Audiophiles assert that the existing mechanism which these differences are attributed to is not the case. The logical, not legal, burden of proof hence falls upon them to demonstrate the truth of their claim. That homeopaths and ESP advocates have managed to present more convincing (if eventually horribly flawed evidence) to attempt to satisfy similar burdens of proof that present considerable barriers to their claims does not reflect favourably on audiophilia.
The example of the "Dragon in My Garage" is particularly apt, as we have a garage apparently full of nothing. Anyone suggesting that the body of nothing contains an invisible dragon has a pretty big burden of proof to satisfy. The example can be transposed with ease to discuss bias effects.
I read a quote from John Atkinson declaring that the inability of a DBT to conclusively "prove" that a given thing was inaudible was "a source of great frustration" to the skeptics. I find this misunderstanding both funny and incredibly annoying. Are those who do not believe in invisible dragons consistently frustrated by the inability to definitively disprove their existence? I think not.
Last edited:
I do hear differences (but don't proclaim them heard) between what I consider an appropriate applicaton of an NE5532 and a common-or-garden one. What changes, subjectively is the quality of the sibilants on voice - they get less 'edgy' when the chip's inputs are protected from RF by, say, a series inductor. I have yet to take measurements to see what changes. Deane Jensen though tentatively proposed measurements to quantify similar effects in an AES paper many moons ago. As such, the effect is not particularly newsworthy.
Why would skepticism be 'healthy'? Gullibility seems equally healthy as skepticism from where I'm standing.
I can't see why, unless they claim that what they hear is universally heard by everyone - i.e. what's heard has some objective reality. Do you know those who do? The subjectivists I tend to rub shoulders with usually take the view that its a matter of personal appreciation (taste if you like) and that what's perceived by one may well not be by another.
The appropriate reference is Grimm, especially the Three Billy Goats Gruff.
To respond to each part separately:
The differences I gave were general examples rather than alluding to anything specific. I strongly suspect the difference you refer to would fall under the category of a difference which does not result in a measurable difference of sufficient magnitude for there to be any reason to expect it to be audible.
As regards skepticism, it is perfectly healthy and indeed absolutely necessary. We do not walk through life taking every unfalsifiable claim seriously. If I suggest I am followed by invisible gnomes which are undetectable by every method known to science, it is not usual to take this seriously. As I said earlier (or at least got within one obvious inference of saying), most audiophile claims are unfalsifiable and hence meaningless.
As for the matter of the burden of proof, I would suggest that the overwhelming majority/all of the of audiophiles think that their observations stem from some hitherto undiscovered 'objective' mechanism. There is a constant attempt to attach differences in sound to something outside of the listener, which involves making a claim which must by necessity fall under the jurisdiction of logic as we apply it to the world around us. Suggesting that what you hear has absolutely no underlying objective reality renders any claim you may make as to have heard something (pretty wide definition of claim here, obviously) an unfalsifiable sophistry of the highest order: I presume you don't mean this!
The differences I gave were general examples rather than alluding to anything specific. I strongly suspect the difference you refer to would fall under the category of a difference which does not result in a measurable difference of sufficient magnitude for there to be any reason to expect it to be audible.
As regards skepticism, it is perfectly healthy and indeed absolutely necessary. We do not walk through life taking every unfalsifiable claim seriously. If I suggest I am followed by invisible gnomes which are undetectable by every method known to science, it is not usual to take this seriously. As I said earlier (or at least got within one obvious inference of saying), most audiophile claims are unfalsifiable and hence meaningless.
As for the matter of the burden of proof, I would suggest that the overwhelming majority/all of the of audiophiles think that their observations stem from some hitherto undiscovered 'objective' mechanism. There is a constant attempt to attach differences in sound to something outside of the listener, which involves making a claim which must by necessity fall under the jurisdiction of logic as we apply it to the world around us. Suggesting that what you hear has absolutely no underlying objective reality renders any claim you may make as to have heard something (pretty wide definition of claim here, obviously) an unfalsifiable sophistry of the highest order: I presume you don't mean this!
Last edited:
So you're saying then that I don't hear any difference when I put the requisite inductor in the opamp input lead. And you support that conclusion by saying that because its not making a difference in standard measurements, it cannot (by definition?) be audible. Is that a fair summary?
Did you look up the Jensen paper incidentally?
So you claim that skepticism is in fact more healthy than gullibility? But I don't see reasoning to support that claim here, nor do I see evidence.
That's a straw man - the bit where you say 'absolutely no underlying objective reality' that is.
I'm trying to get my head around your viewpoint: apologies for any straw men. You've done the same, presumably for similar reasons.
My viewpoint is not one that necessitates that measurements tell us everything. I do maintain, however, that there has been no evidence presented so far to suggest such measurements as are currently available are inadequate in determining the transparency of a piece of equipment. I am, of course, open to this changing.
As I'm not an AES member, I can't get access to their library, although I read the abstract.
I would suggest that the first stage before correlating measurements to subjective impressions would be to get these impressions to show up under controlled conditions, to meet the basic burden of proof. I would also suggest that null testing could prove that these nonlinear distortion products are at an amplitude to present a case that could suggest they might be audible in equipment that has hitherto been thought to be perceptually transparent.
As for skepticism, I'm not quite sure how to put this differently. If we can agree that unfalsifiable claims are meaningless I can go from there? If we can establish that the reasoning follows pretty fluidly.
My viewpoint is not one that necessitates that measurements tell us everything. I do maintain, however, that there has been no evidence presented so far to suggest such measurements as are currently available are inadequate in determining the transparency of a piece of equipment. I am, of course, open to this changing.
As I'm not an AES member, I can't get access to their library, although I read the abstract.
I would suggest that the first stage before correlating measurements to subjective impressions would be to get these impressions to show up under controlled conditions, to meet the basic burden of proof. I would also suggest that null testing could prove that these nonlinear distortion products are at an amplitude to present a case that could suggest they might be audible in equipment that has hitherto been thought to be perceptually transparent.
As for skepticism, I'm not quite sure how to put this differently. If we can agree that unfalsifiable claims are meaningless I can go from there? If we can establish that the reasoning follows pretty fluidly.
Last edited:
I'd appreciate you pointing out if I've created a straw man out of your position - I'll do my best to correct it.
I've presented the evidence of my ears - the sibilance on vocals is what I hear changing. Do I take it that you deny that what I hear counts as evidence? Presumably your position (I'm speculating and please correct me if this is mistaken) that you're attributing what I hear to placebo?
You've yet to persuade me that this 'burden of proof' actually exists - the onus is on you as you're doing the claiming. I don't see it in science.
Yes - in which case the claim that 'skepticism is healthy' falls into the category of unfalsifiable (and therefore meaningless) claims. Unless you have a way to provide a test for the presence of skepticism and of health.
Healthy skepticism is a commonly-used phrase. I am not seriously suggesting that skepticism and health are definitively linked. And you accuse me of constructing straw men! I used the phrase as part of illustrating the necessity of a burden of proof...I'll get to that.
I assure you that there is a burden of proof in science. But I'll get to that. My stance would be that what you hear is likely a product of placebo, although I wish people would talk of biases instead. I'm not denying you hear what you heard.
The straw man I referred to was speaking as if measurements logically must represent everything we can hear, which we can agree is not the case.
But anyway, as we can agree that unfalsifiable claims are meaningless we can go from there.
The audiophile claim that they hear things, which are not bias effects but a factor of differences within the equipment (which are not presented to us by current measurements), is unfalsifiable. Until it is made falsifiable it will not have meaning. I think that's as concise as it's going to get. Everything I said about the burden of proof follows transparently.
I assure you that there is a burden of proof in science. But I'll get to that. My stance would be that what you hear is likely a product of placebo, although I wish people would talk of biases instead. I'm not denying you hear what you heard.
The straw man I referred to was speaking as if measurements logically must represent everything we can hear, which we can agree is not the case.
But anyway, as we can agree that unfalsifiable claims are meaningless we can go from there.
The audiophile claim that they hear things, which are not bias effects but a factor of differences within the equipment (which are not presented to us by current measurements), is unfalsifiable. Until it is made falsifiable it will not have meaning. I think that's as concise as it's going to get. Everything I said about the burden of proof follows transparently.
If its merely a claim of 'I hear a difference' then I would agree - that's not a falsifiable claim. However a description of the difference heard is amenable to falsification - someone else (hopefully more than one) can listen and verify the veracity of the description, or not as the case may be. They can corroborate with the original listener to check they correctly understood the meaning of the description too, just so that the description does not rely on the words alone.
I can't see what you are resting your claim that a burden of proof exists on. We both agree on falsifiability being necessary for meaningful hypotheses, yet I still can't see how that would lead to the existence of this purported 'burden of proof'. In fact it looks like unless you can describe what this alleged 'burden of proof' looks like, its existence does rather fall foul of the falsifiability test. At present 'burden of proof' appears to be isomorphic to the dragon in the garage.
Actually, that's how orchestras usually audition performers, behind a curtain or screen.
No, those are not issues in sensory research and the evaluation of sensory claims. Now, if you told me that you can distinguish two notes on the guitar separated by (fill in the blank) Hz, far below established thresholds, then yes, this would have to be demonstrated under double-blind conditions to be taken seriously. For me, I use an LED tuner- I can do it by ear, but the tuner is much faster.
I've discussed DBTs in organoleptic analysis, and have used them in haptic research as well. It's the most powerful tool available for determining what people actually see, hear, taste, and smell, as well as the only way to remove researcher bias in most science. I don't know about sub sonar, but I do know about aircraft and RCSR, and these are measured completely by instruments, not by human senses.
I've discussed DBTs in organoleptic analysis, and have used them in haptic research as well. It's the most powerful tool available for determining what people actually see, hear, taste, and smell, as well as the only way to remove researcher bias in most science. I don't know about sub sonar, but I do know about aircraft and RCSR, and these are measured completely by instruments, not by human senses.
About the easiest thing on earth to verify, I've tuned A on my violin to exactly 440Hz by ear now measure it with an analytical instrument. 440 Hz does not have a subjective aspect.
Non believers are usually technical minded persons. They know enough about electronics, they have enough of measurement tools (so they never trained their ears the way believers did).
Believers are often those with good ears and usually they came from those with little knowledge. Because of this poor knowledge they tend to do things by ears instead of by tools they don't have or they don't know how to use. This makes them "ear trained". They basically have good ears and their lack of knowledge forced them to "train" their ears.
Now, lets see the possibility how believers get more knowledge, have more access to measurement tools etc, and also lets see the possibility how non-believers have more ears... oops...
Actually, you can see many technically minded persons (or experts) who gradually (after several years) become "romantic" as they rely more on their ears. I hope everyone can find the examples by themselves.
Anyhow, most of the debates are mostly triggered by "stupidity" involved or conducted in the believers camp, causing the non-believers to respond by going too far beyond their own knowledge.
From where I'm standing the 'believers' vs 'non-believers' disagreement wrongly labels the two camps.
In place of 'believers' I suggest 'hearers' - they know they hear something. It may well be placebo but they hear it. Or they think they do.
On the other side there are 'disbelievers'. They 'know' that the other side (who they call believers) can't be actually hearing what they say they hear. They cite measurements to 'disprove' the claims of the hearers.
Yes, I concur - the so-called 'believers' are the scientists here. Those I call 'disbelievers' are the religious types.
The more extreme religious types (hydrogenaudio is a classic example) even claim that nobody really hears anything in audio except its heard under the conditions of an approved test. With this view there's the need for a priesthood to maintain the criteria for 'valid' procedures to use in such tests.