http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-09/092807reply.html#i4
In his expose of the stratospherically-priced Pear
Anjou Cable, James Randi makes a fine case for
objectivity in audiophile reviews - but his expose
is itself slightly flawed.
There's a sub-context which seems to hint that
most audiophiles are imbeciles, of the same ilk. In
reality, there are many categories of audiophiles,
of which I can discern at least 3-4 major types:
i) The 'technical' type: they fiddle endlessly with
their systems, modifying things, trying out new
subsystems, etc. in their quest for technical
excellence. They're looking for the 'best' technical
parameters, and are willing to pay more for components
that are *measurably* better. These are the types who
will shell out more for a premium op-amp. Their
gurus include Bob Widlar, John Linsley Hood,
Nelson Pass, Hugh Dean, T. Giesberts, John Curl,
Bob Pease, and numerous other circuit designers
and acoustics people. They listen to their equipment,
not to their music.
ii) The 'subjective' type: their main criterion is that
their favourite pieces of music should *sound* better.
They're willing to accept high levels of distortion,
provided that it makes their music sound better to
their ears. These are the sort that experiment with
guitar amps, reverb units, vacuum-tube circuitry
etc. Many are willing to pay a high premium for
stuff that sounds better to their ears. They listen
to their music, not to their equipment.
iii) The snobs: They don't care for the technicals,
or the sound, as long as it is *expensive*, and has been
recommended by positive reviews in the audiophile
magazines. Their primary criteria is the *exclusivity*
that high prices bring. These are the types that
detest CD audio, op-amps, solid-state power amps,
etc., because it made high-quality sound available
to just about any Tom, Dick and Harry on the street.
They're likely to prefer turntables with optical pickups,
vinyl, vacuum tube electronics, and obscenely priced
equipment in general, like $7200 speaker cables. Their
gurus are the editors and reviewers in high-end audio
magazines, like Dave Clark. They don't listen to either
their music or their equipment - but their equipment
is on display to show that they can afford it.
iv) The great unwashed: Like the snobs, they don't
care about the sound or the technicals - but they do
care about peer acceptance. They're likely to buy
anything as long as their peers deem it to be cool,
regardless of the quality of the sound. They're likely
to buy stuff that's marketed well, regardless of
quality. They're likely to buy Sony, Bose, Apple
IPods, Monster Cable, etc. Their gurus are Steve
Jobs and Amar Bose. The listen to and hoard a
lot of music, usually MP3s.
The people in categories (i) and (ii) don't regard those
in (iii) and (iv) as audiophiles at all. Category (i) will
generally talk to everybody else, even if they don't
agree with them. Category (ii) will only talk with
Category (i), if at all. Category (iii) won't talk with
anybody else, except maybe Category (ii) occasionally.
Category (iv) will talk with everybody else, but after
they're rejected by Categories (ii) and (iii), will take
refuge in offering technical advice and recommendations
to Category (i) - who don't usually suffer fools gladly.
I'm OK with categories (i) and (ii). Category (iii) is
insufferable, but they stick to conning themselves and
they don't talk much to the others anyway. Category (iv)
consists of the real losers, the victims. They can
sometimes be redeemed by convincing them of the
error of their ways, and can sometimes transition to
category (ii) or (i) if they're deprogrammed adequately.
If Randi had concentrated on exposing category (iii),
he would have had more credibility. As it is, he's
lumping them all together, while he himself declares
himself to be in category (iv) - by declaring Monster
Cable to be the yardstick against which he'd like to
test the Pear Anjou Cable. That's the root of the
whole problem with Randi's Expose - among
audiophiles, one can't pretend to be a pot just in
order to call the kettle black.
In his expose of the stratospherically-priced Pear
Anjou Cable, James Randi makes a fine case for
objectivity in audiophile reviews - but his expose
is itself slightly flawed.
There's a sub-context which seems to hint that
most audiophiles are imbeciles, of the same ilk. In
reality, there are many categories of audiophiles,
of which I can discern at least 3-4 major types:
i) The 'technical' type: they fiddle endlessly with
their systems, modifying things, trying out new
subsystems, etc. in their quest for technical
excellence. They're looking for the 'best' technical
parameters, and are willing to pay more for components
that are *measurably* better. These are the types who
will shell out more for a premium op-amp. Their
gurus include Bob Widlar, John Linsley Hood,
Nelson Pass, Hugh Dean, T. Giesberts, John Curl,
Bob Pease, and numerous other circuit designers
and acoustics people. They listen to their equipment,
not to their music.
ii) The 'subjective' type: their main criterion is that
their favourite pieces of music should *sound* better.
They're willing to accept high levels of distortion,
provided that it makes their music sound better to
their ears. These are the sort that experiment with
guitar amps, reverb units, vacuum-tube circuitry
etc. Many are willing to pay a high premium for
stuff that sounds better to their ears. They listen
to their music, not to their equipment.
iii) The snobs: They don't care for the technicals,
or the sound, as long as it is *expensive*, and has been
recommended by positive reviews in the audiophile
magazines. Their primary criteria is the *exclusivity*
that high prices bring. These are the types that
detest CD audio, op-amps, solid-state power amps,
etc., because it made high-quality sound available
to just about any Tom, Dick and Harry on the street.
They're likely to prefer turntables with optical pickups,
vinyl, vacuum tube electronics, and obscenely priced
equipment in general, like $7200 speaker cables. Their
gurus are the editors and reviewers in high-end audio
magazines, like Dave Clark. They don't listen to either
their music or their equipment - but their equipment
is on display to show that they can afford it.
iv) The great unwashed: Like the snobs, they don't
care about the sound or the technicals - but they do
care about peer acceptance. They're likely to buy
anything as long as their peers deem it to be cool,
regardless of the quality of the sound. They're likely
to buy stuff that's marketed well, regardless of
quality. They're likely to buy Sony, Bose, Apple
IPods, Monster Cable, etc. Their gurus are Steve
Jobs and Amar Bose. The listen to and hoard a
lot of music, usually MP3s.
The people in categories (i) and (ii) don't regard those
in (iii) and (iv) as audiophiles at all. Category (i) will
generally talk to everybody else, even if they don't
agree with them. Category (ii) will only talk with
Category (i), if at all. Category (iii) won't talk with
anybody else, except maybe Category (ii) occasionally.
Category (iv) will talk with everybody else, but after
they're rejected by Categories (ii) and (iii), will take
refuge in offering technical advice and recommendations
to Category (i) - who don't usually suffer fools gladly.
I'm OK with categories (i) and (ii). Category (iii) is
insufferable, but they stick to conning themselves and
they don't talk much to the others anyway. Category (iv)
consists of the real losers, the victims. They can
sometimes be redeemed by convincing them of the
error of their ways, and can sometimes transition to
category (ii) or (i) if they're deprogrammed adequately.
If Randi had concentrated on exposing category (iii),
he would have had more credibility. As it is, he's
lumping them all together, while he himself declares
himself to be in category (iv) - by declaring Monster
Cable to be the yardstick against which he'd like to
test the Pear Anjou Cable. That's the root of the
whole problem with Randi's Expose - among
audiophiles, one can't pretend to be a pot just in
order to call the kettle black.
Brilliant!
I think I'm 80% category (i) and 20% category (ii)
We need some gurus for category (ii)
Perhaps BudP? (though he does believe in measurement as well)
Suggestion for improvement of category (iv) definition:
they believe Watts are a unit for measurement of sound pressure.
I think I'm 80% category (i) and 20% category (ii)
We need some gurus for category (ii)
Perhaps BudP? (though he does believe in measurement as well)
Suggestion for improvement of category (iv) definition:
they believe Watts are a unit for measurement of sound pressure.
linuxguru said:
Those people were probably early-adopters of pushbutton phones. Then when everyone got one they rushed back to a dial phone, claiming then to be so much better. 🙄
linuxguru said:
Hi linuxguru,
I have just read a lot of stuff on Randy's site but can't find anything where he opinionates on audiophiles that you refer to.
Where's it at?
Jan Didden
Re: Re: The problem with James Randi's Pear Cable Expose
Can I interest you in an early Seventies Nortel? Especially useful for dealing with noisy neighbours, plug it in next to an adjoining wall and let telemarketer's do the work.
Actually..... the old carbon transducers used in early phones were the product of decades of refinement and were leagues better than what followed. Of course, dialing *69 can be a hassle with a rotary. 😉
Circlotron said:
Can I interest you in an early Seventies Nortel? Especially useful for dealing with noisy neighbours, plug it in next to an adjoining wall and let telemarketer's do the work.
Actually..... the old carbon transducers used in early phones were the product of decades of refinement and were leagues better than what followed. Of course, dialing *69 can be a hassle with a rotary. 😉
There is also the fact that the criteria for Randi's tests, with regards to meeting his million $ challenge, are a total mockery of objective scientific weighting of potential results. What this means, is that his idea of 'proof' any scientist who does double bind testing (drug testing, etc), would laugh at Randi's criteria as being total hogwash and that it was specifically designed to create a negative or null in favor or Randi..and is not objective or scientific in the least.
What it comes down to, is that Randi and everything about his site, is a total joke, a lie, a sham.
And that does not surprise me at all.
What it comes down to, is that Randi and everything about his site, is a total joke, a lie, a sham.
And that does not surprise me at all.
I wouldn't say "any" scientist who does controlled testing. I do that all the time, I'm more-or-less a scientist, and his criteria seem straightforward and direct- unless you're a fake or deluded. Disagree with him if you want, but don't drag practitioners of controlled testing into it; what he does is just what we do. When there's an actual effect there, we seem to detect it.
KBK said:
If it were a contest in skepticism you may very well win.
Skeptics are a valuable asset to society, may you both prosper.
What surprises me is to read unqualified nonsense like that on this site.
If you had followed the challenge somewhat, you might have seen through the fog of your prejudices that the test procedure was usually
proposed by the claimant, and then by scientists checked out for their viability to proof or falsify the claim.
That anybody failed is not the failure of the procedure, it is the failure of the claimant to support his hypothesis with results.
Talk is cheep, claims are cheap - as Christopher Hitchens so succinctly stated:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Randi is routinely criticized by hifi lovers who can't hack the truth. Any defense of controlled testing of the ilk that Randi is looking for is then criticized by these people for not being applicable to the unique matter of hifi listening. A typical excuse is the erroneous idea that controlled testing does not engage the right side of the brain, the creative side, which listens to music. It is all untrue.
The OP's categories of audiophile are good entertainment, but omit the only category that is not deluded. Can it be true that undeluded audiophiles are so few that they do not constitute a category of audiophile? I am referring to the audiophile who understands the power of the placebo effect, and the psycho acoustic limitations of human hearing. Dub them the 'practicals'. They are willing to accept the findings of properly controlled psycho acoustic experiments. They accept that digital is superior, that the CD standard is sufficient (for stereo), that the errors of properly functioning electronics and wiring are inaudible, and that surround sound is capable of more accurately reproducing a sound field than stereo - one day. Their gurus are doyens of audio engineering and psycho acoustics like Floyd Toole. Count me in.
The 'technicals' are deluded if they think that better measurements mean audibly superior sound.
The 'subjectives' are deluded if they think they can consistently discern better sound with sighted comparisons.
The 'snobs' are in general a sub-group of the 'subjectives' because you will usually find any snobs in real life will choose equipment by paying attention to 'subjectives' like those you mentioned (the audiophile press). They are deluded because they pray to false idols.
The 'great unwashed' are not audiophiles by any usual definition, because you said they don't care about sound quality in any sense. They are deluded because they think sh*t tastes like butter.
So that leaves the 'technicals', the 'subjectives (including snobs)', the 'practicals', and non audiophiles.
The OP's categories of audiophile are good entertainment, but omit the only category that is not deluded. Can it be true that undeluded audiophiles are so few that they do not constitute a category of audiophile? I am referring to the audiophile who understands the power of the placebo effect, and the psycho acoustic limitations of human hearing. Dub them the 'practicals'. They are willing to accept the findings of properly controlled psycho acoustic experiments. They accept that digital is superior, that the CD standard is sufficient (for stereo), that the errors of properly functioning electronics and wiring are inaudible, and that surround sound is capable of more accurately reproducing a sound field than stereo - one day. Their gurus are doyens of audio engineering and psycho acoustics like Floyd Toole. Count me in.
The 'technicals' are deluded if they think that better measurements mean audibly superior sound.
The 'subjectives' are deluded if they think they can consistently discern better sound with sighted comparisons.
The 'snobs' are in general a sub-group of the 'subjectives' because you will usually find any snobs in real life will choose equipment by paying attention to 'subjectives' like those you mentioned (the audiophile press). They are deluded because they pray to false idols.
The 'great unwashed' are not audiophiles by any usual definition, because you said they don't care about sound quality in any sense. They are deluded because they think sh*t tastes like butter.
So that leaves the 'technicals', the 'subjectives (including snobs)', the 'practicals', and non audiophiles.
audio-kraut said:
Indeed. The OP post # 1 is a long diatribe that has nothing to do with what's on Randi's site.
That post really is The Mother of all Misleading.
Jan Didden
You crazy kids crack me up. Did it escape all notice that Hitchens swallows his own tail by making an assertion without evidence? It has as little relevance to science as tnarg's completely lacking in evidence 'Bringer of Truth' diatribe. Believe whatever you want but please stop debasing science with your claims of defending it.
So.. dismiss it then.
Of course, then you are abiding by his statement, so what's your beef?
Crazy condescending kid.
tnargs said:
If there is any category I fit into this would be it. I routinely refer to myself as a Mid-Fi enthusiast because I personally think of "audiophile" as a derogatory nomenclature.
bwaslo said:
Hitchens statement about the nature of assertions and evidence, presented as it was, is logically self-contradictory. Pointing that out is the 'evidence'. Hard to miss.
I've never seen a description of how James Randi conducts his cable listening tests nor have I seen any published results. So it's hard to determine just how much of a scientist he is.
I wouldn't trust Mythbusters to do it correctly, either. Their methods are more than a bit sloppy and haphazard, although entertaining. Some time back, they "proved" that it was a myth that a steel cable under high tension wouldn't remove a human limb when it snapped. When I was living in Austin in the early 'eighties, three men were decapitated at a local sawmill in just such a manner, so I personally find some of their conclusions irresponsible.
John
- Status
- Not open for further replies.