Quote:
After taking part in quite a number of threads as these, I've come to fully agree with you P a t r i c k where this 'autosuggestion' thing is concerned. It's huge in audio, no doubt.
Unfortunately, the phenomenon seems to be only seriously considered when talking about cables and not about any other gear. Of late, I'm finding myself to have very little interest in the discussion of nuances between pieces of gear because of subjective differences in appreciation, nicely adorned by the phenomenon of autosuggestion. Your amp will surely sound a lot better after reading a huge thread that raves about it and compares it to many worthy contenders.
On this background, I've failed to hear a difference between different transport options that I've been exploring. Many others hear big differences, of course.
So, I'm at home with my HD650's and am getting a tad annoyed with the inflexibility and weight of my Silver Dragon cable. I switch back to the stock since it's lighter and more flexible. Good grief... it looks like I need some further detoxing yet. The Silver Dragon is <gulp> ... making a difference. What a frustration!! Thought I'd share this here anyway even though it's not scientific. Just an experience.
Hi aimlink
Yes I do agree that auto-suggestion plays a huge part in audio.
I think there is a very big history to this issue and I keep meaning to write an article or something, but I am hugely busy at the moment with other projects.
I remember before this "subjectivist" period began. I had my first "cool" hi fi in the 70s. In those days tests on hi fi were simply an electronic analysis of the equipment, complete with graphs and a description of the quality of the casing construction. That was it!
Well, the 80s came along and so did the new "subjectivism". This was listening to the equipment and writing a review based on that experience. Boy did I welcome this! What a relief it was.
The question of auto-suggestion lay behind this change and so some British magazines of that time introduced new ways of review which I felt were a good compromise and presented a solution.
The best example was one magazine which would review several different similarly priced components at one time. These would be reviewed by a panel made up of the magazine journalist who would write comments on each without seeing the products being reviewed. I imagine they took a day over it and all sat in the same room which the gear was switched out of sight. This wasn't a blind ABX test by any means, it wasn't a "spot the difference" contest, it was merely a way of providing a review of the equipment without being subject to preconceptions about each item of equipment.
The article in the magazine would then be written up by the editor, most likely, who would use quotes from the notes of the reviewing panel.
So we can see that there are ways to review audio equipment which accounts to some extent for auto-suggestion.
However none of these reviewing methods are in use today.
The audio review today is simple one person who writes about his listening experiences with a given product. He or she makes no account of any auto-suggestion on their behalf. The review is presented as "subjective" but this is not even subjective because the reviewer is so unwittingly influenced by his or her own preconceptions about the product, the sales talk about the product etc.
People who want to listen to their music with the best possible fidelity in reproduction have been done a massive disservice by these reviews which for the most part are simply adulations of the products.
I believe that if the reviewers were to subject themselves to blind ABX listening tests then we could see just how good their "golden ears" really are!
I think that if audio magazines returned to blind group testing, as has happened in the past, the we might well see some surprising results.
Although these issues arise in threads about cables, I think this of course applies to all audio equipment.
To be honest I believe that large sections of the so-called "hi end" gear that is being made and sold is, to be frank, just rubbish and easily bested by modestly priced well designed gear.
Appalling distortion is now being described by the reviewers as "sound signature" when it appears in very expensive equipment, but the same distortion in cheap equipment is not elavated in this way.
If people wish to buy equipment with such problems then they can of course simply buy very cheaply made equipment which will deliver that same experience as the very expensive stuff
So, to come back to auto-suggestion directly. I believe that reviews that do not account for auto-suggestion are invalid and the reader should discount them as being of no worth.
