Testing audiophile claims and myths

[bigshot]

A lot of audio seems stuck in some pre-scientific age of alchemy, where gentleman tinkerers can peddle mystical tinctures for the ears. It's cringey.

I think a big part of why people make poor decisions when it comes to home audio are related to the status of conspicuous consumption and bias implanted by manufacturers and reinforced by validation. When one's ego gets involved, rational thought shuts down and one starts arguing for argument's sake. If they truly didn't care, they would be content in their own ignorance and not argue. The fact that they can't let it go shows that bias is controlling them.

 

[Moonglum]

I have no hostility. I think I've replied to your comments on point.

You're speaking to a television producer who has served as a recording and post production supervisor in the past, Gregorio is a sound engineer who has taught the subject on the college level. Other people here have degrees in electrical engineering and design audio equipment. I have no idea how your resume reads, but however it compares, I think you might have a problem claiming we don't know what we're talking about when it comes to audio recording and playback.



People make uninformed and poor decisions all the time. It's everyone's right to be wrong. But I would hope that if you are going to take your own experience and share it as a suggestion for others to follow on the internet, you'd be careful to recommend your good and informed choices, not your bone-headed ones.

Wow nice dig at the end there. I respect expertise but respect is a two way street - and there’s precious little being shown in return- im happy to admit I know less than an audio engineer or an IT expert but by the same token I know a hell of a lot more about cognitive biases then they do. Anyway, despite your suggestion I can’t post my own subjective observations nobody is required to seek your permission prior to posting.

 

[Moonglum]

I think a big part of why people make poor decisions when it comes to home audio are related to the status of conspicuous consumption and bias implanted by manufacturers and reinforced by validation. When one's ego gets involved, rational thought shuts down and one starts arguing for argument's sake. If they truly didn't care, they would be content in their own ignorance and not argue. The fact that they can't let it go shows that bias is controlling them.

It’s so tempting to ask what measurements you have taken to prove these pop psychology assumptions are supported by empirical data. It is somewhat hypocritical to suggest it’s ok to throw wild postulations out about the psychological underpinnings of behaviour.

 

[Moonglum]

As for Hans B - I was unaware he had been debunked on here but I will read the links with an open mind and not assume Im right - happy to show humility…feel free to try it sometime

 

[bigshot]

We're talking primarily about Sound Science here. Discussion of biases is tangential, and it's just to try to come up with an explanation of why subjective impressions are often wrong. If you have a better reason why subjective impressions are often wrong, feel free to offer it. Here in Sound Science it seems like factually inexplicable subjective impressions are drawn to us like a moth to a flame.

If you know something about cognitive biases, perhaps you can explain to us why someone who knows very little about a subject would go to a forum populated by people who know a great deal about topic just to argue with them about things they don't understand themselves. I can see someone like that going to a forum to learn, but I don't see any logical reason to waste time arguing from ignorance.

A case in point is the comment that recording isn't measuring. I don't see how someone who doesn't understand something that fundamental could have anything at all to offer on the subject of digital audio. Yet he came back and doubled down with a second post repeating his mistake. What kind of thinking process is that?

 

[Moonglum]

We're talking primarily about Sound Science here. Discussion of biases is tangential, and it's just to try to come up with an explanation of why subjective impressions are often wrong. If you have a better reason why subjective impressions are often wrong, feel free to offer it. Here in Sound Science it seems like factually inexplicable subjective impressions are drawn to us like a moth to a flame.

If you know something about cognitive biases, perhaps you can explain to us why someone who knows very little about a subject would go to a forum populated by people who know a great deal about topic just to argue with them about things they don't understand themselves. I can see someone like that going to a forum to learn, but I don't see any logical reason to waste time arguing from ignorance.

A case in point is the comment that recording isn't measuring. I don't see how someone who doesn't understand something that fundamental could have anything at all to offer on the subject of digital audio. Yet he came back and doubled down with a second post repeating his mistake. What kind of thinking process is that?

Well
I came here because a post I made on another forum was attacked on here and
Quoted along with an attack on my claim to be a psychologist- that’s the simple answer as to why I’m on here. Funny thing is I could have provided some quite pertinent input as a behavioural scientist into some
Debates on here but it seems like there is intolerance and defensiveness in the extreme. Shame I had hoped this would be more civilised than ASR, my mistake

 

[gregorio]

Amir is not some superhero saving poor uneducated audiophiles from
the big bad Audio companies trying to deceive them, yet that is how some
of his proponents pitch his role.

No one has mentioned Amir except for you. I’m certainly not a proponent of Amir, I’ve had run ins with him in the past and he is of course susceptible to errors. None of that invalidates what digital audio actually is or how Ethernet networks actually work though.

If it's your subjective preference, then it's not an "error".

By definition.

If you claim a subjective preference for something but that something doesn’t actually exist, then it MUST be an error, by definition!

I respect expertise but respect is a two way street - and there’s precious little being shown in return- im happy to admit I know less than an audio engineer or an IT expert

It is a two way street and you got off on the wrong foot with false assertions, contradictions and fallacy based arguments, which is not respectful of a sound science discussion forum.

but by the same token I know a hell of a lot more about cognitive biases then they do.

However, who is an expert and who isn’t is irrelevant anyway, it’s effectively an “Appeal to Authority” which again is a fallacious argument but I’m sure a cognitive scientist would know that!

G

 

[Moonglum]

No one has mentioned Amir except for you. I’m certainly not a proponent of Amir, I’ve had run ins with him in the past and he is of course susceptible to errors. None of that invalidates what digital audio actually is or how Ethernet networks actually work though.

If you claim a subjective preference for something but that something doesn’t actually exist, then it MUST be an error, by definition!

It is a two way street and you got off on the wrong foot with false assertions, contradictions and fallacy based arguments, which is not respectful of a sound science discussion forum.

However, who is an expert and who isn’t is irrelevant anyway, it’s effectively an “Appeal to Authority” which again is a fallacious argument but I’m sure a cognitive scientist would know that!

G

An appeal to an authority is a persuasion technique that is often abused but only when the authority is itself bogus in that context - otherwise it can absolutely be legitimate- knowledge about the source of information is very often important- when you Google a health issue do you not care what the source of the information you choose to act on is ?

 

[Moonglum]

I’ll say it again - I did not choose to come here, someone quoted my post on another forum and then I faced character assassination. So it was not me who came here looking for trouble.

 

[bigshot]

It’s so tempting to ask what measurements you have taken to prove these pop psychology assumptions are supported by empirical data.

There are several indications that status is an important part of high end audio.

The most obvious one is the almost universal belief that more expensive equipment sounds better. If you test high end equipment and compare it to midrange consumer equipment, that just isn't the case. To cite an anecdotal example, the worse measuring piece of home audio equipment for jitter was made by McIntosh. It's true of file formats too. MQA is a high end streaming format, but it has higher levels of noise than a plain old AAC file, and it's no better resolution.

Another clear indication that status is behind high end audio is the way it's designed and marketed. You see wires displayed on velvet pillows and gold lettering, marble backgrounds and shiny chrome on advertisements. The components are housed in brushed aluminum cases or hand rubbed oak.

The most telling example is the way audiophiles interact with each other. Status is conferred based on the amount of money spent on the equipment listed in their sig file.

These things seem to indicate me that there is a bias related to status going on. But perhaps there is another reason. Can you think of why someone would assume that more money automatically equates with better sound quality that isn't related to status?

 

[Moonglum]

There are several indications that status is an important part of high end audio.

The most obvious one is the almost universal belief that more expensive equipment sounds better. If you test high end equipment and compare it to midrange consumer equipment, that just isn't the case. To cite an anecdotal example, the worse measuring piece of home audio equipment for jitter was made by McIntosh. It's true of file formats too. MQA is a high end streaming format, but it has higher levels of noise than a plain old AAC file, and it's no better resolution.

Another clear indication that status is behind high end audio is the way it's designed and marketed. You see wires displayed on velvet pillows and gold lettering, marble backgrounds and shiny chrome on advertisements. The components are housed in brushed aluminum cases or hand rubbed oak.

The most telling example is the way audiophiles interact with each other. Status is conferred based on the amount of money spent on the equipment listed in their sig file.

These things seem to indicate me that there is a bias related to status going on. But perhaps there is another reason. Can you think of why someone would assume that more money automatically equates with better sound quality that isn't related to status?

As you’re actually attempting to be civil
I will answer this- well there is a general heuristic (mental short cut) that operates in some domains where individuals assume something more expensive has to be better- it’s not necessarily about status it’s just a rough and ready shortcut mental heuristic that is a subset of one that states that more of something means it’s better- for example Apple persuade people a new phone
is better than old ones because the camera sensor has more megapixels but anyone serious about photography knows that this doesn’t always hold and
that cramming MP onto a small sesnsor
doesn’t always lead to increases in
image quality. You see im up for interesting discussion about these sorts of things if only folks could stay respectful

 

[bigshot]

I’ll say it again - I did not choose to come here, someone quoted my post on another forum and then I faced character assassination. So it was not me who came here looking for trouble.

I don't know who quoted you or who assassinated your character. I'm just replying to your comments here in this thread. You've said you know something about cognitive biases. That is interesting to me, particularly as they relate to home audio. Feel free to discuss how biases affect the quality of our decisions, and how they bypass rational decision making. Those are directly applicable to the sorts of things we deal with here in Sound Science. We have people coming in here to argue with us who are clearly exhibiting strong bias. They're resistant to discussing on point. They swing off on hyper-emotional tangents, claiming to be insulted while simultaneously insulting others, claiming to not he heard while ignoring any argument that contradicts their unsupported claim, complaining that they didn't want to be here in the first place when they engage and post over and over in this forum. None of those things make sense to me, and I chalk them up to bias. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on that.

 

[Moonglum]

I don't know who quoted you or who assassinated your character. I'm just replying to your comments here in this thread. You've said you know something about cognitive biases. That is interesting to me, particularly as they relate to home audio. Feel free to discuss how biases affect the quality of our decisions, and how they bypass rational decision making. Those are directly applicable to the sorts of things we deal with here in Sound Science. We have people coming in here to argue with us who are clearly exhibiting strong bias. They're resistant to discussing on point. They swing off on hyper-emotional tangents, claiming to be insulted while simultaneously insulting others, claiming to not he heard while ignoring any argument that contradicts their unsupported claim, complaining that they didn't want to be here in the first place when they engage and post over and over in this forum. None of those things make sense to me, and I chalk them up to bias. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on that.

Hmm Im guessing this is how you see my behaviour here but I have not insulted anyone on this forum…anyways the subject of cognitive bias and consumer behaviour is a very interesting but also quite complex issue - I may visit the forum from time to time if
I feel a behavioural scientist can
add something meaningful to the debate. But to ask for a general overview of biases and forum behaviour - well, interesting topic and the tribalism
particularly interests me as I cut my teeth on the topic of social identity for my PhD but that’s maybe a discussion for another time and thread

 

[bigshot]

Okie doke. We welcome people who want to contribute to the discussion of Sound Science.

 

[gregorio]

It is somewhat hypocritical to suggest it’s ok to throw wild postulations out about the psychological underpinnings of behaviour.

But it’s ok to throw wild postulations out about digital audio in a sound science discussion forum?

Funny thing is I could have provided some quite pertinent input as a behavioural scientist into some Debates on here

If you are actually a behavioural scientist then you could have contributed some pertinent input and it would have been both useful and appreciated.

Unfortunately, much/most of what you’ve input so far has been anti-scientific audiophile marketing BS, which in a science discussion forum is not civilised and is literally intolerable. Hence why you’ve had that response.

Maybe you’ve done this entirely inadvertently, your more recent posts allow for that possibility far more than your initial posts. If this is the case then you’re most welcome to stick around and contribute, your input would be valuable but just be careful of making wild guesses/assertions about audio, avoid such assertions and ask if you’re not sure.

G