The audiophile's thorn
Our thorn in the flesh
‘tech-heads’ should chill and let ‘sound-heads’ prevail (pun intended)
The debate rages on with the subjectivist (audiophile) against the objectivist (tech-heads) with no end in sight, suffice it to say a little knowledge as it is generally believed can be harmful when used in the wrong hands
The case against tech heads nay-sayers
The main contention between the tech heads and audiophiles is that we want to hear what it sounds like, they prefer to know how it measures. Tech-Heads are test-bench geeks from the electronics industry. They may be technicians or engineers who may not necessarily be audio component designers but may either be project team members, OC testers, repairmen, or troubleshooters. Many of them I believe may be in the pro-audio and IT industries. After some poking around, I am sure you will find that their audio orientation is partial to computer streaming or simply desktop listening in their study or bedrooms. Many of them have modest home audio systems and some are even home theatre enthusiasts. You will rarely find one who owns a high-end audio system because that goes against the grain of their belief system. You will find that they will listen to music in any part of the room without a listening seat (sweet spot), or their loudspeakers will be up against the wall with no regard for symmetry. They will usually have a large coffee table sitting between them and their loudspeakers. Their large television set will be perched between each loudspeaker nicely tucked in and flushed to look elegant like a component set. These people are outsiders who are not audiophiles and I believe should have no business in our business.
The case against musicians who are nay-sayers
The other groups to be cagy about are musicians who claim to be “audiophiles” or music experts. They will tell you that they know what a musical instrument sounds like, implying that they are ‘expert’ audio listeners. I don't know of anyone who has not heard or played a musical instrument at some point in their life. It is pertinent to note that each musical instrument sounds different because of the make, model, artistry, and skill of the musician playing it, and the acoustic space where the instrument is played in. They never sound the same and it gets worse when ‘mike’ for recording and playback. Suffice it to say, no loudspeakers ever manufactured can replicate with integrity the timbre of a musical instrument. Therefore, we should agree that there is no absolute reference.
Musicians will also argue that 'audiophiles' are more interested in sound rather than music. While this may be true on the surface, we should not apologize as it would be challenging to listen to poorly recorded music or substandard playback systems and at the same time try to fully appreciate the artistry of the musical performance. That’s why we buy and painstakingly set up audiophile-quality systems and ancillary equipment to optimize the listening experience. Most musicians are said to be gifted musicians (child prodigies) with a focus on mastering the art of their respective instruments. Others just like playing musical instruments out of interest and yet other musicians earn their living by playing either in a band, or symphony orchestra or are just part-time session musicians or coach others to learn how to play music.
Therefore, their motivation in this respect is different from ours, and even then, you find a small community of audiophiles among musicians. The musicians' focus I believe is to connect closely to the music, appreciating its creativity, lyrical content, and the musician's prowess. Conversely, the audiophile's focus is to connect closely to reproduce sound in the sum of its parts, appreciating its soundstage, imaging of individual musicians, overall tonal balance, and dynamics. The sound quality in this instance is an instrumental (pun intended) part of the musical experience, which I believe will draw the listener much closer to the music. We make no apologies for this, because “this is the way” to steal a quote from the Star Wars – Mandalorian movie series.
There are seven general misapprehensions by nay-sayers
High-end audio accessories such as cones, spikes, platforms, racks, record clamps, mats, etc. = snake oil of the highest order
Burn-in time for new equipment = we have just got burned
Audio connecting cables = We are not connected with the science
Power line conditioners and power cords = We have all been short-circuited with our perceived notions
Digital audio (interfaces and data formats) = bits are bits, and ones and zeros are better than analog audio
DACs = only certain chips can make a difference, DACs, in general, don’t
High-end audio systems = We got hustled at our lower end because high-end audio components are over-rated and overpriced with no cost-benefit
Four reasons I think their arguments are not sound (pun intended)
1. Personal preference – You simply can't measure what people are hearing. We all hear sounds differently because our listening processes include our brains that re-construct what we hear which is greatly influenced by our personal bias, culture, and the physical abilities of our hearing mechanism. Which is why we all have sonic preferences. Whatever these nay-sayers prefer or endorse if at all, may not sound ‘good’ to our liking in our listening setup and environment. The products may not even meet our sound preference. Is it probable or just maybe, we can't hear what they are hearing? Or is it possible that their ‘system’ is unable to resolve (not high-resolution) the difference that we hear if they even have a high-end audio system, to begin with? Let's look at the big picture, there is variety in all products where the designers differentiate themselves because they simply have different sonic philosophies and manufacturing costs and that's where they compete. Even audiophiles have preferences and buy into the different philosophies based on their personal preferences and budget constraints. It is pertinent to note that most seasoned audiophiles can even differentiate by blind testing the sound of some popular brands in high-end audio that manufactures complete front-end and amplification system.
2. Audio system difference and room geometry - The subject component that is measured will have to be heard in a real-world listening room and with the existing companion components that complete the audio chain. Even the ‘best measured’ component we know will sound different in another environment and setup. The room or loudspeaker setup may complement the poor measurements of a component or exacerbate the good measurements to make the component sound bad. Therefore, the audiophile principle of the proof is in the pudding holds. Is it possible for them to hear what we hear when we know for a fact that each system out there sounds different? Their assumptions are simply based on things that don’t measure to their expectations or measure differently. They have not heard the subject component in our systems and our home, yet they make such comments or bold claims even if they found no difference in their system. It is pertinent to note that the complexities of a high-end audio system setup and room geometry will negate them from ever hearing what we have heard.
3. Listening parameters and expectations – If science is to be our guide, I would remind them that every hypothesis would have to be observed and replicated for the study to be credible. This is perhaps the most important part of the validation process of what was supposedly measured. If the observational part (listening) is not conducted by a competent researcher (Audiophile) that is informed and congruent with the audiophile’s belief system and best practices, then the whole experiment is invalid. Subjective listening is part of the scientific process called “observation”. In this context, after measuring, you need to hear what was measured to validate your findings and this is where the problem begins. Our critical listening expectations may differ from the objectivist. Do they share a similar value system of critical listening, soundstage, imaging, micro, and macro dynamics, and tonal balance? These are subjective issues with descriptive adjectives common to us that were used decades ago to better articulate what we are hearing which is an audiophile construct. I don’t think we have the technology at this point to measure everything we hear as it would be too complex in my opinion. We also know that all these sonic characteristics can only be possible if a high-end audio system is properly set up and fine-tuned. Such as, loudspeakers are placed symmetrically away from the listener and the sweet spot is established at the nearfield area where there are minimal reflections, standing wave dips, and peaks. The loudspeaker’s placement is optimized to the room geometry and the room is appropriately treated from early reflections and standing waves. Until and unless they are practicing audiophiles with a high-resolution system, and ‘schooled’ on critical listening, they are not going to hear any difference or nuance period.
4. Measurements are not targeted - The industry standard of measurement on all fronts does not cover the important elements that we all treasure to inform that the system or product is highly resolving for music playback. Some high-end designers even argue that if you want to measure something accurately, you must know the intention of the designer first to figure out if that objective was met. Tech heads should not cite some arbitrary measurements that we don’t care much about just to espouse their findings or narrative. They probably have their base cheering them on, I reckon who are mostly home theatre and headphone enthusiasts. I seriously doubt they are audiophiles maybe ‘Ai-No’ (Audiophiles-In-Name-Only). It is pertinent to note that the calibrated measurement microphones they use to measure stuff whether in an anechoic chamber or hung in free space, don’t hear the same way our ear does, this means they are limited in scope to their functional parameters. For example, microphones don’t usually measure beyond 20khz, the relative size of the microphone membrane correlates with their noise level and the highest frequency, it can handle. At the test bench with their scopes, analyzers, and software programs, the tech heads are guided by standard commercial hi-fi and pro-audio industry practices that do not cover the listening experience. If audio equipment can measure a certain way to achieve sonic excellence, all audio equipment will be designed with the same DNA. The objectivist moreover harbors a natural bias against self; if it measures poorly, they must not sound good. They must also trust the specifications sheets and must have a related engineering background to interpret the measurements. Audiophiles don't care how it measures but how it sounds leaving all the technical stuff to the designers to worry about. We are about the listening experience. Suffice it to say that measurements are only good at the time and place they were measured. In a real-world situation (at home), they will differ and will not ensure the performance presumably promised.
Little things to mull over
Audio designers often change (tweak) electronic parts (e.g., capacitors) in their designs during breadboard testing to achieve better sound quality knowing fully well that there will not be any measurable difference in the standard bench test. They do this because they want to ‘push the envelope for what they believe to be good sound and not chase for good measurements. I am sure high-end audio designers out there could design stuff to measure a certain way if they wanted to or put in their best effort with no-holds-barred products that will not be practical for mass production and inventory management.
If two similar product categories e.g., loudspeakers or amplifiers from different companies produced identical measurements according to the tech-heads standard of measurements, will they both sound the same? Product designers have even said that when they changed the output transformers from a different manufacturer, they found the sound to be worse even when the transformers are of identical specifications. Another said that he found that having 2 half-value resistors sounded better than having one larger-value resistor in the signal path. This also applies to capacitors and between different makes of electronic components.
If you were to conduct a study on good measurements and higher prices, which of the two factors do you think mostly correlates to better sound quality? I think you already know the answer.
Politics of envy – Some believe that entry-level aka mid-end audio products are not high-end audio by any measure and the owners are therefore not audiophiles. Some who can’t afford expensive high-end audio products or don’t wish to pay the price will say the products are not worth their price. They mock the audiophile inferring that the buyer is a moron and high-end audio manufacturers are con men selling snake oil. I sincerely believe that everyone can find value if they honestly look for it.
Conclusion
We may appreciate their efforts if they intend to separate the wheat from the chaff to protect us from the shenanigans out there, but we can’t accept their findings even from manufacturers of high-end audio. What we don’t appreciate is an uninvited third party (read auditor) trying to second-guess the product by using their own set of measuring parameters without critical listening on a high-resolution system. If tech-heads want to play the devil’s advocate, they must come into our world (experience) to understand our expectations in sound reproduction otherwise, they are just nay-sayers. My advice is to ignore those Nay Sayers and let them remain cloaked in their white garment of 'truth'. As far as I am concerned, they have no 'standing' in our community, so let’s not waste our time on those knocking at heaven’s door, trying to make us lie on a bed of roses, because we know for sure that every rose has its thorns. And I would humbly admonish them, “An audiophile who is convinced against their own will, is of the same opinion still”. ‘Good’ measurements are never an indicator of good sound no matter who tells you otherwise, high-resolution music reproduction in the listening room is a subjective matter and not an objective pursuit period. There are just too many variables making this a complex issue. Maybe, they are the ones who are selling us snake oil.
