Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Critic's Corner ] [ Return to Search Results ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Hansen's 'X' - The *real* trouble with Jim Austin

Posted by bjh (A) on September 16, 2005 at 12:17:43

Is is reasonable to doubt that Jim Austin is appropriately qualified to almost reflexively recognize the GSIC as sham. I don't think so. Try telling him that action at a distance or some other known behavior from investigations into the quantum world may help explain the claimed effects and prepare yourself for a quick and concise explanation of extreme implausibility. No problem here.

For that matter, faced with the evidence that effects are perceived by some, his speculation that another scientific field of investigate, i.e. the science of what is "happening between our ears", will provide the elusive explanation seem perfectly logical to me as well.

In fact had he, in his Chips for Chumps article, restricted himself to purely scientific oriented considerations there would be little cause for complaint. But unfortunate he felt the need to say more, and in that *more*, I would content, did little more than provide a spectacle of startling ignorance. Consider the following:

"Even in the realm of real devices, real components, and real effects, differences are often so subtle that you can hear them—really hear them—only if you have a very good ear and lots of listening experience."

I bet any number of audiophiles have seen this sort of claim before, no doubt often in the slightly bolder form that drops the "often". But is it accurate, reasonable, or even representative of the views of audiophiles in general. Does it fit with the sonic differences we find between amplifiers, pre-amplifiers, CDPs, turntables, etc. I certainly don't think so, and judging by the hundreds of reviews I've read in Stereophile over years, reviews where many times the reviewer has opted to compare the DUT with model(s) of comparable quality price, etc., it would appear that most of the reviewers (past and present) would disagree as well. Do the qualifiers that one possess a very good ear and have lots of listening experience provide the explanation for these perceived differences? I don't think so. But let's suspend disbelieve for a second. The statement then is just one way of expressing the frivolity of the high-end as clearly the benefits of the, very often!, outrageously expensive components are truly appreciated only by a select few with exceptional hearing acuity and vast experience, the public, hanging one every word of these titans, somehow duped into purchasing these components. In a word ... foolishness!

And then we have:

"The differences are so subtle that double-blind testing—the standard method for distinguishing real effects from imaginary ones—has been rejected by much of the audiophile community as useless, except in the most obvious cases. This rejection is justifiable—even statisticians agree that DBT misses some subtle effects—but those of us who like to keep a tight grip on our wallets must mourn DBT's passing."

What can we say? Perhaps that someone like Austin should be well aware that there's good science and there's also bad science. Perhaps he should have studied the archives of the very publication he works for to discover the history of the application of DBT methodology in audio, hi-end audio in particular. What he would find would be the exposé of a scientific sham that in it's own way is roughly equivalent to the GSIC debacle. But again let's suspend disbelief. Starting around 1980 DBT/ABX was accepted as the sole legitimate means to compare audio components. Shortly afterward standards were formulated as to the minimum technical specifications (IM, TIM, etc.) audio components should exhibit to be indistinguishable from each other. Commodification of standard components followed soon afterward save for a niche market where 'beautification' was a major selling point. No thanks! and thank goodness that some, relying on their ears and the gray matter between them recognized this movement for what it was/is ... foolishness!

When viewed from this perspective Chips for Chumps is startlingly similar to the favored device employed by the anti-audiophile crowd, the rabid DBT/ABXers and hard core objectivists, namely the facile attempt to utilize the exploits of the admittedly lunatic fringe of the audiophile world as an attack against the core.

This is disturbing given the source, and in the "As We See It" column no less! I mean does no one at Stereophile have some spare time to demonstrate to him the effects of real world components, can't he be just given a few pieces to experiment with at his leisure?

In summary, as a qualified scientifically oriented commentator ... no problem, as an audiophile, ... hasn't got a clue; and that's a problem IMHO.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---