Home Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

RE: The real problem (long)

In his reply below, Pjay says we should separate "real information from spin." But the "real problem" is that a big chunk of the audiophile community dislikes the idea that claims should be verifiable, in the scientific sense. As I've written before (I think in that "Chips for Chumps" article you referred to), abandoning verifiable fact has some serious and negative consequences, but it's pretty much inevitable in a field like this where so much depends on subjective experience.

What I'm getting at is that it's such a phenomenological, and also marketing-driven, field, with every manufacturer claiming that something different matters, that there is no way, in many (maybe the majority) of cases to "separate real information from spin." Often these are sincere beliefs held by designers who have fixated on some aspect of the design: Is it a plastic case that REALLY makes DNM products sound good? Are DeVore speakers good, as JD says, because they're really easy for amplifiers to drive? How important is it for drivers to be used only in their pistonic frequency range? (seems like it would be very important, but it's not that common...). How important is it to use high-tech materials that don't deform for cones? How important is it to use natural materials that DO deform? How important is it to keep circuits simple? How important is it to avoid all global negative feedback? What is fact, what is spin, and what is the unverifiable conviction of a skilled designer? Even if a designer designs something that sounds wonderful, based on a certain philosophy, the philosophy and the good sound may or may not be connected. Perhaps it's just luck, and a good ear.

Of course, some claims are obvious marketing B.S., as anyone with a shred of technical knowledge can verify. The "Chips for Chumps" issue Charles mentioned is a great illustration of just how hard it can be, in this world, to distinguish fact from hype. Charles criticized me for developing a technical opinion without listening, but as far as I know he never tried to defend any of the product's technical claims, or to say it actually affected the sound. But others--including at least one well-known designer of electronics (and several reviewers)--has (have) said the chip works.

And what about those Bybee filters? I've never listened to them, I can say with absolute conviction--as a person trained in condensed matter physics--that materials that have superconducting properties at lower temperatures have no special properties at room temperature and above, the range where these things operate. Yet some people swear by them, and one widely respected designer incorporates them into his amplifiers, or used to. Do they improve the sound? I have no idea. But if they do, it has nothing to do with the claims the manufacturer makes (or made a while ago; I haven't checked lately). Memory player? Ditto.

One of the things I love about audio is that it's rarely clear-cut. How could it be? You can't measure experience. You can't--at least not yet--objectify the emotional content of music.

There's a continuum between utter nonsense and reliably verifiable fact. There are many examples of both extremes in audio, but the most interesting part is right in the unverifiable middle.

Jim


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


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.