An Experiment: Golden Ears, Perception and the Cost of Hi-Fi
Audiophile Realist -- Tue, 04/17/2007 - 13:06
:wink:
We've all heard that no piece of audiophilia is too expensive, and that the purchase decision is purely a personal choice. But have you ever wondered if you really are hearing an improvement or anything at all? Perhaps your perception is altered by who made the product, how much it costs or how it looks, even before you heared it? I wonder what would happen if...
The next time you went to an audio store you auditioned the equipment blindfolded, or were sat down in a completely dark room. On this basis you aren't allowed to see the product you are listening to. Do you think that you could price the equipment you were hearing? As specific components are switched in and out, could you tell which ones cost $5k, $10k, $50k or $100k? Not simply a matter of saying which one is better than the other (though that would be an experiment in itself). But do you think you could price (within say $10k) the cable, cartridge, speaker, amp, transport, etc you were only allowed to hear first?
Do you think your appreciation for hi-fi is so accurate and objective that you could always nail the products price? How would reviews be if it were possible to conduct them in this way? Imagine if TAS had a blindroom shootout (pick the best sounding system from 5 dark rooms). I wonder what the results would be. Would this be a smart way for audiophiles to audition new equipment? When forced to trust your ears and only your ears, I wonder what would happen. I've got a bad feeling that I would shave about 25-45% of my current investment had I reviewed gear in such a manner. Hmmm...
8)
I don't think I could price the equipment blindfolded. Part of my logic is that I've heard $30,000 equipment that I thought was inferior to $10,000 equipment. I've heard $2500 equipment that I thought was better than $8000 equipment. There is far from a perfect correlation between price and performance.
The second issue with my forecast of how I'd perform with the blindfold idea is that I know I have certain sonic cues that I care about. There is equipment at low, medium and high prices that caters to my view of music's essence, and equipment that doesn't. Blindfolded I imagine I would value equipment that caters to my view more.
It's an interesting idea, but one that could be taken further. How about establishing an auditioning chamber deep in the Cheyenne mountains. Reviewers would be drugged and blindfolded, flown out, and then given a few hours to make an assessment after listening in a dark room. Wouldn't this be even more "pure"? I think not. In many cases it takes weeks, if not months, of listening to really get a fix on what a piece of equipment sounds like.
Plus I believe the blindfold method would introduce its own anomalies. I'm not convinced that disorienting a listener is the most efficacious method of assessing audio equipment.
Finally, while it may be fun and entertaining to speculate about alternative modes of auditioning equipment, I suspect that, since we live in a free market society, someone would have figured out a better mousetrap by now if it was to be had. But it isn't.
Let me try to help you out.
Quote:It's an interesting idea, but it has some practical limitations. A lot of the differences between components are not vast, but subtle. In many cases it takes weeks, if not months, of listening to really get a fix on what a piece of equipment sounds like.
I don't necessarily disagree, but wouldn't you be able to tell the super amp from the budget amp at first listen? Most of us have certain test tracks that highlight the benefits or flaws of a component in certain sound regions pretty easily. And let's not forget that most consumers don't have the luxury of access to a component for weeks/months before purchase. At what price point then would you say that the law of diminishing returns really kicks in? Where would you say the lines are blurred? Certainly if a product stood head and shoulders above the competition it would not take long to recognise this, would it?
Quote:Plus I believe the blindfold method would introduce its own anomalies, because.... I'm not convinced that disorienting a listener is the most efficacious method of assessing audio equipment.
What anomalies do you think would be introduced? Share with us why you think that a blindfold is akin to disorienting a listener (I wouldn't use that phrase) and why you think it would be a bad thing.
Quote:Finally, while it may be fun and entertaining to speculate about alternative modes of auditioning equipment, I suspect that, since we live in a free market society, someone would have figured out a better mousetrap by now if it was to be had. But it isn't.
In a free market society the emphasis is on selling as much product as possible - not building and marketing the best product on principle. It would take a very courageous (read stupid) dealer to set up a dark room, if in fact most people could not pick out the most expensive equipment by ear. Those who have an incentive in selling equipment have a disincentive to set up such an environment. They would not at all welcome a neutral environment IMO.
T-Martin: Part of my logic is that I've heard $30,000 equipment that I thought was inferior to $10,000 equipment. I've heard $2500 equipment that I thought was better than $8000 equipment. There is far from a perfect correlation between price and performance.
However, it does show a perfect correlation with your listening and purchasing biases and value judgments, which would not transfer to anyone else; just as mine won't transfer to anyone else, ad infinitum...
The quote that I think you are attributing to me isn't quite what I wrote. Are the differences subtle rather than vast? This is itself a can of worms. I have friends who think anything beyond a Bose radio is a complete waste of money. They wouldn't even think the differences are subtle but pretty much nonexistent.
In any case, I think disorienting is fine but discombobulating might be another term to use. I simply wonder if the old coconut wouldn't go into overdrive in a blindfolded system, outsmarting itself. I can see the attraction of the idea of a neutral listening environment, but I remain skeptical that it can be attained. Judgments are inherently subjective. Like this post.
Jacob wrote:The quote that I think you are attributing to me isn't quite what I wrote.
I was trying to grab whatever I could from the unnecessarily-sarcastic response.
Quote: Are the differences subtle rather than vast? This is itself a can of worms. I have friends who think anything beyond a Bose radio is a complete waste of money. They wouldn't even think the differences are subtle but pretty much nonexistent.
We aren't discussing them - this is about audiophiles - people who are keenly interested in reaslistic reproduction of music in their homes.
Quote:
In any case, I think disorienting is fine but discombobulating might be another term to use. I simply wonder if the old coconut wouldn't go into overdrive in a blindfolded system, outsmarting itself. I can see the attraction of the idea of a neutral listening environment, but I remain skeptical that it can be attained. Judgments are inherently subjective. Like this post.
Can you explain discombobulating more? What would be so bad about listening to equipment in a room where you had no idea what you were listening to? We are simply talking about an environment where you are not allowed to have any preconceptions about what you are hearing. The idea is that your comments would be based on nothing but what you are hearing. How would your opinion change if you had no idea how much a product costs, what it looks like, or who is the manufacturer of the product? Do you think that you could reasonably price a system if you were forced to listen to it in a room with the lights out? I doubt that any of us could, even if you had access to such an environment for three months. It just doesn't take that long to effectively identify a high end rig, which brings us back to subjective evaluations, pseudo-science and psychology IMO.
I wasn't trying to be sarcastic.
As to your point: I'm not sure what the result would be. I guess you would have to try it, otherwise we're just guessing.
By the way, there is an article in today's Wash. Post that might suggest that the ear can be fooled more easily than we might like to think or that reproduction is reaching a stage where it genuinely does sound "real". Great efforts are being made to play symphonies via a computer program and several conductors listened to four recordings, one of which was generated by a computer. Initially, they thought the computer recording was a real one and that a performance conducted by Roger Norrington was the created by the computer.
We are just guessing, but the point is that you are being given fewer cues in advance. The look of a product, the brand, price etc., would have zero impact on your listening opinion if you heard it in a room with the lights out. Do you think that you could price a system under such an environment? We all would like to believe that our opinions are only driven by what we hear, but the only way to test this would be to listen to the equipment where your hearing was the only thing you could rely on. I'd love to see a special edition of TAS where a test like this was done. From switching cables to transports to amps to speakers. Do our eyes tell lies to our ears? That would be pretty easy to test IMO.
Quote:By the way, there is an article in today's Wash. Post that might suggest that the ear can be fooled more easily than we might like to think or that reproduction is reaching a stage where it genuinely does sound "real".
Precisely my point. We act like reviewing audio equipment is an exact science. A profession no less precise than that which requires professional qualifications. But I believe that this hobby is far more subjective than we would like to believe, or care to admit. It survives on creating an aura of excellence around certain products, while looking down on others.
It also points out that people are far more interested in the composition than fidelity. 99.99% of the world world prefer to hear Miles Davis on a mono radio built in 1950, than to hear Kenny G on a $150k golden ear audiophile rig. I count myself among them. If you are in love with the art, then the equipment really isn't the point beyond a certain price.
Audiophile Realist wrote:...99.99% of the world world prefer to hear Miles Davis on a mono radio built in 1950, than to hear Kenny G on a $150k golden ear audiophile rig. I count myself among them. If you are in love with the art, then the equipment really isn't the point beyond a certain price.
AR, I agree with you about Miles, but it seems that most of the world would prefer to listen to Gwen Stefani or Christina Aguilera on that mono radio.
Post new comment