I periodically jump on Audiogon discussion forums and discuss cable myths. I’ve refined my approach over the years to the following:
(1) Be super positive that I’d love to see any kind of measurements that showed cables have an impact, whether power, interconnects, or speaker cables. Lots of exclamation points!
(2) Recommend a null test with a competent ADC and calibrated microphone to get to the bottom of the spectral impacts that the advocates claim they hear.
(3) And, with a (1) tone, just mention how awesome it would be if the cable manufacturers had any results to share! So cool! Awesome blossom!
I’m usually attacked with a range of methods, but it seems to cause a few other skeptics to jump in as well. And then the threads kind of die for a bit…
Wonderful responses, thank you. Please bear in mind that in my original post I posted a link to a review of an ethernet filter from hi-fi+ and therefore I was aiming my ire not at individual audiophiles but rather at the audiophile myth support network aka the Kool-aid vendors. when one reads the review, one is just astonished by the complete lack of any supporting evidence for the claims being made by both the reviewer and the manufacturer. As I stated, this is how crazy audiophile myths are born.
As a friend once said to me long ago, as I was trying to justify some silly purchase: “no, I’m all for being ripped off then feeling good about it afterwards”
If there is a difference, then you can measure it! If the sound stage is different with the same speakers, etc., then there must be a difference in the signal that can be measured.
A null test is not an ABX test and I think it would be swell to get a handle on what makes it night-and-day!
I trust my ears to a degree, but really want some verification that cables make any difference at all. That would be awesome blossom!
I think the persistent positivity is an effective wedge. I don’t seem shrill but a questing soul after some kind of new data points. The forums at Audiogon likely are populated by cable marketing folks who just keep pushing the same sort of claims, so the wedge is a voice that the cable-curious coming to the forum can latch onto and question their own reasons for belief. Maybe…
I read an article years ago about a Philosopher of Science who went to a flat Earth meeting and tried various ideas for instilling doubt after studying the attendees.
Hi-fi+ (TAS, Stereophile, Darko, and the rest of the clown brigade) have bills to pay and profits to make. Whatever the advertiser wants, advertiser gets.
THey’re audiophiles, not readers or, God forbid, music lovers. They usually don’t listen to anything but “Flight of the cosmic hippo” and whatever it is that Diana Krall does either.
It isn’t just understanding of the tech world. They’re buying something money and power can’t buy in many other places: proof that they are better than normal people - call it superhuman, call it genetically superior, or however you like. They, unlike “us commoners”, “need” a higher-resolving system, because their hearing allows them to hear what the rest of us can’t. They, unlike “us commoners”, are immune to aging. In fact, and when it comes to the reviewers, their “experience”, on top of said God-given genetic advantage, allows them to hear things well beyond human ability, especially human ability at advanced age.
This topic reminds me of a slightly different discussion… about homeopathy . There are people who actually believe that such a “treatment” does have a healing effect. Just by their own feeling.
Every serious and professional study does show there’s no effect beyond placebo.
Also well-known companies making their profits by selling homeopathic products use every single dodge to circumvent legal boundaries in the marketing, sales and advertising area.
I believe these completely different fields show one major similarity. People sometimes believe in things which have absolutely no link to reality beyond their brains. It’s purely a mental thing. And that’s why it’s almost impossible to convince such people of doing a reality check from time to time which, BTW is healthy anyway
But coming back to “how myths are born”. From lack of knowledge and/or from people repeatedly telling myths. Myths are simply told and never have to be explained. In many (not all) cases the teller has a benefit from doing so. Sometimes very obvious, sometimes rather vague or disguised. This mechanism comes from ancient times and is still part of most of our lives. Isn’t this great? And free markets make use of this mechanism very nicely. Because they benefit.
I don’t know quite how far to take this analogy. The problem is that, in health matters, placebos often actually work. This is why double blind testing with a well designed control are so important in medical trials.
Amazingly, placebo’s can even work when the patient is told that they are being given a placebo. Something to do with the fact that it is being administered by someone who is considered an authority holding more weight that what that person is actually saying.
You are absolutely right. And there’s still lot of research to be done. The effect of placebo does exist, to a certain degree.
But this effect may also be achieved by e.g. a very faithful contact to a doctor. Without giving any expencive globules. That’s the point . Triggers for placebo effects can be exchanged.
I think it’s a valid analogy, although “audiophiles” will argue vociferously and almost always without meaningful evidence that what they hear is not due to placebo (nor confirmation bias, nor expectation bias). Which is all well and good - I can’t argue with what someone says they hear - up to the point where they say that this somehow means the science and engineering are inadequate to explain why they are hearing changes in sound quality. In fact, well-established science (psychoacoustics, psychology) is readily able to explain the subjective experience while being consistent with the fact that there is no difference (at an objectively audible level) in what’s reaching the listener’s ears.
Yes, in a way that’s sad. Because by learning something about your own being you’d easily understand that every single part of your body and your brain (which actually is a part of your body) is by far not perfect, not even nearly perfect. Esp. the hearing evolved while “not having in mind” that someday it will be used for judging something like sound quality. Somehow completely grotesque from a nature’s perspective .
It is what it is. Science can’t change strong belief. But strong belief can change science. Or something like that
By all means, if someone strongly believes in something, they are more than welcome to prove it scientifically. True scientists are open minded as long as they are presented with compelling evidence.
Also, a placebo that has a positive outcome for one person may not have a positive outcome for another.
Just as one person believing that component A improves audio compared to component B does not always mean that everyone will believe that A is better than B. Some times they might - and sometimes they might not. It is quite possible for two people to disagree - even when measurements do show a difference.
. There are people who actually believe that such a “treatment” does have a healing effect. Just by their own feeling.