Skepticism is good, but yours seems arbitrarily applied. You are not skeptical about your sensorial experiences (and think of ‘auditioning’ as some kind of empirical approach), so you have to be skeptical about science. You’ll probably give me the hobby argument here, no big deal etc., but you seem to use skepticism as a general principle, and certain misplaced skepticism can be disastrous (e.g. climate skepticism). Just something to think about.
7 Likes
You do realise this is an extremely well studied and researched sales technique.
Somewhat rooted, but not entirely — it’s a huge field of study — in an a bias called the Endowment Effect where once you own something you’re less likely to want to lose it after the trial ends.
At a basic level it also relies on the hassle of returning an item. I’m sure we’ve all ended up with items we planned to return but never got around to.
In short we’re a huge bundle of early manipulated biases and if you think you’re completely immune to them, well that’s most likely just another one of your biases at work!
This is why we have objective measurements and experiments, to rule out those biases.
5 Likes
My Dad explained the laws of thermodynamics and Boyle’s Law by applying it to everyday living. He also subjected what we ate to a chemical analysis. We learned a lot, including a respect for science and what I think of as everyday (Newtonian) physics. But didn’t like being told that Cool Whip included soap in the ingredients. That was more meaningful since we had just learned how to make soap – a great experiment. So, no worries.
Yes, understood. That is human nature.
Here is how it worked here recently. Two demo pieces of gear were considered as a possible replacement for what we already had. I knew which one was operating. My wife did not. After about two days, while an album that is very familiar to both of us was playing, she stopped by to say “That sounds nice.” A thought plucked straight out of my head. “Which one is that?” Given that our listening room is our living room, she was gratified that the better sound was produced by a piece that fit her aesthetic. I kept listening for another week. One piece was purchased, one was sold and one returned. I don’t regret buying the piece that was sold. We enjoyed it for five years. It too was bought after an in-home demo.
The same “process” is used for smaller pieces with money-back guarantees. If it makes a negligible difference vs. price, or no difference or sounds worse, it goes back.
Think of how a musician chooses his/her instrument.
Ah, if the wife got involved, it’s indisputable.
That’s completely different. There is no correct way to produce sounds, but there is exactly one correct way to reproduce a digital recording.
6 Likes
Exactly. But the high-end companies selling four-figure switches and cables don’t want you to know this. They know 99.999% of audiophiles know nothing about networking, the TCP/IP protocols, or the OSI model. I could see a cable transmitting RMI/EFI noise but the AirLens has galvanic isolation which eliminates that, as does the reclocking it performs inside. So yeah…I call bullsh!t as well.
5 Likes
Gentlemen,
All that matters is that Mr. Holbrook likes the improvement in his system. None of the scientific explanations posted here are revelent. Do all of us have the same amplifiers, speakers, DAC’s and other components? No. Did all of us buy our systems based solely on “expert” reviews? I’m confident the vast majority of us purchased our components based on how they “sounded” to us, possibly along with measurements and reviews.
Audio Science Review is a site where “experts” discuss adnauseam why what our ears hear doesn’t matter at all. Some might enjoy those conversations.
Me, I buy what I like. And that sounds good to me.
3 Likes
I very much doubt anyone here objects to the OP (or anyone else) liking their system and whatever components they might have in it.
There are lots of reasons one might prefer a certain piece of gear over another, which have nothing to do with any measured (or measurable) physical phenomena.
What is objectionable is making claims about some objective (as in, testable and provable by/to any other person) changes that are not true, and would contradict multiple well-proven laws of nature if they were.
5 Likes
He clearly writes that it’s his opinion. That’s all.
1 Like
Maybe not?
1 Like