INTRO: Given the strong reaction to some of my articles here are some

thoughts on whats likely behind the more emotional responses. The

world of high-end audio can be almost religious and divided something
like the Republicans and Democrats. In this case its the Subjectivists
versus the Objectivists. Its been called the Great Debate a Holy War
and more. (photo: Francis Carnauba)
HIGH-END AUDIOs DIRTY SECRET: What if I told you there was
a proven way to evaluate gear using your own ears that highlights even
the smallest audible differences between two pieces of gear? Compared
to typical listening methods its been found to be far more reliable and
revealing of subtle differences. More on this later!
THE SUBJECTIVISTS: The hardcore Subjectivists trust their own
ears above all else and often ignore, downplay, or sometimes even
actively discredit objective efforts. Some argue they have superior
hearing and/or listening skills and more refined tastes. That sometimes
creates at least a whiff of an elitist club that some are drawn to (think
Robb Report). But, regardless, their genuine passion for audio is to be
admired. And I believe at least some of them do have superior listening
skills compared to the Average Joe. Despite their more emotional left
brains, which might imply a greater love of music, theres some
consensus Subjectivists spend more of their time tweaking and
evaluating their hardware than a typical objectivist. Stereophiles
Michael Fremer is generally considered a strong subjectivist.
THE OBJECTIVISTS: This group tends to prefer some sort of science,
measurements, or objective listening tests to back up claims of A is
better than B. When reading a gear review theyre more likely to skip to
the measurements section (if there is one) than read subjective
impressions. They tend to be skeptical of outrageous claims and ultra
high priced gear. They also tend to buy less expensive gear, less often,
than subjectivists making them less attractive to manufactures. As
mentioned above, they tend to be more satisfied with their systems so
the spend more time just listening to music rather than the gear. Some

have speculated this is because theyre confident more of their hardware

is already good enough. Peter Aczel and the late Julian Hirsch are
classic audio objectivists. And a lot of the folks at Hydrogenaudio fall in
this category.
THE MODERATES: Just as with politics and religion, its not black
and white. Some have a foot firmly in both the objective and subjective
side of things. Some examples are John Atkinson at Stereophile, John
Siau at Benchmark Media, and to some degree, myself. We value
objective measurements but also trust our ears and just because we may
not hear a difference we accept someone else might. I believe those in
the middle are generally the most open minded.
CREDIBILITY: Wine critics need credibility and trusted taste buds to
discern all the subtle details of wine. Subjective audio reviewers are
expected to have good hearing and highly developed listening skills. But
objective geeks only have to make proper measurements others can
verify. Even Grandpa with his hearing aids could do it. (photo:
heatheronhertravels)
ACCOUNTABILITY: The subjective
reviewers have it easy. If someone
doesnt agree with one of their reviews,
excuses are plentiful. When subjective
reviewers are questioned, I have
seriously seen or heard variations of all
of these responses:
While you might not like it I
preferred the slightly more recessed presentation of the UberDAC
Black Edition
The UberDAC is a better match with my ultra expensive reference
system than your more modest gear

 Did you use the UberLink Reverse Twisted Unobtanium cables I

recommended for the UberDAC?
I was in a noisy restaurant for lunch immediately before reviewing
the UberDAC and my ears hadnt fully recovered
I didnt know it at the time, but it turns out I was in the early stages
of a head cold when I reviewed the UberDAC
I had too much wine the night before (my personal favorite)
OBJECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY: Objective reviewers have it hard.
We either publish reasonably accurate measurements or we get caught
with our pants down. The whole idea is to publish numbers in a way
someone else can reproduce (or come close enough). So the quality of
our measurements determines our credibility. An error is an error. It
requires a lot of wine before 1+1 = 3. We cant simply ignore or change
the well established principals of audio engineering. We have to admit
when were wrong or join the Planet Earth Is Flat Society.
JUST MESSENGERS: Independent objective reviewers, me included,
just test gear and publish the numbers. We dont make the gear, we
usually dont make up the measurements, and we certainly better not
make up the results. We didnt invent THD, the decibel or Ohms Law.
So the numbers are what they are. If were doing our job right, were
just messengers delivering numbers we have little control over. Of
course nothing but numbers is boring and only useful to hardcore geeks
and engineers. So its best when the numbers are presented in a
relatively understandable way.
YACA (Yet Another Car Analogy): Say youre in the market for a new
fast car and youre comparing them online. Chevy and Ford both have
all new versions of the Camaro SS and Mustang GT. Theyre so new
nobody has done any track testing yet but here are the factorys
published numbers:

Ford Mustang Chevy Camaro

Specification
GT
SS
Curb Weight 3605 Pounds 3860 Pounds
Horsepower
412 HP
426 HP
Torque
390 ft-lbs
420 ft-lbs
Performance
0-60 MPH
4.8 seconds
4.9 seconds
Gas Mileage
(city)
18 miles/gal 16 miles/gal
Based on the numbers, the Mustang is lighter, quicker and uses less gas
so you check it out at the dealer. It looks great and seems to have enough
power so you buy it. When you get home you find the latest issue of
Road & Track in your mailbox. They just tested the your Mustang GT
and heres what they found versus Fords numbers:
Specification
Curb Weight
Horsepower
Torque
Performance 0-60
MPH
Gas Mileage (city)

R&Ts
Fords Spec
Measurement
3605 Pounds
3910 Pounds
412 HP
290 HP (on dyno)
275 ft-lbs (on
390 ft-lbs
dyno)
9.1 seconds (on
4.8 seconds
track)
14 miles/gal (test
18 miles/gal
loop)

MARKETING MEETS REALITY: It turns out Fords marketing team

wasnt even close to accurate. The car is way heavier, has a lot less
power, drinks more gas, and a Prius with a full charge might give you a
good run at a stoplight. This is what you just paid $35,000 for? Faced
with the bad news, here are some possible options: (photo: Ford Motor
Company)

 Take the car back to the dealer,

show them the article, and ask
whats going on
No longer trust Ford and buy a
Chevy
Offer your buddy with the dynamometer a case of beer if hell test
your Mustangs horsepower and torque
Try a few of your own 0-60 runs to see if its really closer to 9.1
seconds than 4.8 seconds
Burn the issue of Road & Track as you dont really care about
numbers anyway
Fire off an angry email to Road & Track accusing them of being
incompetent without ever trying to verify if their measurements are
even correct
BUGS ON THE WINDSHIELD: If we treat cars like audio, it seems
most who already own the Mustang prefer the last choice above along
with some or all of the following thrown in for good measure:
Shoot The Messenger! Hes clearly an idiot!
I trust Ford is less biased than some guy at a magazine!
His V8 Mustang was only running on 5 cylinders!
He cant tell the big hand from the little hand on his stopwatch!
Those bugs on the windshield were slowing it down!

CARS vs AUDIO: Of course you

never see automotive numbers off by
the huge margins shown above. Why
not? Because magazines like Road &
Track keep the car manufactures
honest. If they know their cars will be
track tested, dyno tested, etc. its in their best interest to publish
reasonably accurate data. If they didnt it would be obvious. So why
should audio companies be different or exempt from being held similarly
accountable? (photo: dbaldwin)
FLAK JACKET REQUIRED: Not only is audio myth-busting a
relatively thankless job, it sometimes requires protection from an angry
mob of subjectivists. Some wonder why Im relatively anonymous. First
of all, its recommended Bloggers write under a pen name. And its a
good thing as Ive been threatened, called all sorts of names, accused of
having other agendas, and much more. Apparently its dangerous work
being a messenger, reporting real numbers, and challenging audio claims
with real engineering! Isnt Ford responsible for publishing misleading
numbers? Why would someone attack Road & Track for helping expose
the truth? The same is true of industry standard PC benchmarks. If the
Dell claims their laptop is faster than the competing HP, but its really
the other way around on a dozen different tests, would you attack the
guy doing the review? Theres something odd going on with audio.
IT GETS PERSONAL: Theres a long history of attacking objectivists
who try to clarify what matters and/or bust audio myths. Peter Aczel of
the Audio Critic is a long time example and a newer one is Meyer and
Moran for their SACD hi-res audio work. Unlike cars or PCs, much of
high-end audio has little basis in fact. When someone tries to bring facts
into the mix, some take it as a challenge to their personal beliefs,
personal hobby, etc. And, unfortunately, some go on the defensive and
try to discredit the messenger. Its not too far removed from creationists
attacking the science behind evolution.

FOLLOW THE MONEY: They say to figure out whats really going in
our messed up political system you just have to follow the money. It
turns out, you can largely do the same thing in high-end audio. A lot of
money gets spent based on highly biased subjective evaluations of audio
gear. In fact, the more expensive the gear, the more likely its bought
entirely based on subjective criteria. I show an example below in
Subjective Report Cards. If you look at what most influences buying
decisions--websites, magazines, the largest forums, etc.--youll find
nearly all of them are largely bought and paid for by the companies
making the gear. So its hardly surprising few do objective testing. And
what objective tests they conduct often give the equipment the benefit of
doubt. A classic example are A/V receiver tests where the manufactures
power claims are rarely directly challenged. Instead they typically run a
couple of power tests done in such a way to not highlight the fact a
$1000 120 watt x 7 receiver might manage only 28 watts/ch with all 7
channels operating.
SUBJECTIVE BIAS: Some interesting studies have been done about
subjective bias in audio. Tom Nousaine published a 1991 AES paper
titled Can You Trust Your Ears? It included several different tests, but
one of the more interesting involved listeners evaluating (unknown to
them) identical musical selections. They were asked if they preferred A,
B or had no preference. 76% of them expressed a preference despite the
selections being identical. It showed people readily hear differences
when none exist. Thats not good news for someone who just replaced
their $300 DAC with a $3000 DAC because they thought the more
expensive one sounded better. The two may really sound the same. For
more on this I recommend: Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests by
Sean Olive. (photo: Sean Olive)

HEARING BIAS: Theres an

entertaining and excellent AES
Audio Myths Workshop Video with
some very interesting observations
by experts in their respective fields.
One talks about how the brain and
ear work together. Human's are not
like an ideal microphone treating
everything the same. As with the rest
of our senses, the brain adapts our
hearing for the needs of the moment. If youre trying to pick out a
conversation across a crowded room you naturally filter out everyone
else talking without even realizing youre doing so. This same filtering
goes on when listening to audio gear. You might listen critically to the
bass one moment and the highs the next, but you cant listen to both at
once and glean as much information. We do the same thing with our
vision. There are televised examples of naked people running across
football fields in plain view during key plays and few people ever even
saw them. Their senses were heavily biased toward the players. They
also talk in the video about replacing the circuitry of a high-end
audiophile amplifier with a really low-end amp that no audiophile would
be caught dead listening to. And, guess what, audiophiles still loved the
amp because their eyes were telling them it was a high-end amp so thats
what their ears heard.
INVOLUNTARY BIAS (added 5/23): Subjective audiophiles often
claim theyre not affected by the sort of sighted listening bias
documented by Toole & Olive. They argue bias is only an issue for
untrained listeners. But what if its genuinely involuntary? Theres a
well understood phenomena called the McGurk Effect. It shows how
certain knowledge, such as what we see, influences what we hear. And,
even more significant, the bias is involuntary. Around the 2 minute mark
in the video linked below they talk about how, even when your
conscious brain knows what the truth is, your subconscious brain still
alters your hearing in ways you cannot control. The researcher says hes

been studying this effect for 25 years and it still affects him just as much
as an untrained listener. The McGurk effect goes away if you close your
eyes. But in evaluating gear just closing your eyes isnt enough if your
brain still knows what youre listening to. You need a blind test to
eliminate the bias. Try it yourself with this fascinating video: (photo:
BBC)
Try The McGurk Effect! - BBC
3.5 Minute Video
FOLLOW THE MONEY PART 2:
Its human nature if you go out and
spend your hard earned cash on some
new piece of gear you want it to be
worth the investment. This feeling is compounded by all the subjective
reviews you read where others raved about the same piece of gear. In
multiple ways your subconscious is already wired to hear a nice
improvement even when there isnt any improvement. This isnt far
removed for hearing Fa when the guy in the video above is clearly
saying Ba. Your brain and senses are just telling you what they think
you want to hear.

THE NEED TO BELIEVE: There

are some negative comments in my
Mini3 review saying I lost all
credibility by comparing it to the $20
FiiO E5. If you look at the
measurements, the two amps are
relatively similar in many areas. But
there are obviously some who need
to believe a $180 amp is a lot better than a $20 one. They probably
already have a Mini3 so its an insult for someone (me in this case) to
indirectly suggest they spent many times more than necessary. I received
similar comments for suggesting the $29 Behringer UCA202

measurements were respectablevery likely from people who spent a

lot more for their USB DAC. Again, in their need to believe, these gear
owners would rather shoot the messenger. Its a kind of denial.
JUDGMENT DAY: Tens of thousands of believers launched massive
campaigns to warn of May 21st 2011 Judgment Day. The world was
supposed to start self destructing with massive earthquakes and more.
Scientists tried to point out the facts but the believers didnt want to hear
any of it. If youre reading those masses of fierce believers were
obviously wrong. Even in 2011 lots of people fall under the spell of
others, give in to peer pressure, myth, etc. Theyre surprisingly willing
to believe things with little or no basis in fact. Once these beliefs reach a
critical mass, those within the group are very difficult to persuade they
might be wrong. But they dont have a good track record. From those
who believed the earth was flat, to those who thought it was going to self
destruct in 2011, the science geeks are the ones who are far more often
correct. (photo: Scott Beal/Laughing
Squid)
BELIEVING = BIAS: If the guy
who thinks Im an idiot for
comparing the Mini3 to the E5 were
to sit down and listen to both sideby-side which do you think hed say
sounds better? Theres almost zero
chance hed choose the E5. This same bias is widespread in audio. You
have a $300 DAC, you arrange to listen to a $3000 DAC, and even if
they sound exactly the same, your brain and hearing are wired to think
the $3000 DAC sounds better. So how do we get around this problem?
BED SHEETS & TESTING: As you probably guessed, blind testing is
the dirty secret I referred to at the start of the article. Matrix Audio
conducted a relatively simple and eye opening example. The photo at the
right shows the test set up with two different systems under a bed sheet
sharing a pair of high-end speakers. Volunteers stood behind the

speakers and swapped the high-end cables. There were no switch boxes
involved. The result, if you havent seen it elsewhere, is the listeners
couldnt tell a high-end $12,000 stack of gear from a $700 (Id say
closer to $400) set up with a pro-sound power amp, bargain basement
CD player, and a cheap obscenely long RCA cable connecting the two.
You can read all about it here:
(photo: Matrix Audio)
Matrix Audio Test
LONG TERM LISTENING: A lot
of blind testing involves switching
between A and B, or replaying music
tracks after something is changed. Critics of these tests argue thats not
the best way to evaluate audio gear. They say you must live with it for a
while to appreciate the differences (never mind most of them claim to
swap out a piece of gear and hear immediate and obvious differences).
David Clark and Laurence Greenhill came up with a clever idea. They
made a bunch of sealed black boxes where some had a direct connection
inside while others distorted the audio signal to a significant degree.
They were built with high-end connectors, etc. They sent the boxes
home with members of a local audiophile club to live with and decide if
they had a straight wire box or one that did ugly things to the audio.
Despite living with them for a while, the audiophiles who took the boxes
home failed to determine which was which. The same boxes, however,
were identified with relative ease in a blind A/B/X test. This
demonstrated the exact opposite of what many audiophiles claim: Long
term listening is less sensitive than A/B/X testing. This test, and others,
are summarized in Ten Years of ABX Testing.
A NEW WINE ANALOGY: Many have probably heard the analogy
before, but heres a short entertaining article by a wine critic describing
blind testing. He rated the $2.50 Charles Shaw wine very poorly in
sighted tasting. But he discovered, with brown paper wrappers on the
bottles, it was not going to be easy. I wont spoil the outcome but his

experience is exactly analogous to what usually happens in blind audio

testing. Suddenly that $20 FiiO or $30 Behringer is a lot harder to pick
out. At least this critic was humble enough to go public with his
experience:
Wellesley Wine Press Blind Tasting
BLIND BANNED: The largest headphone forum around, Head-Fi,
prohibits the discussion of blind testing in all but one of their 20+
forums. They only, seemingly grudgingly, allow it in the back-of-the-bus
Sound Science forum thats all but ignored by the mainstream. Why?
Could it be their many sponsors, say Qables selling iPod cables priced at
many times the iPod itself ($1000+ for a 6 inch iPod dock cable!), dont
approve of having their products debunked with blind test results? You
wont see many blind tests in the audiophile magazines or on adsupported websites. It seems an excellent tool has been strategically
marginalized, swept under the rug, and discredited over the last decade
by the industry. Its time for more
people to start asking why.
SUBJECTIVE HAS ITS PLACE:
When choosing a car, new laptop, and
audio gear, the subjective side
matters. Its not all numbers. Things
like ease of use, aesthetics, and build
quality are all important. When it
comes to the sound of different
speakers and headphones, subjective opinions are often what matter
most. Are you a basshead, like it bright and detailed, laid back, or as
accurate as possible? Im not trying to dispute subjective preferences. If
you like the sound of tube gear, even if it measures poorly, thats your
business. If it puts a smile on your face thats what matters most. And
some buy high-end gear for the quality, looks, status, etc. My concern is
misleading objective data, objective claims with no basis in reality,

marketing pseudo-science, and when the line between subjective and

objective is intentionally blurred.
SUBJECTIVE REPORT CARDS: Stereophile magazine assigns letter
grades in their annual Recommended Components issue. In the April
2011 issue the Vitus Audio MP-P201 phono preamp, for a paltry
$60,000.00, rated an A+ while the boring $199 NAD PP-3 rated a
sorry Dthe kid who didnt study for the test. Stereophile is to be
commended for conducting measurements of some of the gear they
review. In this case, the bargain NAD measured better than the uberexpensive Vitus. The NAD had notably lower distortion and lower noise
an especially important parameter in a phono preamp. So is it safe to
assume the extra $59,801.00 of value in the Vitus must be purely
subjective?
WHEN OPINION BECOMES FACT: In the example above one
person, Michael Fremer, apparently decided the $60K Vitus was vastly
better based on his personal opinion of how it sounds. From what I
gather, he didnt conduct any sort of rigorous blind listening tests that
included others. Nor did John Atkinsons inferior measurements
ultimately carry much weight. I gather Fremer listened to the Vitus in his
particular system, using his phono cartridge(s), with his particular tastes
in music, and decided its worth the astronomical price tag. Is the rest of
the world to believe they would also prefer the Vitus over the NAD even
with their different personal preferences, phono cartridge(s), and music
collections? This often happens at all price levelssomeone elses
highly subjective (and nearly always biased) opinion becomes objective
proof that Gear X is better than Gear Y. So lots of other people buy
Gear X even though they might have different tastes or not hear any
difference at all. There are many things wrong with thisespecially
when seemingly objective ratings like Stereophiles A, B, etc. or
another magazines 5 stars, imply some clear criteria.
PEER PRESSURE: The Stereophile ratings are a lot like Wine
Spectator scores. They create a sort of peer pressure--much like

wanting to serve wine with a high score regardless of the wine buyers
own personal tastes. And even if a critic enjoyed a particular wine with
his Italian food, it might be a lousy match with someone elses Sushi.
The same can be said for Michael Fremers reviews. Just because the
Vitus sounded good for him, using his gear, music, etc., doesnt mean
its audio nirvana for someone else. And how much was Fremer
unavoidably biased by the $60K price tag and similar factors? Did
someone from Vitus fill his head with hyperbole beforehand over a
gourmet lunch? Perhaps most serious of all: What if the Vitus really
sounds just like the cheap but well engineered NAD? That outcome is far
more likely than most realize or want to admit.
BACK TO ACCOUNTABILITY: If Michael Fremer can go around
recommending $60,000 gear based on his listening abilities, some might
reasonably want proof hes qualified. And being a good sport, Mr
Fremer broke rank and participated in at least a few blind listening tests.
The result was a rather mixed bag and at least one included lots of hand
waving. Not surprisingly, few want to follow in his footsteps. Today its
even more difficult to find listeners with a public reputation willing to
participate in a blind test. The same people who publish hearing
immediate and obvious differences in everything from cables to power
conditioners typically make all sorts of questionable excuses when asked
to do so with brown bags or bed sheets concealing the gear. Personally, I
suspect Fremer probably can hear things 99% of the population would
have trouble hearing. If anything, hes a ringer for the subjectivists and
I have genuine respect for his listening abilities. So its especially a
shame he, and other skilled critics like him, wont participate in more
blind tests.
WIRED WISDOM (updated 6/3): Tom Nousaine published a great
article in Sound and Vision called Wired Wisdom. The goal was to see if
audiophiles, in their own homes using their own familiar high-end
systems, could hear differences between cheap and expensive cables. In
all three trials, they could not. The cable myth suffered a serious blow

from reality. The second link compares expensive versus cheap speaker
cables with similar results:
Sound & Vision Wired Wisdom
Article
Observations of a controlled
Cable Test (AVS Forum)
CREATIONISM vs
EVOLUTION: Alan Lofft, the editor of Sound and Vision, tried to
dance around the Wired Wisdom article--likely to appease their cable
advertisers. He talked of creationists and evolution arguing both had an
important role. And he compared high-end cables to audio jewelry that
some buy for aesthetics and status rather than sound quality. Lofft did
what much of the high-end audio industry does. He tried to soften the
truth, not offend too many people, and make sure the status quo (along
with their advertisers) remained relatively unscathed. See: Follow The
Money. His column is on the last page of the Wired Wisdom article. Im
getting flak for not performing a similar delicate dance with AMB,
NuForce, etc.. It seems nobody is supposed to rock the boat too much
however factual their concerns. Is this audio or political foreign
relations?
HIGH RES (SACD) vs CD: Multiple tests have been published
comparing standard 16 bit 44.1 Khz CD quality audio to higher
resolution formats such as 24 bit 96 Khz and SACD. The most famous is
probably this one:
Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into HighResolution Audio Playback
Meyer and Moran played SACD content with the ability to switch an
A/D > D/A pair operating at 16 bits and 44 Khz into the signal path. In
other words, the high resolution SACD audio was sometimes down
converted to CD quality. They designed the test to give the listeners

every opportunity to detect a difference. The testing lasted a year and

included 60 members of the Boston Audio Society, many professional
recording engineers, fresh eared college students, and a whopping 554
listening trials. After all that, the only way anyone could identify a
consistent difference was by cranking the volume unrealistically high
during quiet passages exposing the higher noise floor of the 16 bit
conversion.
Think about the implications of the above. Most subjective audiophiles
claim to hear differences between CD players, DACs, and indeed most
anything that performs a digital to analog conversion. They also consider
SACD and other high resolution formats as being plainly superior. Why
cant audiophiles detect any difference at all when the music is subjected
to an extra A/D and then another extra D/A process when they dont
know thats happening?
SHOOT THE MESSENGER (again): Not surprisingly, many have
tried to discredit Meyer and Moran claiming they didnt use the right
source material, etc. The study authors have responded to much of the
criticism in this little cited follow up. Its my personal opinion nobody
over the last 4 years, despite plenty of attempts and desire, has
invalidated the overall results. If nothing else the study demonstrates just
how genuinely transparent 16/44 digital audio can be. The best challenge
Ive seen is a single 2010 study finding a tiny minority of expert
listeners, under very specific circumstances, could discern very slight
differences. There are many other interesting references about SACD vs
CD as well as a summary of the above test here:
Wikipedia SACD Audible Differences
THINK ABOUT IT: Two guys come along and the most respected
objective audio organization in the world publishes their paper that
threatens to destroy the entire SACD audio industry and also does
damage to high resolution audio formats of any kind. Meyer and Moran
attempted to demonstrate CD quality audio really is good enough. If

Philips, Sony and the music labels behind SACD knew the study was
flawed, and SACD was audibly superior, it would have been pocket
change for them to fund a study demonstrating where Meyer and Moran
were wrong. But, surprise surprise, that never happened. The closest was
the 2010 paper on Sampling Rate Discrimination mentioned above (if
you want to geek out on a lengthy discussion of the 2010 study check
out this Hydrogenaudio thread).
RINSE LATHER AND REPEAT WITH VINYL: Lots of claims are
made for the analog nature of vinyl LPs and a small fortune is spent on
esoteric turntables and phono gear as an analog source for pure analog
high-end systems. When playing vintage analog-mastered music the
audio never suffers the indignity of being whacked up into a bunch of
numerical values and put back together. Much like the SACD test above,
there have been various tests demonstrating even devout vinyl lovers
cant tell when you slip an A/D > D/A loop into their otherwise all
analog signal chain. Heres a link to one but there are some better ones
Ill work on finding the links for. Ive also done my own informal blind
vinyl test on the sly. The vinyl lover wasnt even aware hed been
listening to digital for several days on an extremely high-end all analog
system. And this guy really hates digital anything. Dont get me wrong, I
own a nice turntable and I listen to vinyl. But for me its mostly about
music thats only available on vinyl. I dont pretend its a technically
superior format.
Vinyl Myths on Hydrogenaudio (added 5/31)
OBJECTIVE ISNT EVERYTHING: I said above subjective stuff
matters, and Im including the reverse just to be clear. The numbers only
tell part of the story. They make a convenient way to compare some
thingsespecially say power output, output impedance, how suitable a
given source/amp is for a particular headphone, frequency response, etc.
But there are limits. If nothing else, great measurements provide a
significant piece of mind for some people. They can relax and enjoy the
music knowing their gear is among the most transparent available. And

blind tests wrap subjective listening in a controlled, and more

objective, environment free of the usual bias while keeping score. The
two complement each other well.
WHEN SPECS ARE NOT ENOUGH: First the easy part. For
speakers, headphone and phono cartridges I think everyone agrees its
tough to look at the specs and know exactly what they will sound like.
You can still make some valid comparisons but the specs only give you a
partial idea of the sound. With speakers and headphones the acoustics
are a big part of the listening experienceall rooms and ear/head
geometries are different. The sound of cartridges are altered by the
tonearm and turntable geometry theyre used in (effective arm length,
VTA, arm resonance, damping, etc.). They also perform very differently
playing worn vinyl as stylus tips come in an almost endless variety of
shapes and sizes. So cartridge A rides in a different part of the groove
than cartridge B. And measurements are limited by the relatively low
resolution of vinyl test albums. So, in other words, your mileage may
vary and caveat emptor. You have to listen to speakers, headphones and
cartridges to fully evaluate them. But thats much less true with
electronics.
GRAY AREA (added 5/31): Theres a solid consensus on the subjective
nature of speakers, headphones and phono cartridges but what about
everything else? Most objectivists will tell you a $20 well designed
interconnect and a $200 well designed interconnect will sound the same.
And thats been demonstrated many times (see Wired Wisdom above).
Hardcore objectivists (such as Peter Aczel) argue any amp that measures
sufficiently well and is operated well within its limits will be
indistinguishable from any other amp. And thats been demonstrated in
countless blind listening tests. But what about when an amp nears its
limits? What if you have difficult to drive speakers for example that are
2 ohms at some frequencies? Will the cheap amp still sound just like the
high-end model? Perhaps not. Some of these behaviors can at least be
partly measured but some are more difficult. And what defines
measures sufficiently well? Enough studies have been done its fairly

safe to make several generalizations, but theres still room for discussion
and further research in some areas. Ill hopefully be publishing a future
blog article on the topic of correlating specs with listening observations.
MAGICAL THINKING: As someone pointed out in the comments,
some audiophiles are in this for the mysticism, magical thinking, and
never ending quest (their words) and I certainly know a few in that
category. The purveyors of tube products tend to be rather clever in their
marketing. They rarely make boastful performance claims and some
offer hardly any specs at all. They know certain people enjoy their
products and they make an appropriately subjective sales pitch. Thats
hard to argue with. But when someone makes objective claims, and
theyre far from being realistic, thats just deceptive and wrong
regardless of the buyers priorities. Its easy for some to get sucked in
to the hype, myths, and mania when the real facts are constantly being
swept under the rug. Its not unlike Wine Spectator scores. See Peer
Pressure above.