My Back Pages

"He nudged me closer to audio's subjectivists, the brave (or foolish) folks who argue that if our senses can perceive it (whatever "it" is) but modern machinery can't measure it, it's the measuring machines that are wrong. To put it another way, maybe rigorous proof isn't always necessary—maybe it's okay to approach these things as a whole human being and not as a scientist."

Arguing that lack of measurement is not lack of proof is fine.

That doesn't mean an issue can't still be examined with some rigor or that all claims are equally valid.

Heck, if rigorous listening itself is too off putting, just tell the wild side tweakers to simply change their grammar from "this applies to everybody because I say so" over to "I noticed this phenomenon, you may or may not."

As you say, " I admire those who are truly open-minded."

I do to, just not so open that their brains fall out. We should be challenging ourselves, as well...you say you want to avoid science, which is fine. Just don't willy nilly insist your own individual conclusion is universal.

I think all audiophiles can play together. Even the most dyed in the wool objectivist chooses gar by listening.

This isn't rocket surgery: You mention the clock in the freezer. Even a 'non-scientist' can likely figure out a way to test this hypothesis, right?

The placebo effect is real and can account for subjective differences. In a analysis of 198 placebo control studies of Osteoarthritis pain, there was a statistically significant improvement in pain, functionality, and stiffness with placebo. In fact, injecting the joint with placebo worked as well as ibuprofen and other non-steroidal-anti-inflammatory agents.

Ann Rheum Dis. 2008 Dec;67(12):1716-23.

The discussion between objective vs. subjective camps seems to devolve rapidly into a screaming match once an actual discussion takes place. While the measurements crowd has a valid point of view surely they must realize that not all things that are important can be measured quantifiably and that some things that are measured have little to no bearing on how an audio component actually sounds. Their belief that things that measure poorly cannot sound good is valid insofar as the measurements reflect things we can actually hear. Where this group, particularly Amir at ASR, have really made their point well is on audio products that are obscenely overpriced and indistinguishable performance wise from products costing several orders of magnitude less. Who actually buys an $1800 dollar piece of coaxial cable?

Hi,

This is a very interesting topic and something, as a aspiring rationalist audiophile, I've thought a lot about.

I think modern medicine has something to assist here. The definition of 'alternative medicine' is any medical treatment that has been demonstrated not to work better in any statistically significant way than a placebo. Crucially, it does not state that 'alternative medicine' is any treatment that *doesn't* have a provable hypothesis as to *how it works*. What does this mean? Basically, if one can show that hopping in a circle whilst singing the national anthem of Belgium *works better than a placebo* to improve the symptoms of eczema then *that is medicine*, i.e. we need not understand how or why it works.

So... audio. We *do not* have to have a theory for why, say cables, improve or degrade sound quality or even measurements to show that they do. We simply need a fair test for whether trained, talented audiophiles can tell the difference in a blind test. That's it. If they can't, all reason (such as Occam's Razor) and experience (also a form of inductive reasoning) will put the belief in such 'tweaks' down to the very well understood placebo effect.

Are the stakes as high as with health? No. But rationally speaking, that is a glowing red herring.

People pay their money and make their choices, as they do with water divining and astrology. But there is a straightforward way to find out: get your most experienced test subjects and see if they can really tell the difference. If they can, you need no further explanation.

I've heard the other argument - from Darko, for example - that since people question everything from cable risers to amplifiers themselves that if you accept some of it you must have an open mind to everything. More faulty reasoning. Clearly everyone can agree that somewhere between changing speakers and putting rare species wood dots at strategic points on the ceiling and walls, things stop being real and start being fake. The question is where? How do we test it? Well, easily. What do we call the real stuff? 'Hifi'. What do we call the not real stuff? 'Alternative Hifi'.

The other common objection - again from Darko - is: "how do you explain makers, sellers and consumers all believing that things like cables work? Is it all a conspiracy, then?" Do I need to pick this apart? Religion, ideology, astrology, homeopathy, crystals, etc., etc., etc.. We haven't evolved brains that direct themselves towards true beliefs, per se. Just beliefs that are helpful to survival, group identity and so on. I mean, obviously.

None of this is when related to hifi is life and death, sure, but that's a silly condition for when and when not to turn your rational brain on.

I don't actually have a dog in the fight and I don't assume I know where real tweaks stop and fake ones begin. But even if I did, that wouldn't affect the reasoning of the above, now, would it?

It seems to be what I can only describe as a 'career preserving bias' that intelligent members of the hifi community (makers, sellers, reviewers and consumers) *will not* see the simplicity of the above reasoning. No, no one here is hurting any one but if you have a aspirations of moral and intellectual integrity then that hardly matters, does it?

Perhaps most importantly, especially since journalistic integrity has been evoked here, we are in a period of history when we are most at risk of the Enlightenment progress being rolled back. People on all sides of debates in the western world seem to see no reason *to make sure that they believe things for good reasons*. Cognitive dissonance is basically the conscience of the rational mind - it is an alarm bell that rings when our beliefs don't cohere with one another. It tells us that we need to think harder and jettison our irrational beliefs. It's never been more important to do so. To show that intellectual integrity and thereby moral integrity. So hifi might not be life and death but the slow creep of lax thinking in the educated West certainly is, don't you think?

Something to think about maybe. And I only write the above because it actually undercuts the debate between measurement objectivists and devil may care subjectivists. You're both wrong and there is a simple way to settle things. If someone else has made the above argument then good for them but I haven't seen or heard it articulated properly and so thought there was a good reason to post the above.

I would be interested in some thoughtful responses.

Best wishes,
Max

"The problem with having an open mind," someone said to me recently over Tanqueray'n'tonics, "is how do you keep it clear of garbage?"

In a response to reader, published on the second page of that link, Richard Lehnert wrote "it is important to remember that, in the history of science, theories usually come after the facts to explain otherwise inexplicable events. If Peter Belt's tweaks work, then it is the responsibility of professional audiophiles to first investigate and report that fact (or, at least, that opinion as informed by experience, however subjective), then speculate as to its cause."

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

"He nudged me closer to audio's subjectivists, the brave (or foolish) folks who argue that if our senses can perceive it (whatever "it" is) but modern machinery can't measure it, it's the measuring machines that are wrong."

Of course. But that sentence contains precisely the question-begging that is so often seen in the purely subjective audiophile domain (where most woo-woo occurs). That is, if they have the impression of hearing something, they assume it's true, and move from that to "I guess science just hasn't caught up with my perceptual abilities."

Which is exactly the mindset you will find in virtually every area of superstition, pseudo-science and "woo-woo" thinking the world over.

Anyone of course can believe what he wishes...but that's the company you are keeping if you question-beg like that. And it should be no surprise that skepticism will be justified in the face of those type of claims (particularly when they are based on dubious technical claims, and bereft of any objective evidence).

One would hope that the claim "my new USB cable greatly increased the fidelity of my system" wouldn't have essentially the same evidential status as prayer...but that's where lots of audiophile claims stand, unfortunately, in terms of evidence and inference from personal experience.

"To put it another way, maybe rigorous proof isn't always necessary—maybe it's okay to approach these things as a whole human being and not as a scientist."

Agreed! No audiophile needs to be a scientist, or do science in buying his gear.

But some things to untangle: It's an unfortunate shibboleth among people - usually those who believe in dubious phenomena - to equate "science" with Absolute Certainty and being "close minded."

Nothing could be further from the truth. The scientific method is simply a way of vetting claims with skeptical rigor. And the reliable knowledge that has arisen from this has been astonishing in every direction! The proposition, for instance, that this entire universe arose from a relatively tiny state of high density, is mind bending. But this, as well as countless bizarre phenomena, are justified on the rigor of the evidence. Any scientist will accept that the world is weirder and wilder than most of us can imagine.
They are open to all of this. But confounding variables like human imagination and bias mean we need some way to filter the likely-real from error or imagination.

There is no reason why audio should be in it's own epistemic bubble from the rest of reality, in terms of grappling with these issues.

A more "objective" approach to vetting audio claims doesn't entail a closed mind. It's rather "I am willing to believe this, but depending on the claim THIS is the quality of evidence I'd like to see." So if someone is claiming amp A sounds different than amp B, evidence like measurable differences (known to be in the audible realm)...or even blind tests...can actually justify adopting the belief for the skeptical inquirer. There is an inherent "method of showing you were right, I was wrong" built in.

A purely subjective approach, on the other hand, offers no such method to settle disputes of opinion. The subjectivist's own interpretation of his subjective experience is the Ultimate Arbitor of reality. "If I heard a difference, it's true." And insofar as they reject measurements ("clearly you can't measure what I know I can hear!") or other controlled listening methods...the hold their conclusion as unfalsifiable. Even if someone uses the same method of subjective inference "I listened to those amps and there was no audible difference" the pure subjectivist can say "Well that only shows you don't have the required perceptive abilities, like I do."

Now, which of these approaches ACTUALLY mirrors incontestable religious dogma? The one offering ways to change one's mind and settle questions? Or the one that remains steadfastly unfalsifiable, and balkanizes claims in to competing subjective beliefs?

I fully agree that we regular joe audiophiles needn't go about vetting our gear choices with scientific rigor. Most of us aren't scientists, and it would be impractical in any case.

Personally, the way I make my way through these general problems are via a pretty simple heuristic: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The more technically plausible the claim, the less rigor I need in order to reasonably accept the claim on face value. The more implausible, the better quality evidence I want. Someone auditions two different speakers and talks about the sonic differences? No problemo. Totally plausible given what we know about the level of sonic differences between speakers.

Someone auditions two different USB cables and claims one transformed various sonic aspects of the sound? Sorry...that's implausible given the nature of the technology, and since people can imagine these things, I'll want more than an audiophile say-so. I'd like to see measurements indicating something is changing in the audio signal, etc.

listening to musical sound is an exercise that involves the human brain, the human brain has a very complex functioning.
Over the years we have developed measurement techniques to try to explain what our brain hears without being able to explain what happens to sound.
Those who deny the possibility of a different sound because they do not have the measure that explains it, are usually people who have studied old books .. and at the same time this person refuses to listen, this person is proving that he has not understood the meaning of research and progress, if this person needs to find written in another book that the sound of cables exists, this technician is a failure.
The measures are used to investigate and try to give meaning to what our brain perceives and processes when listening to a musical sound.
No microphone connected to a computer has the ability to hear what our brains hear.
Yes, the computer can say many things presise that a person cannot say, for example the precise frequency of a note, the cascade, etc., for these things the computer is absolutely accurate and efficient.
If you want to be a serious person you have to use a scientific method, first of all you have to listen without any prejudice and you have to be humble and ready to learn new things, things you can't find written in your old electrical engineering book.
Everything has an explanation if you want to learn it you have to study and apply the right research method.
Denying the existence of the sound of cables because you don't have a measure that explains it?
Switch hobbies and go for something less technical.
With this I don't approve of the price of cables and I'm not willing to spend too much on cables.
In my setup the cable costs between 5% and 10% of the cost of each single device.
If your hifi does not sound it is not with the best cable that you will solve the problem, worry about the acoustics of your room and how it interacts with your speaker, when you have solved it then as icing on the cake you can decide if it is justified to spend a little more for the cables.

In at least one aspect of his life Douthat is not "... by nature or training a hard-core empiricist": He's a devout Roman Catholic.

The real question is: how much is a (possibly)placebo induced improvement in sound worth to an individual.

Did not JA1 once tell a story about how Enid Lumley had him fleetingly convinced that a pizza box 'holder upper' tripod act as an acoustic tweak in a room?

It can happen to the best of us!

So, I guess one way to audition tweaks is to see if they stand the test of time over repeated listening sessions instead of the effect going to extinction.

As a doctor, I am a bit concerned about all this stuff around alternative medical practices, beliefs in all kinds of things that probably make no difference (even if some people feel strongly about them), etc...

We are talking about electrical devices created by engineers, right? Digital music is based on mathematical sampling theorem, right? Streaming and playback devices, networks, are based on technologies developed from computer science, right? Vinyl LPs are products of the material sciences, phono cartridges and turntables were invented by someone based on engineering principles, and can be evaluated using certain standard metrics, right?

If the origin of the audio products we buy came forth from human ingenuity, based on the laws of physics, developed using engineering principles, why are we using medical science examples around not-fully-explained medical conditions or idiosyncratic responses using atypical treatments (like Rafe) into the discussion here? Are we that desperate to keep minds "open" in this hobby!? Do we not trust that audiophiles have a level of understanding already about audio science and that common sense prevails; recognizing that there's a lot of nonsense in this hobby?

In principle, we can at least say that biological processes came from millions of years of evolutionary change (or divine inspiration if one believes - that works just as well in my argument). So the medical sciences still have much to learn about diseases, infectious processes, the immune system, treatment options, etc. which we as humans did not design but can observe, and empirically test. Amps, DACs, speakers in contrast were not the result of natural processes but created "artificially" by us using understood principles, and also can be empirically tested with controls in place. Those audio products created by "alternative" principles (eg. much of Machina Dynamica, Synergistic Research), should by right be met with skepticism, awaiting evidence.

Why not keep this simple when it comes to unexplained "subjective" phenomena which have not been verified by measurements (eg. after all these decades, some claiming that expensive cables make significant audible differences)?

IMO, here are a few items I hope audiophiles can generally agree on:
1. We understand and accept that the placebo effect happens. This is the nature of our brains and the fact that we're all psychologically affected by the multimodal perceptual systems and shaped by our own internal schema of the world. In the capitalistic world of consumer products, the intent of advertising is of course to affect psychology.

2. Given (1), empirical testing is needed if we are to claim that something is indeed audible. Let's make sure to isolate sound quality by itself. In order to do that, we must do blind testing since the human visual system is our primary sensory modality (for example the power of the McGurk Effect as an obvious example) before accepting something as "fact". This is especially important for subtle differences since IMO, obvious changes would not be controversial after all this time! "Blind testing" doesn't just mean "double blind" - single blind or ABX techniques likely would be just fine. The nice thing about measurements is that it provides evidence that a difference exists - but often the differences are not audible.

3. We accept that each of us has a right to own and like whatever device we desire. Emotions are relative. Price is relative. I can say whatever I want about a product being "right for me", but if we are to make a general claim about sound as if the difference is audible for others, I think we each have the responsibility of making sure that items (1) and (2) have been seriously weighed.

Alas, broad comments like "This $3000 cable sounds so much better than 12AWG OFC speaker cable..." is an example of a controversial statement that should be confronted with some skepticism unless basic evidence is available. (Or specifically qualified as "This might only sound good to me".)

IMO, vague, unexplained, often empirically unsupportable medical treatments should have nothing to do with this.

...with the assumption that common, retail Objectivism is scientific and objective.

-First, extraordinary claims require no more or less evidence and no greater or lesser evidence than mundane claims. Sagan was wrong and there's no physical or metaphysical or logical thread connecting the magnitude of a claim with the magnitude of evidence;

-Likewise, there's nothing extraordinary about saying you heard the same thing a hundred other listeners have (which you commonly learn by comparing notes after the fact). It's common, not extraordinary;

-Thus, hearing a thing is sufficient. That's what this is for. The fact that sound is invisible and graph paper isn't doesn't change that. Like has been said a thousand times, everything sounds exactly like what it is;

-Objectivist metrics have not been shown - "proven" - to deliver musical authenticity. If Objectivism is honest with itself its core hinges on the axiom of the fallibility of all audio components and stacks. From there it's all *relative*;

-Objectivism is, by strict definition, a belief system. It deals not in sound but in epistemic closure - the belief that measured data is a sufficient facsimile or proxy;

-The trope that the "ear" is so poor - the mind so flawed - that seeing a device hopelessly and irreparably ruins the "objective" sound is risible: Then why do audio? The obvious answer is that it's become a belief system and not a sensory experience;

-Which brings us back to how because sound is invisible there's a constant demand to produce something *other* than sound or be nullified. When all you have to do is go experience it. Proof of sound quality *is* relative quality of sound. There is no substitute and there is no predictor.

It all boils down to one thing: If you require something other than the sound, then you've incapable of hearing the sound itself.

Either you're in it to physically strive toward some meaningful degree of truer, more authentic music or you're in it to verbalize about it. And of the two camps, the one making those better sounds is obviously the one *trying* to make them. This is a practice. This is not a belief system.

Decrying that pursuit because in 2022 there isn't yet a developed applied science that translates its results down to the street doesn't change that.

What they say is called advertising.

What we do is called shopping.

We're not going to Mars.

Interesting perspective Rogier. I’d only add that the most fervent rationalists, skeptics, or open minded people are still guided largely by mimetic desires, the only difference is in how the justify their position.

"If I claim my new audio cables revealed the singing of angels in Kind Of Blue, that's an extraordinary claim about what those cables can do!"

It's rather telling, isn't it, that in order to illustrate your ideas about "extraordinary claims," you have to come up with claims that are not just extraordinary, but in fact so far-fetched and ludicrous that no one would ever actually claim them. Apparently this is the only way to give your ideas weight or applicability. Seeing T-rexes or hearing the sound of singing angels would, in fact, be extraordinary. But the claim that cables can sometimes make a difference is in a different class. Unlike seeing T-rexes or hearing angels singing, it's an experience millions of audiophiles have every day. It's a common claim, not an extraordinary one.

Kudos to JHL above for debunking some of the common myths of objectivism, and to John Atkinson for pointing out that the discovery of a phenomenon generally precedes scientific rationalization of it.

my partner says "in chaos the most beautiful things arise". So yes, you have to be open to, or gullible, for new experiences. And if they are there for you, they are there for you. Regardless of whether it can be scientifically proven (do remember that science is also liquid, subject to "advanced insight"). An experience is personal. And who is not looking for new and better experiences. I consider myself rationally sober and skeptical. I think "you get the quality you pay for it". However, as with wine, this is not always the case. A Montlandrie 2016 bought by me for 21 euros (can't wait to drink the better but much cheaper due de covid measure 2019), tastes better to me than a Gloria 2016 bought for 39 euros the bottle. A 4k dac can sound better than one of 8k. Nevertheless, I believe that you get the quality you pay for, assuming the same relative price-quality ratio (means you buy the best in it class). Furthermore, I believe in the principle of "decreasing marginal utility". In other words, a set of 3k clearly sounds better than a set of 2k, but that the difference between a set of 15K and a set of 10k is a lot less clear. I'm skeptical about wiring. However I would like to add that a silver cable (which I have) sounds different than a copper one. But does a 2k interlink really sound better than one of 0.5K? Or that a 2k power cable makes a real difference? I once asked a salesperson "what does that last meter matter?" He replied "you mean the first meter". Well... But back, if a placebo works for you, why not believe in and take a placebo. If your ears hear it, your ears hear it. After all, it is indeed about your own personal experience that matters and not a mathematical cold and emotionalless scientific measurement. Although and having said this I don't want to be cheated. So I remain skeptical.

I would really be happy if Amir from Audio Science Review and others of his ilk read this column.

"knowing the price of a bottle of wine didn't make people simply believe that a more expensive wine tasted better instead it changed their perception so that it actually did taste better"

A distinction without a difference.

in hard physical terms or simply measure the damn thing? Please spare me psychological anthropomorphisms of the "our brain tricks us etc" kind. If not - most certainly not - then it is just another fancy name for "I don't have a clue".

If the test subjects were lied to and told that the cheap wine was the more expensive one then that's the wine that would have "actually" tasted better to them.

..there is no "placebo effect"; there is no way for one to manipulate people's taste, perception or self-healing in the long term. People know what they like, see, feel - they just don't trust themselves and more often than not prefer to follow the "expert", the "scientist", the "multitude" instead. If this wasn't the case, gay people for instance would have ceased to exist centuries ago: "experts" called them freaks, "scientists" called them sick, the "multitude" mocked them to tears - nevertheless here they are no matter what everyone told them they ought to like. Audiophiles on the other hand who tend to buy the most expensive, most well-measuring or most hip hardware are not delusional; but sometimes they lie to themselves and to others for fear of being bullied as vulgar or flatearthers or tasteless. They are the ones who try "placere" (latin infinitive for to please) the authority, not the other way around. And as far as medicine is concerned, the statistically significant "placebo effect" does not mean that people miraculously heal themselves; it means that the drug in question is useless for all intents and purposes, which by the way is the case with the majority of alternative or mainstream drugs.

I once read an article that stated that every audiophile is actually tuning the music recodings to his or her taste with the (personal) choice of his hi-fi set in that way the audiophile thinks it should sound. And that can be very different than intended by the artist and producer. Every audiophile strives for his own ideal sound, every audiophile has his own personal ideal. S there is no general ideal sound and therefore no ideal set.

Sometimes you just know it's right when it's right, without perhaps being able to say why. It's just. That's how I think about my current hi-fi set. But when my best friend comes to listen he says that there is too much bass in electronic studio recordings such as Billie Eilish or Dua Saleh, but that my set sounds good when live recorded concerts are played such as Bill Evans Trio Sunday At The Village Vanguard or The Sound The Dutch Radio Recordings. In turn, every time I listen to his set I think "where's the bass gone?" I mean it's all personal, so subjective.

That's how I understand the article. Even if an improvement in your hi-fi set cannot be measured scientifically, but you can hear it, then that improvement is there for you. And I believe the article says you should be open to try new improvements. If you are too skeptical and rely only on scientific measurements, you can miss out on many great experiences.

That's what I meant by the placebo effect. A placebo does nothing (scientifically) but if the user believe in it? Then it works for that user, right? Same with a 2.5k power cable (instead of a reguale one) or a 5k speaker cable (instead of 0.5k). Even if that improvement cannot be measured, if you hear it, you hear it. And isn't it about what you hear and your own experience?

And as far as the wine was concerned, I only meant that a higher-rated wine with higher price does not mean it taste better to you than a lower-qualified and cheaper wine. It's all personal and subjective.

This said I reamin sceptical myself and I use the regular power cables of all my equipment and speaker cable I bought in 1995.

How can Stereophile seriously allow someone to review modern components through a pair of Altec Valencias - seriously - I want to know.

My head thanked me as I scrolled hastily through the tribal circle jerk... lol.

I think a really great example is VTA or SRA. If the correct angle (on a severe profile stylus) that brings in the intended frequency response, width and depth presentation and is changed 1 degree (or even 1mm) in either direction (and most humans can and do hear this as being slightly off from true), can we measure this error?

With today's equipment, I doubt it. Yet our ears hear it quite easily and we must listen exhaustively to find the correct angle to attain said correct trueness as the mastering engineers intended.

The same holds true for any high priced cable vs. cheap ones. Case in point- HR's last 2 columns. He readily admits that his perceptions have been challenged by this one variable being changed in an otherwise unchanged system.

Yes, blah blah blah, placebo bs. ALL of the analogies used above do not work for listening. None of them work at all in the least. They are inherently illogical in the purposes of listening.

I felt using flimsy evidence to of Lyme Disease cures to play it into subjective likes and dislikes, and the same with Steve Jobs example. Using a medical analogy is just inaccurate and your loading your argument with the wrong ammo here.

Most audiophiles do what Herb did last month and swap out cabling or
components over several months if not years, and the lucky few have ability to open a full a loom in comparison (Audioquest in my case as well, but Colorado and Columbia respectively). The key here to remember is that a wholesale increase from $200 per cabling to $4000 per cable really does create far greater objective accuracy.

There is far more a hypothesis in audio critical listening, even with the most unscientific listeners. By the simple use of a control of your own audio system being in several parts connected by cabling is testament to the method. Yes, it's far more accurate and telling and provable at expensive levels, but that is the road of the audiophile.

Shunyata Research's technologies have proven many times that lower noise floor is obtainable and the other hundreds of companies efforts echo that.

I have returned the Venom interconnects for deviation of FR neutrality, but the balance of their Venom speaker cables combined very well and provided more transparent, mic-closer sound. I kept those as they work better with Magneplanars because the retain the audiophile lexicon signifiers. I also picked them up before they were being marketed, as a promo. I saved hundreds over the retail price.

Just because we cannot measure something doesn't mean it is unmeasurable. We haven't found that tech yet, or it's too expensive to implement for consumer use.

What it does take is your experience testing your own biases by way of swapping out gear and cabling. My old cabling ain't going nowhere. If it doesn't sound better or need replacing... bang. Back to the dealer baby. That has happened very few times. Coupled with credit card protection, how can anyone get fooled by any audio product?

Why did Roger use only the opposing analogies in his argument? What audio products did he or JA2 reference in their writings recently? (Both here and JA2's editorial.)

I find it strange after all of these years, no one can name FIVE rip offs that were substantially bad products.. NO you can't use a Tice Clock from friggin' 30 years ago to say how the high-end is still rife with charlatans. Or green pens from the same time. Those arguments were addressed back then, and using them as examples for any reason is suspect in a conversation now.

The CD Stoplight pens were proven to work by containing the red laser to the cd underside, as laser technology was just being figured out for years to come. I've used it, and it friggin' worked. It wasn't in the least bit subjective. As CD players' lasers improved the need to use the pen died off.

With my experience, I have two examples from a friend and it was from 90's Arcam as a home theater receiver that they mis-engineered IMO (much is online), as well as an well known 80's AMC tube hybrid integrated that was equally found to be rife with problems over time (boards, tubes). Even I wouldn't consider those rip-offs though most would say they were, despite working well-past their warranties.

What we are scrambling to find is a collective agreement of what components are accurate. Stereophile as a group of writers who listen and write does that. Follow-ups prove that here and more of them should be done. Strangely, they are almost never commented upon!

Audio appreciation is a collective mind, gathered by many thousands of like-minded individuals, using a specific language and shaping the industry with our wallets... and ears.

PS- I find it strange that Lyme, PA is right next to the CDC Disease Lab across the water in NY. Coincidence? Getting the government to come up with money to solve Lyme Disease in a year should be law.

I'm reminded of Kierkegaard who took his life philosophy in the direction of romantic thought while Nietzsche did so in the direction of objective thought. These are both "well reasoned" paths and often "well intended" too...but in opposite directions.

There is no betterment in romance and there is no heart in objectivity. So a balance of the two is needed.

Because of Menieres disease and having traversed all music genres in the last 50 years I've moved on from HiFi to home video. My eyes are still relatively good and there are gradual improvements being made in home video presentation, that makes the pursuit worth while. Luckily I never fell for the fetishes, quackery, jewellery or status symbols; it was always about good emotions thru music.

It needs to be said; it's only home music listening. In the overall scheme of things it isn't really important. Astronomically priced gear is for people who have nothing that matters on their minds.

and my mind is open to that fact based on my real world experiences. Different interconnects and speaker cables have shown obvious changes to the sound I hear yet the measured frequency response does not agree. Not a big revelation.
However it seems as if the article's stance is that trying the latest audiophile gazing sphere voodoo gadget because it is our choice, has a money back guarantee and won't kill us.
OK fine, but it seems quite a bit off center from what I would expect from a respected audio review publication.
My own experiences have revealed many audio gadgets do absolutely nothing to change or improve the sound- and yes some I refuse to try because I know they are worthless in application.
Supporting a solid state amplifier with vibration control devices suitable for a 450 horsepower industrial air compressor motor is one of them.
There is a rational middle ground that needs to tell it like it is- or as honestly witnessed- and that is a view I would like to see in a respected audio review publication.
The stance of this article does not reflect a rational middle ground.
My hope is for reviewers to be experienced and trustworthy as to separate what works from what does not- and then let us have the open mind- rather than the try everything approach which is all to convenient and (yes) exploitative.
Filter out some of this garbage- please. There are many among us that could use the help.

I think where we audiophiles get into trouble is when we say that something does or doesn't make an audible difference as a statement of fact. We're always better off when we simply say, "I hear a difference with this piece of equipment or this tweak or this secret dance I do before I listen." No one can argue with that. They aren't in my head, and they don't know what I'm hearing.

If I, as a reader of Stereophile, read a reviewer saying that, I can judge for myself whether I want to try that thing and see if it makes a difference for me. If it increases my enjoyment--even if that's a placebo effect--then I'm happy. If it doesn't, then I return it or sell it to someone who likes it.

Whether that difference can be measured, now or in the future, is immaterial. If I don't hear a change for the better but a machine tells me I should, I'm certainly not going to keep that piece of equipment. If I do hear a change for the better and the machine tells me I shouldn't hear it, then I'm not going to get rid of the equipment. Measurements and machines are a distraction at best--a distraction from the music, which is why we're all here.

I've been reading Stereophile for some time now and this article moved me to comment.

I too was an enthusiastic yet skeptical journalist in the electric mobility field. I wrote about Tesla before Elon Musk took over and threw out the original founders. I take everything I see in the news from him with a rock salt, not a pinch. Despite 15 years of deep search, heart-to-heart talks, and conversations with founders and CEOs, I found out that the essence, that which makes people these tick, whether technology or ineffable things is beyond metrics.

In parallel research, I've been reading esoteric things - out of lack of a better word - research, daily news, etc. I noticed some had a bizarre and uncanny way of mirroring events and personal events in my life. I met and talked to a few of those "out there" folks on the fringe of empirical measurements. They mostly laughed wondering how you measure ineffable things and does it mean they don't exist?

Split hair in whichever ways, there are those who need to dissect and those who feel through experiments before communicating. I get now get along with both and equally have a great time talking to either. I've learned to use my left and right hemisphere at the right moment and with the right people. In the end, I'm left with my awareness experiencing processing my reality. It's all fun and I love good audio production in the end.

My current speakers are Magnepan LRS. They are the most amazing speaker I've ever heard (not that that means anything). Amirm at ASR tested them and his results were that the speaker is very flawed. It's dispersion is terrible. His conclusion is "I cannot recommend the Magnepan LRS."
I read his test results carefully and everything he says looks to be true. So why do they sound so good to me? Amirm obviously knows what he's doing. Do I just not know what to listen for? Or is it that there is no test for resolution and detail in speaker sound? No dynamic speakers in a wooden box has the air and detail of the maggie. Responses are welcome.https://www.stereophile.com/content/magnepan-lrs-loudspeaker-0

is by far the cheapest way of system upgrade. What is an audio system anyway for the most part if not a convoluted cable of the lowest quality?

The ideas in this article clearly are controversial and I believe is damaging of the audiophile/high-fidelity hobby.

A more detailed response:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2022/07/summer-musings-on-stereophiles-quackery.html

Here: https://www.stereophile.com/content/nordost-qnet-network-switch-qsource-linear-power-supply. A fool and their money are soon parted.