search
The primary weapon used by the audio engineering establishment to support their position that no differences exist between competently designed and manufactured products is the blind listening test. The blind test, in which the subject must identify sonic differences without knowing the identities of the devices under test, is considered the ultimate weapon in the war against those flat-earthers, the audiophiles. According to the objectivists, if one cannot pass such a test, one's entire philosophical foundation—the validity of listening—is rendered a heap of rubble. In addition, there is…
Perhaps this explains why some people don't hear differences in components. Is there a fundamental difference in the way people experience music (footnote 9)?
I am not entirely convinced that blind testing will never reveal differences. Although blind tests will tend to obscure differences, it may be possible to devise a blind test that satisfies the objectivists, yet is run in such a way that the subject has every condition in his favor—except, of course, knowledge of the component's identity. The subject would need to be aware of the trap of trying to intellectualize and quantify his…
Letters in Response appeared in the October and November 1991 issues of Stereophile:
EDITOR'S NOTE: "As We See It" in the July 1990 issue of Stereophile, entitled "Deeper Meanings" and written by Robert Harley, addressed the nature of "quality" in a hi-fi context. His essay had been triggered by a conversation Bob and I had had with Stanley Lipshitz at last May's AES Conference on "The Sound of Audio" concerning the correlation—or, more properly, the lack of correlation—between good measured performance and "good" sound quality. I had raised the example of the Wadia 2000 D/A processor as…
Perception & polarization
Editor: Two comments on Robert Harley's "As We See It" essay on value judgments in equipment reviewing:
Editor: Two comments on Robert Harley's "As We See It" essay on value judgments in equipment reviewing:
First, underlying the quality issue, I see a polarization of belief between people who instead put their faith in any method (or ideology) as a potential guarantor of certainty or truth. This polarization ultimately derives from divergent premises about the relationship between observation/experience and "reality." Traditional methods of science are grounded in a mechanistic world-view, one premise of which is a clear conceptual distinction between an…
Robert Harley a charlatan?
Editor: Not surprisingly, Robert Harley misses the point [in "Deeper meanings"] of that 1987 Stereo Review amplifier comparison. Golden Ears like his were asked to set up the conditions and their recommendations were followed! Is he clever enough to understand the implications?
Editor: Not surprisingly, Robert Harley misses the point [in "Deeper meanings"] of that 1987 Stereo Review amplifier comparison. Golden Ears like his were asked to set up the conditions and their recommendations were followed! Is he clever enough to understand the implications?
No, he clearly is not a charlatan. He's far worse—utterly sincere!—Mike Silverton, Brooklyn, NY
Translational errors & fudge boxes
Editor: As an AES member and regular reader of Stereophile, I took interest in Robert Harley's commentary regarding the Golden Ear/…
Value judgments & experiments
Editor: As a lifelong lover of serious music and the author of more than 50 scientific papers, I am well acquainted with both "subjective" and "objective" approaches to knowledge. I also have the good fortune to be married to a professional musician, a violinist, and have witnessed many times the manner in which musical judgments are made. Thus I was much interested in Robert Harley's thoughtful piece on the evaluation of audio equipment (Stereophile, Vol.13 No.7). Herewith a few comments stimulated by Harley's remarks:
Editor: As a lifelong lover of serious music and the author of more than 50 scientific papers, I am well acquainted with both "subjective" and "objective" approaches to knowledge. I also have the good fortune to be married to a professional musician, a violinist, and have witnessed many times the manner in which musical judgments are made. Thus I was much interested in Robert Harley's thoughtful piece on the evaluation of audio equipment (Stereophile, Vol.13 No.7). Herewith a few comments stimulated by Harley's remarks:
First of all, I was surprised…
What is good!
Editor: In Vol.13 No.7, Robert Harley wrote a scathing rejection of those who do not share his particular view of audio evaluation. In his closing paragraph he wrote, "now to get back to Dr. [Stanley] Lipshitz's question that prompted this essay: 'Ah, but how do you know what is good?' The question was clearly not meant to be answered."
Editor: In Vol.13 No.7, Robert Harley wrote a scathing rejection of those who do not share his particular view of audio evaluation. In his closing paragraph he wrote, "now to get back to Dr. [Stanley] Lipshitz's question that prompted this essay: 'Ah, but how do you know what is good?' The question was clearly not meant to be answered."
I have heard the description "warm" approvingly used when the sound was the result of the obvious nonlinear distortions produced by vacuum tubes. Furthermore, I am totally repulsed by what members of the German SS regarded as "good."—…
What is good?
Editor: Robert Harley's article relating Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance to the objectivist/subjectivist controversy was very appropriate. It seems to me, though, that he copped out by not answering the question, "What is good?" in more concrete terms.
Editor: Robert Harley's article relating Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance to the objectivist/subjectivist controversy was very appropriate. It seems to me, though, that he copped out by not answering the question, "What is good?" in more concrete terms.
One useful definition of "good" in audio equipment would be the ability of a reproduction chain to replicate the sound of the original musical event at the position of the microphones. Only the people who made the recording know what that might sound like, so this definition is of limited value to most of us,…
Nevertheless, I regard Harley's argument—that blind tests are "worthless" because they change more than one variable at a time—to be entirely specious. His alternative is to change all possible variables and then assert that component "A" is more musical than "B." Given the nature of the procedure and its reliance on phenomena that cannot be measured or quantified, if another evaluator reached the opposite conclusion would it not be equally valid? If several evaluators reached the same conclusion and most others found no differences, then I can confidently assert that a simple blind test…
Scientists were faced with such a dilemma in the 1930s because one form of radioactivity (beta decay) appeared to violate conservation of energy. The situation had reached a point that the idea of abandoning conservation of energy was discussed. But it was too sacred a cow to kill and Enrico Fermi devised a clever theory that was mathematically neat although it involved a ghostly particle named the neutrino. The neutrino was discovered some 20 years later. Scientists will not abandon fundamental principles even when faced with apparently overwhelming evidence (footnote 8). To abandon a…