Back in 1999, the author was engaged in an impromptu blind test with a co-worker, during one of the many periods of rampant inactivity our shop was experiencing. While potential clients were finding out the hard way about e-commerce and home theater, we decided to engage in a blind test between Denon, and its main rival at the time, Yamaha. The interesting thing we discovered was that, indeed, there were inherent differences in the sound of each unit. This was sparked by a regular client who, at the time, insisted that we couldn't tell the difference, unless we knew which brand we were listening to.
This client was the common sort that would read extensively about the impossibility of unsighted differences in audio gear, and without any experience of his own, formed his stance thus. We found then, as many find today, that indeed, many companies voice their products in such a way as to be unique, while not falling completely outside the bounds of accuracy. Shortly after beginning this test, we elected to DBT between a flagship Denon receiver, and a Macintosh integrated amp, to determine which was which. Again, although closer, we reliably determined each to a degree that would be statistically significant. Typically, differences in speakers are expected, but the idea that solid-state receivers and integrated amplifiers could yield such obvious differences was a little surprising to my co-worker, shocking to the client, and put of grin of knowing on my face.
What many find is that, provided the equipment is similar in spec, there should be similarities in sound to some degree or another. Indeed, certain recordings sounded more alike on all three pieces than others. Scoring a consistent 8/10 on a fast-switch double-blind test was enough. A great majority of those with access to proper switching equipment, worthy gear, and experienced ears tend to have similar results. Often times, expectation of performance results in surprise and disappointment, while other times, inexpensive gear performs outside of its price point.
This fact is critical, in that cost means little. Very often, expensive gear is voiced to appeal to a certain target audience, much the same as a restaurant featuring a chef that presents a certain dish in a way that only he can. In that regard, fidelity becomes an inherently personal thing, with the only issue being if the sound is pleasing to that individual. Equipment manufacturers sometimes make picking out these differences extremely easy, while at others, well-executed mass-market product performs so well against flagship competition that only a sighted test would reveal an audible difference.
The problem audiophiles face is that often times, the gear they worship tends to be one of two things: Handbuilt one-offs that each sound different anyway if there happens to be a second iteration, and re-badged mass-market gear with a few tweaks. Although there is little doubt that audiophiles generally are experienced and finicky enough to tell the difference in a DBT, many lose credibility by not participating in them. To use the aforementioned equipment doesn't help the cause, since there is no set standard to define differences. Given the state of the recording industry, many of these folks would assert that differences in sound quality of equipment rarely matters, since the software played through it is not of sufficient quality to start with. Generally speaking, audiophiles (also recognized as the subjectivist camp) tend to equally ignore most measurements, and focus on the experience of individually evaluating equipment synergies, to determine the best combination of hardware and cabling.
Objectivists (a group that tends to only use human experience as proof of the fact that we can't evaluate equipment properly), asserts that because of bias, the only proper way to ascertain differences in audio equipment is to properly conduct a DBT, or double-blind test. This is the process where a single controller switches quickly between one piece of hardware to another to show differences in sound. Somewhere in the middle between both camps lies the truth. In over 13 years of evaluating all levels of hardware, cabling, and engaging in countless blind testing, the author can assure the reader that both sides hold merit. Where objectivists lose their footing is when they assert that no differences can be reliably ascertained, due to bias and the fact that humans have poor audio memory.
The objectivist camp has a few issues with concepts largely borne from college electrical engineering classes. Although music signals are of course electrical, they happen to be the only electrical signals we sit down and listen to. Therefore, it can only be compared to itself, and in so doing, differences in human hearing matter. It doesn't help their cause to assert that "all solid state amps sound the same, unless one is broken", or that "no DBT has revealed a difference in XYZ." This turns off the ears of those interested in exploring the hobby, and is, frankly, factually incorrect. The lack of white papers from accredited scientists seems to prove their point however, and with the subjectivist crowd unwilling to do much to counter their claims in a scientific manner, the rest of the community is left to wonder whether that megabuck CD player really is better than the WalMart special. Something those that have calibrated car and home audio systems quickly discover is that accurate to a scope doesn't mean pleasing to the ear. Therefore, it stands to reason that differences in audio equipment should be present, expected, and embraced, since the array allows something for everyone.
A real firestorm erupts over cabling. Considered by many to nothing more than pretty lamp cord, interconnects and speaker wire potentially can cause more problems that improvements if not properly utilized. Double-blind testing reveals that sound between these cables can be quite different. It is, therefore, a piece of hardware that needs to be properly integrated into the system, like any other. This tends to make sense, as there are only so many things companies can do with cable design prior to creating an unsafe situation. This holds true especially with high-end power cables, where often times, UL listing is not present due to the interesting topology of the wire. In rare cases, improper speaker wire selection can, in fact, offer such an odd load to an amplifier as to induce oscillation and damage. It is of critical importance to understand however that most hardware companies will only include cabling (if at all) that allows the component to meet performance spec at minimal additional cost. This is notoriously true with audio/video interconnects and power cables. Once basic safety minimums are met, it is up to the consumer to improve on the performance aspect. Given the huge variety of possible equipment permutations, this is rarely something that anyone can recommend or design for. Fortunately for some (and unfortunately for others), this creates a trial-and-error process, where the audiophile must experiment until the proper combination is discovered. One thing about the nature of this beast is that there is always a potential avenue for improvement, so the upgrade cycle rarely ceases.
What the audiophile crowd probably should do is eschew allegiances with old-guard audiophile companies if need be, showing when mass-market equipment stands effectively against esoteric expensive equipment, and when it fails miserably. The issue is, all of these things are true. What isn't true is the reality that objectivists will never support claims of superiority of high-end gear, if the subjectivist crowd will not stand up and call out those brands that are luxury-priced, average performers.
Posts
