Subjectivism and the Limitations of the Human Ear
From Zanecorpwiki
The picture of the ear that emerges from psychoacoustics and related fields is not that of a precision instrument. Its ultimate sensitivity, directional capabilities and dynamic range are far more impressive than its ability to measure small level changes or detect correlated low-level signals like distortion harmonics. ... Presumably the whole existence of music as a source of pleasure is an accidental side-effect of our remarkable powers of speech perception: how it acts as a direct route to the emotions remains profoundly mysterious.[1]
There is on doubt that audiophiles are master of the adjective. Read any review of high end equipment and you'll be treated to such phrases as edgy bass, liquid highs, and buttery response. These point a picture in our mind of wondrous bits of electronics that turn our CD collections from mere music into auditory vistas of unimaginable beauty and depth.
The truth is, it's all bullshit. As I discuss at some length in my article on Amplifier Distortion, double blind tests show that even the most avid audiophile who has presumably spent much of their life and money training themselves to detect the most minute variations in music can't tell the difference between a $200 piece of shit and a $12,000 engineering marvel. In what's one of the funniest such tests, James Randi showed that a group of 12 audiophiles couldn't tell the difference between $302/ft. Monster Cable and a coat hanger.
There's no doubt that if you used sophisticated acoustical measuring devices, you determine which is which, but I don't know anyone that listens to their albums on an oscilloscope. The fact is that the human ear just isn't that precise. Not your's, not mine, not anyone's.
For the most part, electronics are better than our ears. There are two places in the audio path that matter most: the microphone and the speaker. You can still spend a decent amount of money in these areas and get better results (up to a point), but for the most part, nothing else matters all that much.
Audiophiles can't tell the difference between a $200 and $12,000 amp with their ears. But there's no fun in saying, Yet another amp that's no better than any amp produced by any of the quality makers in the past decade so they convince themselves that this amp has sharp response in the highs while another has buttery lows and of course you're $200 amp is just unlistenable crap. They say this not because it's true, but because it's fun for them to say so. There's still room to improve speakers and parts of the technology, but if we were honest, somewhere between 50-80% of the components endlessly reviewed and debated just don't need to be. I'd love a buying guide based entirely on double-blind reviews. We'd all save a lot of money.
Bottom line: for normal volume levels in a home setting (even dedicated media room), $1,000-$2,000 is enough to get a stereo system of such high quality that emno system on earth/em would sound any better to you or any other human in terms of AV Fidelity. $3,000-$5,000 does the same for a 5.1 setup. Now, that's not to say that different people might not like different systems more. Hi-fi is all about faithful reproduction, but some people prefer a different sound. Is it necessary, let alone worthwhile, to spend $20,000, $50,000, $100,000 or more to achieve that sound? I'm skeptical. Maybe I'm stretching a bit hear, but I've no doubt that I'm closer to the truth than those spending thousands of dollars on cables that perform no better than coat hangers.
I don't want to be too harsh on the audiophile. They're silly, yes, and you should certainly let out a hearty guffaw when someone shows you they're $20,000 speakers, but it's the mystery and power of music which has driven them a little insane an that's something I can relate to.
