 |
| Letters -- November 2002 Anxious November 20, 2002 Editor, I'm a longtime reader of SoundStage!, so I look forward to seeing this site grow and thrive. You guys do readers a great service by providing informative articles at no cost. I'm anxious to see what will be covered here next. Rod Foster More detail November 15, 2002 Editor, I read this month's opinion piece and cable review. Both are fine, but I believe that if Mr. Silverton can really hear all these differences in cables, then he should describe them in more detail. His listening impressions seemed rather brief. Mark Reading Journalistic obligations November 8, 2002 To Mike Silverton. For what it's worth, I'm one physics Ph.D. (University of North Carolina, 1992) who doesn't think that the simplest scientific principles can explain everything. Not only hi-fi but every branch of science is littered with the corpses of theories that are substantially correct but incomplete. Just because lamp cord has an adequately small (and appropriate) impedance doesn't mean it sounds the same as your $2000 interconnects. Doesn't mean it doesn't, either. Much as I enjoyed it, I was disappointed in your editorial, especially the end. You kept control of the argument most of the way through, and then you lost it. Here's why. Perhaps the most useful thing I ever learned about aesthetic experience I learned, not surprisingly, from an artist and not a scientist. He was a playwright. I had the pleasure of participating in a playwrighting workshop with him for two semesters while I was in college. In evaluating the work of a fellow student, he said, first react to it, then go to the source and decide what it was that made you react that way. Listening has an emotional, subjective component -- a very important one. Indeed, listening CAN BE completely subjective. But it doesn't have to be. If you're OK with the idea that what you experience might be completely in your mind, that's OK with me too. Doesn't mean you don't hear it. But remember that persuasion is a very powerful thing. I've been convinced that I've heard things that -- demonstrably -- weren't there. Does that mean I didn't hear them? I've been thinking about some recent science that makes a clear distinction between what happens in the ear and what happens in the mind. Experiencing music has "peripheral" aspects and "central" aspects. Nerves and brain. The brain can react in different ways to an identical electrical signal from the peripheral nerves. Indeed, it's possible to learn to hear (or smell) something that you couldn't hear (or smell) before, as long as there is a signal from the "cochlear amplifier." If there is no signal from the peripheral nerves, it's still possible for the brain to have the experience of hearing something, but it's an illusion. You still experience it, but it isn't real. One way to tell the difference is scientific testing. There are lots of ways of doing this: ABX, double blind, "multiple alternative forced-choice paradigm," whatever. The key is that there needs to be scientific evidence to support any assertion that you're really hearing something. But there's another way of looking at this. When I get up in the morning I don't seek statistical evidence that the sun has risen; I know what it looks like and where it rises. I can identify it with excellent certainty, as a bright orange ball in the sky. I could pass any double-blind test, but I don't require one. To arrive, finally, at the point I wish to make any aesthetic difference -- a difference in sound, for example -- is ultimately subjective, but if it is real (not illusory) the subjective experience is triggered by real cues. If you hear a difference you should, if you are clever and perceptive, be able to pinpoint those cues. They are not the same as the experience itself, which may be described as "open" or "pleasurable" or "crystalline" or whatever. I'm talking about small, specific, identifiable differences in the sound, usually localized in time. The reverberation time of a cymbal. The transient attack of a piano. If you can identify these differences you will be able to pass any test. Then you will be much more certain of your conclusions. If you can't identify these differences -- well, that doesn't mean your subjective impressions are without merit. But it leaves open that possibility. Does it matter? As you say, it's a personal thing. It certainly matters to me for two reasons, and I think it ought to matter to you, as a responsible journalist. It matters to me because, one, I don't want to be a sap, buying snake oil, being reamed by slick salesmen with glossy ads and ultra-thick face plates; and, two, I want good value for my money. Your obligations as a journalist are paramount. You are free to spend your money as you wish, but any reporter (and I am a reporter, so I know) has an obligation to evaluate the quality and reliability of his or her information, which means, among other things, passing judgment on the source of the information. When you recommend that a consumer spend $20k for a particular component, or several hundred (or thousands) for elaborate lamp cord, you should be accountable for that advice. After all, if your experience is not repeatable, you cannot know if it has any objective content -- whether there is a real difference that gives rise to your subjective experience. And if you don't know this, then you cannot know whether a reader/consumer will have a similar experience. Are you OK with the possibility that you might just be helping to sell gloss? If so, you needn't worry about the repeatability of your observations. It doesn't matter if there's anything to them. Illusions are just fine. But if you take your journalistic obligations seriously, then you must evaluate, objectively, the quality of the information you have, and to not present it if it doesn't pass muster. From one journalist to another, Jim Austin I thank you, Dr Austin, for a thoughtful note. I’m pleased that you enjoyed some of my Silversmith review. I’ll try to mitigate those aspects that disappoint. You say: “If you hear a difference you should, if you are clever and perceptive, be able to pinpoint those cues. They are not the same as the experience itself, which may be ‘open’ or ‘pleasurable’ or ‘crystalline’ or whatever. These are small, specific differences in the sound, usually localized in time. The reverberation time of a cymbal. The transient attack of a piano. If you can identify these differences you will be able to pass any test. Then you will be much more sure of your conclusions. If you can’t identify these differences -- well, that doesn’t mean your subjective impressions are without merit. But it leaves open that possibility." But of course -- wide open! And therein lurks the troll under the bridge. The subjectivist reviewer (sometimes called observationalist) reports impressions. No more, no less. You are not alone in your misgivings. I have wondered about the integrity of colleagues, or at the very least, the nature of their installations, or their very understanding of what they’re about. Other observationalists I envy for the acuity of their perceptions and the clarity with which they convey them. That said, anyone who acts solely on an observationalist’s report runs, I think, too great a risk. High-end audio is a spendy exercise. One needs to check these things out for himself. I’d give almost anything to be more clever and perceptive, and yet I wonder whether improvements in these departments would yield the kind of results you want to read about. If I understand your grievance, I’m obliged to specify my impressions, with regard, for example, to reverberation time (clocking decay) and transient attacks. I dunno, Doc. There’s little in the world more fragile than our memory for fine aural detail. In the time it takes me to swap interconnects, let alone speaker cables, what I recall of these will-o’-the-wisps has degraded to a perhaps fatal degree. I’m far happier -- well, at least more secure -- doing my comparative listening holistically. You mention the ABX comparator as a means of instant comparison (not that you especially urge its implementation). Nothing in this business is easy. For example, if Silversmith’s Jeff Smith judges conventional cable terminations sources of sonic degradation, would it be fair to Smith’s design philosophy to evaluate his cables via a network calling for the very thing he’s designed out of his wares? Or, assuming that everything going in and out of the comparator satisfies Smith’s requirements, there’s the issue of the extra circuitry the box requires in order to function. It might be said with some justification that differences among good cables are both subtle and subject to annihilation in this sort of environment. With respect to what we hear, I think it quite possible to raise objections approximately forever. If I say that my red is darker than yours, we need only put them side by side in bright sunlight. Can’t do that with sound. As a personal matter (to say it again), I much prefer, and trust, general impressions over specifics. Do I urge what makes me comfortable as a reviewer on everyone else in this line of work? No. That would be arrogant and wrong-headed. If, having purchased Silversmith cables with the understanding that you're at liberty to return them if you find them falling short of my impressions of their performance, you may indeed listen for those pinpoint specifics and hear the differences you're looking for. More power to you and your excellent ears. I can only repeat: a review ought to be no more than a guideline. If it entertains, all the better. “Are you OK with the possibility that you might just be helping to sell gloss?” Had I a thinner skin, I’d find this offensive. I report on what I hear. Life’s too short for bad wine and bogus fripperies. Yes, I still gasp at what some of these things cost, and yes, my knowledge of the high-end-cable market is less than complete, but no, I would never write approvingly about what sounds to me like a deficient product. What would be the point? Sure, I’d have liked to keep Smith’s wires, but I returned them. All that remains is my good opinion. And, I hope, integrity. And after the dust of contention settles, my wish to you and all true-blue audiophiles is for calm seas and a prosperous voyage, strong, healthy, intelligent children, and sacks of gold under the bed. Cheers to all....Mike Silverton
Ultra Audio is part of the SoundStage! Network. |
