My first hi-fi wish for 2015 will be for a little bit of honesty to creep into the writings of hi-fi magazines, forums and blogs. As far as I can see the primary object of hi-fi equipment is to reproduce music as faithfully as possible to the original recording. It is not about possession of expensive equipment for its own sake. It is not about a numbers game or worshipping specifications without putting measurements into the context of both the physical and psychological aspects of human hearing.
We have got to the stage where it is increasingly difficult and expensive to make improvements to domestic hi-fi equipment provided that that equipment has been well designed and built. Most of the improvements that can be made are now limited to the recording studio and the production of the master copies - be they digital or analogue.
We are now seeing an increasing number of advertisements in the hi-fi press for HD or "better than CD quality" audio. These adverts are also creeping into the general press. Hi-fi reviewers are already making a big deal out of HD (high definition) audio with its associated 24 bit/ 96 KHz (24/96) digital files. Soon we shall be treated to music reproduction using 24/192 files and 32/384 files. An ordinary CD only stores music in a 16 bit/ 44.1 KHz file. An ordinary CD , however, can reproduce music with a wider sound dynamic range than the human ear can safely cope with and it can reproduce frequencies which no human can hear or perceive as music. Why do we need a wider scope?
Extensive scientific listening tests have been performed which demonstrate that no one, so far, in the general population can hear the difference between ordinary CD quality music and HD music when all other parameters are equal. i.e. the equipment and playback volume is the same and the master recordings are the same. Why can the industry not recognise this? If double blind testing were to ascertain that members of the general population could recognise a difference we would be treated to copious full page advertisements showing the test results in the general press as well as the hi-fi press.
In the hi-fi press, reviewers do not want to talk about scientific listening tests. For some reason reviewers ears seem to be better than for those of the general population. This may be true. Maybe the reviewers can perceive substantial quality differences between CD quality and HD quality music but surely they are obliged to prove their claims with double blind listening tests. If they cannot prove their claims then they should not make them and they should not claim that HD music reproduction is better than CD. Why should young people who are new to the hi-fi hobby be encouraged to spend their hard earnt money on equipment and music files which provide little or no extra benefit?
The hi-fi industry is riddled with exaggerated claims for the performance of expensive cables, equipment racks, fuses!, atomic clocks, power cables etc. The hi-fi magazines, however, are not riddled with double blind listening tests which prove that the very expensive equipment works better than more humble equivalents.
When I was young in the 1960s lots of equipment suffered from mains hum or other interference the use of cheap ferrite rings often sorted out the problem.
I have worked with computers for over 40 years. In the last decade we have seen the increasing use of computer technology to playback music. And of course we have seen increasing pressure within the hi-fi industry for us to buy very expensive and "hi-tech" USB cables to prevent interference to music reproduction or improve data transmission rates. Well, what is so special about music reproduction? The bit rates for transmission are nothing compared to audio-visual data. A PC has enough built in redundancy to easily transmit an audio file with full accuracy. An industry standard usb cable is perfectly sufficient provided it is not excessively long. There is no need for a special super duper and super expensive usb cable. The cabling within the PC itself is all industry standard and there is no need for anything else.
So the theme goes on.
Let's have some honesty, let's have an admission that some of the extravagant claims made hi-fi experts could be the result of hubris, confirmation bias, a change of volume, placebo effect or auditory illusion. With all this mixed in with "the king's new clothes effect". Only scientific testing can ascertain the truth so let's have more double blind testing with peer reviewed results. Let reviewers publish the truth and be damned - some hope but I remain an optimist. I also remain a realist and I only trust my own ears.
