Welcome to the Skeptical Audiophile

The short answer is that our reviews aren’t based on reasoning at all.

The full story follows. The comments you see below were left on our listing for the Rhino pressing of The Cars’ first album.

The grievances the writer lists are long and mostly unserious, but I think they have some value, just not the value the writer intended, so of course I am happy to reproduce them here and take a crack at explaining the mistaken audiophile thinking they represent.

If you’ve ever stumbled upon the Wikipedia page for logical fallacies, you will have no trouble recognizing all the shortcomings this writer has called us out for in our review of The Cars on Rhino, as well as, we assume, the hundreds of other Heavy Vinyl disasters we take to task on this blog.

Rather that attempt to rebut the individual charges, which seem to be grounded in issues of logic, semantic hair-splitting, a deep misunderstanding of the unwritten rules of criticism, what does and does not constitute an ad hominem attack, my use of injudicious language, and who knows what else, I have an answer that I believe gets to the heart of why none of this matters, which you will find below in my reply to his comments. [Bolding added by me,]

Ad Hominem Attack: The author attacks Kevin Gray personally, suggesting that his work is consistently poor without addressing the specific issues with the remastering process.

Appeal to Authority: The author mentions Steve Hoffman and his successful remastering of The Cars’ first album on Gold CD, implying that because Hoffman did it well, Kevin Gray should have done the same. This disregards the possibility of differences in approach and technique between the two engineers.

Appeal to Popularity: Popularity does not equate to quality.

False Dichotomy: The author presents a binary choice between their preferred pressing and the Rhino pressing, suggesting that the Rhino pressing is objectively bad without considering the possibility of subjective preferences or different listening experiences.

Appeal to Emotion: The author uses emotive language (“just awful,” “godawful”) to elicit a strong negative reaction from the reader, rather than providing objective evidence to support their claims. This would be very difficult considering that taste and preference is subjective.

Hasty Generalization: The author assumes that anyone who disagrees with their assessment of the Rhino pressing must have inferior audio equipment or lack understanding of audio quality. This overlooks the possibility of legitimate differences in opinion or subjective preferences.

Appeal to Ignorance: The author suggests that because they personally find the Rhino pressing to be of poor quality, it must be objectively bad. However, personal experience or opinion does not necessarily reflect objective truth.

I would hope that no one reading this blog could possibly find these sophistic arguments persuasive, for the simple reason that none of them have very much to do with the sound of the records, by The Cars or anybody else, that we discuss in our 5000+ listings and commentaries.

Everything we say about records is backed up by the evidence we have discovered by actually playing them.

Failures of logic and generally fallacious thinking have nothing to do with whatever “truths” we believe we have discovered about records, because we didn’t use either one — logic nor reasoning — to learn what we know about them.

I also don’t think we would be comfortable characterizing our claims about the sound of records to be objectively true. Our claims may be objectively true for us; the same stampers of scores of records win our shootouts over and over again, even though no one playing or reviewing the pressings in question knows which stampers are which until the grades are in.

But that objectivity extends only to the records we play on our stereo, and the kind of sound we like our records to have. (May I point out here that the other two guys who took over the job of doing our shootouts more than five years ago heard things the same way I did, and we never quarreled even once about which pressings were the best. They didn’t need teaching, they just needed good records to play on a good system. If your stereo is good enough, the right answers come naturally and effortlessly.)

Fortunately for us, thousands of customers have found that their stereos play our records just fine, and these same customers seem to like the kind of sound we like. That didn’t have to be the case, but we’re glad it is. Otherwise I would have had to find some other way to make a living. I sure wasn’t going to keep selling Heavy Vinyl once it was clear to me how consistently inferior the sound was more than likely going to continue to be.

Logic and Evidence

To understand the records we offer, and the reviews we write, logic is of no use whatsoever.

The only thing that has any real value is experimental evidence.

Without experimental evidence, you simply have no evidence, because logic is not evidence.

It may not be logically correct to assert that no two records sound the same. We certainly can’t prove it. At best we might consider it a heuristic device, an assumption we make in order to be sure we proceed with care while doing our research into the sound of the thousands and thousands of individual record pressings we investigate every year.

It forces us to play every record, then assume the sound is different, even from others that appear to be the same to the naked eye.

We accept it as a fact because experiment after experiment has demonstrated to us beyond any doubt that no two records do sound the same.

Not everyone can appreciate this “fact,” what those of us who play records all day might call a “truth,” for the simple reason that not everyone has a stereo revealing enough and accurate enough to reproduce the sometimes subtle differences between pressings.

We have such a stereo. Took a long time to build it too.

It makes clear to us what a fraud the modern Heavy Vinyl pressing is. Not everyone has a stereo that lets them hear the many shortcomings of these remastered pressings, and what these audiophiles can’t hear, they assume no one else can hear.

That’s the kind of fallacious thinking we might want to discuss with our letter writer. He appears to have left it off his list for some reason.

The list he was at pains to create has no bearing on the sound of Heavy Vinyl pressings or any other kinds of pressings.

Clearing the Mind

He would do well to clear his mind of mistaken ideas. Years ago, under the heading of scientific thinking, we wrote:

Some approaches to this hobby tend to produce better results than others.

When your thinking about audio and records does not comport with reality, you are much less likely to achieve the improvements you seek.

Without a good stereo, it is hard to find better records. Without better records, it is hard to improve your stereo.

You need both, and thinking about them the right way, using the results of carefully controlled experiments — not feelings, opinions, theories, received wisdom or dogma — is surely the best way to acquire better sound.

A scientific, empirically-based approach to audio leads to better quality playback. This will in turn make the job of recognizing high quality pressings — the ones you find for yourself, or the ones we find for you — much, much easier.

Thanks for writing,

Best, TP

(more…)