Food for thought for all us audiophiles

I completely agree with the issues raised in the article and find it quite well reasoned. There are infinite ways that our perception can be colored, as the article concludes. I think that most rational people will agree. Note that the author refers to phenomena at the edges of our perception but stops short of condemning all subjectively perceived differences. There are those of us that are convinced that there are differences in the sound of wires, whether they can be scientifically quantified, or not. But this does not mean that we should not be vigilant about the ease with which our perceptions can be altered by outside means.

It is an interesting article but the author fails to recognize the crucial importance of work by Sherif and others on cognitive dissonance etc.

Sherif’s study suggests that in such situations, you will align with the group. You can imagine that this tendency to conform is quite useful in many real-life contexts, but it does mean that wine sampling and stereo testing are unlikely to reflect anything other than your tendency toward conformity. That doesn’t mean it can’t be fun, of course.

The two examples given in the article have no real negative connotations as sensational claims and groupthink do almost no harm...one could agree they are a simply a bit of "fun".

Wine tasting ...no big deal, nobody gets hurt and wine makers make more money and everyone has a good time disucssing it.

Stereo listening....even less people to be concerned about here, just the audio nuts to revel in their discussions and they have fun too!

Now what about "Global Warming"? Might some good old conformity stuff be going on here too? Do some of the alarmist statements remind anyone of Chicken Licken? There might be a good reason that Mum used to tell me that tale.

While I think this article hits ONE nail on the head, I think there are many more nails holding this hobby together. I can think of a few reasons why someone might buy a $7,200 pair of speaker cables: 1) Some people just have more money than they know what to do with. To them, buying this cable, like any other luxury item ($1,000 purse, $20,000 watch, $1,500 shoes, etc.), makes a statement; that I've arrived and by buying this cable I've accomplished something. 2) Some people just want the best. Even if the best means paying for a companies R&D costs that find a way to squeeze one more [insert measurement here]. Willing to pay $100,000 for a pair speakers whose measrurements are just marginally better than a pair of $20,000 may be worth it. Same reason people buy $500k Ferrari's when no speed limits are higher than 70 MPH in this country. Further, $7,200 cables probably do sound great. Could I tell the difference between them and pair of Kimber 8TC? Maybe. Maybe not. If I made $750k a year would I buy them and enjoy them? Maybe. Maybe not.

I agree with much of what is said. I believe if company truly believes in their product, double blind tests should be a welcome test. They are not welcomed. I would like to point out that for me aesthetics, joy of touching/operating are important. I don't want to look at a pair of monster cables. Besides, if you listen at my house, you will notice my cables taste like sandal wood with a slight hint of tobacco.

Although there is clearly SOME validity to what's being said, I'm still left to wonder: If there's such a tendency for "convergence" among audiophiles' opinions, then why do so many people argue vehemently for diametrically opposed viewpoints on this site and many others? That phenomenon would seem to "diverge" from the convergence assertion of the article.