What annoys me today in marketing and media that too often today then talking on hi-fi, science is replaced by bizarre belief structures and marketing fluff, leading to a decades-long stagnation of the audiophile domain. Science makes progress, pseudo-science doesn’t. Hi-fi world is filled by pseudoscience, dogma and fruitloopery to the extent that it resembles a fundamentalist religion. Loudspeaker performance hasn’t tangibly improved in forty years and vast sums are spent addressing the wrong problems.
Business for Engineers: Marketers Lie article points tout that marketing tells lies — falsehoods — things that serve to convey a false impression. Marketing’s purpose is to determining how the product will be branded, positioned, and sold. It seems that there too many snake oil rubbish products marketed in the name of hifi. It is irritating to watch the stupid people in the world be fooled.
In EEVblog #29 – Audiophile Audiophoolery video David L. Jones (from EEVBlog) cuts loose on the Golden Ear Audiophiles and all their Audiophoolery snake oil rubbish. The information presented in Dave’s unique non-scripted overly enthusiastic style! He’s an enthusiastic chap, but couldn’t agree more with many of the opinions he expressed: Directional cables, thousand dollar IEC power cables, and all that rubbish. Monster Cable gets mostered. Note what he says right at the end: “If you pay ridiculous money for these cable you will hear a difference, but don’t expect your friends to”. If you want to believe, you will.
My points on hifi-nonsense:
One of the tenets of audiophile systems is that they are assembled from components, allegedly so that the user can “choose” the best combination. This is pretty largely a myth. The main advantage of component systems is that the dealer can sell ridiculously expensive cables, hand-knitted by Peruvian virgins and soaked in snake oil, to connect it all up. Say goodbye to the noughties: Yesterday’s hi-fi biz is BUSTED, bro article asks are the days of floorstanders and separates numbered? If traditional two-channel audio does have a future, then it could be as the preserve of high resolution audio. Sony has taken the industry lead in High-Res Audio.
HIFI Cable Humbug and Snake oil etc. blog posting rightly points out that there is too much emphasis placed on spending huge sums of money on HIFI cables. Most of what is written about this subject is complete tripe. HIFI magazines promote myths about the benefits of all sorts of equipment. I am as amazed as the writer that that so called audiophiles and HIFI journalists can be fooled into thinking that very expensive speaker cables etc. improve performance. I generally agree – most of this expensive interconnect cable stuff is just plain overpriced.
I can agree that in analogue interconnect cables there are few cases where better cables can really result in cleaner sound, but usually getting any noticeable difference needs that the one you compare with was very bad yo start with (clearly too thin speaker wires with resistance, interconnect that picks interference etc..) or the equipment in the systems are so that they are overly-sensitive to cable characteristics (generally bad equipment designs can make for example cable capacitance affect 100 times or more than it should). Definitely too much snake oil. Good solid engineering is all that is required (like keep LCR low, Teflon or other good insulation, shielding if required, proper gauge for application and the distance traveled). Geometry is a factor but not in the same sense these yahoos preach and deceive.
In digital interconnect cables story is different than on those analogue interconnect cables. Generally in digital interconnect cables the communication either works, does not work or sometimes work unreliably. The digital cable either gets the bits to the other end or not, it does not magically alter the sound that goes through the cable. You need to have active electronics like digital signal processor to change the tone of the audio signal traveling on the digital cable, cable will just not do that.
But this digital interconnect cables characteristics has not stopped hifi marketers to make very expensive cable products that are marketed with unbelievable claims. Ethernet has come to audio world, so there are hifi Ethernet cables. How about 500 dollar Ethernet cable? That’s ridiculous. And it’s only 1.5 meters. Then how about $10,000 audiophile ethernet cable? Bias your dielectrics with the Dielectric-Bias ethernet cable from AudioQuest: “When insulation is unbiased, it slows down parts of the signal differently, a big problem for very time-sensitive multi-octave audio.” I see this as complete marketing crap speak. It seems that they’re made for gullible idiots. No professional would EVER waste money on those cables. Audioquest even produces iPhone sync cables in similar price ranges.
HIFI Cable insulators/supports (expensive blocks that keep cables few centimeters off the floor) are a product category I don’t get. They typically claim to offer incredible performance as well as appealing appearance. Conventional cable isolation theory holds that optimal cable performance can be achieved by elevating cables from the floor in an attempt to control vibrations and manage static fields. Typical cable elevators are made from electrically insulating materials such as wood, glass, plastic or ceramics. Most of these products claim superior performance based upon the materials or methods of elevation. I don’t get those claims.
Along with green magic markers on CDs and audio bricks is another item called the wire conditioner. The claim is that unused wires do not sound the same as wires that have been used for a period of time. I don’t get this product category. And I don’t believe claims in the line like “Natural Quartz crystals along with proprietary materials cause a molecular restructuring of the media, which reduces stress, and significantly improves its mechanical, acoustic, electric, and optical characteristics.” All sounds like just pure marketing with no real benefits.
CD no evil, hear no evil. But the key thing about the CD was that it represented an obvious leap from earlier recording media that simply weren’t good enough for delivery of post-produced material to the consumer to one that was. Once you have made that leap, there is no requirement to go further. The 16 bits of CD were effectively extended to 18 bits by the development of noise shaping, which allows over 100dB signal to noise ratio. That falls a bit short of the 140dB maximum range of human hearing, but that has never been a real goal. If you improve the digital media, the sound quality limiting problem became the transducers; the headphones and the speakers.
We need to talk about SPEAKERS: Soz, ‘audiophiles’, only IT will break the sound barrier article says that today’s loudspeakers are nowhere near as good as they could be, due in no small measure to the presence of “traditional” audiophile products. that today’s loudspeakers are nowhere near as good as they could be, due in no small measure to the presence of “traditional” audiophile products. I can agree with this. Loudspeaker performance hasn’t tangibly improved in forty years and vast sums are spent addressing the wrong problems.
We need to talk about SPEAKERS: Soz, ‘audiophiles’, only IT will break the sound barrier article makes good points on design, DSPs and the debunking of traditional hi-fi. Science makes progress, pseudo-science doesn’t. Legacy loudspeakers are omni-directional at low frequencies, but as frequency rises, the radiation becomes more directional until at the highest frequencies the sound only emerges directly forwards. Thus to enjoy the full frequency range, the listener has to sit in the so-called sweet spot. As a result legacy loudspeakers with sweet spots need extensive room treatment to soak up the deficient off-axis sound. New tools that can change speaker system designs in the future are omni-directional speakers and DSP-based room correction. It’s a scenario ripe for “disruption”.
Computers have become an integrated part of many audio setups. Back in the day integrated audio solutions in PCs had trouble earning respect. Ode To Sound Blaster: Are Discrete Audio Cards Still Worth the Investment? posting tells that it’s been 25 years since the first Sound Blaster card was introduced (a pretty remarkable feat considering the diminished reliance on discrete audio in PCs) and many enthusiasts still consider a sound card an essential piece to the PC building puzzle. It seems that in general onboard sound is finally “Good Enough”, and has been “Good Enough” for a long time now. For most users it is hard to justify the high price of special sound card on PC anymore. There are still some PCs with bad sound hardware on motherboard and buttload of cheap USB adapters with very poor performance. However, what if you want the best sound possible, the lowest noise possible, and don’t really game or use the various audio enhancements? You just want a plain-vanilla sound card, but with the highest quality audio (products typically made for music makers). You can find some really good USB solutions that will blow on-board audio out of the water for about $100 or so.
Although solid-state technology overwhelmingly dominates today’s world of electronics, vacuum tubes are holding out in two small but vibrant areas. Some people like the sound of tubes. The Cool Sound of Tubes article says that a commercially viable number of people find that they prefer the sound produced by tubed equipment in three areas: musical-instrument (MI) amplifiers (mainly guitar amps), some processing devices used in recording studios, and a small but growing percentage of high-fidelity equipment at the high end of the audiophile market. Keep those filaments lit, Design your own Vacuum Tube Audio Equipment article claims that vacuum tubes do sound better than transistors (before you hate in the comments check out this scholarly article on the topic). The difficulty is cost; tube gear is very expensive because it uses lots of copper, iron, often point-to-point wired by hand, and requires a heavy metal chassis to support all of these parts. With this high cost and relative simplicity of circuitry (compared to modern electronics) comes good justification for building your own gear. Maybe this is one of the last frontiers of do-it-yourself that is actually worth doing.
3,188 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
Akira Tanaka spent his career inside Sony’s Walkman program. He worked on more than 25 models as a mechanical engineer and ran the project behind the MZ-RH1, the last Hi-MD player the company ever made. He retired in February 2025, and by July he had published six reasons a classic Walkman can never come back.
Stacked together, the six sound airtight. Checked one by one against parts suppliers, sales figures, and what other manufacturers are shipping right now, the list starts behaving differently, and the reason that survives best is not the one most people would pick.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/07/retired-sony-engineer-walkman-gone-forever-reasons/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=caption
Tomi Engdahl says:
15 Most Trusted Hi-Fi Cable Brands That Survive Every Audiophile Debate, as Ranked by Hundreds of Audiophiles
https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/07/trusted-hifi-cable-brands-survive-audiophile-debate/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=caption&fbclid=Iwb21leAS9yGxjbGNrBL3IHmV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHta5crQ916dOJlS5ltnPbnIwwWeqJJCxqXS0G53Yiu4SfgIWJz36GkpKGfUa_aem_GC0KlqK7N2wdiNo_z46gng
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.whathifi.com/hi-fi/kef-teases-new-luxury-speakers-with-stunning-sound-clarity-sharper-details-and-an-expanded-soundstage
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/07/bass-heavy-tracks-expose-weak-subwoofers/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/audio-music/vibration-speakers.htm
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2024/02/audiophile-grade-headphones-ruined-newbie-favorite-music/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=comment&fbclid=Iwb21leATXHPljbGNrBNcc8XBkb2YFZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQMMzUwNjg1NTMxNzI4AAEefErMNEkoGyCK7h4P91YryYfaTsV70eYKxAwcdF6YzHWNhDs2_xHPZkN_LE4_aem_NwRLCGiQ–U8WT2H0SUWUA
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/07/first-turntable-vibration-study-tested-supports/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/07/first-turntable-vibration-study-tested-supports/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=comment
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2024/07/ifi-audio-claims-feelings-matter-specs/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=comment
Tomi Engdahl says:
Nah, not controversial on the forums. Maybe controversial in their own heads..
Definitely controversial on some audio forums. Maybe you’ve been lucky enough to not run into those with the extreme subjectivist bent?
oh I have! They’re very entertaining. Especially when you tell them that any characteristic of the sound in question that can’t be quantified, is by definition, subjective.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/03/cd-players-tests-expose-one-spec-matters/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=comment
Tomi Engdahl says:
Independent lab tests now show that modern Class D amplifiers measure far cleaner than many Class A designs once considered untouchable. And, multiple engineers, designers, and insiders have backed this up.
Here’s how it happened and what it means for anyone who still thinks Class A defines true high-end sound:.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/11/class-d-crushes-class-a-independent-tests/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=caption
Tomi Engdahl says:
Audiophiles argue about everything, from the physics of power cables to the subjective warmth of vinyl. Objectivists scoff at the snake oil. Subjectivists swear by their tweaks. And somewhere in between? A sea of confused newcomers wondering if they’ve been duped by the word “audiophile.”
See the full list of the most controversial audiophile hot takes here: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/03/audiophile-hot-takes/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=caption
Tomi Engdahl says:
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/03/blind-tests-reveal-only-one-upgrade-matters/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=comment
Tomi Engdahl says:
But if blind testing is fundamentally broken, it should break for everything.
In the compilation, five speaker blind tests all produced clear passes. So under the same general kind of protocols that cables and amplifiers routinely fail, speakers repeatedly stood out as audibly different.
https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/03/blind-tests-reveal-only-one-upgrade-matters/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=comment&fbclid=IwdGRjcATg-XVjbGNrBOD473Bkb2YFZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQMMzUwNjg1NTMxNzI4AAEedHZdA1aiR1evfjfQznKDvYttDdNxQTiHZULHSyIFyufwd4X6HlDGRMaVb0Q_aem_MunptVPTtBHaEMosowBJEg
Tomi Engdahl says:
Name the upgrade you swore you could hear until someone covered up the labels.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Audio companies spend years developing DACs, amplifiers, and interfaces around parts they do not control. Some advanced chips now reach end-of-life within two to five years, potentially disappearing before the products using them have earned back their development costs. Even worse, manufacturers often receive incomplete notice or no notice at all.
Once authorized stock runs out, the choices become increasingly uncomfortable, especially for smaller brands with limited buying power and engineering staff.
Past disruptions have already forced respected companies to rebuild successful products, abandon entire ranges, and search for parts in markets where availability is only the beginning of the risk.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/08/chips-inside-dacs-amps-production-overnight-parts/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=caption
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/08/best-speakers-time-voted-thousands-audiophiles-worldwide/
Tomi Engdahl says:
A great movie subwoofer can shake the room, but that does not guarantee it will blend cleanly with music. Audiophiles chose 15 models that attempt both, spanning sealed cabinets, adjustable ports, passive radiators, servo control, room correction, and app-based tuning.
Their picks include everything from modest 10-inch units to a custom-built 100-inch infrasonic driver.
One model reaches roughly 12 Hz in-room, while another claims extension far below conventional consumer bass. But neither specification alone determined the ranking, which makes the gap between the vote leaders and the technical extremes much more revealing.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/08/best-subwoofers-movies-music-chosen-audiophiles/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=caption
Tomi Engdahl says:
When people spend six figures on an audio system, they expect a massive leap in sound quality. But a former mastering engineer says that expectation misses the point.
He explained why the biggest difference between a $30,000 and $150,000 system has nothing to do with better components. His answer points to a part of the setup most buyers overlook, even at the highest levels.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/02/audiophiles-ignore-difference-audio-system-mastering-engineer/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=caption
Tomi Engdahl says:
“It’s the room and the room treatment. That is the biggest cost factor once you hit the point of diminishing returns in the gear investment.” he wrote.
“Let me spend $15,000 on the gear and $100,000 on the room… it’ll sound better than $100,000 in gear in a $15,000 room.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Don’t hold your breath dudes. This guy doesn’t do science so much as he regurgitates stuff he doesn’t understand, with a leavening of AI sophistry.
Even if directionality were a thing, it would merely mean your directional component was severely faulty and your music permanently distorted.
Directionality == distortion.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Anyone still running Class A knows what it costs. The amp can pull several hundred watts from the wall while sitting idle, most of it turning into heat before a note plays, and efficiency stays under 10 percent while Class D runs between 80 and 97.
People pay that anyway, because of how the midrange feels and because of how the amp holds its grip on a difficult speaker.
Those two things have kept the argument alive for twenty years. But now, the Danish company that put Class D in the mainstream spent the last stretch of its independence building something aimed straight at them.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/08/company-made-class-d-popular-rebuilding/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=caption
Tomi Engdahl says:
A lot of vinyl fans think of Technics turntables as purely analog machines. Drop the needle, spin the record, and everything stays old-school from start to finish.
But Bill Voss, Technics’ Business Development Manager in the U.S. says that belief is not quite accurate, and the surprise is not where most people assume it is.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/01/modern-turntables-not-analog-executive/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=caption
Tomi Engdahl says:
The high-end audio market is full of products that sound like breakthroughs but ignore basic science. They use technical buzzwords to make impossible claims, which often break the very laws of electricity, acoustics, or materials.
Some cost hundreds, others tens of thousands, yet none deliver what physics would allow.
Let’s take a closer look at 15 of the worst offenders that continue to sell anyway in 2026.
Full list: https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/10/worst-snake-oil-products-break-laws-physics/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=caption
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1D4U3cNXqd/
Cable directivity
Tomi Engdahl says:
Sometimes if you want to carry a brand you gotta carry what they want you to. Might just be collateral damage.
But also a lot of these things do have a purpose, but the snake oil comes from what people claim the purpose is, or that it will solve problems that don’t exist. Like shielded cables, if your system is quiet you don’t need them, but sometimes you’ve got some interference that does require a shielded cable.
Ryan Brown I’ve always gotten a benefit from music shielded cables in the recording world. I would never even consider using unshielded cables for anything that can use them
Tomi Engdahl says:
Chris Withall you don’t connect it. There are 4 AC-coupled twisted-pair balanced transmission lines that do not require a ground reference. This type of structure really only picks up common-mode interference and the receivers are designed with a very high amount of common-mode rejection. You don’t get ground loops here.
And before you start in on shielded Ethernet cable, that was never intended for anything other than very short cable runs in applications that need the e-field shielding for reducing radiated emissions for secure communication isolation.
Tomi Engdahl says:
There are certain tracks that reliably turn a skeptic into a believer the moment they hear them on a proper system. Not because of volume or bass, but because of one specific moment in each song where the difference becomes undeniable.
Thousands of listeners voted on which tracks do this best, and while some picks are the typical songs you’d likely expect, others have caught us off guard.
The genres range wider than you’d expect, and the number one track dominated the vote by a wide margin.
Here’s the full list: https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/05/tracks-audiophiles-play-convert-skeptic-hifi-believer/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=caption
Tomi Engdahl says:
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2024/07/apple-patent-dacs-promises-sound-quality/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=comment
Tomi Engdahl says:
Class D has spent years getting faster, cooler, smaller, and harder to dismiss. Yet plenty of listeners still prefer Class A or AB for reasons that spec sheets never fully settled.
Now one of the companies that helped push Class D into the mainstream is taking another run at those remaining objections. The new design comes after years of work, an old patent discovery, and some unusually stubborn engineering problems.
On paper, the result gets into territory that would have sounded unrealistic not long ago.
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/08/company-made-class-d-popular-rebuilding/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=caption
Tomi Engdahl says:
Full story: https://www.headphonesty.com/2024/08/vandersteen-exposes-hifi-wasteful-practices/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=comment
Tomi Engdahl says:
➡️ The Map — your guide to understanding Audio Drones.
Yesterday I scaled those walls. Four peer-reviewed metallurgy papers from four independent research groups. Four semiconductor manufacturer application notes from Analog Devices, Renesas, Intersil, and Microchip. The full mechanism chain, cited from primary sources.
Here is what happened next. An audio objectivist named Ronald Meyer posted six words.
“Peer reviewed does not mean scientific fact.”
Read that sentence twice.
The one thing the objectivist class demanded for thirty years arrived. And the moment it arrived, peer-reviewed science was reclassified as insufficient. Not by a fringe commenter. By the class — dozens of dismissive comments. Every catchphrase in the inventory came out behind them. Snake oil. You have a bad amp. If you actually did a properly constructed double-blind test. The wall was rebuilt in a new location them moment the receipts arrived.
The rigor was never the standard. The identity the wall protected was.
Five archetypes. Every audio objectivist who has ever attacked high-end audio in these threads fits at least one of them. Most don’t know which one they are. The room always does.
➡️ Archetype One — The Slogan Parrot.
“Google skin effect and frequency”
“Audio cables carry AC, not DC”
“Do you mean to tell me that people actually believe this bullshit?l”
“Peer reviewed studies also show that the ears are terrible measuring instruments”
The most common. This man carries a catchphrase inventory he mistakes for an argument. Google skin effect. Audio cables carry AC not DC. Bits are bits. An oscilloscope shows nothing. The oscilloscope shows everything. He deploys the phrase, waits for tribal approval, and when the phrase is answered with the physics it names, he does not respond to the answer. He deploys the next phrase. Or he goes quiet. The catchphrase was never meant to be defended. It was meant to be recognized. That is not an argument. That is a tribal membership card he hopes no one asks him to explain what it means.
➡️ Archetype Two — The Sneer.
“Too bad you have no clue what you’re talking about.”
“This is patently absurd.”
“Yall are high. This is snake oil.”
“Are these four separate peer reviewed facts in the room with us?”
“The peers were equally retarded”
“I’m not a metalurgist, but I’m quite sure this is total bullshit”
“Arrows don’t mean jack.”
The Slogan Cycler with the technical costume removed. No vocabulary. Only tribal signaling. Snake oil. More money than brains. Y’all are high. Just plug it in and enjoy the music. Same operation. Thinner vocabulary. The man who types snake oil under a post about electromagnetic field management has not evaluated the claim. He has recognized the claim is outside the tribe’s authorized inventory and reached for the group-membership token. Snake oil is the audio objectivist class’s password. Repeated at every attempt to engage, because the phrase is not an argument. It is a signal that the man deploying it belongs to the tribe that does not have to argue.
➡️ Archetype Three — The Pivot Artist.
“If RF interference is affecting the stability of your amp… you HAVE A BAD AMP. It would also probably fail FCC certification… The cables aren’t important.”
The most sophisticated. This man concedes the physics in one sentence and dismisses the conclusion in the next, without noticing the contradiction between the two sentences. Yes, RF exists on cables — but if RF is affecting your amp, you have a bad amp. Yes, semiconductor junctions demodulate — but that would fail FCC certification. The concession preserves the appearance of engagement. The dismissal preserves the identity. The Pivot Artist has moved the conversation off physics and onto equipment blame without noticing he has done it, and he does not respond when the move is named. Blame the amp. Blame the DAC. Blame the FCC. Blame anything except the variable the tribe has not authorized as real. That is the class’s canonical escape hatch — and it has been running since before the current generation of objectivists was born.
Archetype Four — The Missing Reader.
“Peer reviewed does not mean scientific fact.”
“Explain it to me like a 3rd grader.”
The most diagnostic. This man demanded peer-reviewed studies for thirty years. Yesterday the studies arrived. Not one commenter who had asked for peer-reviewed science returned to the thread to say the peer-reviewed science had been read and here is where it fails. Not one. In a thread with over 300 comments. Instead the demand was reclassified as insufficient in real time. Peer reviewed does not mean scientific fact. Explain it to me like a third grader. Where is the properly constructed double-blind test — then, when protocols are offered, silence. Where is the measurement — then, when measurements are cited, that’s not the right measurement. Every wall in the objectivist inventory operates the same way. The demand is not a criterion. The demand is a wall. When the wall is climbed, the wall is rebuilt in a new location. Every audio objectivist who has ever demanded a study he was not prepared to read is running this pattern. The room has watched it for thirty years.
➡️ Archetype Five — The AI-Assisted Credentialer.
“AI is only as good as the engineer using it! FACT!”
The newest. This man runs an LLM to hold the technical line as long as possible. The LLM does the engineering. The human writes the credentialing tail at the end, when the LLM has already conceded the mechanism steps and the identity cannot survive the concessions. As an engineer, I. I’ve worked in this field for forty years. My team built thirty wire-drawing machines. AI is only as good as the engineer using it, FACT. The seam between the LLM prose and the human credentialing is visible in the sudden collapse of syntax, the appearance of all-caps emphasis, and the pivot from engineering to biography. When the LLM’s honest engagement produces concessions the identity cannot survive, a second account arrives to reset the argument to before the concessions happened. The LLM is doing rigor. The human is doing identity defense. When the two diverge, the human overrides the LLM. This is the newest defensive move in the audio objectivist inventory and it is going to become the dominant one as more of the class deploys AI on their behalf.
All five archetypes share one root.
The man decided his conclusion before he encountered the evidence. The evidence arrived. It threatened the conclusion. The conclusion is welded to his identity — tribal membership, professional credential, self-image as the smart one who cannot be fooled. Revising the conclusion costs more than defending it. So the peer-reviewed study becomes not-really-peer-reviewed. The mechanism gets conceded and the chain gets denied. The catchphrase gets deployed and the answer gets ignored. The LLM does the engineering and the human adds the credentialing tail. And the demand for rigor gets rebuilt in a new location the moment the previous location is met.
That is not skepticism. That is self-preservation cosplaying competence.
The demand was never the standard. The wall is their standard.
Peer-reviewed science was demanded because it was believed to be undeliverable — therefore unfalsifiable — therefore permanent. When the wall was climbed, a new wall appeared in the same location. Peer-reviewed does not mean scientific fact. That is the class’s founding move exposed in six words. The rigor was theater. The identity was the load-bearing element. The theater was staged to protect the identity, not to arrive at a conclusion.
Tomi Engdahl says:
➡️ The Map — your guide to understanding Audio Drones.
Yesterday I scaled those walls. Four peer-reviewed metallurgy papers from four independent research groups. Four semiconductor manufacturer application notes from Analog Devices, Renesas, Intersil, and Microchip. The full mechanism chain, cited from primary sources.
Here is what happened next. An audio objectivist named Ronald Meyer posted six words.
“Peer reviewed does not mean scientific fact.”
Read that sentence twice.
The one thing the objectivist class demanded for thirty years arrived. And the moment it arrived, peer-reviewed science was reclassified as insufficient. Not by a fringe commenter. By the class — dozens of dismissive comments. Every catchphrase in the inventory came out behind them. Snake oil. You have a bad amp. If you actually did a properly constructed double-blind test. The wall was rebuilt in a new location them moment the receipts arrived.
The rigor was never the standard. The identity the wall protected was.
Five archetypes. Every audio objectivist who has ever attacked high-end audio in these threads fits at least one of them. Most don’t know which one they are. The room always does.
➡️ Archetype One — The Slogan Parrot.
“Google skin effect and frequency”
“Audio cables carry AC, not DC”
“Do you mean to tell me that people actually believe this bullshit?l”
“Peer reviewed studies also show that the ears are terrible measuring instruments”
The most common. This man carries a catchphrase inventory he mistakes for an argument. Google skin effect. Audio cables carry AC not DC. Bits are bits. An oscilloscope shows nothing. The oscilloscope shows everything. He deploys the phrase, waits for tribal approval, and when the phrase is answered with the physics it names, he does not respond to the answer. He deploys the next phrase. Or he goes quiet. The catchphrase was never meant to be defended. It was meant to be recognized. That is not an argument. That is a tribal membership card he hopes no one asks him to explain what it means.
➡️ Archetype Two — The Sneer.
“Too bad you have no clue what you’re talking about.”
“This is patently absurd.”
“Yall are high. This is snake oil.”
“Are these four separate peer reviewed facts in the room with us?”
“The peers were equally retarded”
“I’m not a metalurgist, but I’m quite sure this is total bullshit”
“Arrows don’t mean jack.”
The Slogan Cycler with the technical costume removed. No vocabulary. Only tribal signaling. Snake oil. More money than brains. Y’all are high. Just plug it in and enjoy the music. Same operation. Thinner vocabulary. The man who types snake oil under a post about electromagnetic field management has not evaluated the claim. He has recognized the claim is outside the tribe’s authorized inventory and reached for the group-membership token. Snake oil is the audio objectivist class’s password. Repeated at every attempt to engage, because the phrase is not an argument. It is a signal that the man deploying it belongs to the tribe that does not have to argue.
➡️ Archetype Three — The Pivot Artist.
“If RF interference is affecting the stability of your amp… you HAVE A BAD AMP. It would also probably fail FCC certification… The cables aren’t important.”
The most sophisticated. This man concedes the physics in one sentence and dismisses the conclusion in the next, without noticing the contradiction between the two sentences. Yes, RF exists on cables — but if RF is affecting your amp, you have a bad amp. Yes, semiconductor junctions demodulate — but that would fail FCC certification. The concession preserves the appearance of engagement. The dismissal preserves the identity. The Pivot Artist has moved the conversation off physics and onto equipment blame without noticing he has done it, and he does not respond when the move is named. Blame the amp. Blame the DAC. Blame the FCC. Blame anything except the variable the tribe has not authorized as real. That is the class’s canonical escape hatch — and it has been running since before the current generation of objectivists was born.
Archetype Four — The Missing Reader.
“Peer reviewed does not mean scientific fact.”
“Explain it to me like a 3rd grader.”
The most diagnostic. This man demanded peer-reviewed studies for thirty years. Yesterday the studies arrived. Not one commenter who had asked for peer-reviewed science returned to the thread to say the peer-reviewed science had been read and here is where it fails. Not one. In a thread with over 300 comments. Instead the demand was reclassified as insufficient in real time. Peer reviewed does not mean scientific fact. Explain it to me like a third grader. Where is the properly constructed double-blind test — then, when protocols are offered, silence. Where is the measurement — then, when measurements are cited, that’s not the right measurement. Every wall in the objectivist inventory operates the same way. The demand is not a criterion. The demand is a wall. When the wall is climbed, the wall is rebuilt in a new location. Every audio objectivist who has ever demanded a study he was not prepared to read is running this pattern. The room has watched it for thirty years.
➡️ Archetype Five — The AI-Assisted Credentialer.
“AI is only as good as the engineer using it! FACT!”
The newest. This man runs an LLM to hold the technical line as long as possible. The LLM does the engineering. The human writes the credentialing tail at the end, when the LLM has already conceded the mechanism steps and the identity cannot survive the concessions. As an engineer, I. I’ve worked in this field for forty years. My team built thirty wire-drawing machines. AI is only as good as the engineer using it, FACT. The seam between the LLM prose and the human credentialing is visible in the sudden collapse of syntax, the appearance of all-caps emphasis, and the pivot from engineering to biography. When the LLM’s honest engagement produces concessions the identity cannot survive, a second account arrives to reset the argument to before the concessions happened. The LLM is doing rigor. The human is doing identity defense. When the two diverge, the human overrides the LLM. This is the newest defensive move in the audio objectivist inventory and it is going to become the dominant one as more of the class deploys AI on their behalf.
All five archetypes share one root.
The man decided his conclusion before he encountered the evidence. The evidence arrived. It threatened the conclusion. The conclusion is welded to his identity — tribal membership, professional credential, self-image as the smart one who cannot be fooled. Revising the conclusion costs more than defending it. So the peer-reviewed study becomes not-really-peer-reviewed. The mechanism gets conceded and the chain gets denied. The catchphrase gets deployed and the answer gets ignored. The LLM does the engineering and the human adds the credentialing tail. And the demand for rigor gets rebuilt in a new location the moment the previous location is met.
That is not skepticism. That is self-preservation cosplaying competence.
The demand was never the standard. The wall is their standard.
Peer-reviewed science was demanded because it was believed to be undeliverable — therefore unfalsifiable — therefore permanent. When the wall was climbed, a new wall appeared in the same location. Peer-reviewed does not mean scientific fact. That is the class’s founding move exposed in six words. The rigor was theater. The identity was the load-bearing element. The theater was staged to protect the identity, not to arrive at a conclusion.
➡️ The Map — your guide to understanding Audio Drones.
Yesterday I scaled those walls. Four peer-reviewed metallurgy papers from four independent research groups. Four semiconductor manufacturer application notes from Analog Devices, Renesas, Intersil, and Microchip. The full mechanism chain, cited from primary sources.
Here is what happened next. An audio objectivist named Ronald Meyer posted six words.
“Peer reviewed does not mean scientific fact.”
Read that sentence twice.
The one thing the objectivist class demanded for thirty years arrived. And the moment it arrived, peer-reviewed science was reclassified as insufficient. Not by a fringe commenter. By the class — dozens of dismissive comments. Every catchphrase in the inventory came out behind them. Snake oil. You have a bad amp. If you actually did a properly constructed double-blind test. The wall was rebuilt in a new location them moment the receipts arrived.
The rigor was never the standard. The identity the wall protected was.
Five archetypes. Every audio objectivist who has ever attacked high-end audio in these threads fits at least one of them. Most don’t know which one they are. The room always does.
➡️ Archetype One — The Slogan Parrot.
“Google skin effect and frequency”
“Audio cables carry AC, not DC”
“Do you mean to tell me that people actually believe this bullshit?l”
“Peer reviewed studies also show that the ears are terrible measuring instruments”
The most common. This man carries a catchphrase inventory he mistakes for an argument. Google skin effect. Audio cables carry AC not DC. Bits are bits. An oscilloscope shows nothing. The oscilloscope shows everything. He deploys the phrase, waits for tribal approval, and when the phrase is answered with the physics it names, he does not respond to the answer. He deploys the next phrase. Or he goes quiet. The catchphrase was never meant to be defended. It was meant to be recognized. That is not an argument. That is a tribal membership card he hopes no one asks him to explain what it means.
➡️ Archetype Two — The Sneer.
“Too bad you have no clue what you’re talking about.”
“This is patently absurd.”
“Yall are high. This is snake oil.”
“Are these four separate peer reviewed facts in the room with us?”
“The peers were equally retarded”
“I’m not a metalurgist, but I’m quite sure this is total bullshit”
“Arrows don’t mean jack.”
The Slogan Cycler with the technical costume removed. No vocabulary. Only tribal signaling. Snake oil. More money than brains. Y’all are high. Just plug it in and enjoy the music. Same operation. Thinner vocabulary. The man who types snake oil under a post about electromagnetic field management has not evaluated the claim. He has recognized the claim is outside the tribe’s authorized inventory and reached for the group-membership token. Snake oil is the audio objectivist class’s password. Repeated at every attempt to engage, because the phrase is not an argument. It is a signal that the man deploying it belongs to the tribe that does not have to argue.
➡️ Archetype Three — The Pivot Artist.
“If RF interference is affecting the stability of your amp… you HAVE A BAD AMP. It would also probably fail FCC certification… The cables aren’t important.”
The most sophisticated. This man concedes the physics in one sentence and dismisses the conclusion in the next, without noticing the contradiction between the two sentences. Yes, RF exists on cables — but if RF is affecting your amp, you have a bad amp. Yes, semiconductor junctions demodulate — but that would fail FCC certification. The concession preserves the appearance of engagement. The dismissal preserves the identity. The Pivot Artist has moved the conversation off physics and onto equipment blame without noticing he has done it, and he does not respond when the move is named. Blame the amp. Blame the DAC. Blame the FCC. Blame anything except the variable the tribe has not authorized as real. That is the class’s canonical escape hatch — and it has been running since before the current generation of objectivists was born.
Archetype Four — The Missing Reader.
“Peer reviewed does not mean scientific fact.”
“Explain it to me like a 3rd grader.”
The most diagnostic. This man demanded peer-reviewed studies for thirty years. Yesterday the studies arrived. Not one commenter who had asked for peer-reviewed science returned to the thread to say the peer-reviewed science had been read and here is where it fails. Not one. In a thread with over 300 comments. Instead the demand was reclassified as insufficient in real time. Peer reviewed does not mean scientific fact. Explain it to me like a third grader. Where is the properly constructed double-blind test — then, when protocols are offered, silence. Where is the measurement — then, when measurements are cited, that’s not the right measurement. Every wall in the objectivist inventory operates the same way. The demand is not a criterion. The demand is a wall. When the wall is climbed, the wall is rebuilt in a new location. Every audio objectivist who has ever demanded a study he was not prepared to read is running this pattern. The room has watched it for thirty years.
➡️ Archetype Five — The AI-Assisted Credentialer.
“AI is only as good as the engineer using it! FACT!”
The newest. This man runs an LLM to hold the technical line as long as possible. The LLM does the engineering. The human writes the credentialing tail at the end, when the LLM has already conceded the mechanism steps and the identity cannot survive the concessions. As an engineer, I. I’ve worked in this field for forty years. My team built thirty wire-drawing machines. AI is only as good as the engineer using it, FACT. The seam between the LLM prose and the human credentialing is visible in the sudden collapse of syntax, the appearance of all-caps emphasis, and the pivot from engineering to biography. When the LLM’s honest engagement produces concessions the identity cannot survive, a second account arrives to reset the argument to before the concessions happened. The LLM is doing rigor. The human is doing identity defense. When the two diverge, the human overrides the LLM. This is the newest defensive move in the audio objectivist inventory and it is going to become the dominant one as more of the class deploys AI on their behalf.
All five archetypes share one root.
The man decided his conclusion before he encountered the evidence. The evidence arrived. It threatened the conclusion. The conclusion is welded to his identity — tribal membership, professional credential, self-image as the smart one who cannot be fooled. Revising the conclusion costs more than defending it. So the peer-reviewed study becomes not-really-peer-reviewed. The mechanism gets conceded and the chain gets denied. The catchphrase gets deployed and the answer gets ignored. The LLM does the engineering and the human adds the credentialing tail. And the demand for rigor gets rebuilt in a new location the moment the previous location is met.
That is not skepticism. That is self-preservation cosplaying competence.
The demand was never the standard. The wall is their standard.
Peer-reviewed science was demanded because it was believed to be undeliverable — therefore unfalsifiable — therefore permanent. When the wall was climbed, a new wall appeared in the same location. Peer-reviewed does not mean scientific fact. That is the class’s founding move exposed in six words. The rigor was theater. The identity was the load-bearing element. The theater was staged to protect the identity, not to arrive at a conclusion.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Dtwk2X1YT/
For thirty years the audio objectivist has had one wall they thought was unassailable — Where is the peer-reviewed study? Where is the properly constructed double-blind test? Where is the measurement? Snake oil! More money than brains. Just plug it in and enjoy the music. Every audiophile in this room has heard those phrases. Most have heard them for decades. The wall is the founding wall of the objectivist class — the thing that could never be climbed, therefore the thing that never had to be answered. Never could be answered — in their minds.
Recently I climbed that wall. Four independent metallurgy papers. Four semiconductor manufacturer application notes from Analog Devices, Renesas, Intersil, and Microchip. The entire mechanism chain, cited from primary sources, laid out in a public thread for anyone to read.
Here is what happened next — analysis pinned in comments ⬇️
Tomi Engdahl says:
People often say vinyl sounds better, yet the real reason comes down to specific albums and specific pressings. Some records gain more depth, space, or impact because of how they were mastered and cut. Others show little difference at all. And, there are some that are actually worse.
The difference usually comes down to mastering choices and how each version was prepared.
This list focuses on albums that showcase what makes vinyl playback stand out in a clear and repeatable way, arranged from the oldest to the newest. Each entry includes versions worth seeking out.
Full list: https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/04/vinyl-pressings-expose-streaming-cds/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=caption
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.headphonesty.com/2026/05/most-important-parts-audio-chain-ranked-audiophiles/?utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=caption