I'm An Audiophile and I Won't Apologize for It

Funny, I see the problem already, posted on February 20, 2015 at 19:43:50
jedrider Audiophile Posts: 15168 Location: No. California Joined: December 26, 2003	Miles Davis, Stravinsky, John Coltrane, Joni Mitchell. If you don't have people the likes of them, why bother with the rest?

He skipped over the heart of it...., posted on February 20, 2015 at 20:22:33
Steve O Audiophile Posts: 12383 Location: SE MI Joined: September 6, 2001	...like $14,000 ethernet cables, cryo everything, PHT dots, brilliant pebbles and so on.

RE: I'm An Audiophile and I Won't Apologize for It, posted on February 21, 2015 at 00:42:39

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

The root problem comes from two different angles....

One is the lack of comprehension or appreciation amongst the masses of how live music sounds, so anyone's quest to reproduce it does not compute with these people. Although these people have existed in the past, they exist today in far greater proportions. Because the exposure to good live music and good audio systems in recent time has not been nearly as widespread. (The media spoonfeeding the masses prefab acts like Lady Gaga and the Blackeyed Peas doesn't help either.)

The second is the "inferiority complex" amongst those who seem unable to pick up what audiophiles notice, from a sonic standpoint. And they are somehow "offended" over the notion that their perceptions might be "inferior" to those of audiophiles. Often calling them "golden ears", "crackpots", or "luddites" in the process. Not realizing it's not "hearing ability" that separates them from audiophiles, but the lack of training of what to listen for. (The author of the article touched on that.)

The sad part about "audiophile ridicule" is that it's mostly ego driven, not really an interest to advance the art. And it ultimately hinders the art. For I do think the disdain for audiophile feedback has taken audio design on a path of compromise and gimmicks, rather than pushing it to greater heights. (This is a major contrast to the advancement of video technology, where such compromise has NOT taken place.)

Although I've never taken this "ridicule" personally, it bothers me that the it too often seems to be shallow excuses by designers to cut corners and compromise performance.

Excaliber store in DC, posted on February 21, 2015 at 04:15:02

geoffkait

Excaliber was a really cool high end store. It closed circa 1987. Makes ya think.

"Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you."

RE: I'm An Audiophile and I Won't Apologize for It, posted on February 21, 2015 at 05:58:14
fantja Audiophile Posts: 15524 Location: Alabama Joined: September 11, 2010	Thanks! for sharing. I rather enjoy FK writings. I would like to know which cables were in that A/B listening test, though.

+1, posted on February 21, 2015 at 06:56:40
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 37666 Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	Well said.

RE: I'm An Audiophile and I Won't Apologize for It, posted on February 21, 2015 at 09:07:57

Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 12506
Location: Fredericton NB
Joined: June 20, 2000

Well, he considers himself an audiophile, so why should he apologize for it? Has anyone asked him to apologize for it? So his article makes no sense from the beginning. On the other hand, when he makes claims about his abilities to detect differences in cables, interconnects, capacitors, accurate electronics and so on, some of us want to know if he can substantiate such claims. He apparently has not. That's his privilege, but then he shouldn't complain that some of us are sceptical about some of the things he claims to be able to hear.

But he should apologize for false statements in his article. His first paragraph contains an outrageous falsehood.

"Back then I read Stereo Review, which insisted that pretty much all audio components sounded alike. (If they measured the same on a test bench, they’d sound the same in your living room.)"

First of all, Stereo Review never said " pretty much all audio components sounded alike."

I have some hesitation in calling this a lie (although Kaplan should know enough to back up his statements), but he may be relying on his remembered impressions of SR. Still, that impression is simply flatly false.

The other sentence, the one in parentheses, is highly misleading. For one thing, as Mike Kuller has often assured me, different components never measure the same. In fact, a lot of equipment measured well above established limits of audibility.

Now, I am sure that listening to a good system 30 years ago (that would be about 1985) might amaze someone who had never heard a decent system. He doesn't give any idea what the system was that initiated him into high fidelity, but I can assure you that everything he described could have been obtained with systems costing a whole lot less than $50,000, less than $4,000 if memory serves me correctly.

"Trumpets sounded brassy, violins silky, tympani boomy, clarinets reedy, and they were all laid across the “soundstage,” just like in a concert hall, in spacious depth and lifelike proportions."

Yeah, like almost 3-D. The speakers were Altec 19s (properly adjusted), the cartridges were probably the top line Shure and the Grado F3E+, and I don't remember the amp or the TT. Yeah that system surely cost less than 4 grand. Now, I didn't consider the 3-D image to be particularly realistic, as live music seldom if ever sounds like that.

For another misleading incident, it was not Randi who pulled out of the challenge to submit the Pear Anjou speaker cables to a DBT it was actually the manufacturer, Pear. Indeed, the article by Michael Fremer you linked makes that clear, however MF decided to interpret it. MF then wanted to do a different test with his own cables, which was not the challenge Randi offered.

Then, he says something about an A-B test he took, only 5 trials, and being informed that his results may be a statistical anomaly. He proposes the alternative that maybe he actually heard the differences. Yeah, maybe, except he shows no interest in taking a better test.

-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

RE: +1, posted on February 21, 2015 at 09:14:16

Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 12506
Location: Fredericton NB
Joined: June 20, 2000

You and Todd, Fred Kaplan, and so on can try to psychoanalyze those who are sceptical of a lot of audiophile claims all you want. But that's just a red herring. What you fail to do is show that you can hear the differences between accurate amplifiers operated within their design limits, cables, interconnects, good DACs, capacitors, and so on.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

Here's Mr. Teflon again! , posted on February 21, 2015 at 09:45:17
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 37666 Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	What you fail to do is show that you can hear the differences between accurate amplifiers operated within their design limits, cables, interconnects, good DACs, capacitors, and so on. Only the insecure and deaf require validation. And wait for "good evidence to come in". :)

yawn, posted on February 21, 2015 at 09:50:16
Todd A.	"You could tell what a Baggins would say on any subject without the bother of asking him." - J.R.R. Tolkien ...which could be said of certain denizens on this website as well.

RE: I'm An Audiophile and I Won't Apologize for It, posted on February 21, 2015 at 10:10:29

JayG
Audiophile

Posts: 859
Location: So. California
Joined: January 22, 2002

The writers seems pretty defensive to me. I have been an audio enthusiast since the 60s
and I don't recall people ever picketing in front of my house because I have very expensive gear. Frankly, most people don't even know what an audiophile is let alone have any awareness of high-end gear. The most common comment I have heard is "I probably wouldn't be able tell the difference anyway.

I suspect the most argumentative folks would likely be those who are also invested in this hobby i.e. passion. But at the end of the day, who cares if someone holds a negative view. I have always made it a point to only spend my own money, not anyone else's.

LOL!, posted on February 21, 2015 at 10:13:23

mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 38130
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003

...who cares about proving differences it they bring you more long term musical enjoyment.

Can you prove one restaurant's main course tastes better than another's?

You don't trust your own senses?

Guess you eat a lot of cheap fast food.

Moronic arguement.

zzzzzzzzz...(nt), posted on February 21, 2015 at 10:16:03
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 38130 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003	(nt)

RE: Excaliber store in DC, posted on February 21, 2015 at 10:17:17
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 38130 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003	...I believe back in the day they were the ones who brought equipment over to Tony Cordesman's (AHC) house and set it up for him to review.

Excellent article..., posted on February 21, 2015 at 10:18:34
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 38130 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003	...Fred Kaplan is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist and a jazz expert.

RE: I'm An Audiophile and I Won't Apologize for It, posted on February 21, 2015 at 10:21:10
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 38130 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003	...to skeptics, I always describe being an audiophile like a driving enthusiast. If I just want to get from point A to B, a Honda Civic will do just fine. But if I want to enjoy driving there, and I can afford it, I'll drive a Porsche. My expensive stereo is the Porsche.

His Amazing Randiness, posted on February 21, 2015 at 11:08:20

geoffkait

Fremer was wise to pull out if in fact he did since Randi's tests are impassable. Hence the million dollar prize. same with the dude who was going to take the million dollar challenge for Intelligent Chip. A very silly scam. All carefully orchestrated by the dude from Butthole Surfers, Kramer. But the reason Randi went after audiophiles is he somehow got in it his head that audiophiles who bought or reviewed expensive cables or whatever had paranormal abilities. So very funny. You cannot make this stuff up.

The auto analogy is pretty weak..., posted on February 21, 2015 at 11:17:19

Steve O
Audiophile

Posts: 12383
Location: SE MI
Joined: September 6, 2001

...the superiority of the Porsche is based on sound, well understood engineering principles and tends to be quite objective. While Joe six pack may not be able to afford a Porsche, he understands and appreciates what's behind it. OTOH, the most publicly visible aspects of audiophillia have tended to reject objectivism in favor of what appears to be mystical and majik excess with a good measure of one upmanship thrown in for good measure. Overall , a much less inviting environment to the uninitiated.

Fahrvergnügen was just a VW advertising campaign slogan.

" and tends to be quite objective. ", posted on February 21, 2015 at 11:50:53
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 37666 Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	Right. Tends to be. :) Do you know the handling difference between a mid-engined car and a conventional one? What handling metrics quantify the lower rotational inertia? Certainly not lateral cornering. Same thing in audio for those who have experienced better.

It's one anyone can identify with..., posted on February 21, 2015 at 11:52:31

mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 38130
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003

>...the most publicly visible aspects of audiophillia have tended to reject objectivism in favor of what appears to be mystical and majik excess with a good measure of one upmanship thrown in for good measure.>

Until they hear a well set up high end stereo and experience music through it - like actually driving the Porsche to see how much fun driving can be.

Joe sixpack doesn't understand the engineering of the Porsche any better than the design, parts choice and topology of the stereo amplifier - nor do most care.

In both cases it's about the resulting emotional experience.

The mysticism, majik and one upmanship you mention are usually words used by objectivist anti-audiophile deniers, not the uninitiated.

But wait...here's an objective test for you..., posted on February 21, 2015 at 12:07:17
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 38130 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003	...since objectivists like to demand listening tests which block another sense which can interfere, they want the tests done blind. The same can be done with food testing! Taste two dishes with your nose plugged and see whether you can taste a difference or which one tastes better. Pretty objective and just as scientific.

Good as any. On a more esoteric but less exotic note..., posted on February 21, 2015 at 12:19:27
soulfood Audiophile Posts: 3725 Joined: August 9, 2001	"While Joe six pack may not be able to afford a Porsche, he understands and appreciates what's behind it." ...Joe six pack can afford the less expensive manual transmission/clutch but can't appreciate the enthusiast's fun factor.

RE: But wait...here's an objective test for you..., posted on February 21, 2015 at 12:35:44
Pat D Audiophile Posts: 12506 Location: Fredericton NB Joined: June 20, 2000	I believe taste and smell are very closely allied. ----- "A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

RE: But wait...here's an objective test for you..., posted on February 21, 2015 at 12:38:24

mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 38130
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003

...as are sight and listening.

Removing sight from listening tests tends to make small differences disappear.

Just like removing smell from a taste test.

One is just as scientific as the other.

RE: But wait...here's an objective test for you..., posted on February 21, 2015 at 12:46:46

A.Wayne
Audiophile

Posts: 2527
Location: Front row center
Joined: November 30, 2011

Then combine all of them ....... :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b2XYZ-YQEM

Agree, posted on February 21, 2015 at 12:52:43
Goober58	The reek of defensiveness and insecurity in the audiophile community is pretty gross. I try to be careful so as to avoid joining in on the circle jerk. It's kind of sad as it seems at times the best we can do to come together is to revel on the ignorance of others.

RE: I'm An Audiophile and I Won't Apologize for It, posted on February 21, 2015 at 12:53:04

regmac
Audiophile

Posts: 7366
Joined: April 7, 2002

“The sad part about "audiophile ridicule" is that it's mostly ego driven, not really an interest to advance the art.”

Don’t confuse “ego driven” with indifference. Yeah, a few pundits go out of their way to bash audiophiles, but the vast majority of rational human beings are simply indifferent to this hobby. And that's why there's not much ridicule for audiophiles to contend with. Moreover, I suspect it’s this benign neglect of the hobby by the vast majority of humanity that is really the bone of contention for many audiophiles. “Why aren’t my friends and family taking **my** hobby seriously?!”

It was Kierkegaard who noted that the one insult more injurious than all others is indifference.

Perhaps some folks have an inferiority complex where audiophiles are concerned. But to suggest this is true for most people who are dismissive of the hobby strikes me as pompous and self-serving.

You seem to be out of touch with Joe sixpack..., posted on February 21, 2015 at 12:54:39

Steve O
Audiophile

Posts: 12383
Location: SE MI
Joined: September 6, 2001

...can't disagree that Joe probably doesn't understand the details of the engineering underlying the performance of a Porsche but he knows it's there and can relate to it and readily appreciate the result. Not so with high end audio. Lately, what gets publicized is the fringe aspect of it, not the mainstream (assuming there is one). And the fringe can seem pretty kooky to someone on the outside.

Bottom line is that high end audio is largely irrelevant to the average person and the fringe stuff just adds an embarrassment factor to the situation. Given a choice betw a $100K audio system and a $100K Porsche, Joe is going to choose the Porsche every time. It wouldn't surprise me if Joe were given the choice betw a $10K HTS and a $100K audio system, he'd choose the HTS....unless he could sell the audio system and purchase both a used Porsche AND a new HTS with the proceeds of the sale. In that case he might opt for the audio-only system.

BTW, the use of the word "denier" I think is not entirely appropriate. I know of no one denying the existence of audiophiles but I do know of some that deny the benefits of the apparent mysticism and majik often associated with audiophillia. Unfortunately for audiophilliadom, the majik stuff is often what the uninitiated gets exposure to these days and it frequently leaves a negative impression.

I'm An Audiophile and I Won't Apologize for It, posted on February 21, 2015 at 13:01:34
Steelhead Audiophile Posts: 863 Location: AK Joined: December 11, 2003	Appreciate you posting. I tried to read it yesterday but was denied as I was not a plus member. Of course I drank the koolaide decades ago. Very glad I did as the enjoyment derived from listening made the coin spent on my stereo overall a bargain. Fred Rocks!!!!

RE: But wait...here's an objective test for you..., posted on February 21, 2015 at 13:01:52
Pat D Audiophile Posts: 12506 Location: Fredericton NB Joined: June 20, 2000	Not in the same way. ----- "A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

"Lately, what gets publicized is the fringe aspect of it", posted on February 21, 2015 at 13:09:39
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 37666 Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	And exactly who is doing that? It's certainly not the music enthusiasts who are trying to share the experience that goes beyond the mid-fi world. You're absolutely right. There is a decided minority of folks who seem to get the greatest pleasure mocking the extreme (pebbles, dots, other BS) without having any understanding of the larger picture of what there is to appreciate.

As usual the concept of purpose is buried in the ruble, posted on February 21, 2015 at 13:13:32

Goober58

And to me that's far more important than what one can afford - which really should be a secondary consideration. Define your purpose then make your decision on what you should buy. Only then consider the budget. Just because one can afford the Porsche hardly means its a better choice than the Honda. Unless conspicuous consumption is the purpose.

I think that's the big fallacy of high end audio. Most people don't need to continue to spend more to get better performance - ie. they just don't need better performance. I think the concept of sound quality has been bastardized by the industry and audiophiles have been duped into believing more money means better sound. Yes one may need more money to get better performance (if for whatever reason they require it) however that is not to be confused with better sound. One should be able to buy a great sounding stereo with limited volume and bass extension for a moderate listening room for far less money than what is required for lifelike volumes and full extension in large listening spaces. But of course, conspicuous consumption is important, and that why, more so than sound quality, that much of high end audio exists.

But you know what - I'm good with that. It's just sad that so many of us want to believe otherwise, deny our own ignorance while building ourselves us by bashing the ignorance of others.

RE: His Amazing Randiness, posted on February 21, 2015 at 13:30:50

Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 12506
Location: Fredericton NB
Joined: June 20, 2000

Hah! I hardly think Michael Fremer is in any position to chide Randi on name-calling!

What difference does it make whether the abilities some audiophiles have are paranormal or not? It makes no difference to the test.

Taking the test is easy, if one is willing to follow scientific protocols, which would include being sure that the cables were not modified.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

RE: His Amazing Randiness, posted on February 21, 2015 at 13:41:56
geoffkait	Making sure the cables are not modified. Good one! How about making sure the Intelligent Chip is not modified? Ha! The test was going to be done where? On Randi's super duper high end boom box? Lots of Laughs!

RE: +1, posted on February 21, 2015 at 13:45:08

regmac
Audiophile

Posts: 7366
Joined: April 7, 2002

"What you fail to do is show that you can hear the differences between accurate amplifiers operated within their design limits, cables, interconnects, good DACs, capacitors, and so on."

If true, then that is a glaring failure and calls into question the integrity of those who continue to make the knowledge claim sans validation. As any scientist or philosopher will tell you, the burden of proof is on he who makes the knowledge claim. A stubborn failure to validate one's own claim is indicative of one who is either: delusional, dishonest or infantile. And unfortunately this venue suffers from a liberal sprinkling of all three.

That's the role of non-experience, posted on February 21, 2015 at 14:03:21

E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
Since: April 5, 2002

You don't have the foggiest clue.

Only then consider the budget. Just because one can afford the Porsche hardly means its a better choice than the Honda.

As for me, I own both. An S2000 (along with a Ridgeline and ST1300) and a Boxster . Both will put a smile on your face. Both will corner at 0.9G or better. Both will top 150 or better.

One, however, offers a level of refinement and control - especially at the extremes that sets it clearly apart.

...ie. they just don't need better performance.

Not everyone has the same perceptual capabilities, but they'll never know until they have the exposure.

But of course, conspicuous consumption is important, and that why, more so than sound quality, that much of high end audio exists.

Take the straw man approach. That's the role of non-experience.

RE: +1, posted on February 21, 2015 at 14:48:07
bjh Audiophile Posts: 18614 Location: Ontario Joined: November 22, 2003	Yhy you do have way with words, my my ... roof!

Yes , excellent article, passionately written. But ..., posted on February 21, 2015 at 15:22:54

samtellig

I don't know about this business of an amplifier with 1,001 parts. Maybe one could do the job with fewer than 101 parts. And two watts instead of 200.

Since Fred lives in Brooklyn, perhaps he could visit Don Garber for a more minimalist take on audio reproduction. Make that audio resurrection, the real miracle of recorded sound. This can get lost in the noise of the "industry."

Louis and Ella come alive at 30 Verandah Place in Cobble Hill.

That would make a nice title for a Slate article.

I do enjoy Fred's articles. He's the best music writer at Stereophile by far and has put me on to many fine recordings.

RE: I'm An Audiophile and I Won't Apologize for It, posted on February 21, 2015 at 16:26:28

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

"Don't confuse 'ego driven' with indifference."

In regard to the first group I mentioned, you're probably correct....

The indifference is due to the lack of exposure to engaging music that's either live or played back through a good system..... This exposure is IMO what got us interested in high-end audio in the first place.

"Yeah, a few pundits go out of their way to bash audiophiles, but the vast majority of rational human beings are simply indifferent to this hobby. And that's why there's not much ridicule for audiophiles to contend with. Moreover, I suspect it's this benign neglect of the hobby by the vast majority of humanity that is really the bone of contention for many audiophiles. 'Why aren't my friends and family taking **my** hobby seriously?!'"

Not arguing with you there either.... This is why people need to be interested in good music before they'll even think about being interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction.

Let's hope it doesn't really have all that wow., posted on February 21, 2015 at 16:31:35
Dave Pogue Audiophile Posts: 11689 Location: DC Area Joined: October 9, 2001	And by "wow," I don't mean anything good.

RE: +1, posted on February 21, 2015 at 16:37:41

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

"What you fail to do is show that you can hear the differences between accurate amplifiers operated within their design limits, cables, interconnects, good DACs, capacitors, and so on."

Whether this is actually true or not isn't even the point.... The *presumption* of this has led to the systematic discounting of feedback from end users by designers, which IMO has provided an excuse to produce products of compromised quality.

If someone can "prove" I cannot tell the difference between a kazoo and pipe organ, I don't really care.... If I have to fault audiophiles in this regard, they take this as "embarrassment".... But they really shouldn't. Good designers should listen to all feedback, even if half of it seems "tin-foil-hat-ish"...... They might discover some of the feedback was actually valid.

RE: His Amazing Randiness, posted on February 21, 2015 at 16:40:58
Pat D Audiophile Posts: 12506 Location: Fredericton NB Joined: June 20, 2000	You're too funny! The comparison would have to be between a CD allegedly modified by the Intelligent Chip and one without the Intelligent Chip. Modified or not, show that it makes an audible difference. ----- "A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

RE: +1, posted on February 21, 2015 at 16:41:12

Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000

"If true, then that is a glaring failure and calls into question the integrity of those who continue to make the knowledge claim sans validation. As any scientist or philosopher will tell you, the burden of proof is on he who makes the knowledge claim. A stubborn failure to validate one's own claim is indicative of one who is either: delusional, dishonest or infantile. And unfortunately this venue suffers from a liberal sprinkling of all three."

If you're citing the designers, I agree.... If you're citing the end users, I disagree.... The end users are just seeking product satisfaction, not "knowledge".

RE: +1, posted on February 21, 2015 at 16:56:38

Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 12506
Location: Fredericton NB
Joined: June 20, 2000

When you talk about end users seeking "product satisfaction," that changes the standard to what equipment they prefer. I advise people to get equipment they prefer, so I think I pretty well agree with you there.

Designers no doubt try to design equipment they like. Reviewers, on the other hand, try to rate equipment in a way which will be relevant to other people. Or, at least, readers are likely to expect that they do so. This can work reasonably well with speakers because we know speakers sound different and that most people with normal hearing tend to prefer the same sorts of characteristics in speakers, though I must say that there are some reviewers whose taste in speakers is so far from my own that I give their opinions little weight.

-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

RE: But wait...here's an objective test for you..., posted on February 21, 2015 at 17:20:37
Tre' Industry Professional Posts: 17305 Location: So. Cal. Joined: February 9, 2002	That's not what's meant by blind. Blind just means the listener doesn't know which he's listening to. He gets to keep his eyes open. Tre' Have Fun and Enjoy the Music "Still Working the Problem"

RE: His Amazing Randiness, posted on February 21, 2015 at 17:31:01
geoffkait	You're kidding, right? The Amazing Randi is a has been Vegas magician. Why would he give two hoots about what audiophiles can or cannot hear? I mean, basically his Foundation was strictly going after spoon benders and dowsers. He was just using audiophiles because they were convenient and made good copy.

It's called...., posted on February 21, 2015 at 18:11:50
rlw Audiophile Posts: 3347 Location: Near West Palm Bch, FL Joined: August 29, 2006	A lower polar moment of inertia - the mass is centralized, not hanging at either end of the vehicle. -RW-

RE: That's the role of non-experience, posted on February 21, 2015 at 20:00:11

Goober58

"You don't have the foggiest clue."

LOL - nothing you've said contradicts my points.

"One, however, offers a level of refinement and control - especially at the extremes that sets it clearly apart."

I never said anything different. Having experienced it or not makes no difference if one doesn't need, want, can't support, or even enjoy it. Of course once experiencing it one may desire it and have to have it, some might find it too costly and others couldn't imagine spending one penny more to have it.

Not everyone who buys it appreciates it for it's performance, some buy it for conspicuous consumption. Just like not everybody who does not buy it can't afford it - some people just don't want it.

"Not everyone has the same perceptual capabilities, but they'll never know until they have the exposure."

And I think it's almost hilarious to think people don't buy these things because they haven't experienced them. They don't buy them because they don't want them.

It's quite arrogant and self serving to think people don't buy high performance cars and/or expensive stereos because they lack perceptual capabilities. Some people just don't care and others don't care enough to make the kind of sacrifices required to fully realize the benefits of either.

"Take the straw man approach. That's the role of non-experience."

I didn't say that (your paraphrasing my comment doesn't represent the point I was making), in fact I made it very clear, that conspicuous consumption wasn't the only reason for the existence of high end audio.

The world isn't black and white like you want it to be. One might have experienced high end audio or high performance autos and concluded they don't want it. It's not about those who have perceptual superiority vs. those with sour grapes and no money.

And it's your kind of self promoting ignorance that I find so off putting about in this hobby. It's not good enough for you to enjoy your purpose you need to justify it by demeaning others. No different than those with no perceptual ability and/or no money justifying their purpose by demeaning yours.

RE: That's the role of non-experience, posted on February 21, 2015 at 20:36:40

E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
Since: April 5, 2002

I never said anything different.

Sure you did. Let's revisit the comment to which I responded:

Just because one can afford the Porsche hardly means its a better choice than the Honda. Unless conspicuous consumption is the purpose.

You so totally don't understand the experience of driving.

...some buy it for conspicuous consumption.

You're continuing to sound like a broken record.

And I think it's almost hilarious to think people don't buy these things because they haven't experienced them

Forget buying. Experiencing. I consider it sad. Most folks have no idea what is available.

...that conspicuous consumption

You really should get that knee jerk looked over. :)

That's what I said, posted on February 21, 2015 at 20:37:24
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 37666 Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	Can you answer the question?

Denying it is pure ignorance, posted on February 21, 2015 at 21:42:56

Goober58

Make no mistake about it there's plenty of conspicuous consumers to make up for the sour grapes. Denying it is pure ignorance.

LOL - you sound like a gay guy trying to convince me the pleasures of having sex with another man. No kidding. I enjoy women, and practical audio equipment and automobiles.

I don't really give a hoot about the pursuit of the absolute sound, the ultimate driving experience or experiencing the love of another man.

You're welcome to do such things and I respect your desire to do so - but believe me my not partaking in similar pursuits has nothing to do with my ability to afford or my perceptual comprehension.

I'm comfortable believing, in fact knowing, that how much one spends on audio or automobiles has little to do with how enthusiastic one is about either pursuit. Someone can buy his way into a fraternity but that hardly makes him an enthusiast.

Make no mistake about it there's plenty of conspicuous consumers to make up for the sour grapes. Denying it is pure ignorance.

"I don't really give a hoot about the pursuit of the absolute sound", posted on February 21, 2015 at 22:00:11
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 37666 Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	That's quite obvious. There's no danger of anyone finding you have the passion for replicating the live music experience. You're missing the entire point of the article. Differences exist and for some strange reason, Kaplan points out there are some who attack those who hear those differences and claim they are somehow delusional. You just sound like a grumpy old man. :)

It's a double edged blade, posted on February 21, 2015 at 23:15:52

Goober58

"There's no danger of anyone finding you have the passion for replicating the live music experience. "

No I don't but I don't have a problem with those that do. Fact is given the recordings I chose to purchase such a purpose is bound to fail.

"You're missing the entire point of the article. Differences exist and for some strange reason, Kaplan points out there are some who attack those who hear those differences and claim they are somehow delusional."

So? My father bought a Bose home theater system and showed it to me with the greatest enthusiasm. Why should I kill his joy?

Funny thing was they researched the industry and this is what they felt was an informed decision. They ponied up extra cash for the Bose system and IMO was a status purchase. Indeed they were very proud of their choices.

For people like him and maybe most people the kinds of articles that ruffle the audiophiles feathers are perfectly appropriate. The fact is the same chords are struck when marketing audiophile gear to audiophiles - difference being every budding audiophile knows that Bose is bad news.

The vast majority of people aren't even willing to use CD quality source material. Why what these people think or say is important to audiophiles is beyond me. WTF would an audiophile care? And conversely why would someone into high compression mp3 care about the PONO or high res? Like I said elsewhere in this thread - the defensiveness and insecurity on the part of audiophiles is gross. Hey if this is how we chose to use our bandwidth maybe those detractors are onto something.

"You just sound like a grumpy old man. :)"
Fair enough

what kaplan doesn't say, posted on February 22, 2015 at 02:51:43

Tom Schuman
Audiophile

Posts: 2632
Location: Bremen
Joined: October 22, 2003

What Kaplan doesn't mention is that the industry 1) pandering to people with more cash than sense and 2) being run by marketing people, not people who understand technology, has resulted in a wildly deflated performance to price ratio in the industry. Enough is known about good sound that $5,000 is MORE THAN ENOUGH (or should be) for a very good sounding system that tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the recording values and the music recorded.

Instead, you have Kaplan and other 'professional reviewers' suggesting a 'goosebump effect' is only possible in the high 5 figures, which does a disservice to most everybody except designers of overpriced jewelry.

Heck, I get very decent sound at home with a system that cost a total of under $1000, some new, some used, including a midrange pionner amplifier from like 1980, and pair of 35 year old speakers bought from a DIYer who replaced the drivers and replaced the passive radiator with a port! And yes, I have heard what the best systems can do.

Good CDs and vinyl sound quite good in my patched together ebay system, and you can instantly tell the difference between a good and bad recording.

The ear/brain adjusts, and we move on.

I find the obsession with things that matter very little on the whole, like esoteric cable designs, absurd, and most audiophiles should, too. But to each his own, and there is always someone who will spring for a hoped 'increase' in sound quality (and of course, hear it after 'needing to hear it' to justify the expense.) I suggest that audiophiles in general have a heightened need to feel that the time and money they spend on the hobby is well-spent, even when it's not.

Notice, nowhere in my post did I say I 'wouldn't/couldn't hear any differences' between A and B, only that in most situations, your ability to adjust to the components in front of you, and the quality of the recording/pressing, is more important than some claimed technical innovation on the playback side that just doesn't matter.

RE: I'm An Audiophile and I Won't Apologize for It, posted on February 22, 2015 at 03:51:15

middleground

Great post!

Read the responses and my only comments are that religious fervour can never be held back and that special pleadings are held on to so extremely tightly.

RE:any way to contact him...., posted on February 22, 2015 at 04:10:51
wangmr Audiophile Posts: 2410 Location: Downtown Joined: November 29, 2012	i see he's written a book about how the (Western) world changed in 1959 - i'd like to write him about it and propose another year. thanks for interest. roger wang

Contact him through Stereophile(nt), posted on February 22, 2015 at 06:47:28
samtellig	(nt)

RE: what kaplan doesn't say, posted on February 22, 2015 at 06:54:12

middleground

The ear/brain processor does such a marvellous job of adapting that I have realized decades ago that the window allowing one to hear differences closes very quickly when introducing a new component into a system. The ability to hear differences of the order of magnitude put forth by true believers is another story and requires ESP.

A whole other discussion is considering when one does believe that a difference exists is whether it is, in fact and for the long run, an improvement.

At this stage I am simply hoping against hope that subjective reviewers will improve their methods to something clearly out of the helter-skelter range they are all using.

That's probably quite interesting..., posted on February 22, 2015 at 06:59:35
geoffkait	Do you have a translation for that?

Nice story Goob, posted on February 22, 2015 at 07:12:17

E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
Since: April 5, 2002

Funny thing was they researched the industry and this is what they felt was an informed decision.

But has nothing at all to do with Kaplan's observations about the curious chorus who attack what they don't understand or care about. Similarly, why attack your parent's perspective if it differs from yours?

BTW, my elderly Mom was quite pleased with an Electrophonic 8-Track player. Naturally, "status" didn't play a role in her happiness. :)

I think you've got it right, Herr Schuman., posted on February 22, 2015 at 08:24:47
samtellig	The real problem with the "industry" is the industry itself. (You wouldn't believe how many people in the industry agree.)

Experience based analogies., posted on February 22, 2015 at 09:15:36
soulfood Audiophile Posts: 3725 Joined: August 9, 2001	"LOL - you sound like a gay guy trying to convince me the pleasures of having sex with another man. No kidding. I enjoy women..." Huh? "I don't really give a hoot about the pursuit of the absolute sound, the ultimate driving experience or experiencing the love of another man." Not even a small hoot? "Denying it is pure ignorance." Is it really that difficult to concede?

Loving another man????, posted on February 22, 2015 at 10:30:29
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 38130 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003	...the discussion was comparing the experience of high end audio to driving a high performance car - an analogy even the uninitiated can relate to. So now you find latent homosexuality to be the equivalent as well?

RE: His Amazing Randiness, posted on February 22, 2015 at 10:33:22

John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 4045
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003

>Fremer was wise to pull out if in fact he did since Randi's tests are
>impassable.

Fremer didn't pull out, Randi did, after Fremer had got the editorial staff
of Scientific American to organize and proctor the tests. Randi saw that
million dollars potentially disappearing. :-)

Randi subsequently said that even if Fremer had passed the listening test,
Randi wouldn't have to pay up the million dollars because Fremer wouldn't
have been able to prove that he passed the test due to psychic means.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

Sadly, ...., posted on February 22, 2015 at 11:53:52
stehno Manufacturer Posts: 739 Location: Oregon Joined: November 8, 2001	Sadly, and what nobody seems to get is that from a performance perspective the "high-end" audio industry is still very much in its infancy. I'm just sayin' .... But somebody needs to say it.

Onwards!, posted on February 22, 2015 at 12:24:46
genungo	What must the "high end" audio industry do to move forth from the diaper stage?

RE: +1, posted on February 22, 2015 at 12:48:47

regmac
Audiophile

Posts: 7366
Joined: April 7, 2002

"If you're citing the designers, I agree.... If you're citing the end users, I disagree.... The end users are just seeking product satisfaction, not "knowledge"."

Hi Todd:

Thanks for your thoughtful replies, here and elsewhere. I have in mind reviewers who throw 600 words at the "audible differences" between comparably priced SS power amps that deliver about the same wattage. Is there **any** objective proof that reviewers are capable of discerning what they insist are noticeable differences or are audiophiles being fed nothing more than anecdotal stories?

Last year, a well-known Pinot Noir producer admitted to me that, over the years, when the occasions have arisen, his ability to pick out his own wine (blind) from a small group (4-5) of other Pinots was pretty poor. I suspect amplifier manufacturers would have the same problem, as well as reviewers who have lived with the same amp for years.

But don't hold your breath waiting for such refreshing candor from the audiophile community.

Concede what - that often expensive audio is a status purchase?, posted on February 22, 2015 at 12:49:44

Goober58

It's not like hearing it, or driving a high performance car is like crack cocaine. Do it once and you're hooked for life.

And FWIW I find the peculiarities required to justify the pursuit of absolute sound to be quite gay. And how much denial we will get on these peculiarities depends on whether we are trying express how good it can be (no need to advertise why it sounds this way) or why it sounds so bad (every reason to advertise why it sounds this way).

There's nothing for me to concede - I've made every concession already. It's others who are in denial.

You're making my point for me, posted on February 22, 2015 at 13:12:21

Goober58

I'm pointing out the differences in opinions. My objection has been to tearing others down the ignorant to justify our (audiophile) position.

I'm happy your mom enjoyed her 8 track player. My mom loved her AM radios, her console and our juke box. My dad (and his 3rd wife) their Bose system.

I think these kinds of people are well served by those critical of high end audio - their satisfaction speaks for itself. Ignorance is bliss and these people are ignorant. Lucky them at least they aren't insecure and defensive.

But have nothing to do with Kaplan's article, posted on February 22, 2015 at 13:15:27
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 37666 Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	Go figure. That's what the rest of us are basing our comments upon.

RE: His Amazing Randiness, posted on February 22, 2015 at 14:06:33
Pat D Audiophile Posts: 12506 Location: Fredericton NB Joined: June 20, 2000	None of that has anything to do with the test protocols. The motives and beliefs of the participants and testers are irrelevant to the validity of a good blind test. ----- "A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

A rant would qualify as being more than a little hoot. -nt, posted on February 22, 2015 at 14:08:44
soulfood Audiophile Posts: 3725 Joined: August 9, 2001	nt

Remember that , posted on February 22, 2015 at 14:24:01
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 37666 Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	he is all about "status purchases". His knee jerked at least four times with his discussion with me and even about his parents: They ponied up extra cash for the Bose system and IMO was a status purchase. That must have been his upbringing. Status purchases. :)

When all else fails, posted on February 22, 2015 at 14:50:10
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 37666 Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	go completely off the rails. :)

LOL - nothing failed - it was a perfect analogy just like...., posted on February 22, 2015 at 15:15:45
Goober58	audio and automobiles are not like crack cocaine - one taste and you're hooked for life. Well at least for most people.....

Too funny!, posted on February 22, 2015 at 15:20:47
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 37666 Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	The rest of us are talking about appreciating the performance envelope of various objects and you, well... :)

That's really not true - you are talking about what other people find good enough, posted on February 22, 2015 at 15:42:39

Goober58

As if such defensiveness furthers our cause!

The truth is many, in fact most, people consider consumer grade audio reproduction all they need. I'm good with that- leave em alone. I don't understand the need for audiophiles to continually defend themselves - maybe we are delusional?

Bose doesn't suck - it's great products just look at the post above. People, lots of people, probably more than that are involved in high end audio believe it to be true.

Do you really think, even given another 50 years, that suddenly the public is going to catch on to high fidelity? I think not - it's already been presented to the public and the public, for the most part, just does not care.

How many times must we ask you to read the article, posted on February 22, 2015 at 15:56:41

E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
Since: April 5, 2002

and understand the obvious?

The truth is many, in fact most, people consider consumer grade audio reproduction all they need.

No $hit Sherlock! You couldn't care less about reproducing live music. We get that!

What does that have to do with the object of the article?

We all know you (and others) are quite satisfied with the mediocre.

Why then do the clueless resort to attacking those who are not?

Mr. Equivocation again., posted on February 22, 2015 at 16:10:26

Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 12506
Location: Fredericton NB
Joined: June 20, 2000

You have given an extremely ambiguous reply:

"Only the insecure and deaf require validation."

What is the validation you are talking about? You are quite vague about that.

When people claim they can hear differences between accurate electronics, such as two accurate amplifiers operated within their design limits, I want to see if there is a reason to believe them.

A lot of people seem to feel threatened when asked if they have performed a controlled blind test to show that they actually can detect the differences in sound they claim to be able to detect. Actually, if they were secure, they would simply reply that they have, or have not. If someone just says that they prefer this or that piece of equipment over some others, based on sighted auditioning, there would be no problem.

Of course, subjective reviewers don't like that since their success depends on people believing them, and if they are simply providing their own preference, there is no reason other people should believe they would have the same preferences, unless the differences are above known audio thresholds. A lot of people here don't seem to like it, either. They may conceive themselves as offering good advice, and seem to feel threatened when their advice is not accepted.

But of course, that provides no justification for supposing that others will prefer the same equipment, unless there is research (such as has been done with speakers) that most people tend to like the same sorts of sonic characteristics of speakers under blind conditions. Even with speakers, I would still prefer to see a review with a good set of performance measurements for speakers such as Soundstage does at the NRC, or Stereophile does, or even Audioholics or Sound & Vision, whose speaker measurements are much less complete in significant respects. AIG is a special case because their speaker measurements get significantly different results from others, but they're still a lot better than nothing.

Often enough, measurements will indicate that some amplifiers are likely to sound different. Stereophile and Soundstage publish the frequency response of amplifiers into a simulated speaker load with an impedance which various widely with frequency. These curves shows that with many speakers amplifiers which have high output impedances (i.e., many tube amps) are likely to sound different than amplifiers with low output impedances.

-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/atmasphere_ma

Agreed., posted on February 22, 2015 at 16:29:23
Pat D Audiophile Posts: 12506 Location: Fredericton NB Joined: June 20, 2000	Yes indeed, one could get a very fine stereo system for $5,000 or less. I have long been amazed that the things which make the least difference such as speaker cables, interconnects, amplifiers (by and large), CDPs, and so on engender the most argumentative defenses. ----- "A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

Answers, posted on February 22, 2015 at 16:29:55

E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
Since: April 5, 2002

What is the validation you are talking about? You are quite vague about that.

Someone else telling you what you hear. :)

When people claim they can hear differences between accurate electronics, such as two accurate amplifiers operated within their design limits, I want to see if there is a reason to believe them.

There's a simple answer. Exposure to better. At least for those who are familiar to the sound of live unamplified music.

I would still prefer to see a review with a good set of performance measurements for speakers such as Soundstage does at the NRC, or Stereophile does, or even Audioholics or Sound & Vision, whose speaker measurements are much less complete in significant respects.

Such is quite useful for very basic frequency linearity purposes. Coincidentally, I performed a frequency analysis of my HT in the bottom octaves, and made some adjustments to the processor configuration and level controls of my subs to produce the most linear response in the bottom three octaves.

These curves shows that with many speakers amplifiers which have high output impedances (i.e., many tube amps) are likely to sound different than amplifiers with low output impedances.

The qualitative results are far different from basic impedance curve results. Far different. :)

RE: His Amazing Randiness, posted on February 22, 2015 at 16:57:41
geoffkait	But it's not a good blind test. It's a rigged blind test.. Hel-loo!

RE: His Amazing Randiness, posted on February 22, 2015 at 17:28:40

Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 12506
Location: Fredericton NB
Joined: June 20, 2000

What test are you talking about? The test Randi offered involved Pear Anjou speaker cables, and even Michael Fremer's article is quite clear that Pear backed out of the challenge. From a business point of view, I think they were wise to back out, because I don't think MF could have detected the differences.

Michael Fremer put forward his own offer, a test with some Tara Labs Omega speaker cables. In the end, Randi did not accept MF's challenge, and there is no reason why they should. Your throwing in that MF had persuaded the editorial staff of Scientific American to "organize and proctor the tests" presumes that they had the expertise to be able to do so. I see no reason to suppose they have any expertise in doing controlled audio double blind tests.

But actually, MF noted that they did not accept using his own cables because they could not be sure they were not altered in some way. That is actually a very good objection, no matter what spin MF tried to put on it.

"Why did Randi's advisors reject my offer? They told him that I might "do something" to my reference TARA cables, or put some kind of secret signal on them that only I could hear, and that would alert me to their being in the system. (I'm not making this up.) Why the advisors thought I couldn't also do that to the Pear or Transparent cables, he didn't explain."

Trying to ridicule this objection, or bringing up the advisors supposed attitude to Pear or Transparent cables (were they asked about them), does not affect the validity of the objection. I remember someone wanted to have Randi test something or other (a Machina Dynamic product?) but wanted to use CDs which were treated with something or other (a fluid?), and they told him the test would have to be done with identical, undamaged CDs, and that no, he could not modify the CDs in any way. He was upset. OK, so Michael Fremer was upset, too, but the objection was quite sound.

And, as bashpromt pointed out in a comment on MF's article, he doesn't need Randi to do a DBT. He could have one done at a university--or, for that matter, Tom Nousaine or Arny Krueger might agree to administer a DBT for him. But no, he just wrote a self-serving article.

As I mentioned in another post, MF is quite capable of calling names so he is not in much of a position to call out Randi's group for similar behavior.

-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

http://www.stereophile.com/thinkpieces/021708swiftboat/

RE: His Amazing Randiness, posted on February 22, 2015 at 17:35:17
Pat D Audiophile Posts: 12506 Location: Fredericton NB Joined: June 20, 2000	Really? Why do you say that? Are the rules not clear? ----- "A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

RE: His Amazing Randiness, posted on February 22, 2015 at 17:50:10

geoffkait

The rules were very clear. Obviously nobody would be able to pass such tests. I was privy to the goings on at the James Randi Education (as it were) Foundation regarding the test protocol for the Intelligent Chip so I have the inside scoop. The whole audiophile blind test thing is ridiculous on so many levels. It's all extremely hilarious and was a brainstorm on the part of Randi to go after unsuspecting audiophiles like he went after spoon benders. Johnny Carson would be proud.

RE: Answers, posted on February 22, 2015 at 18:49:50

Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 12506
Location: Fredericton NB
Joined: June 20, 2000

Well, at least you agree that with many speakers, amplifiers with a high output impedance will likely sound different than amplifiers with a low output impedance. If someone likes the results with a tube amp with a high output impedance, more power to them.

I audition speakers for the most part using amps with a low output impedance and have found speakers I like. I see no reason to muck up their response with an amp with a high out put impedance. But if someone prefers something else, that's there privilege. I advise people to get equipment they prefer.

You actually give no reason why anyone should believe reviewers and audiophiles who claim to hear differences in equipment that appear to be below commonly recognized audio thresholds. Now, if they did controlled DBTs which showed they could, fine. A secure audiophile might extol a piece of equipment, and if asked he/she had done a controlled DBT, could just say, "No." But you and others just react, which leads me to hypothesize that you are not very secure.

Research has shown that most people prefer speakers with similar characteristics, so if several purely subjective reviewers like a speaker, I may put it on an an audition list. But even so, I find a good set of measurements more reliable than reviewer's opinions. My favorite speaker reviewers also do measurements. But of course, you admit that speaker measurements have some value so we agree that, at least. I notice you do FR measurements in your room.

-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

Objective proof..., posted on February 22, 2015 at 20:35:11

mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 38130
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003

...is there objective proof for anything that provides you more emotional and sensual satisfaction?

Restaurant/food review
High performance automobile review
Wine review
High end hotel review
Audio equipment review using music reproduction

The point of each of these, and many others, is for the reviewer to describe their experience so you can try it yourself if it sounds appealing.

If you are unable to distinguish or appreciate the differences between one and another, then no amount of objective information will matter.

RE: Answers, posted on February 23, 2015 at 06:15:17

E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
Since: April 5, 2002

You actually give no reason why anyone should believe reviewers and audiophiles who claim to hear differences in equipment that appear to be below commonly recognized audio thresholds.

I'll be happy to fill in the obvious answer: we who hear lots of different components do too.

But of course, you admit that speaker measurements have some value so we agree that, at least.

To a point, sure. I find it worth the effort to experiment with room placement and treatments for them to sound their best.

RE: Contact him through Stereophile(nt) thanks [n.t.a.], posted on February 23, 2015 at 06:35:41
wangmr Audiophile Posts: 2410 Location: Downtown Joined: November 29, 2012	.

RE: Answers, posted on February 23, 2015 at 10:15:04

Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 12506
Location: Fredericton NB
Joined: June 20, 2000

Me:
You actually give no reason why anyone should believe reviewers and audiophiles who claim to hear differences in equipment that appear to be below commonly recognized audio thresholds.

E-stat:
I'll be happy to fill in the obvious answer: we who hear lots of different components do too.

My reply:

So what is the reason? You again play on an equivocation, as "hear" can refer to perception or detection. That's why I often talk about detecting differences.

I am only mildly in your perceptions about small differences in electronics, but I believe you have them.

But I simply see no reason to accept that you actually can detect small differences unless backed up by scientific data. This could be:

A. Measured differences above recognized thresholds. (Stereophile once did a poorly designed DBT between tube and a SS amp, which unsurprisingly got a positive result whereas they could have just noted that the two amps had audible differences in their measured FR into the speaker load).

B. Results of controlled blind tests.

As I said, I can listen to equipment to form preferences. I don't need you or some reviewer to do it for me.

-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

More answers, posted on February 23, 2015 at 13:09:26

E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
Since: April 5, 2002

So what is the reason?

Lots of practiced ears hear the same qualitative differences.

I can listen to equipment to form preferences. I don't need you or some reviewer to do it for me.

Developing preferences has never been the role of an audio reviewer. It is to reduce a huge field of possible components to a smaller number you can audition. As for preferences, those should be clearly stated in advance by the reviewer. Over time, you may then judge the comments in context of those preferences. They can also suggest qualities that you may never have heard before or be aware of.

It was JWC who introduced me to Dayton-Wright electrostats when I was 19 which became a lasting effect. I tended to prefer speakers that he liked as well. HP, on the other hand, was more about precise imaging, dynamic range and low end punch and less about coherency. While the IRS were definitely impressive sounding, I found the woofer towers sounded like they belonged to a different speaker. That bothered me, but clearly not Harry. He also tended to listen at higher levels than either the good doctor or me. Times I would visit Sea Cliff, I would typically turn down the sub level when I listened alone (then restored his setting). On one occasion, he actually preferred my adjusted setting.

On the other hand, I was very much in tune with his amplification preferences. Hated the Halcros, had mixed impressions over the Edge and ASR amps, wasn't really happy with the Western Electric SE amps (at least on the Nolas), but really enjoyed both the VTL Wotans and Siegfrieds (bought my 450s following hearing the former). They brought home the most natural sounding rendition allowing me to truly hear some of my favorite music as I had not previously heard them. Still happy twelve years later. Fortunately, my speakers are not affected so much by their relatively high source impedance.

It should always be you who makes the decision based upon your musical tastes and preferences. The best reviewers can make it easier for you to in effect audition far more gear than you would likely get a chance to by yourself.

edit: BTW, I had never really optimized the HT system when I updated the processor to a newer Emotiva unit. I just got finished doing that. As with the upstairs system, it look lots of experimentation measuring the effect of a range of changes albeit using different methods. In the end, I found the optimum low pass for the subs, high pass for the mains and center and used the parametric EQ to apply a bit of attenuation (-3db) at two frequencies in the 99-105 hz region. There are still 3 db room nulls around 80 and 160 hz, but the response is now more linear and neutral sounding.

RE: His Amazing Randiness, posted on February 23, 2015 at 13:51:02

geoffkait

The issue is really what system is selected and how the test is performed. If Randi has most of the say in this, then by all means I would back out too. You would prefer to have your own system and be free to treat the system AND the CDs ANY WAY you wish. Wellfed just wanted to give himself the best chance he could to detect differences with the chip in the test. Nothing wrong with that. That's when things went South at chez Randi, when Kramer and Randi started to smell a rat and suspect well maybe this son of a bitch really CAN hear the freaking chip, and pulled the plug.

RE: Why Halcro...? , posted on February 23, 2015 at 13:55:56

A.Wayne
Audiophile

Posts: 2527
Location: Front row center
Joined: November 30, 2011

Why is Halcro the number (never heard one) one punching bag when discussing amplifiers, there are many others failing to deliver, why only Halcro all the time. Morricab for eg, bags both VTL and Lamm.

Whats the beef with Halcro and for the record, it had issues when i looked at it's bench test, so no suprise, if driving below 8 ohm speakers of low sensitivity...

Regards,

http://www.stereophile.com/content/halcro-dm38-power-amplifi

RE: Why Halcro...? , posted on February 23, 2015 at 14:06:31
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 37666 Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	I found it to have a very unnaturally lean tonal balance lacking harmonic richness like you hear with the real thing. It was all bones and no meat. Think tundra in winter. Which is how I find many amplifiers that use prodigious amounts of "corrective" NFB and also why I'm not a fan of switching amps.

High Price, posted on February 23, 2015 at 14:27:51

Bromo33333
Audiophile

Posts: 3502
Location: Ipswich, MA
Joined: May 4, 2004

Yep, the price of audio gear has been skyrocketing faster than inflation.

But ...

Is is VERY possible to put together a frighteningly good stereo system for about $5k. In fact, you could probably do it for about $2k, too.

It can and does get better. But the price goes up, and the pool of buyers drop.

And ...

Since even at entry level, there isn't a large pool of buyers, the mass market audio companies aren't really serious about jumping in (they are going for low volume/high profits - not what they do best).

And the rest is filled by small companies that operate on the low volume/high profit model. The distribution network is either antiquated (lots of middlemen making the original company take in 25-30% of the final price as income) - or it's confusing (buying a $2k component over the internet is not for the feint of heart).

====
"You are precisely as big as what you love and precisely as small as what you allow to annoy you." ~ R A Wilson

RE: Why Halcro...? , posted on February 23, 2015 at 14:32:21

A.Wayne
Audiophile

Posts: 2527
Location: Front row center
Joined: November 30, 2011

E-Stat,

Thanks for the response, Was that consistent with all speakers or just on panels/ dipoles ..? As to NFB, I'm not totally disagreeing, but, isn't that the same as saying , amplifiers with High THD sound natural to you ..:)

We all have our "things" to look at when we select, for me, wimpy high -z drive only amplifiers, just sound wimpy to me, so i stay away from amplifiers that wont exhibit true voltage source into low-Z.

Regards..

RE: Why Halcro...? , posted on February 23, 2015 at 14:40:41

E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
Since: April 5, 2002

Was that consistent with all speakers or just on panels/ dipoles.

Driving Nola Grand Reference at Sea Cliff which is really neither.

but, isn't that the same as saying , amplifiers with High THD sound natural to you ..:)

Everything's relative. I find the quality and spectrum of distortion more important than the quantity below certain thresholds (1-2%). Companies like Ayre and Pass make low distortion amps using zero feedback.

High NFB designs tend to cascade their distortions in very non-linear ways using multiple stages. Fortunately, it's usually very easy to spot those designs as they have unnecessarily high damping factors.

RE: Why Halcro...? , posted on February 23, 2015 at 15:10:39

A.Wayne
Audiophile

Posts: 2527
Location: Front row center
Joined: November 30, 2011

Again, Not disagreeing with you about high NFB amplfiers, a balance is necessary, too much versus too little, is the Ayre no NFB or low NFB, many like to say none, when it's not ...

Fully "balanced" high NFB amplfiers can sound good, single ended not .

Regards..

RE: Why Halcro...? , posted on February 23, 2015 at 15:17:01
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 37666 Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	I believe like many of Nelson Pass' designs, the Ayre MX-R uses no global feedback, only small amounts of local feedback. Like my '81 Stasis.

RE: His Amazing Randiness, posted on February 23, 2015 at 18:01:16
apesma Audiophile Posts: 102 Joined: April 26, 2005	I think wellfed pulled the plug because he knew he could not win. He went from being able to hear the ic at a crowded audio show to being scared to have one person in his room because that would make a difference.

Page:

[ 1 ] [ 2 ]

General Asylum

I'm An Audiophile and I Won't Apologize for It

202.83.104.138