Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Return to Propeller Head Plaza

The Real Belief System Exposed.............

70.176.237.190
Posted on August 13, 2009 at 00:13:32
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 I've apparently hit a hot button with a few of the so-called high-end "naysayers" in regard to an exposed belief system on **their** part, in which stating mere opinions or preferences of audio equipment somehow **implies** "audiophile claims of hearing differences"......

This belief system is apparently so strong, several here are now militantly defending the practice of implying "audiophile claims of hearing differences" from any preference or comment of specific audio equipment that has been posted or published. Mainly because explicit claims from audiophiles stating an ability to "hear differences" have almost never taken place in actuality.

The militant defending of this belief system by the so-called "naysayers" also demonstrates the belief system is very real. Unlike the "belief system" they claim audiophiles follow.

And this belief system should be cited for what it really is- An **excuse** to resent the high-end audio community, by conjuring up false accusations of "whacked" behavior on the part of audiophiles.


RE: The Real Belief System Exposed............., posted on August 18, 2009 at 16:46:42
rditmars
Audiophile

Posts: 4825
Location: Boulder, CO
Joined: May 22, 2003
 Please explain Figure 2 in the paper below.

*
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." - Albert Einstein
This Is Off-Topic Too........., posted on August 18, 2009 at 19:27:48
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "Please explain Figure 2 in the paper below."

To be honest, I have no idea what that that graph is stating....... (I'm not going to speculate what "fluency" is supposed to mean, in the intended context.)

The paper was apparently a "screening procedure" to select or reject listening candidates with a specific hearing acuity. But I don't see how this has anything to do with opinions of an audio components being implied as "claims of hearing ability"........


The X-axis - "Stereo-width discrimination threshold", posted on August 19, 2009 at 07:48:45
rditmars
Audiophile

Posts: 4825
Location: Boulder, CO
Joined: May 22, 2003
 Are you saying this has no bearing on "hearing differences" in the human population?


*
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." - Albert Einstein
RE: The X-axis - "Stereo-width discrimination threshold", posted on August 19, 2009 at 12:18:52
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "Are you saying this has no bearing on 'hearing differences' in the human population?"

I have no idea what it's saying, and I'd by lying if I were to speculate...... What do you think it's saying?

I cannot speak for others, but I find this paper as interesting as watching paint dry........ Hearing ability amongst different people is of zero interest to me to begin with. It is only something the so-called "naysayers" make a big deal about. And I think they do so with the express intent to disqualify or impugn opinions and feedback they don't agree with.


RE: This Is Off-Topic Too........., posted on August 18, 2009 at 19:46:55
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 Fluency is used to screen out subjects, like some of our inmates, who can't or won't describe their own experiences.

The article certainly had its share of psycho-babble, as might be appropriate given its subject. At best it was only distantly related to the subject of this thread.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

I disagree, posted on August 18, 2009 at 09:48:57
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 I think many of the "naysayers" are sincere and are trying to be helpful. Ultimately they are wrong but IMO they are not as wrong as many audiophile wackos.

What really troubles me with the audiophile community and industry as well is that we see so little blind (not DBTs for crying out loud) testing. Comparing say a good $2000 amp with a $10,000 one in a normal listening room, with a reasonable load and actual listening volumes. I have no doubt that some listeners would prefer one or the other and some listeners would have no preference. Ultimately and unfortunately in actuality what we audiophiles have ended up believing is the "assumption" that spending more means getting something that is better. From a purely measureable performance POV I think this assumption holds but at some point it becomes irrelevant. From a subjectivists perspective, once basic subjective performance requirement parameters are met (volume and extension as examples) this "assumption" is absolutely senseless.

The catch-22 here is in general the "naysayers" are mostly objectivists who actually could reasonably justify excessive spending for performances sake yet they mostly deny the reasonableness of such spending. On the other hand the subjectivist, or let your ears decide type of audiophile, are the ones who are making the assumption that increasing spending brings in the magical rewards. Well no one should argue that increased spending alone may effect one's perception of performance nor should we attempt to deny the importance of it. However and most unfortunately it's not the "naysayers" who are denying this influence.
RE: I disagree, posted on August 19, 2009 at 05:10:31
Donald North
Manufacturer

Posts: 910
Joined: February 8, 2001
 Hi-Fi Choice magazine in the UK does blind listening in their product group tests.

Donald North

RE: I disagree, posted on August 19, 2009 at 06:21:13
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 If I recall they have kind of like "shoot-outs" where they bring in 6 or so similarly priced products and listen to them then comment and compare the results. So nice! Not perfect, but like wbat I try do when I buy stuff. It's lots better than just listening to one component and then doing a review while trying to cast the component in the best light possible - how boring, useless and misleading can they be? Surely comparisons between similarly priced, as well as lower price and higher priced components provide much more insight and are much more useful in describing to a potential purchaser exactly what they are getting for their money.



RE: I disagree, posted on August 19, 2009 at 05:44:36
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 >Hi-Fi Choice magazine in the UK does blind listening in their product group tests.<

Well, so they say, but since when they blind test they find differences in things that we just KNOW can't sound different, there must be something wrong with their tests. ;)
RE: I disagree, posted on August 19, 2009 at 05:57:11
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 Just a heads up for you. Lots of people read these threads and your sarcasm, I'm assuming that's what it is, will be missed on them and your comments will be taken out of context.

That little smiley-face at the end..., posted on August 19, 2009 at 08:29:26
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 probably should place the post in its sarcastic context.

Agree, but to split hairs..., posted on August 19, 2009 at 09:47:20
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 that was a "winky-face" - which should be even more emphatic with its intention.

rw

RE: Agree, but to split hairs..., posted on August 19, 2009 at 10:06:09
john curl
Manufacturer

Posts: 4373
Joined: May 16, 2000
 However, the point was well made that many who contribute here, don't believe in real differences in audio equipment and tend to impugn anyone who doesn't share their belief.

You Mean Like When AJinFLA Made Sexual Innuendos About My Wife & A Subwoofer?, posted on August 21, 2009 at 06:44:50
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 John,

Not only do those who don't believe in real differences in audio equipment tend to impugn anyone who doesn't share their audio beliefs, but some of that group are mentally & emotionally sick enough, like AJinFLA, that they'll even go so far as making sexual innuendos about my wife and a subwoofer ---{as if that has anything to do with audio}--- when they cannot rationally or scientifically defend their audio beliefs!

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

And further..., posted on August 19, 2009 at 11:42:31
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 >many who contribute here, don't believe in real differences in audio equipment and tend to impugn anyone who doesn't share their belief. <

...even when they whine about blind tests and such tests are used to determine differences do exist. Once the blind tests refute their dogma, the tests are suddenly suspect. Those people know who they are.
So you think just any old 'blind' test will do? What of controls?, posted on August 23, 2009 at 12:45:48
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 Subjectivists here criticize every blind test without a positive result. But now, according to you, we're not supposed to be able to criticize the positive ones???? GMAB

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
RE: So you think just any old 'blind' test will do? What of controls?, posted on August 23, 2009 at 15:22:48
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 >But now, according to you, we're not supposed to be able to criticize the positive ones???? GMAB<

You can certainly criticize anything you want. But why not do so with ALL DBT's instead of just the ones with positive results? Answer: Because the positive ones upset your belief system. Reasoning audiophiles, with or without experience in blind testing, recognize that even if you do not, Pat. Why not try some of your own? You might have better critical listening skills than you think.

No pat, no breaks given., posted on August 23, 2009 at 14:12:40
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 NO audio DBTs are acceptable, except as parlor tricks. However, it has been pointed out that a double-standard is at play when "acceptable" DBTs are referred to by, say Richard Greene, with not a shred of documentation about anything other than his entirely predictable interpretation, but when a result is referenced that goes against the objectivist grain, THEN you call foul. You should give everyone else a break. You apply critical standards of evaluation only when convenient.
What on earth are you talking about?, posted on August 25, 2009 at 19:02:31
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 RY
"NO audio DBTs are acceptable, except as parlor tricks."

I'll take the word of the experts on this rather than you. Maybe I should try to sic jj on you! Anyway, the FAQ on this site notes that DBTs are an accepted scientific methodology.

"From a strictly scientific viewpoint, DBT has proved to be the only method that is generally accepted for determining the audibility of small differences between audio equipment and cables. It does work."

RY
"However, it has been pointed out that a double-standard is at play when "acceptable" DBTs are referred to by, say Richard Greene, with not a shred of documentation about anything other than his entirely predictable interpretation,"

Some published audio DBTs have achieved positive results, BTW, and I have (tentatively, as nothing is absolutely certain in science) accepted the results.

As far as I know, Richard Greene has referred to some published DBTs, some done by the audio club in Michigan (which seems to know how do to them), and SBTs which he has done at home himself with cables. As best I can tell, Richard Greene knows how to do such tests. In any case, what we are looking for are positive results, but I am certainly not bound to accept the results of every such test.

"but when a result is referenced that goes against the objectivist grain, THEN you call foul. You should give everyone else a break. You apply critical standards of evaluation only when convenient."

Pure speculation, without a shred of evidence. Your evident prejudice seems to have led you astray.

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
You know exactly what I'm talking about: you replied., posted on August 26, 2009 at 02:32:01
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 "RY
"NO audio DBTs are acceptable, except as parlor tricks."
I'll take the word of the experts on this rather than you. Maybe I should try to sic jj on you! Anyway, the FAQ on this site notes that DBTs are an accepted scientific methodology. "

Good for you. My opinion is...well, mine, and you are under no obligation to accept it. However, if you would like to refute it, an appeal to "authority" in this case is weak. Threatening me with jj?? What's he going to do? Suck more life out of my digital files with another codec? That he relies on DBTs is one of his problems, not one of his attributes. And the other appeal to authority - this very websites FAQ page - doesn't change my mind either. DBTs are indeed accepted scientific methodology....in the arena of medical testing. So far, you are not convincing me that my thoughts have gone astray.


"Some published audio DBTs have achieved positive results, BTW, and I have (tentatively, as nothing is absolutely certain in science) accepted the results."

So? As I posted, I don't accept ANY, regardless of outcome. But you forget (or are obscuring) the question: do you pick which DBTs you accept because they support an a priori belief? Anecdotally informing us that you accept some DBTs without giving any information at all about which ones has the effect of reinforcing the claim you are trying to refute. If you would be so accommodating, how about providing the information necessary about these positive result DBTs?


"As far as I know, Richard Greene has referred to some published DBTs, some done by the audio club in Michigan (which seems to know how do to them), and SBTs which he has done at home himself with cables. As best I can tell, Richard Greene knows how to do such tests.

Well, that's right at the heart of it, no? "As far as I know..." RBNG has provided nothing to back up his claims other that anecdote. No published record, no link to a description of the event(s), no corroborating witnesses. What makes you assume that some audio club in Michigan, never named, has any clue as to how to perform a test that achieves credibility? I don't think anyone can, so this third appeal to authority without credentials just doesn't do it for me. And you assume RBNG knows how to perform one of these "tests??" Why would you assume that? Because his "results" and their interpretation align with yours?


"In any case, what we are looking for are positive results, but I am certainly not bound to accept the results of every such test."

No, you are certainly not bound to accept the results of any test that doesn't fulfill the (IMO impossible) criteria necessary for validation. On this point I think you ought to have no confusion: as I do not think that validation can occur, I do not accept ANY result, positive or null. You have not provided any information that would lead one to believe that you have analyzed any particular test to determine its validity. Instead, you've "assumed" that the boys in Michigan know how to perform a DBT, and RBNG surely does, and jj and real_jj and the Codec Monster all know how to do DBTs.... Here's your chance: identify a positive-result DBT that you find acceptable, and either link to the test procedures, or to an analysis of those procedures, or provide the analysis yourself. If you cannot do this, then you will have been unable to refute my claim, and your last sentences - " Pure speculation, without a shred of evidence. Your evident prejudice seems to have led you astray" - will be applicable precisely to you.
Since you don't accept the results of any DBTs . . ., posted on August 26, 2009 at 06:57:42
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 and are not amenable to reason, there's no reason to discuss the matter with you.

Since you make allegations against me without a shred of evidence, there's not much reason to continue that conversation, either.


"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
Mr. Teflon...where are the valid DBTs? Does jj have them in a box somewhere?, posted on August 26, 2009 at 07:38:21
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 "Since you..are not amenable to reason..."

How's that Pat? Because I don't agree with you? please show me the "lack of reason." If you can't (or won't) then you are a hypocrite for making what would be, in your own words, "allegations without a shred of evidence."



"Since you make allegations against me without a shred of evidence, there's not much reason to continue that conversation, either."

Did you read my reply to you? You are the one who doesn't provide any evidence of valid DBT results. If you want to refute my conjecture, then provide something. On the other hand, you can continue to ignore the pleas of others for some sort of back-up. If you can make a convincing argument, I'd be glad to accept it and switch my opinion. I'm giving you the opportunity to change my mind. I'd be pleasantly surprised if you actually tried.



You won't accept any DBTs. No use discussing the matter with you. (nt), posted on August 26, 2009 at 07:54:35
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 .

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
Thought you'd try one of your teflon escapes., posted on August 26, 2009 at 08:43:08
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 I'm giving you the opportunity to convince me I'm wrong.

I also asked you a few very easy questions in my last post. You haven't answered any. Why do you think not a few posters here find your credibility questionable?

Nonsense. You haven't provided a shred of evidence to support you allegations against me., posted on August 26, 2009 at 15:55:16
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 It's up to you to prove them. You haven't and can't.



"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
Bullshit Pat. Try to get back on topic., posted on August 27, 2009 at 03:27:11
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 I don't have to "prove" anything. You're the one who can't answer anyone's questions. You're slippery, Pat, and every time you post you reinforce that impression.

Do you even know what the original topic was?

You make the charge, you get to provide the evidence--if you can., posted on August 27, 2009 at 13:39:19
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 Evidently you can't.

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
Stop being such a pathetic whiny baby, pat., posted on August 27, 2009 at 19:24:20
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 No one needs to prove a social observation. Grow up, and try to participate like an adult. And try to remember the topic.

Robert Young thinks asking for evidence is whining! (nt), posted on August 28, 2009 at 14:06:37
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 .

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
The pitch of your whining is increasing., posted on August 29, 2009 at 07:18:20
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 "evidence" of what, Pat? This isn't science we're talking, its my own opinion of your character. Now put your big boy pants on and grow up, or, to quote the PHP poet bjh, "Away!"

RE: No pat, no breaks given., posted on August 24, 2009 at 13:49:58
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 Positive DBTs would be perfectly acceptable to me, so long as the conclusions aren't overgeneralized and the experimental procedures sufficiently thorough. However, you seldom see these, because most DBT protocols are so insensitive that they don't tend to reveal new knowledge.

Occasionally there is an exception, as in Kunchur's recent work. But then look at all the flack he got from the anti-audiophiles. Disgusting, IMO.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: No pat, no breaks given., posted on August 24, 2009 at 14:16:25
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 "Positive DBTs would be perfectly acceptable to me, so long as the conclusions aren't overgeneralized and the experimental procedures sufficiently thorough."

I'm not sure I agree, but it may be splitting hairs. I don't believe that it is possible to achieve a testing protocol that satisfies. As one can't calibrate a human, the results can never be compared to a control with any meaning. And as hearing is an interpretive act, there is a fundamental problem with the test: the already uncalibrated human is asked to not only identify differences, but to do so through interpretation.

That having been said, I think I agree with you deep down, depending on how you define "overgeneralized." I don't think one can draw any conclusions that extend beyond the extremely specific circumstances of any given test, and as such, at least for me, there isn't much value to be gained from the interpretation.

If I had the time and the money to play amateur scientist, I'd love to seek types of measurements that I could correlate to observation....
RE: No pat, no breaks given., posted on August 24, 2009 at 14:38:08
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 Well if one human does hear a difference between two components at a high level of statistical confidence (including possible "file drawer" effects) in a competently conducted randomized DBT, then one can conclude that at least one subject is sensitive to the difference. In other words, one has a one sided calibration point. Of course the subject might have been hearing artifacts of the test setup that wouldn't appear in actual product usage (e.g. switch box relay noises, ground loops, etc.) so careful and knowledgeable experimental design is required. As you said, it requires a real scientist with real funding, which of course includes wealthy amateurs.

Of course, if a positive result goes against dogma it is likely to be rejected, no matter how well done it is. This is as true of Science as it is of Religion. The difference between these two activities is that scientific dogma changes more rapidly and with less bloodshed.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

agreed., posted on August 24, 2009 at 15:26:48
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 One can achieve a single calibration, but as you suggest, only if the calibration test meets criteria that is awfully hard to achieve. Even then, I'm still not convinced that the putting interpretation into the hands of the testee doesn't automatically invalidate the test.

About religion, I agree completely, but you missed one other difference between it and science: It is, at the moment at least, impossible to prove the existence of god, ro religious claims are umproveable....;)
Isn't That The Truth? (nt), posted on August 24, 2009 at 13:07:10
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 z

Yeah, but that went right over Don's head :) -nt, posted on August 19, 2009 at 10:16:45
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 rw

Your Response is Totally Off-Topic, But............., posted on August 18, 2009 at 19:11:18
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "I think many of the 'naysayers' are sincere and are trying to be helpful."

Agreed.......

"Ultimately they are wrong but IMO they are not as wrong as many audiophile wackos."

How would you define an "audiophile wacko?"

"What really troubles me with the audiophile community and industry as well is that we see so little blind (not DBTs for crying out loud) testing."

This is a function of the designer, not the end user..... (Imagine if a driver likes his car and someone demands him conduct a "blind test" with another car.)

"Comparing say a good $2000 amp with a $10,000 one in a normal listening room, with a reasonable load and actual listening volumes. I have no doubt that some listeners would prefer one or the other and some listeners would have no preference. Ultimately and unfortunately in actuality what we audiophiles have ended up believing is the 'assumption' that spending more means getting something that is better."

I think such assumption exists, but no more or less proportionate in audio than in other consumer products..........

"From a purely measureable performance POV I think this assumption holds but at some point it becomes irrelevant. From a subjectivists perspective, once basic subjective performance requirement parameters are met (volume and extension as examples) this 'assumption' is absolutely senseless."

I don't think the established descriptive parameters or objective measurements can fully depict the performance of audio equipment...... (For example, what turns out to be "extended" might be in the form of distortion components...... )

"The catch-22 here is in general the 'naysayers' are mostly objectivists who actually could reasonably justify excessive spending for performances sake yet they mostly deny the reasonableness of such spending."

The "reasonability" of spending is in itself subjective...... I might think blowing $100 for a knob is unreasonable, but if one wants it, that's his business.

"On the other hand the subjectivist, or let your ears decide type of audiophile, are the ones who are making the assumption that increasing spending brings in the magical rewards."

I cannot speak for others, but it's certainly not the case for me...... I just bought a bunch of cheap metalized polyester caps that in source components, and prefer them over the famous super-expensive Teflon caps...... Go figure.......

"Well no one should argue that increased spending alone may effect one's perception of performance nor should we attempt to deny the importance of it. However and most unfortunately it's not the 'naysayers' who are denying this influence."

I'm not totally disagreeing with your "cost for performance" claim..... But your "disagreement" has nothing to do with the contents in my original post, which cited opinions (regardless of what they are) being implied as "claims of ability to hear differences".........


RE: I disagree, posted on August 18, 2009 at 14:08:08
john curl
Manufacturer

Posts: 4373
Joined: May 16, 2000
 We don't use ABX double blind tests in serious audio comparisons, because they DON'T WORK!
I pointed out some possible reasons, 30 years ago, in an LTE to 'The Audio Amateur' and my opinions were subsequently verified in print, and in person, by a PhD professor of 'History of Science' and its related topics.
ABX testing (in audio) is more like a religion, than real science. We have worked years on the problem an never found a good solution, except to go back to open listening or perhaps A-B blind testing which works OK. So long a A is A and B is B, throughout the test, then OK. However is A can be A or B and B can be B or A appears to shift the decision mechanism in the brain to a different model of the sound, and this loses any subtle attributes to the test.
Same thing happens in taste tests such as New Coke and Classic Coke. It has been published as well. Do most of you believe that the flap, years ago, about New Coke and original Coke was just a fantasy? The ABX tests show it to be so. What do you believe? It is the same with audio.

RE: I disagree, posted on August 18, 2009 at 16:01:31
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 If I do a blind A-B comparison and can identify two components 100% of the time then I can justify the additional expenditure if the preferential one is the more expensive of the two.

Now if I can't identify which component is playing at any given time I may still be able to justify purchasing the more expensive component for some other non-sonic reason.

I don't really see what's so difficult about this whole topic and why it brings such a heated debate.

On one hand I recognize that someone elses DBT or testing results are meaningless to me. In fact I could easily argue that much of my hands on testing first hand experience at best is only relevant to my particular setup on the day the testing took place. I suppose most audiophiles don't understand why I laugh when I hear claims about waiting (sometimes anxiously) for a review of some recently released product.

Yet on the other hand I realize, from first hand experience, that many other factors other than sound can influence my determination of sound quality.
You described your Phantasy World - nothing more. N/T, posted on August 18, 2009 at 12:46:47
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 N/T

Beats vicariously experiencing it then attempting to build it up by beating on a strawman. nt, posted on August 18, 2009 at 16:43:16
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009

After reading your post, I think I know what "ANTI-audiophile wacko" means..., posted on August 18, 2009 at 19:33:06
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 But still no idea what audiophile wacko is.

A detectivist, magazine reader who can't wait for the next recommended components list is an anti-audiophie, posted on August 18, 2009 at 22:41:09
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 whose majority of experiences and understanding about audio is derived from ads, marketing and reviews is in my opinion an ANTI-audiophile. And you my friend, a guy who shamelessly compares the sound quality of two components only having read reviews but never having heard either, are the epitome of an ANTI-audiophile.

I am impressed by your name brand recognition as well as your ability to apply quality standards based wholly on such status, additionally I honor your ability to completely obfuscate component performance criteria at every level. Not to mention how empowered you've become based soley on the vicarious nature of you audio experience I'm impressed that you feel worthy to criticize others who have made a career out of audio design and manufacturing. So nice to see someone thinking so highly of themselves.

Now you know what I consider an anti-audiophile.
I've no idea who you're talking about, and also don't know what "detectivist" means., posted on August 19, 2009 at 09:08:06
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 As for the disjointed rest of it - you're seemingly making a point trying to prove "wacko" status. I should tell you - you're doing pretty good.

Be Very Careful Carcass Don T Doesn't Play Fair, posted on August 24, 2009 at 13:39:51
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 When you're discussing, debating, or arguing with Don T. he doesn't play fair at all. For some strange reason only Don T can understand. Don T apparently feels it's perfectly ok and acceptable for him to be insulting or disrespectful others, like he's doing by implying you're a 'wacko'.

Even after you tell Don you find his behavior insulting or disrespectful he'll continue but, if you do the same thing and insult or disrespect him back in a way he doesn't like ---{like I did when using a varient of his name. For Example: If my moniker was Tom S and I was called Old Tommy S or Old Tommy boy}--- then Don T will go running to the moderators and ask that they intervene whining that you're insulting and/or being disrespectful to him!

Be forewarned....

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

psst..., posted on August 19, 2009 at 11:01:50
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 He's another, like RBNG, that got his sorry arse thrown out of Critics. RBNG was just being a nuisance whereas Don Till (formerly Don T) couldn't contain his rabid anti-audio-press feelings.

I believe they also forbade him from reading audio publications but indications are he has ignored the censure.

LOL
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Another hollow defensive contentless attacking response., posted on August 19, 2009 at 10:29:41
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 Like I said guys lacking hands on experience with a strong desire to verbalize audio philosophy based mostly magazine read experience are detectivists. The anti-audiophiles. Your denial and admitted cluelessness reveal you to be the kind of audiophile I think of when I hear the term audiophile wacko.

I think someone should design a component extremely susceptable to RFI and market it as being a super high resolution component just so guys like you can prove it to yourself when you see how well it resolves difference between power cords. And as an added bonus we can make it's i/o characteristic such that it is much more susceptable to cable L&C so you can have that much more ammo to support your highly resolving conclusion.
RE: A detectivist, magazine reader who can't wait for the next recommended components list is an anti-audiophie, posted on August 19, 2009 at 04:23:17
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 As fictitious a character, at least in the terms of excesses of traits, as the "Golden Eared" audiophile, the "Scientific Proof Claiming" Audiophile, etc. ... every nut seems to require some fanciful character to act as backdrop, something to set the stage as it were, for the demented raving of their own personal hang-up(s).

Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
RE: After reading your post, I think I know what "ANTI-audiophile wacko" means..., posted on August 18, 2009 at 19:53:27
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "But still no idea what audiophile wacko is."

From ebony pucks to magic foil, mystical and controversial tweaks....

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Fine line., posted on August 19, 2009 at 09:11:09
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 What do you say about rollerblocks underneath a CD player - wacko or worthwile tweak? How about audiophile-grade electrical outlets (Oyaide etc.)?

RE: Fine line., posted on August 19, 2009 at 09:39:22
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 There are plausible physical explanations for the effects of vibration on CD players, just as there are on turntables. I have no problem with people putting their CD players or computer audio systems on vibration isolation devices at the time of playback. I don't think isolating an optical disk drive is important in a computer audio system where the CDs are first ripped to hard drive before playing, nor do I think the brand of router connected to the HDTracks.com download server makes any difference in the quality of music that I obtain over the Internet.

Electrical power effects are highly dependent on the local electrical environment and its interaction with audio component design, especially power supplies. So there may be effects. Or there may be none. There is also the possibility of bad wiring, dirty connections, etc. which can be improved by cleaning or replacing outdated components. I had a poorly designed computer UPS that was unreliable when plugged into one outlet and yet worked acceptably when plugged into another outlet in the same room. And I had problems with a hot water heater that couldn't be fixed by several electricians, but which I eventually tracked down to corrosion at the circuit breaker in the fuse box. (Do not mess with AC power wiring if you don't know what you are doing, as there is the risk of electrocution, either to yourself or others as well as possible fire hazards.)

I will add that I am suspicious of claims made by companies that peddle special "audiophile" components that are in many cases just relabled and marked up products available elsewhere. Some companies that sell pro-audio equipment such as converters sell special audiophile products based on the same design but at a substantially higher price. While these may look better I suspect the main benefit of the high price is an extra ego boost to some "audiophiles". Good business, maybe, but not necessarily good sound.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: I disagree, posted on August 18, 2009 at 12:42:36
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 You continually attribute your hang-ups to others.





Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Shoo fly! nt, posted on August 18, 2009 at 16:47:55
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009

RE: The Real Belief System Exposed............., posted on August 17, 2009 at 08:07:27
anthonyh
Audiophile

Posts: 327
Location: NY
Joined: March 9, 2005
 Todd Krieger is always thoughtful and interesting, so maybe I'm losing it in not quite following his argument, e.g. explicit audiophile claims to hear differences rarely arise? Every time I decide to buy a new piece of equipment I am expressing a preference, which means I hear a difference, presumably an improvement. This in no way implies superior hearing ability on my part, or scorn for those who don't share my taste. Would appreciate a little clarification; I suspect-hope-that we fundamentally agree.

RE: The Real Belief System Exposed............., posted on August 17, 2009 at 15:33:53
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 ".... so maybe I'm losing it in not quite following his argument, e.g. explicit audiophile claims to hear differences rarely arise?"

I don't recall it ever arising on Audio Asylum...... (There might be several such cases, but a link would be needed.)

"Every time I decide to buy a new piece of equipment I am expressing a preference, which means I hear a difference, presumably an improvement. This in no way implies superior hearing ability on my part, or scorn for those who don't share my taste."

Exactly. What I'm citing is the willful implying of stated opinions as "claims of superior hearing ability". And then projecting the false implication as a basis to denigrate audiophiles for "delusional behavior" and "golden-ears attitude"......

"Would appreciate a little clarification; I suspect-hope-that we fundamentally agree."

It appears that we do agree.


RE: The Real Belief System Exposed............., posted on August 18, 2009 at 08:38:33
anthonyh
Audiophile

Posts: 327
Location: NY
Joined: March 9, 2005
 Thanks for the answer; yep, we do agree, and keep up your interesting posts, although the cute little endlessly thirsty critter at the bottom is driving me crazy.

RE: The Real Belief System Exposed............., posted on August 15, 2009 at 20:31:06
john curl
Manufacturer

Posts: 4373
Joined: May 16, 2000
 What is wrong with you people? Don't you believe in audio differences?. Do you think it easy to make quality audio? I have found, after more than 40 years of effort, that it is difficult, although I have been more successful than most.

Does it really matter what a few think? nt, posted on August 17, 2009 at 07:39:04
Norm
Audiophile

Posts: 14914
Joined: September 6, 2000
 a

RE: The Real Belief System Exposed............., posted on August 15, 2009 at 20:55:38
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "I have found, after more than 40 years of effort, that it is difficult, although I have been more successful than most."

Well congratulations...... [-;


RE: The Real Belief System Exposed............., posted on August 14, 2009 at 19:20:38
gymwear5@hotmail.com
Manufacturer

Posts: 1218
Joined: April 10, 2002
 My observation is that this part of the hi-fi world did not exist in the early days of hi-fi. In the 50's hi-fi was a hobbyist's world. In the 60's it belonged to the engineers, JBL, Bose, McIntosh, Scott, etc. In the 760's the transistor took over along with the Japanese invasion - very high end loudspeaker market appeared. The birth of Tweekness appeared with the Monster cable and coincided with the birth of the CD. When the battle of sound was captured by the journalists beyond the "friendly" Carver-Stereophile challenge.

Anyone here believe in green felt tip marker rings on CD changing the signal of a played CD? If so you are a fool... Draw the line somewhere else? Cable lifts? You are a fool - unless you like the looks. Draw the line somewhere else? Power Cords, Interconnects, Cryogenic treatment, Cable break in, Amplifier break in - even loudspeaker break in authenticity can be easily disputed and challenged.

Speaking of the Carver Challenge, posted on August 17, 2009 at 17:25:57
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Did you read Bob Carver's recent comments about that? :)

He cheated!

rw

My attempt at drawing the line, following your logic and recommendations:, posted on August 17, 2009 at 11:08:13
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 "You are a fool".

How's that?

"authenticity can be easily disputed": can someone please dispute the existence of this post?, posted on August 17, 2009 at 03:58:25
dave c
Audiophile

Posts: 28377
Location: Ferny Hills
Joined: April 17, 2000
 Is there to be NO difference between ANY components then?
Or are you saying NOTHING can change the sound from any particular piece of equipment?
Should I type louder?
;-)
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
RE: The Real Belief System Exposed............., posted on August 16, 2009 at 10:45:53
john curl
Manufacturer

Posts: 4373
Joined: May 16, 2000
 Then, I am a fool, according to you. What arrogance to presume that you know foolishness from reality. If I listened to you, I would fail as an (objectively) successful audio designer. I would not believe in anything that I have found important to successful audio design. Perhaps, those of you who know 'everything' might just note that my designs are especially recommended in both 'Stereophile' and 'The Absolute Sound' this month, WITHOUT ADVERTISING by Parasound, or any personal interaction by me with the magazines, except at CES, once a year, on occasion. How? Why? Luck? Do you really believe in luck? No, it is because I pay attention to design details that many mid fi manufacturers ignore, yet these 'design details' are difficult to prove with direct measurement. Not impossible, but difficult to prove. Why people continue to contribute to an audio thread in order to pass judgement on others who hear differences, never ceases to surprise me.

The problem is many people "hear differences" when they compare a component with itself, posted on August 17, 2009 at 08:58:01
Richard BassNut Greene
 It's easy to get 50% to 75% of audiophiles to state that they prefer ccomponent A, or prefer component "B", when in fact there is no B.

That large bias toward "hearing differences" among components, when no differences were possible, has been clearly demonstrated in many independent repeatable experiments (with at least one series of experiments reported in an AES white paper).

"I know what I hear" is a statement that comes far from matching what audiophiles are able to demonstrate to witnesses with brand names hidden and no A-B SPL differences allowed.

Reality:
Audiophiles CAN hear audio component differences much better than non-audiophiles ... but audiophiles can hear components differences much less often than they think they can, and can easily mistake a small A-B SPL difference for a meaningful "sound quality" differences.

The fact that your name is John Curl, and you design amplifiers for a living, means you have a vested financial interest in the "everything sounds different belief".

However, no engineering degrees or component designing experience can change audio reality, as reflected in the consistent results of three decades of audio club experiments:
--- "Everything sounds different" is so far from reality for the typical audiophile, that anyone stating all audio components sound different to his ears, is either biased because he is making money from that myth,
or should have his head examined, because it is very unlikely he could even come close to demonstrating that claim in front of witnesses!
No one has before, and most likely no one can.

If an audiophile has to know the brand names in use to "hear differences", but can't hear them when brand names are hidden,
then he is living in an "everything sounds different" audio fantasyland.

Perhaps that's fun, but "everything sounds different is FAR from reality.
.
.
.
RE: The problem is many people "hear differences" when they compare a component with itself, posted on August 17, 2009 at 15:59:46
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "It's easy to get 50% to 75% of audiophiles to state that they prefer ccomponent A, or prefer component 'B', when in fact there is no B."

This is no different from the reviewer who raved about a performance credited to (fraud) Joyce Hatto, which turned out to be the same performance by the actual pianist in which he slammed....... It happens.......

I've personally claimed the same component compared against itself sounded different on a few occasions...... I think nobody who is in this hobby who does claim differences would ever detect the same or identical components one hundred percent of the time. I just don't think it's a big deal whenever this occurs.


"I just don't think it's a big deal whenever this occurs"., posted on August 18, 2009 at 08:08:54
Richard BassNut Greene
 I think it IS a big deal when one out of two audiophiles, or two out of three audiophiles, or three out of four audiophiles, are so biased in favor of hearing A-B differences', that when they compare a component with itself, they will "hear differences" when none are possible!

That implies the "I know what I hear" methodology for judging components will have A HUGE error rate, even when "both" components play music at EXACTLY the same SPL.

The error rate would certainly be even higher with two components playing music at different SPL's, as is almost always true when components are compared.

You and I agree no audiophile is accurate 100% of the time.

We only disagree on the true accuracy percentage when comparing components (other than speakers and phono cartridges).

I say the data suggest accuracy (for electronics and wires) that may not be any better than flipping a coin, even with A-B SPL's exactly matched.

This accuracy issue IS a big deal when:
(1) money is involved (buying a new component), or
(2) giving advice about component to others ("my XYZ wires are great,
even my wife could hear a difference")
(3) questionable "inventions" are involved (Tice clock, brilliant pebbles, intelligent chips, etc)
(4) it can generate a no-holds-barred-character-attack-compare-the-opponent-to-Hitler-vicious-argument-right-here.
.
.
.

RE: "I just don't think it's a big deal whenever this occurs"., posted on August 18, 2009 at 08:36:16
john curl
Manufacturer

Posts: 4373
Joined: May 16, 2000
 What really happens is that audiophiles are FORCED to make a choice, when most of the essential info is already minimized by the ABX type test, AND the changes in the music itself at different parts of the test confuse the test. Sure it happens, that audiophiles can be forced to make fools of themselves, by ABXer's, so what? What counts is whether you can hear differences in equipment, especially while in long term evaluation and use. That is the way the equipment is going to be used in any case.
It is rare that a piece of audio equipment is virtually 'invisible' to a trained listener. It is possible, but rare. Also audio testing is relative 'BUNK' when it comes to being able to listen. Music and voice are more than just test tones, and even older people can hear significant differences consistently. Some of the latest research shows why. Look on this page for the answer. It is here.

Audiophiles are forced to make a choice every time they buy a component, posted on August 19, 2009 at 08:30:28
Richard BassNut Greene
 That choice would be better if the a new component was borrowed and auditioned at home before the purchase decision was made.

That's a choice too.

Even better would be a signle blind audition so a fair comparison could be made with the existing component at home.

That's another choice.

There's no reason to know what brand and model component is in use to judge sound quality.

There is good reason to make sure both components have the same average SPL when making a comparison.

Most audio components other than speakers are "invisible" to most audiophiles (other than audible SPL differences).

Any other conclusion is wishful thinking contradicted by three decades of public demonstrations of listening skills where no one ever came close to demonstrating the "everything sounds different" myth.

Claiming great listening skills that can never be demonstrated to witnesses, is no more impressive than claiming to have a high IQ but never taking an IQ test.

Males in general claim greater skills and abilities in many areas than they really have -- we're all above average in our minds -- and all audio components sound different in some of our minds.

If not one audiophile in the world can demonstrate the "everything sounds different" belief to witnesses, even one time, over three decades so far, I say "everything sounds different" it is yet another (self-serving) myth.

"I know what I hear, and couldn't be wrong" is a faulty audio component comparison methodology for non-clipping electronics and wires because it fails terribly when a component is compared with itself.

Knowledge about audio has nothing to do with unproven beliefs,
and everything to do with objective controlled listening experiments,
even though the results may embarrass some audiophiles,
or make them angry.

Knowledge about audio has nothing to do with emotional reactions,
such as character attacks, to evidence from objective tests that contradicts unproven "I know what I hear, and couldn't be wrong"
beliefs.

It's is pro-audio to say that new speakers will make an audible difference in sound quality, and new wires probably will not.

It is anti-audio to repeat the "everything sounds different" myth,
when no audiophile can ever even come close to demonstrating
such extraordinary listening skills to witnesses.

Audio progress comes from objective knowledge,
not unprovable beliefs repeated again and again,
without proof, as if repetition makes a myth true.

Everything sounds different = true for speakers,
but appears to be an audio fantasyland
for non-clipping electronics and wires

I have no bias in favor of, or against,
the "everything sounds different" belief.

I don't care about beliefs at all.

My conclusions are based on objective evidence -- if new evidence contradicts a conclusion, I'll change the conclusion.

Meanwhile, almost all objective evidence
collected so far
contradicts the "everything sounds different" belief!

My income is not tied to the "everything sounds different" belief.

I have not purchased very expensive audio components that I justify with the "everything sounds different" belief.

I am not trying to be popular by agreeing with "the high-end audiophile crowd".

I am supporting the hobby of collecting and listening to recorded music by helping audiophiles understand whether spending money on new components is likely to make an audible improvement to their audio system.

Every $1000 spent on new wires is $1000 less to spend on new records/CDs or better sounding versions of recordings you already own -- both are "audible differences".

An audiophile who claims ANY new component will make an audible difference (other than SPL, which may be true), is a liar,
whose advice may cause others to waste thousands of dollars.
And I don't tolerate liars well.
.
.
.
.

RE: Audiophiles are forced to make a choice every time they buy a component, posted on August 20, 2009 at 07:12:21
anthonyh
Audiophile

Posts: 327
Location: NY
Joined: March 9, 2005
 RBNG is really off the deep end this time. He has been told repeatedly that no competent audiophile claims that EVERYTHING sounds different. Can he accept the idea that not ANY, but MANY new components will make an audible difference? And to say that we are liars-- a liar is someone who states something he knows to be untrue-- is really uncalled for. John Curl, who is known to sound off on important issues, showed remarkable restraint in his response.

"no competent audiophile claims that EVERYTHING sounds different", posted on August 20, 2009 at 08:00:17
Richard BassNut Greene
 "He (RG) has been told repeatedly that no competent audiophile
claims that EVERYTHING sounds different."

John Curl's post
strongly implies
EVERYTHING sounds different
to his ears.

Using your definition in the first sentence, in quotes:
- Does that mean he is not a "competent audiophile"?

RE: "no competent audiophile claims that EVERYTHING sounds different", posted on August 20, 2009 at 08:47:09
anthonyh
Audiophile

Posts: 327
Location: NY
Joined: March 9, 2005
 Yes, I seem to remember that John Curl does make that claim. All I can say is that for most of us, few of whom are brilliant audio designers like Curl, an awful lot of stuff does sound interchangeable. But I also know that my Luxman solid state and my VAC tubed amps sound different, each with its particular strengths. Would I be able to distinguish between them, stuck in a strange room listening to strange snippets of music with strange people in a double-blind test? Probably not-- and that is why these tests don't proof much except that humans lack any kind of precision functioning as scientific instuments.

RE: "no competent audiophile claims that EVERYTHING sounds different", posted on August 20, 2009 at 21:16:00
john curl
Manufacturer

Posts: 4373
Joined: May 16, 2000
 I find that MOST components sound somewhat different. I don't claim that ALL components sound significantly different to ME, but others might be able to hear more clear differences, yet still others might hear significantly LESS differences. Who cares? If you can't hear any significant differences, why bother with audio components at all?

"If you can't hear any significant differences, why bother with audio components at all? ", posted on August 21, 2009 at 08:41:50
Richard BassNut Greene
 Let's see now, that's a really tough question.

Well. let me say this about that:
-It seems that audio components are REQUIRED,
for those of us who collect recorded music,
to LISTEN to our music!

And NO ONE ever said speakers sound alike or rooms sound alike or non-clipping amplifiers sound just like clipping amplifiers ...

... what we said, which you missed because of having fingers plugged in your ears and humming loudly ...

... is that audiophiles seem to have great difficulty hearing A-B differences other than SPL, when brand names are hidden ...

... results completely unlike knowing the brand names in use, and listening to components playing music at different SPL's, which is the most common A-B comparison methodology used (and sometimes the components being compared are not even in the same room attached to the same stereo system!)

You may unplug your ears now,
and stop humming.
.
.
RE: Audiophiles are forced to make a choice every time they buy a component, posted on August 19, 2009 at 09:26:35
john curl
Manufacturer

Posts: 4373
Joined: May 16, 2000
 Calling me a liar, are you? What poor manners! ;-(

I only defined "liar", posted on August 21, 2009 at 08:30:42
Richard BassNut Greene
 It was your choice to call yourself one.
Oh well, no one is perfect.
,
,
,
RE: The problem is many people "hear differences" when they compare a component with itself, posted on August 17, 2009 at 10:14:52
john curl
Manufacturer

Posts: 4373
Joined: May 16, 2000
 Richard, if you feel that audio differences are not important, why do you invest time in repeating yourself here, over the years? Why do you care? What is in it for YOU? Are you trying to help, or are you trying to make trouble?
More than 40 years ago, I decided to make audio design my lifetime goal, and I still enjoy trying to make the best audio equipment that I can. I am not the only person who can hear the differences between audio equipment, consistently. However, if I found that there really was no difference between quality audio equipment, I would retire, or work on different areas of audio design. However, I still find that I can improve the sound of audio equipment, by applying new design techniques and by guarding against second rate components that are only a superficial replica of the original design and intent of the original engineers.
Personally, I resent the imputation by you or your cronies that I am somehow 'tainted', just because I am an expert in my field, because I work in it, rather than a hobbyist, or an academic.

"What is in it for YOU? Are you trying to help, or are you trying to make trouble? ", posted on August 18, 2009 at 07:32:56
Richard BassNut Greene
 My goal is to help audiophiles invest their money in:

(1) Better music collections, and
(2) Better sounding audio systems,
if they already have decent music collections.

Many audiophiles may invest in "better wires":
- Doing that leaves them less money for (1)
and a low probability of (2) any audible change
to their stereo system.

Most likely "better wires" would be a bad investment,
if the goal was better sound quality. That conclusion is
based on three decades of independent controlled listening
tests, where only small SPL differences were audible among
different brand/model wires.

Some audiophiles may appreciate objective data before they make a purchase decision.

Others may prefer "I know what I hear and couldn't be wrong".

There's no reason for "I know what I hear" audiophiles,
such as you,
to attack the characters
("are you trying to make trouble")
of those audiophiles
who do listening experiments
and reject "everything sounds different" claims
that not one audiophile in history
has ever demonstrated to witnesses.

Obtaining knowledge about what is audible to one's ears
and what is not audible, may not be as simple as
believing "everything sounds different"
but that knowledge should lead to less money wasted
on components that are likely to make little
or no audible difference, such as wires,
and more money invested wisely in things
likely to make an audible difference, such as
new recordings, better quality recordings,
amplifiers that don't clip, better speakers,
and room acoustics treatments.

The (wealthy) audiophile neighbors
who taught me about audio in the 1960's,
and loaned me their Stereophile magaziines,
asked only one thing in return:
"Help other audiophiles when you're our age"

And I am, whether the vocal "everything sounds
different" believers like it, or not.
.
.
.
"Help other audiophiles when you're our age", posted on August 18, 2009 at 09:45:24
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 >The (wealthy) audiophile neighbors
who taught me about audio in the 1960's,
and loaned me their Stereophile magaziines,
asked only one thing in return:
"Help other audiophiles when you're our age"<

How much longer before you get to be their age and start helping???? :)

I seriously doubt that any further aging, posted on August 19, 2009 at 17:13:58
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 will miraculously revive his ability to answer those tough questions asked of him that he continues to ignore like:

1. Which components have you heard in your own system?
2. What are the details of all those DBTs that have occurred over the past thirty years that you constantly allude to?

My money says he will continue with the Scarlett O'Hara defense!

I can't think about that right now. If I do, I'll go crazy. I'll think about that tomorrow.

rw

Do your own research -- do your own tests -- then tell us how well you can hear, posted on August 20, 2009 at 07:54:26
Richard BassNut Greene
 Click on the link to learn something about audiophile double-blind tests.

Or just remain in the dark,
as you are now.
.
.
.
.
.
That's "research???", posted on August 21, 2009 at 14:10:16
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 A google search is not research. And you have nothing to back up your claims. Credibility=zero.

Great proof, El Nutto !, posted on August 20, 2009 at 08:16:08
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 That you cannot remember why it is you believe what you do! What was that again? Your amnesia reminds me of the Tom Hank skits on SNL called "Mr. Short Term Memory".

Remember this?

rw

Kerr the Comedian, posted on August 19, 2009 at 08:49:07
Richard BassNut Greene
 Your percentage of good jokes is still too high,
so I suspect you have a comedy writing team:
Would you like me to mail you my Mother-in-Law to write new jokes?
She's a riot!
.
.
.
Your MIL, posted on August 19, 2009 at 09:30:18
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 >Would you like me to mail you my Mother-in-Law to write new jokes?<

Well, that would be appropriate payback after the Keith Moon CD - haha! Or as Bob Marley would have said "No Keith No Sing"! :)

>I suspect you have a comedy writing team:<

Buddy Sorrell wrote the last gag, with a little help from Mel Cooley.
All Recorded Music Sounds the Same., posted on August 18, 2009 at 08:06:29
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "My goal is to help audiophiles invest their money in: (1) Better music collections..."

Richard, why do you care about better music collections? Don't you realize that all recorded music sounds the same?

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

I suspect that, posted on August 18, 2009 at 09:05:23
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 since he has demonstrated that he is incapable of remembering what components he has ever listened to, it is just as likely he cannot remember what music he's listened to. So, what's the difference? :)

rw

For your repeated and lame insults, you may ..., posted on August 18, 2009 at 08:10:51
Richard BassNut Greene
 be sentenced to nine months listening to Yoko Ono for twelve hours a day.
.
.
.
.
RE: The Real Belief System Exposed............., posted on August 17, 2009 at 01:13:03
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 I agree about the presumption of foolishness...... Unless if it's something dealing with both safety and ignorance. (Like severing the original safety ground to an outlet and using a localized earth ground instead.)

Even the most questionable tweaks that cannot be scientifically shot down, I say let people do what they want. The worst thing I'll say is I'm skeptical that placing flashlight batteries atop the speakers will improve sound...... It might be totally imagined, but then again, there might be something going on that defies conventional scientific doctrine. But if someone likes the effect, better lie low with the speculation, and let him enjoy what he's hearing........

And even in cases that can be scientifically refuted (such as the purported "virtues" of asynchronous sample-rate conversion), that should never stop someone from liking it nonetheless.


RE: The Real Belief System Exposed............., posted on August 16, 2009 at 12:23:37
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Yup, we are all deluded fools.

Who would preach repentence to such a people but a second order deluded fool subscribing to the principle of: If I don't understand it, it doesn't exist.

Regards, Rick

PS: Glad there's some pragmatic engineers out there willing to press ahead anyway.

RE: The Real Belief System Exposed............., posted on August 16, 2009 at 15:25:08
john curl
Manufacturer

Posts: 4373
Joined: May 16, 2000
 Successful engineers are often open minded to what actually works, rather than what SHOULD work. I have been contributing online for 20 years, and I see the same old thing, prejudice against new ideas, and insistence that anything NOT PROVEN in a double blind test, MUST be phony, and the promoters of new ideas, must then be crooks of some sort. It gets insulting, over the decades, to be vilified for trying to make better audio equipment, Even when I am successful, people still think that it is dumb luck or marketing. However, I just love to rub peoples' noses in 'it' when their attempt fails, yet mine succeeds. It doesn't pay anything, but it feels good, sometimes.

Speaker break-in, posted on August 14, 2009 at 21:13:12
andy_c
Audiophile

Posts: 963
Joined: June 2, 2007
 The subject of speaker break-in is interesting, as it's among the least "far out" of audiophile claims. In fact, it's downright easy to see how it happens. There's a Spanish site in which the webmaster wrote to a bunch of speaker companies and asked them about this. It is here. The most interesting response, I think, came from Scan-Speak. I'll repeat a part of it below for clarity.

"There is a fast way to do it and the speaker designer should burn in the units (especially the woofers) before tuning the cabinet volume, damping material and port length (vented speaker) and trimming the cross-over network.

All you need is a sine wave generator and a power amplifier. Keep the drive unit in free air. Set the frequency to about 75% of the expected free air resonance frequency of the drive unit and turn up the voltage until the cone reaches full excursion without making mechanical noise. Let it run for 5 minutes and the job is done."

I like this because it gives very specific test conditions. In fact, the conditions are rather brutal, running the driver at near Xmax for 5 minutes.

Lately, I've been interested in DIY subwoofers, and have looked at various exotic drivers. One of these is the "Maelstrom-X" from Kevin Haskins of Exodus Audio. This driver is 18" in diameter and has a single-ended Xmax of 33mm. If you look at this driver in an analysis program like WinISD or even SPICE, you'll see that it takes some pretty incredible power to reach this displacement - about 2.5 kW at or around 22 Hz in a closed-box system. Do you really want to apply such power to the driver for 5 minutes straight? I doubt it. So then, you'd end up applying a lot less power, presumably taking much more time to break it in. But how much? I guess I don't care, as long as the parameters they provide are accurate for a fully broken-in driver, as Scan-Speak claims they do.

Bottom line: I wouldn't dismiss speaker break-in as audiophile BS. Further, it seems the wimpier the test signal, the longer it takes to break the driver in. So for a quiche-eating audio reviewer who listens to his system wearing an ascot and smoking jacket, I can see how it would take a long time to break in a loudspeaker system :-).

RE: Speaker break-in, posted on August 15, 2009 at 16:43:11
gymwear5@hotmail.com
Manufacturer

Posts: 1218
Joined: April 10, 2002
 Yes the parameters of a loudspeaker adjust with break-in.... But in a way that when loaded by a traditional cabinet - either sealed or reflex - the tuning of the cabinet remains within 5% - IB and Dipole designs will change their response a bit - and I talked with designers of 6th order tuned systems that claim a benefit of break in before measureing drivers... In almost all cases Breaking is a 24-48 Hr. (at the most) activity - not weeks, months or years.

RE: Speaker break-in, posted on August 17, 2009 at 12:51:28
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 Gym,

Why do you need to make up BS "facts" to express your opinion on driver break-in? I don't know of a single person or speaker manufactuer that claims break-in takes weeks, months or years!

Perhaps ---{I say perhaps because you haven't presented any proof that you have talked with these designers and after your BS fact about people claiming or believeing drivers requiring weeks, months or years. I have to question the truthfulness of what you'll say}--- you've actually talked with designers of 6th order tuned systems that claim a benefit of break in before measureing drivers but, in almost all cases break-in is a 24-48 Hr. (at the most) That may be YOUR opinion gym, but many highly regarded speaker manufacturers seem to disagree with you as witnessed by these remarks taken from their owners manuels.

THIEL Break-In - The CS3.7s, like most speakers, require a period of playing before they perform optimally. The time required depends on how loudly the speakers are played; more time is required if played softly, less if played loudly. At least 50 hours at moderately loud levels are required before the speaker is performing near optimum. You should notice even more improvement after 100 hours of playing.

http://www.thielaudio.com/THIEL_Site05/PDF_files/PDF_owner_info/CS3_7ownerinfo.pdf

MARTIN-LOGAN Break-In - When you first begin to play your Summit X speakers, they will sound a bit bass shy. This is due to the high quality, long-life components used in our woofer. Our custom made, butyl surround woofer requires approximately 72 hours of break-in at 90 dB (moderate listening levels) before any critical listening. The break-in requirements of the crossover components (and, to a lesser degree, the stator) are equivalent.

DYNAUDIO Break-In - The moving parts of a newly manufactured Confidence loudspeaker have been acoustically checked after production, but nevertheless are not as flexible as they need to be for optimum results to be realized. The higher the quality of any driver system, the more demanding the loudspeaker will be regarding time for running-in the system. A newly unpacked Dynaudio loudspeaker therefore requires several weeks running/playing to reach its optimum performance capability. After that period, a couple of minutes before every listening session will be helpful to ‘warm up’ the loudspeakers.

http://www.us.martinlogan.com/pdf/manuals/manual_summit_x.pdf

ENERGY Break-In - It is VITAL that your new Reference Connoisseur™ Series speakers be allowed to break In properly before you perform any precise set up procedures, system adjustments, and before you play them at higher volume levels. The best method of performing the break in is to play a full range musical passage at a moderate level as long as possible. Utilizing the repeat function on your CD or DVD player can assist greatly. Optimum sound will not be achieved until approximately 100 hours of playing time. After break-in, the volume level can be increased. Do not play the speakers at higher levels until the break in process has been completed. The transducers need to “loosen up”, and until this occurs, damage can result to the transducers.

http://www.energy-speakers.com/na-en/products/rc-70-overview/ (Click on RC-70 Owners Manual for this reference)

Gym what advantage is there for a speaker manufacturer to tell a client in so many words Our speakers won't sound as good as they can for 100 hrs or so? If this was an audiophile myth as objectivists like youirself, would have us believe wouldn't it be a great marketing advantage for a speaker manufacturer to proclaim: Unlike all other speakers our new Ecstasy 3-xz speakers sound great right out of the box with no break-in period required!

Afterall if as objectivists are always telling us audiophiles hear what they're told to hear, when a person read that statement in their Ecstasy speaker manuel their "expectation bias" should cause them to hear the speakers sound great right out of the box, no?

I believe these disclosures about the speaker's break-in period by these different speaker companies (and I chose some fairly expensive speakers) illustrates they know their speakers require a break-in period. However the general consensus would be the majority of driver break-in occurs by 50hrs ---{that's not even weeks}--- and possibly up to 100hrs ---{that's not months or years--- Only Dynaudio stated a newly unpacked Dynaudio loudspeaker therefore requires several weeks running/playing to reach its optimum performance capability. So that belief of break-in requiring several weeks as opposed to 50-100hrs seems to be the exception to the rule.

Well gym I've provided proof that more than a couple of highly regarded speaker manufacturers disagree with your opinion that driver break-in requires 24-48 hrs at the most! Guess who's opinion I value more? Out of curiosity can you provide an proof to back up your statement which implied some manufactuers or audiophiles believe driver break-in requires months and years?

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

Just As I Expected Gym. You Have NO PROOF! (nt), posted on August 21, 2009 at 06:36:30
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 z

RE: Speaker break-in, posted on August 14, 2009 at 22:30:11
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Is especially important for acoustic suspension woofers since you want the air to dominate the compliance rather than the spider and surround. I'm on my second pair of Infinities and break-in was significant on both. The first pair was actually the store demos as I returned the ones I'd ordered and swapped them for the demos which I'd auditioned. Turned out to be because they had been been playing them to where they bottomed out to make impressive demos and had them well broken in. When the foam finally rotted out I bought the newest version of the same speaker and had to break them in myself. Despite not eating quiche while listening, I never thought they would break in since I don't listen very loudly. Eventually we went through a spell of watching quite a few movies and had turned up the bass to get the rumbly sound effects as we weren't running a sub-woofer. After that the bass improved nicely on music.

So that longish story is in support of needing to drive them hard rather than long to achieve break-in. If you spring for the 18" woofer, and I think you should as it seems like a literally great thing, I'd consider breaking it in with tone bursts so you get the displacement without a lot of VC heat. Even hokier, something as crude as a DC pulse or charging capacitors and switching them in with FETs or relays would probably work. Displacement seems to be the key and you have to run them beyond where you normally would listening to get them to sound right where you normally listen. Of course those that don't believe in it need not bother...

Rick

RE: Speaker break-in, posted on August 16, 2009 at 09:35:38
andy_c
Audiophile

Posts: 963
Joined: June 2, 2007
 "If you spring for the 18" woofer, and I think you should as it seems like a literally great thing, I'd consider breaking it in with tone bursts so you get the displacement without a lot of VC heat."

Well, it looks like I screwed up here. WinISD calculates power from the amp voltage as if the impedance of the driver were the nominal rated impedance. But near resonance, the impedance gets pretty high, reducing the thermal stress a lot. SPICE tells a more accurate story. For the Maelstrom-X, it takes a sine wave of about 92.5 Volts peak to get the 33 mm Xmax (assuming linearity, a dicey assumption). At resonance, because of the high impedance, this is "only" about 235W, rather than the > 2kW you get if you assume 4 Ohms.

This is a pretty cool driver, but if you put it in a closed box and use the Linkwitz transform to get the deep bass extension, it takes obscene amounts of power (> 2kW) to reach full SPL at low frequencies. Then this requires a pro amp, which means there's fans to deal with. Ugh. The Parts Express Titanic series seem to be more practical. The 15 incher has about 6 dB less output than the Maelstrom-X, but it does this with about 560W. They make a nifty external 1 kW class G amp for $425 that looks like just the ticket. The rest of my system doesn't have the SPL capability of the Maelstrom-X anyway as it turns out.

BTW, I found a site with all the Thiele and Small articles here.

RE: Speaker break-in, posted on August 16, 2009 at 10:18:25
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Sounds like you're having fun Andy.

In my dotage I don't need much dynamic range, there simply isn't much room between hearing and hurting anymore. Same thing visually, need a lot of light to see and can't stand glare. I was told that old folks loose their tolerance but I thought they just got cranky, now I see why!

I'm interested in seeing what you finally settle on. Even after loosening up my current speakers don't have the ultra low bass extension of the old ones, but they are superior in other ways so a sub might be a good idea. I have a split-level house with a walk-in (if you have poor posture) crawl space under the living room so it'd be fairly easy to stash one there and port it into the room.

Thanks for the link,

Rick

RE: The Real Belief System Exposed............., posted on August 14, 2009 at 19:45:42
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "My observation is that this part of the hi-fi world did not exist in the early days of hi-fi."

My observation too..... In fact, I only observed this starting to take place during the digital age, after the CD displaced the LP as the mainstream medium of choice. The design community started lashing out at the audiophile community after the audiophile community started questioning the advantages of the CD over the LP. (My first personal encounter was Gabe Wiener, who at least was civil in the discussion.) The full-blown existence didn't occur until Peter Aczel resurrected The Audio Critic in 1987, and then later publishing the "Ten Biggest Lies" article. I think he was the "founding father" of the belief of "audiophile delusion". (There were more militant believers than Aczel- Richard D. Pierce maybe being the wildest of them all. Pierce was militant toward anyone who tried to scientifically correlate "subjective preferences" to measured performance, most notably the writings of Matti Otala.)

There were other "objectivist" reviewers prior to Aczel, and while some had disdain for "subjective opinion", it never got to the level of "questioning behavior" of audiophiles.


RE: The Real Belief System Exposed............., posted on August 14, 2009 at 20:30:21
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 The "audiophile delusion" was indeed created and marketed by the industry after high fidelity sound had been ruined by the advent of convenient but inferior 44/16 digital technology. Most of the so-called "professionals" sold themselves to the devil. This includes all the mastering engineers today who compete in the loudness wars and offer the excuse, "I'm just trying to support a family, and this means I have to do what the client asks for."

I don't hold out much hope that the situation will improve soon, just as I have little hope that my former college roommates, E. Bradley Meyer and Clark Johnsen, will ever be on friendly terms with each other after falling out on this issue.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Sounds like the "Animal House" of audiophilia :-) (nt), posted on August 14, 2009 at 21:24:19
andy_c
Audiophile

Posts: 963
Joined: June 2, 2007
 nt

That's for sure! Education certainly wouldn't appear to have been a priority., posted on August 15, 2009 at 06:55:07
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 As for Meyer it would appear he took Home Economics instead of Statistics!

Analysis of Hi-Rez v. Reedbook results - Pt. 1

Analysis of Hi-Rez v. Reedbook results - Pt. 2

To his credit however it must be admitted he had the good sense not to comment on the above (he was very active in the other threads on the topic).

The same can't be said for some number of lesser idiots (some still present) who in typical dumbass fashion did their best to obfuscate the obvious.

Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Some of the responses refute your contentions., posted on August 14, 2009 at 07:20:35
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 I have no problem with stating preferences as such. Opinions, however, can be about preferences but also can be about objective matters.

Mr. Kuller, below, whines:

"And to make themselves feel superior for owning cheap equipment with zip cord cables where they can't hear the differences anyway."

So, he plays amateur psychoanalyst, and also claims that our equipment will not allow us to detect differences anyway. Sounds like objective claims to me, except for the amateur psychoanalysis which is subjective.

Then, there are the tube fans who insist that I would like tube equipment better, and one wonders how they would know that. I recommend speakers that I think most people would like (research has been done on what sonic characteristics of speakers tend to be preferred, but little with amplifiers), but also point out that their tastes may be different. When I point out that I have not found tube equipment to sound better, they then contend that I must not have heard very good tube equipment! More objective implications, not just statements of personal preferences.

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
You Miss the Point............., posted on August 14, 2009 at 11:12:33
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 The issue isn't preferences or how they differ..... The issue is preferences being projected as "claims of hearing differences".......


You've been told ..., posted on August 14, 2009 at 11:33:08
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 but play the "dumb" game if that's your fancy.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
You're Missing the Point Too......., posted on August 14, 2009 at 12:19:44
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "but play the 'dumb' game if that's your fancy."

I think I finally figured out what you were stating......

What I'm doing here is not playing the "dumb" game, but *exposing* it as such.........

My objective is to shift the focus from people being drawn into a frivolous argument over "hearing differences" to the core premise of "claims of hearing differences" being outright fallacy in the first place. (This core premise being the real "belief system" I've cited.) In order to **stop** this "dumb game" once and for all.


You're Missing the Point Three, posted on August 14, 2009 at 13:31:59
Richard BassNut Greene
 Please provide a translation of your convoluted sentence (below).
Please provide a definition of convoluted.
Please provide a definition of definition.

"My objective is to shift the focus from people being drawn into a frivolous argument over "hearing differences" to the core premise of "claims of hearing differences" being outright fallacy in the first place. (This core premise being the real "belief system" I've cited.)
In order to **stop** this "dumb game" once and for all."

Many audiophiles claim all, or virtually all, audio components sound different.

Sure they can sound different if heard in different rooms, which is common.

Sure they can sound different if playing music at different volumes, which is VERY common.

But when they are compared in the same room, at the same average volume, with brand names hidden, there can be no doubt that "everything sounds different" listening skills are a Fig Newton of an audiophile's imagination, even with a lame 75% correct at a passing test grade.

Any audiophile who claims that "everything sounds different,
or has never heard two components that sounded the same,
is a gullible old fool who knows little about human nature,
and possibly not much of value about audio either.

The fact that audiophiles often can't hear component differences
is great news -- we can focus most of our attention on speakers
and room acoustics and high quality recordings to get better sound quality,
because everyone can hear those differences, meaning they are real, not imagined!

The fact that audiophiles dismiss experimentation and tests and other objective ways to seek knowledge, unless the results match their beliefs, is nothing more than cult-like behavior by people who prefer to live in an audio fantasyland.

If one believes "everything" makes a difference, then there are more audio toys and tweaks to play with!

Some people seem to like playing with audio components more than collecting recordings and listening to music, so I can't blame them for wanting to believe everything sounds different.

Of course EVERYONE KNOWS if the speaker wires are not on lifts precisely 7" off the floor, the stereo will sound like there are horse blankets thrown over their speakers. You could look this up. It's a fact because an audio guru, who has his own catalog, said so. And we don't need no stinkin' double blind tests to prove it.
.
.
.
Ask Bill Clinton, posted on August 14, 2009 at 18:04:23
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "Please provide a translation of your convoluted sentence (below).
Please provide a definition of convoluted.
Please provide a definition of definition."

I suggest asking Bill Clinton what the meaning of "is" is.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Again, Missing the Point ..............., posted on August 14, 2009 at 15:30:15
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "Many audiophiles claim all, or virtually all, audio components sound different."

I have no problem with this claim toward audiophiles. The focus is on whether or not equipment sounds different. Where the disagreement is "some components sound the same"......

What I *do* have a problem with is the belief that audiophiles "claim to hear differences", in the context of "superior hearing ability", which is *not* the same. Because the focus is now on the "hearing ability" of audiophiles, not whether or not equipment sounds different. The disagreement is now "audiophiles being delusional for claiming superior hearing ability."

Nobody has ever claimed to have a superior ability to "hear differences", yet this claim is implied and then projected *repeatedly*, whenever subjective opinions or preferences in audio equipment are stated.


RE: Again, Missing the Point ..............., posted on August 15, 2009 at 11:44:28
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 Todd,

Of course you're 100% correct. This behavior by the Lunatic Fringe Objectivists has become the norm here at PHP. It's a shame that the very same people here who profess to embrace science, objectivity and logical thinking in audio, revert to using voodoo-science & unobjective, illogical "Ad Hominems" ---{means "against the man" or "against the person"}--- to support their audio hobby-hating religion. As you have so clearly pointed out no subjectivist has ever claimed to have a superior or super-hearing abilities.

Yet no matter how many times it's clearly explained to the audio hobby-haters the ability to "hear differences" in audio components or wires is a learned behavior that can be taught to almost anyone willing to learn. The typical audio hobby-hating LFO will claim, the subjectivists argument about "hearing differences" in audio components or wires, must be rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person ---{in this case the "fact" about the person is created by objectivists themselves}--- i.e., they possess superior or super-hearing abilities! This is a text book Ad Hominem, which typically involves two steps.

First, the opponent will make an attack against the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim. Which the audio hobby-haters here on PHP often do via their false claims that subjectivists believe they have superior or super-hearing abilities.

Second, this attack (about a subjectivist believing they have superior or super-hearing abilities) is now taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making.

This type of "argument" has the following form:

a) Person A makes claim X. A subjectivist states they hear differences in wires and other audio components.

b) Person B makes an attack on person A. An objectivist falsely states these subjectivists believe they have superior or super-hearing abilities.

c) Therefore A's claim is false. Therefore the subjectivists claims of hearing differences in wires and audio components is false.

More times than not the arguements made by the hobby-hating objectivists follow one of two different Ad Hominem forms.

1) Appeal to Ridicule. See a complete description of the process here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

2) Personal Attack. See a complete description of the process here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html

When anyone reads a typical rebuttal by an audio hobby-hating, naysayer they'll find it will often follow one of these two forms of Ad Hominems! Of course it will often be hidden behind lots of voodoo-science terminiolgy, made up BS "facts" about what subjectivists really believe and contempt masked by "supposed" humor.

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

And, further..., posted on August 15, 2009 at 14:48:24
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 >First, the opponent will make an attack against the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim. Which the audio hobby-haters here on PHP often do via their false claims that subjectivists believe they have superior or super-hearing abilities.<

...this specific attack has obvious originations in the attackers self esteem, or lack thereof. If those with discerning capabilities are NOT claiming superior or super-hearing abilities, they MUST be claiming that those who cannot discern differences have INferior hearing abilities. By default, you might say. I say, if the shoe fits, they should go ahead and wear it! :)
RE: And, further..., posted on August 17, 2009 at 08:14:10
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 Hello Kerr!

I believe it's quite possible you're correct in your assessment. I can also understand why the audio hobby-haters might attack subjectivists due to low self esteem issues.

What's sad about all this is if these audio hobby-hating naysayers would take the time to open their minds, read these posts slowly & entirely BEFORE thinking about how they're going to respond.

They'd understand not only are those with superior discerning capabilities NOT claiming superior or super-hearing capabilities, they're also NOT claiming or implying that those who cannot discern differences have inferior hearing abilities! What these naysayers fail to grasp is there's a world of difference between superior discerning capabilities and superior hearing capabilities!

Those with superior discerning capabilities are claiming quite clearly & correctly ---{provided the person in question isn't tone deaf or hearing impaired}--- these people who lack discerning capabilities lack them not because they have inferior hearing abilities, but rather because they haven't taken the time to learn to train their ears what to listen for!

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

Only..., posted on August 14, 2009 at 15:46:17
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Nobody has ever claimed to have a superior ability to "hear differences"

When this topic is introduced by the "everything sounds the same" camp and dropped as a gauntlet to us - and actually taken and proven by our camp. Mr. Voodoo taunted me with his "Audiophile Repellent" ABX test and I clearly surprised him by doing so AND soundly outperforming his results. Then, suddenly the results then became irrelevant! Facts are only useful when they support your religion, right? :) Isn't that a hoot? Naturally, spineless individuals (do we need to mention their names) to whom I've likewise invited to take the same test avoid doing that like the plague because it would only prove objectively that they lack the ability to discern fine differences. :)

rw

RE: Only..., posted on August 14, 2009 at 16:04:13
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "When this topic is introduced by the 'everything sounds the same' camp and dropped as a gauntlet to us - and actually taken and proven by our camp. Mr. Voodoo taunted me with his 'Audiophile Repellent' ABX test and I clearly surprised him by doing so AND soundly outperforming his results."

This is the "dumb game" that bjh was alluding to......

If someone were to somehow demonstrate my "hearing ability" being awful, I wouldn't even care.......

The problem is projecting "delusional superhuman hearing ability" to disqualify critical opinion. We then wonder why the problems with "loudness wars", awful recordings, and awful-sounding "technologies" are never addressed by industry. It's because many have become convinced that "audiophile opinion" is "crackpot opinion". And this discounting of critical opinion has enabled the perpetuation of questionable practices and technologies.


You've got the hart before the course., posted on August 16, 2009 at 11:28:41
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Nobody gives a damn what opinions 'audiophiles' hold. No one seeks out better sound because an audiophile told them they should. There is only one thing an audiophile can say that will have ANY influence and that is: "I'd love to have you come listen to some music on my system, you might enjoy it."

We are a self-selected group who are unusually interested in the sonics of audio reproduction on emotional and/or intellectual levels. Of course we aren't the mainstream, if we were, we wouldn't exist as an identifiable group. If folks aren't interested and perhaps feel superior to those that are, that's their problem. I despise football literally beyond all reason, but oddly enough have yet to convince a single fan of the error in their ways. Actually, they don't seem to care what I think.

To each his own. We have nothing to apologize for and certainly aren't responsible for the current sorry state of much recorded music. There are still plenty of new audiophiles materializing each year, you just don't find them very much on AA. Today's audio is mostly of the personal variety and Head-fi is where younger audiophiles hang. I wonder if they are plagued by people posting that all portable players sound the same and that no one has proven that they can distinguish one headphone from another while eating popcorn.

Rick

Yet Again, Missing the Point.............., posted on August 17, 2009 at 00:53:47
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "Nobody gives a damn what opinions 'audiophiles' hold."

Once again, that is not the issue...... The issue is taking these audiophile opinions (regardless of what the opinions specifically are) and **implying** they are "claims of hearing differences" at a superhuman level.........


RE:The Point is..., posted on August 17, 2009 at 08:56:50
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 " "Nobody gives a damn what opinions 'audiophiles' hold." Once again, that is not the issue......"

How can you square that with saying:

"awful-sounding "technologies" are never addressed by industry. It's because many have become convinced that "audiophile opinion" is "crackpot opinion". And this discounting of critical opinion has enabled the perpetuation of questionable practices and technologies."

Do audiophiles hear better? Well, maybe they do in some instances, but I think it relates more to caring than hearing. And I don't mean that in a negative sense, maybe energy-wise we're talking subtle differences but the effect on my enjoyment is anything but subtle.

Here is a non-audiophile example. They built a concert-hall here in the mid-80's that was a marvel of technology. It was designed to be quite dead and had directional microphones and speakers hidden all over the ceiling that could be adjusted for a reverb time appropriate to the performance. "NOT A BAD SEAT IN THE HOUSE" was the result. And they were right, you could hear the music everywhere with no dead zones. But who would want to, it sounded like hell.

Eventually I discovered a zone of seats which, at least with the symphonic band-shell in place, had a fair amount of 'real' sound and managed to buy a pair of seats there for the next season. World of difference. Eventually we got a new conductor, Marin Alsop, and I happened to be at one of the early rehearsals. Part way through she started wandering around and eventually set down by me and said "God, this doesn't sound very good does it?" and I said "no".

Well come the next performance she had done something about it, the pit floor was raised to stage level and the whole orchestra was as far out on it as possible and the sound reinforcement was off. Ahhhhh. Eventually they turned the bass boost part of back on a little to help the double basses but that wasn't too bad.

That was long ago, since then they have replaced all the sound system and always use it and it sounds like shit. But it's loud. And that's all that matters, right? If it doesn't sound good, turn it up.

Sound quality matters more to some than others. Picture quality matters more to some than others but not to me, if it's in focus I can watch and enjoy it. For people on an audiophile forum to continuously argue that only things which are universally easy to hear and obvious matter is just nuts.

Rick

RE: Only..., posted on August 14, 2009 at 18:06:48
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 Aha! I get your point now. Sorry, I was a bit slow.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Fine, posted on August 14, 2009 at 17:04:26
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 you approach it from your standpoint while I play their silly game and prove it is they who are delusional. :^)

rw

Did you ever figure out how to answer the question below?, posted on August 14, 2009 at 15:08:12
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Dig deep in the reaches of your intellect and give this one a try:

This question

Is it so far beyond your capabilities? If so, then I can easily understand why you only puppet the comments of others and have an utter lack of any sort of experience yourself.

rw

"In order to **stop** this "dumb game" once and for all." Good luck with that! :) nt, posted on August 14, 2009 at 12:36:27
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 .
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
It's all your fault, posted on August 14, 2009 at 13:33:34
Richard BassNut Greene
 You should agree with me,
so we'll both be right.

If I agreed with you,
we'd both be wrong.
.
.
.
.
RE: It's all your fault, posted on August 14, 2009 at 20:19:02
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 Away, Fool!
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
So tell us - does your equipment allow you to detect differences?, posted on August 14, 2009 at 09:50:22
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 If NO - what's your problem with mkuller's statement?

If YES - WTF are you doing in Bassnut & Co. camp?

It seems to me that you're implying that your equipment allows you to detect differences, but there aren't any anyway - and THAT would be perfectly in line with your usual habit of talking funny. And thinking funny, may I add - because, you know, what's the evidence that it allows you to hear differences, if you don't hear any?
You're confused again., posted on August 16, 2009 at 09:45:39
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 One can find quite objective reasons why tube amplifiers are likely to sound different, and the effects are quite measureable. Check the frequency responses into the simulated speaker load in amp reviews in Stereophile and Soundstage, for example. I have heard such differences with as number of speakers, including some of mine.

You will have to explain why I would want cables which make an audible difference to the sound. For the time being, I can't think of any reasons why I would want such inferior products.

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
What's so difficult about question "Does YOUR equipment allow you to detect differences?", posted on August 17, 2009 at 11:02:43
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 What's the obsession with tube amps - as I understand, you don't own any (and neither do I, BTW)? Who asked you anything about cables of any kind?

Let's try again:

Does YOUR equipment allow you to detect differences?

Learn to read., posted on August 17, 2009 at 15:35:41
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 I did answer your irrelevant question.

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
Geez... You didn't understand my question, let alone answering it., posted on August 17, 2009 at 16:08:28
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Well, I guess it all points to run-of-the-mill moron, that you really are.

I withdraw my question.

Mr. Teflon has difficulty with the English language -nt, posted on August 18, 2009 at 15:42:27
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 rw

Clearly - why else phantasize about tube amps and cables, when asked about HIS equipment?, posted on August 18, 2009 at 17:52:06
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 It's pretty much characteristic of "objectivist" mass in general - freezing and stuttering, when confronted with trivial questions about their own experiences.

Sheep and wolves, posted on August 18, 2009 at 19:03:10
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "It's pretty much characteristic of "objectivist" mass in general - freezing and stuttering, when confronted with trivial questions about their own experiences."

This is characteristic of people who blindly follow authority, rather than sensing and reasoning on their own. Such people never contribute new knowledge to a society and if their numbers are large the society falls victim to the manipulations of authority figures who are interested in personal benefit at the expense of truth.

Most of these people are sheep. Others are wolves in disguise.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

And the sheep sure like to talk about cables :) -nt, posted on August 18, 2009 at 19:09:04
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 rw

Three guys whining who never --well, hardly ever--talk about their experience. (nt), posted on August 19, 2009 at 06:55:12
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 .

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
One guy pretending to have difficulty expressing himself in English, in addition ..., posted on August 19, 2009 at 09:26:15
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... to being cheap and deaf anti-audiophile.

You're a self-fulfilling prophesy! (nt), posted on August 19, 2009 at 14:02:23
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 .

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
"prophesy"??? I see that your difficulties extend not only into verbal, but into written English as well. N/T, posted on August 19, 2009 at 14:32:33
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 N/T

Absolutely!, posted on August 19, 2009 at 07:28:46
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 After 9000 posts, I hardly ever talk about any of the concerts I've attended or the myriad components I've been exposed to over the past thirty years from my experience working at an audio store or having listened to at the homes of my two TAS reviewer friends. Such is indeed a rarity. :)

Returning to reality, you should have not have any trouble finding my observations on the concert experience, room treatments, cartridges, tone arms, turntables, record cleaners, preamps, power amps, tubes vs. solid state, home theatre sound systems, equalizers, attenuators, speakers and of course, your favorite topic - cables of all sorts! If you're curious as to any in particular, I'll be happy to locate them for you.

rw

Well let me state for the record I don't think you would ever like any tube equipment better, posted on August 14, 2009 at 08:30:43
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 4001
Joined: January 8, 2002
 under sighted conditions.

hasn't this been beat to death?, posted on August 13, 2009 at 09:21:06
tesla
Audiophile

Posts: 1727
Location: San Diego County, California
Joined: October 25, 2000
 Todd, this is not specifically to you, but to everyone here in the Asylum. I am going to do my best to channel Rodney King, here goes;

We have, (and never will) see this subject resolved, period. Can't we put it out to pasture? I have my opinion, you have yours, and no-matter what, no-one here is going to change each others opinion. Just walk away and bite your tongue if someone say's something you think is idiotic.

If I want to believe that a $100.00 JC Penny's stereo is high end, will you believe me? Unlikely. But, who cares? Let me have my belief. It's not hurting anyone.

Lets all just exhibit some common sense, and let it go.

My 2 cents, and putting on my flame-proof suit.


Gene

PS...

The only reason I would want to see this subject continued, is how funny some get when they get so hot under the collar, and how seriously they take it.


"Son, let this be a lesson to you: never do tequila shooters within a country mile of a marriage chapel."
- Al Bundy
Yes, but if enough time elapses, the members have Jesus resurrect it., posted on August 14, 2009 at 22:01:04
kurt s
 Then they have another glorious time beating it back to death over and over. Almost like reincarnation, but in a Christian way.
Beat Yes, But.........., posted on August 13, 2009 at 12:01:54
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 I wish the "death" actually occurred...........


Sure, but..., posted on August 13, 2009 at 10:39:22
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 ...the debate is like any competitive sport. If you want meaningless debates, try baseball fans arguing over who was better, Mickey Mantle or Roberto Clemente.

The various audio debates (analog vs digital, do cables have a sound, etc etc) are like sparring sessions that can turn into all out war. Both sides claim that they aren't arguing with each other, but rather they are trying to keep bad information from making its way to unsuspecting newbies. Codswallop! We just love to argue! It doesn't matter that nothing is ever resolved by it - it's a sport! And since no one really keeps score, both sides win (and both sides lose).

Well... those who take the debate too seriously lose, I suppose. As you said, I have my "truth" and that's all that matters. I'm not going to change my system simply because someone else has the mistaken belief that there are no sonic differences in cables, etc.
RE: ...mistaken belief that there are no sonic differences in cables., posted on August 16, 2009 at 13:25:38
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 But that may actually be the case in their systems. The mistake is believing that it's true for all systems to the point of not even trying it for yourself.

Rick

I'm with you, Tesla, posted on August 13, 2009 at 09:37:09
LarryB
Reviewer

Posts: 523
Location: NYC
Joined: December 4, 2002
 Regrettably, you and I appear to be in a very small minority.

RE: I'm with you, Tesla, posted on August 13, 2009 at 09:39:59
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 Apparently your post below is now beyond the length of your nose!

:)
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Sorry, but you've lost me, posted on August 13, 2009 at 09:41:51
LarryB
Reviewer

Posts: 523
Location: NYC
Joined: December 4, 2002
 ??

Quelle surprise! nt, posted on August 13, 2009 at 10:02:54
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 .
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Were you born rude..., posted on August 13, 2009 at 10:19:39
LarryB
Reviewer

Posts: 523
Location: NYC
Joined: December 4, 2002
 or is it a trait you acquired over time?

Adios.
If your ego is as fragile as your post suggests I would, posted on August 13, 2009 at 10:39:17
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 recommend you seek meeker pastures.

Besides this forum is for technical topics, not for personality soap operas of the sort you started below...

Now beat it.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
You will not have to till me twice., posted on August 13, 2009 at 10:42:49
LarryB
Reviewer

Posts: 523
Location: NYC
Joined: December 4, 2002
 .

RE: The Real Belief System Exposed............., posted on August 13, 2009 at 07:33:24
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 "I've apparently hit a hot button with a few of the so-called high-end "naysayers" in regard to an exposed belief system on **their** part, in which stating mere opinions or preferences of audio equipment somehow **implies** "audiophile claims of hearing differences"......"

I must say I really don't know what you're on about because it seems to me very nearly axiomatic that "...stating mere opinions or preferences of audio equipment.." *does* imply "... claims of hearing differences...".

Mind you if the crux of your argument revolves around the concept of a "claim" v., say, an "opinion" then Yes, I follow the argument.

However were that the case I would suggest you've simply been dragged into to the stupid semantics games and tomfoolery the anti-hobby crowd are so very adapt at playing... meaningless stupidity and banter which deserves to be waved away as one would shoo a fly.



Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
RE: The Real Belief System Exposed............., posted on August 13, 2009 at 11:43:35
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "However were that the case I would suggest you've simply been dragged into to the stupid semantics games and tomfoolery the anti-hobby crowd are so very adapt at playing."

I'm not even going to deny this...... I just think this record ought to be set straight. I think the fact this sort of thing goes on at all is troubling, and we ought to slam these **jerks** for who they really are. If these people have a problem with what audiophiles do, they should really take up a different hobby.


Here Here!, posted on August 14, 2009 at 04:47:12
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 Todd Krieger wrote: "I think the fact this sort of thing goes on at all is troubling, and we ought to slam these **jerks** for who they really are. If these people have a problem with what audiophiles do, they should really take up a different hobby."

TG1954: Todd you've summed that up perfectly!

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~


Jeez you'd think an audiophile would get Hear, Hear! correct. :) nt, posted on August 14, 2009 at 06:44:34
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 .
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Ignore, don't slam, jerks. nt, posted on August 13, 2009 at 12:17:23
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Why? Isn't that why we're here - to have fun, using any and all means available? N/T, posted on August 13, 2009 at 15:22:22
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 N/T

I Would, But..........., posted on August 13, 2009 at 12:36:45
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 Their impact on the courses high-end audio and music production have taken in recent time IMO has imparted irreparable damage, in my humble opinion. Their stereotype has permeated the mainstream, to the point where it has become an excuse for compressed recordings and cheesy products, because critical feedback is no longer taken seriously.


Problem is the Industry, not a few Internet jerks., posted on August 13, 2009 at 14:16:51
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 The simple jerks who pollute some threads here are not responsible for the sorry state of recorded music today, as represented by pitch correction, loudness wars and MP3 compression.

The problem of over-production goes way back. My best guess is that things were OK until multi-track recorders started being used for subsequent mix-down, and worse, overdubbing. Multi-track recording didn't just do its damage by enabling poor practices, it also degraded the sonic quality of the recorders by reducing the signal to noise ratio which led to the use of Dolby, which was just the first of a long series of ever more sophisticated (and arguably ever more sonically marginal) "psychoacoustical" cheats. MP3 is the latest of this blood line.

But, arguably, there was an even worse force driving the industry for some genres of music, the use of PA systems at live concerts. It taught the masses that music was loud and distortion was normal. Of course one way to get loud is to add a lot of distortion, call it compression, limiting or clipping, I don't care. When I was a radio ham we called the resulting sound "communications quality".

There are excellent recordings being made today using simple production processes. These are not perfect, but they are true to life. Unfortunately many audiophiles don't appreciate these recordings when they hear them, focusing in on minor quirks and failing to make the necessary listening adjustments to appreciate these. (I have in mind some of the Water Lily recordings, for example.)

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: Problem is the Industry, not a few Internet jerks., posted on August 13, 2009 at 14:25:44
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 We disagree over the influence on the industry...... That's perfectly OK..... I personally hope you're right and I'm wrong, in this regard.

If I perceived this activity as insignificant as you do, I would have completely ignored it, as you initially suggested. My position is the state of audio and music is bordering on terminal, and this activity can only further harm that state. It certainly doesn't do anything constructive.


RE: Problem is the Industry, not a few Internet jerks., posted on August 14, 2009 at 13:19:12
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "My position is the state of audio and music is bordering on terminal"

In the long run we are all dead. We had better hope that subsequent generations do better. If history is any guide, each generation doubts this will happen, but it always has, at least to a certain extent, (e.g. 10 steps forward, 9 back, ...).

No reason to stop fighting for a good cause, but if you can, keep a smile on your face while doing it. :-)


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: Problem is the Industry, not a few Internet jerks., posted on August 13, 2009 at 14:32:41
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 Come to think of it, we could both be right. Some of these same jerks worked in the industry and helped develop some of the sonically bad technologies.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

I don't know about the contention that their imfluence has, posted on August 13, 2009 at 13:53:58
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 "... become an excuse for compressed recordings and cheesy products..." but can't really argue with the rest.




Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
RE: I don't know about the contention that their imfluence has, posted on August 13, 2009 at 14:23:49
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 The compressed recordings and cheesy products were indeed *unintended* byproducts of their intentions. But these intentions have been perceived in the mainstream as the "voice of science" in audio (only because the reasonable voices of science don't say much), which automatically commands "respect", whether warranted or not.

So at the end of the day, the mainstream ends up having contempt for the high-end community because these militants, perceived as the "voice of science", project this contempt. A contempt whose basis is IMO a downright fabrication.


RE: I don't know about the contention that their imfluence has, posted on August 14, 2009 at 06:36:52
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 >So at the end of the day, the mainstream ends up having contempt for the high-end community because these militants, perceived as the "voice of science", project this contempt<

Yes, but I also think the mainstream feels this contempt because they use the concept of "good enough" rather than "ultimate" when it comes to sound. Indeed, someone purporting to be involved in the industry that posts here infrequently has made statements to the effect that certain pieces of pro gear are "good enough". And I don't disagree that they are good enough for the mainstream. Audiophiles, however, demand better than "good enough". I know that on the occasions that I'm fortunate enough to listen to a very high end system, it very much re-calibrates my idea of great sound. The mainstream could use a bit of that recalibration. Thankfully, there are industry folks that understand not only what it takes to get better sound than the mainstream requires, they understand that there is a difference!

RE: The Real Belief System Exposed............., posted on August 13, 2009 at 10:20:49
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 4001
Joined: January 8, 2002
 >> I must say I really don't know what you're on about because it seems to me very nearly axiomatic that "...stating mere opinions or preferences of audio equipment.." *does* imply "... claims of hearing differences...".>>


It may *seem* that way but it isn't. There may be an assumption of an actual difference in the sound when one does make such an assertion but there may not. But an assertion of pure perception does include all possible influences unless othewise explicitely stated.

It's funny. In the world of fine foods such influences as ambience and service are thouroughly discussed as a natural consideration of quality in the dining experience. In audio such influences are regarded by some as a sign of mental illness.

Then why do so many audiophiles whine about DBTs?, posted on August 13, 2009 at 06:51:01
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 After all, you say they are just offering their preferences.

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
You Guys Have No Idea What a DBT Really Is........, posted on August 13, 2009 at 11:59:16
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 A double-blind study is comparing a new technology or product with a placebo product, involving a large quantity of evaluators. What the "audio science community" calls a DBT is nothing beyond an impromptu hearing test that should be conducted by an audiologist. (A "sighted test" is a foreign term outside the audio world.) The closest thing we've seen to this sort of evaluation elsewhere is the infamous "Pepsi Challenge".


The worst fallacy, posted on August 13, 2009 at 12:23:21
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 which is universally committed by El Nutto, Mr. Teflon, et. al. is extrapolating the tests of a very few select components to the entire universe of thousands. Scientifically, tests prove what they prove only on that which was tested. Period. They remain utterly mute on that which was not tested. That concept apparently is beyond their comprehension.

Naturally, the *proponents* argue that since the small collection of components yields no differences, then how could others? Circular reasoning at its best. :)

rw

Pseudoscience..., posted on August 13, 2009 at 15:02:01
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...Mr. Nut's hero Tom Nousaine is the worst saying the null test prove no differences.

RE: Pseudoscience..., posted on August 13, 2009 at 16:30:29
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 I don't have an issue with claims of "no differences" at face value..... It's the projection of "whacked behavior" by those who claim otherwise.


Why do the anit-audiophiles bring them up?, posted on August 13, 2009 at 11:00:14
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...except to put down the audio hobbyists.

And to make themselves feel superior for owning cheap equipment with zip cord cables where they can't hear the differences anyway.

RE: Then why do so many audiophiles whine about DBTs?, posted on August 13, 2009 at 10:14:25
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 4001
Joined: January 8, 2002
 easy answer. because they are so often assulted by accusations of lunicy and unreasable demands of DBT results are made to prove they aren't some how screwed up as human beings. so it is only natural to associate DBTs with assholes that try to use them as a weapon against the expression of simple preferences.

Page processed in 1.054 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]