Why Is Audiophile Bashing Such A Grand Sport?

Road Runner

mmadden28 wrote: »

I would also add that its also possible the audio took different paths and travelled via different cables and levels of processing which all could have had a hand in the final output sound.

If it's truly lossless like he described above, then that seems like the only possiblity because all the information is there. Or there could be something wrong with the Ipod. Mine has a very strange problem where I can cause some instruments to almost entirely cut out by messing with the phone jack.

Road Runner

Hilbert wrote: »

Are we certain that science can prove what we can hear?

Artificial bones, teeth, hearts etc vastly inferior to original equipment. Artificial eyes, livers nonexistent (I think). I was told years ago that human ears can hear air molecules colliding, of necessity the faintest of all sounds. Is there a gadget equally sensitive?

Today I received in the mail a CD of Somethin' Else, the old Cannonball Adderly LP, and I compared it with my iTunes Plus version of the same record. The CD was much better---more detail, 3D soundstage etc. This cannot possibly have been my imagination, but what exactly was I hearing and could any machine detect it?

This thread had kind of run its course, and not create a pissing match here, but from everything I've read, I don't think it's the case that there are any audible differences between systems that aren't provable with electronic testing. For electronics, they can probably use a volt meter and record the output of the system and compare to see if any component makes a difference. For speakers, microphones can be used that are more sensitive than the human ear. Some of the technology might be expensive or it might require a special room, but I'm pretty sure it exists. So both a "difference" and a "no difference" situation can likely be definitively proved with the right equipment. There's a bunch of stuff that people can know from their own personal experience, but can't prove to anyone else. For example, I could go at walking at night and see a bat flying around and know for certain that I really did see a bat. But unless I made a video of it, I can't prove to anyone else that I really did see it. I don't think anything in a two channel system is like that. If there's a difference or no difference, that can be demonstrated.

Fatbrando

unc2701 wrote: »

You are correct that everything on iTunes is compressed, however Lossless formats are NOT compressed in a way that can impact the sound. Lossless formats simply transform the data to get a smaller file. Example: Let's say your samples are
12000
12566
13454
15234
14256

A simple lossless format would be to take the minimum of the samples and subtract it from each. The data needed to get you original is the difference for each and the minimum used:
12000
0
566
1454
3224
2256

With the original data, you needed 25 digits of information. In the new data, there's 21 digits. A good lossless algorithm will be far more optimized and results in files that are about half the size but have the EXACT same information.

I think people get confused by dynamic compression (an analog phenomenon that's been showing up on more and more records due to the loudness war) and lossy digital compression (MP3, AAC, etc).

I use iTunes for all my music. I Rip my cd's in the AIFF format. Which is the same as WAV. It's at 1411 kbps. It sound exactly like the cd (imo). If you were to purchase something off the normal regular iTunes, what you'd be given is an MP3 at 128 kbps or an MP4 at 192 kbps.

iTunes music sales has been the greatest hoodwinking ever perpetrated by the music industry as a whole. And it's their last gasp at trying to keep a strangle hold over musicians and not letting them receive fair pay for their talents. People like David Bowie, Trant Reznor, Sheryl Crowe, etc...have all started their own websites where you have the option to download in a Lossless format, i.e. FLAC, etc. which then can be converted to WAV or AIFF and hear the music the way it was intended.

Not paying a dollar a for a lousy A.M mono sounding song, that you then have to purchase bass boosting and bose like equipment to supplement the lack of sound and quality....


In response to the original threads question I quote Robbie Robertson --

Yeah, I can see it now
The distant red neon shivered in the heat
I was feeling like a stranger in a strange land
You know where people play games with the night
God, it was too hot to sleep
I followed the sound of a jukebox coming from up the levee
All of a sudden I could hear somebody whistling
Fromright behind me
I turned around and she said
"Why do you always end up down at Nick's Cafe?"
I said "I don't know, the wind just kind of pushed me this way."
She said "Hang the rich."

mmadden28

unc2701 wrote: »

You are correct that everything on iTunes is compressed, however Lossless formats are NOT compressed in a way that can impact the sound. Lossless formats simply transform the data to get a smaller file....).

But lossless is still compression, just not lossy. And yes not in a way that would/should impact the sound, but that is, after all, supposed to be the premise of mp3 as well.
Compression does not necessarily mean loss of data-its also a way of re-encoding the data to a smaller size with the ability to decode it back to its original state (or close to it in some cases).

Just like a Winzip file-Its compressed but reconstructed without losing any of the original data. Its compressed and lossless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression

An actual image of a CD to me would not be compression-no encoding is being done.

I'm not an audio codec or audio compression expert-far from it. This is just how I understand it.

mmadden28

Fatbrando wrote: »

iTunes music sales has been the greatest hoodwinking ever perpetrated by the music industry as a whole. And it's their last gasp at trying to keep a strangle hold over musicians and not letting them receive fair pay for their talents. People like David Bowie, Trant Reznor, Sheryl Crowe, etc...have all started their own websites where you have the option to download in a Lossless format, i.e. FLAC, etc. which then can be converted to WAV or AIFF and hear the music the way it was intended.

Not paying a dollar a for a lousy A.M mono sounding song, that you then have to purchase bass boosting and bose like equipment to supplement the lack of sound and quality....
...

Apple and the other online music stores did not invent the formats specifically for the purposes you mentioned. While I don't know what the actual intentions of the creators of mp3 (Fraunhofer, etc.), and all the other music compression formats were, I can say that the mp3 became extremely popular because of the more limited bandwidth capabilities fo the internet and the want/need/desire to transfer music amongst peers (especially illegally by today's standards). As well as the relatively speaking, small hard drive and mobile media storage capacities available at the time. Today we take the speed of the net and the large storage capacities for granted and its easily forgotten even though it was only little more than a decade ago. The smaller bitrates had thier purpose. Not everybody has DSL or higher. Some are still on dial-up as hard to beleive as it is.:eek: And not everybody is an audiophile.

That is why the mp3 became so popular, not because Apple said so. Apple and all the other 'mp3' players and stores are simply marketing on that popularity and success.
Actually in the beginning the songwirters/artists weren't getting any royalties from online transfers of mp3 files and the 'organization/legalization' of the downloadable music sales has now made some of those royalties available to the artists. You don't think Apple has to pay royalies for every song they sell? Did we forget about the Napster trials?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Apple fanboy, and I'm not a fan of paying as much as one would for a substandard copy with no liner notes, etc. Especially when the CD could be bought for the same if not less than the compressed copy. I'm especiialy not a fan of the DRM and other restrictions. I do think you are paying for convenience and choice. I personally have only ever purchased two songs from iTunes, and that was simply because some of the American Idol studio recordings were only available that way-no where else unless you got them illegally (or until the CD is published). I rip all my own CDs.

With CD, I chose to buy that format. I choose if I want to squeeze more songs onto a smaller memory MP3 player, or up the bitrate to get better quality, or use a FLAC like encoding to stream from my computer or to a Squeezebox, and perhaps even to a DAC. If somebody else wants to be part of the mainstream and choose to buy from iTunes, so be it.

iTunes has not done this. Apple just knows how to market it (and this inlcudes the free iTunes player). They were not the first, and are not the only mp3(or whatever format) player, but they are the most popular and thus the biggest target for blame. The artists have thier battles to settle yes, but as technology improves everything changes and adjustments need to be made to progress.

If you don't like iTunes or the quality it proivides, don't use it-Buy the CD. Don't get Hoodwinked. ;)

Fatbrando

The point I think you missed was that the music product that's being put out there now, potentially won't be able to be played on Audiophile caliber equipment. I was actually supporting the audiophile's passion for the pure music experience. I think these "Maverick" Audiophiles get a bum rap for living out their passion fully. Granted it's an expensive passion and the separation of Have's and Have-not's is rapidly expanding. So, fewer and fewer "Joe Six Pack's" will be able to experience the glory and bounty of Music at it's penultimate heights that these, oh so few "Maverick's" revel in. Thus causing great jealousy and envy from the Have-not's. That's why Audiophile bashing is such a grand sport. It's a class war. It's a timeless battle. Until Rome falls and we all have our Dream System's, the beatings will continue until morale improves...

Move along, move along...There's nothing to see here!

(just pushin' buttons there, mmaden28)

reeltrouble1

paypal sucks
itunes sucks

Audiophiles are special people. You can only be an audiophile because someone is not. You cannot be this without someone being that. Yin-Yang. So wack it, stack it, put it on the grocery shelf to fry.

That is all.

RT1

treitz3

How about a blast from the past and a great quote from "The Audiophile's Wife" blog I find so entertaining from time to time.

A while back, The Audiophile added an acoustic feature to our laundry room. As with many modern-day laundry rooms, ours is located on the main floor, near the kitchen, for womanly convenience. This, of course, comes at the expense of manly sanity when a load of dungarees with pocket change is cranked up during dinner.

The Audiophile's solution, as you've probably guessed, was a very large sound panel. I can't tell if this has provided a less fatiguing laundry experience, but I have tried clapping like a maniac to test the sound stage, which serves, if nothing else, as a self-gratifying standing ovation.

The right thing to do would be to put The Listening Chair in there and run an A/B test with and without the panel. I'd need several demo loads of laundry to test all frequencies, and some graph paper to sketch the distortion spectrum. Who knows, maybe I'd be so impressed with the stereo image of the washer and dryer that I'd stop calling laundry a chore and start calling it a hobby.

And that, my friends, is audio winning.

Tom

Toolfan66

WOW, that was a great read, what I found funny was the thread started off very good, then Cathy steps in about audio snobs, yet she sounded like the snob.. LOL!!!



STYX anyone?? LOL!!

leftwinger57

I just happen to think it's pure wallet envy. If someone can afford some really expensive gear and it sounds better than the thousand $ less system that guy would get the less frugal guy's get the less expensive set. Why, because he can. I'm in no position in life where I can get whatever whenever I want it .That's why why I keep coming here and other forums for what does this do and is it to much for what it's doing. Is a 5hr ride for something you want and can handle the gas and tolls most say jump on it ,me I have to really consider every factor . good or bad I do not have WAF to offer an opinion either way ,and from most evidence here it's no honey I do not like the way it looks or we need a new washing machine before $4000 speakers. I guess this is one of those things like music and art it's self that can be subjective.If you can afford it who cares what anyone else thinks you spent too much once you household is taken care of .Good read made great sense and it opened up a 5 page posting

halo71

Great read DK!!

bondslex

Very funny.

11tsteve

Because my wife isn't interested, can't hear the differences, and of course wonders about my obsession and the money I spend, I found the original question interesting and thoughtful.
But then, my favorite part is when audiophiles start bashing fellow audiophiles. Who needs to look outside their own community for abuse and misunderstanding?

zane77

I think most non audiophiles don't take the effort to actually sit down and listen to the music, it is just something that runs in the background while they are doing something else so they never appreciate the music they are hearing.

mantis

Crazy thread