Why Is Audiophile Bashing Such A Grand Sport?
Comments
-
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?
Not looking for argument; I know essentially nothing about this stuff and am curious. If there's a short answer I'd like to hear it; if it's a long answer I'll probably pass out before finishing it
.
ps When I say "hear air molecules colliding" I mean something like Brownian motion of molecules in still air. -
George Grand wrote: »I wonder what would happen if somebody made a speaker out of diamonds or solid gold.
I just wonder. I don't really care if somebody made a pair, or if they did would they sell well. I got my **** and my ears ain't getting any better.
Or a tiny little pair of Carver Amazing loudspeaker diamond earrings. Somebody's wife, or Cathy or Darla could have something like that.
How about a Solid Gold remote control for $55k
http://www.cepro.com/slideshow/image/3528/____________________
This post is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.
HT:Onkyo 805, Emotiva XPA-5, Mitsu 52" 1080p DLP / polkaudio RTi12, CSIa6, FXi3, uPro4K
2-chnl : Pio DV-46AV (SACD), Dodd ELP, Emotiva XPA-1s, XPA-2, Odyssey Khartago, LSi9, SDA-SRS 2 :cool:, SB Duet, MSB & Monarchy DACs, Yamaha PX3 TT, SAE Tuner...
Pool: Atrium 60's/45's -
Whoops, my bad. I guess I didn't.You mean this? Did you notice the question mark? This means that I don't agree that all audiophiles believe in one truth. Your reading comprehension is poor.
I guess I read too quick and based my response on prior conversations with you. I apologize.
Why do you say that I "believe" what I hear? That's F'n stupid. If I hear bass, does that mean that I "believe' that I'm hearing treble? Um, no. It means I'm hearing bass. Guess what? I know I'm hearing bass. I don't need to "believe" that I'm hearing bass. I don't need science to prove it to me either.And you don't really "know" ****, because you are afraid to find out for sure. You completely ignore over 100 years on the study of human perception, and how it can influence what we think we, hear and see. It all hogwash to you because it conflicts with your beliefs.
Yes, you have beliefs, we all do. No one can control the subconscious mind, maybe that's why they call it subconscious? Nah, couldn't be...
On a different note, what is it exactly that I'm supposed to be finding out "for sure"?~ In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence. ~ -
Some people need science to believe they're actually standing in the room. It's kind of a "reality gridlock" per se.Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amp: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: MartinLogan Motion 60XTi - Shop Rig: Yamaha A-S501 Integrated - Source: Rotel CD14MkII CD Player - Speakers: Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2
-
Solopsism comes to mind.I never had it like this where I grew up. But I send my kids here because the fact is you go to one of the best schools in the country: Rushmore. Now, for some of you it doesn't matter. You were born rich and you're going to stay rich. But here's my advice to the rest of you: Take dead aim on the rich boys. Get them in the crosshairs and take them down. Just remember, they can buy anything but they can't buy backbone. Don't let them forget it. Thank you.Herman Blume - Rushmore
-
Whoops, my bad. I guess I didn't. I guess I read too quick and based my response on prior conversations with you. I apologize.
Why do you say that I "believe" what I hear? That's F'n stupid. If I hear bass, does that mean that I "believe' that I'm hearing treble? Um, no. It means I'm hearing bass. Guess what? I know I'm hearing bass. I don't need to "believe" that I'm hearing bass. I don't need science to prove it to me either.
On a different note, what is it exactly that I'm supposed to be finding out "for sure"?
That's not at all what I was talking about. I was refering to things that only audiophiles claim to hear. Things like differences from various tweaks that were mentioned earlier. But of course you knew that. When have I ever claimed you only believe you hear bass or treble?
Whether the differences exist or not wasn't even the point. He asked why audiophiles get bashed, and the fact that they believe in things that can not be verified in any way is one of the reasons. Like it or not. -
...
Whether the differences exist or not wasn't even the point. He asked why audiophiles get bashed, and the fact that they believe in things that can not be verified in any way is one of the reasons. Like it or not.
And how is that a fact?
Who are they? And who said they 'believe'?
- Sounds like a general stereotyping to me-I think I agree that the term audiophile is misused, and one likely source of that misuse is in marketing, specifically the marketing of the paranormal type (IMHO
)tweaks. "Audiophiles everywhere are using it and swear by it...."
Isn't hearing a form of verifying?...I meant to say that science can prove what we can hear, it cannot prove what we can't hear.
After all, to prove what we can hear, all someone has to do is demonstrate it. To prove what we cannot hear, you would have to test every possible sound, on every person on the planet.
I know that I can hear some high frequency tones that my wife cannot. I know that several people in my office heard a piezo buzzer alarm, while two did not. Individual people have different hearing capabilities, or should I say deficiencies. Might be a clogged ear, might be a medical problem, might be age, or previous exposure to excessive decibels, race, diet, or perhaps just the way their bodies developed. Or perhaps differences may even be a result of evolution. Hmm Evolution-now that's a concept.
Are hearing aids really just audiophile tweaks for those that think they are hard of hearing? How is it that science can't prove what we can't hear? How is it that we know that a dog can hear higher frequencies than audible to a human? How is it that we know that bats navigate using ultrasonic inaudible to human frequencies? How is it that ultrasonic measuring devices actually and accurately measure with sound when we humans can't hear that sound? I think science has already proven what the general limits of human hearing is and is not capabale of.
Science is ever evolving. Remember the general known science of yester years included the facts that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, etc. Oh yeah and Pluto is a planet- oh wait a minute.____________________
This post is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.
HT:Onkyo 805, Emotiva XPA-5, Mitsu 52" 1080p DLP / polkaudio RTi12, CSIa6, FXi3, uPro4K
2-chnl : Pio DV-46AV (SACD), Dodd ELP, Emotiva XPA-1s, XPA-2, Odyssey Khartago, LSi9, SDA-SRS 2 :cool:, SB Duet, MSB & Monarchy DACs, Yamaha PX3 TT, SAE Tuner...
Pool: Atrium 60's/45's -
Why is audiophile bashing such a grand sport?
Do the other groups that get bashed post 4 or 5 pages of "Why don't they love us?"
Who cares? -
See Below |
\/"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Puritan Audio PSM136 Pwr Condtioner & Classic PC's | Legend L600 | Roon Nucleus 1 w/LPS - Tubes add soul! -
ROTFLMAO!!!! Ah George I love you!!!!:D ROTFLMAO!!!!George Grand wrote: »Why is audiophile bashing such a grand sport?
Do the other groups that get bashed post 4 or 5 pages of "Why don't they love us?"
Who cares?Marantz AV-7705 PrePro, Classé 5 channel 200wpc Amp, Oppo 103 BluRay, Rotel RCD-1072 CDP, Sony XBR-49X800E TV, Polk S60 Main Speakers, Polk ES30 Center Channel, Polk S15 Surround Speakers SVS SB12-NSD x2 -
Audiophile bashing?
It's easy, fun, enjoyable and rewarding.
Why is everyone so serious? -
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?2 Channel -
Martin Logan Spire, 2 JL Audio F112 subs
McIntosh C1000 Controller with Tube pre amp, 2 MC501 amplifiers, MD1K Transport & DAC, MR-88 Tuner
WireWorld Eclipse 6.0 speaker wire and jumpers, Eclipse 5^2 Squared Balanced IC's. Silver Eclipse PCs (5)
Symposium Rollerblocks 2+ (16)Black Diamond Racing Mk 3 pits (8) -
Infinite number.
-
George Grand wrote: »Do the other groups that get bashed post 4 or 5 pages of "Why don't they love us?"
No. Some groups take more extreme measures, such as suicide bombing, in response to being bashed.:)George Grand wrote: »Who cares?
Probably the folks who participated in writing the 4 or 5 pages. They probably found the topic just a little more interesting than some of the other thread topics around here such as snot, excrement, flatulence, **** **** and "what are you listening to/watching/drinking/eating tonight".;)Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »No. Some groups take more extreme measures, such as suicide bombing, in response to being bashed.:)
AudioFOOLs would set the vest off arguing over wiring techniques and type -
I think we already had suicide bombers here. Micah banned them when he found out they were stalking him.
Snake would've suicide bombed you just to ruin your damn day. -
This is not specific to audiophiles........but it is specific to enthusiasts in every hobby. Know-it-all behavior experiences blowback and enthusiasts, more often then not, come across (unintentionally) as know-it-alls.
For Example:
It is hard to talk to the Bose owner about the quality of Bose sound. The Bose owner has been mind controlled into thinking his purchase (not investment) was the best choice. If you bash their purchase, you are insulting their decision making, and you then end up in a hard to win argument over why your insults are justified.
We all have friends that own the HT in a box. Invite them over for movie or album night, offer them the best seat, and let them experience and decide for themselves if they like the way your system sounds or not.
If they like it, you have a new friend to discuss audio with.
If they don't notice, talk about something else.
If they don't like it........well then you just have to call them stupid and make fun of their HT in a box....hahahahahaha....just kidding........but seriously -
If they don't like it - asking them some questions will lead you to a more complete understanding of where your system is weak.....ya'learn som'in.
We live in a possessive and self-centric culture that could benefit greatly from a little humility and community.
Nice thread
Rock-On All -
Great post Clark!Marantz AV-7705 PrePro, Classé 5 channel 200wpc Amp, Oppo 103 BluRay, Rotel RCD-1072 CDP, Sony XBR-49X800E TV, Polk S60 Main Speakers, Polk ES30 Center Channel, Polk S15 Surround Speakers SVS SB12-NSD x2
-
George Grand wrote: »Snake would've suicide bombed you just to ruin your damn day.
Snake seems like an "interesting fellow" from what I've read of him. Whatever happened to him?Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Until they learn that there is a wide amount of frequencies that aren't even there. That might spark a bit of interest. What's that? Some of the music is missing?clarknova_666 wrote: »It is hard to talk to the Bose owner about the quality of Bose sound. The Bose owner has been mind controlled into thinking his purchase (not investment) was the best choice. If you bash their purchase, you are insulting their decision making, and you then end up in a hard to win argument over why your insults are justified.
The intelligent Bose owner, I would think, would pay attention to this. It's vaguely important.~ In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence. ~ -
Raife, I don't know. Totally out there though on a social level. I was his main squeeze for a period. Count your blessings.
-
Believe it or not I am an audiophile. Don't laugh, so are you. Everybody on this site is here because we enjoy music and want to reproduce it the best we can. That's what an audiophile is.
I don't have the best gear, most recordings, or probably even the best hearing. Within this crowd I would consider myself to be an "enthusiast", but compared to the general public I am an audiophile. You are also.
Don't be audiophileophobic. If you had the money to spend on that outrageous gear, you would too. Then people that couldn't afford it but still wanted it would laugh at you behind your back just like we do to them.Make it Funky! -
LessisNevermore wrote: »Don't know.
Gimmie your lighter, and I'll sterilize 'em.
Is that a real poncho?
Its a Sears Poncho..........:D -
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?
Not looking for argument; I know essentially nothing about this stuff and am curious. If there's a short answer I'd like to hear it; if it's a long answer I'll probably pass out before finishing it.
ps When I say "hear air molecules colliding" I mean something like Brownian motion of molecules in still air.
Is the iTunes Plus version compressed? I've heard that if it's not compressed, it's as good as CD, but even the best psychoacoustic algorithms are not as good as good as CD. -
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.
RR, If its on iTunes-its compressed. IIRC iTunes plus is simply a higher bitrate.
Some (all?) Lossless formats are compressed as well. Some are just closer to the real deal at least as much as the end listener is concerned. To me its a balance of convenience and percieved quality. To have perfect quality-its not going to be as convenient (swapping CDs or LPs vs. a music server or iPod)____________________
This post is a natural product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.
HT:Onkyo 805, Emotiva XPA-5, Mitsu 52" 1080p DLP / polkaudio RTi12, CSIa6, FXi3, uPro4K
2-chnl : Pio DV-46AV (SACD), Dodd ELP, Emotiva XPA-1s, XPA-2, Odyssey Khartago, LSi9, SDA-SRS 2 :cool:, SB Duet, MSB & Monarchy DACs, Yamaha PX3 TT, SAE Tuner...
Pool: Atrium 60's/45's -
RR, If its on iTunes-its compressed. IIRC iTunes plus is simply a higher bitrate.
Some (all?) Lossless formats are compressed as well. Some are just closer to the real deal at least as much as the end listener is concerned. To me its a balance of convenience and percieved quality. To have perfect quality-its not going to be as convenient (swapping CDs or LPs vs. a music server or iPod)
If they're calling it Lossless, but it's compressed then that seems like they're not being honest, because compressed seems to mean that some information is missing in some way and in some sense. If they're claiming some information is missing but it's not audible, then maybe that's a little more honest and it may be even less of a misrepresentation to say that it's in compressed form on the disk, but it's fully reconstructed when it comes time to play back the music. What I want to do is copy CD's to my ipod and get CD quality sound for the headphones that I'm using, that is I want it to sound just as good as if I plugged the iPod headphones into my stereo. I assume that's possible, but I think I need a special file or a special program or something. Some of these files that I've been getting of the internet or from people who've gotten them by less than legitimate means are so bad it's just ridiculous. I can barely even listen to some of them. I bet what happened is they were first compressed with one algorithm and then compressed with another incompatible one to create a horrible sound. -
RR, If its on iTunes-its compressed. IIRC iTunes plus is simply a higher bitrate.
Some (all?) Lossless formats are compressed as well.
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).Gallo Ref 3.1 : Bryston 4b SST : Musical fidelity CD Pre : VPI HW-19
Gallo Ref AV, Frankengallo Ref 3, LC60i : Bryston 9b SST : Meridian 565
Jordan JX92s : MF X-T100 : Xray v8
Backburner:Krell KAV-300i -
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. -
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. -
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."Harman Kardon HK 3490
Stanton STR8-100
Polk SDA SRS 2.3TL (Proud newbie owner!)
