Oh come on, it is quite obvious what is wrong with Porschephiles ... Ferrari envy ;-)
What is wrong with audiophiles?
Something that has happened countless times happened again last night. Ordinary people over for a party listening to some music easily hear things audiophiles argue endlessly don't even exist. Oh, its worse even than that- they not only easily hear but are stunned and amazed at what they hear. Its absolutely clearly obvious this is not anything they ever were expecting, not anything they can explain- and also is not anything they can deny. Because its so freaking obvious! Happens every time. Then I come on here and read one after another not only saying its impossible, but actually ridiculing people for the audacity of reporting on the existence of reality.
What is wrong with audiophiles?
Okay, concrete examples. Easy demos done last night. Cable Elevators, little ceramic insulators, raise cables off the floor. There's four holding each speaker cable up off the floor. Removed them one by one while playing music. Then replaced them. Music playing the whole time. First one came out, instant the cable goes on the floor the guy in the sweet spot says, "OH! WTF!?!?!"
Yeah. Just one. One by one, sound stage just collapses. Put em back, image depth returns.
Another one? Okay.
Element CTS cables have Active Shielding, another easy demo. Unplug, plug back in. Only takes a few seconds. Tuning bullets. Same thing. These are all very easy to demo while the music is playing without interruption. This kills like I don' know how many birds with one stone. Auditory memory? Zero. Change happens real time. Double blind? What could be more double blind than you don't know? Because nobody, not me, not the listener, not one single person in the room, knows exactly when to expect to hear a change- or what change to expect, or even if there would be any change to hear at all. Heck, even I have never sat there while someone did this so even I did not know it was possible to hear just one, or that the change would happen not when the Cable Elevator was removed but when the cable went down on the floor.
We're talking real experience here people. No armchair theorizing. What real people really hear in real time playing real music in a real room.
I could go on. People who get the point will get the point. People who ridicule- ALWAYS without ever bothering to try and hear for themselves!- will continue to hate and argue.
What is wrong with audiophiles?
Something almost all audiophiles insist on, its like Dogma 101, you absolutely always must play the same "revealing" track over and over again. Well, I never do this. Used to. Realized pretty quickly though just how boring it is. Ask yourself, which is easier to concentrate on- something new and interesting? Or something repetitive and boring? You know the answer. Its silly even to argue. Every single person in my experience hears just fine without boring them to tears playing the same thing over and over again. Only audiophiles subject themselves to such counterproductive tedium.
What is wrong with audiophiles????
What is wrong with audiophiles?
Okay, concrete examples. Easy demos done last night. Cable Elevators, little ceramic insulators, raise cables off the floor. There's four holding each speaker cable up off the floor. Removed them one by one while playing music. Then replaced them. Music playing the whole time. First one came out, instant the cable goes on the floor the guy in the sweet spot says, "OH! WTF!?!?!"
Yeah. Just one. One by one, sound stage just collapses. Put em back, image depth returns.
Another one? Okay.
Element CTS cables have Active Shielding, another easy demo. Unplug, plug back in. Only takes a few seconds. Tuning bullets. Same thing. These are all very easy to demo while the music is playing without interruption. This kills like I don' know how many birds with one stone. Auditory memory? Zero. Change happens real time. Double blind? What could be more double blind than you don't know? Because nobody, not me, not the listener, not one single person in the room, knows exactly when to expect to hear a change- or what change to expect, or even if there would be any change to hear at all. Heck, even I have never sat there while someone did this so even I did not know it was possible to hear just one, or that the change would happen not when the Cable Elevator was removed but when the cable went down on the floor.
We're talking real experience here people. No armchair theorizing. What real people really hear in real time playing real music in a real room.
I could go on. People who get the point will get the point. People who ridicule- ALWAYS without ever bothering to try and hear for themselves!- will continue to hate and argue.
What is wrong with audiophiles?
Something almost all audiophiles insist on, its like Dogma 101, you absolutely always must play the same "revealing" track over and over again. Well, I never do this. Used to. Realized pretty quickly though just how boring it is. Ask yourself, which is easier to concentrate on- something new and interesting? Or something repetitive and boring? You know the answer. Its silly even to argue. Every single person in my experience hears just fine without boring them to tears playing the same thing over and over again. Only audiophiles subject themselves to such counterproductive tedium.
What is wrong with audiophiles????
Showing 50 responses by atdavid
Strange, Even the people I know whose regular bottle of wine is $15.00, by the time they are old enough to be invited to a high end bubbly tasting party, know, and would never question whether a bottle of red, allowed to breath, would taste better .... having done that a 100 times themselves. Of course, nice of someone to bring, or supply, two bottles of red, preferably bottled from the same barrel, to a bubbly tasting party. Rather convenient that the protagonist was an Engineer huh? Wouldn't have made it nearly as poignant a story if he wasn't. I guess there is always a first, but then I was never much of a Dom Perignon Champagne lover and I don't play audiophile games with my non audiophile friends.
|
Really now Cleeds .... So you have studied audio/acoustic sciences, and the science of how to apply objective methods to subjective testing? I have. My assertion about proving or disproving a test was 100% bang on. When a subject makes a highly specific claim (say the difference of a fuse was huge and instantly recognizable) under a specific testing regimen (in my system that I know well), which audiophiles do all the time, then you only need to repeat the test with their system and them, to disprove the claim. Similar if a broad claim is made such as always makes a difference with a reasonable resolving system, then allowing the person who made the claim to define the system and pick the listeners, again, meets all requirements to prove or disprove the claim. We are not trying to determine if something is "better", which requires much different testing criteria, we are just testing the specific claim of being able to detect. |
+100 prof2,231 posts11-12-2019 12:01pm And audiophile often make testable claims about both. They just don’t bother testing it ;-) |
Autism is "developmental disorder", which IS a class of "mental disorder" under classification of DSM-V. It is not, however, considered a mental illness. cleeds2,543 posts11-12-2019 11:40am Autism is not a "mental disorder." It is a developmental disorder. |
What's your agenda thyname? You actually troll people on one forum, so you can post about and complain about them on another forum. It would seem the only person with an "agenda" here is you. I don't have an agenda, but I do feel that those on the fence deserve an honest look at many of the questionable claims made, so that they Can make informed decisions about what they purchase. Do you go on rants about Consumer Reports too? How about every audio magazine ... every time they posts a review they are influencing people about how to spend their money. Like I said, you can make any claim you want. No one is stopping you. If anything, you are the one trying to shut down others with statements about others you cannot even backup. |
You are still misunderstanding. Whether one person, or a hundred people makes a claim, they are still individuals making a claim, and it is their specific claim that is being refuted. I could design a perfect experiment to test some "tweak X" in general. I could assemble the best system on the planet (for testing "tweak X"), put it in a space perfectly designed for acoustics and that specific system, and then pick 100 of the best "golden ears", with extensive training in listening tests. I could reach the perfectly clear conclusion that the use of "tweak X" was completely and totally inaudible. Result: If "tweak X" was popular with a certain set of audiophiles, those audiophiles would be running here as fast as their keyboards would allow to make up any number of excuses, yes excuses for why the test was not valid. Just look at the excuses suppliers will make for not doing controlled listening tests .... It is far more useful in some contexts, personable, and actually far less prone to error to prove/disprove specific claims made by individuals, whether about themselves specifically, or a readily identified group, as the claim is very tightly bounded. Prove enough of those specific claims false, and you accomplish more than a well controlled test. Oh, and your comment about me being "new to the forum" was, to put it kindly, misplaced. This is not the only audiophile forum/gathering place on the web. |
prof and I are not confused, seem knowledgeable on the topic, and seem to write pretty much exactly the same thing (and both seem to have the same issue with the forum eating paragraph spacing). All that needs to be tested "Is The Claim", and almost without fail, it is an individual making a claim that They hear something, or a vendor (or audiophile) making a claim that a Specific Group of People can hear something. We are testing their statement of claim, no more, no less, and that does not need random multiple subjects, nor does it even require multiple tests other than enough runs of a single test to rule out random chance. cleeds2,544 posts11-12-2019 12:12pmIt’s odd how this topic often produces such illogic and convoluted responses. |
Baring any comprehension issues that caused you to post what you did below, which in fact No One Said, your post is nothing but a dog-whistling straw-man. Anyone can claim anything. Ya, some people will get bent up in a knot, but most don't care. When you start generalizing your claims, claim others have hearing issues, system issues, etc., But, and this is a big But, refuse to let Your claim have any light of any intensity shone on it, then it starts to smell bad. Tell me thyname, in all these years, decades now, hundred and hundreds of shows, millions of visitors, you would think at least one vendor would take it upon themselves to do a double blind controlled demonstration (administered by a non-biased 3rd party) to demonstrate the veracity of their claims. thyname, One Simple Question: Why does this not happen? thyname419 posts11-12-2019 1:29pmLOL!!! it looks like nobody can make a claim (read: share his/her own experience) about any audio component, unless he/she can: |
I have no idea what is wrong with audiophiles, but if you look close enough, you may find clues. millercarbon OP1,934 posts11-13-2019 1:24am
|
Based on the op's own words:
When I look at those things, to me, this story just appears made up. millercarbon OP1,934 posts11-13-2019 1:24am
|
You can try to twist the words anyway you like, but it does not change the words you wrote. One time you said 4 "Cable Elevators" per side, which in your parlance is branded Cable Elevators. The other time you said, "cable elevators", "One, On one side. Out of 6", which to well, near everyone, means 6 cable elevators (generic or branded) per side, or if you want to go with 6 generic cable elevators total, go for it. Then you make up a convenient story about 6 branded Cable Elevators total, and two generic per side, even though your use of generic and branded above is well, rather clear. (p.s. Cable Elevators are sold in sets of 4 & 8 and yes I know they come in singles, but you said you bought a set). Now I could be mistaken, but I thought the ACE Cable Lifters were not released to what about 2003 maybe 2004? ... Cool, you had them in the late 90’s. Again, I will add in the convenient "engineer", and the red-wine test, that again, pretty much no wine drinker would ever think was needed ... at a white wine drinking event where people are bringing Dom Perignon. Just who are you trolling? Yourself? No worries if you do not read my posts, other people still will. Cable Elevators, little ceramic insulators, raise cables off the floor. There’s four holding each speaker cable up off the floor. The improvement from a set of cable elevators is flat-out obvious. Okay so what’s the big deal? Well being a logical kinda guy I decided to test it out. Which you can do too. Tried wood, cups, carbon fiber, anything handy to support the cables up off the floor. Every single thing worked- more air, better image, more palpable presence. Finally after a while a dealer friend got Cable Elevators in said they were the best he’d heard so I bought a set. Easily the best thing yet. |
Okay Pinocchio, And for the slower ones in the back, you will notice in the second quote, the use of "Cable Elevators", i.e. name branded as per the ops last post, and the distinct 4 per speaker cable. Like I said the first time, one friend noticed he could hear the difference removing just one. One. On one side. Out of 6. |
Newsflash GK, just because someone knows more than you ... or a lot more than you, does not mean they have to consult Wikipedia for something as basic as the definition of the Coulomb to refute what you write. Most EE’s will learn what the Coulomb is in first year, but then ... you aren’t trained at all in electrical engineering, or even engineering physics are you so you wouldn’t know that. I may not agree with Millercarbon on much, but he certainly nailed his analysis of you. It was spot on. p.s. GK, if you want to spend less time changing which foot you have in your mouth, you may want to research magnetoresistance as well. |
Unless they are moving, like in a cable conducting electricity, in which case they are affected by stationary magnets (you know like in a CRT that requires degausing). geoffkait18,235 posts11-14-2019 8:05amFurthermore, electrons have an electric charge NOT a magnetic charge. So, no, they are not affected by stationary magnets. Whew! That was a close one! 🥵 |
We know that the electron is an actual "physical" thing. We think it is an elemental particle because we have never been able to break one down into constituent parts. We have even been able to take video of an electron: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ofp-OHIq6Wo I thought you read phys.org? https://phys.org/news/2008-02-electron.html |
Technically, the Coulomb is defined by the charge on a proton, which is exactly the same as the charge on an electron (but -) ... so your statement below, that we know it’s charge in Coulombs while not technically incorrect, carries negative information. geoffkait18,243 posts11-14-2019 12:50pmWe’ve know what electrons really are ever since the famous double slit experiment, first performed by Young in 1801. We also know the size and weight of an electron. We also know it’s exact charge in Coulombs. That’s not (rpt not) theory, gentle readers. |
And once again GK is wrong. Usually your "wrongness" is buried in stuff that seems right, but this time, You are all wrong. It is like you don’t even understand or know about the "Hall Effect" ... Yes, this time I will link to Wikipedia, as it will be at a level you may understand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_effect p.s. Current is defined as charge movement, and since the + charges are fixed, the - charges must move ... oh, and they are electrons. None of this is related to your also wrong impressions of how the fields that generate energy Vectors are arrived at by the way. geoffkait18,240 posts11-14-2019 11:14amatdavid gets partial credit. Sadly, I do not dispense prizes for partial credit. In the case of the TV degaussing affects the picture quality, that’s true, by getting rid of stray magnetic fields - produced mostly by current moving through wires. But the mistake in logic is that current is not electrons. The picture quantity is not a function of electrons, which are fairly constant in number at any point in the system and any point in time. In the case of audio cables, electrons are not affected by magnets, as I described already, but the audio signal is. Anyone not following raise your hand. |
+1, but GK doesn't even understand the basics, so this will fly right over his head. glupson2,908 posts11-14-2019 1:05pmgeoffkait, |
Someone with the initials GK lacking in self-awareness.
|
+3 glupson2,911 posts11-14-2019 3:57pm |
Really now .... You have a Batchelor’s degree from the College of Engineering and Applied Science from UVA in 1967, with a specialty in Aerospace. That is easily verified. The level of "atomic physics" you would have studied in "school" would be minimal at best given that degree, and would have been limited to electives. It was also 52 years ago. Your "humble" narrator has an inflated sense of self. I would say analogluvr got it 100% correct. He spotted you a mile away Geoff! p.s. Which is not to make this an age thing. I had the pleasure to meet Gerhard Herzberg twice, one in the late 80's, and once in the early 90's. He was still speaking in his 80's and still brilliant. He won a Nobel Price. Geoff sells magic pebbles. |
A theoretical physicist and a quantum mechanical engineer .... but ended up as a training coordinator at Lockheed and working mainly as a test engineer .... geoffkait18,259 posts11-14-2019 6:40pmAre you stupid or something? I’m serious. I’m an aerospace engineer. I’m an aerodynamicist. I’m a theoretical physicist. I’m a quantum mechanical engineer, too. |
+4 glupson2,911 posts11-14-2019 3:57pm |
+2
|
Cool, Then there must be lots of published double blind listening tests, published papers (no, not some guy shilling a magazine/review site). What? There isn’t? Say it isn’t so!!! Cue the extend diatribes and excuses that will now follow One of the problems with "audiophiles" ... they try to extend real, verified, not argued with even measurable things, i.e. EMI/RFI, which pretty much no-one argues with, and try to extend that to things very "generically" like vibration (of what?), magnetic fields (where, what field strength), fuses, wire directionality, of which things are far far from settled. I mean the could be settled pretty easily couldn’t they? geoffkait18,250 posts11-14-2019 2:51pmWhat’s hilarious is there isn’t any argument any more about how the signal in cables and power cords and fuses is subject to external forces and noise such as vibration, magnetic fields and RFI/EMI. So I don’t know what all the ruckus is about. Same thing with wire directionality. |
Below is what Geoff Kait claims about himself. However, the University of Virginia says Geoff graduated with a Batchelor’s degree in 1967 from the School of Engineering and Applied Science (what they call engineering schools) in Aerospace. That is most definitely NOT a degree in Theoretical Physics. His quantum chips ... aren’t "chips" i.e. intelligent chips you would think of, but I am sure there is a very creative explanation for them. When you start out with gross lies, it pretty much makes everything you say suspect. It seems to be a common problem in certainly audiophile circles. geoffkait, |
Geoff, Keep fooling yourself. There are many educated people on these forums. They know, that a Batchelor’s degree in Aerospace Engineering, is Not a degree in theoretical physics. Engineering ... is not theoretical physics. It is not even experimental physics. You keep digging that hole Geoff. When you hit bottom, you let us know. Speaking of morons, stop treating others on this forum like they are and have no clue what an undergrad aerospace degree would look like. You literally claimed you have a degree in theoretical physics. That was a whopper and you should be ashamed. |
Thermodynamics ... pretty much standard in many Undergraduate engineering curriculums. Indeterminate structures ....pretty much standard in any civil or mechanical undergraduate curriculum. Nuclear engineering, likely a 4th year elective. Color me unimpressed ... even with your skating. The hole, it keeps getting deeper, and deeper and deeper. Now I am solidifying my theory that the "theoretical" aspects you mentioned may be falsifications as well. geoffkait18,259 posts11-14-2019 6:31pmMy courses included statistical thermodynamics, nuclear engineering and indeterminate structures. I was in the first class of Aerospace Engineers at the beginning of the race to the moon 🌝 |
Good laugh Skerdi. If only you knew how many people blocked you on FB because you weirded them out. Shouldn’t you be running to report back to Ted or something right now? thyname432 posts11-14-2019 9:21pm“‘’ atdavid, you sure are a nosey f%@*$er. And quite creepy“” |
I have an engineering physics degree and an MEE in semiconductor physics (which sounds impressive till you find out most working in the field have PhD’s). Never, in a million years, would I have considered myself a theoretical physicist. I have met thousands of engineers. Never once did anyone claim to be a "theoretical physicist" ... because you are not. Taking a few courses in theoretical physics does not make you a theoretical physicist, it makes you someone who took some courses. Writing some things about quantum mechanics that have never been published, never been peer reviewed, never been proven, does not make you a quantum mechanical engineer, but it may make you a crack pot. |
Sorry gk, but you spilled the beans on that one before, both Lockheed training coordinator and doing test engineering. I have a long memory. geoffkait18,261 posts11-14-2019 6:56pmWrong again, Zippy. I do know a thing or two about testing, that’s true. Unlike yourself, if I can be so bold. |
It’s rather cute how you think most audiophiles would consider it "special" to have the CEO of an audio cable company over or that they would be envious, whether Shunyata, or SR, Nordost, or ... well any of them. There are literally 1000’s of people I would be more interested to have over, and if we are talking audio, Floyd Toole, Nelson Pass would be far higher on the list. My friends are pretty amazed by how my system sounds too. Can’t say any of them ever asked "how", the only exception being how there is so much bass from relatively small speakers ... and then only because the subs are not obvious. |
So you were lying on LinkedIn too Geoff? Senior Coordinator, Learning Center Company Name Lockheed Martin Dates Employed Apr 1998 – Jun 2001 Employment Duration 3 yrs 3 mos Location Chantilly, Virginia |
So tell us just what that job is? I am really quite looking forward to the story you will spin. Can you wait 3:30 while I make popcorn? In the meantime, while people are waiting, here is another thread from Stereophile forums in September 2014, 5 years ago. It seems that all you ever do is create chaos and piss people off while actually bringing a sum quantity of 0 to any conversation, if not negative because you will try to shill your stuff. https://www.stereophile.com/content/absolutely-classless-stereophile toledoOffline It's a tough call with Geoff. It's a tough call with Geoff. You want to treat people with respect but need to adjust their behavior. He certainly does twist himself into knots, though and you can always tell by the frustrated summations or lashing out or simply saying "no I am not" like a little kid. I think Geoff needs to understand that he does not have to reply to every comment and set himself up with the weirdest logic or insult people when he has nothing better to say. If I was selling his types of products, I might have a chip on my shoulder too. |
Huh? Are you saying that you can't get a degree in theoretical physics? You can even get a B.Sc. in it. There are many M.Sc. in theoretical physics. Of course, you know what people who take those degrees can say? They can say they have a degree in theoretical physics. You, you can't, at least not honestly. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/undergraduate/courses/physics/theoretical-physics-bsc.aspx |
I will make you a deal geoffy. You stop making things up and claiming you are something you are not, and I will not feel a need to show others your lack of transparency. Deal? geoffkait18,266 posts11-14-2019 9:10pmatdavid, you sure are a nosey f%@*$er. And quite creepy. Did they say why they want to terminate my command? Do you think my methods are unsound? 😬 Read my lips. I only give you information I want to give you. |
GEOFF, Please Stop Lying. You, yes You, absolutely did claim that you have a degree in theoretical physics. https://www.stereophile.com/content/absolutely-classless-stereophile geoffkait, |
Well most of your post I agree with your comment about DSD and 6db is founded in a lack of understanding of noise shaping. What we don’t understand we often assume is bad whether there is real evidence of it or not. Your comment about high res/high bandwidth is not founded nor completely unfounded. Higher resolution is never bad. You made a false claim. Higher bandwidth can cause speaker resonances that modulate to audible frequencies. |