What is wrong with audiophiles?

Yeesh.

Cleeds, the nature of testing claims, from individual, to groups, to devices, has been clear to some of us all along.

The only reason I jumped in on that subject was due to YOUR writing in a “convoluted” and confusing manner on the subject. You simply did not express yourself well on the subject so we’ve been clearing up ambiguities.

You feelin’ ok, millercarbon?

This particular rant seems a tad unhinged :)

I find it awfully strange that you keep accusing “audiophiles” of denying the subjective experience approach - “If I believe I heard it then it’s true!” - when of anything that is the norm.  It’s why audipholes get so much grief from non-audiophiles.

And, sure lots of people can be absolutely certain they experienced something.  That’s how the human mind works.  Benny Hinn gets a lot of mileage out of it - fills stadiums!   Feeling certain isn’t necessarily the best guide to reality.  And btw, many people skeptical of expensive cables and the tweakier side of high end audio do indeed have experience with what they criticize.   

But, hey, you are on a roll so: take the floor.
;-)

LOL!!! it looks like nobody can make a claim (read: share his/her own experience) about any audio component, unless he/she can:

1 - Show detailed measurements on said components. Including proof / validation of the instruments used in the measurements,

and

2 - Show proof of scientifically controlled, ABX test, with a large enough pool of people to have any statistical meaning

If not, every claim is null and void! LOL!!!!

Thyname:


Here is my take, to show why I don't agree with that statement.


No one has to make themselves in to a scientist in order to enjoy or discuss high end audio.  That doesn't suit many people's interest or goals here, and even among those who are more skeptical than others, it's impractical.


So it's up to any individual if he wants to avail himself of any engineering or scientific knowledge concerning the performance of equipment, psychoacoustics and the like.  And to what degree he/she wants it to inform their own views.


I think the exchange of subjective experiences with equipment is wonderful.  I love it.  Whatever the mechanics involved, the fact is a sound system "sounds like something" and I like exchanging notes on "how things sound."


However, as I am aware of the numerous ways in which our perception can be fallible, and how our inferences from our subjective experience can be unreliable, I will sometimes look to what is plausible based both upon engineering and scientific grounds, in terms of if a claimed phenomenon is plausible, or whether it's audibility is plausible. 
And I use that to put my confidence in a reasonable place about a specific claim.


So....when it comes to, say, loudspeakers, it's well known and well demonstrated in terms of engineering and psychoacoustics that different loudspeaker designs tend to sound different.   So if someone is claiming "I heard speaker A and B and preferred speaker B for these characteristics" that's an entirely plausible claim.   It COULD be that the person is in error somehow, and bias influenced his perception.  If I think I hear a difference between speaker A and B it's possible I could be mislead by some sighted bias.  It's simply being intellectually honest to admit that, and to admit that if I really wanted to warrant deeper confidence in my claim, double-blind testing is a tool to get that deeper level confidence.


But as a practical matter, since the claim of sonic differences are plausible, and such sonic speaker differences are expected, and we don't all have double-blind labs to test our speaker perceptions, it's reasonable to proceed making claims and exchanging notes based on our anecdotal, sighted experience. IMO.  For similar reasons we exchange notes on our experiences for countless things everyday (and it would not be practical to try to scientifically test everything we do!).


This situation changes the more the claims move in to more contested territory - contested by people who have relevant technical and/or psychoacoustics knowledge.   Not all claims are equally plausible.


This moves in to the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" territory.   If you tell me you just bought a new 4K TV from Best Buy, since this is a completely plausible and uncontroversial claim, it's reasonable for me to accept the claim.  But if you tell me you just bought a full grown, living Tyrannosaurus Rex...well...your say so isn't good enough.  Given what is known about dinosaurs, the claim isn't plausible.  And people lie.  So any rational person would want to be more rigorous in the demands for evidence.


I employ that same rule of thumb for proportioning my confidence in both my own experience, and in the claims made by other people, in this case other audiophiles.  If an audiophile is claiming that fuse A has different sonic characteristics than fuse B, or AC cable has a "smoother sound with tighter bass" then I'm looking for a plausible explanation for how that is the case, and will consider the method by which those claims were arrived at.  If the technical claims seem implausible, if the general claims are "fishy" sounding (as they are from most high-end companies selling AC cables), and if the only method of vetting the claims have been "I'm sure I heard a difference" then I'll wait for better evidence.It's just intellectually honest to admit that the variables involved are problematic for establishing the claims GIVEN a lack of reliable, objectively verifiable basis for the claims.


That DOES NOT MEAN that anyone needs to stop making claims about their experience about ANYTHING.  If you put a new AC cable in to your system and perceive some particular sonic character change, by all means, spread the word!  This is *some* evidence towards the phenomenon.  And people having repeatedly similar experiences also constitutes *some evidence* towards the claim.  But to the degree anyone wishes for a more warranted level of confidence, he would have to admit that, depending on the claim, it's not terribly reliable evidence, where more controlled methods could yield results warranting greater confidence.


So long as you are open to a nuanced position, I hope that this clears up at least one person's position here.

But seriously, set aside the serial straw man arguments, the fact is its not being sure of hearing- quite the opposite. Its second-guessing, doubting, discounting and explaining away what you’re hearing.

This is where I find your use of the term "audiophiles" to be strange.


Audiophiles are generally speaking "A person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction."


This comprises people of a spectrum of attitudes, from engineer/science-minded individuals to totally technically ignorant, "whatever I think I hear I hear" individuals, and everything in between.


That said, if the term "audiophile" has a more popular association, it is with the type of audiophiles who generally fill subjective-oriented sites like this one. That is, those who believe that one determines the sonic performance of any gear by listening, and this overrides the importance of, or claims about, objective measurements. That is the overriding attitude in this forum, and it’s the overriding attitude in most audiophile magazines.


Therefore, to keep reading you refer to "audiophiles" as being the ones who refuse to believe their ears and attempt to ’explain away’ their experience is very strange. It’s such an idiosyncratic use of the term "audiophile" I’m left wondering who you are actually referring to.



It would seem you are describing "objectivist" audiophiles vs the more predominant "subjectivist." That would make your point more clearly.

But even then, your rant contains strawmen. I don’t know what you even mean by "audiophiles" belligerently stating soundstaging is "all in your head." as if to dismiss it. It’s not merely "all in your head" - there really is sound emanating in the room - but it is of course a form of audio illusion. Every audiophile I’ve ever known understands that soundstaging is an audio illusion - that is for instance a center-panned singer will seem to be emanating from the space in between the speakers, when the sound it is actually coming from the speakers (and with some room reflection). That’s just a statement of descriptive fact. I would say the singer seems to be in between the speakers, so would my non-audiophile guests. That’s how the illusion works for human brains. Is this something you actually deny? If not...what is your point????


And then you seem to disparage the fact that audiophiles have a descriptive language concerning sound reproduction - dynamics, presence, extension, grain, etc. Where the "normal" person wouldn’t use those descriptions. Well...OF COURSE. Most disciplines or hobbies develop, of necessity, it’s own descriptors to communicate about the phenomenon in question. It’s very helpful. And someone who is not an enthusiast, or in the hobby, won’t use terms they aren’t familiar with. SO WHAT??? There’s nothing "wrong" with enthusiasts using more specific descriptive language to be able to communicate about a complex experience. It’s what you can expect of rational, normal people.


You say a "normal person" would say something like "I could listen to this all night!" Well, fine. But that type of language is bereft of some useful descriptive detail that one enthusiast could communicate to another. Saying "I could listen to this all night" doesn’t tell me a THING about the sonic qualities. The person could be entranced at hearing super detailed sound she has never experienced before, but which comes in part from the speaker actually having a peaky frequency profile that I and many would term "bright" or tipped up in the upper frequencies (or with some etch or edge to sibilance etc). I have certainly seen folks enraptured by such sound. Or it could mean a dull, rolled off sound. Or a neutral sound. It could be describing a system that has little depth or precision of imaging, or one that does the opposite. It could be describing a system with big, loose, slightly bloated bass (which impresses many non-audiophiles) or a system with the tightest bass around. It leaves virtually every characteristic one could detail off the table.



So sure, a "normal person" may say something vague like that. But...SO WHAT? Such language would be insufficient for communicating in the type of depth and richness one would normally want and need as an enthusiast in a technical hobby.


As to your experience of audiophiles vs non audiophiles, again it seems idiosyncratic. I’ve had many audiophiles and non-audiophiles listen to my systems, and all have been entranced and we have spun many tunes. The audiophiles can simply put in to more precise, detailed terms what they are hearing. Though sometimes the non-audiophiles can surprise me with similar language conjured by the experience.

Cleeds,

Exactly. A controlled listening test is just a tool. Those who want to use it to test a single "claim" made by a single listener are misunderstanding the science big time.

I seem to remember you making that incorrect claim before.

Individual claims can be tested scientifically just as can claims for groups. In fact, if anything, it can be tested with greater reliability.

The average hearing test - a blind test - does this all the time for individuals.

If I claim to be able to hear up to 20 kHz that can be easily tested by putting me in a booth, playing a series of tones ascending in frequency up to 20 Hz, and having me press a button only when I can hear a tone.

I’m 56 and you will find I can not reliably detect tones above, say, 14 kHz. This suggests my claim to be able to hear up to 20 kHz is false.And you can repeat this test as many times as you like to build confidence in the results.

Or, perhaps you had some other point that may be true but was not so clear?

Cleeds,

Ok, sure. But that’s not what you’d written which is why it was unclear.

You said those who want to use controlled tests to test a single claim made by a single listener misunderstood science. Which is false for the reasons I gave. Single listener claims can be tested.

But if what you meant to say was that a single listener test can not be used to establish a more general question like "if X is audible to human beings" then of course, that’s an insufficient sample size.

BTW, whether it’s a DUT depends on the claim being tested. You could be testing either the general audibility of X, or an individual listener’s ability to hear X. Depends on what you want to test.

And audiophiles often make testable claims about both. They just don’t bother testing it ;-)

millercarbon,

Because, as I said, its pretty much all of them.

Ok, so then you are just factually wrong.

Normal people are curious, amazed, moved by the music.

So are many audiophiles. Myself, every audiophile I know, and most on these boards from what I've seen.


Of course you can continue your cartoon-people strawmen, but that says more about you than your cartoons.


Really, this thread is clearly just your excuse to be high and mighty and diss other audiophiles.   So, yeah, beat that dead horse (of straw).



BTW, even though I find this thread of yours to be full of fallacious ideas, it doesn't mean I dismiss all your other posts, and that you don't contribute good stuff to the forum as well.


Cheers!

Yes I'm well aware of the rich history and layers of meaning behind the word audiophile.

Then why not be more clear and say "what's wrong with some audiophiles?"


And I remain skeptical that any significant number of audiophiles hold the position at odds with the one I expressed on soundstaging.In fact, not once in my entire life (decades of on-line in audiophile forums) can I remember an audiophile who was truly at odds with the account I gave.


As to the quote you produced, given the context you started of complaining about "what's wrong with audiophiles?" that quote is just as reasonable a question.  It's entirely valid to question the reasonableness of audiophiles paying tons of money thinking they are getting audible performance gains from an item that measures no different than the one they are replacing.   In fact, it's fairly bizarre if you don't even recognize the validity of that type of question!

This one arrogant post does exactly what I've been saying: ridicules subjectivity (what people actually hear!)

And that's where you are conflating issues - equating people's subjective experience with what they "ACTUALLY" hear.


They are not one and the same.  If I say "I heard a dog barking" that typically is a claim that there was actually a dog making that sound.Similarly, when audiophiles say "I heard tighter bass" from that cable, that typically is a claim that the cable actually REALLY did change the sound, not merely that the person imagined it.


But people's inferences from their subjective experience can be wrong.That's both obvious, and well established scientifically.  And it's frankly weird as hell how strenuously many audiophiles want to deny this variable, particularly when it comes to their own perception.


And if you think simply speaking honestly that way about the fallibility of our perception and inferences entails that I promote some scientific dogmatism must control this hobby, please read my previous post on that subject.

Cleeds,
You continue to muddy the waters rather than aid clarity, and this includes your usual use of strawmen.  You complain of the discourse in the forum on these subjects, yet add to the problem by refusing to acknowledge anyone presenting a nuanced view that won't fit in to the stereotype box you want to diss.
I  (and atdavid) have been quite clear and specific about what type of situations merit testing an individual, based on the claim being investigated.   Instead of actually showing the logic to be faulty, you simply make statements meant to imply it's faulty.  Not good enough.You are arguing with what you take to be someone's position in your own head, not with someone's actual position.
Finally:
As to endorsing the statement made by "thyname" your wrote:

That is essentially what many measurementalists on this forum believe.

How about actual examples showing "many measurementalists on this forum" believe this?  Or is this yet another strawman? 
I for one would not agree with thyname's statement, and I've gone in to why not explicitly numerous times on this forum.  It's just lazy to ignore what someone actually writes.

atdavid,

I have no idea what is wrong with audiophiles, but if you look close enough, you may find clues.

Yeah, this is one of the more ironically named threads isn't it?  ;-)


My cabling would give the OP nightmares.  Regular old Belden speaker cable, 45 feet long, run from one room to another down floors, along ceilings, back up in to another room where it comes out and runs along a shag rug to the speakers.   I actually bury the cable in the shag rug which makes for a very neat "no cables" look.   Gawd knows the monsters that are traversing along my cables.


And yet....


Doesn't seem to damage the sound at all.  The speakers I just bought sound better in my home than in the store when they were hooked up to Nordost cables, power conditioners etc.  My system sounds at least as good (better IMO) than some friend's systems who have tens of thousands of dollars worth of audiophile cables, conditioners etc.


Poor me.  I'm really missing out on these audiophile tweaks. 

teo,
I'm sure there is a forum somewhere that will take all your dubious claims at face value, so as not to tire you out ;-)

Hmmm...I guess I can think of some things that can be "wrong" with *some* audiophiles.  Like...over-dramatic insults of audiophiles who don't agree with the OP.

Depressed from scanning (no one could stand to actually read it) the stinking pile of putrid pedantry posted by the usual suspects above I decided to try the How Science Got Sound Wrong thread https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/how-science-got-sound-wrong

Me being nothing like the empty vessels who justify their sorry existence by spending all their free time ruining perfectly good threads 

The OP starts a thread denigrating audiophiles, and plays the well-meaning, high minded one when some refuse to join him in his cynicism, and continues to slime those with another view.
I'm getting de ja vu...

I like me some philosophy.  However....

But some (Richard Dawkins for example) are slower to understand...:)

My strawman sense is tingling ;-)

No object is possible without a consciousness that are implicated with it and more than that always constitutive of it..

Well, I'm glad you have settled that scientific/philosophical puzzle for good!

Are you perchance related to Teo?

LOL this continues to be the most ironic thread going.

The OP has created a thread to denigrate other audiophiles, complains about any pushback in the most dramatic and insulting manner, and tells us what “normal” people do all the while acting like the perfect caricature of an audiophile.  
Pro tip:  using cable risers, demoing that kind of thing to guests, explaining how every little bit of equipment matters, and having the president of a cable company bringing his cables over is not what “normal people” do.   That’s pretty much exactly the type of thing normal people don’t do and a classic audiophile would do.

Now, there is nothing wrong with that. But the lack of self awareness in the ongoing rants is something to behold.

Its ok millercarbon, really, people can practice this hobby any way they want to.  No need to keep denigrating and insulting those who don’t meet your standards.  
But if it’s truly impossible for you to stop carrying on in such a monumentally judgemental fashion, well, you might want to grow a thicker skin for it.

Wait, let me do this for you: “anyone disagreeing with my rant is just another one of those problem audiophiles!”

 —- Question: When do you know you’ve become an audiophile?
Answer: When you no longer listen to music you like, rather music that sounds the best on your system.

——————-

I think thats true to an extent. Not that audiphiles “don’t really listen to and enjoy music” but rather, putting on music you don’t care for to use it to listen to the audio gear is the type of thing an audiophile would do. I’ve certainly done that before, and more often in my earlier days as an audiophile (extremely rare now).

On the other hand, many of us have come to actually like music we otherwise would have passed over, due to how our systems aided that discovery.

And sorry but you’ll just have to dream and imagine what its like having the CEO and cable designer who founded Shunyata Research over because that just ain’t ever happening. To you. So eat your heart out.

^^^^
That is one of the most hilariously "only-an-audiophile-could-have-dreamed-of-writing-it" statements I’ve ever seen on an audio forum.

Pure gold.

I can only think of a zillion people I’d rather have over than the founder of an AC power cable company. In millercarbon’s weird world, lack of interest in such high end audio tweakery apparently make ME the "audiophile."

I’m sure the first thing on non-audiophile guest’s minds are: "This sounds good, but can we hear your system without cable risers? Ok, but we need to hear it now without the magic bullets. Oh, what about the cable with the active shielding. Can you demo that for us? Please?"

This was clearly an audiophile unable to contain himself from wanting to demonstrate audiophile-geek tweaks to non-audiophiles. If you want to talk about "what’s wrong with audiophiles...." Yeesh. That’s just one step above loose-fitting jeans and an obsession with playing Buddy Guy.

I’ve had many non-audiophile guests who have loved listening to music on my system. And yes they are often stunned at hearing sound like they’ve never heard. But I sure as hell don’t start boring them to tears with audiophile geekery because I’ve got their rapt attention and I need my own obsessiveness validated. "Ok, but did you know the sound changes if I switch amps? Or if I switch impedance settings on my cartridge, or switch cartridges? Or if I tweak this or that? Sit there, I’ll demo this for you!" That’s not for THEM. That’s for YOU to feel validated in your own audio-geekery.

That’s just cringe-worthy stuff.

glupson,

Nothing sounds better than a song you like played on a middle wave radio with short wave coming close second, depending on reception quality. There is something to it. It moves.

There is a sense in which I agree.

Though I would add listening to music on FM radio to that mix.

First, for me and many, listening to the radio happens most often while driving, and driving/listening to music seems to be a perfect mix of activities - one seems to elevate the other.


Other reasons that I like hearing a song I love on the radio are:

1. There is an element of surprise, luck.   It's not like these days where anyone can play DJ and dial up whatever song she wants.  If the radio is your medium, you have to rely on whatever the station plays and when a song comes up that you like there is that added joy of fortuitousness "I love this song!"  *turns up radio.*

2.  The shared listening aspect.  There is first of all something more "live" about a song played on the radio insofar as it's a stream "happening out there" that you are just grabbing, which is happening "out there" external to your own ability to control it.   And that this stream is being accessed at the same time by some other portion of the public.  I don't need to see everyone else in their cars (or wherever) listening; simply the nature of the medium and the knowledge that it's a shared public experience gives radio listening a bit of "life energy/social weight" that just playing a CD, or dialing up your own playlist, doesn't quite have.

Not that everyone does or should feel the same, but that's how I experience listening to the radio.   (Which is a lot less fun these days given I care less and less for popular music).

Labelling people " audiophile" with contempt, because we are scientist or musician or any other qualifications, is childish and superficial thinking...Each one of us is unique and different with his own history.

^^^ Yup!