I’m anxious to retire in a couple of months so I can really start to explore these tweaks to my system to see what I hear, and what I enjoying hearing more than I already do. I will suggest, as many agree, some small changes to a system can make a big difference. Just takes the time to really do the ABC comparisons. Sounds like a fun add on to my hobby in my pending retirement phase of life.
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????
- ...
- 355 posts total
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. |
glupson A single test, complicated and sophisticated as it may be, could be enough. The sample size is what matters more.Sample size matters, no doubt. But a test with even a large number of subjects, but that relies on a single room and single system for the purposes of the test, isn't likely to produce meaningful results. |
- 355 posts total