2. misc-audio
  3. 152293-121242

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????
128x128millercarbon
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,645 posts
 
thyname
... 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!
That is essentially what many measurementalists on this forum claim to believe. A few have taken it one step further: only one test, with one listener, is necessary to "prove" their point.

I say that they "claim" to believe that because I suspect many - notwithstanding what they write - don't believe it at all. They're just seeking an argument.
atdavid
736 posts
 
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:

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!!!!

atdavid
736 posts
 
thyname, Cleeds,

Thank you for proving the point I was making above perfectly.  You are already making excuses.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,645 posts
 
atdavid
... 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.
No, that's what you apparently think. Why is it that those who so often clamor for such tests insist that others conduct the research for them?
prof
3,438 posts
 
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.



More to discover