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
millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon OP
12,531 posts
 
prof-
Yes I'm well aware of the rich history and layers of meaning behind the word audiophile. Problem is audiophiles are not all cut from the same cloth as J Gordon Holt. In fact it seems hardly any of them are. (And I bet a lot here don't even recognize the name of the Stereophile founder.)

There are no straw man arguments here. None. The soundstage example, to pick just one at random, there was a whole long thread here not so long ago on the topic with a whole bunch of people, presumably audiophiles, who let's just say hold views clearly at odds with you and me. 

In fact, I will show you just how NOT straw man my arguments are. Look no further than this very page. Scroll up and you will find:
And I would say “what’s wrong with subjective audiophiles” Who the heck else would spend multi thousands of dollars for something that has no measurable difference?  Or that they cannot repeatedly identify without visibly knowing it’s there?

This one arrogant post does exactly what I've been saying: ridicules subjectivity (what people actually hear!) in favor of measurements, AND throws in double-blind testing, all in one beautifully condemning post. The poster should read Holt, and feel the shame.

I'd look for more but to read cleeds, glupson, geoffkait, well they're just not paying me enough to endure that level of suffering. Being as all these are audiophiles only makes me want to scream from the roof tops- What is wrong with audiophiles!?!?!?!
nonoise's avatar
nonoise
10,550 posts
 
Anyone care to guess how long it will be before these kinds of arguments pollute all the categories here?
millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon OP
12,531 posts
 
Sorry, but there comes a point when the usual suspects (see above) do such a fine job of ruining things I just tune out and skip over and so if I miss something, sorry. Anyway, another one, caught at random as it were:

Six people in a room, when the cable elevators are removed, 3 hear a difference and 3 don’t. Who’s right?


Is this a joke? Because its clearly stated everyone, no exceptions, hears the difference. So far at least everyone has. In fact its so starkly obvious that to drive the point home I took the time to describe how Leo not only could hear all 6 to nothing, but even could hear each individual one as they were being removed and replaced. So either this is a joke, or incredibly awful reading comprehension.

Either way, here we go again: What is wrong with audiophiles???
prof
3,438 posts
 
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.

geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
There is nothing to defend. Nobody is making any claims. Look, if somebody is all hot and bothered and wants to test something, be my guest - knock yourself out. 🥊 Heck, I broke two Laws of Physics today already and it’s not even dinner time. Gee, I wonder if the Consumer Protection Agency protects the individual against phony baloney quantum mechanics claims. Do they do controlled blind testing?
More to discover