Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Then you realise that since audio signals are alternating currents, the micro-diode theory makes no sense at all.

 

Why not? If the cable becomes a diode, it will have a significant effect on SQ. Probably no-one will like it, but still, the SQ could change dramatically

 

 

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Why not? If the cable becomes a diode, it will have a significant effect on SQ. Probably no-one will like it, but still, the SQ could change dramatically

Yes, but a diode causes the same distortion to an alternating current regardless of which direction it is inserted.

[pkane2001]

Just now, mansr said:

Yes, but a diode causes the same distortion to an alternating current regardless of which direction it is inserted.

 

Not quite. Phase is different by 180°, as is the sign of the amplitude  What's more, if you reverse one of the two speaker cables by accident, you should hear no sound coming out your speakers... 

 

 

[plissken]

6 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Remember we all have different ear/brain systems, different audio systems, different rooms, etc. so we should be able to return a product that doesn't offer an improvement in sound quality as most everything now has a 30-day money back guarantee. Music Direct has 60-days. We didn't ask for or need your protection. I prefer the quest for superior sound quality, not be hindered. 

 

 

In the past, whether it be my mechanic, doctor, attorney, etc... I've always appreciated informed advice that saves me effort and lets me concentrate on other things that matter. 

 

It's a recurring theme even here where you have people ask about dongles, cables etc and someone asks 'have you measured your room?', 'do you have any room treatments?', 'What are your current speakers?'. 

[christopher3393]

32 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

In the past, whether it be my mechanic, doctor, attorney, etc... I've always appreciated informed advice that saves me effort and lets me concentrate on other things that matter. 

 

It's a recurring theme even here where you have people ask about dongles, cables etc and someone asks 'have you measured your room?', 'do you have any room treatments?', 'What are your current speakers?'. 

 

One precondition is that one must trust the source of the advice, must value the opinion. This process is not entirely objective. Sometimes it is far from objective and depends in part how you are treated by the person who is offering the advice and'or your perception of how that person treats others.

[mmerrill99]

5 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

One precondition is that one must trust the source of the advice, must value the opinion. This process is not entirely objective. Sometimes it is far from objective and depends in part how you are treated by the person who is offering the advice.

" The heart ... first dictates the conclusion, then commands the head to provide the reasoning that will defend it." Anthony de Mello

[Sal1950]

6 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

I agree and that is why it is important to occasionally attend live acoustic music events. IMHO that is the goal of better reproduction equipment, getting closer to the real thing. The ear/brain system is the best tool to use to compare the real event to the reproduction of it.

Sorry but that is where your argument runs off the tracks.  The "ear/brain system" is the most fallible tool to use in sighted evaluations of a High Fidelity system. Without a scientific approach you are lost in the human weaknesses of bias and illusion.  It's like believing the magicians tricks are real magic because your eyes saw that airplane disappear off the runway.

But I'm very glad you enjoy the sound of your music.

Sal

[plissken]

2 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

One precondition is that one must trust the source of the advice, must value the opinion. This process is not entirely objective. Sometimes it is far from objective and depends in part how you are treated by the person who is offering the advice and'or your perception of how that person treats others.

 

I understand what you are saying.

 

But enthusiasts in this hobby seem to be a fickle bunch. Mind you I've never had hands on with Auralic hardware before and doing this from thousands of miles away. I remoted into a members computer across the pond and in 15 minutes was able to determine why their Auralic wasn't being seen by the application (it was a mis-configured network) and also what the steps going forward to resolving it. Then a later thread had the same person ignoring my advice as it related to things networking.

 

So I was the correct authority to fix something, they and some others couldn't, but when networking advice was sought again...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[christopher3393]

2 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

Sorry but that is where your argument runs off the tracks.  The "ear/brain system" is the most fallible tool to use in sighted evaluations of a High Fidelity system. Without a scientific approach you are lost in the human weaknesses of bias and illusion.  It's like believing the magicians tricks are real magic because your eyes saw that airplane disappear off the runway.

But I'm very glad you enjoy the sound of your music.

Sal

 

Isn't that tantamount to saying "You are delusional", but with a smirk adding "I'm glad you are enjoying your delusions?" Aren't you also the person that claimed that if someone doesn't care for the sound of a system that tests accurate, that there is something wrong with the listener? I think your statements are hyperbolic and really tend toward inolerance of our human differences in aesthetic perception and judgement.

[mmerrill99]

3 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

The "ear/brain system" is the most fallible tool to use in sighted evaluations of a High Fidelity system.

So, what your saying is that it's not the "ear/brain system" that is fallible - it's the "ear/brain/vision" that is fallible?

Pity as that is what I use all the time when I listen to & enjoy my music system. Should I not do that?

 

What happens when you do your "blind test" & it "proves" that there is no difference between A & B - does your ear/brain/vision system stop being fallible or when you go back to sighted listening of A & B  you have to keep reminding yourself that the pretty, shiny one does not sound better?

 

Or have you simply replaced one bias in this fallible system with another opposite bias?

 

Chose your bias!!

[christopher3393]

2 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

I understand what you are saying.

 

But enthusiasts in this hobby seem to be a fickle bunch. Mind you I've never had hands on with Auralic hardware before and doing this from thousands of miles away. I remoted into a members computer across the pond and in 15 minutes was able to determine why their Auralic wasn't being seen by the application (it was a mis-configured network) and also what the steps going forward to resolving it. Then a later thread had the same person ignoring my advice as it related to things networking.

 

So I was the correct authority to fix something, they and some others couldn't, but when networking advice was sought again...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't argue that knuckle-headed responses don't happen here or that people aren't inconsistent in their willingness to follow advice. I just wouldn't generalize from that about "subjectivists" and their perceived inability to be rational, ie, to follow logic, to engage an argument consistently, to enter into meaningful discourse ---dialogue, discussion, conversation, dialectic, debate, terms which can be filled out and distinguished at least to some extent. But people seem to have very different notions of what these things are, and there are no ground rules that address how to discuss here. So we are not even on the same page regarding what it means to post in a thread, and what good practice is. This is a formula for the chaos that we experience. Sometimes I'm amazed that anything useful comes out of it. It happens almost in spite of itself.

[firedog]

12 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Isn't that tantamount to saying "You are delusional", but with a smirk adding "I'm glad you are enjoying your delusions?" Aren't you also the person that claimed that if someone doesn't care for the sound of a system that tests accurate, that there is something wrong with the listener? I think your statements are hyperbolic and really tend toward inolerance of our human differences in aesthetic perception and judgement.

You are also going too far. 

Sal writes with a sharp edge, but it's simply true that the ear/brain system is easy to fool. It's also true that sighted listening changes what we hear - that's well established. 

 

Obviously each person is free to evaluate sound however they want, but you can't claim accuracy/authority if you are basing everything on sighted evaluations using the ear/brain system.  

If that's my only tool for evaluation that is fine, but then I should also acknowledge the distinct possibility that I'm fooling myself at least some of the time. 

 

Part of the problem that in real life it's basically impossible for most of us to do any proper blind testing, so we muddle through as best we can without it. Some of us are comfortable with that reality, others find it very bothersome. 

 

Hey but in the end it's only audio. It shouldn't bother anyone else what I choose to listen to. 

 

By the way, to understand how much sight effects our auditory perception, watch this: 

 

[Sal1950]

18 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Isn't that tantamount to saying "You are delusional", but with a smirk adding "I'm glad you are enjoying your delusions?" Aren't you also the person that claimed that if someone doesn't care for the sound of a system that tests accurate, that there is something wrong with the listener? I think your statements are hyperbolic and really tend toward inolerance of our human differences in aesthetic perception and judgement.

No, what I said was her approach to evaluation of a systems capability to accurately reproduce music was flawed.

But in the end if you don't care about such things and love the sound of your rig that is all that counts for you.

[firedog]

29 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

So, what your saying is that it's not the "ear/brain system" that is fallible - it's the "ear/brain/vision" that is fallible?

Pity as that is what I use all the time when I listen to & enjoy my music system. Should I not do that?

 

What happens when you do your "blind test" & it "proves" that there is no difference between A & B - does your ear/brain/vision system stop being fallible...

Unfortunately, our brain will often continue to allow sight to override what is coming into our ears. We are creatures very oriented towards sight. 

You obviously can listen and enjoy how you like - and should. I think what Sal and some others are reacting to is using sighted listening as some sort of objective, authoritative yardstick. It isn't. Even for our own ears. We should at least acknowledge that. 

It's fine to say, "I like this better and that's what I'm listening to."; That isn't the same as saying, I added this to my system and I KNOW for a fact  that it does x (reduces noise, lifts veils, firms up bass, etc)", because I heard it. 

 

A better approach would be "it sounds better to me, but I haven't tested it non-sighted, so I could be fooling myself."

[christopher3393]

17 minutes ago, firedog said:

You are also going too far. 

Sal writes with a sharp edge, but it's simply true that the ear/brain system is easy to fool. It's also true that sighted listening changes what we hear - that's well established. 

firedog, not my intent to negate the value of blind testing, or the fact that the ear/brain system can be fooled (Isn't this less the case for trained listeners?). By going too far, I meant to take the caution about the ear/brain system so far as to negate the value of human listening, including the implication that average everyday listening and  aesthetic appreciation are either radically subjective (to the point of near solipsism) or worse. To imply that there is something wrong with the listener? Perhaps the listener should be subject to a retraining  program? Perhaps we can find psychological deficiencies as to why someone really dislikes the sound of a piece of gear (for me it was the Auralic Vega) that tests really well? Testing, including both measurement and blind testing, is not yet at the state that can guarantee preferences in sound quality. This combined testing is a growing, promising approach that has already yielded some fine results. But even Sean Olive has to exercise some caution in his claims, and woud recognize that nothing near adequate testing has been done yet. So I think Sal's sharp edge includes hypoerbole and overclaiming. Which is human, especially when someone feels passionate about something. But that passionate, rhetorical subjectivity often undermines the very objective message that one is trying to communicate.

 

I find sharp edges fatiguing.

[christopher3393]

10 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

But in the end if you don't care about such things and love the sound of your rig that is all that counts for you.

 

OK. So then what's the problem?

[Sal1950]

8 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

I find sharp edges fatiguing.

Yes, you must be careful you don't cut yourself.

[mmerrill99]

12 minutes ago, firedog said:

It's also true that sighted listening changes what we hear - that's well established. 

Nope, the correct phrase is "CAN change what we hear" but so can smell, mood, lighting, worry, tiredness, company - any number of things!

 

What would you say is the best way to eliminate these influences on what we perceive?

 

Teresa has found that over longer term listening the variations in each of these other biases may well cancel out - in other words her mood listening one day is likely to be different to her mood on another days listening, her tiredness one day, different to her tiredness another day & so on. Over long term listening, these factors will vary so much that what is the essence of  the sound becomes apparent - the characteristic sound of the device, if you like.

 

On the other hand, blind A/B testing focuses so much on eliminating just one bias sigthedness/knowledge that it ignores all the other biases/influences in how we perceive. It tends towards a one shot at "proving" what is audible.

 

See the problem?

[Sal1950]

8 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

OK. So then what's the problem?

That's not a position you want to pass on to others as a rational approach to High Fidelity.

What part of that do you find so difficult to understand?

[firedog]

2 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

OK. So then what's the problem?

The problem is when audiophile only use sighted evaluation and make claims sound improvements brought about things like cables and other items that can't be supported by known mechanisms. 

If you want to say something definitive like, "cable a reduces harshness compared to cable b", then you should be prepared to test it unsighted. 

 

[christopher3393]

Just now, Sal1950 said:

That's not a position you want to pass on to others as a rational approach to High Fidelity.

What part of that do you find so difficult to understand?

 

You don't have to pass it on. You are trying to obstruct that message in fear that someone else will pass it on. How's that worked so far?

[Sal1950]

6 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

You don't have to pass it on. You are trying to obstruct that message in fear that someone else will pass it on. How's that worked so far?

With you and Teresa I'm batting 0 and 2.

But I'm hoping for a better result with others more rational.

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

OK. So then what's the problem?

 

The problem occurs when folks report their subjective, fallible evaluations to others that take it as gospel. Especially bad when this is done by equipment manufacturers. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

That's not a position you want to pass on to others as a rational approach to High Fidelity.

What part of that do you find so difficult to understand?

 

Sal, you seem to be playing Big Brother / Minister of Information when it comes to how people should think and what they should believe. I don't know you personally, but you strike me as the type of guy who prefers to live and let live. Something doesn't add up. 

 

What am I missing?

[mmerrill99]

22 minutes ago, firedog said:

By the way, to understand how much sight effects our auditory perception, watch this:

No, this is not a good example as it is showing a very specific conflict between how we process speech & how we use visual as well as auditory clues to predict/analyze what is being said. The mistake often made is to try to generalize this specific illusion to the statement "how much sight effects our auditory perception"

 

What is generalisable is that all perceptions use whatever information is available to try to solve the particular puzzle that is perception. Why is perception a 'puzzle'? Because there is usually not enough information within the signal stream to come to one specific solution that matches the signals being received - there are many possible ways those signals could have been generated & the job of our perception is to select the most probable from all the possibles in double-quick time!!