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

[Foggie]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 It's been a very, very long time since a friend said to me, "Have you seen the review of [X equipment] in [Y audio magazine]?"

Maybe part of this is how technology (tools, software, knowledge, web) has advanced so much, many/most audio items being developed sound damn good, regardless of price.  The variance/delta in performance between items has shrunk so much, dunno.  Of course that is subjective depending on where ones falls in all of this.

[AudioDoctor]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

And to be clear, the OP was not about folks who occasionally come through with a sarcastic bon mot, who occasionally tell other folks they've got the wrong idea, or who when they see something actually dangerous being contemplated step in and caution people about it (as I've seen Speedskater and John Swenson do, to name two members I recall).  Rather it was about folks who seem contemptuous, dyspeptic, or both regarding the entire hobby and/or a large number of those who pursue it.

 

 

I see, so not me then?  Good.  

 

[Kal Rubinson]

9 minutes ago, Foggie said:

Maybe part of this is how technology (tools, software, knowledge, web) has advanced so much, many/most audio items being developed sound damn good, regardless of price.  The variance/delta in performance between items has shrunk so much, dunno.  Of course that is subjective depending on where ones falls in all of this.

I think this is a valid point for the mainstream.  Outside of that are those who offer gadgets of no particular value, those who pursue goals other than accuracy and, also, true innovators.  

[kumakuma]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

I don't know what the circulation figures say, but I personally stopped reading the reviews long ago and only glance occasionally at the mags, usually to see whether there's any music being reviewed that I'm not familiar with and looks interesting.

 

This is what I do as well. I have digital subscriptions to Stereophile and TAS and flip through them every month to look for new music to buy. Hi-Fi News out of the UK also has good music reviews.  

 

I rarely, if ever, read an article unless it's focused on music or the making of music.

[Albrecht]

20 hours ago, semente said:

 

I quite agree with this piece called "AUDIO RELATIVISM" - the new disease and excuse:

 

http://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html#Rel

 

16 hours ago, esldude said:

I may have read it wrong, I took him to mean 60 db down from the 80 db.  Not that you turn volume down that far.  Rather that various small little details below the peak are being reproduced at these tiny small levels.  So yes some of those are down at 100,000th of a watt or millionth.  Maybe a more codified test of noisefloor modulation would be worth looking at though with solid state gear of quality I think it would turn out to be a waste of time.

LOL

What a great straw man.

Anything that has to do with the human body is somehow "less-than"

This argument is religious, nearly devoid of any sort of scientific inquiry.

 

 

[Sal1950]

10 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Hogwash, you have no idea which is more accurate, your just making a big fat guess. LOL

 

3 hours ago, Jud said:

Now who knows, maybe in this case jabbr is just making a "big fat guess."  But my assumption would be to the contrary: That he understands what the circuitry in the two amps is doing, and since listening didn't show anything obviously wrong, he felt no need to perform measurements to determine the circuits were operating as designed.

My usual pat answer here would be that since he didn't measure or state the use of bias controlled blind listening to reach his conclusions they can only be considered a guess.

But I will add in the this case that it is exactly his technical understanding of things that even more so will tend to color his subjective impressions.  The more he knows the more important it is for him to follow a path capable of removing his bias's as completely as possible.

[Albrecht]

12 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Despite all the talk, no one has approached the question about how one would actually predict accuracy based on measurements ... I don't mean "you could do this ... handwave" ... I mean the actual distinctions that a person can make within minutes by listening.

 

I didn't mean to drag Stereophile into this, aside from the fact that the measurements given tell us nothing that would actually answer the question.

 

AFAIK, the actual amp designers use a combination of researching parts specs, modeling, building & measuring as well as listening. No one has given me an iota of convincing reason why I shouldn't similarly do research including read reviews and lookup measurements, and then actually listen before purchasing.

 

Without getting into a bunch of prose, I consider the "J2" more accurate and this was apparent after listening for a few minutes and this has been borne out over time. I felt no inclination to do measurements to prove this to myself. Now if I were building one or the other and the sound wasn't identical to the real thing then yes I would do measurements.

Nice....

Of course, it's the anti-audiophile trolls whose goal is to argue on the internet; read about others (poor tests) measuring results. Then, extrapolate that to the/a whole system in the room.

No proof will ever be adequate for them, as they will never, ever, in their life allow themselves to sit down in front of a system or enter the gates of CES or any other "event" or test.  (It becomes a naysaying religion).

And back to Jud's OP; the answer is trolling, and the release of their anger & frustration that they have pent up from their daily life... Chris is correct in that no one will convince anyone of anything, - so they turn to sarcastic, generalized, insults, - as direct ones are not permitted. This becomes a very thin line: as this is 98% of an audiophile site, - a brief glance at the review list, or of the items discussed in the forums reflects questions & reviews about the products and people who want to enhance the recorded event listening experience.

 

[Albrecht]

On 6/29/2017 at 1:32 AM, semente said:

 

I've listened to quite a few Wilsons and my impressions correlated quite well with the measurements.

 

Speaker designers which "take measurements only after they love the sound, and the speaker sounds exactly like they want it to" generally don't take measurements at all and their speakers are not exactly accurate transducers (i. e.  Zu). Some are actually quite bad.

I think Wilson wants you to believe his designs are made by ear but it's probably just marketing. And the poor measurements are the result of his design choices, not his listening impressions. Yes, he went to Vienna and blah, blah, blah, he was struck by lightning and the Gods spoke and he had a vision... Really. 

""I've listened to quite a few Wilsons and my impressions correlated quite well with the measurements.""

Really? I am glad that you have done some listening, and I am pleasantly surprised. But I am also surprised that you found the measurements correlate with your impressions. Have you listened to them with a variety of amps? Have you listened to them in different positions? I do not think that Wilsons are that great of a speaker, and would not be right for me personally. But I did use them as an example of a speaker "character" that does vary with different amplification, (high current vs not; some stereotypical tube sound vs Solid State, etc), & in different rooms, with different positioning variations.

"" And the poor measurements are the result of his design choices""

What YOU may call "poor" is just your subjective, idiosyncratic, & relatively (or possibly) unshared viewpoint. Of course, Wilson speakers sound EXACTLY how Wilson wants them to. Their unique cabinetry is designed to perform a certain way, in a certain context, EXACTLY how they intended: and is an important part of how the speaker sounds. If you or i don't like them, tough, we can go buy something else.

""generally don't take measurements at all""

I would find that assumption to have little veracity: if for nothing else, corroboratory verification for duplication. I know for certain that Bobby of Merlin ran through a pretty extensive "before & after pair" matching routine during the build process.

[jabbr]

10 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

 

Hogwash, you have no idea which is more accurate, your just making a big fat guess. LOL

 

Hmmm ... it was you who suggested that I make my decisions based on Stereophile measurements ... and then went on a tirade about Stereophile's recommendations -- which are -- obtw- supported by their measurements -- being biased by advertising $$$.

 

Its easy to be a critic just try to be consistent

[semente]

19 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

""I've listened to quite a few Wilsons and my impressions correlated quite well with the measurements.""

Really? I am glad that you have done some listening, and I am pleasantly surprised. But I am also surprised that you found the measurements correlate with your impressions. Have you listened to them with a variety of amps? Have you listened to them in different positions? I do not think that Wilsons are that great of a speaker, and would not be right for me personally. But I did use them as an example of a speaker "character" that does vary with different amplification, (high current vs not; some stereotypical tube sound vs Solid State, etc), & in different rooms, with different positioning variations.

"" And the poor measurements are the result of his design choices""

What YOU may call "poor" is just your subjective, idiosyncratic, & relatively (or possibly) unshared viewpoint. Of course, Wilson speakers sound EXACTLY how Wilson wants them to. Their unique cabinetry is designed to perform a certain way, in a certain context, EXACTLY how they intended: and is an important part of how the speaker sounds. If you or i don't like them, tough, we can go buy something else.

""generally don't take measurements at all""

I would find that assumption to have little veracity: if for nothing else, corroboratory verification for duplication. I know for certain that Bobby of Merlin ran through a pretty extensive "before & after pair" matching routine during the build process.

 

Let's compare the Wilson Sophia 3 with the similarly priced 3-way Revel Ultima Studio 2:

 

Cabinet resonances

 

Listening window frequency response

 

Lateral response

 

Waterfall

 

I won't have to share my "subjective, idiosyncratic, & relatively (or possibly) unshared viewpoint" because the graphs speak for themselves...

[Foggie]

26 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

the use of bias controlled blind listening to reach his conclusions they can only be considered a guess.

But I will add in the this case that it is exactly his technical understanding of things that even more so will tend to color his subjective impressions.  The more he knows the more important it is for him to follow a path capable of removing his bias's as completely as possible.

Somehow I keep coming back to the fact this logic doesn't always add up.  A few pages back you stated a stance on sighted bias and the like (to which I would agree bias's can come into play to a degree, but its also not cut and dry) and to me its confusing in that wouldn't a "sighted bias" looking at measurements predispose one to have already made up there mind?  As well as the more technical understanding one has with measurements, that outcome would be even more biased?

 

Therefore if it measures bad it will sound inferior to something that measure better (whatever that really means).  How the heck can that translate into my room (modes, nulls etc..) or is it ("measurements") used as a guide?

[Albrecht]

6 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Let's compare the Wilson Sophia 3 with the similarly priced 3-way Revel Ultima Studio 2:

 

Cabinet resonances

 

Listening window frequency response

 

Lateral response

 

Waterfall

 

I won't have to share my "subjective, idiosyncratic, & relatively (or possibly) unshared viewpoint" because the graphs speak for themselves...

Nope...

The conclusions drawn here can mean different things in a different situation. Is a less resonant cabinet "better" than a more resonant one? The answer is, it is contingent on the room. One of these speaker's is going to be much better in a bigger, live, room.

[Jud]

30 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

 

My usual pat answer here would be that since he didn't measure or state the use of bias controlled blind listening to reach his conclusions they can only be considered a guess.

But I will add in the this case that it is exactly his technical understanding of things that even more so will tend to color his subjective impressions.  The more he knows the more important it is for him to follow a path capable of removing his bias's as completely as possible.

 

So the more you know, the more biased you are toward the facts, and this is a problem?  

 

I’m not being completely serious - you still have to be aware your design may not perform as expected.  That’s of course why people test, measure, and listen.  Since very, very few designers are equipped with full research labs plus people to serve as blind testers plus people familiar with blind testing protocols and research to run the tests for them, much of the equipment you and I own may have survived all the tests and measurements, and then the people who listened to the prototypes that got that far may have been influenced by all those objective tests and measurements.  I don’t find myself overly much bothered by that.

[semente]

3 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Nope...

The conclusions drawn here can mean different things in a different situation. Is a less resonant cabinet "better" than a more resonant one? The answer is, it is contingent on the room. One of these speaker's is going to be much better in a bigger, live, room.

 

Of all the measured parameters you picked the only one where the Wilsons performed better...and probably the least important one.

You're not a professional audio reviewer by any chance, are you?

[jabbr]

54 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

 

My usual pat answer here would be that since he didn't measure or state the use of bias controlled blind listening to reach his conclusions they can only be considered a guess.

But I will add in the this case that it is exactly his technical understanding of things that even more so will tend to color his subjective impressions.  The more he knows the more important it is for him to follow a path capable of removing his bias's as completely as possible.

I don't think blind listening goes far enough ...  the full Tommy test is needed in these circumstances:

This test mathematically proves (the score) that pure intuition is better than use of sensory experience (aside from component smell -- but see burning amp ...)

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Of all the measured parameters you picked the only one where the Wilsons performed better...and probably the least important one.

You're not a professional audio reviewer by any chance, are you?

 

Ricardo has heard the Wilsons - Albrecht, have you heard the Revel Ultimas?  Perhaps you will like them.

[Albrecht]

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Ricardo has heard the Wilsons - Albrecht, have you heard the Revel Ultimas?  Perhaps you will like them.

hi,

 

Of course. I like them much better than the Wilsons. My friend, - who has heard them both, - loves the Sophia and says it's more accurate, - and he's a recording engineer/producer. I think that he's daft. But he also owns the Aerial 20. He agrees that the Aerial 20 is way too bass heavy, - but he owns them to get more bass at extremely low volume. He intentionally purchased a $10,000+ speaker expressly for it's very limited (all-around" capabilities, and this somewhat, 1 dimensional aspect.

[Albrecht]

18 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Of all the measured parameters you picked the only one where the Wilsons performed better...and probably the least important one.

You're not a professional audio reviewer by any chance, are you?

"and probably the least important one."

I don't know: cabinet resonances are very important. I am not sure that it's a good idea to pick apart the various elements of the speaker, - given that the speaker sounds and measures exactly like the designer wants.

"You're not a professional audio reviewer by any chance, are you?"

LOL. You're not a speaker builder by any chance, are you?

 

[Sal1950]

28 minutes ago, Foggie said:

Somehow I keep coming back to the fact this logic doesn't always add up. 

Good try Foggie, but no cigar. The facts and logic is clear, your attempt to add veils fails in the light of day.

 

32 minutes ago, Foggie said:

to me its confusing in that wouldn't a "sighted bias" looking at measurements predispose one to have already made up there mind?  As well as the more technical understanding one has with measurements, that outcome would be even more biased?

Sure, absolutely.

 

35 minutes ago, Foggie said:

Therefore if it measures bad it will sound inferior to something that measure better

Maybe, maybe not. It will for sure "inferior" technically. Whether that failing is audible falls back to bias controlled listening to deduce.

 

38 minutes ago, Foggie said:

How the heck can that translate into my room (modes, nulls etc..) or is it ("measurements") used as a guide?

Now your talking about a attempt to correct the speaker-room interface and maybe induce some personal preferences, a different kettle O fish.

[semente]

36 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

"and probably the least important one."

I don't know: cabinet resonances are very important. I am not sure that it's a good idea to pick apart the various elements of the speaker, - given that the speaker sounds and measures exactly like the designer wants.

"You're not a professional audio reviewer by any chance, are you?"

LOL. You're not a speaker builder by any chance, are you?

 

 

If the designer is not interested in accurate reproduction then I don't care about what he wants; to me he isn't even a good designer, just an audio tailor.

I don't buy hi-fi equipment because it sounds the way some designer wants it to.

Designers are engineers, not artists.

The art is in the music.

[Albrecht]

Just now, semente said:

 

If the designer is not interested in accurate reproduction then I don't care about what he wants; to me he isn't even a good designer, just an audio tailor.

I don't buy hi-fi equipment because it sounds the way some designer wants it to.

Designers are engineers, not artists.

The art is in the music.

First, - FWIW, - I am not including you in the "anti-audiophile" group.

On Accuracy: undefined, - it becomes a moving target. My friend the producer had a very valid argument as to why the Sophia was more accurate. And maybe it is more accurate. Beyond coming to an agreement on the definition of accuracy: the speaker and its measurements don't exist in a vacuum of accuracy or not. The amplification, source, & room also can play a role in making a speaker more accurate. And, that's not even mentioning the recording.

It is why several, and certain speaker and amp manufacturers very strongly advocate certain brands of gear that "perform best" with their components....

And who we are is not static. Accuracy is not static. We LEARN that a recording featuring a Stradivarius is more accurate by hearing and comparing those violins live, and knowing the difference between a Stradivarius  and a Yamaha. And whether or not the recording & the playback gear make the instruments sound right. We don't have "golden ears," - but we do know when a Stradivarius sounds "right."  The best way to know this is to pile up listening experiences....

""Designers are engineers, not artists."

Designers are engineers who build ARTISAN PRODUCTs. Properly combining synergistic components enhances the art.

""The art is in the music."

and the recording. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

Nope...

The conclusions drawn here can mean different things in a different situation. Is a less resonant cabinet "better" than a more resonant one? The answer is, it is contingent on the room. One of these speaker's is going to be much better in a bigger, live, room.

Bzzzzzzzzt!   Wrong!

 

Yes a less resonant cabinet is better.  If one by happenstance results in a happy coincidence of apparent improvement via resonance, it still is a less good design. 

[Albrecht]

Just now, esldude said:

Bzzzzzzzzt!   Wrong!

 

Yes a less resonant cabinet is better.  If one by happenstance results in a happy coincidence of apparent improvement via resonance, it still is a less good design. 

no right.....

There are speakers that have a more resonant cabinet, - such as many of the fine  Audio Physic speakers that can sound wonderful..... (in the right context). 

What's "right" for one context, - can be wrong in another.

[esldude]

One millionth of a watt.  Yes, ONE MILLIONTH of one WATT!

 

The link to the rant about low power.  I think the fellow stated it poorly, but in context of his rant, I believe (perhaps incorrectly) he was referring to listening levels of about 80 db and the low level details some 60 db lower than that. 

 

So we have the 90 db at 1 watt at 1 meter speaker.  Someone noted he needed 4 watts at a distance of 4 meters to get 90 db.  True, if one were outdoors or in an anechoic chamber.  Indoors with reflections it would be somewhat less than that.  Also at 80 db one only needs about 1/3 of a watt.  So yes it is quite likely that in room at 3 or 4 meters one will get about 80 db with a watt or maybe 2 watts or maybe not quite a watt. 

 

So what about 60 db lower?  This is where you have low level air, ambience, and fine detail.  It is these details which can give sense of size, and space and dimensionality of sound.  If amplifiers differ in how this is handled vs high level signals these aspects of listening to good recordings could sound very different. 60 db lower is 1/1000th the voltage and will result in 1/1000th the current which both combine for 1/1,000,000th the power.  So with the above speaker depending on room details we would have 1 millionth of one watt or two watts or perhaps a touch less than a watt. 

 

I also would note I once posted some music clips with noise added at various levels.  I think I put up files that had noise at -40 to -90 db in 10 db steps.  I asked people leave their volume in its usual position and listen to see at which level they could hear the noise.  Most answers were for -70db with some at -60 and one at -80 db.  So those levels which would be something like a millionth or few millionths of a watt are audible.  60 db down is near the surface noise of LPs, it isn't far from the noise floor of some tubed gear if of fairly high power.  I think the near audibility of it is part of the reason these have a bit more air, space and 3D quality for some music. 

 

So yes, really, one millionth of a watt is no hyperbole.  You can hear that level of power over many speakers. 

[esldude]

18 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

no right.....

There are speakers that have a more resonant cabinet, - such as many of the fine  Audio Physic speakers that can sound wonderful..... (in the right context). 

What's "right" for one context, - can be wrong in another.

Poor design. 

 

If want an extreme example of resonant cabinets to tune the sound listen to a Zu. 

 

A speaker may of course have a resonant cabinet within reason and sound wonderful.  A better speaker with lesser resonance will sound better.  Using cabinet resonance as a tune to taste measure is poor design methodology.  The resonance must in principle obscure some detail vs one with less resonance even if you like the resulting apparent balance.