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

[Albrecht]

9 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

I'm seeing two groups of audiophiles with different approaches to the hobby arguing with one another.

 

I'm not seeing a lot of folks coming to this site to attack the hobby itself.

Hi, not the subject of the OP's post.

[Albrecht]

18 hours ago, jabbr said:

I think that, probably, folks intend to disagree with an idea, an approach or even a way of thinking but instead attack a person (an audiophile)

So I strongly think that if we could all avoid personal attacks, this behavior would diminish

I agree of course. My point was only that there is a big difference between the people in the hobby, vs the hobby itself. I don't really like the word "hobby." And of course, there is a big difference between being a "non-audiophile" and an "anti-audiophile." Hopefully, this site will bring together both Audiophiles and "anti-audiophiles" through (computer), or digital file playback. Traditionally, (since way back in the .mp3 days) it is computer, (hardware and software designers), who have eschewed the audiophile paradigm of "high performance equipment." To the point of your post: in many ways, - you (not you but people) don't see "audiophiles" making a concerted point to attack those who don't believe there are varying levels of performance in audio playback gear.  Cheers,

[Albrecht]

34 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I wasn't thinking of a specific subgroup of audiophiles. Don't all audiophiles think there are differences in at least some playback gear? -- could you clarify?

Hi,

We can get into some specific instances, and that is often great: for when someone starts elucidating specific equipment, & specific incidents/experiences, - many generalizations (might) fall apart.

We've discussed cables, & there are threads regarding the Schiit Yiggy as 1 example. In this particular case, there was a segment of folks who were criticizing the design, and all those who were asserting that higher performing DACs were NOT higher performing, and that there was no basis for an audiophile assertion that (for example) a Meitner performs much better than a $350 Sony. I took Jud's OP to be asking, - why do anti-audiophiles come on audiophile website & attack audiophiles? I see this as a very valid question. And, there have been some good answers put forth already. Would it be worthwhile to remind folks that everyone likely has 4 to 5 or more music playback systems. The point being that it is highly likely that not all of these systems perform the same.

[Albrecht]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

However, causing "collateral damage" serious. I get a bad taste in my mouth after reading your comment.

"" wee bit of fun at beliefs.""

 

If I may add, - how would someone define "beliefs" here? Are there some tests, some evidence, or some "proofs,"  or level of components, or price point of components that allow one to escape this "collateral damage."  And doesn't it go beyond fun? Is someone calling someone else a "liar" considered more than just a "wee bit of fun?" How do we know the difference between, belief and a real performance difference?

[Albrecht]

4 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

What defines one as an 'anti-audiophile'? Those who believe in measurements? Or those who believe in listening? Or those who don't agree with long term evaluations, or those who only accept blind testing? Objectivists or subjectivists? Digital cable affects SQ or it doesn't? Grounding boxes work or they don't? Climate change is real or fake? Or maybe it's simply someone that doesn't agree with me (and, of course, I know that I am an audiophile)?

 

I'm genuinely interested in how one would define an 'anti-audiophile'. 

If an audiophile is someone who is..."" a person who has a great interest in high-fidelity sound reproduction""

Then an anti-audiophile is someone who is not. I think that many could reasonably extend this to include and conclude that different components perform differently and the listening experience can be enhanced by what the listener views as "better" performing equipment or combinations thereof, (according to her/his goals). 

To this extent, the anti-audiophile would be someone who is not interested in enhancing the listening experience, and/or attempts to disprove that different equipment performs differently.

[Albrecht]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

Through scientific studies.

what kind?

[Albrecht]

8 hours ago, master said:

 

The goal of every audiophile should be to better enjoy music... or at the very least to enjoy music.

 

 

Is it possible that you're building a little bit of a false dichotomy here? Setting up a bit of a straw man? If you count a smart phone, how many people own just one music playback system? What defines a music lover? I can understand you very well if you would've said, - audiophiles can possibly get over-obsessed with playback equipment, engaging in the law of diminishing returns for minute changes: -  losing sight of the pleasure of listening. What each of us calls equipment that brings "better sound" can enhance the listening experience. The listening experience is enhanced more by my big main system than it is by my bedroom system, and then again the kitchen system, and then again the car system. Isn't it possible to appreciate both music and the gear that enhances the experience?

 

I haven't changed my main system except to replace a MacMini since 2003. I have over 40,000 songs now in the DB. But I don't consider myself any more of a "music lover" than someone who is crazy wild about the collective works of Beethoven and plays the music constantly, jumping around the room with passion.....

 

As a songwriter and musician, I find things in both music and in the gear that enhances the listening experience: I appreciate content choices in songwriting in composition, even ones that I don't like personally, - but the writing choices. I am often amazed by the skills and abilities of a musician, - even though I might not like the song/composition. I also can appreciate some equipment that isn't "right" for me and my favorite music, but would work better for someone else's music, in someone else's room.

[Albrecht]

54 minutes ago, Jud said:

By the way: When I suggested starting one's own thread, that can work for both people who want to have subjective discussions and those who want to keep things objective.  @esldude@wgscott

I think that I understand what you're saying. I would humbly posit for your consideration on your thoughts on respect that the scales are often tipped to the point where the word audiophile calls up all kinds of negative connotations wherein it seems to be just a given that an audiophile is an idiot.

The act of writing, recording, & playing back music is A SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE. There is no certainty, no right, no wrong. There's no universalizable objective argument that a Yamaha Violin is worse sounding than a Stradivarius. There's no objective argument that a tubed Manley Stingray sounds better than a Mark Levinson 383, or even any different through a pair of NHT stand-mount speakers. There's no objective argument that Frank Zappa is any "better" than Barry Manilow. 

Even the individual choices of parts are subjective choices, do Vishay resistors with a much tighter tolerance rate allow the overall amplifier or speaker to "sound better?" Why does Gilbert of Blue Circle pour his own capacitors?

We all have differing opinions & perspectives on what is "good." What is the only way to tell if the sound of a Stradivarius is better than a Yamaha?  What is the best way to tell if two different speaker cables cause the same speaker to sound "different?"

Yet there can be so much intolerance and derision towards listening experiences, and (scientific) listening tests. This is especially the case when the so-called objective testing methodologies cannot elucidate how a certain component sounds, and especially, - the much more complex interplay between 3 or more components and their cables and room interactions. The act of applying the scientific method is qualitative. A poor test is still science, just worse than a better test. Jabbr put it quite well when he said that measurements help us explain what we heard during the listening experience/tests.

Chris also wrote something really important that I took to heart, - you are not going to change anyone's mind about anything here. So for those that are certain that people are lying to themselves and it is merely a "belief" that a Cardas Clear speaker cable can make an Avalon Eidolon sound "different" or "better" than 10 gauge Home Depot lamp cord: why would anyone want to come here? Shouldn't everyone own the same $350 Sony DAC?

 

 

 

[Albrecht]

1 hour ago, Lebouwsky said:

 

My credits to you, your writing style is open, friendly and respectfull. It's the only way to keep doors open and therefore a progressive way of communicating. At least that's how I interpretate it.

 

+1

[Albrecht]

1 minute ago, master said:

 

Yes, it could certainly be interpreted that way. But let me "attempt" to put things in a different way.

That said I've also met folks who refuse to watch such gems because they are not redone in color, are not high definition, come with black bars even on the sides, are in crappy Standard Definition, ad on DVD, and certainly no high definition version, and all I could find was a bad 240P version of the show... but I still watched it and enjoyed it immensely.

Hi,

Thanks for this response. I really appreciate it. Coming from a songwriting background, I know too well how one can be obsessed with gear and get lost in minutiae of "detail" of the sound to the point where they're not enjoying the music. I've learned the hard way and now will never buy music that I don't like because it was "well recorded." And, I think that many of us know musicians who "listen for content" on crappy stereos and enjoy themselves immensely. I can tell you as recording "co-producer" I felt like I had to be obsessed both with instrument tone & writing and playing content.

[Albrecht]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

My DAC cost $375.  Maybe that was $25 too much?

 

It's so much easier to get information I appreciate from the folks here when I don't restrict my attention in accordance with subjectivist or objectivist labels.

Ha... As long as you're not trying to say that it's "better" than a Meitner, - (in the right system of course, - is that an objectivist statement)? 

 

I think that it'd be great if we all wouldn't attach labels: that is essentially saying "having an open mind." I think that folks who experiment for themselves, and also have a wide range of experiences are more likely to have an open mind.

I try really hard not to attach a label, personal opinion, of someone as objectivist or subjectivist, but judge whether or not what they're writing is true, or helpful. As i hope my previous post implied, - there really isn't a lot of so-called objectivism in a subjective paradigm.

But most important to your original OP, - how many people would want to try this cheap/free microphone room test if the poster would've filled the writing with a lot of anti-audiophile hyperbole implying that the mic test was/is REAL: compared to a comparative analysis of "outrageously priced audiophile cables?"

There is a whole section of these forums devoted to utilizing fiber and the people that have benefited from them. Deployment is cheap: the "cables don't make a difference" crowd didn't postulate that "what if?" The VRDS-NEO transport is a "what if?" Too often (in an empirical world) the open-minded person says "let me try it and see," - as opposed to, - "let me tell you why this can't work, and why what you're experiencing is not real."

 

[Albrecht]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Of course, before we get all self-congratulatory, it's good to note that we *can* go through the trial and error method literally "too often."  There is, sadly, not enough time to do all we want.  So it can be very helpful to try to limit alternatives to the most promising ones.

Yes... can't disagree with you at all. And if i may add, - this is all contextual. Hopefully, very few people if any are going to plug in $12,000 speaker cables into a $600 Denon DM100 all-in-one system with stand-mount Mission speakers. I would hazard that probably no one would ever do something this extreme, (and admit it), for they would be the hugest target for derision. My point is that I am not discounting that people get obsessed and go too far down the path of diminishing returns, and even in a backwards direction trying to eek out something that becomes "out of context" and cannot be heard.

[Albrecht]

27 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Yes, some things are black and white, such as my first television. A 12" black & white.

+ zebras

[Albrecht]

6 minutes ago, plissken said:

Sorry, when someone is just so fundamentally incorrect and giving out advice you want the person that knows how it actually works to stay mum?

 

I'll generally get into it with someone that won't put on the blinders and do ears only, bias controlled, evaluation. Even more so if they are a manufacturer.

 

Of course new knowledge doesn't change the way's things sound. Including changes that are just 100% self delusion.

 

 

I guess that it all comes down to how you subjectively define "works." When the "advice" is "this sounds great to me," - how is that wrong? When you compare stereo "a" to "b" and it's actually "working," - do you need to know how either "works" to know if you prefer one or the other?

But, - I guess those questions above are not "good science" to you, and will be deserving of the forthcoming derision towards me as a person.

[Albrecht]

16 minutes ago, wushuliu said:

deride other people's personal experience. That's not how the scientific method works.

Zactly !!

[Albrecht]

5 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

I don't subjectively define how stuff works.

 

There are certain aspects to computer audio that simply are subjective 'works'. They are highly engineered systems.

 

When I make the point about NRTOS's and pulling the plug and audio is still playing back. It isn't subjective what so ever. It's a straight fact.

 

NOT EVERYTHING MATTERS.

 

 

The question is how WELL it works.

""When I make the point about NRTOS's and pulling the plug and audio is still playing back. It isn't subjective what so ever. It's a straight fact""

How well it's playing back, and how it sounds is what matters most: not whether or not it is or is not loaded into RAM & merely working. (How much noise, better timing)?

"NOT EVERYTHING MATTERS."

equally

 

[Albrecht]

15 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

And that is enough to satisfy you that someone hears a difference? No repeats needed to provide statistical significance? What statistical level satisfies you & why?

You hit the nail very solidly now. The answer to your question, - is no amount of proof, either through some sort of "precise" (sic) measuring device, or any other scientific investigation, will be enough proof. The conclusion is foregone, and therefore no scientific investigation will ever happen. There sits a "snake oil" dollar number. Cross that number, and the naysayers bite with religious vitriol & sarcasm. Many of us wait for some real humor, but all we get are snide cliches.
Meanwhile, (outside this fight that only has losers), real posts, real tests, & real help comes from the experienced testers: and people are improving & enhancing their listening experiences with great, (yes, audiophile), products. One can site literally hundreds of great information sharing threads here: (the very good fiber thread sticks out for me).

[Albrecht]

On 6/23/2017 at 2:59 PM, plissken said:

 

You are missing the point: The mechanism of transfer doesn't matter at that point. The sound either changes with the cable plugged in or unplugged at that point even though music is clearly being played back out of buffer.

 

Jud asked why there is a push against subjectivity here. This is a prime example as to why.

 

You can't represent at being an expert at something that you don't have any understanding of how it works.

 

 

No one can claim expertise at anything that is as complicated & varied, and subjective. I am not claiming to be an expert.

"The sound either changes with the cable plugged in or unplugged at that point even though music is clearly being played back out of buffer."

No, - the noise "could" be carried into the buffer. No one is attaching audio qualities to CAT7 Ethernet. They are attaching the OSI model and data transmission qualities to the cable. CAT 7 IS higher bandwidth than CAT5.

The push by a few angry & bitter naysayers isn't against subjectivity, it's against science.

 

[Albrecht]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Not so. The buffer stores digital sample values as received over the wire. There is no mechanism by which it could store anything else, including noise.

Yes, 10G Ethernet requires Cat 6 (for short distances) or Cat 7 (up to 100 m) cabling. The 1G Ethernet most common in domestic networks is perfectly fine over Cat 5e. Also, the required cable quality depends only on the link speed, not on the actual utilised data rate. A saturated link is just as reliable as a barely used one.

""The buffer stores digital sample values as received over the wire. There is no mechanism by which it could store anything else, including noise.""

However much ground loop noise, & poorly timed those digital samples are....

""A saturated link is just as reliable as a barely used one.""

Reliability is not the issue, - timing is. It may be why people with sensitive systems report an increase in SQ with devices with "better" clocks.

[Albrecht]

14 minutes ago, Jud said:

So while I do pay attention to any objective reports of relevant facts about equipment I'm interested in, I also pay attention to whether people whose tastes seem to coincide with mine like that equipment.

 but someone whose tastes seem similar to mine says it sounds good, then I'm more likely to consider buying it.

The owner of Jadis talks about his amps making violin concertos, strings, & small orchestras sound "right" to him. He is not interested in making Radiohead, rock, or jazz music sound good. He doesn't like trap drum-kits. He says that if you want an all around amplifier that handles chamber music and techno music well, - then go elsewhere. He's not building gear for dance music. The speakers that he "shows" with are indeed, big, & lumbering.

[Albrecht]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

No, I'm trying to improve S/N ratio on these forums. Somewhat unsuccessfully, I might add  so the suggestion to move on is perhaps appropriate.

 

This is part of the denigration of experiences: even well founded ones. I will challenge the notion of "fallible evaluations" being associated with the piling up of experiences. In that most all measurements that we take, (and often only on individual components), are what is fallible. The interplay & variances between the 4 components of a system working together with the room, is far more complicated; making (good) listening tests the BEST measure that we have available. What's a "fallible evaluation?" an obscure measurement of one component, - out of context of an entire system in a room....  And of course, people taking others' experiences as "gospel" simply doesn't happen: outside the realm of reviewers, - who DO sometimes climb all over themselves to start a "trend." But, more often, - those experiences are questioned to determine the CONTEXT and a basis for further study, - or to move on. If you hear Meitner products with 100s of different speakers & amps in different locations, - you are going to get an understanding of what works best with them and where. You are also going to get an understanding of the character of that individual component.

[Albrecht]

5 hours ago, Jud said:

Maybe the “great divide” isn’t between subjective and objective, but between those who can have a friendly conversation without turning it into an argument, and those who can’t.

If we go back to your original post about contempt for audiophiles, - does this mean that those who are displaying contempt are more "objective" and that the contemptible audiophiles are more subjective? More money than sense? Or does the audiophile buy really expensive equipment because she falsely equates expensive equipment with better sound? Are Wilson Sophia speakers better than Dynaudio because they measure better, or because their cabinets are damped, or because they are more expensive? How do you measure how Wilson speakers sound with a Nagra tube amplifier vs how they sound with a Classe solid state amp? How do you know if someone is lying to themselves? What if people have not bought any equipment at all and had it given to them?

And what about those audiophiles who buy really cheap equipment, - then mod it all? Are they contemptible because they are audiophiles?

 

I am still kind of waiting to hear why people who get more enjoyment from recordings played back with better (or more expensive, {whatever}) gear should be derided on a website that has "audiophile" in its name?

[Albrecht]

Just now, mansr said:

With a microphone.

LOL, and here I was thinking that it was with (droll) sarcasm.

[Albrecht]

3 hours ago, semente said:

 

All but cabinet resonance?

Most Wilsons are large, which allows them to play loud and extend the bottom quite low, and some are not very difficult to drive.

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-sophia-series-3-loudspeaker-measurements

 

What else have they got going for them?

The press...and the price.

Just using the Sophia as an example of a speaker that many are fond of and measures well & has a unique cabinet design that is more damped than others. According to Wilson, they recommend placing the speakers far apart with a really significant toe-in. But I've found that they sound "better" driven by high current amps, and set up in a more "normal" configuration where they are closer together with less toe in. I have thought they also sound better in a very live room.

I didn't mention a particular Dynaudio model number in my post.

 

My point was that the final sound of a particular system is contingent on a much more complicated experience and that the speaker's measurements done by Stereophile, or in a particular situation often do not reflect real world listening experiences at events, or what someone chooses as their amplification, cables, source, & in their room.

 

And.............

Wilson Sophias and most speakers even approaching this level sound very different depending on the other components that they are matched with, - something no measurement will ever tell. You cannot look at a series of speaker measurements and determine what they sound like in a real world scenario. Most speaker designers at this level take measurements only after they love the sound, and the speaker sounds exactly like they want it to, with their fav amplification, source, cables, etc.

 

Cheers,

[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.