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

[wushuliu]

I don't think there's enough pushback against the armchair skeptics. It's pretty easy to discount them, all you have to do is follow through their own logic. It's easy to deride 'audiophiles' from a keyboard and throw around dog whistles like 'objective' and 'measurements' but you rarely see any of these folks actually step up to the plate and follow through with rigorous testing themselves.

 

Why? Because it's a difficult thing to do. Harman has a multi million dollar facility dedicated to blind testing of speakers and who knows how much development and research was spent on the listening tests (imagine that, focusing on teaching people how to listen instead of berating them). But some schmuck on the internet feels vindicated when he gets no response to 'show me the measurements' and 'double blind testing'. Like there's a DBT kit you can buy off Amazon. Then even more hypocritically, if any of these guys does some kind of 'testing' from their armchair then omg nothing but 'I knew it', 'great job', 'that's what i thought too' from the rest of the tribe. As long as the results validate your bias then it's 'objective' and the methodology sound.

 

The reason I became a 'subjectivist' (whatever that means) when I didn't even know what an audiophile was, was because I realized right away you can't call yourself 'objective' if your first response is to ridicule and deride other people's personal experience. That's not how the scientific method works.

[rickca]

Galileo had some good observations to back up his theories.  Didn't help him much.

[wushuliu]

2 minutes ago, rickca said:

Galileo had some good observations to back up his theories.  Didn't help him much.

 

And in that statement we must confront another truth: even if all the controversial audiophile elements had readily available documented data to back them - we'd still be polarized and arguing anyway. It's what people do.

[pkane2001]

51 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

The phrase “close but no cigar” comes to mind.  

 

 

Would you think the difference in noise levels (between DSD256 and DSD512) to be audible, or just curious and it wasn’t too expensive?

 

(Not meaning to press you or ask for justification - I do have an “ulterior motive,” and it’s to show we are not all so very different.)

 

Hey, I never claimed to be different! I still own $2,000 interconnects from my early days as a budding audiophile and some speaker cables that I'm too embarrassed to quote a price on.  So, yes, I'm not that different  (these interconnects were recently replaced by Mogami pro balanced cables that sounded just as good, if not better in my fully-balanced system). 

 

I'm always curious when others are talking about 'lowering noise levels'. How do you define 'noise levels'? I really can't hear noise in my system at any DSD or PCM settings. Or are you perhaps referring to how noise might affect SQ?

 

DSD512 sounds just a bit more natural to me than DSD256, but the effect is fairly minor.

[Albrecht]

16 minutes ago, wushuliu said:

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

Zactly !!

[Jud]

37 minutes ago, rickca said:

Galileo had some good observations to back up his theories.  Didn't help him much.

 

But I must point out this is an example of what everyone plainly knew from personal observation being completely wrong, and the scientist being oppressed for trying to change everyone’s subjective “knowledge.”

 

A favorite quote about these situations is the following from Carl Sagan:

 

“They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

 

Not every voice crying in the wilderness is correct.  Sometimes no one credits them because they really are wrong.

 

On the other hand, none of us, subjective, objective, whatever, is Galileo.

[plissken]

3 hours ago, Albrecht said:

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.

 

I don't subjectively define how stuff works. Neither do the engineers that build it. I guess we should ask the Engineers at Ford how they define, subjectively speaking, a fuel injector works.

 

There are certain aspects to computer audio that simply are'nt 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.

 

 

[plissken]

3 hours ago, 4est said:

 

Sadly, many who think they know how it all works get it wrong as well. I include myself and you in there. Your last sentence is a prime example of this...

 

Then in the subject areas I've been very vocal about you are a daisy if you can prove my understanding incorrect.

 

As a matter of fact I'll give you $2000 to do so. PM me for details.

[plissken]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

pliss, I remember seeing you post at least one response when a question that had to do with law was being discussed.  It was obvious to me you were in unfamiliar territory, yet you had the same assertiveness you bring to your other posts.  So how am I to evaluate your assertive posts when it is not a subject that is so familiar to me and I have no way to tell if you really know what you’re talking about or not?

 

What post? and I can follow up from there.

 

 

[Jud]

41 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

I'm always curious when others are talking about 'lowering noise levels'. How do you define 'noise levels'? I really can't hear noise in my system at any DSD or PCM settings. Or are you perhaps referring to how noise might affect SQ?

 

Great question.  I think when people talk about noise being masked they have things exactly turned around.  If you’ve been in an environment where people are having loud conversations nearby, they impact your ability to understand your own conversation long before the level where you can clearly make out what people in those other conversations are saying.  I think it’s the same with noise - before you can hear the noise as a separate thing from the music, it impacts your ability to clearly hear lower level musical detail.  So the “masking” I’m concerned about is of musical subtleties by noise levels that may well not be audible as a separate thing.

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

What post? and I can follow up from there.

 

 

 

Heck if I can recall details now.  Guess if I can’t point to specifics I shouldn’t have brought it up - my apologies.

[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

 

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

Sorry, I meant pretty much everyone in the National Academy is above average.

 

 

Yes, they are the Elect under Calvinism.

 

 

No, not THAT Calvin!

 

 

It does not bother me if a scientist (or even the knuckle-dragging cousins, engineers) believe in a deity or deities as long as that belief does not contradict what we know about the universe.  It is when a belief system contradicts known facts that insanity arises, and one has to wonder if that person's mind is very tightly compartmentalized or if the insanity is metastasizing.

 

And for the record, I was a deity I'd blow up the universe -- just to hear the bang

 

[Ralf11]

people's personal experience may be the result of SQ differences or may be the result of confirmation bias

 

that is why there are things like statistical analysis, randomized designs, and blind testing

 

it can be troublesome and something simple, direct and powerful would be nice but to really find out if there is a difference a good test regime is worth the trouble - otherwise, you may be left with a bunch of empty hand-waving

[christopher3393]

OK, I'll tentatively float this and we'll see if it is simply a gross caricature or if maybe there is some crumb of truth to it. Call it satire if you want.

 

Objectivists often make a point of drawing a sharp divide between beliefs about audio and knowledge of audio. In their view beliefs are more subjective, that is they tell as much (or more) about who holds them as about  audio itself; knowledge, on the contrary, is objective, or at least tends to be always more so, and tells us about what the audio actually is, not about the subjectivity of the audiophile. Now add to this the following: even if beliefs happen sometimes to be in accordance with knowledge, this is an accident and does not make them less subjective. In the eyes of the people inside the network of objectivism, the only way for someone to know about audio is to learn what objectivists have discovered. In other words, people who still hold beliefs about audio are simply unlearned. So there is now an asymmetry between people who hold more or less distorted beliefs about something, and people who know the truth of the matter (or at least how to arrive at that objective truth).  A partition is made between those who have access to the very nature of the phenomena (objectivists) and those who, because they have not learned enough, have access only to distorted views of these phenomena (subjectivists).

 

The tacit objectivist question about “audiophiles” (the word that often substitutes for“subjectivists”) is something like this one: “How is it that there are still people who believe all sorts of absurdities about audio  when it is so easy to learn from us what audio really is?” What is surprising is how people may believe things they could know instead!  It is assumed that people should have gone in one direction, the only reasonable one to take but, unfortunately, they have been led astray by something, and it is this something that needs explanation. The straight line they should have followed is called rational; the bent one that they have unfortunately  taken is said to be irrational (another asymmetry). People should really have understood straight away what the reality is, had outside events not prevented them from doing so. Psychological problems are convenient to use:  passions may blind people to reason, or unconscious motives may distort even the most honest person. What interests us in these appeals to outside forces is simply that they come only when one accepts the objectivist position distinguishing between beliefs and knowledge. Now the picture of the audiophile world becomes bleak: a few minds discover what reality is, while the vast majority of people have irrational ideas or at least are prisoners of many social, cultural and psychological factors that make them stick obstinately to  prejudices.

 

The only redeeming aspect of this picture is that if it were only possible to eliminate all these factors that hold audiophiles  prisoners of their prejudices,they would all, immediately and at no cost, become as sound-minded as the objectivists, grasping the phenomena without further ado. In every one of us there is an objectivist who is asleep, and who will not wake up until social and cultural conditions are pushed aside. Nothing makes the extension of knowledge to every audiophile impossible, it is simply a question of clearing away the distorting beliefs, which becomes the objectivist mission.

[pkane2001]

47 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Great question.  I think when people talk about noise being masked they have things exactly turned around.  If you’ve been in an environment where people are having loud conversations nearby, they impact your ability to understand your own conversation long before the level where you can clearly make out what people in those other conversations are saying.  I think it’s the same with noise - before you can hear the noise as a separate thing from the music, it impacts your ability to clearly hear lower level musical detail.  So the “masking” I’m concerned about is of musical subtleties by noise levels that may well not be audible as a separate thing.

As I said, I can't hear a separate, identifiable signal in my setup that I would call noise. I've not heard noise in such an obvious form for a very long time in my systems.

 

A masking noise that itself is not audible as a separate signal is obviously much harder to detect in a listening evaluation, other than possibly in a comparison to something that reduces that noise.

[plissken]

1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

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

 

 

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.

 

 

[plissken]

54 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

Objectivists often make a point of drawing a sharp divide between beliefs about audio and knowledge of audio.

 

Objectivists are concerned with confirming results in a way that passes the smell test.

[Jud]

9 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

As I said, I can't hear a separate, identifiable signal in my setup that I would call noise. I've not heard noise in such an obvious form for a very long time in my systems.

 

A masking noise that itself is not audible as a separate signal is obviously much harder to detect in a listening evaluation, other than possibly in a comparison to something that reduces that noise.

 

Yes, same here, except when I had the “noise sniffer” in the system.  And in the analog system, I had a ground hum, but that, thankfully, was two turntables ago.  (I had a turntable for 30 years.  I bought a new one, and soon afterward an upgraded model came out, which I liked but wasn’t going to spend the money on.  Then I won the upgraded model as a door prize at an audio dealer’s shindig!  It’s even the same color as the one it replaced.)

[wushuliu]

6 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Objectivists are concerned with confirming results in a way that passes the smell test.

 

That is a vague collection of signifiers. Objectively that statement means absolutely nothing. The equivalent of a product needing to be '100% natural'.

 

If someone needs to know why subjectivists should push back here is why. 

 

 

[Jud]

13 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Jud asked why there is a push against subjectivity here.

 

Actually the words in the topic are “audiophiles” and “contempt.”  I think tone matters, and not just in audio reproduction.

[wushuliu]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

people's personal experience may be the result of SQ differences or may be the result of confirmation bias

 

that is why there are things like statistical analysis, randomized designs, and blind testing

 

it can be troublesome and something simple, direct and powerful would be nice but to really find out if there is a difference a good test regime is worth the trouble - otherwise, you may be left with a bunch of empty hand-waving

 

I agree. But that means time and money. Much cheaper to tell people they're making things up.

[Jud]

And by the way, as you know I’ve asked as strongly for respect to be shown to “objectivists.”

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

that is why there are things like statistical analysis, randomized designs, and blind testing

 

Thing is, many people might be entirely uninterested in using science to advise their purchases. What would be the point of the effort, not like it's going to get anyone tenure  

[wushuliu]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

And by the way, as you know I’ve asked as strongly for respect to be shown to “objectivists.”

 

I think it would be beneficial to know what exactly objectivist means...