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

[AJ Soundfield]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Nothing like talking to potential customers like they are idiots.

"Unaware" and "idiot" are 2 different things entirely. Smart people in one area can make silly mistakes in another...outside their area of expertise. The true dichotomy here.

Quote

Glad to see you design speakers without listening, contrary to the best designers in the industry.

That is false, I listen..with awareness of fallibility.

Quote

I'll stick with my TAD CR1s that Andrew designed first by measurements and finally be ear. Oh that terrible thing called the ear can produce such crazy results when used in conjunction with measurements.

Oddly enough, I use the same method as the AJ that designed your loudspeakers, who I have met in person and had nice chats with about just that.

Very different from those who can only do one thing, listen...no measurements. 

[AJ Soundfield]

4 hours ago, semente said:

From over a decade participating in web forums I don't doubt that "many untrained listeners find difficult to describe" frequency response; that probably also explains the large amount of "unflat" response speakers which are popular with audiophiles.

 

But "difficult to describe" also might explain why some people can't relate spatial or tonal problems with frequency response, or pinpoint what is wrong with their system/gear (making upgrades difficult and erratic).

Most people only report tonal differences in the top or bottom of the spectrum when changing gear (or even cables) because these are obvious.

Frequency response aberrations are like colour inaccuracies with TVs or displays; if audiophiles don't worry about this then in my view they have the wrong priorities

Here is the answer: https://www.britannica.com/topic/projection-psychology

The typical audiophile evidence averse retort to why they are deaf to gross tonal coloration, is "Because "most" people are". 

You can't make this stuff up 

[AJ Soundfield]

14 minutes ago, 4est said:

Speaking of projection

 

you are just another angry guy on the internet spouting off.

Perfect 

[AJ Soundfield]

2 minutes ago, 4est said:

 

Guilty perhaps, but it does not belie my point. If you are this wealth of knowledge, how about some in lieu of all the negativity?

I make no claim of knowledge wealth, but if you're asking something specific, please do. This loaded fallacy thread has meandered quite a bit.

How to cobble speakers together, or...??

[AJ Soundfield]

41 minutes ago, semente said:

 

It looks like that from most photos available online:

 

There are other pictures with the stereo shuffler, so they can do both (and MCH too).

The fact is that they found the speakers that "won" in mono correlated well to winning in stereo, so mono was more efficient. I thought it was complete BS..until I tested it myself 

[AJ Soundfield]

5 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

I do wonder about how you see the big picture in audiophilia

No need to wonder: https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/index.html

[AJ Soundfield]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Every amp has its own sonic signature

Wow, you've listened to every amp, with honesty controls (no peeking, etc. and "Just listening, trusting ears") in place.

Where can one find the details of this?

[AJ Soundfield]

15 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

well, do you accept his stmt. that every component (even passive ones, and even resistors) has a non-linearity?

and further, that those non-linearities can be heard when listening to music?

Evidence? Once again, with honesty controls, just listening, trust ears, no peeking. Otherwise, no.

 

 

[AJ Soundfield]

24 minutes ago, jabbr said:

and yes, each amplifier in existence has its own sonic signature determined by the non-linearities in its components.

 

Thankfully with science, observations are generalizable. My statement is made not, duh, by actually measuring every resistor, rather per physics. Don't take my word for it, feel free to take a class -- I hear there are excellent classes online these days.

 

I am not making such an absolute claim to audibility -- let's say that amplifiers often have a sonic signature 

Maybe you could take an online class about decision making and logic.

 

Now please provide the evidence for the latter claim, thanks.

[AJ Soundfield]

9 minutes ago, jabbr said:

and yes, each amplifier in existence has its own sonic signature determined by the non-linearities in its components.

I am not making such an absolute claim to audibility -- let's say that amplifiers often have a sonic signature 

There are many many discussions of resistor noise and nonlinearity e.g.:

I know Physics. I asked for your "sonic" evidence, via "Just listening, trust ears" honesty controlled audition, not hand waving about resistor noise.

Thanks

[AJ Soundfield]

Ok, so zero evidence of "sonic signature"

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

 

Quote

 

  2 hours ago, jabbr said:

and yes, each amplifier in existence has its own sonic signature determined by the non-linearities in its components.

 

 

I know Physics. I asked for your "sonic" evidence, via "Just listening, trust ears" honesty controlled audition, not hand waving about resistor noise.

Thanks

Ok, so zero evidence for "sonic signature"

 

 

[AJ Soundfield]

47 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Conversely you can't know what everyone else hears or doesn't hear.

Correct, but if its real they can demonstrate this ability, if its psychogenic, they can't.

Yet they claim they can.

[AJ Soundfield]

16 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Precisely, auditory perception is the final judge

Another advocate for blind controlled listening, bravo! Who knew there were so many here (cognizant or not)?

 

Yeah, that whole staring at the thing for 2 months to judge...

[AJ Soundfield]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

You might find understanding my approach easier if you remember, it is my opinion, other than gear designed to have a particular sound, everything between the transducers is not detectable with a slight exception for matching amps to speakers. And exceptions for low quality gear which has sub-standard measured performance.

 

6 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Sure, I know your approach & many others is that all gear, except transducers, sounds the same but this isn't borne our in reality so I don't subscribe to your approach.

If you can't judge the sound without measurements then it's a sad state of affairs

Reading comprehension failure or intellectual dishonesty.

Speaking of sad state of affairs.

[AJ Soundfield]

12 minutes ago, mfsoa said:

Probably a thousand times more distortion, worse freq response etc. etc. compared to a SS pre.

Probably? IOW, you have no idea.

 

Quote

But it sounded great. I thought so, everyone that heard it thought so. 

IOW, you can't discern between preference, opinion or fact.

 

Newcastle is the best tasting beer because I said so.

By sheer coincidence, I prefer it.

[AJ Soundfield]

30 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

I listen & judge what I hear mostly by exposing myself to the device over a long time

I always suspected there was a sexual component to some audiophile love affairs with inanimate stereo components.

Naughty boy you.

 

Ok, so you stare at it for how long? Obviously zero "trust in ears" and "just listening" then.

[AJ Soundfield]

Or winks?

[AJ Soundfield]

2 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

You mean by using measurements to bias what I'm going to hear?

No, using measurements to cut that 10db peak at 60hz so your system sounds less terrible

[AJ Soundfield]

1 minute ago, mmerrill99 said:

But I expose myself in the privacy of my own home so it's kosher

True, true 

[AJ Soundfield]

15 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Even if doing blinded listening tests, two devices which measure the same, will bias one towards not hearing any difference between these devices.

Nonsense. Blinding does not remove bias from the person under test, it removes bias from affecting the results of the test. Whether one is a non-believer who goes in thinking there will be no difference, or a believer who thinks there will, becomes irrelevant. The only thing that affects the test results is what was heard. Difference or none.

Only the people who have no clue about blind tests have no clue about blind tests.

They are far more revealing than any sighted "test" for real audio differences.

If one wants to find out what psychological effect the device has on you, stare at it daydreaming for days or years. For actual sound, a blind listening test is most revealing of any real difference.

For purely subjective preference, no test is needed at all.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

1 minute ago, mmerrill99 said:

Sorry, that's rubbish - the nocebo effect is well known in blind testing

Nonsense fantasy with zero evidence.

 

Quote

Indeed - "Only the people who have no clue about blind tests have no clue about blind tests."

 

Yep and those with zero trust in their ears and poor hearing

[AJ Soundfield]

A  sensible sane person is not going to be burdened with blind testing things that don't sound different, only a believer is. The nocebo effect with drug testing is irrelevant to believer listening tests

[AJ Soundfield]

1 minute ago, mmerrill99 said:

Why do you think they use a hidden reference in ABCHR testing?

 

To eliminate those who are unable to differentiate the hidden reference for any number of reasons - one of which is that they are psychologically disposed  to not hearing any difference between A & B (they have been primed by beliefs or measurements that A is exactly the same as B)

 

Please educate yourself in blind testing before making yourself look foolish

In a double blind test, the participants have no idea what is being tested, so they have no idea whether the DUT is something they believe sounds the same or not. You are clueless about blind tests.

[AJ Soundfield]

3 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Why do you think they use a hidden reference in ABCHR testing?

Why do you think they do ABCHR blind tests? LOL

[AJ Soundfield]

Just now, mmerrill99 said:

Completely OT to what is being discussed - Pkane refusing to believe that measurements will prime his bias in listening.

That's his problem, not mine. You just proved you have no clue about blind listening tests and in even more amusing fashion, are put forth ABCHR...which is a blind test LOL.

The very thing you fear due to hearing capabilities