Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[Samuel T Cogley]

11 hours ago, mansr said:

On the contrary. He's been here on and off for a few months, and every time he has quickly resorted to insults when people have disagreed with him.

 

Like here:

 

Or here:

 

Those are just a couple of random examples I found quickly, and they're not even the worst. He has demonstrated a clear pattern of being rude and abusive. Now he finally crossed the line and got himself banned. Good riddance.

 

Over time, I began to understand that ML has seething contempt for the idea that audiophile skeptics have a voice in audiophile forums.

 

I submit this link as Exhibit A.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

Only what I have found from personal use in a Video editing program where I use different Codecs , and find a sweet spot for the bit rate with most.

This is yet another red herring from you. The committee that sets the standards would have access to suitable test material and very high quality monitoring equipment. They would also undoubtedly use test transmissions in various countries as well .

However, as many of them on the committee may be old fogeys like yourself, with age related visual and audio degradation, perhaps this is no guarantee ? 

 

 

Wow.  Ad hominem much?

 

I encourage you to do a bit of reading about H.264 before you blame it on "old fogeys".  There are a mind numbing amount of variables with H.264.  Like profiles, color depth, levels, and more.  Standards bodies would have no more success governing end user picture quality than they would preserving original dynamic range values of audio catalog titles.  With due respect, it's a bit naive to assert that such a thing should happen.

[Samuel T Cogley]

22 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

This is true even of the New York Times and Washington Post.  

 

It shouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

 

Agreed.

 

I think the business model of The Enthusiast Network juxtaposed with ML's vulgar protestations when confronted with his demonstrable pro-manufacturer editorial bias is the core issue.

[Samuel T Cogley]

14 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

You realize that Konrad Lorenz got a Nobel Prize for having a jackdaw copulate with his ear, right?

Best.

CA.

Quote.

Ever.

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 hours ago, marce said:

This is part of creating the aura and belief in audio... hand made, tuned by ear, we can't measure, etc. create and build the myths it helps sell hi end audio.

 

Don't forget "designed, engineered, and built by renowned, respected and revered craftsmen utterly committed to the highest quality sound reproduction".

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

And here is the deal, there is an certain amount of craft involved in building electronics.  It's just that in Audiophiledom, the culture absolutely refuses to limit it in any way - it has the status of a sacred cow who carries all expectations, unknowns, and finger licking goodness.  It becomes a moral issue when anyone dare challenges "what I hear", "in my system".  

 

As the OP says though, digital audio is a real thorn in the side of this radically subjectivised confidence game.  Turns out, there is balance and limits in the world that no amount of earned or unearned trust can hide.

 

I entered audiophile forums when I started noodling with turntables after a 20+ year hiatus.  Back then, the dividing line between "real" audiophiles and Philistines was basically, "vinyl is the best, digital sucks".  In my experience, that line has now moved to those who respect the old school of audiophilia and those who challenge it.  It really has moved away from technology.  MQA is nothing more than a proxy for old school vs. impetuous upstarts, or a way to bring old school to new tech (DACs).  The "just listen" mantra from the pro-MQA camp kind of confirms this.

 

I agree there is craft involved.  But today's unbelievably awesome audio product is tomorrow's entry on Audiogon.  It's just gear in the end.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Ok, I feel guilty for helping this thread to go even more wildly off course, but I've been saving this for years just waiting for the right moment.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

16 minutes ago, Tony Lauck said:

 

I can very easily create two files with the identical bits in them that will pass all checksums, yet they will sound different.  This is a characteristic of my particular audio playback system which includes a computer, some hard drives, and a RAM disk.  The computer is located a few feet from my listening position and is under my right near field monitor.  If I have two bit-identical files, on one the RAM disk and one on the hard drive, when I play the RAM disk file I won't hear any acoustic noise from the spinning disk.  If I play the file on the hard drive I will hear noise from the (now) powered up disk drive.  This is unarguable and easily repeatable (however care has to be taken that the file system doesn't have the hard drive file contents cached in other parts of the RAM).

 

This one example completely demolishes the unrestricted claim that bit identical files must sound different and that people who hear differences between files with identical checksums are delusional. 

 

It would be more difficult to demonstrate differences were the computer with spinning disk outside of the listening room, but there is nothing, in principle, that would make this impossible.  The extent that the different electrical environment in the computer might affect the electrical signals to the speaker drivers would depend on details of the playback electronics.  (It would be easier to demonstrate measured differences in the analog output of the DAC under various conditions in the digital side of the DAC, as has been done with various USB regenerator devices, etc..)

 

 

If I'm following you here, you're suggesting the mechanical noise output from your computer equipment is validating the "two files with identical checksums sound different" claim based on the same file being on a solid state device (therefore, no audible mechanical noise).  Unless I'm misunderstanding your argument, it seems disingenuous.

 

Why stop with a modern spinning disk?  One of these would surely prove your point.  You neighbors would hear it.

 

 

Or you could up your game with one of these:

 

 

Unless I'm misunderstanding, your argument is a total red herring.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, Tony Lauck said:

It was a real-world example that shows the effect of imperfections of the playback chain ...

 

 

I think you mean a non-ideal listening environment.  A noisy listening room proves nothing.

 

Quote

By the way, I am an objectivist when criticizing subjectivists reaching nonsensical conclusions from what they have heard and I am a subjectivist when dealing with dogmatic statements from objectivists, especially those who don't even understand the underlying technology they are using and therefore can be flat out wrong in their scientific conclusions in some cases.  I am more than OK if I sometimes irritate both groups.

 

Your declared tribal memberships are non sequitur to the point you're trying to make.

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Tony Lauck said:

The noise was from the audio equipment.  I would agree with you if the noise came elsewhere.  I see no difference between noise that comes through the air from a component other than the speaker or if the noise originates elsewhere in the system end comes out through the speakers.   My example is no different from problems I recall ages ago, such as noisy tape reels when playing reel to reel tape,  needle talk from an LP cartridge, etc...

 

 

This is quite a stretch.  The "audio equipment" in question is a PC mechanical hard drive.  This is just not a persuasive argument.  Others may agree with you.  I still think it's a red herring.

[Samuel T Cogley]

48 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I would take a cheap, but high speed, motherboard, get a cheap HDD and a really crappy PSU.

 

One copy of the file would be heavily fragmented, each block max distance from the next. The other copy would be unfragmented. The trial would be arranged such that the file was not cached.

 

The scope would look at the pattern of HDD seeks as evidenced by power draw. 

 

What's the goal here?  To construct a underperforming PC with the intention of creating an environment that might explain why people of high audiophile esteem claimed to hear differences in bit-identical files in the 2000s?

 

Your proposed test environment is an environment that a typical "computer audiophile" would avoid like the plague.

 

I concede that there is a set of "computer audiophile best practices" that has evolved over time and this very web site is a big reason why.  But getting back to the thread topic, those best practices do not require $5,000 USB cables or $10,000 Ethernet cables and the results of your hypothetical (and IHMO, rather dubious) tests do not in any way validate the "need" for those cables.

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

That’s essentially the point. The core of computer audiophile should be a set of best practices. Those aren’t a con game. I can explain why, in electrical terms, those best practices are best. I say this because among other things I’ve read books that are available to anyone.

 

The voodoo cables are to be avoided and we can say exactly why. 

 

Ok, so we agree.  I'm flummoxed. 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Trillions of dollars in the global economy hinges on data integrity (i.e., "bit accurate" data).  The mere notion that data integrity is itself some kind of dogma is absurd at a level that defies definition.

[Samuel T Cogley]

28 minutes ago, jabbr said:

As long  as you display the hex codes on the screen and convert that into music in your head you should be fine — wait, you want to listen to those bits? In that case you need a bulletproof DAC that can ensure that any variation in the bits voltages and currents will not have an effect on the electrical output.

 

 

In 2005, I might have agreed with you.  But much of the "problems" you're highlighting are becoming less and less an issue in digital audio state of the art.  What you call "bulletproof", I call, "competent".

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Don’t know if that’s the case.  I would be very happy to have more information with which to make reality-based decisions.  People like @jabbr and @barrows who design and build (and measure) their own components would I assume be similarly pleased.  Most of the audiophiles I run into are pretty smart and very intellectually curious.

 

Of course there are always those for whom nothing’s sufficient, but I think you’re painting with rather too broad a brush.

+1

 

The efficacy of herbal supplements is a uniquely subjective experience.  With audio, if we're in the same room hearing the same speakers at the same time, there is some common frame of reference.  With supplements, it's all subjective.

[Samuel T Cogley]

11 minutes ago, jabbr said:

No question things are vastly better that 1990, 2005 etc. They may be “good enough” for most purposes. 

 

I believe there is still room for improvement

 

Me too.  And in 10 years, there will still be room for improvement, etc.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, barrows said:

Of course, there will always be room for improvement: this is like the tangent line (is that what it is called, forget my math), which gets closer and closer to the axis, but never actually meets: same thing as diminishing returns...

 

For each individual, where they might stop, on this pursuit, will be different.  If they stop at all...

 

As media becomes more ethereal, networking will necessarily have to creep into audio gear.  Ethernet (or perhaps a new networking transport layer?  NVMe?) packet noise will replace USB packet noise as the current bugaboo.  There will always be spinners, just as 78s survive today, but they will be outliers down the road.