Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[marce]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

But does audio equipment need to be that expensive?

Yes and No

Yes to help the mystique and exclusively...

No its over priced to achieve the above.

And cable prices are the Goose that lays golden eggs.....

[marce]

No, a lot of the cost is on fancy casework, the basic electronics BOM wont be that different from mid-range to hi-end. 

[marce]

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Huh? Build quality using expensive materials, made by hand in the US, by an employee with health insurance, in small quantities with brand name internal components.

 

I'm not saying any of this matters to anyone, but it has nothing to do with exclusivity and everything to do with price. 

 

Bling doesn't equal exclusivity. Cubic zirconia is all about bling and zero to do with exclusivity. Shiny gold audio components and chassis are bling, not always expensive nor exclusive.  

I prefer machine made, much better accuracy these days and in solder joint quality, though some cables still have to be terminated manually, but today how many do assemble in house and how many outsource assembly with final packaging in the US. 

[marce]

Wow, interesting conversation. Can't say I am surprised.

[marce]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It's kind of crazy. My inbox is full of messages from people claiming the "pack" is ruining their lives or ruining audio or ruining whatever. 

 

The funny part is that the definition of "pack" includes die hard objectivists and die hard subjectivists and some in between.

 

If everyone takes a step back, takes a break to listen to some music, and does his part to remain civil, we'll all be just fine. 

 

P.S. Also use the report post feature.

I do find the language used by some towards dissenting voices disturbing, while I do not agree with a lot of audiophile beliefs, I will discuss the issues and where possible point out possible mechanisms and often investigate them. So while often disagreeing with a particular view I will often spend several hours investigating and considering  my replies. Many others of an objective viewpoint also do the same. This is called discussion I believe, to ban opposing views is not discussion it is censorship! To group us all as "The Pack" seems rather defensive and rather disquieting; re. my previous sentence.

I could say that every time we poor objectives ask for proof the Pack gangs up on us telling us our systems are inferior and our hearing is flawed, OH my self confidence...

[marce]

4 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 

 

  Is Audiophiledom a personality cult?

To some extent yes, there are industry voices who words are almost hallowed,even when they are using their kudos and reputation to support borderline ideas or products.

[marce]

3 hours ago, wdw said:

 

Really, seriously, F%%k you!   Loyal !  Are you such an idiot!  I have real appreciation for the work of M. Ritter but am getting increasing tired of your endless tirade!

Again, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO MOVE THE ART FORWARD?

Its NOT art, making music is ART, reproducing music is engineering, physics...

Now I know you are going to use the same argument with me, so I can confirm I have done very little commercial audio and no high end, but I have done pro gear layout over the years and quite a lot of mill communications (yep its audio... and a lot hearing protection based such as noise cancelling), so nothing major but like many who do comment here with views you don't like a long and varied career in electronics (which most audio reproduction is based on these days).

 

A little thought, if you want to reduce processor workload when playing digital audio, why add another layer of decoding to the data stream...

 

And finally I was banned from Audiostreem for having views that someone did not like and told me in an email. My proudest moment, though rather disappointed by the level of censorship in today's world of free speech...

[marce]

I was using the proper audiophile forum definition, there can be no middle ground... None.

[marce]

11 hours ago, opus101 said:

 

Hi marce - designing audio products (DACs, amps) is certainly an ART as well as requiring engineering know-how. Just because something is engineering doesn't exclude it also having an artistic component.

I am referring to the reference to art as an expression, not the term used in conjunction with engineering, though DAC or ADC design is mainly engineering...

[marce]

16 hours ago, mink70 said:

Every time I consider spending more time on this site, I spend a few minutes reading threads like this one, and get cured of the desire right quick. 

Why?

[marce]

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 

I agree.

Some members appear to forget that this forum is Computer Audiophile.

That doesn't mean however, that suitable technical input is not welcomed by most members.

However, some members appear to reject  outright, reports of audible improvements , that their technical training is unable to explain.

Without subjective reports , there would be no need for Objective measurements, and very little progress would be made with further improvements in consumer or Hi Fi equipment.

 

Not all research by EEs results in audible or visual improvements to the general public.

A good example of this, is the reduction in the high definition capabilities of HD TV due to the industry change from mpeg 2 to considerably lower bit rate mpeg 4 transmissions, in order to squeeze in additional channels in the available spectrum.

Quite often these days, mpeg 4 HD TV is only marginally clearer than SDTV,(at least in Australia)  and may look more like SD TV with some EQ. used.

Many mpeg 4 HD TV transmissions these days make people's faces look like too much makeup has been used, and you can no longer tell whether a male has had a shave recently or not. Skin  Blemishes are often covered up !

 

It's mainly about extra advertising revenue ?

Heaven help us if 4K transmissions are ever widely introduced. Originally, they were capable of being used with good results, even in movie theatres.

 

N.B.

I am NOT saying that the more efficient mpeg 4 is not capable of very high definition at higher bit rates than most broadcasters use, and still need less bandwidth than the older mpeg 2 transmissions,  but that commercial considerations usually results in a downgrading of Visual Content, just as it does with Audible content with lower bit rate audio.

 

Alex

Fisrtly, audible improvements need some proper testing behind them, you can't just use anecdotal evidence... sorry music reproduction is science and engineering.

Your second paragraph is another pathetic dig at engineers, something I have noticed a lot in some discussion here on CA... The reduction in broadcast quality is nothing to do with engineers, generally we (engineers) don't make it high up the corporate ladder, the decision on broadcast quality, such as DAB in the UK, is made at a far higher level, so your second paragraph is just the usual undeserved dig at engineers.  As you go through your daily life today look around you and list all the things engineers have designed and made to make your life what it is in today's technological society. I take further umbrage at your highlighting the first point on engineers, why, except to attract attention to your view.

Interestingly you can often tell those who work on real product development and those that don't from their replies. 

[marce]

4 hours ago, opus101 said:

https://www.amazon.com/Analog-Circuit-Design-Personalities-Engineers/dp/0750696400/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1507081048&sr=1-2

 

I prefer to believe Jim Williams

I said there are differences in the term art, believe who you want, without a solid background in engineering Jim Williams would not have to where he did.

Here is a definition of art:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/art

Using the word in the following context:

"A skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice."

is how it applies to engineering.

By the same token we could also say that there is also a lot of magic employed in the design of DACS etc.

https://www.conted.ox.ac.uk/courses/professional/files/why_johnny_cant_design_howard_johnston.pdf

I could say that after 32+ years of PCB design I am well practised in the art of getting signals from a to b, and to some what I do looks like art, but behind it is years of practice, learning, more learning... It is art acquired through practice and learning. Interesting how the word is used, as ART in general always has some form of rules behind it, especially the art of making music.

[marce]

I wont even go there, but would be interested in the reports of the test, as I have never heard of this test over the last several years of this subject. The comment was also a general comment regarding "night and day" differences.

Sorry you are mistaken... It was a commercial decision, the reason more efficient CODEC's are developed are for the ever increasing smaller and less powerful devices that can show video.

 

Where did I say I was happy with reduced quality HDTV, I use Sky Q, so can get 4k on some content, I am writing this on one of my 2k colour calibrated monitors... can't say I'm happy with low quality broadcast, more pragmatic as I was when the UK Gov. divided up the DAB channels to get more revenue at reduced quality, its the way it is these days. When I'm in the car I either take a memory stick or just suffer listening to DAB at least I'm listening to music. Same with TV and movies, not all the content I like is that modern anyway, so I have to watch it in a reduced quality... again I enjoy the content. The same engineers are also developing 8k TV's

I do find this accusation of happy with lower quality an oft used phrase against those that don't fully embrace some aspect of  the audiophile hobby.

[marce]

45 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Then why do qualified people like yourself meekly accept it as an inevitable result of modern commercial pressures ?

I also see posts from members unhappy about lousy Audio quality from the use of .aac audio encoding at low bit rates with Google and VEVO etc.

 Perhaps they dumb down the Audio deliberately so that people won't save the clips, and need to buy the CD/DVD etc to hear it properly ?

Who has said I take this meekly!

[marce]

No one is trying to save you from yourselves,  I couldn't give a damm what you spend your money on. All we do it look what is happening, don't just blindly believe everything we are told.

On another note, look at the actual content of many who are putting down the so called objectives, like your first paragraph, not a lot of discussion going on, just low flying pacifiers.

[marce]

36 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Then why is it a perennial topic raised ? Who raises it?

 

So should I believe you ?

 

Just pointing out a little perspective may be in order, not pacification. Why are you the arbiters of truth ?

Because we have physics as our guide... Simple.

[marce]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Your subjective interpretation of physics = Your theory.

And how does the physics you know let you inside other people's experience? Does it tell you how much I should spend on my audio gear?

What, what are you going on about... The laws of physics apply to everyone even audiophiles...

[marce]

LOL

[marce]

9 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Quite agreed physics apples to all - even "objectivists". However "so called" objectivists very often form theories based on physical facts that are subjective interpretations.

 

"bits are bits" therefore it is impossible for bit identical files to sound different. This is misguided pseudoscience. It is a reasonable theory and predictions made from said theory need testing. What you can say is that if two bit identical files sound different it is not due to having different checksums but some other variable which may or may not be determined at this point.

 

What you cannot say with scientific certainty is that a $250,000 amplifier cannot sound better than a $5000 amplifier  OR vice versa. What you cannot say with scientific certainty is that somebody else is not having a different but equally valid perceptual experience to that of your own.

 

I will ask you again -

And how does the physics *you know* let you inside other people's experience? Does it tell you how much I should spend on my audio gear? Present your facts, not subjective theory, what you want to believe.

Read more  

Of course it does .

 

Agreed completely!

 

Yawn you just spout rubbish, I think you will be the first ever person I may ignore...

[marce]

9 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 It's engineers that develop these new standards. It's engineers that implement them.

 Is it naïve to expect that the general public should meekly accept continual lowering of Radio and TV transmission quality simply because nobody from the engineering side is willing to accept responsibility  for the abuse of the new standards that they have created ?  

Perhaps vested commercial interests are subsidising the creation of these new standards ?

The last few posts show clearly that  you haven't got a clue about what goes on in the engineering world and are just bashing engineers needlessly. 

[marce]

8 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

N o !

I am obviously pissing off the Engineers who don't like what I am saying about the dumbing down of TV and Radio standards due to new Codecs and Standards that they have created, being abused.

Most of you ( "marce" is an exception apparently) appear to meekly accept the degradation of these standards due to vested commercial interests.

You have already accurately described what I see with lower bit rate HD TV in .mpeg 4.

 I have downloaded .ts streams from some U.S.A late night segments that were transmitted in .mpeg 2 that are so much better than what is currently being transmitted here, that it annoys the hell out of me that I can no longer view HD TV to anywhere near it's full capabilities. I also have a few video clips from the U.S.A. using H.264,  that don't even come remotely close to the earlier .mpeg2 1080 transmissions in overall picture quality.

The same applies to FM stereo which I can no longer tolerate for anything but background music in the car, due to .mp3  carts, and heavy compression to make the station sound the loudest on the FM band.

 

Aren't any of you EEs willing to stand up for the general public and complain to your associations about the obvious reductions in quality worldwide?  Or are you more interested in closing ranks whenever somebody complains about poorer quality due to the way your new Codecs and standards are being misused ?

This is just plain derogatory, It is so misinformed that it is laughable. corporate broadcasting decisions do not involve the engineers that design the kit and codecs, its made at a much higher level and involves government licencing... go learn instead of spreading you vile against engineers.

[marce]

12 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

seems like everyone that doesn't see it your way "hast got a clue" or is "spouting rubbish."

Read my full response, it was a specific answer to a specific question, stop trying to read more into what I put. You and your little "pack" are bashing engineering and science, unnecessarily and for what reason, other than it does not always back up your beliefs, I cannot understand. The answer was specific to the comment posted nothing more...

[marce]

23 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Couldn't answer the questions eh. I thought not (in fairness I knew not).

Nothing to answer, nothing to say.

[marce]

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

The key words here are "measurably identical".

This assumes that all parameters have been correctly measured, including frequency ,phase,  low level noise and other artifacts .

I do not class pure Binary Data comparisons as shown by Checksums , as proving that they are identical. Although the extracted 1s and 0s from a HDD etc. may be identical , the differences in processing them due to waveform shape , (rise and fall times and measured levels etc.) may result in them sounding a little different. Any extraneous noise riding along with the exported analogue representation of the binary information may also affect how they sound .

 Differential Receivers aren't perfect either.

 

Eye diagrams... As to the rest plenty of information from the likes of Eric Bogatin, Howard Johnson etc. of how these days we can get digital signals from a to b intact and all the issues we have to understand that can degrade the digital signal. It is the usual things you mention such as rise times etc. Interestingly when doing a digital interface one of the main things to avoid for signal integrity is non monotonic rise and fall times, these can trigger false

Noise (EMC) has been discussed in detail on other threads as possible mechanisms as to why digital cables may sound different. Even though my views differed from many I still put up relevant posts about noise, how to isolate areas of circuitry etc. Positive contributions to a subject I personally have doubts about. It doesn't matter though as unless my views are based on hearing experience only they are invalid.

[marce]

8 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

On the contrary, I am part of the scientific "pack". Just don't like to see it abused and misrepresented.

How am I misusing and abusing it...