Audiophiles: Dead or Dying?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Now over 2 years old but this is what AS members spend on their audio system...

[Rexp]

4 hours ago, tapatrick said:

But where are the numbers? When I was in my 20's it was a cultural phenomenon to sit around with friends listening to and sharing albums on 2 speaker systems. We sought out where the good systems were and got ourselves invited round. My daughter who is in her 20's (and her friends from what I have seen) has 1 speaker in the corner and listens to music in the background. Her generation, that I know of does not get together to sit and listen only and definitely not to stereo. Sure she has ear buds and appreciates great music from her phone, but the culture has changed as it does.

I don't think the potential number of Audiophiles has changed. It was always maybe 1 or 2% of the population. If you played your system to 100 of your daughters piers, one might appreciate it and seek to become an Audiophile. 

[tapatrick]

8 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I don't think people have fundamentally changed, technology has.

I agree with most of what you say and of course every generation listens to music through different media except that I do think technology has and does change 'people'. My point was that the culture of sitting around listening to 2 speaker systems is over if not greatly reduced and this is because of how music (and culture in general) is consumed and the channels through which it is consumed today. You seem to think this isn't true - you may be right and maybe I just don't get out enough!  but I certainly don't look back longing for any good old days - the good days are here or they are nowhere.

[tapatrick]

9 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

uphill... both there and back..

A classic indeed that has gone down in history, even 'bloody young people of today' know this one  !

[tapatrick]

5 hours ago, Rexp said:

I don't think the potential number of Audiophiles has changed. It was always maybe 1 or 2% of the population. If you played your system to 100 of your daughters piers, one might appreciate it and seek to become an Audiophile. 

we need a rigorous double blind test on the numbers...

[tapatrick]

8 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Is this system listed below "a waste" and who is to say

No way! You are definitely one of those guys to get invited round to.

 

I think the point was that a system of a few K is more than enough for 'commercial' quality music. I presume with your ultra system you spend as much time and effort on the quality of the recordings too?

[tapatrick]

5 hours ago, Rexp said:

I don't think the potential number of Audiophiles has changed. It was always maybe 1 or 2% of the population. If you played your system to 100 of your daughters piers, one might appreciate it and seek to become an Audiophile. 

We will have to agree to differ on this. In my 20's I wouldn't have needed to look for the 1 in a hundred...

[charlesphoto]

12 hours ago, tapatrick said:

But where are the numbers? When I was in my 20's it was a cultural phenomenon to sit around with friends listening to and sharing albums on 2 speaker systems. We sought out where the good systems were and got ourselves invited round. 

 

Funny this - it points out cultural differences towards music and hifi even in the past. When I was in my twenties, I can't recall once anyone talking about or comparing hifi gear - we were all too busy making music or going to shows (we're talking 1984-1994 and admittedly my friends were the likes of Mudhoney, Soundgarden, etc). Getting together and comparing records, yes, of course, but really no considerations to how they sound - esp since most were pretty poorly recorded in the first place, so it really didn't matter. A hifi setup usually consisted of a Japanese receiver of some sort, Technics turntable (maybe a Dual or equivalent as well) and Advent or Speakerlab speakers. Louder was the key element = get the party started right! Often bought used at the local Naim dealer, Hawthorne, who are still there (bought my 160 BD from them last month). Thing is, very few of us had any disposable income so never even bothered with the rooms on the right hand side of the store where all the Naim etc gear resides. 

 

So in a nutshell, we cared deeply and passionately about music, but I and most of my peers gave little thought to the actual delivery of it, and I suppose this is much like the youth of today. 

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, charlesphoto said:

 

Funny this - it points out cultural differences towards music and hifi even in the past. When I was in my twenties, I can't recall once anyone talking about or comparing hifi gear - we were all too busy making music or going to shows (we're talking 1984-1994 and admittedly my friends were the likes of Mudhoney, Soundgarden, etc). Getting together and comparing records, yes, of course, but really no considerations to how they sound - esp since most were pretty poorly recorded in the first place, so it really didn't matter. A hifi setup usually consisted of a Japanese receiver of some sort, Technics turntable (maybe a Dual or equivalent as well) and Advent or Speakerlab speakers. Louder was the key element = get the party started right! Often bought used at the local Naim dealer, Hawthorne, who are still there (bought my 160 BD from them last month). Thing is, very few of us had any disposable income so never even bothered with the rooms on the right hand side of the store where all the Naim etc gear resides. 

 

So in a nutshell, we cared deeply and passionately about music, but I and most of my peers gave little thought to the actual delivery of it, and I suppose this is much like the youth of today. 

You are right!!!   I didn't realize this, but I never had the urge to compare my equipement or talk incessantly about the characteristics of this or that.  I just wanted to buy/build the best 'toy' (reproduction device) that I could.   The joy was in selection, not so much telling everyone else about the little details.   Most of my electrical engineering friends could have made good technical conversation, or my artist type friends would listen and mention the imaging and clarity (or not) of my system, but NEVER made a big deal out of it.  A conductor type person mentioned the naturalness of the sound of my system -- but we didn't make ANY big deal out of it afterwards.

 

From the technial side, I was more interested in finding CD material that was good enough that it sounded like the recordings that I used to make -- but never did.

 

Times HAVE changed.

 

John

 

[tapatrick]

5 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

 A hifi setup usually consisted of a Japanese receiver of some sort, Technics turntable (maybe a Dual or equivalent as well) and Advent or Speakerlab speakers. 

 

So in a nutshell, we cared deeply and passionately about music, but I and most of my peers gave little thought to the actual delivery of it, and I suppose this is much like the youth of today. 

Hmm sounds like a stereo system to me, and folks gathering to listening to music - not so different to what I was saying...

[Albrecht]

On 8/26/2020 at 9:43 AM, firedog said:

I think your statement is 100% wrong. There's quality equipment of all types in the $200-$3000 range that is great sounding and well made. Including speakers. Hell, you can get great results using a Raspberry Pi as a streamer and that's less than $100. Even $50.

I can get a much better system today for less money (inflation adjusted) than when I bought my first system in the 70's, and the first "audiophile" one in 1981.

It's true that most people don't care about quality audio- it's also true that most people never did. It was more popular to have a decent setup in the pre mp3 days, but most people did it more for status than true love of sound. I can remember lots of pretty good speakers that cost significant money placed in such a way that they couldn't sound good - for convenience and lifestyle. Some things never change.

IMO, - you need some more experience with better performing equipment.

 

A Razberri Pi may deliver "great results" compared to a lo-fi $300 POS Sony. But that's not the subject of discussion. The point is, is how the Razberri Pi compares to a Lumin, DCS NB, or Sig Rendu. The former does not belong in a $30,000 type retail system and will sound significantly worse. (Unless, [as several trolls have done here], samabotaged an high performing system in the name of pseudo science. 

 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

IMO, - you need some more experience with better performing equipment.

 

A Razberri Pi may deliver "great results" compared to a lo-fi $300 POS Sony. But that's not the subject of discussion. The point is, is how the Razberri Pi compares to a Lumin, DCS NB, or Sig Rendu. The former does not belong in a $30,000 type retail system and will sound significantly worse. (Unless, [as several trolls have done here], samabotaged an high performing system in the name of pseudo science. 

 

Nonsense. Only $30000 retail counts as hi fi? And that's exactly the problem with audiophilia: an item like a Pi being dismissed because it doesn't perform like some piece selling for multiple thousands of dollars. And your supposed Sony piece also probably also isn't "lo-fi". Both will produce actual hi-fi-when it's defined as ultra low distortion, low jitter, etc. Of course, if you have no definitions, and restrict hi-fi to hand waving descriptions of the sound of "hi fi" based only on sighted listening, you can dismiss anything. 

 

IMO, you need more experience listening to equipment under unsighted conditions. I bet you and many other audiophiles would fail to differentiate or pick out the the so called "lo-fi", "mid-fi", and some much more expensive pieces in many cases if you did unsighted comparisons: sources, DACs, and amps. It's easy to convince yourself you have golden ears under sighted listening conditions.

 

And I'm not saying everything sounds the same. I am saying that audiophiles both hear non-existent differences when using sighted listening, and also exaggerate very small differences into something that "totally changes the sound" they are hearing. That's what sighted listening does. It's been demonstrated multiple times. For whatever reason, many audiophiles are unwilling to test this for themselves. 

[sandyk]

44 minutes ago, firedog said:

MO, you need more experience listening to equipment under unsighted conditions. I bet you and many other audiophiles would fail to differentiate or pick out the the so called "lo-fi", "mid-fi", and some much more expensive pieces in many cases if you did unsighted comparisons: sources, DACs, and amps. It's easy to convince yourself you have golden ears under sighted listening conditions.

 

And I'm not saying everything sounds the same. I am saying that audiophiles both hear non-existent differences when using sighted listening, and also exaggerate very small differences into something that "totally changes the sound" they are hearing. That's what sighted listening does. It's been demonstrated multiple times. For whatever reason, many audiophiles are unwilling to test this for themselves. 

 All of the listening sessions that Audiophile Neuroscience and several friends, including a qualified E.E. have been involved in have been under NON SIGHTED conditions.

[firedog]

48 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 All of the listening sessions that Audiophile Neuroscience and several friends, including a qualified E.E. have been involved in have been under NON SIGHTED conditions.

Read the Harman research. Even experienced listeners are influenced by sighted listening. Do we all agree speakers sound distinctly different? At Harman they found that even evaluation of speakers and speaker choices changed when listening was unsighted. Even with experienced trained listeners. 

Last year there was even an experiment showing that listeners reported hearing different volume levels from volume matched souces when the color associated with the volume knob in the app used was different. The red knob was associated with the highest reported volume perceived. 

So I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you trying to say biased results from sighted listening don't exist? I'm sorry, those "golden ear" audiophiles can - and do - fool themselves also. The "listening sessions" don't mean much in the face of actual resrearch and multiple demonstrations of the effect of sighted listening over decades. 

 

[Albrecht]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Nonsense. Only $30000 retail counts as hi fi? And that's exactly the problem with audiophilia: an item like a Pi being dismissed because it doesn't perform like some piece selling for multiple thousands of dollars. And your supposed Sony piece also probably also isn't "lo-fi". Both will produce actual hi-fi-when it's defined as ultra low distortion, low jitter, etc. Of course, if you have no definitions, and restrict hi-fi to hand waving descriptions of the sound of "hi fi" based only on sighted listening, you can dismiss anything. 

 

IMO, you need more experience listening to equipment under unsighted conditions. I bet you and many other audiophiles would fail to differentiate or pick out the the so called "lo-fi", "mid-fi", and some much more expensive pieces in many cases if you did unsighted comparisons: sources, DACs, and amps. It's easy to convince yourself you have golden ears under sighted listening conditions.

 

And I'm not saying everything sounds the same. I am saying that audiophiles both hear non-existent differences when using sighted listening, and also exaggerate very small differences into something that "totally changes the sound" they are hearing. That's what sighted listening does. It's been demonstrated multiple times. For whatever reason, many audiophiles are unwilling to test this for themselves. 

Nope... I was using an example and analogy to illustrate there is a context.

 

Making assumptions about how equipment and systems are evaluated via sighted vs un-sighted is silly as they are just that... 

No need to repeat ground already covered here, but please don't skip over the significant importance of piling up many comparative experiences. 

 

A Razberri Pi only sucks compared to an signature Rendu if you apply both equally and correctly. And it doesn't mean that both don't "sound good," - it's just that one sounds dramatically better than the other in the correct context. Just as 10Gauge lamp cord as speaker cable is inappropriate for LAMM/Kharma systems, - so is a Razberri Pi, and it certainly doesn't take any rigorous or (foolish) blind testing measures to hear/know this obviousness.....

 

(By the way, - I've done the tests comparing 3 different Rendus, and a Pi in my system, - and although the Pi performed well, - it's not a hi-fi piece of kit that is up to those "average" performance/price level systems that constitute the typical Stereophile polled average system hi-fi price-point).

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

13 hours ago, tapatrick said:

I think the point was that a system of a few K is more than enough for 'commercial' quality music. I presume with your ultra system you spend as much time and effort on the quality of the recordings too?

 

I would say if the commercially produced music is garbage quality I wouldn't listen to it on any system other than a car radio and only if I loved the music e.g. Rolling Stones. There are a number of tracks, using the Rolling Stones as an example, that I like to listen to on a high-end system. They are far from perfect but there is enough sound quality there that really good equipment can release. For me, the better the playback system the more it gets out of the road and if there is something great on the recording it will shine through in spades

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Read the Harman research.

 Why ? 

 

 

Quote

 Are you trying to say biased results from sighted listening don't exist? I'm sorry, those "golden ear" audiophiles can - and do - fool themselves also. The "listening sessions" don't mean much in the face of actual resrearch and multiple demonstrations of the effect of sighted listening over decades. 

I neither said or implied anything like that.

 You appear to be conducting a vendetta against  "golden ear" audiophiles and more expensive Audiophile products to justify your own choices, and apparently believe that non sighted listening .will show that there is very little value (if any) in paying any more for audio than your typical budget,

 

[Albrecht]

28 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Why ? 

 

 

I neither said or implied anything like that.

 You appear to be conducting a vendetta against  "golden ear" audiophiles and more expensive Audiophile products to justify your own choices, and apparently believe that non sighted listening .will show that there is very little value (if any) in paying any more for audio than your typical budget,

 

Very true...

 

And for the upteenthtime... "golden-ear" audiophiles don't exist. To assert such is a Trump-like, straw-man, lie....

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

Read the Harman research.

 

I have but remain unconvinced. It shows that the test used produces certain results. It doesn't show that the test itself is or was accurate. It assumes that the test is accurate and therefore the results accurate.

 

Quote

Last year there was even an experiment showing that listeners reported hearing different volume levels from volume matched souces when the color associated with the volume knob in the app used was different. The red knob was associated with the highest reported volume perceived. 

 

Red is a 'loud 'colour!😁

 

Quote

So I'm not really sure what your point is.

 

 

The point for me is that bias exists both ways. The issue of blind audio testing remains controversial and from a real scientific perspective as far as I am concerned, it "needs more work". This is not to doubt for a millisecond that sighted listening introduces bias, at least potentially. The biggest point is that people will not agree and it is a surefire way to derail threads.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

And for the upteenthtime... "golden-ear" audiophiles don't exist. To assert such is a Trump-like, straw-man, lie....

 

 

We obviously haven't met! Here is a picture of me🤣

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, Albrecht said:

and although the Pi performed well, - it's not a hi-fi piece of kit that is up to those "average" performance/price level systems that constitute the typical Stereophile polled average system hi-fi price-point).

Out of interest do you have figures on stereophile average system hi-fi price point? Earlier in the thread I posted what Audiophile Style members spend. At that time, two years ago, it was still Computer Audiophile so I suspect that the results were skewed downwards and not upwards. Nonetheless, the results show that 50% of members spend upwards of $20,000.

[lucretius]

On 8/27/2020 at 2:29 AM, Blackmorec said:

The Rajiv thread is about streaming music data over a network. Both local and remote. 

 

Getting back to the topic of this thread, the reason most young people aren’t caring about Audio has to do with where they find themselves on Maslov’s hierarchy of needs. The current political and business leaders have screwed this generation of young people multiple times thanks to corrupt business practices (dishonest sub prime loans and criminally false debt ratings), offshoring jobs by the millions to increase profits for the few,  zero interest rates thanks to out of control Central Banks’ money printing and now this latest zoonotic virus plague caused (we are told) by criminally negligent food hygiene practices that were well recognised as a severe threat long before any outbreak.  Audio is something to enjoy when all your security needs are met and right now, most young people are nowhere near achieving this goal and really have very little prospect of doing so in the future. 

 

Essentially money is behaving just like all matter in the Universe, coalescing to form stars, planets, asteroid belts, dust clouds of potential and huge tracts of emptiness. 

 

Oh no, not Maslov!  The audiophile world certainly does not need any more pseudoscience.

[AudioDoctor]

54 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Oh no, not Maslov!  The audiophile world certainly does not need any more pseudoscience.

 

He is probably spot on though.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

22 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

Oh no, not Maslov!  The audiophile world certainly does not need any more pseudoscience.

 

He is probably spot on though.

Only with Revision 1.0 😁 Maslov Revised

 

[lucretius]

On 8/28/2020 at 1:08 AM, ricko01 said:

... to me being a real audiophile, no matter equipment level, means not only a passion for the reproduction chain but also a devotion to carving out time to listen exclusively to the system and not as a shared task while using say social media.

 

The way I remember it (back in the early seventies), listening to the stereo was indeed a shared task -- the music was a backdrop to social discourse with one's pals or to set the mood for interaction with the opposite sex, and many times supplemented with drugs and liquor. The music, like air, was part of the environment and not distinct from it.