I'm thinking of selling 'Best hi-fi in the world' sertificates, just imagine the SQ upgrade you will get for a few $.
A bit of a generalisation perhaps, I would have agreed with that a couple of years ago but IME the better and more realistic I managed to recreate the soundstage image and instrument sounds, the easier it became to hear and process the information. I got some test tracks that I know quite well by now and find it easy to detect even small differences. I guess it will depend on the music you listen to also.
Blah. I like how 'some bottled water contained arsenic' morphs into 'bottled water contains arsenic!'. Now where else have I seen that conflating some and all? I almost never drink bottled or tap water, more a club soda guy, but water fresh from the tap has a strong chlorine hit which dissipates after it sits a while, rendering the street test mostly useless. Didn't get much past that point.
Objective evidence doesn't rely solely on our senses, the claim you made related it to subjective evidence, which is really an oxymoron. If you rely on anything subjective or question the ability to interpret objective evidence via our sense there isn't anything that can't be justified. I can claim I talk to god and he's actually a giant kit-kat bar. My proof? It's subjective, I can hear him talking to me. Some questions are fundamentally subjective just as some are fundamentally objective. "Is it possible this sounds different" isn't a subjective question. Just because it's possible to have a subjective answer doesn't make that answer valid. You could subjectively think 3+2=14, you'd be in disagreement with reality tho.
If there's no change, I'm hearing the same thing you are only it cost me a lot less in cabling. Spending more money to believe you hear something doesn't mean you actually see the difference.Must be wonderfully boring having your subconcious always forcing you to hear what you expect to hear. Never anything happening that you weren't expecting, no let-downs, no highs.
Again, no one is claiming this is the case. You can't compare products that produce varying results with products that produce identical results. You keep falling into this logical fallacy, it's not an A to A comparison. You can use rational thought when there is a rational basis of comparison.
Yes, but even if you listen to the same song over and over, if you're unconsciously listening for a difference you'll find one even if it doesn't exist. Trying to deny this fact is like trying to claim you can control the rate your hair grows. It's a fundamental aspect of the human condition and the basis for one of the largest industries in the world. You would have to be an absolute idiot or so self absorbed that you're incapable of admitting ones own inherent fault to suggest otherwise. You show me someone who claims to be immune from product bias and I'll show you a moron or a liar.
Last edited:
Not a bad video, but if they have never been anywhere where bottled water didn't taste better, then they really are magicians.
No I do not drink or endorse bottled water, but I have lived in places (in the US) where it seemed like a very good choice.
I find this "cost" issue you keep bringing up quite strange
Why do you assume that cost always means "better", are you that indoctrinated ??
I have QED solid silver cables sitting on the shelf, I prefer to use a cable that is about 1/20th the price.. because I listened.
I once purchased an expensive amp, meant to be the "go", traded it in a month later,... because I listened
I have listened to expensive speakers, and walked away wondering.. as have many others here.. perhaps we expected them to sound bad ??
I know a guy who has access to, can afford, and has tried many different high end cables, guess what he uses now.. solid core electrical cable.. why.... because he listened.
I have bought expensive bottles of wine, and on tasting, wondered why....
You cannot tell me you have never tried something that was "meant" to be good, but it wasn't.. or something cheap, and ordinary.. which turned out to be extraordinary..
Or are you totally ruled by your prior expectations and at the whim of the advertising man !
Last edited:
Because it's something that everyone associates unconsciously. You're more impressed with a product that cost an arm and a leg when compared to something you could get with a child's allowance. It has nothing to do with what I personal care about. I don't even want to begin to imagine what you mean by "indoctrinated", am I also part of the "conspiracy" to over throw "them"?I find this "cost" issue you keep bringing up quite strange
Why do you assume that cost always means "better", are you that indocinated ??
Congrats, like I said, it's possible to steer in the right direction just as easily as it's possible to steer in the wrong one. It doesn't make it any less irrational. It would be the same to say I picked the right baby sitter by throwing a dart at the wall. Even if you got a great result it had nothing to do with the selection method you used. This is pretty much my response to everything else you mentioned as well. The amp on the other hand is justified. Amps will sound different, so you can use objective or even subjective measures to validate yourself. I can't prove to you or anyone else that one amp will sound better or worst to that person. However if something produces identical results it doesn't matter. If you claim to be doing it by ear you might as well be claiming to be doing it by magic, there's no differences as far as reality is concerned.
It's not a logical fallacy if I stay within the context of my own statements. You can try all you want with meaningless if not absurd analogies and the altering or twisting of what I said, but I am sticking to my story that many audiophiles buy equipment based on personal opinions and preferences they've formed from the careful listening to and comparing of several different systems.
It's true that they may want to spend what seems like an unnecessary amount of extra money so that their things don't look homemade like your speakers, but that's their business.
John
I don't disagree that listening to hardware is great and it's a useful tool when comparing products that have different outputs. If you limit your statement to that context I'll be the first one to support the idea. I think stats matter, measurements matter, but the will always be personal preference. I think you can learn most of what you need to know by looking at proper measurements, but you can't account for how it'll sound in your room unless you measure it there. You can't account for how it'll sound for your tastes unless you recognize what measurements reflect your personal tastes. In most cases listening is the easier of the solutions even if it isn't the most accurate. However that courtesy is limited to products that reasonably dissimilar outputs.
Gees you must be down on yourself, if you don't believe that what you hear or see is real. Too many mushrooms of the wrong variety, perhaps.
Reminds me of another guy I know, has 2 pairs of speakers, one which he openly admits he prefers to listen to, the other that measures "better". Because he is so swayed by this "objective" measurement, he never listens to the ones he prefers.
Now THAT is illogical !!!!
How was it shown with out objective verification? If that's the case than there is some measure of evidence you could use to convince me. See how easy that is...
I prob'ly could with a bit of practise.
I am the Kwisatz Haderach you know.
w
Pass me a bit more of that spice cake. Please. Do I have to use the Voice on you?
Again, you are so STUCK with the idea that measurements provide the only truth, that you are letting it influence your thinking.. and your whole way of being.
This almost certainly stops you from hearing differences that may actually be there. Pity really.
There can be no other explanation? If I told you that inside a cave there's a gas that'll make you hallucinate a ghost. If you enter the cave and see a ghost do you proclaim that it had to of been real? The majority of the scientific community recognizes product bias, there's a warning printed in common sense that says if you listen to 2 identical products there's a strong likelihood you'll imagine one to be better for no reason other than suggestion. Are you telling me you're gonna scream ghosts after you've already been warned?Gees you must be down on yourself, if you don't believe that what you hear or see is real. Too many mushrooms of the wrong variety, perhaps.
First off I don't believe you. All this would prove is your friend has a specific taste that varies from his idea of what it should sound like. That would make him human and if he wanted to listen to what pleased him more as opposed to what's more accurate for reproduction then that's fine, it's his setup.
Last edited:
No, I still use my ears. Here's how I use them tho. I'll look at the spectral decay, harmonic distortion, frequency response (which you really don't need if you have the decay, but w/e), impulse, ect. see what aspects of a speaker or a room I appreciate. I know I like a decay that's less than 5ms, I like a little higher response and as low decay as reasonable below 80hz. I prefer a little roll off on the highs but I don't like them too abrupt, which happens often in rooms that are too aggressive with uncovered panels. When I listen I don't rely solely on my ears, I relate the aspects of what I enjoy to the measurements I take and learn how to recreate that in rooms. It's the same thing I do when I calibrate rooms for people. I have nice house curves and I have ones more tailored to peoples ears. However I always have an objective basis of analysis. It's not like I'm walking into their homes or designing their rooms, only to rely on magic to get the job done.
Last edited:
This is getting too hot and heavy.
History suggests Reason is the handmaiden of the Emotions, as does modern science. Both history and science suggest therefore that we need to be especially wary of conclusions we make about things in areas we really care about.
Otherwise, the fabulous tool of reason is put to the task of defending false conclusions.
And the results of that are often "inelegant", if we're lucky.
History suggests Reason is the handmaiden of the Emotions, as does modern science. Both history and science suggest therefore that we need to be especially wary of conclusions we make about things in areas we really care about.
Otherwise, the fabulous tool of reason is put to the task of defending false conclusions.
And the results of that are often "inelegant", if we're lucky.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.