With the introduction of more and more CD compression, looks to me like there'll soon be no audiophiles to be stupid, just people with PA systems (maximum loudness) that can't tell the difference between a woofer and a tweeter. I'd count myself as one of the few teenagers around that listens to music with little compression, through a decent stereo. In short, there will be no audiophiles, just people with more, bigger speakers and kW PA amps, driving the speakers to Xlim, thinking bass is supposed to sound farty.
Chris
I'm relatively new and I thought this forum is one of the less snake-oiled 🙂.
Of course if Zaph used to be here that would be really cool. Why did he leave?
Of course if Zaph used to be here that would be really cool. Why did he leave?
Why do the "engineering" folks (and not all as I count a number of friends that are scholars that are also audiophiles) so afraid to realize that there is more to creating a great sound component than just its measurements? Sure they are paramount to a successful design, but they do not prove satisfying sound! The people that design and listen to what they build subjectively, are the ones that always seem to remain at the top of the game.
Would that mean that they would have to understand that something that they designed and built, may not be accepted sonically to others designs by the listening public? I find it hard to understand what their beef is with people that listen and know the differences exist. Would it mean that somehow they would have to rethink what they might be doing and their point of reference would have to change from the world they know? Would it mean a paradigm shift in their "ego"? I am asking this as they seem to be the most perturbed with the listening public. Most listeners do not live in a black and white world, with predefined expectations or ideals about what to expect as there are no expectations other than does it sound good or not, thankfully. Many here seem to never expect anything to sound different as it can not. Does this make them feel better that anything that they design is as good as any others designs sonic imprint? Would it destroy their "ego" if it was possible for them to hear differences and they found out that maybe what they designed did not match up with the others in terms of it sonics? I don't know, as I am not a shrink, but there has to be some under laying reason for this paranoia. Where is the research work on this phenomena?
How do many high end manufacturers seem to understand the listening satisfaction side of audio and somehow, on the whole, seem to bring to market products that meet those peoples expectations? Pretty boxes? Pretty graphics? No great sounding components.
As far as being jaded to believe that everything sounds good becuase of the way that it may or may not look, I do not feel that this exists in anyone that has been in this business for very many years, that I know. These references to Toole (a fine man no doubt) that salesman are predisposed to think that everything has a bias to its looks? Maybe the average mid-fi sales person that has little or no long term experience. People get burned out after a short time generally. If they stay around, they know full well that about 5% at best is worth bothering with in time. I have never entered into any listening test of new equipment expecting any thing, except probable failure of the "test" mules. It is just ingrained to expect failure after a while. Looks are all the same after awhile. How many different ways can you build an amplifier, a preamp, a DAC, etc? What matters is the sound it produces.
I realize that a great many of you have little real longer term experience in most business related aspects of audio, as you have other "better" means of paying the bills and not influencing your hobby. If you have never done something how do you know what the business is like on a daily basis? By reading papers from researchers? I know what experience has taught me and many others. What a test group has shown is of little importance to me, nor do I put much "faith" into it as a whole. I do put "faith" into what life has taught me. I live each day and not refer to a manual as to how I should live and enjoy life.
Would that mean that they would have to understand that something that they designed and built, may not be accepted sonically to others designs by the listening public? I find it hard to understand what their beef is with people that listen and know the differences exist. Would it mean that somehow they would have to rethink what they might be doing and their point of reference would have to change from the world they know? Would it mean a paradigm shift in their "ego"? I am asking this as they seem to be the most perturbed with the listening public. Most listeners do not live in a black and white world, with predefined expectations or ideals about what to expect as there are no expectations other than does it sound good or not, thankfully. Many here seem to never expect anything to sound different as it can not. Does this make them feel better that anything that they design is as good as any others designs sonic imprint? Would it destroy their "ego" if it was possible for them to hear differences and they found out that maybe what they designed did not match up with the others in terms of it sonics? I don't know, as I am not a shrink, but there has to be some under laying reason for this paranoia. Where is the research work on this phenomena?
How do many high end manufacturers seem to understand the listening satisfaction side of audio and somehow, on the whole, seem to bring to market products that meet those peoples expectations? Pretty boxes? Pretty graphics? No great sounding components.
As far as being jaded to believe that everything sounds good becuase of the way that it may or may not look, I do not feel that this exists in anyone that has been in this business for very many years, that I know. These references to Toole (a fine man no doubt) that salesman are predisposed to think that everything has a bias to its looks? Maybe the average mid-fi sales person that has little or no long term experience. People get burned out after a short time generally. If they stay around, they know full well that about 5% at best is worth bothering with in time. I have never entered into any listening test of new equipment expecting any thing, except probable failure of the "test" mules. It is just ingrained to expect failure after a while. Looks are all the same after awhile. How many different ways can you build an amplifier, a preamp, a DAC, etc? What matters is the sound it produces.
I realize that a great many of you have little real longer term experience in most business related aspects of audio, as you have other "better" means of paying the bills and not influencing your hobby. If you have never done something how do you know what the business is like on a daily basis? By reading papers from researchers? I know what experience has taught me and many others. What a test group has shown is of little importance to me, nor do I put much "faith" into it as a whole. I do put "faith" into what life has taught me. I live each day and not refer to a manual as to how I should live and enjoy life.
Last edited:
The same reason I left, which is basically being questioned by folks who have no engineering background yet seem to think they know best and trust their ears more than established laws of physics and mathematics. These folks treat audio as a new religion where any tweak (such as sticking pin needles on corners of speaker enclosures, or placing pieces of cork randomly on a enclosure) is regarded as having validity and description of the effects of this tweak are argumented with fantastic claims which cannot be heard by anyone that's not a believer (obviously).
The moment people start to give more credibility to the folks that think a DBT is blasphemy and that the laws of physics and mathematics do not apply to audio (or can be bent using pins and needles, or pieces of cork for that matter) I'm out. I like to operate in the real world where differences need to be measureable and arguments are to be based on fact, not belief. Too many people seem to think that audio is an area we've yet to understand technically, whereas audio recording and reproduction has been understood and properly scientifically documented for decades.
Cheers,
Sander.
So the "fact" that people do hear differences that measurements can not quantify, upsets your applecart of how the "world" should be? Maybe its time to find new ways or procedures to understand the "human experience" in how it pertains to listening to music through audio equipment.
A great many successful audio companies that design audio seem to understand and deal with the "listening" and "faith" based buyers of the world quite well. But they are subjective enough to listen to what they design and build to insure that it will play music that is also satisfying and not just looks good on a bench or in a pretty box. There is a lot of life outside of boxes 😀
One of the big blasphemies is all the poorly designed and statistically invalid stuff passing as DBT.
Laws of physics & mathematics certainly apply, but we are still working with pretty crude models.
Another thing we don't have is a very good understanding of is how measurements corallate to what people hear.
And to paraphrase Toole. 2 ears + a brain trump a mic + analyzer. Olson said it over a 1/2 century ago "In all things audio, the ear is the final arbiter."
I only know of 2 studies that claim to have at least gotten a start. Floyd Toole describes 30 years of research that creates a metric based on 70 FR measures (in an anechoic chamber down to the transition frequency) that strongly correlate with listeners preferences. The same DBTs also convinced him that what people prefer is broadly the same.
The other is Geddes work that shows no correlation between THD and percieved quality until it is very large.
dave
Right, that's exactly my point, there's no reason for me to enter into this discussion if you seem to think that the laws of physics and mathematics that govern the operation of the equipment you use for audio recording and playback are based on 'pretty crude models'.
The only factor that we cannot quantify exactly is what happens between the ears, the belief system, psycho-acoustics, reputation of a product, word of mouth, etc. etc. That's why a proper DBT shows no differences between all those overpriced cables and a piece of standard copper installation wire. When you take all the nonsense that is belief and reputation of a certain product out of the equation and judge it on its 'sonic signature' (for lack of a better word) then suddenly it all sounds the same. Given the fact the listener is the only variable in a proper DBT what does that tell you? (of course the believers will argue a DBT is flawed, so we're going to go in circles).
Cheers,
Sander.
But they are. I've read Olson, zillions of AES articles, Toole's latest, whatever i can get my hands on. A lot of simplifications are made to be able to do the math. Sometimes they can do a pretty good job of predicting the broad strokes.
Until the recent "discovery" of complexity theory (Chaos theory) about 5% of the set of mathematics of the pysical world had been explored. Complexity theory comprises the other 95% and the surface has been barely scratched there. Those big very fast super computers -- their very purpose is to bruteforce problems where there is no elegant mathematical models.
Right there we have a reasonable doubt about how well we can make mathematical models as we are missing a significant portion of the math that we need. And physics being applied mathematics, there is just as much to learn there.
We are still primitives. We have come a long way, but the more we learn, the more able we are to understand how little we know.
dave
But if the closed minded keep preaching that there are no differences, how will we ever advance the sciences? That is my question.
Curly, I show respect for both views but please check your terminology and
don't confuse science with what you preach, please. There are case where you can even offend me.
don't confuse science with what you preach, please. There are case where you can even offend me.
I think the below noted cartoon summarizes 99% of all audio products catering to the 'our product defies logic, physics, mathematics, but it sure sounds great'.
Cheers,
Sander.
Cheers,
Sander.
I needed a listening panel at one stage many years ago. I set up a test to eliminate the people that couldn't simply listen. I ended up with a listening panel of two. I went and bought a big 12V relay intended for spotlights. Rigged it to a 12V battery and hid the whole thing behing my gear. I did spend some time making the switch wires look very upmarket. Then invited 4 at a time to sit and audition some gear. They had paper to write notes on etc.
Then play music, every track twice. A very audible click from the relay announced A or B. The only change was the click of the relay. Can be very entertaining having people argue which is better / worse.
Interestingly, the few wives that came along usually got it right when they admitted, sheepishly, they couldn't tell the difference.
Out of 20 'experts' I ended up with 2 who were strong enough to admit they perceived no difference.
Terry
PS don't ask friends!!!
Then play music, every track twice. A very audible click from the relay announced A or B. The only change was the click of the relay. Can be very entertaining having people argue which is better / worse.
Interestingly, the few wives that came along usually got it right when they admitted, sheepishly, they couldn't tell the difference.
Out of 20 'experts' I ended up with 2 who were strong enough to admit they perceived no difference.
Terry
PS don't ask friends!!!
I've also been away for a time (approximately 4 years). Yes there are some threads which go on, and on, and on (like this one apparently is heading in the direction of). Yes there is the perpetual posting (from both sides) trying to convince the other side that they are wrong (faith based vs science based). IMO if it bothers you, tune out!! There is no point trying to convince someone of something that is not within their version of reality. By all means try if you must, but if it doesn't work give up already! 😉 (this goes for both sides of the fence).
I saw mention of sometimes there might be three pages of posts before someone points out a serious error. Lets not forget that there are all levels of knowledge here. I often put qualifiers on what I post because I know that I'm no expert (I've been playing with electronics for over 30 years but I have probably forgotten more than I remember 😉 ) , I hope that If I do post something inaccurate, that someone will pull me up on it. I do not like to spread false information, and If I say something wrong I want to know about it. However it takes someone with the knowledge that something is wrong to speak up and point it out (hopefully in a way that isn't demeaning) for the less experienced to advance in their knowledge. I think part of the problem is the more experienced get sick of correcting people, and will only do it if they see something that really really annoys them!
Not every question that a newbie asks can be answered by the oldest wisest and most experienced people on the forum. Often it is yesterdays newbie's who are answering because they asked the same questions themselves and got answers from someone more knowledgeable and they now pass on that knowledge (perhaps with some loss of information, or perhaps with more depending on how much they learnt).
IMO the only way to have a very high signal to noise ratio is to exclude anyone who does not fit the knowledge profile (or for that matter ideals) that whomever decides what a decent S/N ratio is. This will become boring and stale very quickly.
Personally I've always found DiyAudio full of helpful people, that have helped me to advance my knowledge and think about things in ways I might not otherwise have done. I think most people who post here are smart enough to make there own minds up as to whether or not they believe something... The need to point out to others (to protect them, and I'm guilty of it myself) that faith based observations have no scientific backing, is I think in some ways insulting. I think it is reasonable to assume that each individual is capable of making up their own mind whether something "faith based" has any merit and whether or not they would be willing to try it. One of the things that I find the funniest is that the Scientific types will mostly never try it because there is no proof, the irony is that they are the ones who would best be able to provide the proof if there is in fact something that can be measured.
I'm not sure why I get involved in these threads.... I think it is some sort of bizarre wish to try and mediate, and get people to be a little less black and white, but in the end I'm probably just adding to the noise 😉
Tony.
I saw mention of sometimes there might be three pages of posts before someone points out a serious error. Lets not forget that there are all levels of knowledge here. I often put qualifiers on what I post because I know that I'm no expert (I've been playing with electronics for over 30 years but I have probably forgotten more than I remember 😉 ) , I hope that If I do post something inaccurate, that someone will pull me up on it. I do not like to spread false information, and If I say something wrong I want to know about it. However it takes someone with the knowledge that something is wrong to speak up and point it out (hopefully in a way that isn't demeaning) for the less experienced to advance in their knowledge. I think part of the problem is the more experienced get sick of correcting people, and will only do it if they see something that really really annoys them!
Not every question that a newbie asks can be answered by the oldest wisest and most experienced people on the forum. Often it is yesterdays newbie's who are answering because they asked the same questions themselves and got answers from someone more knowledgeable and they now pass on that knowledge (perhaps with some loss of information, or perhaps with more depending on how much they learnt).
IMO the only way to have a very high signal to noise ratio is to exclude anyone who does not fit the knowledge profile (or for that matter ideals) that whomever decides what a decent S/N ratio is. This will become boring and stale very quickly.
Personally I've always found DiyAudio full of helpful people, that have helped me to advance my knowledge and think about things in ways I might not otherwise have done. I think most people who post here are smart enough to make there own minds up as to whether or not they believe something... The need to point out to others (to protect them, and I'm guilty of it myself) that faith based observations have no scientific backing, is I think in some ways insulting. I think it is reasonable to assume that each individual is capable of making up their own mind whether something "faith based" has any merit and whether or not they would be willing to try it. One of the things that I find the funniest is that the Scientific types will mostly never try it because there is no proof, the irony is that they are the ones who would best be able to provide the proof if there is in fact something that can be measured.
I'm not sure why I get involved in these threads.... I think it is some sort of bizarre wish to try and mediate, and get people to be a little less black and white, but in the end I'm probably just adding to the noise 😉
Tony.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.