I hear ya. (pardon the pun!)
I've built cheap equipment that sounded better than it should have,again this may go back to psychoacoustics (It sounds great because *I* built it) But I don't think that's the whole story.I've built fancy expensive things that should have sounded great,but were almost intolerable to my ears.
Psychoacoustics can/do play a large part in it,but there's more to it than that.
DBT can be a great tool to use to sort this stuff out,just like the oscilloscope can when building a circuit,but there are other things that come into play also.
Same here,I try not to trick myself into thinking something is better/worse..just realize that it may sound different.Then I try to sort out how/what is different,and if I like it or not.
Fiddling with speaker crossovers seems to be a good example of this,IME.
I disagree. If anyone has been around audio for any length of time, looks have very little to do with the final decision to purchase, except for a reciever, but they are relatively cheap. I dealt with people that listened as I do to the equipment. I've had some really crude looking boxes from the carriage trade back in the day and people would buy it based upon its sound over many higher priced and better presented equipment. Why is it so hard to believe that people can and do purchase based upon sound. I wished that audiophiles were like interior decorators, it would have made my life much easier as a salesman 😉
If you are talking about the occasional buyer that purchases a new receiver once every 10 tears or so, sure looks are part of what they are looking at, at the time of purchase. But if we are talking seasoned audiophile types (the primary people that buy esoteric stuff) they are most interested in how something sounds.
Last edited:
No, $2 silver mica coupling caps were sure to be zippy, falsely detailed and over hyped Harmonizers in tube interstage positions and instead I have no sense of really hearing them. I thought a $5 LM3875 would be a screeching little cheese grater and instead (so far) found a warmish, expansive, very listenable little music maker. Conversely, self-proclaimed tech experts and science defenders insisted - based only on data sheet recommendations - that Peter Daniel's approach of smallish PS supply caps ruins a chip amp's bass, yet my measurements found power supply hum rejection 'degraded' to ~-120 dB below signal at 5 watts, deafening in most domestic circumstances.
Sure, some toon-town types here like 20% THD at 5 watts but they're easy to recognize. Limiting diyAudio to the canonical saints serves no purpose. A book is easier to read and far more accurate than a second hand anonymous exegesis. Why would I listen to you instead? For that reason I've gained infinitely more technical knowledge from deeply poring over the appeal of strange ideas than all the 'authorities' here combined, most who seemed more concerned with the prestige of arbitrating what's 'right' than participating in the joyous tumble perusing what's new.
I think it fair to say that there is an infinite number of possible patterns. I also think it fair to say that how it works on a diaphragm is known, manufacturers have for years understood it well and used that knowledge in the constant advancements we see all the time or in the ability to get more from less. Some just prefer to believe that it's some sort of "unknown" phenomenon of physics beyond our current comprehension. That makes it more appealing to some.
Dave
In the relatively short time I've been a member, I have learned much through exchanging thoughts with the many knowledgeable folks around here. I agree, however, that there are some with motives which are counter-productive to open and honest discussion. Still, so far I've found this to be a great site, with lots of useful information, and lots of nice people! And perhaps the occasional inflammatory miscreant! 😛
JF
It's not just you. It would be nice if the universe obeyed some law, something like "the total amount of audiophile stupidity in the universe is constant". Unfortunately, the sum total of all audiophile stupidity in the universe behaves more like entropy - it's an ever-increasing function. All internet audio-related forums are adversely affected by this.
The only thing I can say Curly is that what you have done is to have succumbed to another myth.
The point about the research I mentioned is that Toole for instance conducted a test where the listeners could see the systems they were listening to, then put an opaque acoustically transparent curtain in front of them and repeated the test.
The same people then chose a different set of speakers as their preference.
Whilst I have no doubt that people will state, and think, that they are only choosing by sound, but they are in fact choosing by a combination of senses.
For instance the audiophile might well be succumbing to a process that reasons that since the box looks a bit ordinary the maker must have spent the money on the contents therefore it will be better, it quite often is but the point is that you are kidding yourself if you think your choice is entirely rational, its not.
People, (statistically more sales people), say the same about marketing hype, i.e. it does not affect them, but the overwhelming probability is that it does, that's why B.F. Skinner is the god of the marketing psychology trade; conditioning does work, otherwise business would have not spent the sums it has and does on research into it.
And marketing psychologists use the Skinner justification about their activities. This being that since we are all being conditioned all of the time anyway, it is incumbent upon the powers that be to condition us toward the path of righteousness, this being consumer capitalism.
In the light of this it is also a fact that most people believe that it only works on the foolish and feeble minded, and since they are neither of these it does not work on them, in fact the people it does not work on are generally in a class that has a definable psychopathology.
rcw.
The point about the research I mentioned is that Toole for instance conducted a test where the listeners could see the systems they were listening to, then put an opaque acoustically transparent curtain in front of them and repeated the test.
The same people then chose a different set of speakers as their preference.
Whilst I have no doubt that people will state, and think, that they are only choosing by sound, but they are in fact choosing by a combination of senses.
For instance the audiophile might well be succumbing to a process that reasons that since the box looks a bit ordinary the maker must have spent the money on the contents therefore it will be better, it quite often is but the point is that you are kidding yourself if you think your choice is entirely rational, its not.
People, (statistically more sales people), say the same about marketing hype, i.e. it does not affect them, but the overwhelming probability is that it does, that's why B.F. Skinner is the god of the marketing psychology trade; conditioning does work, otherwise business would have not spent the sums it has and does on research into it.
And marketing psychologists use the Skinner justification about their activities. This being that since we are all being conditioned all of the time anyway, it is incumbent upon the powers that be to condition us toward the path of righteousness, this being consumer capitalism.
In the light of this it is also a fact that most people believe that it only works on the foolish and feeble minded, and since they are neither of these it does not work on them, in fact the people it does not work on are generally in a class that has a definable psychopathology.
rcw.
Hmmmm....... This does seem to be an important subject for a lot of people here. Judging from this thread and many others.
Why?
Why?
Mind you, entropy measures the process reversibility. The audiophile dumbifying process seems to be irreversible, so the entropy is constantly at oo.
Just an observation but I would have to say the forum is just following a natural evolution, the entire internet has become polluted. That does not mean there is not meaningful information to be gleaned you just have to sift through the chaff. Having been involved in the Audio industry at one time I find it to be highly subjective due the the human brain being the most complex of filters. Instrumentation hypothetically should be the equalizing point of reference, but music unlike sine waves cannot be quantized so you are back to what sounds good to you. People are funny about having their opinions questioned some are open to discussion some are not. Its all about having uncensored access to information and you decide what you want to believe is real or what is fantasy.
Just my rant.
Bill
Just my rant.
Bill
It's a Friday night. 🙂
(..oh, and pretty much everything else I said before.) 😉
As a modest question:
Why is it that many proponents of "rational" thought (..and presumably "rational" action), end up telling others:
what they have done, or have not done,
are, or are not,
can, or cannot do,
should, or should not do,
is fact, or is not fact,
etc., etc., etc..
I think RCW was on to something here, not Toole's *specific* experiments into an obvious yet *general* fact of life, but rather psychopathology - a disease of the mind. It isn't simply that:
"This is rational so this is the way it works", but rather:
"This is rational, so this is the way it works - for everyone."
Funny, IMHO where the forum has gone downhill in the last few years is everything mentioned in the original post EXCEPT the whole subjectivity, faith-based, blind testing, etc. issues. I don't notice much difference on that subject at all between now and say even 7 years ago.
However, the commercialism has gotten ridiculous. The forum has sunk a long way from the standard that was present when Peter Daniel resigned as moderator back in the day. And the noise ratio is a bit ridiculous. Ever so often I read a thread that makes me shudder, it's about page 3 before somebody points out some ridiculously basic technical error.
However, the commercialism has gotten ridiculous. The forum has sunk a long way from the standard that was present when Peter Daniel resigned as moderator back in the day. And the noise ratio is a bit ridiculous. Ever so often I read a thread that makes me shudder, it's about page 3 before somebody points out some ridiculously basic technical error.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.