The Audiophile Debate

[Todd]

Yes, hearing declines as one gets older (in terms of frequencies), but hearing damage also depends on a lot of things and one can prevent at least some of that (from what I understand).  And you're also saying that hi res is just for "old people" which I wasn't saying and also don't know exactly what age and hearing ability you are talking about.

Audiophiles skew old, meaning over 40.  Everyone over 40 (younger, actually) has experienced hearing loss at high frequencies.  The only benefit hi res recordings theoretically bring are reproducing frequencies over 22.05 KHz, which most young people can't hear, let alone old people who have measurable declines.  Hi res is audiophile snake oil and represents how daffy the (sub-) industry is at its core.  Hypothetical hearing damage doesn't really matter with respect to audiophilia. 

Listening:  it's a skill and also means about being able to focus on what your are listening to.  For some people, they don't listen to some music that intently (for whatever reasons and that's o.k.).  For me, normally, I listen differently when I am auditioning components (or cables or other things) than when I am listening to music as I just want to enjoy the music once I get home.

This is purely anecdotal and conjectural.  "Listening skills" cannot be objectively defined.

[DavidW]

Almost no one has heard of it (or heard it).

The only thing I heard of mqa was Steve Guttenberg (the audiophiliac, not the actor) not liking it... and he is VERY OPEN MINDED!

[DavidW]

Behind the times!! I (did) count myself as an audiophile. Following this thread for some time and have not a scooby-doo on the content. To paraphrase Mr Spock "Hi-FI, but not as we know it, Jim".

That was how I felt when everyone was talking about tube amps!

[71 dB]

Yes, hearing declines as one gets older (in terms of frequencies), but hearing damage also depends on a lot of things and one can prevent at least some of that (from what I understand).  And you're also saying that hi res is just for "old people" which I wasn't saying and also don't know exactly what age and hearing ability you are talking about.

Listening:  it's a skill and also means about being able to focus on what your are listening to.  For some people, they don't listen to some music that intently (for whatever reasons and that's o.k.).  For me, normally, I listen differently when I am auditioning components (or cables or other things) than when I am listening to music as I just want to enjoy the music once I get home.   

PD

There's hearing and there's listening. Young children can hear very well up to 20 kHz, but they haven't developed listening skills which is the ability to analyse the sound (e.g. the amount of dynamic compression below 400 Hz). Ironically hearing gets worse with age while listening skills can improve with age if practised. People tend to overestimate their hearing abilities and underestimate Placebo effect. Snake oil sellers take full advantage of this psychological fact milking as much as they can.

[Irons]

This is purely anecdotal and conjectural.  "Listening skills" cannot be objectively defined.

Level of concentration.

[Valentino]

Level of training too. Kids like bass and treble. And sugar.

[Todd]

Level of concentration.

Are the levels you refer to objectively measurable and verifiable? 

[Irons]

Are the levels you refer to objectively measurable and verifiable?

Yes. I listen to a piece and it goes in one ear and out the other. Listen again and I am captivated.

[Todd]

Yes. I listen to a piece and it goes in one ear and out the other. Listen again and I am captivated.

I see.

[Spotted Horses]

They key is to focus on the parts of the system that matter the most. If you look at a measurement of a super-audiophile set of headphones you can see that a test waveform (usually a square wave) distorted, and not just a little bit. Same with fancy speakers. If you take the output of a decent amplifier the waveform will look perfect. A test is to subtract the output from the input and see what is left. In a decent amp, only a tiny discrepancy. Transducers (headphones, sepeakers, microphones) are where improvements are to be found. The only time to worry about an amplifier is the output stage, where it is driving speakers or headphones where amplifier fights against the mechanical movement of the transducer.

A cable connecting two components is extremely non-critical. For speaker cable, it has to be much lower resistance than the speaker. That can be achieved by thicker conductors. That's not expensive.

[Mandryka]

Re listening skills.

When someone who has only heard music based on common practice tonality first hears a bit of atonal Schoenberg say, they are sometimes initially completely confused, disoriented. This disorientation does not always persist and some people claim to enjoy that sort of music.

When someone who has only heard the sort of music commonly heard on Classic FM, tonal music with affecting and memorable melodies, first hears a bit of renaissance or early baroque imitative counterpoint, a fantasia by Francesco da Milano say, they are sometimes initially completely confused, disoriented. This disorientation does not always persist and some people claim to enjoy that sort of music.


My postulate is that something is learned which enables the transition from disorientation to a pleasurable experience, and that something is correctly called a "listening skill."

[Daverz]

In the context of audio, it is possible to teach people what to listen for

https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-listen-course-on-how-to.html

Though I admit I haven't tried this course myself.

[Todd]

People going on about cables and listening skills and such forth are entirely oblivious to just how disconnected from reality audiophilia is.  It's a daffy and daft hobby for people who enjoy buying overpriced consumer goods.  Hey, I've dropped some coin on it, it's fun, but layering in pseudoscience is a waste of time.

[AnotherSpin]

People going on about cables and listening skills and such forth are entirely oblivious to just how disconnected from reality audiophilia is.  It's a daffy and daft hobby for people who enjoy buying overpriced consumer goods.  Hey, I've dropped some coin on it, it's fun, but layering in pseudoscience is a waste of time.

The fact that you can't hear the difference between cables doesn't mean that others can't. Most people won't tell the difference between the red on a tribal Turkoman rug and the red in a sandwich wrap.

[Todd]

The fact that you can't hear the difference between cables doesn't mean that others can't.

It's not about me.  It's about physics and psychoacoustics and basic engineering.  People who wrongfully and dishonestly assert that they can hear the difference between cables merely need to provide measurements taken at the listening position when using loudspeakers, or, better yet, measurements taken when headphones are used.  They don't.  They would be exposed as frauds if they did.  Audiophile gear is contemporary snake oil.

[AnotherSpin]

It's not about me.  It's about physics and psychoacoustics and basic engineering.  People who wrongfully and dishonestly assert that they can hear the difference between cables merely need to provide measurements taken at the listening position when using loudspeakers, or, better yet, measurements taken when headphones are used.  They don't.  They would be exposed as frauds if they did.  Audiophile gear is contemporary snake oil.

Human perception is not about measurements.

[Todd]

Human perception is not about measurements.

Hearing is.

[AnotherSpin]

Hearing is.

Can you measure the difference between, let's say, Glenn Gould and Claudio Arrau?

[Todd]

Can you measure the difference between, let's say, Glenn Gould and Claudio Arrau?

That is not what is under consideration when one considers audiophile cables.  You are confusing topics.

[AnotherSpin]

That is not what is under consideration when one considers audiophile cables.  You are confusing topics.

I consider perception. Including what we hear. Of course, it is possible to try to measure something. But will the results of measurements, or the units adopted for measurements, be exhaustive in explaining how we perceive what we hear? Can physics explain anything at all, if every few decades so called science changes its conclusions to a set of other conclusions?