The Audiophile Debate

[AnotherSpin]

Including the Russian war on Ukraine?

Yes, of course. There was another raid tonight, about three in the morning. Loud explosions, and during one of them, very close by, an open window rattled, the heavy curtains were lifted by the wave. It was really scary. Now it's morning, the sun is shining, the birds are singing, everything is fine. Wars come and go, you stay.

[Florestan]

Yes, of course. There was another raid tonight, about three in the morning. Loud explosions, and during one of them, very close by, an open window rattled, the heavy curtains were lifted by the wave. It was really scary. Now it's morning, the sun is shining, the birds are singing, everything is fine. Wars come and go, you stay.

Everything is fine, except for those killed, maimed and left homeless in that raid. Go ahead, tell them or their relatives it was all smoke.

You stay if you are lucky. If you are not, you go with the war.

[AnotherSpin]

Everything is fine, except for those killed, maimed and left homeless in that raid. Go ahead, tell them or their relatives it was all smoke.

You stay if you are lucky. If you are not, you go with the war.

Do I understand it right, an observer from afar is telling someone who has been living in a war for many months how and what to do? Well, go on, it's awfully interesting and immensely useful. Many thanks in advance.

Luck has nothing to do with the fact that I am, and neither does war.

[Spotted Horses]

Then why are you writing about it?

I am writing about the basis and content scientific knowledge.

[Florestan]

Do I understand it right, an observer from afar is telling someone who has been living in a war for many months how and what to do? Well, go on, it's awfully interesting and immensely useful. Many thanks in advance.

Luck has nothing to do with the fact that I am, and neither does war.

I am not telling you anything, I was just commenting upon your philosophy. Don't worry, I won't anymore, it's not worth my time. Looks like the war may have deeply affected your reason.

Over and out for good.

[Irons]

Bold type does not make something more true.

Does not make it less true either.

[AnotherSpin]

I am not telling you anything, I was just commenting upon your philosophy. Don't worry, I won't anymore, it's not worth my time. Looks like the war may have deeply affected your reason.

Over and out for good.

I'm not quite sure why you would want to appear rude and move on to discussing my personal qualities. It's a typical demagogue tactic. However, this is your problem, not mine.

[Todd]

Does not make it less true either.

In general, perhaps not.  Here it is decidedly untrue.

[Valentino]

What is the topic of this thread? Utter Confusion? Member Bashing? Science and Religion?

[Todd]

What is the topic of this thread? Utter Confusion? Member Bashing? Science and Religion?

One topic is the utter daftness of audiophilia generally. 

[Fëanor]

I would like to believe we're on the cusp of a post-subjectivist, post-Romantic, (post-Harrian), era of the gear selection game.  That is, one in which objective measurements are more important.

Measurements have guided me in recent years to select, e.g. my Purifi-based amplifier.  I've had many various more expensive amps, (including a Pass Labs), but none have been better than the Purifi which has more detail, resolution, transparency, "air", and firmer, more articulate bass than anything heretofore.

As for the question of hearing vs. listening, short of a severe hear deficit, listening is more important to the audiophile.  I believe I can hear quite subtle sound differences;  this is contrary to the opinion of too many objectivists who deny anyone's ability to hear anything but gross differences caused, usually, by poorly designed or technically defective component.

OTOH, the old subjectivist mantra, "Trust you ears", is goes too far.  One must balance one's impressions with objective measurement data: it's too easy to be deceived by the former.

FWIW, I've never heard a digital cable or AC mains cord that made the slightest difference to the sound;  I've never heard a properly made/gauged interconnect or speaker cable that made a positively identifiable or persistent difference to the sound.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

What is the topic of this thread? Utter Confusion? Member Bashing? Science and Religion?

🙁 😞

PD

[Todd]

listening is more important to the audiophile.

Is it?  What is your objective basis for that assertion?

Not only am I not convinced of that based on observations of non-audiophiles, I am convinced that most audiophiles are defined primarily by their audio gear fetishes.  Some audiophiles go one better and fetishize specific types of recordings, defined by recording techniques (eg, Blumlein microphone configurations sound most bestest), recording/mastering gear (eg, specific Neumann microphones are the most goodest), releases from specialized audiophile micro-labels (eg, Water Lily Acoustics, IsoMike), and so on. It is not uncommon to see audiophiles cling to dead or statistically irrelevant formats, too, such as LP, SACD, DVD-Audio, and MQA.  Every once in a while, one will come across a kook who will go on about the supremely fine sound of DAT or 13 bit analog reel-to-reel, and even the hyper-specialized/kooky direct to disc recordings still made today.  (Paavali Jumppanen made one of those recordings.)  In short, it's not music that audiophiles concern themselves with, it's gear, and, to borrow from Mr Veblen, the pleasures derived from invidious distinction which necessarily accompanies conspicuous consumption. 

[drogulus]

     The term audiophile might have once meant anyone with a commitment to a high standard of sound quality in music reproduction. The existence of ex-audiophiles has developed out of the recognition that audiophilia has been so deeply infected by subjectivist claims that rational persons no longer wish to associate themselves with the term. I care about sound quality just as much as I ever did, but the sad truth is the well has been poisoned.

     

[Fëanor]

As for the question of hearing vs. listening, short of a severe hear deficit, listening is more important to the audiophile.

Is it?  What is your objective basis for that assertion?

"Objective" basis?  Well sorry, I don't think there is any objective basis.

Anyway, I simply meant that the audiophile cares about the sonic nuances more than the other folks:  resolution, dynamic contrasts, articulate bass, etc.  Objective hearing acuity has not that much to do with appreciating these things.

[Todd]

"Objective" basis?  Well sorry, I don't think there is any objective basis.

So then it is purely subjective, which renders the following . . .

Anyway, I simply meant that the audiophile cares about the sonic nuances more than the other folks:  resolution, dynamic contrasts, articulate bass, etc.

. . . devoid of meaning.  You have no way to support your assertion other than based on what you feel.

Objective hearing acuity has not that much to do with appreciating these things.

This is very highly unlikely. 

[Spotted Horses]

Is it?  What is your objective basis for that assertion?

Not only am I not convinced of that based on observations of non-audiophiles, I am convinced that most audiophiles are defined primarily by their audio gear fetishes.  Some audiophiles go one better and fetishize specific types of recordings, defined by recording techniques (eg, Blumlein microphone configurations sound most bestest), recording/mastering gear (eg, specific Neumann microphones are the most goodest), releases from specialized audiophile micro-labels (eg, Water Lily Acoustics, IsoMike), and so on. It is not uncommon to see audiophiles cling to dead or statistically irrelevant formats, too, such as LP, SACD, DVD-Audio, and MQA.  Every once in a while, one will come across a kook who will go on about the supremely fine sound of DAT or 13 bit analog reel-to-reel, and even the hyper-specialized/kooky direct to disc recordings still made today.  (Paavali Jumppanen made one of those recordings.)  In short, it's not music that audiophiles concern themselves with, it's gear, and, to borrow from Mr Veblen, the pleasures derived from invidious distinction which necessarily accompanies conspicuous consumption. 

You are painting "audiophiles" with too broad a brush. There are audiophiles and pathological audiophiles. At one point I paid $900 for a pair of headphones. That is probably 20 times what a "normal" person would think is justified. I consider it a worthwhile expenditure because the measurable and unmeasurable performance of the product enhanced listening pleasure. Similar considerations for various toys such as DACs, headphone amps, etc. I consider myself an audiophile because I do value accurate sound reproduction, to the extent that it enhances the enjoyment of music at a cost which seems proportional to the quality of the product.

Maybe some people would deny I am an audiophile because I decline to pay $10k for a USB cable.

[AnotherSpin]

[...] OTOH, the old subjectivist mantra, "Trust you ears", is goes too far.  One must balance one's impressions with objective measurement data: it's too easy to be deceived by the former.
[...]

Dividing people into objectivists and subjectivists seems very funny. After all, each of people can only subjectively perceive things, i.e. objects. Any perception of an individual is subjective. In case the subject takes into account the so-called objective measurements, it is only as another object of his individual subjective perception. We cannot distrust our ears or any other organ of perception, because we have nothing but these.

[Todd]

There are audiophiles and pathological audiophiles.

When I use the word audiophile, I explicitly mean people who deny the value of objective measurements and actually believe ad copy and think they can hear things that they can't possibly hear.  You know, like people who claim they hear differences in digital cables. 

I have spent lots and lots of money on gear, yet I know that what I hear deviates from linearity and that the measurements of the gear I buy really do predict how the gear sounds.  For instance, I own five pairs of ridiculously expensive headphones, four of which cost a grand when I bought them.  They all sound good in their own way, but all are obviously distorted.  They are expensive and fun tone controls.  I don't pretend otherwise. 

The same applies to other gear.  I have heard some of the most fantastically expensive speakers on the market in person, and every single pair of such speakers sound off, sound fake, sound unbalanced.  This includes some of the biggest, baddest offerings from Sonus Faber, Avalon, Nola, B&W, Wilson*, and brands I can't even remember, along with some super-duper amazing monitors from the same makers that rely on the most advanced materials known to audiophiles.  The only pair of audiophile speakers I've ever heard that came close to actually living up to the BS audiophiles spew was one of the Dynaudio Evidence line models.  Pro/studio gear, though, sounds better, cleaner, more accurate.  It also measures better.  Go figure.

And of course there's the silly secret language audiophiles use.  It's just gibberish.  I don't hear "air" for instance, an audiophile term that means nothing at all.  I also have never heard "palpable" imaging or soundstaging.  And how does one hear "resolution"?  What does that mean?  That's something that old people physically cannot hear.  They just can't.  At least if one accepts what is actually meant by the concept of "high resolution".  If people make up their own definitions for words and ignore physics and audiology and psychoacoustics, then sure, anything goes - and that is what has happened with audiophiles.  They are detached from reality.

Here's how I hear, using Beyer T1/1s as an example.  (T1/3s sound very different, as measurements predict.)  The huge increase in high frequency output creates a sense of false detail, emphasizing high treble and rendering strings and pianos more "detailed", and some sopranos sound as though they sing with a brighter tone.  It's a variant of the boom-tizz monitor design.  Likewise, with Focal Elears, the high sensitivity creates an exaggerated sense of dynamic contrast, and the huge drop in output around 4 kHz results in a dull sound for string fundamentals, but exaggerates the harmonics for violin and some winds, as well as some studio altered voice playback, leading some people to claim that they hear new details when in fact what they hear is unbalanced, distorted sound.  There are no new details to hear.  (The Elears are my favorite headphones for watching TV and movies precisely because of their distorted presentation.) 


* If ever I meet Dave Wilson in person, I will thank him for producing such consistently poor sounding gear that he ended up inadvertently saving me money. A little over a decade ago, I was all set to drop tens of thousands of dollars on uber-speakers, and made the 200 mile trek to hear some Wilsons, among other things.  I can't remember the model, but it sounded markedly inferior to a pair of Focals that cost 1/10th as much.  (The Focals measured better, as it happens.)  The Watt/Puppy II was one of the most ridiculously bass-heavy speakers I've ever heard.  And the original iteration of the CUBB was an ear-bleeder, though a part of that was due to the fact that the store salespeople didn't know that the speaker's crossover did not use baffle step compensation and therefore should not have been placed away from the wall.  But they sure did blabber about the detail.  Don't worry, objective measurements clearly show that those speakers produced too much high frequency energy by design.

[Spotted Horses]

Here's how I hear, using Beyer T1/1s as an example.  (T1/3s sound very different, as measurements predict.)  The huge increase in high frequency output creates a sense of false detail, emphasizing high treble and rendering strings and pianos more "detailed", and some sopranos sound as though they sing with a brighter tone.  It's a variant of the boom-tizz monitor design. 

I have Beyerdynamic T1 R1. I like them a lot. I was surprised to see that the subsequent revisions (R2, R3) had response which is less flat. New circumstances mean I need closed back headphones and I ended up trying the Shure SRH840A, which to my ears sounds a bit better than the T1s, although the open configuration give the T1 a more natural comfortable experience. The only problem with the Shure SRH840 is the flimsy plastic construction (they only cost $150) which causes noise if I jiggle the cord. If I continue to enjoy the SRH840A's, I'll probably upgrade to Shure SHR1540's at some point.

But now we are off topic for audiophilia.