The Audiophile Debate

[Todd]

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.

I suggest keeping an eye on the Denon site.  They routinely have unadvertised sales.  Their closed back designs sound excellent. 

[Fëanor]

"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.

Ah, so I surmise that you just don't agree with my definition of audiophile but instead prefer your own. Fine 

[Todd]

Ah, so I surmise that you just don't agree with my definition of audiophile but instead prefer your own. Fine.

That's certainly one way to look at it, but it does not change the fact that your definition possesses no meaning.  Your assertion that audiophiles are more concerned with nuance and whatnot has no basis in objective reality.  You just made it up.  That's fine.

[AnotherSpin]

That's certainly one way to look at it, but it does not change the fact that your definition possesses no meaning.  Your assertion that audiophiles are more concerned with nuance and whatnot has no basis in objective reality.  You just made it up.  That's fine.

Such thing as objective reality is pure imagination. You can not verify it is not so, because all you have is subjective perception.

[Fëanor]

That's certainly one way to look at it, but it does not change the fact that your definition possesses no meaning.  Your assertion that audiophiles are more concerned with nuance and whatnot has no basis in objective reality.  You just made it up.  That's fine.

Surely we all know music lovers who aren't especially concerned about the quality of the sound provide they can make out the music.  Such folks may have only simple, cheap "compact" stereo systems, or perhaps are basically content to listen through $50 earphones or computer speakers. These folks aren't audiophiles.

But people who are fussy about the sound quality and willing to spend a little time an money on a system that can produce sound very well are audiophiles.  (Perhaps you are an audiophile by these definition;  I know I am.)

By contrast your definition of "audiophile" is restricted to the likes of someone obsessed with the likes of $10,000 speaker cables.  Your definition is prejudicial and restrictive.

[Todd]

Such thing as objective reality is pure imagination. You can not verify it is not so, because all you have is subjective perception.

Um, yeah, right.

Surely we all know music lovers who aren't especially concerned about the quality of the sound provide they can make out the music.

That's most people.  They're called normal people.

By contrast your definition of "audiophile" is restricted to the likes of someone obsessed with the likes of $10,000 speaker cables.  Your definition is prejudicial and restrictive.

Incorrect.  I already wrote that 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.  One needn't spend $10K on cables.  One can spend modest sums on snake oil and claim to hear things that aren't there.  It happens all the time.  It is people like this who then may claim that that they care more about sonic nuances, about resolution, dynamic contrasts, articulate bass, etc without offering any evidence to support such an assertion.  For this assertion rests on the assumption that the gear, modestly priced or expensive, actually delivers superior performance in the stated areas, and that people who use such gear actually do appreciate various aspects of music performance more than normal people. 

Since you mentioned it, can you explain how you can hear resolution since you included that word in your definition?  The only people who mention resolution mean "high resolution".  High resolution explicitly refers to the ability to reproduce frequencies above 22.05 kHz.  People can't hear beyond that level.  Older people have experienced decades of hearing degradation as part of the aging process and typically can't hear beyond 14-15 kHz, and sometimes notably lower.  Since you physically cannot hear whatever benefits may derive from high resolution recording and playback - not least because recording, mastering, and playback may limit frequency response anyway - what do you mean?  Because you might be relying on an idiosyncratic definition of the word rather than the proper definition of the word. 

Remember, audiophiles make up nonsense words and descriptions all the time.  I cited a couple previously, but one need only pick up an audiophile rag or read an online audiophile review to read reviews with even more words and descriptions that mean nothing at all.  Many audiophiles then parrot this nonsense.  It becomes part of the secret language, the secret society, the way for audiophiles to distinguish themselves from the unhearing masses, the deaf philistines, etc.  It's invidious distinction for a subset of the middle class. 

[AnotherSpin]

Um, yeah, right.

Not sure? Name a thing which exists beyond your knowing. And be finished right now, freedom is in your eyesight.

[71 dB]

My definitions:

An eco-audiophile is a person who cares about (objective) sound quality and uses money on quality audio gear, but also understands the law of diminishing returns, what matters the most in audio and also the pitfalls of snake oil marketing. An eco-audiophile has good speakers, but pretty cheap "default" speaker cables. Eco-audiophiles often have strong science/engineering background.

An ego-audiophile is a person who cares about (subjective) sound quality and uses a lot of money on quality audio gear and doesn't let the law of diminishing returns affect so much. Can be a victim of snake oil marketing, because of placebo effect and ego. An ego-audiophile has good speakers and fancy speaker cables, because their ego doesn't settle for cheaper cables. Ego-audiophiles have often weaker knowledge about science and are less engineering-type people.

An audiophool is a person who falls for the craziest audio marketing scams and claims. They have the most expensive speaker cables and "tuning crystals" all over their listening rooms, but their audio system may have poor performance compared to the cost, because it is based on snake oil and pseudoscience rather than science of acoustics, electronics and signal processing. Audiophools are the too far gones of audio.

The borders of these three types are fuzzy. It can be difficult to say if someone is an eco- or ego-audiophile for example. 

[Todd]

Not sure? Name a thing which exists beyond your knowing. And be finished right now, freedom is in your eyesight.

Huh?

[Florestan]

Name a thing which exists beyond your knowing

There are streets in Bucharest / villages in Romania that I've never heard of, let alone visited. Still, they do exist. 

[AnotherSpin]

There are streets in Bucharest / villages in Romania that I've never heard of, let alone visited. Still, they do exist. 

How you know this?

If the object does not exist in your knowing it does not exist for you. The thought about the possible existence of an object and the knowing of the object itself are not identical. In this case your thought exist in your knowing but not the object. 

[Todd]

"If a tree falls in a forest" philosophy appeals to tweenagers.

[Fëanor]

My definitions:

An eco-audiophile is a person who cares about (objective) sound quality and uses money on quality audio gear, but also understands the law of diminishing returns, what matters the most in audio and also the pitfalls of snake oil marketing. An eco-audiophile has good speakers, but pretty cheap "default" speaker cables. Eco-audiophiles often have strong science/engineering background.
...

This definition is apparently lost on @Todd.

I very much agree with your "eco-audiophile" definition and insist that such folks are a substantial segment of audiophiles.

I slightly disagree with you in as much as eco-audiophiles may be simple informed, sensible people, not necessarily with especially strong science/engineering backgrounds.

[Florestan]

How you know this?

My right thumb told me so and I trust it unconditionally.

[Todd]

This definition is apparently lost on @Todd.

It's just another interwebs definition, one of hundreds/thousands/millions. 

[AnotherSpin]

My right thumb told me so and I trust it unconditionally.

So, you talk to your thumb and trust its judgements. There's nothing unusual about that. The mind is used to looking for answers to all its questions in the most bizarre places. It's not natural, but it's normal.

[Florestan]

So, you talk to your thumb

Actually, it's the other way around: my right thumb talks to me. I just listen.

[Todd]

[AnotherSpin]

"If a tree falls in a forest" philosophy appeals to tweenagers.

Yes, Berkeley said to be is to be perceived. That statement cannot be refuted. One can only cite a hypothetical unobserved (objective) reality as an alternative. But that's not what I'm pointing to. One can focus attention on infinitely arising, changing and disappearing, thus not real objects in knowing, or one can shift attention to a permanent unchanging and thus only real perceiving subject, self. In India they call it satchitananda. Knowing which knows itself as bliss. There is no philosophy in knowing that you are, no speculation required to know your self.  Know the truth, and the truth will set you free, Jesus says. Be a bliss, huh? 

[AnotherSpin]

Actually, it's the other way around: my right thumb talks to me. I just listen.

Perfect. I assume you can provide measurements showing that there is no difference between the way your thumb and any other thumb talks?