Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[MattHooper]

I somehow misread that as a movie about releasing Orca's from theme parks.

BTW, did you name yourself after a character from JAWS? You even look like that guy ...

Correct!

I'm still from the internet old-school of having a screen handle and not using my real name.

Jaws was my favorite movie when I was growing up (still among my favorite). Hooper/Dreyfuss was my favorite character/performance in the film.
It never occurred to me anyone could be confused if I was really named MattHooper, as I just assumed most would recognize the character.

It is odd though. I find when reading here, I tend to feel that the person I am discussing with actually is their avatar. The cognitive dissonance when I watch a video by @amirm is astonishing

Same here!

 

[Axo1989]

Correct!

I'm still from the internet old-school of having a screen handle and not using my real name.

Jaws was my favorite movie when I was growing up (still among my favorite). Hooper/Dreyfuss was my favorite character/performance in the film.
It never occurred to me anyone could be confused if I was really named MattHooper, as I just assumed most would recognize the character.

Same here!

Well, unless they are publishing officially, I don't think anyone should use their real-life name on social media. I'm glad to hear that's old-school, I'm feeling more like a grown-up.

But not that old-school, I've actually not seen Jaws (and probably a bunch of stuff considered iconic* although I'm making my way through the historical materials of our culture/s so I'll probably get there). Had no idea who Matt Hooper referred to, and absolutely thought that was your name until now (even though I did figure the avatar photo here likely wasn't you).

*my research started with Breathless then 2001 so it'll be a while

 

[MattHooper]

Well, unless they are publishing officially, I don't think anyone should use their real-life name on social media. I'm glad to hear that's old-school, I'm feeling more like a grown-up.

Indeed. I've encountered some awfully creepy people in surprisingly banal corners of the internet, just hobbyist forums, who I really wouldn't want knowing my name!
(In fact I've seen people get all "death threaty" over mere differences of opinion on such things. A lot of unstable people out there).

But not that old-school, I've actually not seen Jaws

Ok, that reminds me I'm not just "old school." I'm just "old."

(and probably a bunch of stuff considered iconic* although I'm making my way through the historical materials of our culture/s so I'll probably get there). So had no idea who Matt Hooper referred to.

Reminds me of a while back, referencing Jurassic Park to some of the young editors in our company. A couple admitted they'd never seen it, which left me gobsmacked because "it's not like an old movie or anything." They reminded me they weren't even born when it came out. I think I grew more white hair on the spot.

Even though I did figure the avatar photo here likely wasn't you. Also, a different handle on the 'Gon was a clue.

*my historical research started with Breathless so it'll be a while

I guess the length of your journey depends on whether you are starting with the original, or jumping straight to Richard Gere.

 

[Axo1989]

I guess the length of your journey depends on whether you are starting with the original, or jumping straight to Richard Gere.

Haha and I so nearly said OG Breathless ...

* yeah that remake was a bit bland, but apparently Tarentino liked it
* otoh Michael Haneke's self-remake of Funny Games is fabulous and breaks the 'OG is always better' rule (Michael Pitt is under-rated I reckon)
* I grew up on mid-period Gus Van Sant like Gerry, Elephant and Last Days so did make my way back to Drugstore Cowboy and My Own Private Idaho
* playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon is endless of course

 

[afinepoint]

Hey, I'm still irrational in this hobby! My ears still play games with me on a regular basis. But now I call them on their

Hey, I'm still irrational in this hobby! My ears still play games with me on a regular basis. But now I call them on their bullshit. I don't buy what my own ears are selling!

Perhaps I misunderstood your remarks.

If not that's a concern. If not your ears what do you use to select audio gear? What others tell you to buy? A curve?

It's an aural hobby. The (your) ears are the only and the deciding factor of what should be in your house. I get the esthetic and functionality thing.

Don't discount yourself and don't hand over will and thinking to others. Boy is that an Orwellian slippery slope to head down. But I like your original post. I personally wouldn't have started off quite so confrontational but it's still a good post. Thanks for the thoughts.

 

[Galliardist]

Perhaps I misunderstood your remarks.

If not that's a concern. If not your ears what do you use to select audio gear? What others tell you to buy? A curve?

It's an aural hobby. The (your) ears are the only and the deciding factor of what should be in your house. I get the esthetic and functionality thing.

Don't discount yourself and don't hand over will and thinking to others. Boy is that an Orwellian slippery slope to head down. But I like your original post. I personally wouldn't have started off quite so confrontational but it's still a good post. Thanks for the thoughts.

Understand this - what you understand as "hearing" is only partly to do with your ears, and much more to do with your brain and how it interprets and adds to what your ears send it.

Is it rational to spend a massive sum of money, say $12000, on a fuse that makes no difference to the sound waves in the room, because you know the "special fuse" is there, and on first listening, something in your brain takes it into account and says "the sound is better"?

It is not "denying free will" to take into account objective facts about either that fuse, or yourself.

 

[Killingbeans]

If not your ears what do you use to select audio gear? What others tell you to buy? A curve?

Besides transducers, I pick gear based on specs. If it performs objectively well enough, has aesthetics I like, a nice user interface, the functionality I need and is built to last, I don't see any reason to look at other products, or even do an "auditioning" as long as the price is reasonable.

Speakers and headphones are a bit of a mess. But they also have large enough deviations from "neutrality" to make evaluation by "ear" a lot less risky.

Don't care what others tell me to buy, unless the product fits my use case better than those I've found myself.

A single "curve" doesn't tell you much. But a well thought out suite of measurements can tell you most, if not all, you need to know.

It's an aural hobby. The (your) ears are the only and the deciding factor of what should be in your house.

My "ears" are essential for enjoying the hobby, but are lousy at reliable judgement.

Yes, I'd might end up with some speakers or headphones that I enjoy tremendously despite all logic telling me that I shouldn't, but I will not allow that enjoyment to fool me into thinking that these speakers/headphones are able to do things not physically possible.

Don't discount yourself and don't hand over will and thinking to others.

If I need to build a bridge, I'll have no problem handing my "thinking" over to a structural engineer. I don't see why audio reproduction should be any different.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

If not that's a concern. If not your ears what do you use to select audio gear? What others tell you to buy? A curve?

Measurements. Not just a few, but lots and lots of measurements. That weeds out the under-performing (or non-performing) stuff.

The next step is understanding whether you have any specialized needs in you setup, like a wonky phase load or extreme power needs, or not. More weeding out.

Out of what's left, you can choose as you please.

Some people can't understand this process. They want measurements to tell them what's best, or what they should buy. That's backwards. That's not what the primary purpose of tests and measurements happens to be. The primary purpose of tests and measurements is to find fault, to find the weaknesses. Its purpose is not to affirm, but to reject and condemn. If something is not condemned, not rejected and has no fault, then it by definition performs to standards and the function is acceptable.

Look at it this way; when the doctors run you through a battery of tests, what are they looking for? They're looking for disease .... IOW, for faults. What is a radiography test looking for in welds? They're looking for weaknesses. What about testing concrete to destruction? People say that is actually testing for strength .... and in a way, it is. But the truth is that it's testing for weakness to make sure that the weakness is above a certain level.

Ears are notoriously unreliable. Compared to instrumentation, they are extremely insensitive .... and inconsistent.
Don't let others tell you what to buy, either. They might not have the same agenda that you have, nor are they likely to listen under the same circumstances. Not only that, but many of them give you advice simply to re-affirm their own prejudices.

So in the end, the only reliable and consistent source of information is tests and measurements. Not your ears, not the dealer and not your friends. And certainly not YouTube.

Just tests and measurements.

Jim "tests and measurements" Taylor

(Sorry @rdenney , I just couldn't resist! )

 

[MarkS]

It's an aural hobby. The (your) ears are the only and the deciding factor of what should be in your house. I get the esthetic and functionality thing.

I agree 100%, and this is why it is absolutely necessary to be sure that you are using your ears and only your ears to evaluate and compare components.

And if you are able to see the components, then you are not using only your ears.

 

[Timcognito]

And if you are able to see the components, then you are not using only your ears.

Yes and be blinded to where they come from and how much they cost.

 

[Newman]

Ears are notoriously unreliable. Compared to instrumentation, they are extremely insensitive .... and inconsistent.

Toole said, quote, listeners themselves are highly stable "measuring instruments".

But note the important caveat: he is not talking about sighted listening. It has to be controlled listening conditions.

 

[mppix]

...
It's an aural hobby.
...

with the real-world priorities
1. WAF
2. ( space intentionally left empty )
3. Functionallity, required interfaces
4. Budget constraints
5. Space constraints
6. Design
7. Audio quality/measurements ?
...

 

[Axo1989]

with the real-world priorities
1. WAF
2. ( space intentionally left empty )
3. Functionallity, required interfaces
4. Budget constraints
5. Space constraints
6. Design
7. Audio quality/measurements ?
...

Good list.

It will depend on your significant other/s of course, but for me 1 and 6 are the same (both fundamentally, and incidentally because we often like similar things, design-wise). But I also really enjoy space intentionally left empty* ideally that would be number 1 but I seem to lose that battle to clutter on a constant basis.

* I know that's not exactly what you meant

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Toole said, quote, listeners themselves are highly stable "measuring instruments".

But note the important caveat: he is not talking about sighted listening. It has to be controlled listening conditions.

I stand corrected.

Jim

Addendum:
After thinking about what you wrote and what I wrote, I would defer to the good Doctor about stability. I have to wonder, however, about the limits of the comment. Is this one certain listener stable today in comparison to their reactions two weeks ago? IOW, are their reactions the same today as they were two weeks ago, or at the least, consistent with what they were two weeks ago? I'm unsure about that.
Greater insight into Dr. Toole's comment would be helpful.

The reason that I make this distinction is that @afinepoint was asking about the process of selecting audio gear, which is a process that may go on for several months or years.

 

[Newman]

Well, obviously limited. Only a freak would consistently and accurately and 'stably' say, "that's pink noise bandwidth limited to 900-1350 Hz at 86 dBA".

Toole was talking about our ability to consistently prefer loudspeakers with more accurate sound reproduction, and yes, I think he meant it as stable over time. You pick A over B today in controlled conditions, then you'll continue to pick A over B weeks later.

 

[antcollinet]

Well, obviously limited. Only a freak would consistently and accurately and 'stably' say, "that's pink noise bandwidth limited to 900-1350 Hz at 86 dBA".

Toole was talking about our ability to consistently prefer loudspeakers with more accurate sound reproduction, and yes, I think he meant it as stable over time. You pick A over B today in controlled conditions, then you'll continue to pick A over B weeks later.

OK - but with a consistent system setup, how much I like the sound I am listening to varies over time/mood/substance consumption etc. So there must be a very narrow definition of stability specifically around blind comparison of two systems - with the expectation that the above mentioned variability applies equally to all speakers at the same time.

 

[Newman]

Like I said: it has to be controlled listening conditions.

Plus, it's preference testing: there has to be more than one thing to listen to. It's not "how happy am I listening to the same thing drunk last week and sober this week".

Be reasonable.

 

[antcollinet]

Like I said: it has to be controlled listening conditions.

Plus, it's preference testing: there has to be more than one thing to listen to. It's not "how happy am I listening to the same thing drunk last week and sober this week".

Be reasonable.

I thought I was being. I specifically stated that there would need to be two items equally impacted by variation in perception, in order for preference to remain the same.

Still - if you choose to perceive that as unreasonable, feel free.

 

[Newman]

I had already clarified sufficiently. You then raised conditions obviously outside the conditions, ie listening to only one system, then listening to it again later and/or when drunk or in a mood.

What's more, you implied that you want to allow sighted listening, by relating to your personal experiences that, for all intents and purposes, appear to be drawn from sighted listening. We should all know by now that sighted listening is the epitome of unreliability for assessment of what we think of the sound waves themselves.

If you perceive that as reasonable, feel free.

 

[antcollinet]

I had already clarified sufficiently. You then raised conditions obviously outside the conditions, ie listening to only one system, then listening to it again later and/or when drunk or in a mood.

What's more, you implied that you want to allow sighted listening, by relating to your personal experiences that, for all intents and purposes, appear to be drawn from sighted listening. We should all know by now that sighted listening is the epitome of unreliability for assessment of what we think of the sound waves themselves.

If you perceive that as reasonable, feel free.

More strawmen. You seem to be pretty good at reading implications into peoples posts that don't even remotely exist. It's been a long time coming - but I'm no longer interested in hearing what you have to say.