Why do you think a few members have an 'alcoholic anonymous' vibe towards the audiophile community? It seems a harmless hobby as far as things go?

[rdenney]

What sounds “better” is a subjective preference. A preference for euphonic colorations is not wrong nor an inferior quality of enjoyment. There are some of us who insist vinyl sounds better to us personally for reasons that are neither mysterious nor controversial among people who understand the fact that accuracy and what some people simply like do not always intersect 100%.

So some of us can pursue vinyl as an option of source material that can often provide better subjective sound quality for some of us.

And yes, there are a good many audiophiles with the same preference but an utter lack of understanding of what it is they actually like better about the sound.

For some reason these facts are unacceptable to some folks here.

If there is a coloration that the listener prefers, I have absolutely no problem with that. I have a problem with these:

1.) declaring some basis for subjective preference when there is really no difference at all that would survive controlled preference testing. This is especially so for those who are expected to be honest brokers, such as reviewers.

2.) claiming that product X is more “accurate” as a result of deliberate coloration. We often hear long technical explanations from manufacturers that only they have solved the technical problem of accuracy and are true to the music. This is simply no longer sustainable truth and they know it.

3.) claiming that Designer Y has special design powers while then claiming that testing and measurement technology is incapable of evaluating the resulting improvement. What other tools would Y use to exercise those powers? Don’t say his ears—that is simply too unsystematic to support a repeatable design process. People use any hook to sell something but those expert reviewers who are supposed to be honest brokers are supposed to be above that.

Rick “what coloration?” Denney

 

[Mikig]

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

delusion (n.)

"act of misleading someone, deception, deceit," early 15c., delusioun, from Latin delusionem (nominative delusio) "a deceiving," noun of action from past-participle stem of deludere (see delude). As a form of mental derangement, "false impression or belief of a fixed nature," 1550s.
Technically, delusion is a belief that, though false, has been surrendered to and accepted by the whole mind as a truth ... (my bolds)

Jim

but I don't think it's just a problem of illusion. There is now little preparation on the part of users to understand what the actual quality of a good is: most now only make it a question of shape, name and price... that is, they have gone from a real value to a presumed value ...almost always given under the hat of a brand...rather than "illusion" I would speak of "blind trust"...

 

[TonyJZX]

as with anything its all about moderation and enjoying what you have

i think we all go thru phases... ie. when i was younger i was into high performance sports cars but i mostly used it to go to work... and so how does one derive joy from that short burst to and from something you dont want to do... the pay for the means to go to and from work?

and i was also into 5.1 home theater... but again how often do i get the opportunity to watch a movie at full tilt even at moderate volume?

its like owning a home pool... its a lot of money and constant maintenance but if you swim every day then... that's ok?

and so you guys with the nice systems even $1,000 up... how do you justify it?

if you use it every day and it does its job well then that's enough

i think there's also a bit of 'pride of ownership'... like my main dac has xlr and it passes it to an amp with VU meters... and of course this is pretence

we could very well get by with a $100 SMSL C100 and a low cost class D but... if you dont have to and can afford something that suits your aesthetics then go for it

 

[Deleted member 21219]

What sounds “better” is a subjective preference. A preference for euphonic colorations is not wrong nor an inferior quality of enjoyment. There are some of us who insist vinyl sounds better to us personally for reasons that are neither mysterious nor controversial among people who understand the fact that accuracy and what some people simply like do not always intersect 100%.

So some of us can pursue vinyl as an option of source material that can often provide better subjective sound quality for some of us.

And yes, there are a good many audiophiles with the same preference but an utter lack of understanding of what it is they actually like better about the sound.

For some reason these facts are unacceptable to some folks here.

Instead of "For some reason these facts [plural] are unacceptable ...", I think it would be better to say "For some reason, this is unacceptable ..."
There is a tendency to read this post as conflating opinion and fact. We already have enough of that.

Jim

Note: this post is an edit of the original, which missed the point.

 

[Mikig]

This post is a statement of belief on your part. It is obviously something about which you feel very strongly. However, many people who feel very strongly about certain subjects may wish to reinforce their value system by using the word "fact" or "facts".

Facts (or "accepted facts") are supported by data. Statements that are not supported by data, whether internally presented or referenced, are not facts, they are opinions. Please notice that it does not matter how true they are or how false they are ... I am making no comment regarding that. It's simply that when they are presented in that manner, they are opinions.

Loosely speaking, opinions are statements of belief or value, versus facts being occurrences. That's a stripped-down, bare-bones explanation, but it can be an important one in our world today. The tendency for people to support their emotions by using the term "fact" is, I believe, a misrepresentation, and quite lamentable.

And it's odd, considering the username you have chosen.

Jim

Jim, let me interject...I think that many people also consider the construction of the system under the heading of musical emotion.

music or listening to it is a purely subjective and emotional factor.

The end justifies the means!!

two schools of thought;

subjective-subjective for those who don't want to know about measurements and anything else but use their energies to achieve the goal of listening to music, "by ear" or "by eye" or by "new unconditional purchase" - human/mystical experience.

objective-subjective for those who want to achieve the emotional goal in a "scientific" way, therefore as you say with data and facts... therefore base their experience on studies and measurements.
human/scientific experience.

To each his own!!!

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

This post is a statement of belief on your part. It is obviously something about which you feel very strongly. However, many people who feel very strongly about certain subjects may wish to reinforce their value system by using the word "fact" or "facts".

Facts (or "accepted facts") are supported by data. Statements that are not supported by data, whether internally presented or referenced, are not facts, they are opinions. Please notice that it does not matter how true they are or how false they are ... I am making no comment regarding that. It's simply that when they are presented in that manner, they are opinions.

Loosely speaking, opinions are statements of belief or value, versus facts being occurrences. That's a stripped-down, bare-bones explanation, but it can be an important one in our world today. The tendency for people to support their emotions by using the term "fact" is, I believe, a misrepresentation, and quite lamentable.

And it's odd, considering the username you have chosen.

Jim

What data do you need other than testimonial for it to be a fact that some people like something? If I say I like something it is either a fact that I like it or I am profoundly confused or a flat out liar. This is a prime example of how this preference seems to get under the skin of some folks here. You can’t even call it a fact that the preference even exists. Would you have the same reaction if I said it’s a fact that a lot of people like chocolate? Or it’s a fact that Star Wars is a popular franchise? We can objectively document people’s opinions. It doesn’t make the opinions themselves facts but it is a fact that such opinions actually do exist.

 

[MattHooper]

That accuracy is relative to an archaic technology. A Rolex is indeed more accurate, on average, than a (mechanical) Seiko 5. It is indeed made with far greater precision and attention to detail. But they don’t claim that makes it more accurate than a $75 quartz Fossil.

Ok that kinda jives with what I assumed. I assume this varies among watch fanatics but: do watch hobbyists care about accuracy in their watch at all? I mean, I can't imagine an expensive watch would be inaccurate enough to be worthless as an actual time piece, and so any deviations would be extremely minor. But it's part of being an enthusiast to care about the small details, and I'd expect accuracy would be one of those little details is that right?

Total speculation, but I'm imagining that like audio there will be a spectrum where watch accuracy is seen as an obvious virtue and one to be persued, whereas others are in the 'don't care much that it's super accurate, just like the design and looks.' Would that guess be correct?

We can, for example, pursue vinyl playback as a challenge to get the most out of an archaic technology without 1.) asserting it’s as good as or better than, say, CDs on a $100 player, or 2.) giving up our commitment to science-based design and evaluation.

Agreed.

Yet audiofilia insists that vinyl records sound better for reasons technology cannot measure. That’s where watch collectors won’t go.

Agreed with your comparison of watches vs audio. I'm amazed by some analysis that sees high end audio purchases (of the wacky over priced variety) as being some sort of flex, as if it's all about status and looks. While I'm sure there are some cases that's true, for the most part audiophile A who has more money than audiophile B believes the same stuff: they believe it all "sounds better," python cables and all.

 

[DSJR]

To one watch 'expert' I spoke to once, Rolex is regarded by them the same way as B&O may be to us - expensive name but not really that 'wonderful' inside in the company of some almost hideously complex mechanical marvels that almost nobody except the makers could reliably service (I agree that B&O have done some very interesting things with their speakers, but why don't more audiophiles use them as I gather they're seriously good?)

 

[antcollinet]

Look at car enthusiasts putting money into their cars in the tens of thousands of dollars they'll never get back at resale. Boats are the only worse money pits.

but to spend $150K on a sports car and then driving it on 10MPH traffic on the 405 is perfectly reasonable.

I agree overall, but my reply was about to also state that, hey, if you have the money and it doesn't hurt you, it is pretty harmless overall. After all, we lose money with a lot of things... drive a new car out of the dealership and there goes 20% of the money you spent. Etc.

All true - but with pretty much all of those things, and what we pour into other hobbies, we are not lied to about what we are getting for our money.

If the high end sellers of "High end" audio jewellery were simply honest and said "well it sounds the same, but look at the aesthetics, feel how much it weighs, and think of the cred you'll get from your mates" then none of us would have a problem.

 

[kemmler3D]

good thinking is a process more that a mere set of learned facts and skills. Some are good at knowledge but maybe not at thinking.

This must be true, since we see so many otherwise knowledgeable people engaged in poor thinking.

As far as the autism <--> intelligence link, I think there is actually some evidence there, e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927579/ but I would agree with you that the common / popular armchair diagnosis of autism when people encounter a certain type of person is no better than the tendency to call tidy habits "OCD".

 

[kemmler3D]

They are arguing that one spending that much is getting better performance, even though the technologies used to design them are ignored as being inadequate to evaluate them. This goes beyond conspicuous consumption into a grand deception that isn’t just buying into a luxury image. It’s the sort of thing that would (and did) attract the FTC back when they did stuff.

Very well-said.

a lot is made out of the meticulous designs and how those steps in high accuracy (for a mechanical watch, so I would guess mechanical watch accuracy would be contrasted with other mechanical watches)

In that way I would say mechanical watches are analagous to fancy turntables. You're spending 10-1000x more to get increasingly good performance out of a technically obsolete technology, which is interesting in its own right for certain hobbyists. The difference is there are still some vinyl freaks who maintain they're getting better-than-digital accuracy, which would be like the rolex folks believing they kept better time than a casio.

 

[Robin L]

It's not an "Alcoholic's Anonymous vibe", it's more like escapees from a cult. It's very difficult to convince people who have been bamboozled that they have been bamboozled. I think Carl Sagan had something to say about that. And once someone figures out they have been bamboozled, there will be a certain amount of rage attached. Someone who has laid out serious cash for speaker wire, interconnect or a/c cords, only to find out they didn't improve performance one iota, will be understandably pissed. Alchoholic's Anonymous has a lot more to do with understanding that one's life is at risk, a much more serious matter. Audiophile's Anonymous has a lot more to do with understanding that a lot of time and money has been wasted to no good end. The situation is more like emerging from a cult - say the cult of "Mikey", where more expensive is always better, analog is always better than digital and the more complicated the gear, the better all around. ASR exists to demonstrate that all these things are false. If someone has been believing these things for decades, then one will necessarily react with a certain amount of anger. ASR is a gathering place for such people.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

We can objectively document people’s opinions. It doesn’t make the opinions themselves facts but it is a fact that such opinions actually do exist.

I see. I agree with the above statement. I apologize for misunderstanding your post.

I will delete the body of my [wordy and rambling] post, condensing my point as much (and as clearly) as I can, while discarding the dross.

Jim

 

[egellings]

More comes down to finding out so called top notch stuff as pushed by audio influencers tends to be largely poorly engineered and nothing but a complete rip-off. Times have changed, we have the technology and people like Amir and Erin to give us actual facts, so we can see what is what. And it's hilarious, find the worse speaker you can on here, then go watch a YouTube 'review' by all the nodding dogs for the industry. On the plus side though, since there are people like Amir and Erin, now some manafacturers are actually turning out stuff that is actually good. The manafacturers who don't want to offer up stuff ever to a site like this... well, that tells you all you need to know about their products. After all, if it's so great and they were confident in it, why wouldn't you jump at the chance.

I was never an 'audiophile' though, anyone who gives themselves that moniker is kind of a bit pretentious and simple in my mind. Literally just a name the influencers and industry used to make their subjects feel important and part of the club.

I'm not an audiophile either; I'm an audio crazie. It's like the difference between alcoholics and drunks. The latter don't go to no meetin's.

 

[pablolie]

All true - but with pretty much all of those things, and what we pour into other hobbies, we are not lied to about what we are getting for our money.

If the high end sellers of "High end" audio jewellery were simply honest and said "well it sounds the same, but look at the aesthetics, feel how much it weighs, and think of the cred you'll get from your mates" then none of us would have a problem.

So you trust everything a car salesperson says? :-D Just kidding, I get where you're coming from, and you are right - I just don't much care about what others do in life, in general, unless it impacts me directly (in which case I care a lot! :-D). There was a saying in Rome that went along the lines of "I see the better way, and yet I don't care enough to embark on that path".

 

[bodhi]

What sounds “better” is a subjective preference. A preference for euphonic colorations is not wrong nor an inferior quality of enjoyment. There are some of us who insist vinyl sounds better to us personally for reasons that are neither mysterious nor controversial among people who understand the fact that accuracy and what some people simply like do not always intersect 100%.

To catch more of the subjectivists I would rephrase that to "what gives better experience is subjective preference". As we already know, most of the subjectivist stuff doesn't actually change the sound at least in the way it would be audible to humans (or any organic being). I would also assume that when one upgrades to better and better vinyl playing equipment then the "vinyl sound" actually decreases and the sound gets closer to digital format. I would still assume that vinyl fans find that the "sound" they are "hearing" is getting better the less "vinyl sound" they get when upgrading the equipment.

If the aforementioned is true then vinyl falls into same category as magic stones and esoteric power cables, and for that matter many legal or illegal substances that factually make people like what they "hear" more but have nothing to do with hifi as such.

 

[kemmler3D]

most of the subjectivist stuff doesn't actually change the sound at least in the way it would be audible to humans

Doesn't change the actual sound, no. The problem is it DOES change what is heard/perceived (in the brain) due to various cognitive biases. When people say "I heard it, it was obvious, use your ears, etc." they're usually not just fooling themselves. They really heard the change, despite it not being real.

"Placebo effect" is one of the fundamental problems here. If you expect to hear something, most of the time you'll hear it either way. If you spend $X0,000 on something, you certainly expect to hear something.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I see. I agree with the above statement. I apologize for misunderstanding your post.

I will delete the body of my [wordy and rambling] post, condensing my point as much (and as clearly) as I can, while discarding the dross.

Jim

Don’t worry about it. All good

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

To catch more of the subjectivists I would rephrase that to "what gives better experience is subjective preference". As we already know, most of the subjectivist stuff doesn't actually change the sound at least in the way it would be audible to humans (or any organic being). I would also assume that when one upgrades to better and better vinyl playing equipment then the "vinyl sound" actually decreases and the sound gets closer to digital format. I would still assume that vinyl fans find that the "sound" they are "hearing" is getting better the less "vinyl sound" they get when upgrading the equipment.

If the aforementioned is true then vinyl falls into same category as magic stones and esoteric power cables, and for that matter many legal or illegal substances that factually make people like what they "hear" more but have nothing to do with hifi as such.

I think euphonic colorations are a separate issue from snake oil products that don’t make an audible difference.

I don’t want to derail the thread but I don’t things like vinyl and tubes continue to sound subjectively better to everyone as they become more accurate. I think it is more complicated than that. With vinyl many colorations are subjectively inferior to my ears but not all of them. I don’t prefer audible wow and flutter, or louder surface noise. Definitely dislike pops and tics.

It was a shoot out many years ago between two high end turntables that for me was a revelation at the time. Without going into too much detail the shoot out was blind and the rig I liked better was, based on the design goal and execution, very very likely the less accurate of the two.

In retrospect there were flaws with that shoot out. Mainly the lack of quick switching. But it did point to the possibility that the inherently less accurate medium of vinyl may have inherent euphonic colorations but the specific models of tables, arms and cartridges may have their own specific additional sets of euphonic colorations. Conversely there may be differing levels of undesirable colorations mixed in the different tables, arms and cartridges.

But this is a subject for a different thread.

 

[kemmler3D]

I don’t things like vinyl and tubes continue to sound subjectively better to everyone as they become more accurate.

Anecdote: My wife likes the sound of bad vinyl playback. We had our TT connected to an old HK receiver with a phono stage of unknown quality and the same goes for the tone controls on that thing. The speakers were some B&W 602s placed very poorly, sideways, and one of the tweeters has a dent in it.

In the new place I connected our TT to a Schiit Mani 2, through to LS60s, which are at least better placed. Her immediate reaction was that it sounded too clean, "almost digital", she said, not as a compliment. She says she likes the "cozy", noisy sound of vinyl sometimes.

There's a long thread, "Do we crave distortion" with lots of discussion - but the answer in many cases is simply yes. That, and high noise and bad FR, too. Consider the possibility that "lo-fi" is more often touted as a feature than a bug, when people even use the term.