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

[Deleted member 28849]

@Born2Run Can you explain what do you want to achieve or what is your goal by joining the ASR forum?

I was just a lurker. I had to respond to the thread about Break- in, someone made a comment that I objected to.

I'm finished upgrading my stereo, IMO it bettered a more expensive system I listened to a the Dealer. So I asked myself, how good does it have to be? And I'm also preparing for my retirement years, mainly how to deal with it mentally.

 

[oursmagenta]

I was just a lurker. I had to respond to the thread about Break- in, someone made a comment that I objected to.

I'm finished upgrading my stereo, IMO it bettered a more expensive system I listened to a the Dealer. So I asked myself, how good does it have to be? And I'm also preparing for my retirement years, mainly how to deal with it mentally.

Ok, because unless you like being opposed by most of the people here, or you have (which doesn't seem the case here) the data (peer reviewed at minimum) or the logic to properly respond to these people, I'd suggest for your own mental sake to find a forum more suited to your needs.

Endless debate can be fun, up to a point (which seems to be reached).

 

[righthookmike]

Hello friend. Hey, listen...we know how it is. Believe me, most of us have been there too. You've spent years toiling in the muck of audiophilia. You read ALL the reviews. You watched ALL the youtube videos. You visited ALL the other forums where everything always makes a difference. You bought the cables and the little bridge thingies for them to sit upon and the benefits were magical. You bought the $1000 IEMs that only truly sang after 250 hours of burn-in. Not 200 hours...or 225 hours, but 250 hours! It must be that for the magic to appear! You converted your entire music library to super high res and enjoyed the blissful new details that never were revealed by the awful, cludgy mess that was 16/44 cd. Never have your ears been assaulted by the likes of bluetooth audio or lossy mp3! You searched endlessly for the perfect dac...the dac that truly brought the magic! You bought one after another, each more expensive than the last, searching for the one, true dac that sounded better than all the rest...

And then you arrived here...and posted about your dac discovery, and were told that a dac shouldn't sound like anything at all! Suddenly your audio reality came crashing down around you. How can this be? Why shouldn't a dac sound great?? Why would expensive dacs even exist if they all sound the same??? Wounded, you lash out angrily! It's idiocy! It's retarded! These people have dead ears! It hurts. We understand. It's been a long time and you've spent a lot of money, all for naught. But once the pain diminishes and you've had time to deal with your emotions just give it some thought. Do some reading here and once your ban is lifted, maybe ask a few questions. Instead of locking your eyes shut against the bright light of objectivity...just open them up a little. Just a squint! Let a bit of that light in and bask in a warm, tubey glow that actually means something! Perhaps, as with many of us, a weight will begin to lift off your shoulders. Perhaps there is freedom in this new reality! You might discover that there is a different way...a way that wields real magic. A way that actually answers questions and reveals truth while at the same time leaving your wallet fat and happy! Welcome my friend. Welcome to ASR where the truth shall set you free!

"The knowledge that is built by science is always open to question and revision. No scientific idea is ever once-and-for-all "proved." Why not? Well, science is constantly seeking new evidence, which could reveal problems with our current understandings. Ideas that we fully accept today may be rejected or modified in light of new evidence discovered tomorrow. "

"Science is not a heartless pursuit of objective information. It is a creative human activity, its geniuses acting more as artists than as information processors."
couple of quotes from science institutions. A lot of what you say may be true for some but overgeneralizing, labeling, smugness and mockery seem a little ugly to me.

 

[BDWoody]

. No scientific idea is ever once-and-for-all "proved." Why not? Well, science is constantly seeking new evidence,

And it is generally the evidence part which is lacking with the frequent claims that show up.
Anecdote and evidence get mixed up for some it seems.

 

[righthookmike]

Agreed. But just because a hypothesis is as of yet unproven doesn’t necessarily mean it’s untrue. And if we resort to personal attacks on people genuinely wanting learn we may miss things. Observation is the beginning of scientific discovery

 

[oursmagenta]

Agreed. But just because a hypothesis is as of yet unproven doesn’t necessarily mean it’s untrue. And if we resort to personal attacks on people genuinely wanting learn we may miss things. Observation is the beginning of scientific discovery

Not observation. Controlled, reproducible, bias-free, observation.

 

[Jimbob54]

Agreed. But just because a hypothesis is as of yet unproven doesn’t necessarily mean it’s untrue. And if we resort to personal attacks on people genuinely wanting learn we may miss things. Observation is the beginning of scientific discovery

Let's not go round this loop again for the 57th time this month.

 

[VintageFlanker]

Anecdote and evidence get mixed up for some it seems

Along with car analogies, "experience" put to the table (I've been into Hi-Fi for X years) and of course: money. (I have a X$ system). I mean: anecdotes are always the same. Evidences, we are still looking for...

 

[Mnyb]

Agreed. But just because a hypothesis is as of yet unproven doesn’t necessarily mean it’s untrue. And if we resort to personal attacks on people genuinely wanting learn we may miss things. Observation is the beginning of scientific discovery

Let's not go round this loop again for the 57th time this month.

There is proportions to things many audiophiles does not at all realise.

* how ludicrous there idea is.
* it was probably thoroughly disproven 30 years ago.
*Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence "Carl Sagan" , no hearing differences between copper and silver cables are just as unlikely as anti gravity or time travel , you can not for the N't time tell an audiophile anecdote including some component swapping and sighted testing and think you have proof .
* The quantity of flawed testimonials and anecdotes does not add much if 1 person or 100000 persons thinks shakti stones makes a difference does not improve the "value" of the evidence ?

So yes there are concepts that you should swiftly brush aside to occupy your time with more worthwhile stuff , randomly testing everything is not fruitful . there must be method to the madness try likely stuff first ( occams razor ).

That's means that most overwhelmingly likely explanation for weird audiophile tweaks is always bias or placebo etc , so you start from there.
If its to crazy don't give it the time of the day , if there is semblance of plausibility a controlled test.

 

[Frank Dernie]

"The knowledge that is built by science is always open to question and revision. No scientific idea is ever once-and-for-all "proved." Why not? Well, science is constantly seeking new evidence, which could reveal problems with our current understandings. Ideas that we fully accept today may be rejected or modified in light of new evidence discovered tomorrow. "

"Science is not a heartless pursuit of objective information. It is a creative human activity, its geniuses acting more as artists than as information processors."
couple of quotes from science institutions. A lot of what you say may be true for some but overgeneralizing, labeling, smugness and mockery seem a little ugly to me.

This is true in general.
OTOH there are differences between physics and maths where there are genuine theorems which are proven, and the biological sciences where we have to rely on large enough sample sizes and statistics to get some sort of insight on what is very, more or less likely.
The electronic side HiFi is described by maths and physics, and neither the frequency or amplitudes are in contentious areas, so it is not likely that any scientific discovery yet to be made will have any impact on that side. It is relatively trivial engineering and since nothing relevant and new has come along for decades it is quite likely nothing ever will, statistically.
When it comes to speakers in rooms it is a matter of preference rather than absolute but still there are no mysteries about it because that aspect which is scientifically complex - the way our hearing works and so forth is actually not at issue, since if 2 people sense things differently they will be equally different for both reproduced sound and real life sound so nothing about a reproduction system is of relevance.

 

[PenguinMusic]

Not observation. Controlled, reproducible, bias-free, observation.

Hi,

As far as I am concerned, I think that science should allow to explain what you observe.
And that is what I would like to see more here and taht is a little missing on this site.

From the reviews posted by Amirn, it seems that he does things this way : measure the device and then listen to it.
Of course, he expects to hear a specific result and thus looks for that.
Even though he sometimes states that he is somewhat surprised that the subjective listening doesn't fit with measured results.

I think that at least some times, he should begin with subjective listenings and say "Here's what I hear and what I think the pros and cons of this device are".
And then measure and see if the measures matches what he heard.

Would that not be also something quite interesting to find out ? And would it not be interesting to find out that one can like and enjoy a device that has lesser measrue results ?

I must say that I'd be interested in that... even though that would be a thing given to golden-ear subjectivists

 

[oursmagenta]

Hi,

As far as I am concerned, I think that science should allow to explain what you observe.
And that is what I would like to see more here and taht is a little missing on this site.

From the reviews posted by Amirn, it seems that he does things this way : measure the device and then listen to it.
Of course, he expects to hear a specific result and thus looks for that.
Even though he sometimes states that he is somewhat surprised that the subjective listening doesn't fit with measured results.

I think that at least some times, he should begin with subjective listenings and say "Here's what I hear and what I think the pros and cons of this device are".
And then measure and see if the measures matches what he heard.

Would that not be also something quite interesting to find out ? And would it not be interesting to find out that one can like and enjoy a device that has lesser measrue results ?

I must say that I'd be interested in that... even though that would be a thing given to golden-ear subjectivists

Wait, bias observation goes both ways off course.

Present me two devices, one that I know measures well, one that I know measures bad, I'm pretty sure unconsciously I will tend to like the one that I know measures best, even If you tricked me by swapping both devices without me knowing that.

 

[oursmagenta]

Being an objectivist (if we really need to draw a line there) doesn't imply that I'm by no mean immune to cognitive/perception/expectation bias.

 

[PenguinMusic]

Wait, bias observation goes both ways off course.

Present me two devices, one that I know measures well, one that I know measures bad, I'm pretty sure unconsciously I will tend to like the one that I know measures best, even If you tricked me by swapping both devices without me knowing that.

Hi,

Don't think there's a contradiction between what your wrote and what I wrote, so we can say that we agree on this

Does it mean my recommandation is stupid ?

I know a device has good measures, so I expect it to produce good sound... and can be deceived.
I listen to a device and I think it produces good sound, so I expect it to get good measures... and can be deceived.

So I think doing tests both ways would be a nice thing to do

But maybe I am missing something.

Magenta Bear : I'm in France too So is VintageF I think... Seems we're a little community here

 

[Frank Dernie]

Hi,

As far as I am concerned, I think that science should allow to explain what you observe.
And that is what I would like to see more here and taht is a little missing on this site.

From the reviews posted by Amirn, it seems that he does things this way : measure the device and then listen to it.
Of course, he expects to hear a specific result and thus looks for that.
Even though he sometimes states that he is somewhat surprised that the subjective listening doesn't fit with measured results.

I think that at least some times, he should begin with subjective listenings and say "Here's what I hear and what I think the pros and cons of this device are".
And then measure and see if the measures matches what he heard.

Would that not be also something quite interesting to find out ? And would it not be interesting to find out that one can like and enjoy a device that has lesser measrue results ?

I must say that I'd be interested in that... even though that would be a thing given to golden-ear subjectivists

For me the problem with anybody giving listening impressions of a speaker is familiarity.
I am pretty sure we prefer what we are used to, and that is why talk of "break-in" is probably about somebody accustoming themselves to the difference between something new and what they are used to. This will take days or weeks not hours.
I would not expect Amir to like anything which deviates much from the Revel speakers he uses himself, whether they are a very good reference point or not (Harman data implies they should be).
That is why I think listening opinions about speakers are of limited value - just look at the magazine reviewers and how close to their favourites a review speaker is. There is plenty of praise for speakers with quite uneven FR and if you check out the reviewer's system the speakers he usually uses at home are uneven in a similar way.
Until I realised this I found subjective speaker reviews perplexing, now I just find them pointless

 

[oursmagenta]

Hi,

Don't think there's a contradiction between what your wrote and what I wrote, so we can say that we agree on this

Does it mean my recommandation is stupid ?

I know a device has good measures, so I expect it to produce good sound... and can be deceived.
I listen to a device and I think it produces good sound, so I expect it to get good measures... and can be deceived.

So I think doing tests both ways would be a nice thing to do

But maybe I am missing something.

Magenta Bear : I'm in France too So is VintageF I think... Seems we're a little community here

No, your recommandation is absolutely not stupid.

We just have to be careful on what conclusions you'd like to draw from this (if any).

 

[danadam]

And would it not be interesting to find out that one can like and enjoy a device that has lesser measrue results ?

Maybe he is already aware that one can and so he doesn't see a point in "finding that out" again?

 

[dkinric]

Let's not go round this loop again for the 57th time this month.

I hear you, but to be fair this thread was meant for this conversation. And there are always new visitors dropping by who have yet to accept the truth. I always envision a Matrix movie analogy when Morpheus reveals the matrix to Neo. Our brains are not good at accepting that so much we have learned to be false. Red pill or blue pill?

 

[oursmagenta]

I hear you, but to be fair this thread was meant for this conversation. And there are always new visitors dropping by who have yet to accept the truth. I always envision a Matrix movie analogy when Morpheus reveals the matrix to Neo. Our brains are not good at accepting that so much we have learned to be false. Red pill or blue pill?

Fair point, but would you still enjoy the movie if Neo tried to argue with Morpheus for hours before taking the blue pill in the end?

 

[PenguinMusic]

No, your recommandation is absolutely not stupid.

We just have to be careful on what conclusions you'd like to draw from this (if any).

Hi,

Quite simple : our ears can fool us.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

Regards.