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?

[Justdafactsmaam]

I think also we need to qualify the term “engineer” in audio. There are plenty of recording engineers and mastering engineers who are not well versed in electrical engineering or psychoacoustics and subsequently believe in a lot of audio snake oil. Which really doesn’t prevent them from doing excellent work. As such their often excellent work gives their beliefs in snake oil more gravitas with many audiophiles.

I blame JS Bach! ;-D

 

[Deleted member 21219]

But engineers are practitioners of one set of skills and can be subject to the full range of human frailty otherwise ...

Of course, any learned profession can be substituted into the above paragraph. Lawyers can get scammed, doctors sucked into ridiculous racist doctrines, mechanics buying the latest snake-oil performance doo-dad, and so on. One would think their learning makes them immune to deception so seemingly close to their expertise, but 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.

Hmmmm. @BobbyTimmons was of the opinion, "One of the surprising issues with this is a lot of the 'woo' audiophiles are scientists and engineers. If you go on Facebook and argue with the audiophiles you'll often see that when you click on their profiles."

I thought that was bogus ... that people in technical fields were too clear-minded to fall for that crap. I thought that instead, the profiles were faked.

Now I'm not so sure.

Jim

 

[KellenVancouver]

I think also we need to qualify the term “engineer” in audio. There are plenty of recording engineers and mastering engineers who are not well versed in electrical engineering or psychoacoustics and subsequently believe in a lot of audio snake oil. Which really doesn’t prevent them from doing excellent work. As such their often excellent work gives their beliefs in snake oil more gravitas with many audiophiles.

I blame JS Bach! ;-D

Don't forget sanitary engineers...

 

[Rhamnetin]

I think also we need to qualify the term “engineer” in audio. There are plenty of recording engineers and mastering engineers who are not well versed in electrical engineering or psychoacoustics and subsequently believe in a lot of audio snake oil. Which really doesn’t prevent them from doing excellent work. As such their often excellent work gives their beliefs in snake oil more gravitas with many audiophiles.

I blame JS Bach! ;-D

I've met audio electronics engineers with EET degrees who don't believe in data driven reviews emphasizing measurements, and who buy into all the audiophile voodoo. It's interesting to learn how they come to these conclusions.

 

[restorer-john]

There’s nothing wrong doing a ritual dance in your underwear for good luck either. The issue is whether it has a positive effect on one’s system’s performance and if so how cost and effort effective it is.

What a mindlessly stupid comment.

Yet another example of how the silly season drags them out of the woodwork for all the world to see. Yawn.

 

[rdenney]

I would like to address the conflation of audio conspicuous consumption with other similar acquisition-based hobbies, such as mechanical watches.

I know a lot of watch collectors, being one myself. One of them is an audio industry executive, but a lot of them are wealthy. I don’t know a single one who actually believes that there is any functional advantage to a high-end watch compared to watches of much lower cost. But they do appreciate craft, which is an aesthetic attribute as much as it would be for art or jewelry. And they appreciate the cachet and exclusiveness of brand value. They just don’t usually justify that based on timekeeping performance.

Watch collectors at the deep end of the pool also acknowledge that they are making a lifestyle expression, just as their wives are doing with their Hermes handbags, and just as their buddies are doing with their Ferraris. There is no illusion that these expensive watches keep time better than a $75 Fossil quartz watch. Very few of them actually believe that wearing a Rolex Daytona makes the opposite sex think of them as Paul Newman. That’s the sort of hobby where the only justification needed is wanting it and having the money. Some can’t control their acquisitional impulses and get into trouble, but that is a different problem altogether.

But the audio industry isn’t selling craft, because craft can be objectively observed and measured. And they aren’t selling artistic aesthetics as the primary justification for a high price, even though it is certainly a secondary feature. They aren’t even selling luxurious exclusivity. 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.

Again, ASR stands in the breach. That said, many people here have fabulously expensive audio systems. They just aren’t deluded into thinking they are measurably better just because they are expensive.

Rick “it’s the cynical lying” Denney

 

[phoenixdogfan]

I don't think it's an "Alcoholics Anonymous" vibe, I think it's more of a James Ramey vibe and/or a Myth Busters vibe.

I know I, for one, am ultra hostile to the assertion that there is something happening in the way that particular audio products do their job that is simultaneously dramatically better than other products and unmeasurable and/or unquantifiable. To me that prompts a whole host of questions ranging from, "If the product is doing something that a host of the best scientific and engineering minds in companies like Phillips, Sony, Harman, Kef, et al weren't able to discover, develop and exploit, how did this particular product producer happen upon it?" And.... "Did this developer use any sort of measures which currently elude everyone else? If so, what are those measures, and does there exist any scientific literature confirming they have validity in determining the quality of audio reproduction? And if such measures exist, why isn't the person marketing the product, also promulgating how his product measures vis-a-vis his competitors product(s) using those measurements to validate its superiority? And if no such measures exist or were used in the product development, are we expected spend thousands on the basis of "testimony" and or (even worse) the belief that there exists some effect without a cause?

That's when we get into what Carl Sagan described as a "Demon Haunted World," and I have no patience with or sympathy for that world view whenever, wherever, or however it manifests itself. Especially in High End Audio.

 

[MattHooper]

. I don’t know a single one who actually believes that there is any functional advantage to a high-end watch compared to watches of much lower cost. But they do appreciate craft, which is an aesthetic attribute as much as it would be for art or jewelry. And they appreciate the cachet and exclusiveness of brand value. They just don’t usually justify that based on timekeeping performance.

Really? I have some friends into watches, but other than that I don’t have any insight into the hobby. But when they describe their watches, they also describe the precision involved, and how that impacts the accuracy of the watch.

And from what I recall, and looking briefly into the whole watch thing: true nobody thinks they are going to be more accurate than a decent digital watch, but as I recall, 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)

 

[phoenixdogfan]

I would like to address the conflation of audio conspicuous consumption with other similar acquisition-based hobbies, such as mechanical watches.

I know a lot of watch collectors, being one myself. One of them is an audio industry executive, but a lot of them are wealthy. I don’t know a single one who actually believes that there is any functional advantage to a high-end watch compared to watches of much lower cost. But they do appreciate craft, which is an aesthetic attribute as much as it would be for art or jewelry. And they appreciate the cachet and exclusiveness of brand value. They just don’t usually justify that based on timekeeping performance.

Watch collectors at the deep end of the pool also acknowledge that they are making a lifestyle expression, just as their wives are doing with their Hermes handbags, and just as their buddies are doing with their Ferraris. There is no illusion that these expensive watches keep time better than a $75 Fossil quartz watch. Very few of them actually believe that wearing a Rolex Daytona makes the opposite sex think of them as Paul Newman. That’s the sort of hobby where the only justification needed is wanting it and having the money. Some can’t control their acquisitional impulses and get into trouble, but that is a different problem altogether.

But the audio industry isn’t selling craft, because craft can be objectively observed and measured. And they aren’t selling artistic aesthetics as the primary justification for a high price, even though it is certainly a secondary feature. They aren’t even selling luxurious exclusivity. 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.


Again, ASR stands in the breach. That said, many people here have fabulously expensive audio systems. They just aren’t deluded into thinking they are measurably better just because they are expensive.

Rick “it’s the cynical lying” Denney

Problem is, a pair of Wilson Chrono Sonics are not a Ferrari F40, a Chord Dave is not a Rolex Daytona, and a pair of Nordost Valhalla speaker cables are not a Hermes bag. All of those latter items are status symbols while a 400 lb refrigerator sized aluminum amplifier box with 4 inch around purple cables emanating from it to a 7 ft tall stack of tweeters and midranges in a "Ferrari Red" resin cast box will just get you laughed at, especially when you tell everyone how much it all cost.

 

[KellenVancouver]

Problem is, a pair of Wilson Chrono Sonics are not a Ferrari F40, a Chord Dave is not a Rolex Daytona, and a pair of Nordost Valhalla speaker cables are not a Hermes bag. All of those latter items are status symbols while a 400 lb refrigerator sized aluminum amplifier box with 4 inch around purple cables emanating from it to a 7 ft tall stack of tweeters and midranges in a "Ferrari Red" resin cast box will just get you laughed at, especially when you tell everyone how much it all cost.

My logic is on your side. Problem is, I think the point of "status symbol" means the amount it cost doesn't matter.

 

[anotherhobby]

There’s nothing wrong doing a ritual dance in your underwear for good luck either. The issue is whether it has a positive effect on one’s system’s performance and if so how cost and effort effective it is.

Total cost to run a dedicated 20amp circuit to my system: < $200 in parts and I did my own work
Performance improvement in my system: 0
Value of joy I feel now that the circuit doesn't pop every time me or my wife turns tries to vacuum anything on the main floor if the TV/stereo was also on: priceless

Additional circuits provide capacity or isolation or other things, but unfortunately not "performance."

 

[rdenney]

I think also we need to qualify the term “engineer” in audio. There are plenty of recording engineers and mastering engineers who are not well versed in electrical engineering or psychoacoustics and subsequently believe in a lot of audio snake oil. Which really doesn’t prevent them from doing excellent work. As such their often excellent work gives their beliefs in snake oil more gravitas with many audiophiles.

I blame JS Bach! ;-D

I think we mean educated engineers, not in the use of “engineer” as a grandiose substitute for “technician”. Recording engineers may have degrees in EE or whatever, but probably most are merely trained in a specific set of skills for which they have an aptitude. Engineers should have enough education in underlying theory to be able to think abstractly, which is part of what is expected of engineers—the ability to develop skills and technologies from first principles rather that just use them effectively.

Like my engineer father said of a programmer who described himself as an engineer, “let’s see your license to practice.” But he was being a little too romantic about the value of three semesters of physics and four of calculus.

Believe me, I am not similarly romantic. I know too many “educated” engineers who are no more than process followers.

The old joke about training vs. education goes that one’s child coming home from school stating they are in a sex education class raises no eyebrows, while reporting they are in a sex training class would perhaps elicit a different response.

Rick “licensed in five states” Denney

 

[rdenney]

Really? I have some friends into watches, but other than that I don’t have any insight into the hobby. But when they describe their watches, they also describe the precision involved, and how that impacts the accuracy of the watch.

And from what I recall, and looking briefly into the whole watch thing: true nobody thinks they are going to be more accurate than a decent digital watch, but as I recall, 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)

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.

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.

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

Rick “whose Ulysse Nardin Marine Chronometer is barely as accurate as the standard cheap quartz watch at 15 seconds a month, but nevermind what costs that consumes to achieve mechanically” Denney

 

[rdenney]

Problem is, a pair of Wilson Chrono Sonics are not a Ferrari F40, a Chord Dave is not a Rolex Daytona, and a pair of Nordost Valhalla speaker cables are not a Hermes bag. All of those latter items are status symbols while a 400 lb refrigerator sized aluminum amplifier box with 4 inch around purple cables emanating from it to a 7 ft tall stack of tweeters and midranges in a "Ferrari Red" resin cast box will just get you laughed at, especially when you tell everyone how much it all cost.

Status symbol they all are. But the Nordost cable buyer actually believes the BS. Rolex doesn’t tell anybody their watches are more accurate than a quartz watch. They state that they are precise and accurate compared to other mechanical watches. And they are, at a design specification leading to +/-30 seconds a month. That’s half the tolerance allowed of any certified chronometer, but twice the tolerance of a common quartz cheapie.

Rick “it’s not just about being a status symbol” Denney

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

What a mindlessly stupid comment.

Yet another example of how the silly season drags them out of the woodwork for all the world to see. Yawn.

Over your head perhaps? There is a point to the comment. Any number of top flight professionals in all walks of life engage in rituals that do nothing to improve what they do. But since it does nothing to hurt what they do there is nothing wrong with it.

I’m guessing the JS Bach reference was completely lost on you. Oh well.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

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.

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.

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

Rick “whose Ulysse Nardin Marine Chronometer is barely as accurate as the standard cheap quartz watch at 15 seconds a month, but nevermind what costs that consumes to achieve mechanically” Denney

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.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Total cost to run a dedicated 20amp circuit to my system: < $200 in parts and I did my own work
Performance improvement in my system: 0
Value of joy I feel now that the circuit doesn't pop every time me or my wife turns tries to vacuum anything on the main floor if the TV/stereo was also on: priceless

Additional circuits provide capacity or isolation or other things, but unfortunately not "performance."

Then you got good value for your money and effort. But you also had a reason noble understanding of what you were getting for it

 

[Purité Audio]

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.

Absolutely spot on, ultimately totally subjective, as long as they understand that they are enjoying, in this case vinyl because of the added distortion.
How many times do you read of ‘digital glare’.
Keith

 

[Deleted member 21219]

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

FIFY

Jim

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

FIFY

Jim

No. It is a FACT that some audiophiles have a personal preference for vinyl.