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?

[Phorize]

Someone buys a Mark Levinson amplifier. They don't return it within 30 days, it means they were happy with it.

It's one thing to buy something that expensive if one is well off enough to not care about the cost, or indeed to spend money well into diminishing or non existent returns on actual listening enjoyment with an understanding that this is what one is doing in pursuit of pride of ownership or whatever. That's not descriptive of what is always happening though; alot of people are spending money that they wouldn't part with if they understood that it won't gain anything in terms of enjoyment of the actual sound. These people are often buying expensive products because they are gently encouraged to participate in what is effectively a mass delusion. There are more nefarious examples though where manufacturers studiously mislead people into believing that the product on sale is superior to another when it is not. The mofi analogue LP shenanigans and Naim's wkward encounter with U.K advertising standards are easy examples. I could point to many others.

 

[Galliardist]

It's one thing to buy something that expensive if one is well off enough to not care about the cost, or indeed to spend money well into diminishing or non existent returns on actual listening enjoyment with an understanding that this is what one is doing in pursuit of pride of ownership or whatever. That's not descriptive of what is always happening though; alot of people are spending money that they wouldn't part with if they understood that it won't gain anything in terms of enjoyment of the actual sound. These people are often buying expensive products because they are gently encouraged to participate in what is effectively a mass delusion. There are more nefarious examples though where manufacturers studiously mislead people into believing that the product on sale is superior to another when it is not. The mofi analogue LP shenanigans and Naim's wkward encounter with U.K advertising standards are easy examples. I could point to many others.

There are a few things in this statement.
Firstly, I've been thinking about the MoFi business again recently. If people are upset because they thought they had the greatest sound quality because everything was pure analogue, then they need to learn about how things work. On the other hand, they were still ripped off, basically, and some of the buyers may have wanted to experience "pure analogue" from new pressings without that illusion, and they were ripped off as well.

On expensive equipment, I own some. I'll let you know if it was really good value for money in another decade or so, if I live that long: I had no illusions that the sound would be better than lower priced equipment, and I still checked for independent measurements before buying.

I've seen too many people online and in real life praise very expensive equipment they've bought, special cables, etc. only to be disappointed a few months later and then moving onto the next big thing.

I'd add a couple of other points. Firstly, that tiny percentage of people who "the science" tells us may not prefer accurate equipment or the commonly preferred curves and such, will still number in the hundreds of thousands, and can easily explain the fact (if not the nature) of subjective audiophilia. Secondly, I've noted before that it seems that in the longer established forums, the birth of an audiophile return to analogue in around 2007 can be found happening at the same time as disappointment with SACD sounding the same as CD is being realised.

 

[IAtaman]

So one day my mother was telling me about her friend's son, who is also a doctor. He has made a fortune by integrating alternative medicine to his practice, selling herbal remedies and teas and promoting "natural ways of healing". My response was along the lines of "he has reneged on his oath for personal profit, selling unproven and potentially harmful remedies to gullible people, is acting unethically by abusing his position of authority, and his university should abrogate his degree". My mum was dumbfounded by this and said "it's just business? What is wrong with selling people what they want?".

That is when I realized that mum and I have very different views on the world. I immediately saw her point. We are both pragmatists, just different types of pragmatist.

I don't see it. A doctor is not a sales person who gives people what they want. If you are a doctor, people come to you thinking you know things in the scientific way of knowing. If you are using this perception to sell them things that you don't actually know whether they work is unethical and fraudulent, is it not?

 

[Mnyb]

Imho , it feels good just like leaving a cult or something ive been preocupied with far to much audiophile bs for decades very obsessive very unproductive .

Sadly the majority of everything writen about this hobby is shite , it started to go bad in late 70's and 80's and have nose dived since.

Name any other hobby where 99.99% of the in hobby "information" is false Astrology comes close planets and stars do exists ( not constellations they are just a trick of perspective ) just like speaker and cables do exist, but most of after that is just bs .

 

[IAtaman]

If we only cared about sound quality we wouldn't listen to recordings of the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s. Listening is also happening in the brain not in the equipment. If someone focuses more when they carefully put on a vinyl record than streaming it from their phone or turning on the computer they might psychologically experience better sound quality because they are less distracted by the illuminated screens.

LSD would work better than any amp or format for that purpose. Allegedly.

 

[IAtaman]

A lot of ASR members are incorrigible audiophiles who overrate the importance of sound quality. They believe vinyl sounds worse. They don't care that sound quality is only one part of the music listening experience not always the largest one.

Purely as a statement, I agree that high fidelity is a bit overrated - billions of people still manage to enjoy music in their "non hi-fi" systems without any problems. But when enjoyment is more important than fidelity argument comes from people who claim to have spent fortunes to make their system more "resolving", it loses a lot of its weight I think., and becomes highly hypocritical. (Not saying you are one such person)

 

[FrantzM]

Purely as a statement, I agree that high fidelity is a bit overrated - billions of people still manage to enjoy music in their "non hi-fi" systems without any problems. But when enjoyment is more important than fidelity argument comes from people who claim to have spent fortunes to make their system more "resolving", it loses a lot of its weight I think., and becomes highly hypocritical. (Not saying you are one such person)

It is dawning to me that the majority of people enjoy fidelity or a certain amount of fidelity/accuracy more than we , the audiophiles, give them credit for. For the most part, "regular" people don't obsess over accuracy or fidelity, but they recognize accurate reproduction of sound, almost at a physiological level. No training necessary. It seems to be built-in. Some studies by , yes, Harman, seem to point to that fact. Apple, SONOS, Samsung , now the owner of Harman and its IP, Microsoft, (Hi @amirm ) several companies have invested heavily into audio research, and the results speak for themselves. SONOS for one seem to have one of the largest facility in all audio and I will not forget Bose, I don't care much about Bose consumer audio products, but once in a while, some of those, even, manage to sound more adequate than some systems built by audiophiles, their professional gear are very, very good and prized. To continue in that vein, the success of SONOS in particular is not due to their aesthetics or even their UI. They do sound good, any product from SONOS sound good, period... consistently and in most any room. Sneer at them if you want: A pair of SONOS 5 in most any small to medium room, after a massage by the incredibly simple TRUEPLAY Sonos APP, will play music in ways that some much more audiophile (subjective or objective) leaning systems may not approach... without a sub and if you drop one or two of their subs in the mix? Oh Boy!!! I am not a SONOS fanboi, but something is pointing toward Hi-Fi as something the mass desire... and pay for, when available.

Faced with this, I lament the considerable time and money, I spent in the HEA universe while being an ardent music lover and, yes, audiophile. The entire HEA looks to me as crooked, almost evil. They push people in the spend more cycle, knowing for well this is not true... So yeah, some of us are not thrilled by the time we spent in the HEA prison, we could have enjoyed more music and better sound for much less... We try, thus, sometime vociferously to sway other people from them, the evildoers ...

Peace.

 

[Keith_W]

I don't see it. A doctor is not a sales person who gives people what they want. If you are a doctor, people come to you thinking you know things in the scientific way of knowing. If you are using this perception to sell them things that you don't actually know whether they work is unethical and fraudulent, is it not?

My anecdote was about how we place different weightings on values.

I place very high weighting on science and medical ethics. I place less weighting on money, profit, and business. As I also alluded, I care less about audio snake oil than medical snake oil. The former is a harmless waste of money. The latter is a harmful waste of money.

My mum, as a businessperson, places high weighting on the opposite - money, profit, and business. To her mind, selling unproven herbal remedies is legal, so there is no issue with selling it. She does not know anything about the science. She does not have the same understanding of professional obligations of other professions, so she places less weighting on what she does not know.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Enjoying listening to bad recording quality shows sound quality isn't always top of our list. If sound quality was that important to us we would only listen to digital recordings. Just my most frequent listening is to recordings from the magnetic recording era and sometimes the shellac recording era. Sound quality from the recording quality and equipment quality is important, just not important enough to choose it over music quality.

You and I have different definitions of "sound quality". You're talking about recording characteristics, which is production. I'm referring to playback. which is REproduction characteristics.

Think about the ramifications of the way you're thinking. If better reproduction equipment were not an advantage to old recordings, we would only listen to them on vintage Victrolas. Such is not the case, I assure you. I enjoy old mono recordings on my modern stereo equipment, including modern speakers, tone controls and/or EQ.

I, too have [digital copies of] recordings from the '20s and '30s, and what you call "music" quality, I call performance quality.

As I said before, this is getting to be a study in semantics.

Jim

 

[antcollinet]

These DACs are being reviewed almost entirely on spec, with features not getting much of a look in

Sure - because those are the aspects the average punter can't check for themselves. We are all capable of evaluating the other stuff - we don't need @amirm to do that for us.

 

[Jaxjax]

I had a good friend who was an artist. I am an engineer. He sometimes simply refused to believe things that are established facts because they didn’t feel right to him. He wasn’t stupid or particularly gullible. He just saw the world differently. Accept the difference and move on.

Your entire reply is superb. If I were younger, I would go for another ride in DIY & build some crazy wierd sh.. but this time not have 600-700 square foot of bread boarded amps, etc, etc & 100's & 100's of pounds of exposed iron laying around in my listening room. I'm lucky to live thru last ride & anyone living with me. . but full on DIY systems has by far exceeded any positive experience I've had in music reproduction as a whole. So many ways to enjoy music. We do a lot of live event's & have never thought I could reproduce any of them because you can't.
A JBL charge 2 on a table outside my tent possibly brings me enjoyment then any of my systems & why would that be .?
The entire active, room corrected, running flat gig is great for many. I do it too except for the flat part...but it still doesn't match or come close really to what i can do with tube gear for female voacals etc, etc. The balance of trade offs will be there for everyone so pick your poison. If someone wants to buy a $10k fuse then have at ..
Fuses, cables & exotic parts have been in the game for a long time now. Nothing wrong designing amps that sound good either, Nelson Pass did it quite well.
Joe

 

[Jaxjax]

I think almost anyone can tell the difference. It either doesn’t matter to them or they’ve never heard a good system/.

I've had over the years non audiophile types drive many ,many miles to hear various systems i had. I don't recall any of them not totally amazed at the experience.
Joe

 

[rdenney]

If we only cared about sound quality we wouldn't listen to recordings of the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s. Listening is also happening in the brain not in the equipment. If someone focuses more when they carefully put on a vinyl record than streaming it from their phone or turning on the computer they might psychologically experience better sound quality because they are less distracted by the illuminated screens.

How does what you wrote contradict what I wrote, or were you just trying to expand on my point?

Rick “arguments are down the hall” Denney

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Sure - because those are the aspects the average punter can't check for themselves. We are all capable of evaluating the other stuff - we don't need @amirm to do that for us.

That’s an interesting point, and I agree.

But that cuts both ways. Amir (quite rightly) waxes lyrical on superb, SOTA DACs. So that’s one side of the equation. But it’s rare he says “…but you can get the same transparency for substantially less money”, or “…but you’re paying a lot for features you might neither need nor desire.”

To be truly neutral, if you're doing the latter, you shouldn't be doing the former. You should just be presenting the results.

Maybe a league table like the one he has, but split by colour into ‘transparent’ and ‘not transparent’. Then yes, list the extra features also, as well as the price.

Look, that’s just my view, and I’m more than happy to come here and read Amir’s excellent reviews, and benefit from his industry-leading knowledge. It’s just a personal preference as to how I’d appreciate a tweak in presentation.

Not looking for an argument, just stating a preference. Ultimately, it’s Amir’s site and he can do as he likes.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Ultimately, it’s Amir’s site and he can do as he likes.

Very true. I think that's a distinction that some people visiting here fail to appreciate.

Jim

 

[BobbyTimmons]

That’s an interesting point, and I agree.

But that cuts both ways. Amir (quite rightly) waxes lyrical on superb, SOTA DACs. So that’s one side of the equation. But it’s rare he says “…but you can get the same transparency for substantially less money”, or “…but you’re paying a lot for features you might neither need nor desire.”

To be truly neutral, if you're doing the latter, you shouldn't be doing the former. You should just be presenting the results.

Maybe a league table like the one he has, but split by colour into ‘transparent’ and ‘not transparent’. Then yes, list the extra features also, as well as the price.

Look, that’s just my view, and I’m more than happy to come here and read Amir’s excellent reviews, and benefit from his industry-leading knowledge. It’s just a personal preference as to how I’d appreciate a tweak in presentation.

Not looking for an argument, just stating a preference. Ultimately, it’s Amir’s site and he can do as he likes.

DACs should all sound the same in a blind listening test. Since the 90s. They are transparent unless there is something wrong with them.

 

[BobbyTimmons]

Purely as a statement, I agree that high fidelity is a bit overrated - billions of people still manage to enjoy music in their "non hi-fi" systems without any problems. But when enjoyment is more important than fidelity argument comes from people who claim to have spent fortunes to make their system more "resolving", it loses a lot of its weight I think., and becomes highly hypocritical. (Not saying you are one such person)

There are some incorrigible audiophiles in the debates about vinyl and other things. People talking about the sound quality measurements of their equipment like only that dictates what their brain will experience. It's like a restaurant critic who thinks the only thing is the chemical makeup of the food. Their experience is created by their mood, the lighting, the way the waiter smiles at them. The best bang for the buck upgrade in hi-fi is turning off the lights when listening. Vinyl probably sounds 'more resolving' for some folks who would otherwise have to turn on a screen to listen to music. Music sounds more resolving when you listen to it resolve without getting distracted by a Facebook message notification. Focus and attention is one of the main ingredients in listening.

 

[egellings]

The average audiophile doesn't believe all the lunatic fringe claims. Go on the most popular audiophile sites like r/audiophile which has over 2 million audiophiles and like anyone with an elementary education they don't believe things like cables can make a difference to sound quality.

If a cable with reasonable R, L, & C values makes a difference in S.Q., then something is wrong with the cable, either that or equipment it is used with may be marginally stable.

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Very true. I think that's a distinction that some people visiting here fail to appreciate.

Jim

But I’m sure Amir would appreciate free speach and the need for (rational) criticism.

 

[rdenney]

I don't see it. A doctor is not a sales person who gives people what they want. If you are a doctor, people come to you thinking you know things in the scientific way of knowing. If you are using this perception to sell them things that you don't actually know whether they work is unethical and fraudulent, is it not?

Yes, and it's the same (or should be) with lawyers. Lawyers are officers of the court. If they knowingly engage in illegal activity, even on behalf of their clients, they are guilty of a crime. A lawyer cannot, for example, develop legal documents on behalf of a client that perpetrates a fraud, without themselves being guilty.

The point is that the requirement to be honest is placed on all people all the time. As an engineer, I am obligated by the laws of the states where I am licensed to deal with clients honestly and transparently, but in all cases to place the good of the public above all other considerations.

That so many people don't do this is the human condition, but that doesn't mean people should excuse it as an "alternative point of view".

If people want to spend vast sums on audio equipment, then blessings upon their house. If their motivation is that they want people to know they have the money to do so, then they will get exactly what they seek (for better or worse), but they can do so without any moral judgment from me. If they want to post online about it so that their audio buddies will be impressed, then the (temporary) admiration of their audio buddies will be their reward and I hope it's worth to them what it costs. But if they tell others that each $xx,xxx component they buy lifts veils and reveals the true music, then they are in almost every case either deluded or dishonest. I don't give them a pass, because it's not that hard to be honest enough to avoid being deluded. Do they really hear that difference? I propose that most of the time they do not, even as a result of bias.

The people that sold them that stuff to take advantage of that delusion or to perpetrate it further, in the moral sense at least, perpetrated a fraud: They have sold something with the claim that it does something it does not do. I have a problem with that, because the people who design the stuff know better. The designers don't use incantations to design their stuff after all. They use electrical engineering principles and measurement equipment. And if they don't, they are likely to end up being highlighted on ASR with a panther missing his head. I'm not including people like Nelson Pass--he is fairly honest about what he's trying to do even when it isn't accuracy.

Remember that the rhetoric of the high-end isn't that it is colored in a way that people might find pleasing or at least not detrimental. The rhetoric they use is (like the example I quoted above) that their stuff uniquely improves the accuracy of the system in ways that defy the very measurements their designers used to create the stuff. I wish they would be honest and say, "We think the coloration of our amplifier sounds good, and we think you'll agree. Down with accuracy!" But that's not what they are saying.

It's not about the cost, or the hyperbole. It's about the deception. But the hyperbole is surely over the top. We've seen example after example of people saying that their system is noticeably better and even revelatory, compared to what they had last week, which they reported as noticeably better and revelatory compared to what they had the week before. Is there really that much room for revelation deserving of exclamation points? That's a pretty hard thesis to defend. But it sure enables people to look down their nose at their fellow man who merely possesses what they thought was revelatory last week. Manufacturers playing into this corrosive thinking is usually cynical.

There are industry executives who do actually believe this stuff, and I know a couple, so there is room for mere delusion as well as deception. I don't want to paint the whole industry with the same brush. But the industry has a whole would be more honest with an audio press that acts as a true evaluator rather than a collaborator (or enabler). Is that AA kind of talk? I don't know--I've never been to AA (I have been to Al-Anon, though, and the one feature common to those meetings is a willingness of people to expose their worst nightmares and deepest flaws in search of the truth. They don't get there ever time, of course, but the very thing they are trying to overcome is the pain of self-delusion that results in making life worse for themselves and the AA member they love.)

Cables are the easy target here. Test after test (both tests of electrical characteristics and controlled preference testing) has been unable to identify any detriment to using the cheap RCA cables that used to come free with equipment, the power cords that come from the hardware store, and line cord for the speakers, as long as they are sized appropriately for the signal. Yet claim after claim includes lofty descriptions of how the cables noticeably improve the quality of the resulting audio. They are careful to avoid adjectives that are directly measurable. This dishonesty undermines the concept of objective fact, which is even worse than the fraud it perpetrates.

Rick "it's not merely self-righteous to expose lying" Denney