Audio science reviewers are not audiophiles?

[pseudoid]

But I think these are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Would you really have expensive yachts in existence if you did not have those who can afford them?
Please, DSOP$ (Don't Spend Other People's $).

 

[Martin]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We ASR's listen to music utilizing measurably transparent audio equipment. Audiophiles listen to wires, tubes, capacitors, circuits, cabinets, equipment racks, snake oil tweaks, and distortion utilizing music.

Martin

 

[egellings]

Mom always said that opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one, and everybody thinks his or hers doesn't stink.

My trips to the bathroom long ago disabused me of that opinion. I am rotten! Rotten!

 

[solderdude]

There are broad and fuzzy lines between being an audio gear enthusiast, music lover and audiophile.
When can one call oneself a music lover, audio gear enthusiast and audiophile ?
When would others consider someone to be an audiophile ?
What percentage of audiophiles consider themselves an audiophile ?

There is a broad and fuzzy line between being an audiophile and audiophool.
Some high-end gear is audiophile but a lot of it is audiophool.
When does an audiophile become an audiophool ?
When would others consider an audiophile an audiophool ?

 

[Keith_W]

When does an audiophile become an audiophool ?
When would others consider an audiophile an audiophool ?

I hang out regularly on another forum full of subjectivists. There is a crucial difference between them and us, and it has all to do with plausibility. For us, plausibility is a starting point. We know that plausibility does not mean audibility, but OTOH implausibility always means inaudibility. All that plausibility means is that it needs to be tested for audibility. For example, I could assert that time alignment of my subwoofer down to 0.03ms is an audible improvement over (say) 5ms. It is a plausible claim, because I can measure it and show you proof. But is it audible?

For subjectivists, they dispense with the "proof" and judge everything on plausibility and subjective impression. Even then, I have found that they all draw the line somewhere, depending on how plausible they think an intervention is going to be. So let us look at some examples of plausibility.

So do DAC's sound different? Of course it is plausible to think that they sound different - different chips, clocks, power supplies, output stages, etc. How could they not sound different? In fact they think it is implausible that DAC's should sound the same and anybody making this claim must be deaf.

Do Tice Clocks make a difference? Here the plausibility goes down, and you start seeing separation between believers and non-believers. The Tice clock is a modified $25 Radio Shack clock where it is claimed that putting one of these in your room improves the electron flow in your equipment. Only the truly idiotic will believe that this has any kind of effect because it is so implausible that even most subjectivists wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Read that Stereophile article and you can imagine the furrowed brow of the reviewer ("would I damage my reputation more by supporting this or refuting it?").

So I think that "audiophool" is where you draw the line. The guy who thinks DAC's sound different? The guy who overspent on cable? Most of us on ASR would demand proof, even if something is deemed plausible. But there are quite a few borderline cases, e.g. the time alignment example I cited above. I am quite generous (even if those subjectivists do not think so). I don't call them fools at all, even if they believe in the most egregious nonsense. I understand that it is the prevailing belief, and I am the odd one out. Their social need to conform plus a strong dose of placebo and expectation bias is enough for them to hear a difference.

Sometimes it is better to keep the peace and keep your mouth shut. I have no such restriction here on ASR and I can really speak my mind - which is why it is so liberating!

 

[Petrushka]

There is a similar phenomenon among foodies.

Recipes that call for a specific brand of tomato sauce. Etc.

 

[egellings]

There is a similar phenomenon among foodies.

Recipes that call for a specific brand of tomato sauce. Etc.

Alternative "medicine" and food supplements are two other true believer biggies.

 

[pseudoid]

There are broad and fuzzy lines between being an audio gear enthusiast, music lover and audiophile.
When can one call oneself a music lover, audio gear enthusiast and audiophile ?
When would others consider someone to be an audiophile ?
What percentage of audiophiles consider themselves an audiophile ?

There is a broad and fuzzy line between being an audiophile and audiophool.
Some high-end gear is audiophile but a lot of it is audiophool.
When does an audiophile become an audiophool ?
When would others consider an audiophile an audiophool ?

I would have given you a 'like'; If you had utilized your inner or personal AI-assistant to turn your prose into a poem.

 

[A.wayne]

I see a circle forming ....

 

[kemmler3D]

There is a similar phenomenon among foodies.

Recipes that call for a specific brand of tomato sauce. Etc.

I don't know if this is really the same thing. It's not that hard to taste the difference between two different tomatoes, canned or otherwise. Some taste / quality differences are definitely imaginary or overstated, but in general different foods are actually noticeably different, unlike cables or DACs.

Wine is also often trotted out as an example of snake oil marketing, but nobody really argues that people can't distinguish the wines, just that the price is very decorrelated from the taste.

 

[egellings]

Not a wine drinker, but maybe wine price goes as age and scarcity of the wine.

 

[pseudoid]

Wine is also often trotted out as an example of snake oil marketing, but nobody really argues that people can't distinguish the wines, just that the price is very decorrelated from the taste.

Please don't ruin it for us Coffee drinkers.

 

[kemmler3D]

Not a wine drinker, but maybe wine price goes as age and scarcity of the wine.

Wine price goes the same way anything goes - whatever the producer can get away with.

Please don't ruin it for us Coffee drinkers.

As a coffee drinker, I'm probably among the worst you'll meet. I don't even look at the price of my fancy beans, only the date they're roasted... and I will uncritically recommend that people spend $200+ on a grinder.

 

[antcollinet]

Stop it please.

Food - wine - coffee - beer analogies. In all cases the comparable audio aspect is the music, not the gear. It is what we consume, what we enjoy.

The audio gear is analogous to the plate, the cutlery, the bottle, the decanter, the glass, the cup and the tankard. What we use to transport the comestible to our mouth where we enjoy it. Just as our audio gear transports the music to our ears.

No-one wants to drink wine from a dirty glass. No-one should want to listen to music from a dirty (noisy/distorting) piece of audio gear.

 

[Timcognito]

No-one wants to drink wine from a dirty glass. No-one should want to listen to music from a dirty (noisy/distorting) piece of audio gear.

May not want to but if the food is good its good. Same with music.

 

[Anton S]

...

As a coffee drinker, I'm probably among the worst you'll meet. I don't even look at the price of my fancy beans, only the date they're roasted... and I will uncritically recommend that people spend $200+ on a grinder.

With respect to coffee, equal opportunity offender here. Having my Jura repaired ran more than twice that figure, but it does have a grinder built in.

 

[Petrushka]

I don't know if this is really the same thing. It's not that hard to taste the difference between two different tomatoes, canned or otherwise. Some taste / quality differences are definitely imaginary or overstated, but in general different foods are actually noticeably different, unlike cables or DACs.

Wine is also often trotted out as an example of snake oil marketing, but nobody really argues that people can't distinguish the wines, just that the price is very decorrelated from the taste.

Actually, in a double blind test, a Napa wine beat out the French competition. The failure to correlate price with quality is kind of the definition of snake oil.

 

[MattHooper]

No-one wants to drink wine from a dirty glass. No-one should want to listen to music from a dirty (noisy/distorting) piece of audio gear.

I feel chastened.

* slinks away… tail between legs… Prepares to sell turntable and tube amps…

 

[Robin L]

No-one wants to drink wine from a dirty glass. No-one should want to listen to music from a dirty (noisy/distorting) piece of audio gear.

Red Mountain and Night Train taste best when drunk out of a shared bottle with dubious companions.

 

[kemmler3D]

Actually, in a double blind test, a Napa wine beat out the French competition.

Yes, that happened like 30 years ago.

The failure to correlate price with quality is kind of the definition of snake oil.

I don't totally agree. Price / quality distortion happens in any product with subjective outcomes, snake oil doesn't do what it says it does or isn't what it says it is. I have never purchased wine that wasn't actually wine, didn't taste like wine, or wouldn't get you drunk, regardless of price.