Audiophile hobby is a scam?

[Descartes]

Hi Guys!

Please help me understand, because I do not know If I am missing something, or the whole audiophile hobby is a scam.

I have several headphones with different frequency responses (namely: AKG K712 PRO, Grado SR225i, Sennheiser HD559, Sennheiser HD560S, Audio-Technica AD700X, AKG K371). Running them from the OG Atom Stack.

Out of all these, the most natural sounding is the K371 (without EQ). I can notice the difference when it comes to "soundstage", the open backs have bigger soundstage, but outside of that...we could say they have more "detail", but to me "detail" really seem like a buzzword, and in reality we are talking about quirky frequency responses, which create the illusion of "detail".

Any time I pick up the K712PRO for example, I can hear more "detail" from the music, but it sounds off...the 560S has more "detail" than the K371, but it sounds off (timbre is particularly bad with the 560S imho). I can sometimes enjoy these headphones, but they can get fatiguing, and anytime I pick up my K371, they just sound natural to me, and never fatiguing, regardless of genre of music.

So what is the catch here? If we want the best fidelity, we just need a clean amp, a clean dac, and a headphone that has Harman Tuning, and that is it, there's no possibility of getting better science based sound quality? Or my hearing might just gravitate toward the Harman Tuning?

Thank you for your responses in advance!

You missed well recorded good music!

 

[Jim Taylor]

What if I said the correct answer is A? Would you consider my answer is wrong?

All things considered, I would not disagree. (You should remember that 40 years ago, I dealt with rotary compressors that had vane tolerances of plus or minus five millionths of an inch. That memory can induce caution in my most foolhardy moments. )

Jim

 

[Jim Taylor]

Could you define what is the "all things" here?
"not disagree" = agree? or you have a different meaning?

"All things considered" is a phrase that means either "generally speaking", or more commonly, "taking into account all aspects of the situation". Read again my comment (above) about caution.

And yes, when I say that I do not disagree, that's a polite way of saying I agree. I have a bad habit of circumlocution.

Jim

 

[kemmler3D]

If something sounds different it will be evident in the measurements.

Worth repeating as always. The caveat is that not every set of measurements shows everything we can hear. But everything we can hear can be measured if you want to. The underlying assumption: measurement gear is more sensitive than the ear - is very solid as far as I know.

If something can't be measured, (audible or not) that also means it doesn't exist in the recording. Music recordings are made with the same kind of tools that audio measurements are. So the occasional golden ear assertion that there are audible, but unmeasurable factors that are part of musical fidelity is incorrect on its face. If you can put something on a recording, it is by definition measurable.

 

[kemmler3D]

"if something sounds different it will be evident in the measurements."

My answer is A, as long as you have made the right type of measurement. So I guess maybe the answer is D.

For example you can't measure compression with an IMD measurement. Either could be audible, but not revealed unless you make the right type of measurement.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Cool, thanks a lot for your clearification. In that case, what do you think about the following comment?

"if something sounds different it will be evident in the measurements."

Answer A: Yes, it is correct
Answer B: No, it is not correct
Answer C: Both A and B are incorrect
Answer D: It depends on the accuracy of the instrument used to measure and the tolerances required to formulate an answer.
Answer E: something else

Mind to share your answer here?

My (qualified) answer would be "A". (see below *)

Your question is "if (sounds) then (measurements)."
This presupposes that an audible difference exists. As in all investigations, scientific or criminal, evidence is duly verified before continuing on to the next step. Hearsay is rejected. In a criminal investigation, if a suspect says that they were at "x" location at the time of the crime, all efforts are made to cross-check and verify before the next step of the investigation. In the same way, if someone says that an electronic circuit has a certain audible characteristic, then at a minimum, a double-blind test is administered to verify the assertion. The simple assertion (hearsay) is not taken as evidence ... that would be faulty protocol, either in the case of investigation into electronics or in the case of a criminal investigation.
If someone says that a loudspeaker has a certain audible characteristic, it is also advisable to administer a double-blind test. However, because loudspeakers are at a more primitive stage of development, the test is usually administered to verify the character of difference rather than the existence of difference.

The question is more easily answered because you have framed the premise: "if (sounds) then (measurements)." If your had asked a question such as, "If two devices measure differently, will the difference be audible?", then the answer would be more difficult to ascertain.


* I qualified my answer (as I had before, when I added choice "D") for a very simple reason. The total suite of tests available for use on DUT is formidable, and very few testers will take advantage of the full gamut of available tests. For electronics, the reason is that basic, cursory analysis will indicate whether the device is working to an acceptable standard. That's all that most people want to know.
Not only that, but such in-depth testing takes a great deal of time and effort, and some people are loath to go to that length. In-depth testing takes skill, and it takes an understanding that is of equal depth. Just as an example, the suite of driver tests that Vance Dickason does for Audio Express is quite detailed. A great deal of information can be gleaned from them, but a person has to be able to understand the tests and the results as presented, or the information is lost on them. (I am sadly lacking in that department.)
By the same token, the re-test of the Troubadour by Erin revealed the differences in plugging the holes in the bottom, plus the nature of the resonance that was seen to originate on the top of the cabinet (which he discovered by simply turning the speaker upside-down). Again, more testing equaled more information.

So for electronics, an exhaustive suite of tests, rigorously applied, will yield answer "A". Incompetence, laziness and oversight nullify that, but not because testing and measurements are at fault; the fault lies with the human individual.
For loudspeakers, it is easier to answer "A", but then the problem of characterization comes into play. That's a big mess.

Hope this helps.

Jim

 

[Jimbob54]

Cool, thanks a lot for your clearification. In that case, what do you think about the following comment?

"if something sounds different it will be evident in the measurements."

Answer A: Yes, it is correct
Answer B: No, it is not correct
Answer C: Both A and B are incorrect
Answer D: It depends on the accuracy of the instrument used to measure and the tolerances required to formulate an answer.
Answer E: something else

Mind to share your answer here?

Havent you been round this loop several times now and been cautioned?

 

[gwing]

D.

*If* it truly sounds different then a difference will be measurable if the correct measurement is made with sufficient accuracy.

 

[BDWoody]

"if something sounds different it will be evident in the measurements."

Mind to share your answer here?

We've done this already...a few times.

Time to work harder at the understanding part. This isn't as complicated as you are trying to make it

 

[Ghostofmerlin]

Cool, thanks a lot for your reply.

Before we discuss further, let's define something first. I think it would help our discussion.

Let A be the original audio singal
Let D be the digitized version of the original audio signal (e.g. 44.1k Hz / 16 bit)
Let HF be the Hi Fi System
Let O be the final audio signal reconstructed

With the above definition, any HI-Fi system can be viewed as below:

HF(D) ==> O

i.e. a Hi Fi system takes input D and generate output O

=================

There are two types of Hi FI systems depend if O = A or not,

A Perfect (or "Neutral") Hi Fi system, i.e. one that meet the following criteria:

PHF(D) ==> A

In other words, a Perfect Hi Fi system takes input D and generate output A

The other is called "Better Hi Fi system", i.e. one that meet the following criteria:

BHF(D) ==> A_modified (and A_modified != A)

In other words, a "Better Hi Fi system" takes input D and generate output A_modified
Some Hi-Fi users feels A_modified is "more natural" based on their own feeling.

Make sense to you? If yes, let's continue


100% agreed with you regarding the green part. That's why some people would have different equipments / setup / settings for different recordings.

I think you mean the following:

BHF(D1) ==> A1_modified
BHF(D2) ==> A2_modified

While A1_modified could sound good with BHF, A2_modified from the same BHF could sound awful <== 100% agree

I believe some people would adjust BHF (via different filters, modulators, etc...) for different D.

i.e. BHF_setting_1 for D1 an BHF_setting_2 for D2 to make A1_modified and A2_modified both "sound good"

If D2 sounds bad no matter how you adjust the BHF, some people would get a different BHF system, i.e. BHF2 for D2


I am not pretty sure I know what you mean "the same way every time" exactly.

Do you suggest there is "sound signature" for a equipment?
e.g. BFH1 would always make the bass stronger while equipment BHF2 would always make the bass less?

i.e. by using BHF1 for any D, it would always make A_modified having more bass <=== is it what you mean?

Anyway, I agreed that output A_modified from BHF would be different from A from PHF

You need PHF in order to get A. (i.e. neutral system)


Agreed. There is only one Perfect, Neutral system, known as PHF (as I stated above). They may have different implmentations but the key is

PHF(D) ==> A

BHF (i.e. "Better Hi Fi") would NEVER give you A as its output for input D. It could only give you A_modified

You suggested that we could use DSP in order to have 2 "virtual systems" from a single PHF, i.e.

PHF_with_DSP(D) => A_DSP_modified
PHF_witout_DSP(D) => A

I think some Hi Fi users can do the same with two Hi Fi system:

BHF(D) => A_modified
PHF(D) => A

With output A, we could hear the "orignal" sound from the master lab but:

1) does PHF (i.e. Perfect system) readlly exist? In reality there is no PHF. The approx PHF is just another BHF with A_modified very close to A

2) even PHF does exist, is A always be the best sounding output for the input D? One thing for sure is that you can hear what the mastering studio intended for you to hear (by defintion of perfect) with PHF

Given, I believe, some people believe there is NO perfect PHF or they don't really care too much about A, they settled with their BHF.

Does it make sense to you that why some people are looking for their BHF?

I hope I can explain clearly what I mean. Please let me know if you are unclear about anything I mentioned above. Cheers.

Jeesh. If I had to go through this rigmarole to listen to music I think I would sell all of my stereo stuff and buy a banjo.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Jeesh. If I had to go through this rigmarole to listen to music I think I would sell all of my stereo stuff and buy a banjo.

I can feel your pain!

I'm careful with my answers because it is very obvious that @sunjam has his own agenda. I don't believe that he's malicious (I could be wrong), I think he simply cannot believe that measurements have a greater authority than his perceptions.


Once a person achieves this degree of detachment from reality, it becomes difficult to communicate with them ... or at least communicate reliably.

Jim

p.s. - Ukulele, yes. Banjo, no.

 

[kemmler3D]

he simply cannot believe that measurements have a greater authority then his perceptions.

I think this is common read any stereophile comments section and someone will eventually denigrate this idea explicitly.

But, it's really wild to me that people are more willing to believe that science has yet to discover important aspects of old, mature, commodity audio technology, than they are that their perceptions of sound might be influenced by their cognition. The latter of which is also well-established by science and anecdotal experience.

It's wild because people don't seem to believe this about any of their other senses. Fans of fragrance don't (AFAIK) assert that they can smell things that modern chemistry and spectrometry are wholly ignorant of. Fans of Film or TV don't assert that cameras are fundamentally unable to pick up details they can see with their eyes. And although I don't think measurements can fully describe the experience of eating a good dish, I don't think foodies are arguing that chemistry is likewise unable to characterize flavors.

But somehow, certain audiophiles think that both hearing and audio reproduction are so poorly understood that they're regularly hearing things that are unknown to science.

 

[NTK]

I can feel your pain!

I'm careful with my answers because it is very obvious that @sunjam has his own agenda. I don't believe that he's malicious (I could be wrong), I think he simply cannot believe that measurements have a greater authority then his perceptions.


Once a person achieves this degree of detachment from reality, it becomes difficult to communicate with them ... or at least communicate reliably.

Jim

p.s. - Ukulele, yes. Banjo, no.

Sunjam is a board certified flat-earther. Don't need to believe me. Just take a look at his signature, and check out his ' Debunk the "Monty's video" ' post at his blog. You'll then know what the core ASRers are against. Totally unbelievable

 

[Jimbob54]

Sunjam is a board certified flat-earther. Don't need to believe me. Just take a look at his signature, and check out his ' Debunk the "Monty's video" ' post at his blog. You'll then know what the core ASRers are against. Totally unbelievable

That person has been busy. Awesome .

 

[lashto]

I think this is common read any stereophile comments section and someone will eventually denigrate this idea explicitly.

But, it's really wild to me that people are more willing to believe that science has yet to discover important aspects of old, mature, commodity audio technology, than they are that their perceptions of sound might be influenced by their cognition. The latter of which is also well-established by science and anecdotal experience.

It's wild because people don't seem to believe this about any of their other senses. Fans of fragrance don't (AFAIK) assert that they can smell things that modern chemistry and spectrometry are wholly ignorant of. Fans of Film or TV don't assert that cameras are fundamentally unable to pick up details they can see with their eyes. And although I don't think measurements can fully describe the experience of eating a good dish, I don't think foodies are arguing that chemistry is likewise unable to characterize flavors.

oh but they do, just try a wine tasting forum. Same stuff on videophile forums. Haven't tried a fragrances forum but I would bet it's ~same.

Yes, the so called subjectivists make a lot of outrageous claims. Bullsh*t galore.
But many of the objectivists go to the other extreme where we (suposedly) know everything, have perfect amps etc.. Sorry, we don't. And bullsh*t has the same smell on both sides of the fence.

Science still "has yet to discover important aspects" ... of pretty much everything. Audio tech is pretty advanced but it is not perfect. Or anywhere near done.
I can't actually think of any single tech or science that is anywhere near done/perfect. And I find the ASR posts about "perfect amps" and "perfect measurements" pretty much same as annoying as the ones elsewhere about "magic cables" and "useless measurements"

 

[Purité Audio]

They don’t have to be ‘perfect’ they just have to be audibly transparent, which many ( the majority ) are.
Keith

 

[Jim Taylor]

Audio tech is pretty advanced but that does not mean it is perfect. Or anywhere near done.

There are no claims that I know of which describe audio tech as "perfect". It doesn't need to be. It just needs to be good enough to describe the performance of audio equipment ... and it is.

And I find the ASR posts about "perfect amps" and "perfect measurements" pretty much same

Again you mention the word "perfect" in regards to audio. Can you show me an example - preferably in these pages - where this has occurred?

Thank you.

Jim

 

[BDWoody]

Sunjam is a board certified flat-earther. Don't need to believe me. Just take a look at his signature, and check out his ' Debunk the "Monty's video" ' post at his blog. You'll then know what the core ASRers are against. Totally unbelievable

Once again, the good faith of our members is tested by those with their petty 'hidden' agendas.

He will no longer be pestering us here.

 

[kemmler3D]

I have never encountered superstitious anti-science talk in the fragrance or video worlds, but I will admit I haven't gone looking for it, either.

many of the objectivists go to the other extreme where we (suposedly) know everything, have perfect amps etc..

We do, though, depending on what your definition of perfect is. "Zero audible distortion or noise within the intended use of the amp" seems like a reasonable, if not absolute definition of "perfect" for a real-world amplifier. And there are more than a few affordable examples of those.

And like, what can science not explain when it comes to hearing / listening to music? By this I mean, what can people repeatedly be shown to hear that isn't addressed by existing theories of hearing / audiology? I'm not saying there is no such phenomenon or topic... I just haven't heard of one lately.

Electronics are more sensitive than the human ear by a long shot. Audio signals are simple waveforms that are easy to observe and evaluate at any point in the signal chain. And speakers are just approximating those sound waves in a room - nothing mysterious there either.

So where does the new science come in, in a home stereo setup? Where's the gap? Not a rhetorical question. If there is one, I'd love to know about it. That's why we are here, after all, interest in audio.

I heartily agree that there is quite a ways to go in terms of producing a perfect, ideal stereo system that avoids the compromises we deal with today. But I don't know where any scientific mystery comes in with regard to existing tech.

 

[lashto]

There are no claims that I know of which describe audio tech as "perfect". It doesn't need to be. It just needs to be good enough to describe the performance of audio equipment ... and it is.



Again you mention the word "perfect" in regards to audio. Can you show me an example - preferably in these pages - where this has occurred?

Thank you.

Jim

how about this gem: "power amplification is a solved issue now". Someone found the perfect amp already, declared amplification 'done' and we should all go home. And got no less than 50 likes... sounds quite close to a "majority oppinion" to me.

There are many others, but I don't wanna search/re-read annoying things