Do you have prejudices that you can't get rid of? (Lets stick to audio)

[tomchris]

I am prejudiced against all subscription-based (music) services. I prefer independence above all. In the long run everyone is likely to get screwed.

 

[Klonatans]

I am prejudiced against all subscription-based (music) services. I prefer independence above all. In the long run everyone is likely to get screwed.

I'm enjoying music from played from Qobuz every day. How can I get screwed? What can be taken away from me? Even if Qobuz disappered one day, I'd always be able to subscribe to another streaming platform.

 

[Waxx]

I'm enjoying music from played from Qobuz every day. How can I get screwed? What can be taken away from me? Even if Qobuz disappered one day, I'd always be able to subscribe to another streaming platform.

We who don't stream don't have to subscribe, we own the copy of the music we listen to and they can't take it away (by cancelling the service, but more often, by removing the song or version of the song from the libary). For me that is important, especially if you're listening to genres with a lot of versions of songs (remixes, recuts, ...) where most streaming services only got the latest or the most popular one, i like to have them all (and very often prefer a different one).

 

[Mort]

I have never protected my ears at loud concerts and I probably listen to IEMs too loudly. My prejudice, if you want to call it that, is my auditory invulnerability.

 

[Audionaut]

Power amplifiers that look like a safe you'd trust with all your savings - sound good.
Only such power amplifiers can sound good at all.

 

[Klonatans]

We who don't stream don't have to subscribe, we own the copy of the music we listen to and they can't take it away (by cancelling the service, but more often, by removing the song or version of the song from the libary). For me that is important, especially if you're listening to genres with a lot of versions of songs (remixes, recuts, ...) where most streaming services only got the latest or the most popular one, i like to have them all (and very often prefer a different one).

It's true that records occasionally are removed from streaming platforms' catalogues and sometimes they just reappear under another label. Sure it's annoying. However using streaming platforms doesn't prevent from having a CD or FLAC collection. I both stream and play my FLAC files. The brave new world of streaming has given me immense opportunities to discover new music at a very moderate cost.

 

[Mort]

I have pre-decided that every odd/funky/unusual speaker shape (like most we see in the 'pictures of beautiful speakers' thread) are wildly overpriced and have a distorting 'house' sound.

 

[AdrianusG]

I have a prejudice against anything made by Apple. In the past, I had nothing against the company or its products. I only disliked the fanboys. That all changed after they "invented" the iPhone. Suddenly they claimed to have invented the smartphone and started suing their competitors over frivolous patents like rounded rectangles. Then started blaming customers for their engineering failures (e.g. "you're holding it wrong"). Overcharging for upgrades like RAM, and preventing owners from repairing their own computers. Since I don't buy anything from Apple, you could argue that these changes don't affect me, but they do. Other manufacturers copy their stupid example and now my Samsung phone does not have a user-replaceable battery, no headphone jack, and new phones do not come with chargers. These are all wonderful Apple innovations that have worsened the lives of every tech consumer on the planet.

Horrible company. I wish they would shrivel up and die.

Yep, very unfortunately the "other" companies just had to follow them with ditching the HP jack ; upgrade-able memory (via micro sd) and such, just screw the customer right

 

[Frank Dernie]

Yep, very unfortunately the "other" companies just had to follow them with ditching the HP jack ; upgrade-able memory (via micro sd) and such, just screw the customer right

It is a shame they could easily have kept a bigger heavier model with more features for those that want it. They made all my ear buds and headphones I used for travelling for decades obsolete.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

As a general rule I avoid being trapped by prejudice and stereotypes by inserting the word "some".

"X are Y" becomes "some X are Y". Which means some X are not Y. Which means I have to make a call case by case.

 

[Ropeburn]

Don't forget also the lack of SD card slot on newer phones so if you want to have all your documents, music or phones with you you need to rent some cloud service.

Not to mention cloud services and streaming etc. use a shitton of energy for a given task, compared to a phone (=5W computer) playing the very same thing from its local storage.

All the internet infrastructure combined, datacenters and routing and distribution etc., is the biggest consumer of electrical energy on the planet. Last time I checked, "the internet" as a worldwide system consumes 12-13% of the total electricity production of mankind. Likely it's even more today.

 

[AdrianusG]

Not to mention cloud services and streaming etc. use a shitton of energy for a given task, compared to a phone (=5W computer) playing the very same thing from its local storage.

All the internet infrastructure combined, datacenters and routing and distribution etc., is the biggest consumer of electrical energy on the planet. Last time I checked, "the internet" as a worldwide system consumes 12-13% of the total electricity production of mankind. Likely it's even more today.

And it will only go up!

 

[manisandher]

For me, it's switch mode power supplies. I swear I can hear their effect on the sound. As a result, I won't let them anywhere near my 'pure' system at home.

They're everywhere in my office system though... which I have playing in the background all day (when there)... and which sounds absolutely sublime to me, and everyone else who's heard it.

Are all prejudices irrational, by definition?

 

[Ropeburn]

For me, it's switch mode power supplies. I swear I can hear their effect on the sound. As a result, I won't let them anywhere near my 'pure' system at home.

They're everywhere in my office system though... which I have playing in the background all day (when there)... and which sounds absolutely sublime to me, and everyone else who's heard it.

Are all prejudices irrational, by definition?

Not all of them, but the overwhelming majority is. By definition, a prejudice is literally a "pre-judgement", a judgement without having objective data. A very few of them will be right, but rarely so.

 

[manisandher]

Not all of them, but the overwhelming majority is. By definition, a prejudice is literally a "pre-judgement", a judgement without having objective data. A very few of them will be right, but rarely so.

It was kind of a rhetorical question . But you're bang on, of course.

FWIW, here's ChatGPT 4.5's answer:

"Not necessarily. Prejudice, by definition, involves pre-judging something or someone based on incomplete or insufficient evidence. While most prejudices are indeed irrational, because they rely on assumptions, stereotypes, or biases rather than objective facts, it's important to distinguish between irrational prejudice and rational precaution.

• Irrational prejudices are beliefs formed without justification, usually stemming from stereotypes, emotional biases, or misinformation. These prejudices often persist even in the face of contradictory evidence, making them inherently irrational.
• Rational prejudgments or assumptions, however, can sometimes be based on relevant experience, statistical evidence, or logical inference. For instance, quickly forming an initial impression (pre-judgment) about safety when entering a visibly unsafe neighborhood at night could be rational if it's based on reliable data or direct knowledge.

However, because the term "prejudice" carries a strong negative connotation—usually implying bias, unfairness, or unjustified judgment—it's typically understood as irrational or unfair by definition. Rational forms of judgment or caution are typically described using terms like "informed assumption," "probability-based judgment," or "heuristics," rather than prejudice.

Therefore, while prejudices as commonly understood are irrational by default, the broader concept of forming judgments with incomplete information isn't necessarily irrational. The key lies in examining the quality of the evidence and reasoning behind the judgment."

 

[mhardy6647]

I'm prejudiced against anyone who says "Your system is not resolving enough".

ahh, the old emperor has no clothes gambit.

As a general rule I avoid being trapped by prejudice and stereotypes by inserting the word "some".

"X are Y" becomes "some X are Y". Which means some X are not Y. Which means I have to make a call case by case.

well, I am sure that's true for some stereotypes and prejudices.

 

[Ropeburn]

It was kind of a rhetorical question . But you're bang on, of course.

FWIW, here's ChatGPT 4.5's answer:

"Not necessarily. Prejudice, by definition, involves pre-judging something or someone based on incomplete or insufficient evidence. While most prejudices are indeed irrational, because they rely on assumptions, stereotypes, or biases rather than objective facts, it's important to distinguish between irrational prejudice and rational precaution.

• Irrational prejudices are beliefs formed without justification, usually stemming from stereotypes, emotional biases, or misinformation. These prejudices often persist even in the face of contradictory evidence, making them inherently irrational.
• Rational prejudgments or assumptions, however, can sometimes be based on relevant experience, statistical evidence, or logical inference. For instance, quickly forming an initial impression (pre-judgment) about safety when entering a visibly unsafe neighborhood at night could be rational if it's based on reliable data or direct knowledge.

However, because the term "prejudice" carries a strong negative connotation—usually implying bias, unfairness, or unjustified judgment—it's typically understood as irrational or unfair by definition. Rational forms of judgment or caution are typically described using terms like "informed assumption," "probability-based judgment," or "heuristics," rather than prejudice.

Therefore, while prejudices as commonly understood are irrational by default, the broader concept of forming judgments with incomplete information isn't necessarily irrational. The key lies in examining the quality of the evidence and reasoning behind the judgment."

IIRC, it was Jared Diamond - anthropologist and author - who coined the term "constructive paranoia" when researching and describing various human behaviour patterns on remote, isolated tribes. An example he gave was of a tropical tribe having a traditional saying "don't sleep under trees". This could be just a prejudice - sleeping under trees is dangerous - but it turned out surprisingly rational. Trees age and branches fall down and eventually the whole tree does, and if the chance of that is 1/10000 per night, if you sleep under a tree all the time, statistically you're going to be smashed dead by falling stuff after 30 years of doing so. So the prejudice actually saves lives.

To loop back on topic, an audio example would be "small speakers don't do deep bass". Generally that's true, but there are tricks and methods to make them do it. Long excursion drivers, crossover and DSP trickery, various porting methods, sacrificing maximum volume and sensitivity for extension, you name it. The latter would be the exceptions, all the while the main prejudice still stands and is largely true - but not all the time. It's important to recognise the exceptions.

It's rooted in objective data and physics, but still a prejudice until you know the relevant data about a given speaker system.

Overall prejudices acquired by tradition serve an important function, that is making the world easier to navigate. Most of the time, we don't have all the data and have to rely on simple rules for making quick judgements, it's simply how our brains work. It's just important to "keep an open mind" and be ready to revise and change those inner rules when more data becomes available. This requires a high amount of mental discipline and intellectual uprightness, which not everyone posseses.

 

[manisandher]

This requires a high amount of mental discipline and intellectual uprightness, which not everyone posseses.

Yeah, but switch mode power supplies are still the work of the devil .

 

[Ropeburn]

Yeah, but switch mode power supplies are still the work of the devil .

Let alone switching amplifiers! Those are surely even worse with their dreaded digitalness.

 

[mhardy6647]

Yeah, but switch mode power supplies are still the work of the devil .

Let alone switching amplifiers! Those are surely even worse with their dreaded digitalness.

Hmm...
I suppose that if one hooks a switch mode power supply to power a Class D amplifier but accidentally reverses the connections:
1) the output to the loudspeakers will be absolute silence.
2) the source component on the amp's input side will explode, with a massive conflagration.

Why, yes, I am a master logician. How could you tell?