Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[Roderik]

Hello friend. Hey, listen...we know how it is. Believe me, most of us have been there too. You've spent years toiling in the muck of audiophilia. You read ALL the reviews. You watched ALL the youtube videos. You visited ALL the other forums where everything always makes a difference. You bought the cables and the little bridge thingies for them to sit upon and the benefits were magical. You bought the $1000 IEMs that only truly sang after 250 hours of burn-in. Not 200 hours...or 225 hours, but 250 hours! It must be that for the magic to appear! You converted your entire music library to super high res and enjoyed the blissful new details that never were revealed by the awful, cludgy mess that was 16/44 cd. Never have your ears been assaulted by the likes of bluetooth audio or lossy mp3! You searched endlessly for the perfect dac...the dac that truly brought the magic! You bought one after another, each more expensive than the last, searching for the one, true dac that sounded better than all the rest...

And then you arrived here...and posted about your dac discovery, and were told that a dac shouldn't sound like anything at all! Suddenly your audio reality came crashing down around you. How can this be? Why shouldn't a dac sound great?? Why would expensive dacs even exist if they all sound the same??? Wounded, you lash out angrily! It's idiocy! It's retarded! These people have dead ears! It hurts. We understand. It's been a long time and you've spent a lot of money, all for naught. But once the pain diminishes and you've had time to deal with your emotions just give it some thought. Do some reading here and once your ban is lifted, maybe ask a few questions. Instead of locking your eyes shut against the bright light of objectivity...just open them up a little. Just a squint! Let a bit of that light in and bask in a warm, tubey glow that actually means something! Perhaps, as with many of us, a weight will begin to lift off your shoulders. Perhaps there is freedom in this new reality! You might discover that there is a different way...a way that wields real magic. A way that actually answers questions and reveals truth while at the same time leaving your wallet fat and happy! Welcome my friend. Welcome to ASR where the truth shall set you free!

Bravo.

 

[krabapple]

I'm a chatbot because no brain? You're a bot because you've got no heart. Emotions and subjectivity is a big no-no to you, ooooo. Look, it's you:


View attachment 324660

I always liked that guy.

But chatbot, you persist in sidestepping the role of bias in perceiving audio and the role of controls in Science's investigation of how we judge audio. We're on Audio Science Review, after all.

Maybe you just don't care about Audio Science, even though you seem to think you know a lot about it.

If so, there's an Audio Asylum waiting for you. Plenty of chatter about how happy or sad a cable's sound makes you feel, there.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Our ears colour it anyway, might as well jive with it. That's called, liking what you hear.

Had not looked in on this for a few days. Same issue. You are assuming if your ear/brain is non-flat or colors the sound, that doubling up on the coloration will make it even better. There is no reason to think that. If doubling up on coloration works, then why not triple or quadruple it? Or why not compensate for the coloration do minimize it? Jiving with coloration has no automatic guarantee that the listener would prefer it. That is an unsupported supposition that your hearing is non-flat to make you like sounds better.

 

[krabapple]

This troll is here in bad faith. Ignore him.

Aren't Moderators here to toss out faith that's gone bad?

 

[kemmler3D]

It's OK to be happy for somebody that has different beliefs as long as they don't infringe on others.

My opinion: The unchecked posting of "this cable made my headphones have much cleaner bass" and similar fantasy-opinions is extremely destructive to the audio industry, and ultimately its customers.

So ultimately subjective fantasies about what gear does, publicly shared, do infringe on others, at least in the aggregate.

Imagine if all the millions spent on fancy cables had gone to a good speaker manufacturer and got rolled into R&D instead.

Imagine "audiophile" wasn't an epithet used to refer to loony old techno-superstitious men with too much money and not enough sense? What if it was still regarded as a hobby that anyone could get involved with, enjoy, and learn from?

Imagine if EVERYONE demanded good measurements from manufacturers, not just a few of us cranks in one corner of the internet?

Maybe it's not Timmy's fault that he got taken in by snake oil salesmen, but once he starts repeating their bogus claims, timmy is now spreading lies himself. He's directly reinforcing this culture where people believe in magic electronics whenever music is involved, but not at any other time.

For the sake of others not yet fleeced, even inadvertent lies should be called out.

Frankly, the belief in magic in the audio world is so far beyond stupid, it's weird that we even need to discuss it. There is no reasonable doubt that well over 99% of people saying they heard differnces in DACs, cables, etc. are just experiencing cognitive bias of some kind. These biases are trivial to create, measure, and even experience yourself. And yet most people "in the hobby" get violently angry when confronted with this extremely, EXTREMELY common phenomenon in listening. They deny entire fields of science but accept the very same science in other contexts. It's no different than flat earthers. Why should anyone put up with it?

 

[krabapple]

Nothing wrong in faith, you can't measure what another person hears.

You can do this:

Make sure X is connected but Y only *looks* connected (it isn't). Play X for the person. Play Y for the person (but you're really just playing X again). Ask them which sounds better. Science can tell you which one they are more likely to pick. Because many people will think one sounds better than the other.

What does this tell us, chatbot, about what a person 'hears'?

 

[Deleted member 21219]

I do understand challenging any manufacturer or salesman for their claims, but if a consumer on 'one of those other forums' posts their happiness on the beautiful sound their new upgrade made why would I want to crap all over his happy day? If soo much of the listening experience is the placebo effect and he already spent the money I think i'd be a jerk to tell him different. It's OK to be happy for somebody that has different beliefs as long as they don't infringe on others.

Correct. As long as they enjoy their own happiness, everything is fine. The problem occurs when they post on other sites, telling people "what is and what isn't", and providing no proof. Yet they talk down to anyone who points this out, telling them that they "can't hear".

No one ... and I mean no one ... is criticized for enjoying whatever it is that they enjoy, be it sex, food .... or audio. It's when they proselytize (and proselytize without foundation) that the problems start.

Jim

 

[VQR]

You can do this:

Make sure X is connected but Y only *looks* connected (it isn't). Play X for the person. Play Y for the person (but you're really just playing X again). Ask them which sounds better. Science can tell you which one they are more likely to pick. Because many people will think one sounds better than the other.

What does this tell us, chatbot, about what a person 'hears'?

But that's unfair! How else can someone know what they're listening to other than by eyesight?!

 

[krabapple]

It's just confusion of causes and effects. People presented with A experience B, and assume A caused the effect B. But maybe C actually caused B. Science is about figuring out what the true cause is. There are obstacles that have to be worked around, to get there.

Chatbot keep asserting that because he hears different 'colours' with A and B, those colours must be an audible property of A and B. Instead, they could be just mental projections onto A and B, caused by something that isn't 'heard': The different price. The different color. The different reputation. The simple fact that they are two separate objects.

Chatbot's programming is closed to these possibilities, but Science must attend to them.

 

[kemmler3D]

You can do this:

Make sure X is connected but Y only *looks* connected (it isn't). Play X for the person. Play Y for the person (but you're really just playing X again). Ask them which sounds better. Science can tell you which one they are more likely to pick. Because many people will think one sounds better than the other.

What does this tell us, chatbot, about what a person 'hears'?

Indeed... people pretty much always hear a difference.

WHY they heard it is what we're interested in here, including if it's just because of something happening in the brain and nowhere else.

I have a background in audio marketing. I used to write a lot of marketing copy for speakers and headphones. As such, I can fully guarantee the outcome of a listening test like this if I'm allowed to talk to, or provide handouts to the test subjects.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Thanks. Yeah, that's why I invested into the QED cable that had a Zinc/Mn ferrite alloy, i read, it especially is good for high frequencies in the microwave range (in studies seperate to QED). It was worth the money for that especially.

Yes people, I spent extra money on cables where it was worth it... ooooo.

You don't necessarily need a well known HiFi brand. My gear is balanced, so I use Mogami microphone cable. But a good coax cable with high-quality shield (e.g. from Belden, Mogami etc.) might make a measurable improvement in your case.

 

[Timcognito]

You can do this:

Make sure X is connected but Y only *looks* connected (it isn't). Play X for the person. Play Y for the person (but you're really just playing X again). Ask them which sounds better. Science can tell you which one they are more likely to pick. Because many people will think one sounds better than the other.

What does this tell us, chatbot, about what a person 'hears'?

But that just demonstrates a placebo effect, but not what the auditory bounties are when there really is a difference. I believe Floyd Toole did such tests but I have not read his text thoroughly, so I will not comment on the results. There are levels where one with good hearing can distinguish audio quality from one recording or device verses another.

 

[Newman]

there's an Audio Asylum waiting for you. Plenty of chatter about how happy or sad a cable's sound makes you feel, there.

What a brilliant name they chose for their forum!

 

[kemmler3D]

that just demonstrates a placebo effect,

Right, but the existence and prevalence of placebo effect are NOT appreciated in the wider world of audio. So clearly establishing that it exists is still important.

I would say 9/10 self-described subjectivists are really not prepared to accept it applies to them, too.

If you want to go troll the subjectivist forums, you can do it all day by uploading two of the same audio clip, say they were made with different gear, and then ask them which they prefer. There will be at least as many responses saying they heard a big difference as saying they sound the same.

 

[AdamG]

Nothing wrong in faith, you can't measure what another person hears.

Sure you can. It’s done all the time by Audiologists and has been studied to considerable extent by Drs. Toole’s and Olive. But I get it you didn’t come here to learn you came here to troll. We have seen enough of your responses now and don’t need to prolong the process. Bye bye now….

 

[thecheapseats]

...We have seen enough of your responses now and don’t need to prolong the process. Bye bye now….

geez - finally, thank goodness... ...

 

[AdamG]

geez - finally, thank goodness... ...

Thanks go to @Jim Taylor as he pointed out the obvious Troll. I try to remain as far away from this thread as possible.

 

[DonR]

General, I mean, we are all generally the same.

Nope.

 

[tmtomh]

Sure you can. It’s done all the time by Audiologists and has been studied to considerable extent by Drs. Toole’s and Olive. But I get it you didn’t come here to learn you came here to troll. We have seen enough of your responses now and don’t need to prolong the process. Bye bye now….

Oh man, I missed all the fun.

Nothing wrong in faith, you can't measure what another person hears.

For what it's worth, I'm always struck not just by the silliness of this argument, but also by its futility and self-defeating quality. If everyone's unique ear shape colors the sound uniquely, then reviews and other subjective listening impressions are by definition meaningless and useless, because you can't use them to tell you what you'll hear.

Conversely, though, if you find a piece of gear that sounds good to you with your ears, then you can simply examine its measurements and seek out other/future gear that measures essentially the same, and you will be good to go.

So ironically, in Piggyback's fantasy world measurements are of far more use than subjective listening impressions - and measurements are useful for precisely the same reason, and in the same way, as most of us here at ASR say they are: they help explain what we hear and they provide scientific repeatability that enables us to achieve consistent performance based on consistent measurements.

I'll also add that arguments like Piggyback's never seem to be able to account for the fact that our listening experiences and perceptions change: the same gear playing the same music at the same volume in the same room can sound subtly (or sometimes not-so-subtly) different on different occasions. Since the room, music, and gear haven't changed, the sound coming out of the speakers must be the same. So if we have two different listening experiences, which one is the real one - the one that no one is supposed to question or cast doubt on?

 

[Robin L]

I believe it was Alvarado, in "High School Madness", who shouted out---"That's metaphysically absurd! How can I know what You hear?"