• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

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

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,195
Likes
11,808
Some of these "cultists" (for lack of a better word)

How about “enthusiasts” or “fans” or just: “some of these audiophiles?”

The tendency to cast others who have a different point of view or enthusiasm as being in a “cult” is one of the more wearying and pernicious features of current public discourse.

ASR members rightly roll their eyes at being called cultists. I don’t think it helps to contribute to this manner of characterization.
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,952
Likes
8,698
Location
New York City
Could you point us to properly collected data like large sample size double blind tests involving experienced listeners which supports that claim?
I can imagine that could well be the case if you include components and speakers with quite bad measurements [especially speakers] but would be very surprised if you could do it with ones that are slightly bad.And how would you decide and define what was good and what was slightly bad?
And even then you would be quoting an average trend and not specific products which might be an exception.Like some high end valve amps or SS amps which are reputed to sound excellent that might not measure very well.Something like a Dartzeel NHB 108 power amp for example which uses no negtaive feedback so does not measure as well as many other SS amps.
@SIY responds to your question on the positive existence of engineering studies. But you should also consider the many, many, blind tests where listeners largely cannot tell amplifiers apart. Start, if you like, with Stereo Review’s infamous blind amplifier test in 1987.


https://worldradiohistory.com/Archi...iFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf. (page 80 of the pdf).

Seems to me you are attempting a high-difficulty maneuver here: asserting audible differences that have not been established, while denying the existence of preference tests and engineering and audiology research with a long, long history. This is either willful, or shockingly ignorant.

Nobody here would argue that you can’t tell well-designed, properly—powered speakers apart, but substitute any electronic item for ’speakers’ in that sentence and you would get a lot of takers– given that “well-designed” encompasses linear FR and low distortion.
 

GXAlan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
3,868
Likes
5,954

That review is actually pretty good because it does reach statistical significance for conditions where we today know are limitations

A) tube preamp which would be the lowest common denominator (worst SINAD). Had they used a more transparent preamp, it might be easier?

B) Magnepan MG3a
speakers that I personally own. Magnepans are famous for being a resistive load which results in minimal challenge to the amplifiers.

It also shows that the differences are small. (Effect size).

Time and time again, the best place to put money is your room and speakers and source (the actual media; mastering quality). Electronics are easier to fiddle with than room and speakers but the differences are less.
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,952
Likes
8,698
Location
New York City
That review is actually pretty good because it does reach statistical significance for conditions where we today know are limitations

A) tube preamp which would be the lowest common denominator (worst SINAD). Had they used a more transparent preamp, it might be easier?

B) Magnepan MG3a
speakers that I personally own. Magnepans are famous for being a resistive load which results in minimal challenge to the amplifiers.

It also shows that the differences are small. (Effect size).

Time and time again, the best place to put money is your room and speakers and source (the actual media; mastering quality). Electronics are easier to fiddle with than room and speakers but the differences are less.
I used to have those speakers. I think the ribbon tweeters created a bit more challenge, if I remember correctly.

This test did not convince me, entirely, but it was sort of my gateway out of the nonsense. Honestly, prior to that, I didn’t really understand how completely full of shit the industry was.

Then the cable craze came and the emperor was proudly undressed in public.
 

GXAlan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
3,868
Likes
5,954
I used to have those speakers. I think the ribbon tweeters created a bit more challenge, if I remember correctly.

Not really. The 3.6R is effectively the same as the IIIA in the ribbon area and you can see that it’s a very easy load. A tiny bit below 4 ohms but you’re not dealing with a lot of watts.

1662923657614.jpeg
 

jtgofish

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2021
Messages
130
Likes
72
The adjectives "good" and "best" don't mean anything specific. They are not quantifiable. Subjectively, "good" to you might be "bad" to me or someone else.

Modern electronics, including CD players and DACs, which are designed and manufactured competently, do not have a "sound". IOW, they neither sound good nor bad. They simply pass the signal on to the amp or speakers ..... accurately
.
This is not to say that there are no electronics that exhibit inaccurate characteristics. There certainly are. Some manufacturers pander to these audiophiles, producing units that have an inaccurate sound that some people find pleasing. Some of these audiophiles find accurate electronics (and more accurate speakers) to sound "bad". There is really nothing wrong with that ...... as long as the units that perform less accurately are not touted as being more accurate, and especially as more accurate for people other than the original listener. Some people have been known to do that. Everyone has their own goal; for some it is accuracy and for others it is ..... something else.

Other electronic units are designed poorly, due to various factors including cost restrictions and, possibly, lack of integrity. The units you cited would certainly not be in that category.

Regarding the Hi-Fi Choice tests: one of the problems with listening tests is that they MIGHT not be conducted under conditions of rigorous control. If it's true that there were no controls other than a cloth screen for the magazine tests, then the results of the test would be highly questionable. Care in setting up a double-blind test for an owner, in their own home, is even more critical. All cues as to the identity of the DUT need to be eliminated, and that may be more difficult in an owner's home than it is in a room where reviewers audition unknown devices.


Jim
Yes I agree that tests and comparisons done outside of a familiar acoustic environment using unfamiliar speakers are pretty pointless.That especially applies to areas of performance like imaging.The influential fundamental being the speakers,their electrical behaviour, and how they react with the room and that will rarely be neutral or have a perfectly flat response.So you have to select sources and electronics that compliment those room acoustics and speakers. A high damping factor amplifier with a very flat frequency response might be what is required or it might be the last thing you need.
Which puts into context this quote-"I then have to conclude that in terms of helping me decide which component is to my preference I can't trust measurements"

At least under the Hi Fi Choice tests the room was familiar to the listening panel.
 
Last edited:

Emlin

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Messages
748
Likes
1,047
Yes I agree that tests and comparisons done outside of a familiar acoustic environment using familiar speakers are pretty pointless.That especially applies to areas of performance like imaging.The influential fundamental being the speakers,their electrical behaviour, and how they react with the room and that will rarely be neutral or have a perfectly flat response.So you have to select sources and electronics that compliment those room acoustics and speakers. A high damping factor amplifier with a very flat frequency response might be what is required or it might be the last thing you need.
Which puts into context this quote-"I then have to conclude that in terms of helping me decide which component is to my preference I can't trust measurements"
Bollocks.
 

jtgofish

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2021
Messages
130
Likes
72
Last edited:

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,625
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
What is like to live an anechoic chamber?I have heard it can be a bit unsettling.

This isn't going to be productive, so that's enough for you in this thread.
 

Mnyb

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
2,641
Likes
3,616
Location
Sweden, Västerås
How can a fully transparent source with inaudible contribution "compliment those room acoustics and speakers" .

The deviations that rooms and speakers have are big deviations in electronics are small (or non existent ) they are not of the same magnitude , so this approach cant work anyway .

Hopefully no one has a source with 10dB ripples in the bass under 200hz or similar ?

Its further impossible in that your source cant know the distances involved and know when the deviations are unimportant due to pshychoacoustics .

Unless its an actual room acoustical EQ system :)
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,211
So you think some slight highlighting or embellishment and deviation "strictly accurate"might be lead to greater enjoyment and appreciation?
That is a pretty radical concept. Except of course it isn't!
Except of course it has been tested….and didn’t pass the test.

Please purchase and read Sound Reproduction by Dr Floyd Toole, then come back and post less uneducated views.

cheers
 

GXAlan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
3,868
Likes
5,954
Except of course it has been tested….and didn’t pass the test.

Please purchase and read Sound Reproduction by Dr Floyd Toole, then come back and post less uneducated views.

cheers

@jtgofish is actually correct. (As is Dr. Toole). The latest Harman data provides STRONG evidence that slight embellishment can enhance preference, particularly in the real of BASS content. The published papers were for headphones but Sean Olive confirms on his personal blog that they saw the same trend with loudspeakers (that wasn't published).


1662991926201.png
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,211
Even the earliest Toole data says that we need to adjust bass levels to taste. Nothing new in that. But outside the bass….

Also remember that our thread-banned friend went on to say that the embellishments he is talkiing about go far beyond FR…(cue theremin music)….
 

killdozzer

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
1,615
Likes
1,628
Location
Zagreb
@jtgofish is actually correct. (As is Dr. Toole). The latest Harman data provides STRONG evidence that slight embellishment can enhance preference, particularly in the real of BASS content. The published papers were for headphones but Sean Olive confirms on his personal blog that they saw the same trend with loudspeakers (that wasn't published).


View attachment 230384
Aaaah, you see, even that doesn't show the entire picture. Toole has recommended a slight increase in bass for a long time, but he still advocates FFR because slight increase in bass will differ from room to room depending on the in room response. Increasing it in the start might over stress bass in LF reinforcing rooms.
 

Dimitrov

Active Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
140
Likes
43
Blind testing makes very little sense because how and why should we rely on insights gained with blind testing when 99.9% of people listen to equipment not only with their auditory sense but also look at equipment, think of what they paid for it, they might unconsciously find the brand aspirational.

Blind testing also ignores the growing evidence that our senses are intricately linked - so a thick red cable can perhaps sound better than a blue one.
 

Emlin

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Messages
748
Likes
1,047
Blind testing makes very little sense because how and why should we rely on insights gained with blind testing when 99.9% of people listen to equipment not only with their auditory sense but also look at equipment, think of what they paid for it, they might unconsciously find the brand aspirational.

Blind testing also ignores the growing evidence that our senses are intricately linked - so a thick red cable can perhaps sound better than a blue one.
You've just given the reasons why blind testing is so important.
 

pkane

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
5,632
Likes
10,205
Location
North-East
Blind testing also ignores the growing evidence that our senses are intricately linked - so a thick red cable can perhaps sound better than a blue one.

Some of us chose the red pill (I'd say the majority here), others stay with the blue. Blue is fine, as long as you realize you're in a matrix and are making a conscious choice to ignore reality. It's those who are unaware of their reality that should at least be given a chance to choose. Think of ASR as the offer of a red pill -- you decide if you want to take it ;)
 
Top Bottom