Repentant subjectivist
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2021
- Messages
- 25
- Likes
- 74
Hello everyone. I got into the audiophile hobby in early 2017.
I am a former subjectivist that staunchly argued about how blind testing "couldn't be trusted". I was convinced that the more money I threw at the gear, the better it would sound. I was convinced that some dac, amp and headphone combinations would create unique, magical results where the personality trait of each component had to be matched delicately to get the best results.
I became obsessed, going from focusing on the next headphone, to "upgrading" every part of my chain - from a pair of 200$ hi-fi earbuds to a rig consisting of Stax SR-007 via a SRM-727II amp, Gustard x20 Pro DAC, schiit eitr converter, usb jitterbug. I paid for Tidal Hi-Fi via ROON bitperfect streaming, and made sure all my cables were audioquest.
I had some "close calls" where I was very close to knowing the truth. Alas, it wasn't until 2019 I understood how wrong I was. Here are some of those close calls:
- Once when I was talking to an engineer that sold homemade headphone amplifiers, and I asked him about pairing with my current headphones, whether they would sound "dark" or "bright" or something like that. He gave me an answer that sounded something like this: "Well, I cannot comment on the sound. What I will say is that it will amplify the signal of any headphone on the market today through its 4 gain stages. The headphones in question can easily be driven by this amplifier. This amp has a low noise floor etc etc". I thought it was strange how he gave me that sort of answer, without "bragging" more about what his product could do. I figured he just didn't understand anything about audiophile listening.
- I switched my rig from my living room with a laptop to my desktop solution in my office, and I remember noticing that the sound was clearly better on my desktop. But I couldn't understand why - I mean, everything was identical, from the software to the hardware components except the laptop vs desktop, and I saw no reason why that would play a difference. I was likely responding to the more engaging seating position, or the large wide screen monitor vs the small laptop monitor or something similar. At the time, I just put it down to one of audios many unsolved mysteries
- When I got heavy into Stax equipment, I got to know of some "legendary" amplifiers that were supposed to completely change the sound signature of the headphones - namely the Mjolnir Carbon amplifier and/or the Blue Hawaii Special Edition. Evidently, the headphones I owned didn't really "shine" until they were matched with this specific equipment, costing around 6,000$ USD. I asked around with someone more technically inclined which said that my amp should be able to drive my headphones - and I thought it sounded amazing. Further, I was confused on how the amplifier could literally change the entire character of the headphone. I mean, I could at the time definitely believed that the "bass became fuller, the soundstage wider and the imaging more precise", however the owners of said amps said that the headphone basically went from being a bit dark sounding to essentially perfectly neutral and perfect in all ways. Beyond that, there was an even more expensive and legendary amplifier from Stax called the T2 which nobody could get their hands on except a DIY model, costing well over 10,000$. And guess what - the owners of that amp said it sounded EVEN BETTER.
One day, I decided to sell my 007. While shopping for a replacment, I realized that I actually prefered the sound of a cheaper electrostat, the SR-L500. I was shocked, because I was sure that when I got the 007, it was at least 10 times as good as anything I had ever heard before, yet here I was downgrading to a way cheaper model, and I couldn't say one was objectively better than the other. From there, I decided to stop rationalizing and accept a more scientific approach. Of course, the entire hobby I had known was shattered - most of what was being talked about on Head-Fi and SBAF were results of psychological effects that had nothing to do with actual sound.
Nowadays, I find it extremely creepy to browse head-fi and SBAF - it is as if there are huge amount of people being put under a spell. I always figured I was rational and wouldn't be fooled, but I was completely wrong. And I was so convinced too, I would probably go on live television defending the honor of audiophiles if I was asked to. I am embarassed, however I find it cathartic to read about sane people dismantling audiophile bullshit. So I decided to make a user on these forums, which seems to be more... enlightened.
I hope this thread isn't posted in the wrong sub-forum. I also hope that any other reformed subjectivists could share their story of how they were once fooled into believing that what was only psychological effects was legitimate differences in audio fidelity.
I am a former subjectivist that staunchly argued about how blind testing "couldn't be trusted". I was convinced that the more money I threw at the gear, the better it would sound. I was convinced that some dac, amp and headphone combinations would create unique, magical results where the personality trait of each component had to be matched delicately to get the best results.
I became obsessed, going from focusing on the next headphone, to "upgrading" every part of my chain - from a pair of 200$ hi-fi earbuds to a rig consisting of Stax SR-007 via a SRM-727II amp, Gustard x20 Pro DAC, schiit eitr converter, usb jitterbug. I paid for Tidal Hi-Fi via ROON bitperfect streaming, and made sure all my cables were audioquest.
I had some "close calls" where I was very close to knowing the truth. Alas, it wasn't until 2019 I understood how wrong I was. Here are some of those close calls:
- Once when I was talking to an engineer that sold homemade headphone amplifiers, and I asked him about pairing with my current headphones, whether they would sound "dark" or "bright" or something like that. He gave me an answer that sounded something like this: "Well, I cannot comment on the sound. What I will say is that it will amplify the signal of any headphone on the market today through its 4 gain stages. The headphones in question can easily be driven by this amplifier. This amp has a low noise floor etc etc". I thought it was strange how he gave me that sort of answer, without "bragging" more about what his product could do. I figured he just didn't understand anything about audiophile listening.
- I switched my rig from my living room with a laptop to my desktop solution in my office, and I remember noticing that the sound was clearly better on my desktop. But I couldn't understand why - I mean, everything was identical, from the software to the hardware components except the laptop vs desktop, and I saw no reason why that would play a difference. I was likely responding to the more engaging seating position, or the large wide screen monitor vs the small laptop monitor or something similar. At the time, I just put it down to one of audios many unsolved mysteries
- When I got heavy into Stax equipment, I got to know of some "legendary" amplifiers that were supposed to completely change the sound signature of the headphones - namely the Mjolnir Carbon amplifier and/or the Blue Hawaii Special Edition. Evidently, the headphones I owned didn't really "shine" until they were matched with this specific equipment, costing around 6,000$ USD. I asked around with someone more technically inclined which said that my amp should be able to drive my headphones - and I thought it sounded amazing. Further, I was confused on how the amplifier could literally change the entire character of the headphone. I mean, I could at the time definitely believed that the "bass became fuller, the soundstage wider and the imaging more precise", however the owners of said amps said that the headphone basically went from being a bit dark sounding to essentially perfectly neutral and perfect in all ways. Beyond that, there was an even more expensive and legendary amplifier from Stax called the T2 which nobody could get their hands on except a DIY model, costing well over 10,000$. And guess what - the owners of that amp said it sounded EVEN BETTER.
One day, I decided to sell my 007. While shopping for a replacment, I realized that I actually prefered the sound of a cheaper electrostat, the SR-L500. I was shocked, because I was sure that when I got the 007, it was at least 10 times as good as anything I had ever heard before, yet here I was downgrading to a way cheaper model, and I couldn't say one was objectively better than the other. From there, I decided to stop rationalizing and accept a more scientific approach. Of course, the entire hobby I had known was shattered - most of what was being talked about on Head-Fi and SBAF were results of psychological effects that had nothing to do with actual sound.
Nowadays, I find it extremely creepy to browse head-fi and SBAF - it is as if there are huge amount of people being put under a spell. I always figured I was rational and wouldn't be fooled, but I was completely wrong. And I was so convinced too, I would probably go on live television defending the honor of audiophiles if I was asked to. I am embarassed, however I find it cathartic to read about sane people dismantling audiophile bullshit. So I decided to make a user on these forums, which seems to be more... enlightened.
I hope this thread isn't posted in the wrong sub-forum. I also hope that any other reformed subjectivists could share their story of how they were once fooled into believing that what was only psychological effects was legitimate differences in audio fidelity.