The audiophile mindset

[Mart68]

One interesting observation in the post is that even a perceived improvement is an improvement, even if it has no factual backing.
Since we have this hobby for pleasure, I believe there is some merit in this observation.

Trouble with this is that if nothing in the sound has changed in reality, then you come back to listen again the next day and the improvement you noticed yesterday when you added whatever it was has vanished like the morning dew. Assuming, of course, that you're not really, really good at kidding yourself on.

 

[audio2design]

Yea, I agree with you. But do you act like you're an expert on things you know nothing about? It takes a disfunctional level of arrogance to do that. It's a shame because I'd love to help people understand.

Is it okay if I sometimes do it for sport just to see if I can get away with it? ...

 

[Rip City Dave]

Imagine if audiophiles were in charge of creating the COVID vaccine. We'd end up with Forsythia.

Science is true weather you believe it or not.

 

[egellings]

Imbued, not imbibed.

 

[Gorgonzola]

It seems the OP was talking about an audiophile mindset specifically around bit depth and sampling rate. Well it's true the many audiophiles have insisted on the superiority of >16/44.1 going back to the earliest times the higher rates were beginning to become widely available.

I consider myself a audiophile but since experiencing SACD soon after its introduction, I concluded that quality of the recording and mastering were far more important than the sampling rate or bit depth, (on the distributed medium), in determining the quality of the recording.

Regarding SACD vs. "Red Book" a confounding factor was often, IMO, that the recording & mastering were done with special care specifically for the purpose creating demonstrations of the new medium. However I soon observed the 16/44.1 down-sampled versions from the same masters were also excellent sounding and, in fact, essentially identical to the SACD versions.

I am well aware that the limit of human hearing is for the vast majority of people -- and in fact everyone of mid-age or older -- under 20 kHz. In my case, at my age, it's somewhere under 10 kHz.

 

[audio2design]

It seems the OP was talking about an audiophile mindset specifically around bit depth and sampling rate.

I think he was talking about general ignorance (since he brought up vinyl) w.r.t. digital audio / analog audio (and probably had in the back of his mind 10 other topics some audiophiles get wrong).

 

[Kegemusha]

Shun Mooks Diamond Resonator!? what a name, is like from a Kurosawa movie. Very cheap!

 

[Gorgonzola]

I think he was talking about general ignorance (since he brought up vinyl) w.r.t. digital audio / analog audio (and probably had in the back of his mind 10 other topics some audiophiles get wrong).

Perhaps, although he specifically mention the bit depth/sampling rate issue.

In my long observation of hardcore audiophiles they are willfully ignorant; at least they reject measurements and objective evidence in generally. Their maxim is "Believe your ears", which is a totally subjectivist argument. However I'm not sure it was always such, (going back as far as I do).

It seems to me there was a trend back to tube gear from solid state going back to the mid-'70's that picked up speed in the '80's. This trend was founded, IMHO, on the experience that solid state equipment that measured well, (by the methods & standards of the era), frequently didn't sound good. (I've had my own experience of that phenomenon.) To be sure, much S/S equipment today measures much better than anything in the '70's, (e.g. Hypex and Purifi modules).

I think we are still struggling to understand how perceived good sound correlates with measurements -- as I believe it does contrary to the "Differences are all in your head" crowd.

 

[audio2design]

I think we are still struggling to understand how perceived good sound correlates with measurements -- as I believe it does contrary to the "Differences are all in your head" crowd.

Accurate does not equal preferred, especially if you are approximately 55-60+ and raised mostly on vinyl. Most younger people are not as enamoured of the sound of vinyl, but like the nostalgia. Harks to simpler times.

The problem is "my ears" crowd often interprets preference for accuracy and does not realize that what they like is not the accuracy but all the euphonic distortion.

What the other side of the coin does not realize, is that what can technically be called euphonic does not necessarily result in less accuracy once it reaches the brain. Take low levels of noise. Think of that once it get to the ear. Let me call it by a different name. Dithering. Noise can increase the ability to detect low level signals, even in what is thought to be an analog system (the ear/brain), but it really is not. Fuzzy threshold detectors are in many ways more akin to digital. Take crosstalk on vinyl. Seems bad. What is you have an acoustically bad space (most audiophiles), not to mention the 60 degree angle is a trade off between imaging and stable center image ... does crosstalk help stabilize the center image? Even here on ASR, a lot of people who know a lot, don't know what they don't know.

 

[puppet]

Maybe it's just our creativity taken over by passion. How 10 people can view a painting and see 10 different things that speak to each of them. Problems start when they can't let go of the fact that others don't see what they see. ... but that's art. Have segments of science become artistic "fair game"? A melding? Appears so.

 

[audio2design]

Maybe it's just our creativity taken over by passion. How 10 people can view a painting and see 10 different things that speak to each of them. Problems start when they can't let go of the fact that others don't see what they see. ... but that's art. Have segments of science become artistic "fair game"? A melding? Appears so.

Fair game only to those that don't understand the science.

The analogy would be more accurate if they were viewing a photograph of the painting and arguing over the HDMI cable to their monitor and what power cord their monitor is using.

 

[pkane]

Shun Mooks Diamond Resonator!? what a name, is like from a Kurosawa movie. Very cheap!View attachment 129373

What a bargain! Too bad it's out of stock.

 

[krabapple]

So I'm arguing, for some bad reason, hardcore subjective audiophiles(phools) on SHF

I see your problem right there.

 

[MarkS]

The problem is "my ears" crowd often interprets preference for accuracy and does not realize that what they like is not the accuracy but all the euphonic distortion.

I have no problem with someone preferring "euphonic distortion". I would even argue that the Toole-approved preference for wide directivity is a preference for euphonic distortion.

And I have no problem with "trust your ears". Absolutely, everyone should do that.

But the vast majority of audiophiles do NOT "trust their ears". They trust their eyes, and recommendations from others.

People who truly "trust their ears" listen BLIND, and determine whether or not they can HEAR a difference a particular component makes BEFORE they buy it.

Anyone who listens sighted is most definitely not "trusting their ears".

 

[Blaspheme]

You don't really have to listen blind to hear a difference between speakers. You may have to do so to eliminate bias toward visual aesthetics, brand cachet, etc. Which is what you are saying, I assume.

Can you briefly expand on the wide directivity euphonic preference comment? I know it's a bit tangential, but interesting ...

 

[Wes]

I edited my post. Maybe it will make more sense?

Didn't see your 1st post so I am unable to conduct a blind test of them.

BTW, what is SHF?

 

[Jim Matthews]

Aka being at the peak of Mount Stupid

I resemble that remark.

 

[AdamG]

Didn't see your 1st post so I am unable to conduct a blind test of them.

BTW, what is SHF?

Think you quoted the wrong person maybe?

 

[Wes]

No, yours - I cannot conduct a blind test of your 2 posts.

 

[MarkS]

You don't really have to listen blind to hear a difference between speakers. You may have to do so to eliminate bias toward visual aesthetics, brand cachet, etc. Which is what you are saying, I assume.

I was thinking more of eliminating sighted bias for components that very likely have no audible effect: cables, SS amps, etc. The vast majority of audiophiles believe, incorrectly, that these do change the physical sound arriving at their ears.

Can you briefly expand on the wide directivity euphonic preference comment? I know it's a bit tangential, but interesting ...

Many discussions of that at ASR, here's one:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nt-wide-vs-narrow-directivity-and-more.15171/
My point is that room reflections often enhance the listening experience, but "what's on the recording" is all in the first-arrival sound, any later reflections can be considered distortion.