The root of audiophile myths (and how we fell for them)?

[Cote Dazur]

In fact, I am more often disappointed by my objective SOTA system than I am with my cheap earbuds because of the quality of the recordings

So true, it hurts, and funny enough not discussed that much here or anywhere else.
A better system, is a blessing and a curse, as not every recording looks better in a bright light. Like in life, some things/people look better in the shade and driving in a very sunny day is more comfortable with a good pair of dark sunglasses.

Some people find psychological comfort in heavy cables, others in numerical specifications...

Excellent point again, they are the same people, just a different god/religion, not an issue as long as they do not try to convert the people around you.

The roots of audio myths are planted in greed and ignorance, misreading technical specifications, but mostly in our quest for a better way to enjoy listening to music at home. Forum, like this one, paved with good intentions are not any better, ok maybe slightly better, than the stores, audio shows, etc... , all pretend to have an answer to something that does not exist. Those who are here for the journey, the quest of a "better" way, will/may enjoy the trip. Those who think their is a better way, are doomed to fail, as it does not take much to enjoy music at home, all you need is a brain and 2 ears and some music source.

Remembering, what device started my interest in music listening when I was 13, makes me smile, seeing the people around me listening to music on device that folks here or there would label as "garbage" make me smile.

So yes, the root of audio myth, really lies in the myth of audio nirvana/walhalla/paradise, it is all a myth, but I still enjoy the journey, as myth goes it is not a bad one to pursue.

 

[Mart68]

There are different levels of enjoyment though.

When my 50'' TV broke down I was reduced to watching a 13'' Sony Trinitron monitor. I still enjoyed watching TV but once I got a new 55'' screen I enjoyed it more.

Likewise when I was 18 I enjoyed listening to music on my Aiwa midi system. But I enjoy the same music much more on the system I have now.

I don't buy the idea that audio is a never-ending quest for satisfaction. Although at times I have come close to thinking it might be.

 

[Cote Dazur]

I don't buy the idea that audio is a never-ending quest for satisfaction

I agree, it is not "a never-ending quest for satisfaction", it is just a quest, you can stop at any point and decide you have reach your goal, or realize you already had your goal 30 years ago, or keep the quest because it brings you satisfaction. Has anyone demonstrated to you what the goal post looks like for you and would it be the same goal post for me or anyone else? Is the audio quest goal post the biggest myth, root of all the audio myth?
The quest is providing the satisfaction.

Your 50 inch tv example is a great example, I am glad you are enjoy it more. As long as all the extra details of the bigger screen and (probable) extra resolution showing the short comings of the broadcast you are watching is not distracting you from the message of what you are watching is trying to convey. Except if you are into studying details of images/video, but I find that I am touched by a movie or a documentary just as well on my tablet with headphones, that I am from my 55 " plasma with full blasted surround. For action movies from high resolution sources, I prefer the 55/full surround, Or even better, the local IMAX theater, but a good movie will touch me even on the back rest screen on a flight in a plane and a bad one will bore me at the IMAX.

 

[Loathecliff]

"Cool Clear Transistor Sound' - a euphemism for crossover distortion.

(You need to be of a mature age to remember that one. It's pre-Tiefenrollox)

 

[Mart68]

, but a good movie will touch me even on the back rest screen on a flight in a plane and a bad one will bore me at the IMAX.

you have the advantage on me there as I find those screens just too small to be able to keep my concentration on what's happening. I don't know how people are able to watch films on their telephones.

Mind you even as a young child I would sit about two feet away from the 18'' screen to watch Star Trek and such. 'You'll ruin your eyes!'

 

[Cote Dazur]

I don't know how people are able to watch films on their telephones.

So true, I don't know either how I can and others cannot LOL.
Some timeless masterpieces of cinematography, which still steer intense emotion in viewers today, were almost universally recognized even though at the time the viewing options where abysmal when judged with quantitative video measurements, not even having colour, some not even having words.
I believe we can gap any "defect" in the audio and video reproduction chain to get the emotion we are seeking for, if the emotion is there to start with and that todays state of the art is merely tomorrows archaic junk, such is the immensity of the gap, between real and reproduced today. Without the brain leap of faith, closing the gap, it is all fake and we know it. I guess, some of us can close the gap more easily.

 

[Vacceo]

I don't buy the idea that audio is a never-ending quest for satisfaction. Although at times I have come close to thinking it might be.

Life is a doomed quest for satisfaction. We love the desire, not the fulfilling of the desire.

That is what feeds the audiophile myth. There are objective tops of sound perception for humans depending on elements such as age, hearing health and what the gear delivers.

There are, however, no tops on what we humans desire.

 

[freemansteve]

So true, I don't know either how I can and others cannot LOL.
Some timeless masterpieces of cinematography, which still steer intense emotion in viewers today, were almost universally recognized even though at the time the viewing options where abysmal when judged with quantitative video measurements, not even having colour, some not even having words.
I believe we can gap any "defect" in the audio and video reproduction chain to get the emotion we are seeking for, if the emotion is there to start with and that todays state of the art is merely tomorrows archaic junk, such is the immensity of the gap, between real and reproduced today. Without the brain leap of faith, closing the gap, it is all fake and we know it. I guess, some of us can close the gap more easily.

Some films are all about the dialogue and/or story line. I can watch those on a tablet and enjoy, but being on the big screen adds not a lot.
A few weeks back, we had old friends come round for the long weekend. On evening we watched Dune and The Green Knight, at their insistence, on a big 4K OLED through the Evo stereo, and they were blown away by the image and sound. Neither film would be worth watching on an iPad... Horses for courses as we say here......

 

[bkdc]

Money is the root of all evil.
The snake-oil peddlers need to perpetuate false beliefs to sell their snake oil. It’s easy to mislead people into selling them overpriced parts of the audio chain that result in no significant improvement in sound.

We are on an endless quest for “something better”. We see ever improving TV and video technology and we may assume that this is the same in audio. Watching a movie in fantastic hi def video in a well designed home theater is an awesome experience. It really blows away the audio in any big theater as the home theater’s audio is tuned for the limited primary listening positions. The uneducated buyer wants to replicate the awesome sound. But is fooled because assessing the audio chain is not the same as looking at a fabulous 4K or 8K OLED screen.

I thought the sense of smell was more tied to the limbic system than the auditory system. Which is why familiar smells elicit such memories and emotions. Familiar songs can certainly do the same….

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Money is the root of all evil.
The snake-oil peddlers need to perpetuate false beliefs to sell their snake oil. It’s easy to mislead people into selling them overpriced parts of the audio chain that result in no significant improvement in sound.

We are on an endless quest for “something better”. We see ever improving TV and video technology and we may assume that this is the same in audio. Watching a movie in fantastic hi def video in a well designed home theater is an awesome experience. It really blows away the audio in any big theater as the home theater’s audio is tuned for the limited primary listening positions. The uneducated buyer wants to replicate the awesome sound. But is fooled because assessing the audio chain is not the same as looking at a fabulous 4K or 8K OLED screen.

I thought the sense of smell was more tied to the limbic system than the auditory system. Which is why familiar smells elicit such memories and emotions. Familiar songs can certainly do the same….

Am I educated because I don’t want to replicate the awesome sound? Stopped buying Blu Ray discs as the volume range is too much for a domestic environment. Living in a cottage with neighbours is a consideration but it’s not only that if the dialogue is at a comfortable listening level the action scenes are far too loud.
Is subjectivism a reality with video signals. Yet seems it can’t be considered when it comes to audio.

 

[Snoopy]

but it’s not only that if the dialogue is at a comfortable listening level the action scenes are far too loud.

Strange enough this seems to be only a problem with new movies. Stuff up to the 80s is very well mixed. While Modern movies nearly require subtitles if you really want to get all the dialogue without constantly having the volume control in your hand

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

Strange enough this seems to be only a problem with new movies. Stuff up to the 80s is very well mixed. While Modern movies nearly require subtitles if you really want to get all the dialogue without constantly having the volume control in your hand

We found the same! Ann is a Trekkie and when the new franchise movie came out around 2010 we bought a Blu Ray of it and after the intro switched it off headache inducing. Watching older discs the level differences aren‘t as great.

 

[DesEsseintes]

I present for your humble consideration, 3 parts of a series (of indeterminate length), quite pertinent to the subject of this thread.

I highly recommend watching at 1.5x - 2x speed should you wish to actually watch.

 

[NTK]

I highly recommend watching at 1.5x - 2x speed should you wish to actually watch.

I highly recommend not to waste time on these worthless videos. To get the gist of what this guy is about, the spoiler below is a small snippet of the transcript from Part I.

Spoiler

...
25:41 part 4 of this series
25:44 but despite such challenges human
25:46 observation is still a foundational tool
25:50 in science many objectivist audiophiles
25:54 like to dismiss human sensory reports
25:56 calling them untrustworthy or saying
25:59 that any differences someone claims to
26:01 hear are just the result of a placebo
26:03 effect well like it or not using input
26:07 from our senses has always been used and
26:10 using them is here to stay
26:12 warts and all
26:14 furthermore to call a difference someone
26:17 hears a placebo
26:19 is often very hand wavy and overly
26:21 dismissive the placebo effect is a real
26:25 thing but it's also a scientific
26:27 explanation that requires evidence
26:30 that's right
26:31 you actually have to have direct
26:33 evidence that a placebo effect is
26:35 happening to say that some what someone
26:37 is observing is the result of a placebo
26:41 also to my knowledge there are no
26:43 documented applications of the placebo
26:45 effect outside of medical testing so
26:48 let's be careful how and where we use
26:51 this term
26:52 finally
26:54 observing something that is not readily
26:56 explainable is where science starts
27:00 we see
27:02 or hear
27:03 or smell or feel or taste something we
27:07 don't understand
27:09 why is that happening is that normal
27:12 those are all questions we start asking
27:15 sometimes hearing differences isn't
27:18 something that should be quickly
27:19 explained away
27:21 it's just something that needs to be
27:24 explained
...
​

 

[DesEsseintes]

I highly recommend not to waste time on these worthless videos. To get the gist of what this guy is about, the spoiler below is a small snippet of the transcript from Part I.

Spoiler

​

...​

25:41 part 4 of this series​

25:44 but despite such challenges human​

25:46 observation is still a foundational tool​

25:50 in science many objectivist audiophiles​

25:54 like to dismiss human sensory reports​

25:56 calling them untrustworthy or saying​

25:59 that any differences someone claims to​

26:01 hear are just the result of a placebo​

26:03 effect well like it or not using input​

26:07 from our senses has always been used and​

26:10 using them is here to stay​

26:12 warts and all​

26:14 furthermore to call a difference someone​

26:17 hears a placebo​

26:19 is often very hand wavy and overly​

26:21 dismissive the placebo effect is a real​

26:25 thing but it's also a scientific​

26:27 explanation that requires evidence​

26:30 that's right​

26:31 you actually have to have direct​

26:33 evidence that a placebo effect is​

26:35 happening to say that some what someone​

26:37 is observing is the result of a placebo​

26:41 also to my knowledge there are no​

26:43 documented applications of the placebo​

26:45 effect outside of medical testing so​

26:48 let's be careful how and where we use​

26:51 this term​

26:52 finally​

26:54 observing something that is not readily​

26:56 explainable is where science starts​

27:00 we see​

27:02 or hear​

27:03 or smell or feel or taste something we​

27:07 don't understand​

27:09 why is that happening is that normal​

27:12 those are all questions we start asking​

27:15 sometimes hearing differences isn't​

27:18 something that should be quickly​

27:19 explained away​

27:21 it's just something that needs to be​

27:24 explained​

...​

​

Ha. Yes. Probably a reasonable recommendation. Nonetheless, these "apologetics" are being received in some quarters with great enthusiasm. The host makes explicit reference to his PhDs (plural), in what I presume is an appeal to authority. The third video seems to contain a lot of content from PSaudio's website.

 

[Tangband]

Interesting thread.

If we are talking 2 channels sound at home - there is no photoprint of the real recorded event. What you hear at home with your expensive gear is just an illusion. Understanding this ( most people dont ) the field is open to combine different hifi gear to get the best illusion when listening.

This is what I have found during 40 years of buying, testing , listening and the last years, making 2- channel recordings .

I have tested most of the tweaks already mentioned , and some of them DO a difference to the sound. One example is putting spikes under your loudspeakers. It shanges the perceived sound for worse, or better.

I have also followed the ” non colored ” way of hifi, combining only good measuring gear only to find that the fun with listening to music disappeared. But at this time I didnt know that 2 channel recording and playback were only a bad illusion of the real music-event.

Recent listening to different digital sources in digital domain, with streamers up to 10000 dollars, confirmed it can also sometimes make a difference, if your amplifier and loudspeakers are good enough to allow you to hear it, and different dacs are more or less sensitive to the quality of the digital transport.

 

[Robin L]

I guess Eve's apple is Harry Pearson's "Absolute Sound": the myth is that it is possible to re-create the musical event in your living room. To start, it means that most music wouldn't qualify, as the production of that music was not intended to recreate the real sound of the instruments/voices in a real space. False expectations of creating a sonic wormhole into another space opens up opportunities for snake oil to attempt to reach an impossible goal. Until one spends time with good microphones one doesn't realize just how different a microphone feed is from reality and by extension, how very far most recordings are from anything in the so called 'real world'.

 

[Tangband]

I guess Eve's apple is Harry Pearson's "Absolute Sound": the myth is that it is possible to re-create the musical event in your living room. To start, it means that most music wouldn't qualify, as the production of that music was not intended to recreate the real sound of the instruments/voices in a real space. False expectations of creating a sonic wormhole into another space opens up opportunities for snake oil to attempt to reach an impossible goal. Until one spends time with good microphones one doesn't realize just how different a microphone feed is from reality and by extension, how very far most recordings are from anything in the so called 'real world'.

Very true.
5 channel recordings with 5 loudspeakers is sometimes much nearer the original sound in the concert hall.
But many enthusiasts want to optimise for only 2 channels.

 

[Midwest Blade]

“A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots.”—Mark Twain

Or as we see today, if you keep on repeating the same lie it eventually becomes the truth.

 

[DonR]

Interesting thread.

If we are talking 2 channels sound at home - there is no photoprint of the real recorded event. What you hear at home with your expensive gear is just an illusion. Understanding this ( most people dont ) the field is open to combine different hifi gear to get the best illusion when listening.

This is what I have found during 40 years of buying, testing , listening and the last years, making 2- channel recordings .

I have tested most of the tweaks already mentioned , and some of them DO a difference to the sound. One example is putting spikes under your loudspeakers. It shanges the perceived sound for worse, or better.

I have also followed the ” non colored ” way of hifi, combining only good measuring gear only to find that the fun with listening to music disappeared. But at this time I didnt know that 2 channel recording and playback were only a bad illusion of the real music-event.

Recent listening to different digital sources in digital domain, with streamers up to 10000 dollars, confirmed it can also sometimes make a difference, if your amplifier and loudspeakers are good enough to allow you to hear it, and different dacs are more or less sensitive to the quality of the digital transport.

The problem with relying on your ears is that you cannot separate what you actually hear from what your brain thinks you hear. The brain introduces biases that are indistinguishable from reality. All observation is thus biased and thus cannot be held as scientific evidence.