Where are all the women audiophiles?

[Wavetouch]

AI says "Studies confirm that women tend to have better hearing sensitivity than men, particularly in detecting quieter and higher-frequency sounds." And recent research offers evidence for women's superior hearing abilities, citing both biological and cognitive factors.

What you hear is not what you think you hear. Hi-Fi music (electronic sound) isn't a natural sound. Human can't hear the natural sound and hifi sound together at same time. ex.) when you listen audio music and someone talks, you say "please be quiet, I can't hear the audio music."

All speakers in the world (hifi speaker, cell phone, car radio, ear phone, etc.) sound the electric sound (unnatural sound). Many men and few women can hear natural and unnatural sounds together by alternating (switching) between the natural and unnatural sounds (alternating 5~10 times between them). And that makes the human brain very tired quickly (the listener's fatigue). Many women and non-audiophile men can't process like a'philes. What they are hearing is the LEFT speaker (noise monster) in below video.

In below video, normally, the left speaker's sound seems OK to many men (but not to women), but it's really a ear hurting bad sound. Our ears trick us and we don't aware the bad sound. All speakers in the world (inc. $million speakers) sound/behave like the left speaker. What some men hear is not the same to other women and non-audiophiles. To them, $million speakers are a more noise monster than a simple MP3 player.

** I decide not to post the video. Mod might strike me posting my video. It's an only video explains about electric sound. I can't explain without this kind video. If interested, search YT " the left speaker - (Natural vs. Un-natural sound), speaker comparison."

 

[Alexander Gödde]

Well, that was ... something. An entirely baseless premise (HiFi is "unnatural sound"), a non-example (I regularly have conversations while music is playing, as I'm sure a majority of people do), a meaningless number (switching "5-10 times" between "natural" and "unnatural" sound - across their lifetimes?), and a reference to a video you didn't actually post.

From what I remember that video was of two speakers, presumably recorded via one of your magic microphones ("the only ones in the world without distortion" or some such claim), with actually quite bad soundq quality, where we were supposed to hear the "natural sound" your modified speaker produces vs. the "unnatural sound" of the other. How does that work when we hear this over speakers incapable of producing such "natural sound"?

 

[Wavetouch]

Well, that was ... something. An entirely baseless premise (HiFi is "unnatural sound"), a non-example (I regularly have conversations while music is playing, as I'm sure a majority of people do), a meaningless number (switching "5-10 times" between "natural" and "unnatural" sound - across their lifetimes?), and a reference to a video you didn't actually post.

From what I remember that video was of two speakers, presumably recorded via one of your magic microphones ("the only ones in the world without distortion" or some such claim), with actually quite bad soundq quality, where we were supposed to hear the "natural sound" your modified speaker produces vs. the "unnatural sound" of the other. How does that work when we hear this over speakers incapable of producing such "natural sound"?

There is no study about this subject. I happen to make a 1st natural sound audio speaker in audio history. So, I've discovered what I know. Below are what I know. There'll be smarter people who can explain better in the future.

The human ears and brain can adapt almost every kind of sounds. There were only natural sounds until invention of electric audio hi-fi sound 150 years ago. Hifi sound has different kind freq (timber/tone?) from the natural sound that human brain must adjust to hear the hifi sound.

In below video, the guitar sounds beautiful without distraction. Your ears and brain are staying with one kind of un-natural sound. Your ears and brain are adapted to the guitar sound.

In below, the same guitar sounds bright and funny. It's because your ears are hearing 2 different kind sounds (**not 2 different natural sounds). Your ears and brain are switching between natural (voice) and un-natural (hi-fi sound). Your ears and brain must adjust (and adapted) to 2 different kind of sounds. This adjustment (switching) is about 5~10 times/second I think, not as fast as the fluorescent light, 120 times/sec.

In below, both guitar and voice are natural sounds and they blend well and sound natural (no switching of hearing mode).

How does that work when we hear this over speakers incapable of producing such "natural sound"?
Our ears and brain adapt to whatever speaker sounds we hear. All speakers in the world sound un-natural. We are used to that sound.

 

[Apesbrain]

Another example of a thread that I'd like to delete from my view, but you can't ignore a "Deleted member". This forum bug should be fixed.

 

[Alexander Gödde]

The human ears and brain can adapt almost every kind of sounds. There were only natural sounds until invention of electric audio hi-fi sound 150 years ago. Hifi sound has different kind freq (timber/tone?) from the natural sound that human brain must adjust to hear the hifi sound.

In below video, the guitar sounds beautiful without distraction. Your ears and brain are staying with one kind of un-natural sound. Your ears and brain are adapted to the guitar sound.

In below, the same guitar sounds bright and funny. It's because your ears are hearing 2 different kind sounds (**not 2 different natural sounds). Your ears and brain are switching between natural (voice) and un-natural (hi-fi sound). Your ears and brain must adjust (and adapted) to 2 different kind of sounds. This adjustment (switching) is about 5~10 times/second I think, not as fast as the fluorescent light, 120 times/sec.

In below, both guitar and voice are natural sounds and they blend well and sound natural (no switching of hearing mode).

How does that work when we hear this over speakers incapable of producing such "natural sound"?
Our ears and brain adapt to whatever speaker sounds we hear. All speakers in the world sound un-natural. We are used to that sound.

I am sorry I asked. Will not repeat that mistake. This is, to put it kindly, nonsense.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

There is no study about this subject. I happen to make a 1st natural sound audio speaker in audio history. So, I've discovered what I know. Below are what I know. There'll be smarter people who can explain better in the future.

The human ears and brain can adapt almost every kind of sounds. There were only natural sounds until invention of electric audio hi-fi sound 150 years ago. Hifi sound has different kind freq (timber/tone?) from the natural sound that human brain must adjust to hear the hifi sound.

In below video, the guitar sounds beautiful without distraction. Your ears and brain are staying with one kind of un-natural sound. Your ears and brain are adapted to the guitar sound.

In below, the same guitar sounds bright and funny. It's because your ears are hearing 2 different kind sounds (**not 2 different natural sounds). Your ears and brain are switching between natural (voice) and un-natural (hi-fi sound). Your ears and brain must adjust (and adapted) to 2 different kind of sounds. This adjustment (switching) is about 5~10 times/second I think, not as fast as the fluorescent light, 120 times/sec.

In below, both guitar and voice are natural sounds and they blend well and sound natural (no switching of hearing mode).

How does that work when we hear this over speakers incapable of producing such "natural sound"?
Our ears and brain adapt to whatever speaker sounds we hear. All speakers in the world sound un-natural. We are used to that sound.

Thanks!
That’s the best explanation in audio history of why there are so few female audiophiles

 

[Groove01]

I was curious, showed my wife this post and asked her opinion on this question. Maybe not the smartest idea I’ve ever had. But I did it for science - lol.

Her response: “Women grow out of playing with toys when we are in elementary school, men don’t”. Valid point to which I had no counter.

(score: women 1 - men 0)

I think we have it.

 

[egellings]

I don't view my audio setup as a toy; its just a portal to the music I enjoy.

 

[MattHooper]

Because it’s an inherently misogynistic hobby/pastime as clearly evidenced by the likes of Jana (videographer) or Joyce (Linsoul) and others who have expressed the vile comments they regularly receive

What abject nonsense!

This is the type of totalizing smear that I’m sure gets lots of juices flowing in the social media-infused ethos online, but which doesn’t do anybody any good.

If you have enough men involved in anything will you find some misogyny? Of course.

Get enough women involved and you’ll encounter some level of misandry.

There’s always going to be bad eggs especially when we’re talking about the number of people involved in well known hobbies. I mean the fact that some misogyny has been cited in the birdwatching community doesn’t mean birdwatching is “ inherently misogynistic” for goodness sakes!

I’m disgusted that people like Jana have encountered upsetting or assholish behaviour from male audiophiles and of course that should be called out wherever it happens.

But calling out should be targeted carefully at whoever has actually acted badly. It serves nobody at all to use a broadbrush to smear male audiophiles in general by claiming this hobby is “ inherently misogynistic.”

I’ve known a great many audiophiles and I don’t recall ever hearing anybody saying anything misogynistic about women in the hobby or even women in general. In fact, if anything, I see conversations among audiophiles “ why don’t we have more women in this hobby? That would be wonderful.”

I hope we can move beyond this crap of implying disrepute among entire groups of people for the behaviour of a few.

(I’m reminded too much of this type of
“ smearing an entire community for the act of few individuals” which is currently going on in the polarized politics of the USA, which I find disgusting).

 

[Doodski]

What abject nonsense!

This is the type of totalizing smear that I’m sure gets lots of juices flowing in the social media-infused ethos online, but which doesn’t do anybody any good.

If you have enough men involved in anything will you find some misogyny? Of course.

Get enough women involved and you’ll encounter some level of misandry.

There’s always going to be bad eggs especially when we’re talking about the number of people involved in well known hobbies. I mean the fact that some misogyny has been cited in the birdwatching community doesn’t mean birdwatching is “ inherently misogynistic” for goodness sakes!

I’m disgusted that people like Jana have encountered upsetting or assholish behaviour from male audiophiles and of course that should be called out wherever it happens.

But calling out should be targeted carefully at whoever has actually acted badly. It serves nobody at all to use a broadbrush to smear male audiophiles in general by claiming this hobby is “ inherently misogynistic.”

I’ve known a great many audiophiles and I don’t recall ever hearing anybody saying anything misogynistic about women in the hobby or even women in general. In fact, if anything, I see conversations among audiophiles “ why don’t we have more women in this hobby? That would be wonderful.”

I hope we can move beyond this crap of implying distribute among entire groups of people for the behaviour of a few.

(I’m reminded too much of this type of
“ smearing an entire community for the act of few individuals” which is currently going on in the polarized politics of the USA, which I find disgusting).

I have had a bunch of fine sounding gear. Car, home, portable and personal audio systems. Females when exposed to good audio gear enjoy that very very much and will actually make a point of hanging with males that can provide the entertainment with their good audio gear. If you want to hang with females get a car that's interesting and install a good sounding powerful audio system so that it can go loud and it does not need to be subwoofer haven with a bazillions speakers. The car needs to be comfortable and they will enjoy that and make a point of hanging with you more than the other guys with lesser stuff. I found that of all my vehicles the one that the females enjoyed the most was a 4 door American car with a V8, Turbo 350 tranny, a couple of mechanical mods to make it a super highway mountain cruiser and 4 speakers with 750 total watts between the front and rear amps. The visiting ESL student Japanese females that I dated where simply astonished at that car and apparently had never been in such cars before. There's nothing like hammering the throttle out on the highway with the tunes cranked and cruising in a big American car that can get up and go.

 

[Groove01]

I don't view my audio setup as a toy; its just a portal to the music I enjoy.

The women in your life probably do though - lol.

Edit: Of all the hobbies I have, which is several. Audio is by far the one where we tend to take ourselves way too seriously.

 

[Ricardus]

They are apparently hanging out at the same place all of the women who don't go to Rush concerts hang out.

 

[MattHooper]

As for misogyny, I generally agree with @Somafunk - but I think when a lot of members here read "misogyny," they interpret it as Somafunk (or anyone else) saying that the internet and the hobby is positively overflowing with men who actively and consciously hate women and have an agenda of being mean to women and/or denigrating women.

It wasn’t just that Somafunk used the term misogyny. No problem with that.

It’s that he claimed the audio hobby was
“inherently misogynistic.”

I find that an exceedingly sloppy, misleading type of statement. It doesn’t say anything of worth, except to imply a smear as wide as possible to the audiophile community.

Somafunk may not have meant with that seemed to imply, but I admit I’ve grown impatient with such broad brush language.
It’s responsible for so much mischief in the world at this point.

Now, whenever I write something like the above paragraph, inevitably one or more of my fellow dudes jumps in to say they would never do that and none of their friends or the folks they've come to know on the forum would do that, and they know this or that woman who's into the hobby and has never complained to them. Here at ASR we should know better - that's anecdotal information, not data,

Indeed, and this is where I am right there with you! Note that Somafunk leapt right from a couple of anecdotes as evidence the hobby is “ inherently misogynistic.” I presume you would agree with me that is fairly incautious. If that’s going to be good enough to smear the hobby, then my mentioning anecdotes about a lack of misogyny would be good enough to conclude the hobby is inherently “philogynous” or egalitarian.

Personally, I’m all ears if there is significant data showing high end audio is rife with misogyny. And we should listen to anybody who has claimed to be a victim of misogyny! But as you have acknowledged, people chiming in with anecdotes isn’t going to establish that. But even if there is elements of misogyny - and no doubt there are! - I still think it’s worth being responsible and specific and cautious on the subject, so as not to use language that is easily interpreted as blowing up a problem larger than it is, and casting the net of aspersion larger than it should be cast.

 

[Somafunk]

What abject nonsense!

This is the type of totalizing smear that I’m sure gets lots of juices flowing in the social media-infused ethos online, but which doesn’t do anybody any good.

Call it whatever you like matt……… nonsense…..crap……whatever.


Compose one of your essays if it helps in the attempt to get your point across but I’ve heard and read enough from women who have direct experience of such in their life so….”slow hand clap award for telling women what is what” goes to matt hooper.

See ya!

 

[MattHooper]

Call it whatever you like matt……… nonsense…..crap……whatever.


Compose one of your essays if it helps in the attempt to get your point across but I’ve heard and read enough from women who have direct experience of such in their life so….”slow hand clap award for telling women what is what” goes to matt hooper.

See ya!

Nothing in what I wrote had to do with
“ telling women what’s what.”

it seems your follow up has moved to;

“ I’m going to jump from anecdotes to making a wide ranging claim indicting an entire hobby, and if somebody dares call me out on this sloppiness I’m going to imply they are just part of the problem I’ve claimed. And I can also imply my moral superiority by implying they don’t care about women like I do.”

This is precisely the unhelpful bad-faith approach that social media thrives on at the moment (and unfortunately spreads beyond social media).

We can talk about and worry about any women’s bad experiences with men in this hobby, which can certainly inform as to why some women have been put off, without leaping to misleading characterizations about audiophiles in general.
If you’re attracted to a forum that values science and careful thinking, I would think this shouldn’t be a hard idea to accept?

 

[Groove01]

Call it whatever you like matt……… nonsense…..crap……whatever.


Compose one of your essays if it helps in the attempt to get your point across but I’ve heard and read enough from women who have direct experience of such in their life so….”slow hand clap award for telling women what is what” goes to matt hooper.

See ya!

So anecdotally, you’re infallibly unassailable?

 

[tmtomh]

It wasn’t just that Somafunk used the term misogyny. No problem with that.

It’s that he claimed the audio hobby was
“inherently misogynistic.”

I find that an exceedingly sloppy, misleading type of statement. It doesn’t say anything of worth, except to imply a smear as wide as possible to the audiophile community.

Somafunk may not have meant with that seemed to imply, but I admit I’ve grown impatient with such broad brush language.
It’s responsible for so much mischief in the world at this point.



Indeed, and this is where I am right there with you! Note that Somafunk leapt right from a couple of anecdotes as evidence the hobby is “ inherently misogynistic.” I presume you would agree with me that is fairly incautious. If that’s going to be good enough to smear the hobby, then my mentioning anecdotes about a lack of misogyny would be good enough to conclude the hobby is inherently “philogynous” or egalitarian.

Personally, I’m all ears if there is significant data showing high end audio is rife with misogyny. And we should listen to anybody who has claimed to be a victim of misogyny! But as you have acknowledged, people chiming in with anecdotes isn’t going to establish that. But even if there is elements of misogyny - and no doubt there are! - I still think it’s worth being responsible and specific and cautious on the subject, so as not to use language that is easily interpreted as blowing up a problem larger than it is, and casting the net of aspersion larger than it should be cast.

Yes, I agree that "inherently misogynistic" is not how I would describe the hobby - mainly because I don't think there is anything inherently (i.e. intrinsically or inevitably) misogynistic about being interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction.

I would say, however, that I read @Somafunk's use of the phrase "inherently misogynistic" as imprecise rather than totally unfounded. Given the context of Somafunk's comment about that, I understood him to be trying to say something more like, the hobby is systemically or pervasively misogynistic.

Now, that too is a claim that requires some evidence. But given that there is a body of scholarly literature that documents widespread gender bias, and in some cases misogyny, in STEM fields and various tech-related hobbies and interest areas, I think it is reasonable to hypothesize that audio would not be a strange outlier from that documented tendency.

So I would say yes, evidence is needed as always. And at the same time I would say that in the absence of definitive evidence one way or the other, our presumption should not be that audio is not a difficult hobby space for women or that we "just have no idea." I think given what we know about tech hobbies and tech spheres in general, about the internet in general, and about society in general, our starting point has to be that the answer to "Is there misogyny in the audio hobby" must be "yes," and the question to be investigated is, "how much, how widespread, and how exactly does it tend to manifest itself."

As with all questions subject to scientific investigation, I am not 100% certain that misogyny exists to any significant degree in our hobby - but I believe the available evidence indicates that at least some significant degree of misogyny is the most likely possibility and so I would start my investigation with that hypothesis, and I would consider it to be a strong hypothesis.

And finally, without directing this at anyone in particular, I do think it must be said that in general, a major component of a lot of my fellow men's resistance to claims of widespread sexism or misogyny in any field or hobby comes from a feeling of defensiveness. On the one hand, this is understandable - if people say something negative about "men" and I identify as a man, I feel implicated. On the other hand I have always been puzzled by many men's defensiveness around this, since these same men often object to the whole idea of systemic discrimination and insist that the world is only made up of individuals who make their own choices. So if one believes that there is only individual choice, and one is sure that one does not behave in problematic ways towards women, then why would one feel so implicated when someone talks about men behaving in those ways? Why not just feel like, "Well, I know that's not me" and not get all exercised about it? Again, I am not directing this at anyone here - it's just a general observation.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

There is no study about this subject. I happen to make a 1st natural sound audio speaker in audio history. So, I've discovered what I know. Below are what I know. There'll be smarter people who can explain better in the future.

The human ears and brain can adapt almost every kind of sounds. There were only natural sounds until invention of electric audio hi-fi sound 150 years ago. Hifi sound has different kind freq (timber/tone?) from the natural sound that human brain must adjust to hear the hifi sound.

In below video, the guitar sounds beautiful without distraction. Your ears and brain are staying with one kind of un-natural sound. Your ears and brain are adapted to the guitar sound.

In below, the same guitar sounds bright and funny. It's because your ears are hearing 2 different kind sounds (**not 2 different natural sounds). Your ears and brain are switching between natural (voice) and un-natural (hi-fi sound). Your ears and brain must adjust (and adapted) to 2 different kind of sounds. This adjustment (switching) is about 5~10 times/second I think, not as fast as the fluorescent light, 120 times/sec.

In below, both guitar and voice are natural sounds and they blend well and sound natural (no switching of hearing mode).

How does that work when we hear this over speakers incapable of producing such "natural sound"?
Our ears and brain adapt to whatever speaker sounds we hear. All speakers in the world sound un-natural. We are used to that sound.

This is truly bonkers word salad wtf

 

[tmtomh]

There is no study about this subject. I happen to make a 1st natural sound audio speaker in audio history. So, I've discovered what I know. Below are what I know. There'll be smarter people who can explain better in the future.

The human ears and brain can adapt almost every kind of sounds. There were only natural sounds until invention of electric audio hi-fi sound 150 years ago. Hifi sound has different kind freq (timber/tone?) from the natural sound that human brain must adjust to hear the hifi sound.

In below video, the guitar sounds beautiful without distraction. Your ears and brain are staying with one kind of un-natural sound. Your ears and brain are adapted to the guitar sound.

In below, the same guitar sounds bright and funny. It's because your ears are hearing 2 different kind sounds (**not 2 different natural sounds). Your ears and brain are switching between natural (voice) and un-natural (hi-fi sound). Your ears and brain must adjust (and adapted) to 2 different kind of sounds. This adjustment (switching) is about 5~10 times/second I think, not as fast as the fluorescent light, 120 times/sec.

In below, both guitar and voice are natural sounds and they blend well and sound natural (no switching of hearing mode).

How does that work when we hear this over speakers incapable of producing such "natural sound"?
Our ears and brain adapt to whatever speaker sounds we hear. All speakers in the world sound un-natural. We are used to that sound.

Dude - you're saying our brains prefer "natural sound" like that which came before the "invention of electric audio hi-fi sound 150 years ago" - and as your example of "natural sound" you use a video of a guy playing... an electric guitar, which uses the exact same "un-natural" technology and mechanisms of "electric audio hi-fi sound."

@RexrothPigeon is right - this is just nonsense. I would ask, "What on earth are you on about," but I don't want to know the answer.

 

[Axo1989]

Yes, I agree that "inherently misogynistic" is not how I would describe the hobby - mainly because I don't think there is anything inherently (i.e. intrinsically or inevitably) misogynistic about being interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction.

I would say, however, that I read @Somafunk's use of the phrase "inherently misogynistic" as imprecise rather than totally unfounded. Given the context of Somafunk's comment about that, I understood him to be trying to say something more like, the hobby is systemically or pervasively misogynistic.

Now, that too is a claim that requires some evidence. But given that there is a body of scholarly literature that documents widespread gender bias, and in some cases misogyny, in STEM fields and various tech-related hobbies and interest areas, I think it is reasonable to hypothesize that audio would not be a strange outlier from that documented tendency.

So I would say yes, evidence is needed as always. And at the same time I would say that in the absence of definitive evidence one way or the other, our presumption should not be that audio is not a difficult hobby space for women or that we "just have no idea." I think given what we know about tech hobbies and tech spheres in general, about the internet in general, and about society in general, our starting point has to be that the answer to "Is there misogyny in the audio hobby" must be "yes," and the question to be investigated is, "how much, how widespread, and how exactly does it tend to manifest itself."

As with all questions subject to scientific investigation, I am not 100% certain that misogyny exists to any significant degree in our hobby - but I believe the available evidence indicates that at least some significant degree of misogyny is the most likely possibility and so I would start my investigation with that hypothesis, and I would consider it to be a strong hypothesis.

And finally, without directly this at anyone in particular, I do think it must be said that in general, a major component of a lot of my fellow men's resistance to claims of widespread sexism or misogyny in any field or hobby comes from a feeling of defensiveness. On the one hand, this is understandable - if people say something negative about "men" and I identify as a man, I feel implicated. On the other hand I have always been puzzled by many men's defensiveness around this, since these same men often object to the whole idea of systemic discrimination and insist that the world is only made up of individuals who make their own choices. So if one believes that there is only individual choice, and one is sure that one does not behave in problematic ways towards women, then why would one feel so implicated when someone talk about men behaving in those ways? Why not just feel like, "Well, I know that's not me" and not get all exercised about it? Again, I am not directing this at anyone here - it's just a general observation.

I was going to start writing something about systematic (rather than inherent) misogyny/sexism, but I'm glad I waited, you did an excellent job. And yes it appears pervasive, even if following my example of hiding posts and thus people in the humour thread, it isn't always consciously intended.

Sometimes it is, of course. I recall one poster declaring 'sexism is bullshit' meaning not that it's undesirable, but that it doesn't exist. Ok then? And another (rather old) poster declaring literal lust for under-age women, with photos. So while I reversed most of my experiment's ignore attributions, some just stay ignored. At least now we don't see moderation going to bat so much for those people/positions. Which is an improvement. So I would say it's slightly less systematic here, now.