Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[esldude]

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Could digital USB cables be affected by EMI?

 

I'm glad I read far enough on this thread to see the wave audio post.

I would say heavily effected.  It literally could control what music is played upon your system.

 

http://www.universalmusic.com/label/emi/

 

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

I would say heavily effected.  It literally could control what music is played upon your system.

 

http://www.universalmusic.com/label/emi/

 

 

Now that was just mean.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

PM from Daudio:

Yeah, that reputation.

 

Thanks for posting mansr. He's gone now. That shit isn't tolerated at CA.

[4est]

6 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Well, think about it. Every time you use a dust cloth, it wears down the dusted surface just a tiny bit, like water flowing over rocks. It's a trade-off.  

 

Or does it wear down the cloth?

[jabbr]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

What makes you think they do? Sure, ground loops and such can be audible, but no cable can fix those, only an isolation device will.

I am keeping an open mind. There are many reported electrical differences between cables. There are also many people who report sonic differences, so it is sensible to try to correlate. But certainly, an isolation device is most logically what's needed.

[wgscott]

Time for a music break!

 

 

Hey Jud, don't make it bad
Take a sad post and make it better
Remember not to let him into your thread
Then you can start to make it better
Hey Jud, don't be afraid
You were made to go out and get him
The minute you don't let him get under your skin
Then you begin to make it better
And anytime you feel the pain, hey Jud, refrain
Don't carry the world upon your shoulders
For well you know that it's a fool who plays it cool
By making his world a little colder
Nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah
Hey Jud, don't let me down
You have found him, now go and stalk him
Remember not to let him into your thread
Then you can start to make it better
So let it out and let it in, hey Jud, begin
You're waiting for someone to perform with
And don't you know that it's isn't you, hey Jud, you'll do
The movement you need is on your shoulder
Nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah yeah
Hey Jud, don't make it bad
Take a sad post and make it better
Remember not to let him get under your skin
Then you'll begin to make it
Better better better better better better, oh
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Jud
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Jud
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Jud
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Jud
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Jud
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Jud
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Jud
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Jud
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Jud
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Jud
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Jud
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Jud
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Jud
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Jud
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Jud
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Jud

 

[rickca]

18 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Thanks for posting mansr. He's gone now. That shit isn't tolerated at CA.

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

[AJ Soundfield]

I'm wondering if this thread wasn't a ruse by Jud to get the knives vs gunfight fantasy loons to go postal

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

I would say heavily effected.  It literally could control what music is played upon your system.

 

http://www.universalmusic.com/label/emi/

 

 

it would be better if you got effect/affect right ;]

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

it would be better if you got effect/affect right ;]

Actually that was intentional.  Buy choosing EMI music you effected the change in the USB.  Apparently that part wasn't clear.  Sorry.

[Ralf11]

got it

 

no problemo - will keep the gun cocked

[Jud]

6 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I'm wondering if this thread wasn't a ruse by Jud to get the knives vs gunfight fantasy loons to go postal

 

If you don’t assume I’m cleverer than I appear you’ll be more accurate.  

 

I don’t waste time thinking up such stuff.

[Jud]

Bill, that was very funny.

 

Hope you found some lyrics to copy and paste so you didn’t have to count all the “nah”s!

[Teresa]

On 6/20/2017 at 10:37 AM, Daudio said:

While everyone is dancing around saying fine and agreeable things (even some of the worst offenders lying through their teeth) I feel a duty to call out the examples of "Their Contempt For Audiophiles", when it blatantly shows up in this thread...

 

Thanks.

 

On 6/20/2017 at 10:53 AM, esldude said:

...I believe everything other than transducers* can be and are fully transparent.  Exceptions would be gear designed to have a sound so it is different than all the others.  If the others are transparent and interchangeable, you have to put in sound character to have something to sale in audiophile circles.  The other exception would be amplifiers which do need some matching with widely varying speaker loads. 

 

*  transducers would be microphones, phono cartridges, tape heads, headphones and speakers.

 

I don’t believe any audio devise is transparent. Nothing I’ve heard has all the sound and feeling of live acoustic music in a good sounding concert hall. I've heard some really high-end equipment that comes close at audio shows, but nothing I could afford. I know of no high-end audio equipment designed to sound different, they are designed to sound as accurate as possible at their selected price point. Most audio equipment requires compromise in the quality of the component parts, how well an audio designer can get less than stellar parts to sound realistic will determine the success or failure of his or her design.

 

Tubed equipment has often been demeaned by some posters at CA as being less accurate than transistor equipment. Yet I, and perhaps others, find that tubed equipment, as a class, to sound more like the real thing: live acoustic music in a good sounding space.

 

On 6/20/2017 at 0:49 PM, beerandmusic said:

My guess is that a $1000 stereo system today will sound better than a $50K (or equivalent by today's terms) system 40 years ago.  I think it is about the law of diminishing returns....it may have been a big difference years ago, but when people argue today about a $2K dac sounding better than a $100K dac of yester-year.  Then you get the argument, do you prefer accurate or what sounds better.  And then the argument yes, they sound different, but not necessarily better.  It's almost to the point of technology where you can buy a $300 DAC that sounds as good as a $30K DAC.  And a $3K amp can arguably sound better than a $50K amp, and no one can prove differently.  If someone has deep pockets and media can convince them that a product is worth buying, great...e.g. $50K cables.  Someone that buys $50K cables, money is of little importance to them anyway, so might as well.  I have no problem with that..if they like the sound and aestetics better and money if of little value to those rich...great..happy for them. 

 

Buy a $4K amp and best speakers you can afford and be done with it, unless you have deep pockets, then go for whatever you desire. 

 

I have been to several audio shows, and heard the best, and the law of diminishing returns is the main reason i think people would knock audiophiles....i knock it myself.  Yes, i like good music, but overkill is overkill,  but if you have deep pockets, great.... I would never knock someone that is always trying to improve, but i certainly understand people that do knock it as well....I wouldn't say jealous...just overkill...if i had enough money to buy 200K stereo systems, i, myself would find something better i enjoy doing than chatting on these forums...i would travel mostly, and spend more money on family, and do other things if my pockets were that deep.

 

imho anything over

$4K amp

$2K dac

$40k speakers

is overkill and 10 times the system you could have had 30 years ago, and if i could afford more than that, i wouldn't be on these forums.

 

 

One exception...if this industry was your business....

 

Interesting post and I agree with much of it. However, I too have heard great sounding equipment at audio shows playing Telarc and other audiophile SACDs I brought with me. But I never got bitten by the audio nervosa bug, I guess because I'm thrifty (or a cheapskate) depending who you talk to. I know I don't have the finest audio equipment and I don't care. I enjoy my music played through it and I selected what sounded the most realistic and enjoyable that I could find on my budget. I am a poor audiophile.

 

More importantly I don't feel the need to try to disrespect people who own very high priced high-end equipment. If they can afford it that's great by me.

 

I generally keep audio equipment until it breaks or is too expensive to repair. My price limit per component is $1,000, but I try to find something I like for $500 or less, $200 is even better, so I listen a lot, buy on sale, clearance, demo and used. I bought my Infinity Reference Standard 7 Kappa's on clearance for half price, 25 years ago, instead of $1,400 for the pair, they were only $700 for the pair.

 

So the maximum for me (using your example) would be

$1K amp

$1K dac

$1k speakers

 

But I will try my best to find something I like for less than that.

 

On 6/20/2017 at 5:24 PM, plissken said:

...It's one of many. If you don't want soft targets then some fundamentally impossible positions about how computer audio DOESN'T work could be made verboten here.

 

So, if someone gives a reason that doesn't make sense to you because you believe that a computer cannot give stated result, then perhaps it's better to say nothing rather than insulting someone.

 

Remember audiophiles are not scientists and sometimes get the reasons why they like something incorrect. New knowledge doesn’t change how something sounds, it just changes one’s speculation on why it sounds as it does. 

 

On 6/20/2017 at 6:11 PM, kumakuma said:

...As far as I can tell, he is mocking your beliefs and approach to the hobby, not the fact that you are an audiophile...

 

And the difference is? Perhaps, it is better to not mock people.

 

On 6/20/2017 at 11:40 PM, master said:

The goal of every audiophile should be to better enjoy music... or at the very least to enjoy music.

 

To me anything/anyone that distracts from that goal would an anti-audiophile.

 

In a sense that's even folks who'd rather waste time trying to educate or correct others... instead of simply enjoying the music.

 

Folks who'd like to start a flame war or watch the world burn... instead of simply enjoying the music.

 

Take a pick... but anything (or anyone) that takes away from actually enjoying music... or finds more joy in other things would certainly qualify in my book.

 

Well stated and I agree. It's all about the music.

 

16 hours ago, Daudio said:

Anyone else notice a flurry of silly, OT, distracting, posts following one that might be a little unsettling to those 'Righteous' keepers of the objectivist, pseudo-scientific, flames ?

 

Yes!

 

16 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Anyone else miss the "Vote Down" button?

 

 Yes I miss it, I would have used it a lot in this thread.

[firedog]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

Bill, that was very funny.

 

Hope you found some lyrics to copy and paste so you didn’t have to count all the “nah”s!

When Bill goes to the trouble to quote those Baby Boomer favorites from all  the way back in 1968, we know a new era has arrived....

[firedog]

15 hours ago, Wavelength said:

Jonathan,

 

Digital cables of all sorts have different effects on the device system. In the past SPDIF cables were all about jitter, but really recovering the clock from the data stream was only half of what was required.

 

With USB it comes down to a couple of simple things that can make all the difference in the world:

 

a) Data integrity, impedance correctness, eye pattern, low capacitence etc. Basically how well does the data get there.

b) VBUS/Ground how well does VBUS and ground get to the downstream device without effecting (a) above.

 

c) Computer noise, all cables can transmit noise, some cables will throw that noise back into the computer some will throw it at the device, which of course is really bad.

 

~~~

I have tested a boat load of cables here. Some over $1000 could barely work with some of the dacs I had here. Some $10 ones worked really good and better than others.

 

The big problem I have with cable companies is that nobody owns the test equipment that I have to test these cables? Why not?

 

Thanks,

Gordon

Gordon-

Thanks for the explanation. 

 

Not challenging you at all, but often what we hear from so-called "objectivist" posters when something similar to your post appears here is something along the lines of this:

 

"where's a measurement that shows me that any of this makes a difference at the analog output of the DAC"

 

the claim being that all those things you listed may exist, but ultimately have no effect on the analog output of the DAC, as all "well designed" DACs can reject such noise and convert the digital bits perfectly whether the noise is there or not. 

 

Your response? 

[Lebouwsky]

Why does audio equipment need to be as accurate as possible?

 

Besides an audiophile I build WWII scale models. And yes there are fora and yes people argue about getting the model as accurate as possible. The price for that is high: lots of questions, loads of investments, more stress.

 

What learned is if I chase that goal, the nervousity kicks in. As soon as I let it go and start building the way I like it, the joy comes back. No more bariyers thrown up by myself, but back to the root where my interest in the hobby started at. It's Ok to approach realism, but not at every cost.

 

To me with audio it's just the same. I know what I like and I trust my ears and heart to evaluate components. And I like a little euphonic lush sound, there, I've said it.

 

Have fun.

 

 

[AJ Soundfield]

20 minutes ago, firedog said:

the claim being that all those things you listed may exist, but ultimately have no effect on the analog output of the DAC. 

How would your ears detect "DAC" soundwave changes to the soundfield, other than from the analog output of the DAC? Please specify the method of conduction if this is not the case.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

How would your ears detect "DAC" soundwave changes to the soundfield, other than from the analog output of the DAC? Please specify the method of conduction if this is not the case.

Optically, by looking at the USB cable price tag.

[AJ Soundfield]

That sounds like a CPU issue

[Teresa]

12 minutes ago, Lebouwsky said:

...I know what I like and I trust my ears and heart to evaluate components. And I like a little euphonic lush sound, there, I've said it.

 

Have fun.

 

Live acoustic music in a good sounding concert hall sounds very lush, especially string tone. I've never heard a recorded violin sound as lush and beautiful as the real thing. Cold and dry is not accurate to me, the real thing is quite euphonic too.

 

Sounds like you are on the right path, trusting ears and heart are important IMHO. How music feels is very important to me.

[christopher3393]

Similar to what happens here sometimes:

 

Quote

On the Internet, a complex grammar has developed around shade, retaining much of the pleasure and humor of its older iterations but with wider-reaching effects. Take the subtweet: a tweet objecting to something someone else has said or done without actually using that person’s name. It’s the digital equivalent of talking trash about someone at a dinner table without ever acknowledging the person’s presence. Another shade-throwing tactic is to annotate a social-media outburst with stage directions like “*sips tea*” or “*side-eye*,” as if to say: “I’ll just sit back and demurely drink this beverage while I watch you act a fool and debase yourself.” Shade may be most delightfully expressed through emoji — crying faces (your predictability and pitiful intelligence make me weep), googly eyes (that assertion was so absurd it exploded my brain), emergency-vehicle sirens (alert: We have a live one here). Emoji are so innocently goofy that they make for the ideal shade delivery system, allowing a person to publicly and blisteringly respond to other people’s commentary without, you know, being blistering about it.

 

from "The Underground Art of the Insult", Anna Holmes

[fas42]

25 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

Live acoustic music in a good sounding concert hall sounds very lush, especially string tone. I've never heard a recorded violin sound as lush and beautiful as the real thing. Cold and dry is not accurate to me, the real thing is quite euphonic too.

 

Sounds like you are on the right path, trusting ears and heart are important IMHO. How music feels is very important to me.

 

Yes, good test! The lushness of solo violin, and the soaring quality of a good string section can be fully realised in a competent rig - early in my exploration of what's possible in audio I went to live performances, and sometimes was disappointed by the "real thing", in comparison - I particularly remember a piano recital, where the quality of sound of the instrument really missed the grade.

 

The main reason why, of course, is because a recording is usually captured in the very best location, with everything optimised to secure a premium performance.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

How would your ears detect "DAC" soundwave changes to the soundfield, other than from the analog output of the DAC? Please specify the method of conduction if this is not the case.

 

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Optically, by looking at the USB cable price tag.

You guys are doing just what the OP asked about, and being snarky about it, to boot.

Please stop putting words in my mouth that don't reflect my post, but do reflect your apparent desire just to "score ponts" for your POV.

 

Gordon wrote about effects digital cables can have on a system. The obvious implication is that they are audible effects, otherwise there wouldn't be any reason to be concerned with them.

 

Whenever a claim is made that a digital cable or a device like the USB Regen makes an improvement to SQ, there are retorts that "it can't be"; "that digital cables can't conduct noise/interference/disturbances (many names are used) to the DAC, they just conduct data"; or that, "sure digital cables can conduct interference etc., to the DAC, but it is irrelevant, since any "competently designed"  DAC is not effected by this in any way that changes the resulting analog signal produced.

The typical "subjectivist" response is then, "but I can hear the improvement in SQ this cable/device makes".

 

"Objectivist" comeback is then, "BS, what you are "hearing" is just a result of bias and expectations. Show me measurements that prove your device made a measureable improvement to the analog output of the DAC."

 

That's what I asked Gordon to respond to.

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, firedog said:

The obvious implication is that they are audible effects, otherwise there wouldn't be any reason to be concerned with them.

Bingo, so let's try this again.

How would your ears detect audible "DAC" soundwave changes to the soundfield, other than from the analog output of the DAC? Please specify the method of conduction if this is not the case.