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

[Jud]

I’ve heard some wonderfully enjoyable stuff at shows from systems with analog front ends, and one of my favorite demos for friends is playing “Pinball Wizard” from an LP I bought in 1969.  But I am happier with the sound from digital.

[firedog]

13 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I do. That's why I take blind tests without fear. The definition of a blind listening test is trust your ears. That's all you can do in a blind listening test.

OTOH, the folks who bray endlessly about "trust your ears", are always the ones who have zero trust of the ears.

That is exactly why they shun blind tests and come up with every excuse to avoid them, preferring to stare at audio components for weeks to judge "sound", because their hearing stinks and have zero trust of their ears.

I'm doubtful about the efficacy of blind listening tests in practice. Personally I find that I listen differently in "test" situations. There is a fair amount of psychological stress involved also. So I don't think what I hear in that scenario is the same as what I hear when listening for enjoyment, even critically. 

 

I assume one way around this would be to conduct the tests with lots of subjects and under different testing conditions. You'd sort of assume that  any issues of the kind I'm referring to would cease to have much of an influence then. 

But that isn't a likely scenario. And even less so in a home environment.

[beerandmusic]

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

Suppose you have a stereo analogue signal. You cut it to vinyl and simultaneously digitise it and store on a CD. Then you play back those recordings using suitable equipment and compare the analogue output to the original signal. The output from the CD player will be closer to the original than that of the turntable. This will be the case even if the turntable is the best money can buy and the CD player is a $50 "disposable" model.

 

Of course, if what you store on the CD is subjected to unnecessary mangling like dynamic range compression, it can end up being worse than the vinyl. However, that in no way means that vinyl is inherently superior, only that someone did a bad job mastering the CD.

ok, thanks for that...i just wasn't sure that going from analog to analog that it was not possible to be more accurate than going from analog to digital, but i am sure with today's technology, they should be able to....

 

That said, i personally still wouldn't say either vinyl is superior or cd is superior (especially without an agreement as to definition of superiority)...as sometimes when i put on a record, i say to myself...wow that sounds great, and could play the same thing on cd, and be less than impressed...so like everything in audio, nothing is black and white...not even tv's ...

[Jud]

Just now, firedog said:

I'm doubtful about the efficacy of blind listening tests in practice. Personally I find that I listen differently in "test" situations. There is a fair amount of psychological stress involved also. So I don't think what I hear in that scenario is the same as what I hear when listening for enjoyment, even critically. 

 

I assume one way around this would be to conduct the tests with lots of subjects and under different testing conditions. You'd sort of assume that  any issues of the kind I'm referring to would cease to have much of an influence then. 

But that isn't a likely scenario. And even less so in a home environment.

 

I wonder if the perception of stress comes from trying to do the impossible, employ echoic memory over spans of time longer than just several seconds.  

 

mansr put out a couple of files, one with a considerable amount of distortion, the other “clean.”  I did not try to employ switching every 2-4 seconds.  Listening to one 30 second file followed immediately by the other 30 second file, though I ultimately guessed correctly I told mansr that I felt the harder I concentrated, the less certain I became.

[firedog]

11 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Well, to be fair it was $600 new, but I see now going for $400, so I'd say "inexpensive:, rather than "cheap".

Keep in mind it can also be used as a bit "transport", since it does have optical out, which can then be use with the fancy DACs.

I'm not one who hears big differences if any at all with DACs, regardless of price, though I must admit a recent comparison between the Chord Dave and Berkeley had me a bit puzzled, as the Dave indeed seemed to have a "sound" which I couldn't quite put my finger on. I will have to revisit, as being a non-believer, I cannot discount it being due to the "test" conditions, aka sighted...and my fallible perceptions!

I've done enough blind tests to know about witch effects.

One of my issues with audiophiles is exaggerating differences. A small improvement becomes "my system sounds totally different" !

 

Well, no it doesn't. You did something that reduced underlying noise in your system or whatever,  and now it sounds a little better - but the basic sound hasn't changed, and under some conditions you might not even notice the difference.

 

So do I think the $6500 DAC running from an FPGA with proprietary programming (not an off the shelf DAC chip) sounds better than my $130 (actual, not list, price) Meridian Explorer 2? Well, yes. And the difference isn't subtle. But it's not like the Meridian sounds like junk. It actually sounds pretty good. Gets all the basics - and more - correct. If I wasn't paying much attention, I probably wouldn't notice the difference immediately. When listening, yeah, I notice. And over the long term, I'd get used to the better DAC and the sound of the Meridian would seem worse in comparison. But the essential "sound of the system" would be the same. 

[esldude]

21 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

ok, thanks for that...i just wasn't sure that going from analog to analog that it was not possible to be more accurate than going from analog to digital, but i am sure with today's technology, they should be able to....

 

That said, i personally still wouldn't say either vinyl is superior or cd is superior (especially without an agreement as to definition of superiority)...as sometimes when i put on a record, i say to myself...wow that sounds great, and could play the same thing on cd, and be less than impressed...so like everything in audio, nothing is black and white...not even tv's ...

Actually in terms of fidelity it is black and white. CD is superior. Just like my 1967 12 inch vacuum tube analog TV is far inferior to a modern HDTV.

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, firedog said:

One of my issues with audiophiles is exaggerating differences. A small improvement becomes "my system sounds totally different" !

 

Well, no it doesn't. You did something that reduced underlying noise in your system or whatever,  and now it sounds a little better - but the basic sound hasn't changed, and under some conditions you might not even notice the difference.

 

So do I think the $6500 DAC running from an FPGA with proprietary programming (not an off the shelf DAC chip) sounds better than my $130 (actual, not list, price) Meridian Explorer 2? Well, yes. And the difference isn't subtle. But it's not like the Meridian sounds like junk. It actually sounds pretty good. Gets all the basics - and more - correct. If I wasn't paying much attention, I probably wouldn't notice the difference immediately. When listening, yeah, I notice. And over the long term, I'd get used to the better DAC and the sound of the Meridian would seem worse in comparison. But the essential "sound of the system" would be the same. 

Agree with above...

For me to spend exponentially more money, it would have to be dramatic....not "if i listen very hard to a certain track and do a/b comparison i "think" i hear a little more detail...but then i try another song, and not sure which one i like better.

It has to be like night and day, and everything sounds a lot better.

I certainly am willing to spend more money if something clearly makes everything sound "next level" better.

The mcintosh amp made everything sound 10 times better and was a worthy upgrade.

When i go to audio shows, I know when i hear something i like and when i can hear dramatic differences.

RIght now, I am thinking my next big purchase will probably be a speaker upgrade..

 

[beerandmusic]

12 minutes ago, esldude said:

Actually in terms of fidelity it is black and white. CD is superior.

 

That may be true, but i will play a record before i will play a CD....

 

There is a sign drivng from San Diego to Temecula that says "PECHANGA" voted #1 casino in USA TODAY.

Clearly with all the extravagant casinos in vegas, Pechanga can't be voted #1.....may be voted #1 in one aspect...like loosest slots or something other than the obvious.

 

I still ike vinyl and will play vinyl more than a CD (mainly because my digital music is on computer), so for me vinyl is superior than CDs.  Plus i get to use my aesthetic piece of equipment...there is some satisfaction that adds to the mood, so it is superior in that aspect as well..it's like a break from the monotony...  For me, in general terms, neither reigns as superior...just different for different moods.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

That may be true, but i will play a record before i will play a CD....

 

There is a sign drivng from San Diego to Temecula that says "PECHANGA" voted #1 casino in USA TODAY.

Clearly with all the extravagant casinos in vegas, Pechanga can't be voted #1.....may be voted #1 in one aspect...like loosest slots or something other than the obvious.

 

I still ike vinyl and will play vinyl more than a CD (mainly because my digital music is on computer), so for me vinyl is superior than CDs.  Plus i get to use my aesthetic piece of equipment...there is some satisfaction that adds to the mood.  For me, neither reigns as superior...just different for different moods.

But now we're no longer talking about fidelity to the original, which was what you asked about. Vinyl also has larger cover art than CD, so in that regard it is clearly superior.

[esldude]

2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

That may be true, but i will play a record before i will play a CD....

 

There is a sign drivng from San Diego to Temecula that says "PECHANGA" voted #1 casino in USA TODAY.

Clearly with all the extravagant casinos in vegas, Pechanga can't be voted #1.....may be voted #1 in one aspect...like loosest slots or something other than the obvious.

 

I still ike vinyl and will play vinyl more than a CD (mainly because my digital music is on computer), so for me vinyl is superior than CDs.  Plus i get to use my aesthetic piece of equipment...there is some satisfaction that adds to the mood.  For me, neither reigns as superior...just different for different moods.

Classic case of confusing preference with fidelity or accuracy. Your preference is always inviolate as being correct for what you prefer. Yet that does not change the fact that CD is superior in fidelity. You preferring the process of playing vinyl is also fine and correct for your satisfaction.  That is differently determined than fidelity however.

[Jud]

14 minutes ago, esldude said:

Actually in terms of fidelity it is black and white. CD is superior. Just like my 1967 12 inch vacuum tube analog TV is far inferior to a modern HDTV.

 

Yes, though there are enough badly mastered CDs and reasonably mastered LPs, even of the same material, that there will be plenty of instances where the LP might provide a better listening experience.

[beerandmusic]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

But now we're no longer talking about fidelity to the original, which was what you asked about. Vinyl also has larger cover art than CD, so in that regard it is clearly superior.

YES INDEED!  I love my cover art...i collect many records just for the cover art.

That is another great example of why Vinyl is superior to CD. (wink)

[AJ Soundfield]

46 minutes ago, firedog said:

I'm doubtful about the efficacy of blind listening tests in practice.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w5903

http://www.upworthy.com/this-orchestras-blind-audition-proves-bias-sneaks-in-when-you-least-expect-it

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/million-dollar-strads-fall-modern-violins-blind-sound-check etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

I'm not.

A victim of my education and non-audiophile as is currently popular status. YMMV

[beerandmusic]

8 minutes ago, esldude said:

Classic case of confusing preference with fidelity or accuracy. Your preference is always inviolate as being correct for what you prefer. Yet that does not change the fact that CD is superior in fidelity. You preferring the process of playing vinyl is also fine and correct for your satisfaction.  That is differently determined than fidelity however.

I did not bring up the term "fidelity" as it relates to vinyl....i was just stating that the statement OP made:

No one outside of analog audiophile community accepts 'Vinyl is superior to CD' claim seriously.

 

is debatable...even you brought up one reason that CD is inferior to Vinyl.

I even stated i wasn't on one side of the fence or the other.  I will listen to digital music 99 out of 100 times over vinyl, but the one time out of 100 times i play an album...it is a "superior" moment.  The original poster did not initially define their definition of superiority....and as Jud pointed out, sometimes some masters on vinyl will be better than some masters on cd.  I personally would never say in a blanket statement that CD is superior to vinyl.

 

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Yes, though there are enough badly mastered CDs and reasonably mastered LPs, even of the same material, that there will be plenty of instances where the LP might provide a better listening experience.

None of which is illustrative of which medium is superior in fidelity.

[AJ Soundfield]

18 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

That may be true, but i will play a record before i will play a CD....

You'd be another perfect candidate for my vinyl dual output with one through 16/44 ADA loop comparison.

Funny stuff. 

[beerandmusic]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

None of which is illustrative of which medium is superior in fidelity.

the original statement did not mention fidelity.

It was just a "blanket statement" suggesting that vinyl is inferior to cd...that is the only thing i said was debateable...and i didn't say which side of fence i was on...just that it was debatable....and now we are debating (wink).

 

[beerandmusic]

I would argue that vinyl is superior with wine, and that cd is superior with beer.

 

[plissken]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

I'm doubtful about the efficacy of blind listening tests in practice. Personally I find that I listen differently in "test" situations. There is a fair amount of psychological stress involved also. So I don't think what I hear in that scenario is the same as what I hear when listening for enjoyment, even critically. 

 

I assume one way around this would be to conduct the tests with lots of subjects and under different testing conditions. You'd sort of assume that  any issues of the kind I'm referring to would cease to have much of an influence then. 

But that isn't a likely scenario. And even less so in a home environment.

 

So you are saying you couldn't tell the difference between 128Kbps MP3 and 24/192 blind. Good to know.

[esldude]

12 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

the original statement did not mention fidelity.

It was just a "blanket statement" suggesting that vinyl is inferior to cd...that is the only thing i said was debateable...and i didn't say which side of fence i was on...just that it was debatable....and now we are debating (wink).

 

It is obvious in context of Lighthouse's post he was thinking in terms of fidelity or accuracy. In his mind and mine there actually is no debate that vinyl can be better. It's the whole point of his post. Such an idea is well past the time when it should be debated. It should simply be accepted and a total non-issue. Preference for vinyl is a whole different thing.

[Dragonfyr]

14 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

You'd be another perfect candidate for my vinyl dual output with one through 16/44 ADA loop comparison.

Funny stuff. 

Explain this method and why it's relevant? What does it prove? 

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

It is obvious in context of lighthouse's post he was thinking in terms of fidelity or accuracy. In his mind and mine there actually is no debate that vinyl can be better. It's the whole point of his post. Such an idea is well past the time when it should be debated. It should simply be accepted and a total non-issue. Preference for vinyl is a whole different thing.

Maybe it was clear to you and him what he meant...I am a little slow (actually i have a genius IQ, but am ADD)...i was responding to the post in regards to subject..e.g. why contempt for audiophiles.....

 

I think vinyl and cd both sound great, neither being superior....it probably has more to do with the type of beer or wine I am drinking at the moment.

 

[Jud]

22 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w5903

http://www.upworthy.com/this-orchestras-blind-audition-proves-bias-sneaks-in-when-you-least-expect-it

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/million-dollar-strads-fall-modern-violins-blind-sound-check etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

I'm not.

A victim of my education and non-audiophile as is currently popular status. YMMV

 

So we’ve got a couple of articles saying there are problems with bias in sighted tests - certainly no problem agreeing with that - and another saying it’s likely people prefer the louder instrument; no problem there either.

[AJ Soundfield]

8 minutes ago, Dragonfyr said:

Explain this method and why it's relevant? What does it prove? 

That I enjoy humor and can catch sarcasm eventually

[Dragonfyr]

Just now, AJ Soundfield said:

That I enjoy humor and can catch sarcasm eventually