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

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Daudio said:

 

Perhaps that is because you are part of the problem, and can't recognize the water you swim in ?

I see it, and a strong look in a miiror might do you some good.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

Every post of yours that I saw before Ignoring you (and some later by accident, as here), has been toxic and mean-spirited, taking every opportunity to denigrate anything, and anyone, related to listening rather then measuring.

 

I consider your postings here on CA to be a insidious danger to the CA community as a whole, with no redeeming social (or technical) value.

 

Sorry but I call it like I see it !

 

And you are very germane to the topic of this thread. Where did you come from ? Arriving right after the big contentious Obj/Sub thread got shut down, and not alone either, as a few other new, vocal, blindly 'objective' members appeared about then too.

 

So, are you a terrorist agent sent from Hydro Audio, or some other den of 'righteous' thinkers ? 

 

 

I see someone has taken the suggestion not to get personal about this to heart.

[Albrecht]

18 hours ago, jabbr said:

I think that, probably, folks intend to disagree with an idea, an approach or even a way of thinking but instead attack a person (an audiophile)

So I strongly think that if we could all avoid personal attacks, this behavior would diminish

I agree of course. My point was only that there is a big difference between the people in the hobby, vs the hobby itself. I don't really like the word "hobby." And of course, there is a big difference between being a "non-audiophile" and an "anti-audiophile." Hopefully, this site will bring together both Audiophiles and "anti-audiophiles" through (computer), or digital file playback. Traditionally, (since way back in the .mp3 days) it is computer, (hardware and software designers), who have eschewed the audiophile paradigm of "high performance equipment." To the point of your post: in many ways, - you (not you but people) don't see "audiophiles" making a concerted point to attack those who don't believe there are varying levels of performance in audio playback gear.  Cheers,

[Daudio]

46 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I'm a member of the local audiophile club, with over a hundred members and 2 meets per month minimum...

Most a very nice people. With nearly zero technical knowledge and understanding of physics as it relates to electro-acoustics, nor anything related to psycho-acoustics and perception.

 

I also belong to a local audio club, with 1 to 2 dozen members, that meets mostly every week. And I've been doing that for decades, some I've known for over 40 years. This is the 3rd audio club I've been lucky to associate with over my life.

 

I don't recognize your description of your club members at all. I think it is tainted by some very fundamental flaw in your views of other people. The audio people I know (and knew) have a range of familiarity with science and technology. Some don't care, and that's fine - yet them enjoy the hobby as they wish (its called freedom). Others, including myself, have engineering and technical backgrounds, even building and repairing electronic audio equipment. Perhaps 30% of group. Some were gear-heads (very first ABX box), and more were balanced between tech and listening. A range of knowledge and attitudes, just like in real life, not an ugly stereotype.

 

So with 4 to 5 times the number of member I expect you to have a significant number of members who knew their way around a soldering iron or Ohm's law.

 

So what's wrong with this picture ? Is it your audio group ? Or your flawed view of your group ? Or maybe a few fudged numbers to support your 'argument' ?

I don't know, and don't care, because I simply do not find you creditable, at all.

 

Over and out.

 

[plissken]

Jud, I've honestly witnessed more flagrant attacking of proven principals of how NRTOS based computer audio works than there should remotely be.

 

I've the threads to prove it. For me it started years ago where I showed the proposed experts that they were talking out their ass, to have people actually try and debate a proven fact, to have Jim Hillegrass from JRiver back me up 100% and then have someone that runs a company that makes, IMO, the industry leading media player, also be attacked.

 

Then we have threads were the audiophiles start posting white papers and honest to goodness research articles that they have no idea how to properly interpret and attack me and others, again, for using said papers to point out their lack of technical ability to comprehend what they are talking about.

 

You want to know why? The hardcore subjective audiophile is a soft target and it's much funner to play with mice than something with real teeth. CA, for whatever reason, provides for an abundance of such idiocy but it's also a source for showing such idiocy in stark contrast and actually make a point that have honestly helped some people out that have skills to critically evaluate all sides.  That's a win for fell CA'ers here that are looking for some absolute truths in this hobby. Not everything matters.

 

 

[AJ Soundfield]

5 minutes ago, Daudio said:

Others, including myself, have engineering and technical backgrounds

 

Yes of course, just like you are completely ignoring me, remember? Excellent self perspective. 

[Daudio]

20 minutes ago, Jud said:

I see someone has taken the suggestion not to get personal about this to heart.

 

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.

 

And I'm not making ad hominen attacks, but calling out malicious behavior in the authors own words.

 

What else would you have me do ? Shut up and let the antisocial behavior continue to drag this forum down, stifling speech*, and inhibiting traffic ???

 

I think not, but what say you ?

 

 

* not only in violation of the CA Forums Terms of Service, but unconstitutional in the USA

[jabbr]

15 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

To the point of your post: in many ways, - you (not you but people) don't see "audiophiles" making a concerted point to attack those who don't believe there are varying levels of performance in audio playback gear. 

 

I wasn't thinking of a specific subgroup of audiophiles. Don't all audiophiles think there are differences in at least some playback gear? -- could you clarify?

[rickca]

39 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 

I see someone has taken the suggestion not to get personal about this to heart.

I'm so glad someone is here to protect us from the meanies. 

[esldude]

17 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I wasn't thinking of a specific subgroup of audiophiles. Don't all audiophiles think there are differences in at least some playback gear? -- could you clarify?

Maybe he means people like me.  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.

[rickca]

20 minutes ago, Daudio said:

I think not, but what say you ?

You could let people use their own judgment.

[The Computer Audiophile]

21 minutes ago, Daudio said:

unconstitutional in the USA

 

The constitution has nothing to do with a private forum. The 1st Amendment only protects you from the Government. 

[Daudio]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

The constitution has nothing to do with a private forum. The 1st Amendment only protects you from the Government. 

 

Fair enough, but I was trying to make a point. And since you bring it up, the CA Terms of Service IS your concern, IIRC 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

Jud, I've honestly witnessed more flagrant attacking of proven principals of how NRTOS based computer audio works than there should remotely be.

 

I've the threads to prove it. For me it started years ago where I showed the proposed experts that they were talking out their ass, to have people actually try and debate a proven fact, to have Jim Hillegrass from JRiver back me up 100% and then have someone that runs a company that makes, IMO, the industry leading media player, also be attacked.

 

Then we have threads were the audiophiles start posting white papers and honest to goodness research articles that they have no idea how to properly interpret and attack me and others, again, for using said papers to point out their lack of technical ability to comprehend what they are talking about.

 

You want to know why? The hardcore subjective audiophile is a soft target and it's much funner to play with mice than something with real teeth. CA, for whatever reason, provides for an abundance of such idiocy but it's also a source for showing such idiocy in stark contrast and actually make a point that have honestly helped some people out that have skills to critically evaluate all sides.  That's a win for fell CA'ers here that are looking for some absolute truths in this hobby. Not everything matters.

 

 

 

You have a lot to offer many of us who are always looking for more information. However, "playing" with "soft targets" has no place here. 

 

I encourage you to offer information to those of us interested in such information and to ignore those who would like you to ignore them. 

[BigAlMc]

18 hours ago, Jud said:

Is that what you’d tend to do at a local bar or club?

 

What!

 

Go to a bar where the music might be some MP3 (128kb, not even full fat 320kb) random playlist, played through shoddy blown out speakers that you can barely hear above the chatter of people enjoying themselves!

 

I think not!

 

[mourip]

49 minutes ago, plissken said:

Jud, I've honestly witnessed more flagrant attacking of proven principals of how NRTOS based computer audio works than there should remotely be.

 

Sorry. What does NRTOS stand for?

[Daudio]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

I believe it is the job of measurements to explain subjective sensory phenomena, rather than explain them away  

 

I knew there was something about you that I liked ! Great quote

 

 

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

That and folks like @wgscott have had threats that someone would go to their employer ..(!)

 

I remember that situation playing out on these pages years ago. and it revolved around a posted picture of him. I can't say I know everything about it, but my strong take-away from back then is he descended into an almost pathological fit of paranoia (I was shocked), talking all kinds of wild 'what-if's', and refusing to let it go, which is probably why that myth still hangs around 

 

 

[jabbr]

15 minutes ago, 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.

 

Interesting. An honest question: why participate in CA then, if all that matters are transducers why not participate in fora devoted to speakers and other transducers?

[Albrecht]

34 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I wasn't thinking of a specific subgroup of audiophiles. Don't all audiophiles think there are differences in at least some playback gear? -- could you clarify?

Hi,

We can get into some specific instances, and that is often great: for when someone starts elucidating specific equipment, & specific incidents/experiences, - many generalizations (might) fall apart.

We've discussed cables, & there are threads regarding the Schiit Yiggy as 1 example. In this particular case, there was a segment of folks who were criticizing the design, and all those who were asserting that higher performing DACs were NOT higher performing, and that there was no basis for an audiophile assertion that (for example) a Meitner performs much better than a $350 Sony. I took Jud's OP to be asking, - why do anti-audiophiles come on audiophile website & attack audiophiles? I see this as a very valid question. And, there have been some good answers put forth already. Would it be worthwhile to remind folks that everyone likely has 4 to 5 or more music playback systems. The point being that it is highly likely that not all of these systems perform the same.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

I took Jud's OP to be asking, - why do anti-audiophiles come on audiophile website & attack audiophiles? I see this as a very valid question.

 

Agreed.

[esldude]

21 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Interesting. An honest question: why participate in CA then, if all that matters are transducers why not participate in fora devoted to speakers and other transducers?

Well I originally came to CA when there were just beginning to be high quality ways to feed bit perfect audio from your computer to DACs in a high end playback system.  There were things to learn about good ripping practices, and over the years various ins and outs of modern playback software.  While here I suppose it got to be a comfortable community.  So while here one gets in these other discussions.  The rest should be easy enough to figure out.

As for forums about speakers, I don't participate like I once did in those.  I do participate in some recording forums where microphones are a common topic.

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

I took Jud's OP to be asking, - why do anti-audiophiles come on audiophile website & attack audiophiles? I see this as a very valid question.

 

What defines one as an 'anti-audiophile'? Those who believe in measurements? Or those who believe in listening? Or those who don't agree with long term evaluations, or those who only accept blind testing? Objectivists or subjectivists? Digital cable affects SQ or it doesn't? Grounding boxes work or they don't? Climate change is real or fake? Or maybe it's simply someone that doesn't agree with me (and, of course, I know that I am an audiophile)?

 

I'm genuinely interested in how one would define an 'anti-audiophile'. 

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

What defines one as an 'anti-audiophile'?

This list should be a good start: https://twitter.com/justinbieber/followers

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

What defines one as an 'anti-audiophile'? Those who believe in measurements? Or those who believe in listening? Or those who don't agree with long term evaluations, or those who only accept blind testing? Objectivists or subjectivists? Digital cable affects SQ or it doesn't? Grounding boxes work or they don't? Climate change is real or fake? Or maybe it's simply someone that doesn't agree with me (and, of course, I know that I am an audiophile)?

 

I'm genuinely interested in how one would define an 'anti-audiophile'. 

 

That's a tough question. For me an anti-audiophile is someone who makes negative comments about the whole group of people who consider themselves audiophiles. For example, "audiophiles have more money than sense and they don't like music." I've seen those comments many times and they say more about the person leaving the comment that about the target of the comment. 

 

Perhaps a little leeway and attempt at understanding all sides would help.

[kilroy]

To me an anti-audiophile is someone who attacks a regular Joe's views, including mine. They are a minority here but can usually be identified by the person telling Joe that he's wrong, or Joe don't know what he's talking about, or knows nothing about technical matters.

[Jud]

46 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

I knew there was something about you that I liked ! Great quote

 

 

 

I remember that situation playing out on these pages years ago. and it revolved around a posted picture of him. I can't say I know everything about it, but my strong take-away from back then is he descended into an almost pathological fit of paranoia (I was shocked), talking all kinds of wild 'what-if's', and refusing to let it go, which is probably why that myth still hangs around 

 

 

 

 

I am very familiar with the situation, and it is no myth at all.  Nor was any paranoia involved.

 

The only other parallel situation I recall is when some idiot decided that arguing with Paul R (who used to use his full name on the forum, but not after this) should involve Googling personal information about him and splashing it around the forum.  Chris banned him promptly.