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

[Albrecht]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

Through scientific studies.

what kind?

[fas42]

As an example of where forums go off the rails, note that I disturb AJ with my ideas, and rather than engage with me seriously in what I say, he chooses "to play the man" - this is where people who claim they are rational show their limitations; their beliefs comfort zone is theatened, and they retaliate by making a lot of "silly noise".

[kumakuma]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

As an example of where forums go off the rails, note that I disturb AJ with my ideas, and rather than engage with me seriously in what I say, he chooses "to play the man" - this is where people who claim they are rational show their limitations; their beliefs comfort zone is theatened, and they retaliate by making a lot of "silly noise".

 

Seems like you're doing the same thing with a post like this...

[plissken]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

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.

 

It's an attempt to answer Jud's initial question as to the why. 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.

[fas42]

19 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Seems like you're doing the same thing with a post like this...

 

Yes, it could be seen as that, but AJ tends to take it to a whole next level,
 

Quote

 

Can you quote someone other than you (or crazy Frank) saying that?

 

 

 

 

 

Since we are talking about people who "show their contempt for audiophiles", that is, the latter who trust their ears to tell themselves something of value about what is going on - it did seem relevant ...

[jiminlogansquare]

My take is that people come here to show contempt for audiophiles because there are so many audiophiles here. They probably found out long ago that trolling audiophiles on the NASCAR appreciation websites got less than optimal results.

[kumakuma]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, it could be seen as that, but AJ tends to take it to a whole next level,
 

 

Why don't you just add him to your ignore list?

[wgscott]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

Why don't you just add him to your ignore list?

 

I added them both.

 

 

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Why don't you just add him to your ignore list?

 

That's not the point. AJ has many interesting ideas about audio, and I'm happy to see what he says in those areas - it's not about having "silly" fights; it's about allowing a good space to flourish, where ideas can be tossed around, without the "I don't like you!" elements intruding.

 

Again, this is a thread which is focused on why people need to show contempt for audiophiles - and that's why I'm mentioning here; my thoughts on AJ are irrelevant elsewhere on CA.

[Ralf11]

there is no such need, and the premise of Jud's initial question is false - people do not come here to do that

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Again, this is a thread which is focused on why people need to show contempt for audiophiles - and that's why I'm mentioning here; my thoughts on AJ are irrelevant elsewhere on CA.

 

I don't see how your thoughts on AJ are relevant to this topic. As far as I can tell, he is mocking your beliefs and approach to the hobby, not the fact that you are an audiophile. In other words, just more objectivist-subjectivist bickering.

[fas42]

IMO, Daudio nailed it right here,

Over and out.

[Ralf11]

There is a lot of consumer fraud in the audio world.

 

This site is relatively sensible because of the number of technically trained people who can quickly detect BS.  Audiogoon is pretty much the opposite, and apparently contains a number of shills who are paid to tout dubious products.

[Daudio]

42 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

there is no such need, and the premise of Jud's initial question is false - people do not come here to do that

 

You live in a fantasy world 

[esldude]

5 hours ago, jabbr said:

Fair enough. I think that each person can decide at which point music reproduction is "good enough" and at the end of the day, if the system is enjoyable to listen to, that is the most important consideration. At what point did you decide that digital reproduction had become perfect? What led you to this decision?

First off, I didn't say perfect.  I said audibly transparent.  Maybe like Bob Stuart saying MQA is audibly lossless.  Not perfect, but not audible as normally used. The what was a series of listening tests, experiences and looking at what does what.

 

One that was made public here.  Finding I could not hear a difference in digital original files and the 4th generation of them having been sent thru an AD/DA loop.  Finding I could only sometimes, on some music hear the 8th generation copy.  This with a couple of pieces of $400 gear, no expensive cables, power supplies or USB isolators.  I posted those and saw little reason to think others could hear it based upon their choices in a poll and other people's messages or posts simply saying they couldn't hear it.

 

Comparing straight wire with wire having an AD/DA stage in the middle.

 

A recording magazine posted files a few years back where they took 3 pairs of microphones, playing over 8 different mic-preamps using a Bosendorfer that can play itself in a large studio (rumored to be Abbey road).  Prices ranged from $450 to something over $10k for the pres.  Firstly, just like here very few would venture making a choice.  In time, they let people rank the undisclosed preamps by preference.  The $450 unit was most preferred, followed by an $8k unit, etc. etc.  Price certainly didn't correspond with preference in this case. There was good reason to think people weren't hearing real differences as votes were nearly an even split.

 

A fellow doing a similar test on his own posted files of some 11 preamps ranging from $250 to about $12k.  Listening without knowing which was which I thought two sounded different.  The rest I ranked.  Did that again, and rankings were all jumbled except for the two.  Pretty much the results other people had with his test posting.  Investigation of the files after they were revealed indicated the most obvious file was down - 3db at 18 khz and down enough to matter into the midrange.  The other was strangely shelved down somewhere around 4 khz by 1.25 db if I remember rightly.  The others were within +/- .04 db to 20 khz (mostly closer than that except at extremes). 

 

Another test of ADCs by a magazine with files posted.  Similar results.  One had a frequency aberration.  The only one reliably picked out.   It is nearly conventional wisdom among many pro recording people AD converters are a solved problem.  Maybe not everyone, but many, maybe most of them.  Need an ADC, few hundred bucks is plenty for one. 

 

Analog circuits connected to these devices are good enough too or you wouldn't get those results.

 

So taken altogether not hard to come to the conclusion that nothing between microphone and amp need be nor likely is audible unless someone makes it audibly different (read colored to taste) or performs some kind of processing.  Are there people who hear better than me?  Sure.  Is there better gear than I have?  Sure.  Are there hidden large improvements waiting to be made in audio?  Other than transducers and the psycho-acoustic processing of sound,...NO.   There may be minor improvements. 

 

Over and over when you do find people can hear a difference it is when there is uneven FR, overload, or noise.  Otherwise when the labels are hidden differences are scarce.  What else would you expect given what is clearly known about hearing, and the current levels of very low distortion, low noise and flat response.

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

So taken altogether not hard to come to the conclusion that nothing between microphone and amp need be nor likely is audible unless someone makes it audibly different (read colored to taste) or performs some kind of processing.

Thanks for answering honestly. Seriously. Although I don't dra w the same conclusions from your experiences, I belieive that if people can honestly share the reasons why they believe what they believe that we might collectively be able to more honestly see where people are coming from. I do think that we each should respect the different reasons why each of us have come to our own conclusions and if we wish to convince others of our viewpoint, this should be done respectfully.

[TubeLover]

On 6/19/2017 at 7:17 PM, jabbr said:

What I've also seen is that certain folks who are industry experts have been aggressively chased off the site -- is this related?

 

(eg @alfe and did @bdiament just get tired of us?)

Which is a truly unfortunate loss for this community. People who have that degree of knowledge are extremely valuable assets and they are now lost to this community. You could also add Mike Moffat of Schiit to that list.

 

JC

[jabbr]

5 hours ago, mansr said:

Through scientific studies.

Yes! Unfortunately we very infrequently know the differences because very few real scientific studies, and fewer definitive ones, are done on home audio products... the flip side would be that in the absence of a real definitive scientific study we ought not assert anything ... ssshh  

[NOMBEDES]

There is something wrong with us.

I blame the Television, MTV, video games, Newt Gingrich (SP) and the anonymous nature of the internet. 

Why do we devolve into vicious name calling over audio cables? 

Cables do not "sound" better or worse, they sound different.

I maintain that most audio controversy can be explained by the vast variation in human hearing rather than empirical fact.

Why do politicians put party over country?  Because we keep electing them.

Respectful discourse is dead. We have become course. 

No one here on the internet knows if they are typing notes to a dog.

Woof.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"No one here on the internet knows if they are typing notes to a dog"

 

I love that sentence. Gave me a good chuckle. So true. 

[master]

13 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Totally disagree. It's the one thing we all have in common, otherwise I wouldn't be here.

I'm a manufacturer. I've exhibited at around a dozen audio shows. I'm a member of the local audiophile club, with over a hundred members and 2 meets per month minimum.

So I consider myself "immersed" and have been exposed to literally thousands of audiophiles and nearly as many systems. 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. Yet that is their favorite pass time, "arguing" about electro-acoustics/perception, not just, "hey, this thing sound great to me and I don't care what absurd reason why".

 

You've just proved my point... all the talk is about being a manufacturer, exhibitions, audio shows, local audiophile clubs, etc.

 

The discussion should really be about the music... if that's something that really gives you joy... and if that's the case then you'd enjoy good music even from crappy smartphone speakers.

 

Most so called "audiophiles" don't know their music... or probably don't even enjoy music. To me it seems they enjoy equipment more... and the endless discussions about that equipment.

[master]

13 hours ago, Daudio said:

So why did you come to CA and Display Your Contempt For Audiophiles so Clearly and Blatantly ?

 

I didn't. If you check any of my old posts I've never insulted anyone (I lost my cool just once with one person who took particular joy in being vitriolic with regards to me)... and especially no personal attacks of any kind. If anything I've been away a long time and the very first discussion (after visiting CA) I run into is this thread.

 

13 hours ago, Daudio said:

You accuse us of not knowing music, and use as an example a R&B artist who's only been performing for 6 years ?!?!?

 

And you expect us to take you seriously ?... NOT !

 

 

The Weeknd is only an example... the point I'm trying to make is that music is different from equipment... and that most of my experiences with audiophiles has been about equipment and very little about music.

 

If you really love music, then you'll love it no matter what... even from the non-audiophile radio in a taxi. Good music will get your feet tapping no matter what or where you are.

 

And based on my personal experience I'd say an audiophile OTOH cannot be bothered to listen to music, much less enjoy it, unless it's on a $250,000 system with $20,000 worth of cables.

 

PS: I'm just stating my personal observations, not being personal or insulting anyone. The term "audiophile" even applies to me... since I do spend so much on actual music and equipment... so that said I'm even insulting myself... especially for all the times I've played with my system tweaking it, instead of just enjoying the music.

 

And of course we can agree to disagree... I'm not you and you've obviously had different experiences from me.

 

But all said and done, I'd make it all about music and certainly less about the equipment. These days my setup consists of multiple Echo Dots either acting as both source and DAC or as a BT streamer and I for one can certainly say I'm enjoying my music even more... without actually having to lift a finger.

[esldude]

53 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

There is something wrong with us.

I blame the Television, MTV, video games, Newt Gingrich (SP) and the anonymous nature of the internet. 

Why do we devolve into vicious name calling over audio cables? 

Cables do not "sound" better or worse, they sound different.

I maintain that most audio controversy can be explained by the vast variation in human hearing rather than empirical fact.

Why do politicians put party over country?  Because we keep electing them.

Respectful discourse is dead. We have become course. 

No one here on the internet knows if they are typing notes to a dog.

Woof.

 

I knew it was a dog on the other end.  The give away was course for coarse. 

 

Meant in good humor my furry friend.

[master]

11 hours ago, mansr said:

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

 

Ha ha... just about sums it up perfectly for me.

[master]

11 hours 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'. 

 

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.