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

[beerandmusic]

5 hours ago, Andyman said:

I have a friend who has been writing a book for many years. His writing is shit. That does not make him a shit. However I do not tell him his writing is shit.

 

He does not frequent this forum!

If he asked for your opinion would you be fake or honest?

 

I actually respect someone more that will be honest than fake.   People that are fake just avoid confrontation...it takes more courage to be honest, but still sensitive to their feelings.  People should understand that no one is perfect and that there is nothing wrong with differences of opinion.  If everyone  thought this way, then people wouldn't be so sensitive to criticism, and could learn more and be more productive and knowledgeable.  I value honesty over non-confrontational.  I also realize that many people value non-confrontational over honesty.  I understand that more people look at life from that angle, and that I am a minority in this regard...but i still believe my thinking is better.  WWJD.  I think there is a fine-line of being honest yet sensitive, and that if you are not willing to be compassionate and take the time to show sensitivity with your honesty, it's probably better to just lie...but the best answer is honesty with sensitivity.

 

JMO

 

[MikeyFresh]

25 minutes ago, jabbr said:

perhaps, just perhaps loosening screws affects the transmission of vibration to components.

 

Not too far fetched at all, maybe a difference in a constrained layer damping type effect, depending on the actual materials in use for the chassis, cover/lid/feet, even the screws themselves. Stiffness/density/anodized/painted etc... potential variables in the materials used that could produce an audible result if screws were loosened or tightened. Not voodoo pseudo science, just a difference in the way vibration is transmitted (or not).

 

Could be audible as better or worse, unless one requires reams of empirical data to arrive at indisputable measured proof of the audibility (otherwise it certainly cannot exist). In that case it isn't audible to them.

[lucretius]

35 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Are we having a fellacious focus??

 That's fellating on a fallacious hope.

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

Not too far fetched at all, maybe a difference in a constrained layer damping type effect, depending on the actual materials in use for the chassis, cover/lid/feet, even the screws themselves. Stiffness/density/anodized/painted etc... potential variables in the materials used that could produce an audible result if screws were loosened or tightened. Not voodoo pseudo science, just a difference in the way vibration is transmitted (or not).

 

Could be audible as better or worse, unless one requires reams of empirical data to arrive at indisputable measured proof of the audibility (otherwise it certainly cannot exist). In that case it isn't audible to them.

 

I know that Demian Martin, designer of some Spectral and Constellation equipment, did write about concerns regarding vibration when he used to hang out here, and he was never one for fantasies.

 

On the other hand, @mansr could well be right.

[kumakuma]

23 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

If he asked for your opinion would you be fake or honest?

 

I actually respect someone more that will be honest than fake.   People that are fake just avoid confrontation...it takes more courage to be honest, but still sensitive to their feelings.  People should understand that no one is perfect and that there is nothing wrong with differences of opinion.  If everyone  thought this way, then people wouldn't be so sensitive to criticism, and could learn more and be more productive and knowledgeable.  I value honesty over non-confrontational.  I also realize that many people value non-confrontational over honesty.  I understand that more people look at life from that angle, and that I am a minority in this regard...but i still believe my thinking is better.  WWJD.  I think there is a fine-line of being honest yet sensitive, and that if you are not willing to be compassionate and take the time to show sensitivity with your honesty, it's probably better to just lie...but the best answer is honesty with sensitivity.

 

JMO

 

 

WWJD = What Would Jud Do?

 

Not a bad way to conduct yourself on this forum...

[jabbr]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I know that Demian Martin, designer of some Spectral and Constellation equipment, did write about concerns regarding vibration when he used to hang out here, and he was never one for fantasies.

 

On the other hand, @mansr could well be right.

You could just build a bottlehead crack and then give it a smack while your headphones in  that would be empirical evidence that vibes affect tubes  

[kumakuma]

27 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

I've learned the hard way and now will never buy music that I don't like because it was "well recorded."

 

+100

 

I've spent way too much money on "audiophiles favorites" that are gathering virtual dust on my hard drive. 

[Jud]

12 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

WWJD = What Would Jud Do?

 

I was born in Bethlehem.

 

 

[Albrecht]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

My DAC cost $375.  Maybe that was $25 too much?

 

It's so much easier to get information I appreciate from the folks here when I don't restrict my attention in accordance with subjectivist or objectivist labels.

Ha... As long as you're not trying to say that it's "better" than a Meitner, - (in the right system of course, - is that an objectivist statement)? 

 

I think that it'd be great if we all wouldn't attach labels: that is essentially saying "having an open mind." I think that folks who experiment for themselves, and also have a wide range of experiences are more likely to have an open mind.

I try really hard not to attach a label, personal opinion, of someone as objectivist or subjectivist, but judge whether or not what they're writing is true, or helpful. As i hope my previous post implied, - there really isn't a lot of so-called objectivism in a subjective paradigm.

But most important to your original OP, - how many people would want to try this cheap/free microphone room test if the poster would've filled the writing with a lot of anti-audiophile hyperbole implying that the mic test was/is REAL: compared to a comparative analysis of "outrageously priced audiophile cables?"

There is a whole section of these forums devoted to utilizing fiber and the people that have benefited from them. Deployment is cheap: the "cables don't make a difference" crowd didn't postulate that "what if?" The VRDS-NEO transport is a "what if?" Too often (in an empirical world) the open-minded person says "let me try it and see," - as opposed to, - "let me tell you why this can't work, and why what you're experiencing is not real."

 

[Jud]

1 minute ago, Albrecht said:

But most important to your original OP, - how many people would want to try this cheap/free microphone room test if the poster would've filled the writing with a lot of anti-audiophile hyperbole implying that the mic test was/is REAL: compared to a comparative analysis of "outrageously priced audiophile cables?"

 

Yes, I agree this is absolutely key.

[lucretius]

10 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I was born in Bethlehem.

 

 

Apparently, Kanye and Bieber already have the bracelets.

 

https://www.google.ca/search?q=WWJD+bracelet&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNkrSIus_UAhWL34MKHYDeDewQsAQIOw&biw=1920&bih=1034

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Too often (in an empirical world) the open-minded person says "let me try it and see," - as opposed to, - "let me tell you why this can't work, and why what you're experiencing is not real."

 

Of course, before we get all self-congratulatory, it's good to note that we *can* go through the trial and error method literally "too often."  There is, sadly, not enough time to do all we want.  So it can be very helpful to try to limit alternatives to the most promising ones.

[christopher3393]

16 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

+100

 

I've spent way too much money on "audiophiles favorites" that are gathering virtual dust on my hard drive. 

 

But that's how digital sound degrades. Play them once in awhile to keep them clean.

[Albrecht]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Of course, before we get all self-congratulatory, it's good to note that we *can* go through the trial and error method literally "too often."  There is, sadly, not enough time to do all we want.  So it can be very helpful to try to limit alternatives to the most promising ones.

Yes... can't disagree with you at all. And if i may add, - this is all contextual. Hopefully, very few people if any are going to plug in $12,000 speaker cables into a $600 Denon DM100 all-in-one system with stand-mount Mission speakers. I would hazard that probably no one would ever do something this extreme, (and admit it), for they would be the hugest target for derision. My point is that I am not discounting that people get obsessed and go too far down the path of diminishing returns, and even in a backwards direction trying to eek out something that becomes "out of context" and cannot be heard.

[kumakuma]

16 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

But that's how digital sound degrades. Play them once in awhile to keep them clean.

 

Now I'm confused. I seem to remember Sandy Alex saying that digital files deteriorate every time they are played.

[Daudio]

33 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I am curious. I have fun explaining things... perhaps, just perhaps loosening screws affects the transmission of vibration to components. So if we are talking tube amps ... I could see this having an effect

 

Exactly...

 

What I see you saying here is that it is better for the audiophile (and more of a scientific attitude IMO) to be open minded about these reports. There is no need to judge them true/false immediately (or ever), and throw away good data. Collect all this data to get smarter. Some may lead to problems or improvements, some may just be due to wishful thinking, and most will probably remain undecided. Being able to hold contradictory information in ones head, is a skill well worth cultivating if one wants to be truly 'scientific'.

 

This reminds me of subscribing to a small cheap weekly magazine called "Science News" a couple of decades back. It had maybe a dozen pages filled with small articles (some just paragraphs). The articles were just little reports of this study, or that study, and what they might imply in their particular field. Just data really, a digestible stream of it, week by week.

 

The wonder of it was that as time passed, I could see different studies of the same/similar thing with differing results, none definitive, but together they painted a picture of the evolving nature of scientific thought, based on multiple views of all kinds of evidence,

 

Throwing away any evidence, 'subjective' or not, is foolish and clearly unscientific !

 

[christopher3393]

13 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Now I'm confused. I seem to remember Sandy Alex saying that digital files deteriorate every time they are played.

 

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.  

[Daudio]

5 minutes 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.

 

Atoms vs bits, and Waaaaaaay Off Topic !  Please take it somewhere else.

[christopher3393]

12 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

Atoms vs bits, and Waaaaaaay Off Topic !  Please take it somewhere else.

 

...meant as humor...forgot to add winkie.

22 minutes ago, Daudio said:

the evolving nature of scientific thought, based on multiple views of all kinds of evidence,

 

Reminds me of a small scale experience of what Thomas Kuhn did (attempted) on a grander scale in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a modern classic in history/philosophy of science. More recently it reminds me of Bruno Latour's work. He is considered the founder of a new field called science studies. His early work looks closely at the gradual process of construction that scientific  theories go through. I'm reading  it now:  https://www.academia.edu/5409673/SCIENCE_IN_ACTION_How_to_follow_scientists_and_engineers_through_society

 

[kumakuma]

36 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

Atoms vs bits, and Waaaaaaay Off Topic ! 

 

I diagree. The tendency of some audiophiles to invent "new science" to explain what they are hearing goes a long way to answering Jud's question. 

[Jud]

Help The Humor Impaired

 

Please give generously.

[jabbr]

13 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

 The tendency of some audiophiles to invent "new science" to explain what they are hearing goes a long way to answering Jud's question. 

I wouldn't even call this "new science" rather effects, behaviors for which there is no known physical mechanism, nor has one been provided. That's very different than a loose screw or a loose tube for which audible effects are known and do, in fact, follow from known physical principles.

A problem I see is when people might assert that because loosening screws might actually effect say a tube amp (to continue this example) that the same sonic effect would occur when loosening screws on ones NAS -- in many cases individual sonic experiences are individual to ones own system -- it takes a great deal of work to create a generalizable theory i.e. "New science"

[esldude]

1 hour 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.  

Maybe digital files have a break-in period. You have to play them enough to smooth the rough edges off.

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, Daudio said:

The wonder of it was that as time passed, I could see different studies of the same/similar thing with differing results, none definitive, but together they painted a picture of the evolving nature of scientific thought, based on multiple views of all kinds of evidence,

 

Throwing away any evidence, 'subjective' or not, is foolish and clearly unscientific !

 

Kuhn is apropos -- most scientists ignore the little bits of data that don't follow the standard model of the day. A scientist comes along and uses these discrepancies (ignored evidence) to create a groundbreaking new theory.

I've seen scientists whom I greatly admire do this.

That said -- need to focus on important stuff -- Id love to see more folks build stuff eg build an "Amp Camp Amp" before getting too caught up in linear vs SMPS or various cables etc. That's just what I think -- at end of day people should do what makes them happy.

[Daudio]

13 minutes ago, esldude said:

Maybe digital files have a break-in period. You have to play them enough to smooth the rough edges off.

 

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 ?