2. misc-audio
  3. 1243114910

I Just Don't Hear It - I wish I did

I am frustrated because I am an audiophile who cannot discern details from so many of the methods praised by other audiophiles. I joke about not having golden ears. That said, I can easily discern and appreciate good soundstage, image, balance, tone, timbre, transparency and even the synergy of a system. I am however unable to hear the improvements that result from, say a piece of Teflon tape or a $5.00 item from the plumbing aisle at Home Depot. Furthermore, I think it is grossly unfair that I must pay in multiples of one hundred, or even one thousand just to gain relatively slight improvements in transparency, detail, timbre soundstage, etc., when other audiophiles can gain the same level of details from a ten dollar tweak. In an effort to sooth my frustration, I tell myself that my fellow audiophiles are experiencing a placebo effect of some sort. Does anyone else struggle to hear….no wait; does anyone else struggle to comprehend how someone else can hear the perceived benefits gained by the inclusion of any number of highly touted tweaks/gimmicks (brass screws, copper couplers, Teflon tape, maple hardwood, racquet balls, etc.) I mean, the claims are that these methods actually result in improved soundstage, image, detail (“blacker backgrounds”), clarity, bass definition, etc.
Am I alone in my frustration here?
2chnlben

Showing 2 responses by rodman99999

rodman99999
6,206 posts
 
PS: That was all BTW, and I won't be back, so- Relax!.
rodman99999
6,206 posts
 
I have to agree with everything 'N' said about varying aural acuity, and training with regard to "hearing differences". Then there's the other crap he's spouting. It takes MUCH more faith to accept evolution, as there is absolutely no scientific process possible to support it. The "scientific process" requires that something MUST BE repeatable, observable and recordable to be proven. Evolution is none of these, and further: flies in the face of the first two laws of Thermodynamics. It's totally grounded in philosophical preference, NOT scientific-inference. On the other hand: Science HAS determined that the simplest living cell has, what's been termed, "irreducible complexity", and Darwin himself stated, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species. (http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840) One might also consider MIT's having run a probability program, mathematically determining that it would be TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a single DNA strand to spontaneously occur. When I ran across this video at Blockbuster, I thought it would be a comedy and rented it: (http://www.expelledthemovie.com/) Very thought provoking, and a revelation concerning the fear the scientific and educational establishments have with regards to being found in error. Not exactly, "Misc Audio", but I didn't bring up the topic!
More to discover