What is wrong with Audiophiles?

So true, ml8764ag, but you forgot:

• Wikipedia cut and paste (thrown at anyone who knows more than him).

Alas, he was nice enough to bring it up for you :-)  .... and nice enough of him to prove my point that as opposed to addressing what I wrote, he just slings ad-homs.

Here is a simple challenge for you geoff ...

Go find a spectrum for the laser diode in a CD ... should be easy. Now look at that spectrum.

There is not visible red in the spectrum of the laser, and yes, that cheap laser diode, like all laser diodes are pretty much monochromatic unless designed otherwise. It is not a super sharp wavelength single mode, but even a dirt cheap multi-mode is monochromatic. There may be leakage in the 700-720nm, but it is almost none and would required a dark room to see. Many transports added a red diode inside the assembly to give people comfort "something" was happening. Since the optical detector is focused on the spot, minor stray light is not much of an issue. Look at the second half of this video and how hard it is for the person to even detect the CD laser:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df70YVAg-iI

Many green inks will absorb 780nm. That proves nothing at all except that people who promote things like using green ink (as opposed to some other color) don’t understand much about absorption spectrum of dies and inks. Let’s not forget the optics are also focused, so most scattered light is rejected.

And you are wrong, almost all black inks will absorb 780nm. Again easily proven, just look up absorption spectrums of black inks and dyes. The "color-wheel" only tells you what happens when the light is visible. It tells you nothing about what happens to light on a colored substance when you use non-visible light. You are guessing at what happens and guessing wrong.

All the ad-hominems in the world will not change that You Are Wrong. You keep slinging ad-hominems, I will keep slinging verifiable facts. Let’s see who most people believe.

That was a great list ... have some more things to add to it. Sound familiar?

• Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance
• Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration
• Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
• Exaggerate achievements and talents
• Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
• Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people
• Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior
• Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations
• Take advantage of others to get what they want
• Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
• Be envious of others and believe others envy them
• Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious
• Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office

I don't mean "audiophilia" evidence, I mean evidence that would show up under any level of scrutiny .... i.e. some blind testing. I don't care if you keep in the system 30 second, 30 minutes, or 30 days ...1  ... just one test that can pass for anything that would be considered "evidence" in a normal world that that $70,000 cable can perform noticeably better than one that costs 1/10 or even 1/100th the price.


Here is the thing .... you won't be able to provide it.    You will provide all sorts of ad-hoc evidence, specious claims, etc. but not one real "test". Not one.  So you can use all the superlatives, and adjectives, and flowery language that you want, but it does not make you right as you won't be able to provide proper test results.  That is not my issue, that is yours.

clearthink971 posts11-18-2019 1:32pm
atdavid"With the $70K audio cable, there is no verified evidence that it provides superior audio, and hence most of the price is "jewellery".

This is one of the grandest, boldest, most illogical arguments ever made in this esteemed audio forum. Having already claimed "there is no verified evidence," our contributor then feels entitled, justified, and safe is pronouncing one of his Special Conclusions: " Most of the price is jewelry." Nonsense!

There is actually substantial, significant, abundant, evidence regarding the performance and sonic characteristics of this cable but it’s not the type of evidence atdavid can grasp or digest his style is to assess all evidence unilaterally, e.g. "This evidence here is repeatable and verifiable; that evidence over there is unscientific" so of course he alone decides what is "valid" and what is not.

I understand your attempted analogy, but the $400K Ford GT has some verifiable, significant and usable differences compared to the Fiesta.  At issue is whether the $70K audio cable provides any audible difference compared to a much less expensive cable, in any audio system, even a $1million dollar system.  While an aspect of the $400K is "jewellery", the most significant aspect of it is not.  With the $70K audio cable, there is no verified evidence that it provides superior audio, and hence most of the price is "jewellery". There is little evidence it advances the state of the art or that there is trickle down effect in technology.

If you are someone who likes audio jewellery, AND you won $70mil, sure you may be tempted to spend $70K on a cable. If you are someone who is focused just on the quality of sound above all else, then I doubt you would be tempted.


Contrary to what many on here claim, I don't see a whole lot of envy of someone able to spend $70K on a cable, no more than I see envy that results in insults for someone spending $400K on a Ferrari, or $1.9mil on a Bugatti. Heck, you don't see much of that at all on someone spending $20K+ on a Rolex either .... but if you start to claim that your $20K+ Rolex keeps better time than someone else's $50 atomic clock linked Casio, then don't be surprised when someone calls you out on it.

andy2750 posts11-18-2019 12:31pmI understand where OP is coming from. But from another perspective, there are a lot of people with a lot of money. For those who are driving Toyota Corolla, they probably have the same feeling toward those who are buying a $19 million dollar Bugatti Chiron or even a $350K Ferrari.  

I on the other hand appreciate those who willing to do the research to make a $70K cables. It's the human spirits we should celebrate. It's what advances the human race. It's like Ford selling a $18 thousand dollar Fiesta but also at the same time selling a $400 thousand dollar Ford GT. I am sure the company selling the $70K cables also selling some low end cables that people can afford at 800 dollar. 

1) The semiconductor laser used in CD players has a nominal wavelength that varies about +/- 10nm, i.e. it could be between 770-790nm, however, the bandwidth is very narrow, and will be down >40db within 5nm of the nominal wavelength, and typically within 2-3nm. So that CD laser diode output is worst case about 765-795. There will be no, almost no visible light in a 780nm laser diode.


2) Saying "colors" only affect light in the visible spectrum or that "black" does not absorb infrared light is also incorrect. Ink color indicates what colors in the visible spectrum is reflected (black poorly reflects everything) or not absorbed. It does not indicate what happens in the near-IR (780nm). You can’t say carte-blanche what will happen in the near infrared. Most black inks absorb Very Well in the near infrared (780nm). For green, it would be more variable.

geoffkait18,317 posts11-18-2019 5:38amBoxer, black should never (rpt never) be used on CDs except for the inner edge. The color black on the outer edge hurts the sound. The color black doesn’t absorb infrared light anyway. Also, the color black should not be used for the label side where it also hurts the sound. Unfortunately, some CDs have a black label. And the colors used in the graphics of CD labels affect the sound because they influence the scattered light. The color Black should always be used for the inner edge. As fate would have it no colors, including black, can affect the invisible infrared scattered light which, as I mentioned is 75% of the scattered laser light. The bandwidth of the CD laser is around 650-850 nm. Nominal wavelength 780 nm. Colors only affect light in the visible portion of the spectrum. A color’s complementary color absorbs that color. So, Turquoise (Cyan) absorbs Red, for example.

I am not trying to sell anything Cleeds. I am not making exceptional claims Cleeds. However, I have probably lost track of the number of times audiophile "friends" have made such claims, but when they let me switch things without knowing what was switched, suddenly their super-human hearing claims disappear. Unlike the clique on here with their "everything matters" mantra, I am very careful about the types of products I call out .... you would also think I have some experience with these things ....

Cleeds, I have lost count of the number of time audiophile friends have made claims and I added a blind aspect and the claim dissolved. Just for you, I will start writing them down and posting them here :-) 


How about you doing the same instead of assuming you have Superhuman hearing?

If you believe that Thyname maybe you need to hang around less threads about things that don't help your sound and more threads about things that do. That or stop being dishonest.

Attention span issue?

I -- repeat -- I, do not want to be one more unqualified comment in a long stream of unqualified comments, hence why I -- repeat -- I, don’t jump in on every thread about component X to offer my opinion. I don’t see the value in it, and it is My choice whether I will post or not. That is why I restrict my comment to supportable statements about more general topics in audio. There is no value in yet another comment. Do we really need another comment saying "B&W 80x is too bright!" or "no it’s not!". However, pointing out that some speaker makers consciously design a very wide emission pattern, and that if you find those speakers too bright, it is a room/speaker interaction issues, does have value. That is a post I made.

cleeds2,557 posts11-19-2019 10:42am Sez you. But this group does not exist solely for your amusement and satisfaction. Some of us enjoy reading about others’ listening experiences, even in the absence of definitive conclusions, and even in the absence of the scientific listening tests you keep asking others to conduct for you.

Engineering does not make the claim that the tiny number is swamped by the large number in audio.

Psychoacoustics makes that claim and backs it up with research.


Neuroscience makes that claim and backs it up with research.

Neurophysics makes that claim and backs it up with research.

Engineering uses the work of those fields, and their research to define the parameters for the products, methods, and concepts that they develop.  If you have an issue, it is with the above fields, not engineering. 

You may grand statements about "this is not the way the ear works", but perhaps you can back that up with some research from psychoacoustics, neuroscience, and/or neurophysics and show how "engineering" is not properly using these principles as it relates to audio? 

teo_audio1,243 posts11-19-2019 11:04am
Where engineering analysis makes the judgement numerically as a comparative value. And makes the mistake in the thought that the tiny number is swamped by the big number.

This method and way is absurd as it has nothing to do with how the ear works or how the ear hears. The measurement is correct. The concocted and assumed meaning of it is not correct.

That is the mistake.

I prefer my anonymity here, as I do consulting work in the industry, (but sell no products in this industry). My insurance (likely yours too) also specifically recommended against it.  It was your choice to show off your system. I have no such need for validation or confirmation. It would change not one iota the validity of what I post (or don't post). If you need a point of reference, when we last did our basement reno, I installed a dedicated theater/listening room. In addition to the basic room construction costs, there is about $8-10K of materials for acoustic treatment, emphasis on materials, as most of the acoustics are built into the structure, which looks better, and gives you better value as you are not buying finished products. All the acoustics was planned as part of the project so it was optimized, though we did some tweaking before locking down the finishing. By far the majority of our impressions of imaging and sound-stage are the speaker/room interaction (within limits of the recording), so if you don't have that right, no $ value of electronics is going to fix it.

Are you purposely ignoring the substance of what I wrote? I am happy for you that you enjoy other people's comments. Adding mine or not adding mine is not going to impact your enjoyment. I will keep choosing what I want or don't want to contribute. The basic premise of your post is dishonest since I rarely (almost never) post in discussions about specific equipment pieces, so if you are making comments about me, then you are making them about threads You enter where the comments you suggest don't even really make much sense to expect from me. That pretty much means your post is a troll post.

cleeds2,560 posts11-19-2019 11:22am atdavid

I, do not want to be one more unqualified comment in a long stream of unqualified comments ... There is no value in yet another comment.

Again, sez you. But this group does not exist solely for your amusement and satisfaction. Some of us enjoy reading about others' listening experiences, even if you insist they are "unqualified" and have "no value." That's just something that - sooner or later - you'll have to accept about this group.

Huh?


No one said anything about closing your eyes. That is just a strawman argument.


You can have your eyes as open as you want, you just don't get to see what component is currently connected.

And here is what I mean by the "clique". They can't bring anything to the table, so they cast ad-hominems, strawmans, and deflections.

geoffkaity, if my post was an appeal to authority, then so was Teo's. What was it?  Engineering does not make claims about human performance, those claims all come from other fields. You saying that is a Strawman Argument. As opposed to refuting what I say, you make a deflection that looks like you are refuting my argument, but you are just building a house of stray.

I must say, you are taking the topic of this post, what is wrong with audiophiles to heart, complete will illustration of the behaviour that is wrong.

There are cloths that are considered acoustically transparent. Buried in emails from years ago is what Harman supposedly used for their blind speaker testing. Lighting the listener area more, and the speaker area less reduces visible shielding requirements.

Harman showed, that being able to see the speaker will impact our subjective listening impressions. I guess the question is, does the visual bias last? The attractive sports car gets "old" when it spends too much time in the shop. The attractive "date", gets tiring when the personality is not there.

And again, thyname proves with stark clarity what is wrong with audiophiles. They don't behave well when taken out of their safe space.