What is wrong with Audiophiles?

one should not take one extreme...rail against it...call it a norm... and display yourself to be virtuously elevated - as a comparison.

As that would be.... extremist and..well..designed from the ground up to create problems for yourself and everyone else.

So, the point here, as threads go....is??

I do understand where you are coming from.. and I think that, if the story and slant is accurate, then, well, the person might have different priorities than me..and....that might be a gentle way of saying it.

to relate..but..de-escalate.

FYI, for most folks, is that in the original Philips CD player design..which was the basis for all digital signal reproduction of audio signals  in the environment of home playback ..for almost two decades....that the clock and timing is recovered from the optical reading of the disc.

So, in effect, the optical read quality combined with the mechanical perfection of spin, combined with the quality of the disc itself, in build, disc plastic, labels, optics, etc...becomes, at a minimum... the digital clock jitter itself.

Which in turn, affects the signal reconstruction and becomes the sound quality that we hear and heard.

So, in original non buffered design in cd players (early 80’s to the late 90’s) and associated dacs..the quality of the discs and playback..and all of the hardware, becomes the quality of the music you hear.

Bits are not bits in this case, due to the way the hardware/software worked.

And that is how green markers made a difference for such systems. And how mechanical isolation, disc mats, etc..all contributed to making for better digital audio. As a legacy system, and how discs are read now, some of that still has an effect in physical disc read, in some systems.

Uh, oh, the Cargo Cult is growing. Speaking of bleating you’ve been following the wrong sheep 🐑 🐑 🐑 🐑🚶🏻‍♂️The hat’s real cool looking. 🙄

Almost every time I see a ’Garmin’ GPS unit, I adopt the pose and walk the walk and say the line, in the correct tone and voice, of course: "Fred Garvin...Male..."

Kinda the same as a ’punch buggies - no paybacks’, thing, but totally different....
(the original post addressed his avatar which is of Dan Akyrod when he was on SNL. Oddly enough, I'm in the same town as Dan. Oh, the stories we townies can tell....)

atdavid
I have added many things to this forum, but you seem to gravitate towards tweaks, not things that are likely to make a significant difference in your sound, like truly addressing the acoustics in your environment.

>>>>>That’s beautiful! The perfect Strawman argument. Kudos!

Both are correct, but one needs to address the point that the ear only hears the peak and micro transients in the positive side of the waveform and then aggregates them together, in a very time and timing sensitive manner..and this is where the musics lives and is heard by the ear.

So tweaks address this area as just as well (qualitatively) as equipment or rooms or acoustics address this area.

If we apply engineering weighting to the signal analysis, we find that the changes from tweaks might be 0.1-0.05% of the signal, maybe more, maybe less.

But the engineering weighting has that all backward as compared to how the ear analyses the signal. That extra bit is heard on the top ...as the sum is heard -- not the change/difference that is separated out via engineering analysis.

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.

IF we applied the analysis to just the peak positives of the waveform, as a set ...and ignored the other 90% of the signal, just like the ear does..... then the changes might easily equal double digits of change.