What is wrong with Audiophiles?
glupson2,936 posts11-18-2019 6:39pm "The color black doesn’t absorb infrared light anyway."Where does infrared light get stored after being absorbed by whatever color that absorbs it? >>>>I’m still thinking about the question. 🤔 |
atdavid It is not just that there is no reasonable evidence that this expensive cable provides an improvement (or change), it is that there is little to nothing that passes for evidence for any high end cable. Such an easy test to do ...If the testing is so-ooo easy to do, why don’t you conduct the tests and report the results? Please be sure to describe the test protocols. Of course, the truth is that conducting a scientifically valid, double blind listening test is not so easy in practice. And because this is a hobbyist’s group, it’s not our job to conduct such testing for your benefit. |
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 .... |
| Post removed |
So what is your purpose in life @atdavid ? Just to correct your friends? I have only seen negative comments from you in here.... this is crap, snake oil, placebo, does not do anything, and so on. Which is great, you are saving the phools their money. But what do you suggest instead? What is your own system? |
atdavid I am not trying to sell anything Cleeds. I am not making exceptional claims Cleeds ...No matter. This remains a hobbyist’s group, where no one is obligated to conduct listening tests or scientific research to suit your sensibilities. If that’s what you seek - and it appears that you do, because you keep repeating your preference for such testing - then perhaps you are in the wrong forum. Of course, you can conduct your own testing, and then report your results here. But for some reason, you exempt yourself from the requirement you impose on others. |
thyname,
I saw your amplifier, at least one that to me looks exactly like yours, at a recent show. Its looks exude confidence, for sure. How often do you, in real life, have to use the screen on the front? It looks like it would attract fingerprints like crazy. Otherwise, very nice. |
atdavid 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 hereGreat! Please be sure to provide all of the details of your scientific tests, including the test protocol, DUT, number of subjects and trials, venue and associated equipment. The noisy minority here that is interested in such tests might find your work interesting. How about you doing the same instead of assuming you have Superhuman hearing?I've made no assumption or claim to "Superhuman hearing." Ever. The fact is just the opposite: I think the average listener can readily hear whatever I hear. As for your persistent requests that I conduct scientifically valid, double-blind listening tests to suit your sensibilities: I've never conducted or organized such tests. They are a tricky undertaking fraught with potential for error. (That's why I ask that you include details on whatever testing you conduct.) Nor is this a particularly good forum to visit to request such tests, because this is a hobbyist's group, not a scientific forum. I have been a subject in a number of such blind tests, however. They are really tedious! The results are sometimes surprising, both for test subjects and test organizers. |
Not sure I understand your statement. And not sure why you dodging my repeated questions. So let's try again: What is your system? What do you recommend? As a good teacher you make yourself to be, what are your recommendations (pick any components, speakers, amp, DAC, you name it)? Do you have anything to add to Audio forums other than what is snake oil? |
glupson2,946 posts11-19-2019 9:00amThanks. What show was that? In New York, or DC? Let me know which one, and I can tell you exactly what it was. Honestly, I have only used the touch screen early when I got it, to set things up. In the normal course of use, I simply use the remote control. |
| Post removed |
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! |
I am also not 12 years old, so I don’t play this "mine is bigger than yours" game. Grow up. How about writing posts here that show that you have any useful knowledge that makes your posts at all relevant, instead of just using ad-hominems to attack others.I was simply asking you a question. And I have yet to hear an answer. What exactly are you teaching me? And when / how did I ever launch any ad-hominems attack to you? Perhaps you should look at the mirror: I will continually make fun of the shoe-box you have for a dedicated listening room So again, I’ll say: show me your room? Mine is posted here, for all to see, good or bad. How about you? |
atdavid ... 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.Whether the change to the sound of a system is "significant" or not is purely subjective, so it isn't clear what your point is here. As to tweaks, they are not mutually exclusive; you can make acoustic improvements as you also make tweaks. ... Almost every post here "recommending" something becomes 50/50 for and against, so adding one more "I heard this thing, in a room I am not familiar with, with equipment I am not familiar with, and I liked/disliked it" is not going to add any value here.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. |
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 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. |
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?
|
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. |
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 atdavidI, 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. |
Apparently we may have a genius in here. He's not only an engineer, but also a neurologist, an expert in human psychology especially in the field of
psychoacoustics
, and his knowledge spans the entire sum of the cybersphere, and in fact he may even have an encyclopedic knowledge of all things since the beginning of time. The only way to combat such a superhuman is if "copy and paste" can be all banned :-) |
atdavid404 posts11-19-2019 11:52amI 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. Outstanding! and I mean it. That's certainly the right way to do it. As for the insurance part, since you are in industry in consulting capacity, I agree with you, gotta be careful. I am not an industry participant, just a hobbyist, so there is no such thing as insurance for me. Are you sure you are not Ethan Winer? 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. Agreed. Again. Kudos to you that have the means and the cash to do what you did. I make due with what I have. Maybe one day I buy a new house, and build a dedicated listening rooms with all bells and whistles. |
atdavid 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 (sic) 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? >>>>I hate to judge before all the facts are in but it appears that atdavid is actually the Grand Wazoo of Appeals to Authority. This is all just a continuing saga of atdavid vs people who don’t understand. |
atdavid 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.Huh? This looks like English, yet is nonsensical. |
| Post removed |
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. |
atdavid 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.I am very pleased by this observation because that is the result I gain with all my homemade experiments(tweaks)… My room treatment all in all cost me around 100 dollars in materials of diverse densities including the many dozen metal buckets of the dollar store...And guess what ? With this price I gained holographic imaging, and soundstage from my speakers in regular distance listening and near field listening also... For all people without big money, you can afford hi-fi, with wise choices in electronics but last and not least room homemade treatment if you trust your own ears...My best to all... |
atdavid That is because you have low reading comprehension and/or a mental block that doesn’t let you admit the things you often say are patently wrong ... 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.This "clique" that you deride has been in existence for more than two decades. You arrived here less than a month ago and seem interested in nothing but argument and insult. We’ve seen this before. In one post you proclaim that you have nothing to sell, then later you claim you’re an industry consultant. You repeatedly demand that others perform scientific, double-blind listening tests to accommodate your sensibilities, but then expect us to accept your proclamations as Absolute Truth. Beware the audio guru. It’s pretty easy to see your charade. Have a nice day. |
| Post removed |
Since there are those who insist on science, I’ve learned that the eyes and ears both are important for the brain to process "sound". When the eyes are closed, there are certain processing within the brain will get turned off as well and therefore the brain will not be able fully process the sound with just the ears alone. Based on that, blind tests are in themselves not valid. But of course, what does blind tests have anything to do with logic lols. I’d like to see how one can weasel oneself out of this conundrum :-) It's like comparing two different chefs, but one is not allowed to use salt and sugar. |
Actually, the best way to conduct a blind test is to have a blind person taking the test. Not long ago my son who was visiting, buddy, and his son went on a deep sea fishing trip out of New Hampshire. Caught a lot of great fish. On the trip was a blind person, who was one incredibly funny guy. He asked, among other totally humorous things "Can a blind person get sea sick?" We were all cracking up, belly laughing with him. Truth be told, a number of persons did get sea sick due to the high swells. But it was a blast. |
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. |
