geoffkait,
I entered elementary school earlier than my peers and it was many years after 1967.
I entered elementary school earlier than my peers and it was many years after 1967.
What is wrong with audiophiles?
Something that has happened countless times happened again last night. Ordinary people over for a party listening to some music easily hear things audiophiles argue endlessly don't even exist. Oh, its worse even than that- they not only easily hear but are stunned and amazed at what they hear. Its absolutely clearly obvious this is not anything they ever were expecting, not anything they can explain- and also is not anything they can deny. Because its so freaking obvious! Happens every time. Then I come on here and read one after another not only saying its impossible, but actually ridiculing people for the audacity of reporting on the existence of reality.
What is wrong with audiophiles?
Okay, concrete examples. Easy demos done last night. Cable Elevators, little ceramic insulators, raise cables off the floor. There's four holding each speaker cable up off the floor. Removed them one by one while playing music. Then replaced them. Music playing the whole time. First one came out, instant the cable goes on the floor the guy in the sweet spot says, "OH! WTF!?!?!"
Yeah. Just one. One by one, sound stage just collapses. Put em back, image depth returns.
Another one? Okay.
Element CTS cables have Active Shielding, another easy demo. Unplug, plug back in. Only takes a few seconds. Tuning bullets. Same thing. These are all very easy to demo while the music is playing without interruption. This kills like I don' know how many birds with one stone. Auditory memory? Zero. Change happens real time. Double blind? What could be more double blind than you don't know? Because nobody, not me, not the listener, not one single person in the room, knows exactly when to expect to hear a change- or what change to expect, or even if there would be any change to hear at all. Heck, even I have never sat there while someone did this so even I did not know it was possible to hear just one, or that the change would happen not when the Cable Elevator was removed but when the cable went down on the floor.
We're talking real experience here people. No armchair theorizing. What real people really hear in real time playing real music in a real room.
I could go on. People who get the point will get the point. People who ridicule- ALWAYS without ever bothering to try and hear for themselves!- will continue to hate and argue.
What is wrong with audiophiles?
Something almost all audiophiles insist on, its like Dogma 101, you absolutely always must play the same "revealing" track over and over again. Well, I never do this. Used to. Realized pretty quickly though just how boring it is. Ask yourself, which is easier to concentrate on- something new and interesting? Or something repetitive and boring? You know the answer. Its silly even to argue. Every single person in my experience hears just fine without boring them to tears playing the same thing over and over again. Only audiophiles subject themselves to such counterproductive tedium.
What is wrong with audiophiles????
What is wrong with audiophiles?
Okay, concrete examples. Easy demos done last night. Cable Elevators, little ceramic insulators, raise cables off the floor. There's four holding each speaker cable up off the floor. Removed them one by one while playing music. Then replaced them. Music playing the whole time. First one came out, instant the cable goes on the floor the guy in the sweet spot says, "OH! WTF!?!?!"
Yeah. Just one. One by one, sound stage just collapses. Put em back, image depth returns.
Another one? Okay.
Element CTS cables have Active Shielding, another easy demo. Unplug, plug back in. Only takes a few seconds. Tuning bullets. Same thing. These are all very easy to demo while the music is playing without interruption. This kills like I don' know how many birds with one stone. Auditory memory? Zero. Change happens real time. Double blind? What could be more double blind than you don't know? Because nobody, not me, not the listener, not one single person in the room, knows exactly when to expect to hear a change- or what change to expect, or even if there would be any change to hear at all. Heck, even I have never sat there while someone did this so even I did not know it was possible to hear just one, or that the change would happen not when the Cable Elevator was removed but when the cable went down on the floor.
We're talking real experience here people. No armchair theorizing. What real people really hear in real time playing real music in a real room.
I could go on. People who get the point will get the point. People who ridicule- ALWAYS without ever bothering to try and hear for themselves!- will continue to hate and argue.
What is wrong with audiophiles?
Something almost all audiophiles insist on, its like Dogma 101, you absolutely always must play the same "revealing" track over and over again. Well, I never do this. Used to. Realized pretty quickly though just how boring it is. Ask yourself, which is easier to concentrate on- something new and interesting? Or something repetitive and boring? You know the answer. Its silly even to argue. Every single person in my experience hears just fine without boring them to tears playing the same thing over and over again. Only audiophiles subject themselves to such counterproductive tedium.
What is wrong with audiophiles????
355 responses Add your response
Really now .... You have a Batchelor’s degree from the College of Engineering and Applied Science from UVA in 1967, with a specialty in Aerospace. That is easily verified. The level of "atomic physics" you would have studied in "school" would be minimal at best given that degree, and would have been limited to electives. It was also 52 years ago. Your "humble" narrator has an inflated sense of self. I would say analogluvr got it 100% correct. He spotted you a mile away Geoff! p.s. Which is not to make this an age thing. I had the pleasure to meet Gerhard Herzberg twice, one in the late 80's, and once in the early 90's. He was still speaking in his 80's and still brilliant. He won a Nobel Price. Geoff sells magic pebbles. |
Well, shut my mouth and call me cornpone!! Let me get this straight. Teo actually thinks that glubson is serious or knows anything whatsoever about atomic physics. Are you hot dogging me? 🌭This is some kind of hilarious mix-up and high jinx! Whereas your friend and humble narrator actually studied atomic physics in school. But don’t let me shut down this great example of the soon to be famous patented glubson Brer Rabbit and Tar Baby routine. |
+4 glupson2,911 posts11-14-2019 3:57pm |
+3 glupson2,911 posts11-14-2019 3:57pm When you really start thinking about it, it can make you posit that the electron is the causal aspect of the entirely fictitious nucleus. But of course, there is a theory to cover that one, too... |
Let me help you out. Old audiophile axiom - You can’t debunk something that’s not bunk. • Keep an arsenal of scientistic buzzwords at the tip of your tongue. So armed, you can effortlessly explain away even the most firmly acknowledged mysteries with a few impressive phrases and a wave of your hand. For example, the undeniable but incomprehensible facts of animal migration may be definitively ascribed to a "biological spatio-temporal vector-navigation program." Likewise, you may call upon such quasi-substantial conceptual conveniences as "biological clock," "self-organization" and "cellular memory" to deflate any suggestion that orthodox science may lack satisfactory explanations for intractably puzzling phenomena. • Establish a crusading "Scientific Truth Foundation" staffed and funded by a hive of fawning acolytes. Then purport to offer a million-dollar reward to anyone who can repeatably demonstrate a paranormal phenomenon. Set the bar for paranormality nowhere in particular. Set the bar for repeatability at a "generous" 98%, safely ensuring that even normal scientific studies that demand a mere preponderance of evidence, or average results above chance, would fail to qualify for the prize. Should someone actually meet or exceed your criteria you can effortlessly dismiss their claim by pointing out that they’d just proven the phenomenon to be perfectly normal. |
+3 glupson2,911 posts11-14-2019 3:57pm |
Cool, Then there must be lots of published double blind listening tests, published papers (no, not some guy shilling a magazine/review site). What? There isn’t? Say it isn’t so!!! Cue the extend diatribes and excuses that will now follow One of the problems with "audiophiles" ... they try to extend real, verified, not argued with even measurable things, i.e. EMI/RFI, which pretty much no-one argues with, and try to extend that to things very "generically" like vibration (of what?), magnetic fields (where, what field strength), fuses, wire directionality, of which things are far far from settled. I mean the could be settled pretty easily couldn’t they? geoffkait18,250 posts11-14-2019 2:51pmWhat’s hilarious is there isn’t any argument any more about how the signal in cables and power cords and fuses is subject to external forces and noise such as vibration, magnetic fields and RFI/EMI. So I don’t know what all the ruckus is about. Same thing with wire directionality. |
12 angry men quotes Juror #12: Oh, come on. Nobody can know a thing like that. This isn’t an exact science. Juror #2: You said we could throw out all the other evidence! Juror #8: Prejudice always obscures the truth. Juror #8: Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t even have to open his mouth. Juror #7: I don’t know about the rest of ’em but I’m gettin’ a little tired of this yakity-yack and back-and-forth, it’s gettin’ us nowhere. So I guess *I’ll* have to break it up; I change my vote to "not guilty." |
+2
|
There is nothing more wrong with audiophiles than which is already wrong also for other social category of human beings...For example audiophiles stick to their own prejudices and limited experiences ( I am one myself) and speak with their strong bias, but anyway most politicians, philosophers, and man at works in general act the same...To takes an other direction and walk on an another way ask, from us all, some self-effort ... The search for truth with good faith, the openness of the mind to new possibilities beyond what we know already, the capacity to differentiates a sound logical argument from a sophism, the self restrained attitude to prevent one self to use ad-hominem arguments are the main guide for an ethic of dialogue...Did I forget something for this recipe for a wise informative and, with the essential humor seasonnings, entertaining thread ? Yes, silence in front of blatant bad faith or stupidity is sometimes the best politic... |
+1, but GK doesn't even understand the basics, so this will fly right over his head. glupson2,908 posts11-14-2019 1:05pmgeoffkait, |
Someone with the initials GK lacking in self-awareness.
|
What’s hilarious is there isn’t any argument any more about how the signal in cables and power cords and fuses is subject to external forces and noise such as vibration, magnetic fields and RFI/EMI. So I don’t know what all the ruckus is about. Same thing with wire directionality. The only argument is in the mind of the pseudo skeptic. You’re either ON the bus 🚌 or OFF the bus 🚌. There’s no middle ground. But the so called counter arguments are interesting but mostly entertaining. 🤗 OK, here’s a joke. What do you get when you mix a mentally mixed up loner with a society that abandons him and treats him like trash? You get what you deserve. An aggressive angry pseudo skeptic. 🤡 |
Eureka! Depressed from scanning (no one could stand to actually read it) the stinking pile of putrid pedantry posted by the usual suspects above I decided to try the How Science Got Sound Wrong thread https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/how-science-got-sound-wrong Me being nothing like the empty vessels who justify their sorry existence by spending all their free time ruining perfectly good threads I first went and read the linked article. https://www.fairobserver.com/more/science/neil-young-vinyl-lp-records-digital-audio-science-news-wil... It starts out pretty good and then a few paragraphs down comes this: The anti-Neil Young comments don’t sound as much like music appreciation. Rather, they have the snide sound of an annoying know-it-all engineer. "The snide sound of an annoying know-it-all engineer." Wow. I mean, wow! I always say DYODD but in this case that would mean scrolling up and reading some of the preceding comments, but that could drop your IQ 15 points in 5 minutes and maybe even turn you off Audiogon for life. So maybe this one time just take my word for it when I say it is the snide sound of annoying know-it-all engineers. (In the "legend in his own mind" sense, I mean.) What is wrong with audiophiles? There you go. We now return you to our regularly scheduled puerile pontificating. |
"Which means..theory. Electrons are a theory. As in: ’we don’t know’."Extrapolated from Wikipedia Subatomic particle article. (It rhymes, geoffkait, it rhymes.) For whatever it is worth on a laymen audio website, a little lower on that Wikipedia page theory gets slightly more developed... "All of these have now been discovered by experiments..." |
Newsflash GK, just because someone knows more than you ... or a lot more than you, does not mean they have to consult Wikipedia for something as basic as the definition of the Coulomb to refute what you write. Most EE’s will learn what the Coulomb is in first year, but then ... you aren’t trained at all in electrical engineering, or even engineering physics are you so you wouldn’t know that. I may not agree with Millercarbon on much, but he certainly nailed his analysis of you. It was spot on. p.s. GK, if you want to spend less time changing which foot you have in your mouth, you may want to research magnetoresistance as well. |
Technically, the Coulomb is defined by the charge on a proton, which is exactly the same as the charge on an electron (but -) ... so your statement below, that we know it’s charge in Coulombs while not technically incorrect, carries negative information. geoffkait18,243 posts11-14-2019 12:50pmWe’ve know what electrons really are ever since the famous double slit experiment, first performed by Young in 1801. We also know the size and weight of an electron. We also know it’s exact charge in Coulombs. That’s not (rpt not) theory, gentle readers. |
| Post removed |
We know that the electron is an actual "physical" thing. We think it is an elemental particle because we have never been able to break one down into constituent parts. We have even been able to take video of an electron: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ofp-OHIq6Wo I thought you read phys.org? https://phys.org/news/2008-02-electron.html |
And once again GK is wrong. Usually your "wrongness" is buried in stuff that seems right, but this time, You are all wrong. It is like you don’t even understand or know about the "Hall Effect" ... Yes, this time I will link to Wikipedia, as it will be at a level you may understand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_effect p.s. Current is defined as charge movement, and since the + charges are fixed, the - charges must move ... oh, and they are electrons. None of this is related to your also wrong impressions of how the fields that generate energy Vectors are arrived at by the way. geoffkait18,240 posts11-14-2019 11:14amatdavid gets partial credit. Sadly, I do not dispense prizes for partial credit. In the case of the TV degaussing affects the picture quality, that’s true, by getting rid of stray magnetic fields - produced mostly by current moving through wires. But the mistake in logic is that current is not electrons. The picture quantity is not a function of electrons, which are fairly constant in number at any point in the system and any point in time. In the case of audio cables, electrons are not affected by magnets, as I described already, but the audio signal is. Anyone not following raise your hand. |
"The two types of subatomic particles are: elementary particles...Did they forget to write the other type? |
Everyone and his brother knows what an electron is. If you don’t Teo I suggest you consult Wikipedia. Wikipedia says it is a subatomic particle. the wiki entry for subatomic particle says: In the physical sciences, subatomic particles are particles much smaller than atoms.[1] The two types of subatomic particles are: elementary particles, which according to current theories are not made of other particles; Which means..theory. Electrons are a theory. As in: ’we don’t know’. That one theory interacts with this other theory and we think we (whatever a we is) know what an interaction is, but we really don’t know what this place is or what ’reality’ is. Reality... stubbornly remains undefined. Max Planck, in some writing, thought of it as an information field. Or one might say that it is defined as the least amount of capacity/energy to discern a differential. That reality is ...differential. That it is nothing but differential. Ie, pure holographic differential, discerning those differentials, if the idea of intelligence within it carries any water at all. For whatever that might be worth or mean. So..auguring facts when facts simply don’t exist, is kinda a fools game... Scientific laws? The height of insanity. Godel’s incompleteness theorem as an act in logic, dressed up an an illiterate projecting clown. We are a undefined thing measuring an undefined thing. It’s still turtles all the way down. When we actually read what physics says about it, this is exactly what it says. Undefined. Unknown. Science the heck out of it all you want but...the logic remains, at the limit of definition.....limited. Circular. Confined due to this fabric issue.. and not of all things, as it simply can’t be -as stated by the logic of the very the idea of science and physics. Granted, it is a big load line with lots of dots on it and a nice line drawn through it..but the ends and the space around it are still a fog. It hangs in a undefined space of...who knows what. Just sayin, you know...just sayin...so...don’t get too hot about this or that, as it is all underpinned by...unknown. |
atdavid gets partial credit. Sadly, I do not dispense prizes for partial credit. In the case of the TV degaussing affects the picture quality, that’s true, by getting rid of stray magnetic fields - produced mostly by current moving through wires. But the mistake in logic is that current is not electrons. The picture quantity is not a function of electrons, which are fairly constant in number at any point in the system and any point in time. In the case of audio cables, electrons are not affected by magnets, as I described already, but the audio signal is. Anyone not following raise your hand. |
Unless they are moving, like in a cable conducting electricity, in which case they are affected by stationary magnets (you know like in a CRT that requires degausing). geoffkait18,235 posts11-14-2019 8:05amFurthermore, electrons have an electric charge NOT a magnetic charge. So, no, they are not affected by stationary magnets. Whew! That was a close one! 🥵 |