What is wrong with audiophiles?

Then why not be more clear and say "what's wrong with some audiophiles?

Because, as I said, its pretty much all of them.

Look, all you have to do is hang out with and watch and talk to people and its perfectly obvious everything I'm saying is true. Normal people are curious, amazed, moved by the music. Audiophiles do their best to critique and argue. Whether its music or systems or tech talk or whatever, its all one-upmanship with audiophiles.

And I remain skeptical that any significant number of audiophiles hold the position at odds with the one I expressed on soundstaging.

Case in point.

In fact, not once in my entire life (decades of on-line in audiophile forums) can I remember an audiophile who was truly at odds with the account I gave.

Beating a dead horse.

What the @(#%&@#%(&( is wrong with audiophiles!!???

This is not as hard as some folks are making it seem. Simple really. If one evaluates a tweak or upgrade over a period of time of no less than 12-15 days, then they will certainly be in a position to make an accurate decision on the sonic merits of that addition. Many of us know our system’s sound intimately and over time can confidently discern and interpret sonic changes. One pitfall I sometimes see is evaluating for too short a time period. While it may only take minutes to hear differences, it takes much longer to determine long term preferences.

If evaluated over time, then we can trust our decision and not fall victim to the countless notions that what we hear and feel in response to our music system is somehow flawed and untrustworthy. Talk about audiophile nervosa. Don’t go there.

So go ahead and listen and evaluate. You have the right tools already. Be confident in what you hear and know over time. Make the decision and just smile at others who decide to go at audio in a more complex and confused manner.

Yes, that paprika really does taste different. Yes, that chair does make you feel more comfortable. Yes, that fuse does make your music sound even more real and enjoyable. Yes, you have the ability to discern and decide for yourself. Simple stuff folks.

what's wrong with audiophiles... they all have different ears, they all hear differently and hear different things in the mix. 

no wonder we can't get a consensus on anything. "on anything"!

Lets not even get into the "I'm right" "your wrong" side of it. 

we all have different ears, are different ages, different gender, have different hearing ability, listen for different things.  are resistant to change as we age.   

so why would we all like the same thing, and why would we want it that way? 

Glen

About -25 years :-)

There is nothing to defend. Nobody is making any claims. Look, if somebody is all hot and bothered and wants to test something, be my guest - knock yourself out. 🥊 Heck, I broke two Laws of Physics today already and it’s not even dinner time. Gee, I wonder if the Consumer Protection Agency protects the individual against phony baloney quantum mechanics claims. Do they do controlled blind testing?

Yes I'm well aware of the rich history and layers of meaning behind the word audiophile.

Then why not be more clear and say "what's wrong with some audiophiles?"


And I remain skeptical that any significant number of audiophiles hold the position at odds with the one I expressed on soundstaging.In fact, not once in my entire life (decades of on-line in audiophile forums) can I remember an audiophile who was truly at odds with the account I gave.


As to the quote you produced, given the context you started of complaining about "what's wrong with audiophiles?" that quote is just as reasonable a question.  It's entirely valid to question the reasonableness of audiophiles paying tons of money thinking they are getting audible performance gains from an item that measures no different than the one they are replacing.   In fact, it's fairly bizarre if you don't even recognize the validity of that type of question!

This one arrogant post does exactly what I've been saying: ridicules subjectivity (what people actually hear!)

And that's where you are conflating issues - equating people's subjective experience with what they "ACTUALLY" hear.


They are not one and the same.  If I say "I heard a dog barking" that typically is a claim that there was actually a dog making that sound.Similarly, when audiophiles say "I heard tighter bass" from that cable, that typically is a claim that the cable actually REALLY did change the sound, not merely that the person imagined it.


But people's inferences from their subjective experience can be wrong.That's both obvious, and well established scientifically.  And it's frankly weird as hell how strenuously many audiophiles want to deny this variable, particularly when it comes to their own perception.


And if you think simply speaking honestly that way about the fallibility of our perception and inferences entails that I promote some scientific dogmatism must control this hobby, please read my previous post on that subject.

Sorry, but there comes a point when the usual suspects (see above) do such a fine job of ruining things I just tune out and skip over and so if I miss something, sorry. Anyway, another one, caught at random as it were:

Six people in a room, when the cable elevators are removed, 3 hear a difference and 3 don’t. Who’s right?

Is this a joke? Because its clearly stated everyone, no exceptions, hears the difference. So far at least everyone has. In fact its so starkly obvious that to drive the point home I took the time to describe how Leo not only could hear all 6 to nothing, but even could hear each individual one as they were being removed and replaced. So either this is a joke, or incredibly awful reading comprehension.

Either way, here we go again: What is wrong with audiophiles???

Anyone care to guess how long it will be before these kinds of arguments pollute all the categories here?

prof-
Yes I'm well aware of the rich history and layers of meaning behind the word audiophile. Problem is audiophiles are not all cut from the same cloth as J Gordon Holt. In fact it seems hardly any of them are. (And I bet a lot here don't even recognize the name of the Stereophile founder.)

There are no straw man arguments here. None. The soundstage example, to pick just one at random, there was a whole long thread here not so long ago on the topic with a whole bunch of people, presumably audiophiles, who let's just say hold views clearly at odds with you and me. 

In fact, I will show you just how NOT straw man my arguments are. Look no further than this very page. Scroll up and you will find:

And I would say “what’s wrong with subjective audiophiles” Who the heck else would spend multi thousands of dollars for something that has no measurable difference?  Or that they cannot repeatedly identify without visibly knowing it’s there?

This one arrogant post does exactly what I've been saying: ridicules subjectivity (what people actually hear!) in favor of measurements, AND throws in double-blind testing, all in one beautifully condemning post. The poster should read Holt, and feel the shame.

I'd look for more but to read cleeds, glupson, geoffkait, well they're just not paying me enough to endure that level of suffering. Being as all these are audiophiles only makes me want to scream from the roof tops- What is wrong with audiophiles!?!?!?!

LOL!!! it looks like nobody can make a claim (read: share his/her own experience) about any audio component, unless he/she can:

1 - Show detailed measurements on said components. Including proof / validation of the instruments used in the measurements,

and

2 - Show proof of scientifically controlled, ABX test, with a large enough pool of people to have any statistical meaning

If not, every claim is null and void! LOL!!!!

Thyname:


Here is my take, to show why I don't agree with that statement.


No one has to make themselves in to a scientist in order to enjoy or discuss high end audio.  That doesn't suit many people's interest or goals here, and even among those who are more skeptical than others, it's impractical.


So it's up to any individual if he wants to avail himself of any engineering or scientific knowledge concerning the performance of equipment, psychoacoustics and the like.  And to what degree he/she wants it to inform their own views.


I think the exchange of subjective experiences with equipment is wonderful.  I love it.  Whatever the mechanics involved, the fact is a sound system "sounds like something" and I like exchanging notes on "how things sound."


However, as I am aware of the numerous ways in which our perception can be fallible, and how our inferences from our subjective experience can be unreliable, I will sometimes look to what is plausible based both upon engineering and scientific grounds, in terms of if a claimed phenomenon is plausible, or whether it's audibility is plausible. 
And I use that to put my confidence in a reasonable place about a specific claim.


So....when it comes to, say, loudspeakers, it's well known and well demonstrated in terms of engineering and psychoacoustics that different loudspeaker designs tend to sound different.   So if someone is claiming "I heard speaker A and B and preferred speaker B for these characteristics" that's an entirely plausible claim.   It COULD be that the person is in error somehow, and bias influenced his perception.  If I think I hear a difference between speaker A and B it's possible I could be mislead by some sighted bias.  It's simply being intellectually honest to admit that, and to admit that if I really wanted to warrant deeper confidence in my claim, double-blind testing is a tool to get that deeper level confidence.


But as a practical matter, since the claim of sonic differences are plausible, and such sonic speaker differences are expected, and we don't all have double-blind labs to test our speaker perceptions, it's reasonable to proceed making claims and exchanging notes based on our anecdotal, sighted experience. IMO.  For similar reasons we exchange notes on our experiences for countless things everyday (and it would not be practical to try to scientifically test everything we do!).


This situation changes the more the claims move in to more contested territory - contested by people who have relevant technical and/or psychoacoustics knowledge.   Not all claims are equally plausible.


This moves in to the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" territory.   If you tell me you just bought a new 4K TV from Best Buy, since this is a completely plausible and uncontroversial claim, it's reasonable for me to accept the claim.  But if you tell me you just bought a full grown, living Tyrannosaurus Rex...well...your say so isn't good enough.  Given what is known about dinosaurs, the claim isn't plausible.  And people lie.  So any rational person would want to be more rigorous in the demands for evidence.


I employ that same rule of thumb for proportioning my confidence in both my own experience, and in the claims made by other people, in this case other audiophiles.  If an audiophile is claiming that fuse A has different sonic characteristics than fuse B, or AC cable has a "smoother sound with tighter bass" then I'm looking for a plausible explanation for how that is the case, and will consider the method by which those claims were arrived at.  If the technical claims seem implausible, if the general claims are "fishy" sounding (as they are from most high-end companies selling AC cables), and if the only method of vetting the claims have been "I'm sure I heard a difference" then I'll wait for better evidence.It's just intellectually honest to admit that the variables involved are problematic for establishing the claims GIVEN a lack of reliable, objectively verifiable basis for the claims.


That DOES NOT MEAN that anyone needs to stop making claims about their experience about ANYTHING.  If you put a new AC cable in to your system and perceive some particular sonic character change, by all means, spread the word!  This is *some* evidence towards the phenomenon.  And people having repeatedly similar experiences also constitutes *some evidence* towards the claim.  But to the degree anyone wishes for a more warranted level of confidence, he would have to admit that, depending on the claim, it's not terribly reliable evidence, where more controlled methods could yield results warranting greater confidence.


So long as you are open to a nuanced position, I hope that this clears up at least one person's position here.

OK --- I'll bite. You are here to teach, right? I don't see any willingness to learn since you joined a few days ago. it's an audio forum, right? About audio and music as a hobby

What's your personal recommended speaker? Amp? DAC? Preamp? And how did you pick them? 

Better yet, why don't you post your system (list and pictures) under Audiogon Systems so that we can see and learn from you.

What's your agenda thyname?  You actually troll people on one forum, so you can post about and complain about them on another forum. It would seem the only person with an "agenda" here is you.

I don't have an agenda, but I do feel that those on the fence deserve an honest look at many of the questionable claims made, so that they Can make informed decisions about what they purchase.

Do you go on rants about Consumer Reports too?  How about every audio magazine ... every time they posts a review they are influencing people about how to spend their money.

Like I said, you can make any claim you want. No one is stopping you. If anything, you are the one trying to shut down others with statements about others you cannot even backup.

thyname, One Simple Question: Why does this not happen?

How do you know it never happened?

Most importantly: if something does not convince you, don't buy it. As simple as that. It's a free market. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy something.

Finally, my point was about "the making claims" part. If people cannot "do a double blind controlled demonstration (administered by a non-biased 3rd party)" test, then they are not allowed to express any opinion on something they own and enjoy? Why? Then why all audio hobbyists even discuss, and share with each other what they enjoy (including yourself)? What is the point? It's a hobby for God's sake! What's your agenda?

Cleeds,
You continue to muddy the waters rather than aid clarity, and this includes your usual use of strawmen.  You complain of the discourse in the forum on these subjects, yet add to the problem by refusing to acknowledge anyone presenting a nuanced view that won't fit in to the stereotype box you want to diss.
I  (and atdavid) have been quite clear and specific about what type of situations merit testing an individual, based on the claim being investigated.   Instead of actually showing the logic to be faulty, you simply make statements meant to imply it's faulty.  Not good enough.You are arguing with what you take to be someone's position in your own head, not with someone's actual position.
Finally:
As to endorsing the statement made by "thyname" your wrote:

That is essentially what many measurementalists on this forum believe.

How about actual examples showing "many measurementalists on this forum" believe this?  Or is this yet another strawman? 
I for one would not agree with thyname's statement, and I've gone in to why not explicitly numerous times on this forum.  It's just lazy to ignore what someone actually writes.

atdavid

... you would think at least one vendor would take it upon themselves to do a double blind controlled demonstration (administered by a non-biased 3rd party) to demonstrate the veracity of their claims.

No, that's what you apparently think. Why is it that those who so often clamor for such tests insist that others conduct the research for them?

thyname, Cleeds,

Thank you for proving the point I was making above perfectly.  You are already making excuses.

Baring any comprehension issues that caused you to post what you did below, which in fact No One Said, your post is nothing but a dog-whistling straw-man.

Anyone can claim anything. Ya, some people will get bent up in a knot, but most don't care. When you start generalizing your claims, claim others have hearing issues, system issues, etc., But, and this is a big But, refuse to let Your claim have any light of any intensity shone on it, then it starts to smell bad.

Tell me thyname, in all these years, decades now, hundred and hundreds of shows, millions of visitors, you would think at least one vendor would take it upon themselves to do a double blind controlled demonstration (administered by a non-biased 3rd party) to demonstrate the veracity of their claims.


thyname, One Simple Question:  Why does this not happen?

thyname419 posts11-12-2019 1:29pmLOL!!! it looks like nobody can make a claim (read: share his/her own experience) about any audio component, unless he/she can:

1 - Show detailed measurements on said components. Including proof / validation of the instruments used in the measurements,

and

2 - Show proof of scientifically controlled, ABX test, with a large enough pool of people to have any statistical meaning

If not, every claim is null and void! LOL!!!!

thyname

... it looks like nobody can make a claim (read: share his/her own experience) about any audio component, unless he/she can:

1 - Show detailed measurements on said components. Including proof / validation of the instruments used in the measurements,

and

2 - Show proof of scientifically controlled, ABX test, with a large enough pool of people to have any statistical meaning

If not, every claim is null and void!

That is essentially what many measurementalists on this forum claim to believe. A few have taken it one step further: only one test, with one listener, is necessary to "prove" their point.

I say that they "claim" to believe that because I suspect many - notwithstanding what they write - don't believe it at all. They're just seeking an argument.

LOL!!! it looks like nobody can make a claim (read: share his/her own experience) about any audio component, unless he/she can:

1 - Show detailed measurements on said components. Including proof / validation of the instruments used in the measurements, 

and

2 - Show proof of scientifically controlled, ABX test, with a large enough pool of people to have any statistical meaning

If not, every claim is null and void! LOL!!!!

You are still misunderstanding. Whether one person, or a hundred people makes a claim, they are still individuals making a claim, and it is their specific claim that is being refuted.

I could design a perfect experiment to test some "tweak X" in general. I could assemble the best system on the planet (for testing "tweak X"), put it in a space perfectly designed for acoustics and that specific system, and then pick 100 of the best "golden ears", with extensive training in listening tests. I could reach the perfectly clear conclusion that the use of "tweak X" was completely and totally inaudible. Result: If "tweak X" was popular with a certain set of audiophiles, those audiophiles would be running here as fast as their keyboards would allow to make up any number of excuses, yes excuses for why the test was not valid. Just look at the excuses suppliers will make for not doing controlled listening tests ....

It is far more useful in some contexts, personable, and actually far less prone to error to prove/disprove specific claims made by individuals, whether about themselves specifically, or a readily identified group, as the claim is very tightly bounded. Prove enough of those specific claims false, and you accomplish more than a well controlled test.


Oh, and your comment about me being "new to the forum" was, to put it kindly, misplaced. This is not the only audiophile forum/gathering place on the web.

atdavid

All that needs to be tested "Is The Claim", and almost without fail, it is an individual making a claim that They hear something, or a vendor (or audiophile) making a claim ..

You're still new to the forum, so you can be excused for this misunderstanding. Most claims made here have many users who report hearing similar things. Feel free to peruse the forum yourself to confirm that.

Why would anyone even bother to test the claim of one solitary person making one solitary, hard-to-believe claim? Such a claim is easily ignored unless, that is, you prefer to use it as a basis for lengthy, convoluted circular arguments.

Yeesh.

Cleeds, the nature of testing claims, from individual, to groups, to devices, has been clear to some of us all along.

The only reason I jumped in on that subject was due to YOUR writing in a “convoluted” and confusing manner on the subject. You simply did not express yourself well on the subject so we’ve been clearing up ambiguities.

3 3 3

atdavid"Wrong Cleeds, And this is why you keep making the same wrong assertions over and over."
"Cleeds" is almost always wrong, mistaken, and incorrect he suffers severe, profound, extreme mental disorders which is why he commented on mental illness in this thread because he is sensitive to this issue. He is uninformed on matters related to audio and Music Reproduction Systems and in fact DOES NOT EVEN own a  Music Reproduction System he's the groups oozing, infected boil.

prof and I are not confused, seem knowledgeable on the topic, and seem to write pretty much exactly the same thing (and both seem to have the same issue with the forum eating paragraph spacing).


All that needs to be tested "Is The Claim", and almost without fail, it is an individual making a claim that They hear something, or a vendor (or audiophile) making a claim that a Specific Group of People can hear something. We are testing their statement of claim, no more, no less, and that does not need random multiple subjects, nor does it even require multiple tests other than enough runs of a single test to rule out random chance.

cleeds2,544 posts11-12-2019 12:12pmIt’s odd how this topic often produces such illogic and convoluted responses.

Do you want to test a listener? Conduct a hearing test. Simple.

Do you want to test a claim, such as the audibility of a fuse? You’ll need multiple subjects in a controlled test and - ideally - multiple tests. Not so simple. That’s science, folks.

Autism is "developmental disorder", which IS a class of "mental disorder" under classification of DSM-V. It is not, however, considered a mental illness.

cleeds2,543 posts11-12-2019 11:40am Autism is not a "mental disorder." It is a developmental disorder.

prof,

"...I can not reliably detect tones above, say, 14 kHz. This suggests my claim to be able to hear up to 20 kHz is false."

I am not sure if this is the case, or it is an example you made for the discussion. In any case, you could have a dip at around 14 000 Hz and then hear 16 000, for example. It is a relatively well-known occurence but the name escapes me now. Not being able to hear 14 000 Hz at your age may suggest, but does not come even close to confirming, that you will not hear something above it.

Still, I hope you just used this as an example and that your hearing at 14 000 Hz is as sharp as a knife.

It’s odd how this topic often produces such illogic and convoluted responses.

Do you want to test a listener? Conduct a hearing test. Simple.

Do you want to test a claim, such as the audibility of a fuse? You’ll need multiple subjects in a controlled test and - ideally - multiple tests. Not so simple. That's science, folks.

And I would say “what’s wrong with subjective audiophiles” Who the heck else would spend multi thousands of dollars for something that has no measurable difference?  Or that they cannot repeatedly identify without visibly knowing it’s there?

+100

prof2,231 posts11-12-2019 12:01pm

And audiophile often make testable claims about both. They just don’t bother testing it ;-)

Disagree all you want, but you keep saying, "the science", which is a call to authority by the way, so pot meet kettle, but you can’t even frame the question properly, so quoting science, without actually understanding it is quite frankly of not only no value, but negative value.

Cleeds,

Ok, sure. But that’s not what you’d written which is why it was unclear.

You said those who want to use controlled tests to test a single claim made by a single listener misunderstood science. Which is false for the reasons I gave. Single listener claims can be tested.

But if what you meant to say was that a single listener test can not be used to establish a more general question like "if X is audible to human beings" then of course, that’s an insufficient sample size.

BTW, whether it’s a DUT depends on the claim being tested. You could be testing either the general audibility of X, or an individual listener’s ability to hear X. Depends on what you want to test.

And audiophiles often make testable claims about both. They just don’t bother testing it ;-)

Wrong Cleeds,

And this is why you keep making the same wrong assertions over and over. We are testing the listener. The listener makes very specific claims about their ability to do something, or the seller makes specific claims about others ability to do something. The

atdavid265 posts11-12-2019 11:54am

Really now Cleeds ....

So you have studied audio/acoustic sciences, and the science of how to apply objective methods to subjective testing? I have. My assertion about proving or disproving a test was 100% bang on.

Sorry, this isn’t your own personal forum. You should expect people here to sometimes disagree with you and - in an instance such as this - point out your logical fallacy known as "call to authority."

We are not trying to determine if something is "better", which requires much different testing criteria, we are just testing the specific claim of being able to detect.

You are certainly free to test for anything you like! If you do, please share details and results with us.

Really now Cleeds ....

So you have studied audio/acoustic sciences, and the science of how to apply objective methods to subjective testing? I have. My assertion about proving or disproving a test was 100% bang on. When a subject makes a highly specific claim (say the difference of a fuse was huge and instantly recognizable) under a specific testing regimen (in my system that I know well), which audiophiles do all the time, then you only need to repeat the test with their system and them, to disprove the claim.   Similar if a broad claim is made such as always makes a difference with a reasonable resolving system, then allowing the person who made the claim to define the system and pick the listeners, again, meets all requirements to prove or disprove the claim.  We are not trying to determine if something is "better", which requires much different testing criteria, we are just testing the specific claim of being able to detect.

prof

The average hearing test - a blind test - does this all the time for individuals.

Exactly, and I’ve stated that many times. But we’re not talking about hearing tests here. We’re talking about controlled listening tests, which aren’t designed to test "hearing." They are designed to ascertain the audibility of a device. It is not the listener who is under test - it is the Device Under Test, the DUT. That seems to confuse many people.

cd318

... Audiophilia Nervosa is currently awaiting it’s ultimate rightful cataloguing place between ADHD and Autism in the encyclopedia of mental disorders.

Autism is not a "mental disorder." It is a developmental disorder.

Cleeds,

Exactly. A controlled listening test is just a tool. Those who want to use it to test a single "claim" made by a single listener are misunderstanding the science big time.

I seem to remember you making that incorrect claim before.

Individual claims can be tested scientifically just as can claims for groups. In fact, if anything, it can be tested with greater reliability.

The average hearing test - a blind test - does this all the time for individuals.

If I claim to be able to hear up to 20 kHz that can be easily tested by putting me in a booth, playing a series of tones ascending in frequency up to 20 Hz, and having me press a button only when I can hear a tone.

I’m 56 and you will find I can not reliably detect tones above, say, 14 kHz. This suggests my claim to be able to hear up to 20 kHz is false.And you can repeat this test as many times as you like to build confidence in the results.

Or, perhaps you had some other point that may be true but was not so clear?

@millercarbon, "But think of it: audiophilia nervosa. Unlike pseudophile derangement syndrome, I didn’t just make that one up. Its been around a while. A very long while. Which has got to make you wonder ... wait for it... - What is wrong with audiophiles?!"

Are you asking whether audiophiles can be classified as victims of audiophilia nervosa?

If so, then the answer must be a resounding Yes!

This is the age of labels, (amongst other things) and that’s a good label as any to illustrate the ways in we are different or 'special' if you prefer.

Of course whilst social norms and values are never fixed in stone, I still bet most societies would regard our obsession as being slightly unhealthy.

No doubt Audiophilia Nervosa is currently awaiting it’s ultimate rightful cataloguing place between ADHD and Autism in the encyclopedia of mental disorders. Merely being ’lumped in’ with OCD hurts my long time held sensibilities.

https://hifi-opinions.com/en/audiophilia-nervosa-2/

The good news is that it’s already made the pages of the urban dictionary under its own name...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=audiophilia%2bnervosa&amp...

cleeds,

Well, any test of any validity has to be reproducible. Which would make it into conducting another ("clone") test. Some tests are too complicated for many people to make them. Not necessarily these audio tests, but in other fields.

Now, what you are saying is accounting for variables. That is the tricky part for any test/experiment that a person does in any field. With careful design and method selection, it can be reasonably achieved. If the room will influence the cable, result is worthless as the test has not been designed sufficiently well. That is one of the reasons to read methods before reading article as a whole.

If the results of a single test are negative the test means absolutely nothing. Follow? Talk amongst yourselves.

glupson

A single test, complicated and sophisticated as it may be, could be enough. The sample size is what matters more.

Sample size matters, no doubt. But a test with even a large number of subjects, but that relies on a single room and single system for the purposes of the test, isn't likely to produce meaningful results.

"...so there must be many tests, by different individuals on different systems with different people running the tests."

A single test, complicated and sophisticated as it may be, could be enough. The sample size is what matters more.

But seriously, set aside the serial straw man arguments, the fact is its not being sure of hearing- quite the opposite. Its second-guessing, doubting, discounting and explaining away what you’re hearing.

This is where I find your use of the term "audiophiles" to be strange.


Audiophiles are generally speaking "A person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction."


This comprises people of a spectrum of attitudes, from engineer/science-minded individuals to totally technically ignorant, "whatever I think I hear I hear" individuals, and everything in between.


That said, if the term "audiophile" has a more popular association, it is with the type of audiophiles who generally fill subjective-oriented sites like this one. That is, those who believe that one determines the sonic performance of any gear by listening, and this overrides the importance of, or claims about, objective measurements. That is the overriding attitude in this forum, and it’s the overriding attitude in most audiophile magazines.


Therefore, to keep reading you refer to "audiophiles" as being the ones who refuse to believe their ears and attempt to ’explain away’ their experience is very strange. It’s such an idiosyncratic use of the term "audiophile" I’m left wondering who you are actually referring to.



It would seem you are describing "objectivist" audiophiles vs the more predominant "subjectivist." That would make your point more clearly.

But even then, your rant contains strawmen. I don’t know what you even mean by "audiophiles" belligerently stating soundstaging is "all in your head." as if to dismiss it. It’s not merely "all in your head" - there really is sound emanating in the room - but it is of course a form of audio illusion. Every audiophile I’ve ever known understands that soundstaging is an audio illusion - that is for instance a center-panned singer will seem to be emanating from the space in between the speakers, when the sound it is actually coming from the speakers (and with some room reflection). That’s just a statement of descriptive fact. I would say the singer seems to be in between the speakers, so would my non-audiophile guests. That’s how the illusion works for human brains. Is this something you actually deny? If not...what is your point????


And then you seem to disparage the fact that audiophiles have a descriptive language concerning sound reproduction - dynamics, presence, extension, grain, etc. Where the "normal" person wouldn’t use those descriptions. Well...OF COURSE. Most disciplines or hobbies develop, of necessity, it’s own descriptors to communicate about the phenomenon in question. It’s very helpful. And someone who is not an enthusiast, or in the hobby, won’t use terms they aren’t familiar with. SO WHAT??? There’s nothing "wrong" with enthusiasts using more specific descriptive language to be able to communicate about a complex experience. It’s what you can expect of rational, normal people.


You say a "normal person" would say something like "I could listen to this all night!" Well, fine. But that type of language is bereft of some useful descriptive detail that one enthusiast could communicate to another. Saying "I could listen to this all night" doesn’t tell me a THING about the sonic qualities. The person could be entranced at hearing super detailed sound she has never experienced before, but which comes in part from the speaker actually having a peaky frequency profile that I and many would term "bright" or tipped up in the upper frequencies (or with some etch or edge to sibilance etc). I have certainly seen folks enraptured by such sound. Or it could mean a dull, rolled off sound. Or a neutral sound. It could be describing a system that has little depth or precision of imaging, or one that does the opposite. It could be describing a system with big, loose, slightly bloated bass (which impresses many non-audiophiles) or a system with the tightest bass around. It leaves virtually every characteristic one could detail off the table.



So sure, a "normal person" may say something vague like that. But...SO WHAT? Such language would be insufficient for communicating in the type of depth and richness one would normally want and need as an enthusiast in a technical hobby.


As to your experience of audiophiles vs non audiophiles, again it seems idiosyncratic. I’ve had many audiophiles and non-audiophiles listen to my systems, and all have been entranced and we have spun many tunes. The audiophiles can simply put in to more precise, detailed terms what they are hearing. Though sometimes the non-audiophiles can surprise me with similar language conjured by the experience.

I’m anxious to retire in a couple of months so I can really start to explore these tweaks to my system to see what I hear, and what I enjoying hearing more than I already do.  I will suggest, as many agree, some small changes to a system can make a big difference.  Just takes the time to really do the ABC comparisons.  Sounds like a fun add on to my hobby in my pending retirement phase of life.

geoffkait

... a single test doesn’t mean anything. It’s the accumulation of evidence that leads to conclusions, so there must be many tests, by different individuals on different systems with different people running the tests. Only then can you draw any conclusions.

Exactly. A controlled listening test is just a tool. Those who want to use it to test a single "claim" made by a single listener are misunderstanding the science big time.

A lot apparently depends on whether the listeners in question have been vetted by the AES sub committee on standards and practices. Besides, I’m not sure I have any confidence in the listeners’ levels of confidence. Furthermore, now this is important - a single test doesn’t mean anything. It’s the accumulation of evidence that leads to conclusions, so there must be many tests, by different individuals on different systems with different people running the tests. Only then can you draw any conclusions. 

That is an impossible situation. It is always all 6 that hear it. One way, or another.

Six people in a room, when the cable elevators are removed, 3 hear a difference and 3 don't.  Who's right? 

A number of recent posts are discussing/defending the fact that even casual non-audiophile visitors can be impressed by "soundstage" or similar phenomena. Does anyone even doubt that some really good system in a well-thought-out room will be noticeably better in every respect than something much less fancy? I would bet that I would be seriously impressed by soundstage and many other details, if I heard millercarbon’s system.

However, the original post was a little more pointy than that. It was about those casual non-audiophile listeners being impressed by changes in cable elevator positioning. Well, that is a little harder to swallow.

Maybe we should ask ourselves "what is wrong with casual non-audiophile listeners".