I will add that anyone participating in a DBT typically has a dog in this fight. They either want or dont want to hear a difference. The results can be tainted accordingly. The objectivist have created just as viable a market by taking a vocal position as have the subjectivists.
WHY IS THERE SO MUCH HATE FOR THE HIGH END GEAR ON AUDIO GEAR?
It seems like when I see comments on high end gear there is a lot of negativity. I have been an audiophile for the last 20 years. Honestly, if you know how to choose gear and match gear a lot of the high end gear is just better. When it comes to price people can charge what they want for what they create. If you don’t want it. Don’t pay for it. Look if you are blessed to afford the best bear and you can get it. It can be very sonically pleasing. Then do it. Now if you are also smart and knowledgeable you can get high end sound at mid-fi prices then do it. It’s the beauty of our our hobby. To build a system that competes with the better more expensive sounding systems out there. THOUGHTS?
429 responses Add your response
Exactly and the objectivist as the subjectivist are focussing on the GEAR piece, with their taste for the subjectivist and with electrical measures of the specs as the main ground of sound qualities ; the two sides ignore psycho-acoustics and hearing theories and deep mystery ... This is why the two groups are deluded in their own opposite way , deluded by their "tastes" for the gear or deluded by the measured electrical specs ...... At least the subjectivist trust their ears for the better or the worst but the ears which must be trained by acoustics is the only ground for audio experience ...Not the electrical tool so useful it is ...
| |
@scottwheel The only one being a dickhead here is you, my friend. Your not knowing Barton was part of the original tests was born out by you when you said:
Not together, not with them, but a different test that was done the same way.
No need to. But since you seem to have selective memory, go up this page to what andrewdourin said @ 2:27pm. That is what I was comparing it to. That, and you sure like to use the dick a lot in all manner of variations. Grow up some, lad. All the best,
| |
@mahler123 exactly. @scottwheel is hell bent on telling folks that they should trust their own ears! WHAT SENSE DOES THAT MAKE? | |
“I will add that anyone participating in a DBT typically has a dog in this fight. They either want or dont want to hear a difference. The results can be tainted accordingly. The objectivist have created just as viable a market by taking a vocal position as have the subjectivists.” whenever possible I do my own auditions and comparisons blind. I do have a dog in the fight, I want results that are the least tainted that I can get. | |
“No need to. But since you seem to have selective memory, go up this page to what andrewdourin said @ 2:27pm. That is what I was comparing it to. That, and you sure like to use the dick a lot in all manner of variations. Grow up some, lad.”
if nothing else you are predictable. I called this answer out before you posted it. There was no difference between the alleged parlor trick and what Toole and Olive did. Keep on trying to make it about me. You clearly can’t make it about testing protocols | |
Looks like you're the kind of fellow who reads what he wants to instead of what's stated. The protocols were completely different. One did nothing but try to elicit unfavorable results, rejoicing in his deception (he never changed a thing), the other, earnestly tried to discern the preferences of the test subjects so they could learn from it and know how to proceed to build a product all can enjoy. You think in funny ways. All the best, | |
Nothing is accomplished by lying to a group of listeners in a double blind. The fact the listeners, presumably, heard differences proves nothing other than the human tendency to believe what others (audio professionals) tell them. I hope no one is actually stating that the results from such a test are worthwhile. | |
“exactly. @scottwheel is hell bent on telling folks that they should trust their own ears!” I am an advocate of judging sound quality by ear. But just by ear. ”WHAT SENSE DOES THAT MAKE?” maybe it’s just me. I think it makes perfect sense. | |
“Nothing is accomplished by lying to a group of listeners in a double blind. The fact the listeners, presumably, heard differences proves nothing other than the human tendency to believe what others (audio professionals) tell them. I hope no one is actually stating that the results from such a test are worthwhile.”
I think that was the point. Human tendency to form opinions on sound quality that are not actually based on sound. I guess audiophiles can either learn from it or get angry at it. Given the rampant lying by manufacturers of so many products it seems to be very much on point | |
“The protocols were completely different.” No. they were nearly identical. ”One did nothing but try to elicit unfavorable results, rejoicing in his deception (he never changed a thing),” and here is where you show us it’s about ego not knowledge. When one has an ego based emotional investment then one sees results as favorable or unfavorable. In both cases the results simply were informative. The protocols were IN FACT exactly as you say for BOTH tests. In the Toole Olive test THEY NEVER CHANGED A THING. You should get your facts right before talking about head injuries incurred by others. | |
@coralkong now I remember why I left Audiogon in the first place. One guy pushing his opinion on the rest on repeat! | |
My god, the lengths you go to to subvert the subject. In the properly done test, being blind, the participants had to listen over time and develop an opinion whereas the other test was just a means to deceive. You're way over your head on this one. All the best,
| |
@scottwheel im done . This is turning into too much negative energy. Look I enjoy the hobby. I enjoy the music. I’m not on here for the same reason you are. I wish you nothing but the best. Enjoy your system. Not gonna argue with you anymore. Take care best wishes. | |
@nonoise some if the responses and repeated responses pushing opinions on people is what this has devolved to. I remember 12 years ago when it wasn’t like this. Some people get so frustrated that you will never agree with them it gets personal. Wow. | |
@calvinj I couldn't agree more. Back in the day it was civil discourse and not like it is now. Sign of the time I'd say. Some have to impose themselves, be an influencer, and succeed at any cost. It's why I've dialed back my posting here. Way too much negative waves. All the best, | |
| Post removed | |
@nonoise yes sir. Perfect caption. I love the music the way it takes the stress away. I’m old school. I watch my language. I may goof around but I’m careful when I speak to men. You just don’t say certain things. Old school. I like positivity. I’m not going to comment for a while hoping it becomes more civil. Take care. | |
Really? Go and listen to Darko's interview with Paul Barton and then get back to me. Until then, stop grasping at straws to save face. All the best, | |
I just love it when someone tells me what I can and cannot hear in my system. @scottwheel , give it a rest, eh? Someday you'll look back on this and realize how foolish you sound. Don't like expensive cables? Don't buy any. Want to hang with the Pink Panther crowd? By all means, go for it. Want to hang out with your buddies and talk about how smart you are, and how everyone else who disagrees with you is retarded? Not my cup of tea, but you do you. But give it a rest already. Once you know better (and obviously a few people here certainly DO know better), you can't go back....someday you'll probably learn. But your pseudo-intellectual high-road tactics are annoying, to say the least. Your "lather, rinse, repeat" regurgitated ignorance is old at this point. Let it go.
| |
“Once you know better (and obviously a few people here certainly DO know better), you can't go back....” Know better? Please elaborate. I can’t go back? Could you be more specific? Can’t go back from what to what? ”someday you'll probably learn.” Always looking to learn. What specifically do you think I will someday learn? These are honest questions. No hostility. Just trying to get a clear understanding of what you are telling me. | |
@scottwheel , if you truly want to learn something, perhaps you should stop trying to be the smartest guy in the room and listen to what others are telling you. Have a nice day.
| |
I think the stance of @scottwheel is perfect answer to the subject of this tread. Shoving his opinion on everybody else by the way of disdain, belittling and virtual hate toward anybody disagreeing with his view how the hobby of high end gear HAS to be pursued. His way is the RIGHT way and anybody thinking otherwise is delusional moron. | |
“@scottwheel , if you truly want to learn something, perhaps you should stop trying to be the smartest guy in the room and listen to what others are telling you.” Im listening. You were saying something about “no going back.” Can you elaborate? You also said some day I will probably learn? What is it you think someday I will probably learn? | |
@knock1 @coralkong scottwheel seems like he is the kind of guy on Audiogon that I talk about in this post. Hellbent on telling us 1. We can’t hear 2. It’s expensive so it must be snake oil. 3. We don’t know better so we must be told our faults. 4. We are gullable. 5. Double blind tests will prove us wrong. 6. They don’t have experience with high end low noise gear. 7. They are smarter than us and they are gonna show us what we did and are doing wrong. 8. They comment on how and why and the way we spend our Money. 9. They should tell companies what to charge. 10. They should tell people what to pay. THEY DO ALL OF THESE THINGS WITHOUT HEARING YOUR GEAR. YOUR GEAR IN YOUR ENVIRONMENT OR HEARING ANY GEAR CABLES ETC. THAT THEY ARE COMMENTING ON! | |
“ It’s expensive so it must be snake oil. We are gullible They don’t have experience with high end low noise gear. They are smarter than us and they are gonna show us what we did and are doing wrong. They comment on how and why and the way we spend our Money. They should tell companies what to charge” Everything above that you attribute to me is complete fabrication on your part. where did I mention anything about the prices of equipment or tell anyone how much they should spend or tell any company how much they should charge? What do you know of my personal experience with any gear? Where did I call anyone gullible? Where did I say anything about being smarter than anyone? Why are you just making the crap up about me? I’ve called you out on this a few times now. | |
@knock1 @coralkong HIT DAWGS HOLLER! | |
Where are you, @millercarbon ????? Come back!!!!!!!!!!! (Or @millercarbonknowsmoreaboutausiothanyoupricks ???)
| |
| Post removed | |
To this which was in his opinion put in his mouth he replied :
scottwheel is right about that, he never explicitly claim the above criticisms of audiophiles... He is right because alas! subjectivists crowd reacted emotionaly and assimilated him with an objectivist (because he seem to be one for sure even if he does not states it officially ) and then reacted accordingly ; but the objectivists crowd reacted generally no less emotionally but with an ideological stance conflated with sciences ...
For example Scottwheel stated :
If i translate this sentence above by analogy : a rainbow do not exist as colored because the colors are not in the water droplets in the air...They resulted from the way the brain filtered light though a particular medium ...They are then illusion waiting to be debunked ...A so simplistic reasoning is expressed by our scottwheel about sound qualities ...He forget the brain creative contribution in reading a sound source vibrating body qualities which are not mainly a deception and in all cases as his debunking use of the double blind test method is trying to prove ...
He forget the non linear working brain filtering noise and working in his own time domain by some interpolative process to perceive the recognized symbolic form image coming through the medium of the various physical invariants related to the specifically located resonating source body ... In speech this is a person... In music this is an individual instrument speaking his language ...A violin or a person dont matter ... In sound audio it can be a vibrating source as an amplifier which sound can be modified by a change around or in or on the amplifier and perceived as a change in quality by a listener, audiophile or not ...
Simple blind test is useful in a designing incremental process ...i used them myself with my embeddings controls design ... Double blind test has a value statistically only and in specific conditions ...
Using double blind test to debunk an individual claim in a short span of time in specific alien contextual hearing conditions is a debunking business as James Randi claimed to do ...Not science ...
| |
| Post removed | |
Your effort to play the victim here probably fools no one. If you have a complaint about a user, take it to the moderators. @scottwheel is a troll practicing "sealioning." It's not new or original.
| |
Yes but this does not contradict my point , because humans can be trained and are specifically trained in visual experiences , wine tasting , as in music and acoustic or speech recognition etc ... All of what is perceived can be explained today or tomorrow by sciences but this fact dont means that the explanation will be the actual accepted scientific explanation ... There is no consensus in hearing theories actually , only a basic consensus around the technology ... We perceive the sound of an amplifier all together the same way in a general way of speaking yes, but if i change a cable or put a piece of a shungite chunk on the amplifier or instead a piece of quartz, some will perceive a change , and some will claim that it is impossible to perceive a change because of Maxwell equations, Helmholtz hearing theory and Fourier mapping of sounds ... Instead of training their ears they will shut down any other possibilities ...But all these theories are not enough to understand sound perception as it is , even if they could be and they are actually the basis of very useful technologies ... Remember when people thought that seeing without eyes was impossible ? Now it is possible for everyone becoming blind with a training ... It is the samething with sound , we can now "see" sounds with our hands with a vibrating object in our hand ( a balloon) ...
| |
What I'm looking for is value at every price point. Value is individually determined. What I don't like is that I can't often find the most value within each price point because the market is inefficient for hifi products. Thus I end up guessing as most of us do. What I'd love to see are permanent HiFi listening centers that have quality listening rooms with lots of gear to compare spread out at 4 or 5 locations in the US. Thus we would not have to listen to gear at shows in crummy rooms that don't allow for a direct comparisons between gear or at dealers with limited gear alternatives. Just a thought. | |
@mahgister "scottwheel is right about that, he never explicitly claim the above criticisms of audiophiles" It has been done implicitly. @cleeds "sealioning" Exactly. | |
It is precisely what my post suggested if you read it ... His idea about sound qualities came from scientism not from science ... And using double blind set as a Procustean bed to do it make of him an indisclosed objectivist ... 😁 | |
| Post removed | |
You clearly said that double blind test is the only way to accept any hearing experience as valid... I claim that any audiophiles in an incremental process of tuning his system with electrical,mechanical or material and acoustical devices use or must use simple blind test as part of his audio system optimization ... There is no claim of universal validy if i claim that my experience suggest that cable X in my system Y in a room Z for my ears make some qualitative change ... There is only a claim of a change in me and for me in some specific complex set of electrical,mechanical and acoustical conditions impossible to repeat probably in some other conditions and for some other ears , thats all ... Using this audiophile claim of personal experience , right or wrong , to discredit any speech about any experience , save one validated by double blind test is not science it is debunking strategy about marketing of some cables , or debunking strategy against someone claim ... Objectivist are deluded by gear properties as much as subjectivists are because replacing ears subjectivity by electrical tools specs is as deceptive ... Psycho-acoustics concept and experiments rules the gear and the tool, not the reverse ... Then debunking a claim is not so simplistic as using a double blind test ... Especially if someone knows the difficulties related to the complex protocol behind it ...And even with this protocol applied, we cannot debunk someone claims generally ...Double blind test work statistically not so much in individual case ... In any incremental optimizing work as listener in his room , it is enough to do simple repeated blind test in my experience ...I did them as any designer do also ...I dont need double blind test to know what work for me and what did not work ... And i dont need to sell anything as an audio company does... Audio company can use double blind test as marketing ploy ... I dont need that test, i just need to listen to the "new" device they sell after their test to evaluate the level of change and the degree of change in relation to his price in my own system with his one peculiarities and needs ... If the change is illusory i dont think they will make much money ... Audio company make money with the look of the gear, and publicity and sometimes a good design well evaluated for his price or overcharged ... Dont need a double blind test to guess that before buying ... Forgot double blind test and buy psycho-acoustics books and books about hearing and make some simple experiments ...Dont conflate acoustic experience with a limited set of electrical measured specs as some deluded objectivists do ...
«Measures dont say all the truth, because all measures, known and unknown, are not equals»--Anonymus designer «Is the form of the universe a one side surface or a two side surface ?»-- Anonymus cosmologist
| |
It’s not amazing at all. You’ve made dozens of posts in the space of just a few weeks, and you’ve made yourself very clear. You’re consistent. You’re a troll, and now you’re transitioning to the claim of being a victim. Who exactly do you think you're fooling? | |
“Now Analog Scat is just whining how put upon he is.” Actually it’s just sheer astonishment the degree to which folks will make things up in their heads to defend their belief system. You guys are going to hang on to your narrative no matter what. No I at you are going to let any reality get in the way. Put upon? Hardly. | |
| Post removed | |
“You clearly said that double blind test is the only way to accept any hearing experience as valid...” Not what I said. When done well they serve as objective evidence of real audible differences or lack there of. Sighted anecdotal evidence is simply unreliable and doesn’t work as evidence. Particularly when the anecdotes run contrary to accepted knowledge. I don’t think anyone here is actually thinking about what I am saying. It looks like they are trying to force what I say into their safe stereotypes to protect their beliefs. The idea that there can even be an audiophile who has actually had extensive experience with “high end” tweaks, cables, amps etc. And is perusing state of the art audio regardless of price. And is genuinely committed to finding out what affects sound quality and what does not. And does not share their beliefs is just plain scary. My position can’t be written off as a lack of experience or jealousy or narrow mindedness. | |
I am sure that you are not jealous, petty , narrow minded more than most of us anyway , and you are serious as we are ... This does not means that all i did in my room incrementally had no value for me because i used simple blind test and not Double blind test with controllers ... Insisting so much on double blind test mark you as an objectivist attacking subjectivist crowd here ...It is inescapable ... Why not criticizing double blind test protocol as being impracticable in individual audio optimization with a specific system/room/ears ? Accepted knowledge as you said dont bother itself with the difference a piece of shungite on an amplifier can do compared to a piece of quartz, does it means this experiment is preposterous because i did not wait for James Randi double blind test to perceive it ? The actual state of science so extraordinary it appear technologically by the way is primitive compared to what we can foresee with a small imagination grounded in the last decades discoveries ... Now read me right , i think sound qualities exist and are improved for perception by psycho-acoustics discoveries applied in audio ... This dont means that i cannot made my own experiment which will have a value for me not for all others ...
|
