2. misc-audio
  3. 152293-121242

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????
128x128millercarbon
prof
3,479 posts
 
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?



Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,987 posts
 
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.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,987 posts
 
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.
atdavid
736 posts
 
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.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,987 posts
 
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.
More to discover