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
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
5,986 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.
atdavid
736 posts
 
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
prof
3,479 posts
 
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 ;-)
atdavid
736 posts
 
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.
More to discover