What is wrong with Audiophiles?

Uh, oh, the Cargo Cult is growing. Speaking of bleating you’ve been following the wrong sheep 🐑 🐑 🐑 🐑🚶🏻‍♂️The hat’s real cool looking. 🙄

Almost every time I see a ’Garmin’ GPS unit, I adopt the pose and walk the walk and say the line, in the correct tone and voice, of course: "Fred Garvin...Male..."

Kinda the same as a ’punch buggies - no paybacks’, thing, but totally different....
(the original post addressed his avatar which is of Dan Akyrod when he was on SNL. Oddly enough, I'm in the same town as Dan. Oh, the stories we townies can tell....)

atdavid
I have added many things to this forum, but you seem to gravitate towards tweaks, not things that are likely to make a significant difference in your sound, like truly addressing the acoustics in your environment.

>>>>>That’s beautiful! The perfect Strawman argument. Kudos!

Both are correct, but one needs to address the point that the ear only hears the peak and micro transients in the positive side of the waveform and then aggregates them together, in a very time and timing sensitive manner..and this is where the musics lives and is heard by the ear.

So tweaks address this area as just as well (qualitatively) as equipment or rooms or acoustics address this area.

If we apply engineering weighting to the signal analysis, we find that the changes from tweaks might be 0.1-0.05% of the signal, maybe more, maybe less.

But the engineering weighting has that all backward as compared to how the ear analyses the signal. That extra bit is heard on the top ...as the sum is heard -- not the change/difference that is separated out via engineering analysis.

Where engineering analysis makes the judgement numerically as a comparative value. And makes the mistake in the thought that the tiny number is swamped by the big number.

This method and way is absurd as it has nothing to do with how the ear works or how the ear hears. The measurement is correct. The concocted and assumed meaning of it is not correct.

IF we applied the analysis to just the peak positives of the waveform, as a set ...and ignored the other 90% of the signal, just like the ear does..... then the changes might easily equal double digits of change.

Attention span issue?

I -- repeat -- I, do not want to be one more unqualified comment in a long stream of unqualified comments, hence why I -- repeat -- I, don’t jump in on every thread about component X to offer my opinion. I don’t see the value in it, and it is My choice whether I will post or not. That is why I restrict my comment to supportable statements about more general topics in audio. There is no value in yet another comment. Do we really need another comment saying "B&W 80x is too bright!" or "no it’s not!". However, pointing out that some speaker makers consciously design a very wide emission pattern, and that if you find those speakers too bright, it is a room/speaker interaction issues, does have value. That is a post I made.

cleeds2,557 posts11-19-2019 10:42am Sez you. But this group does not exist solely for your amusement and satisfaction. Some of us enjoy reading about others’ listening experiences, even in the absence of definitive conclusions, and even in the absence of the scientific listening tests you keep asking others to conduct for you.

Engineering does not make the claim that the tiny number is swamped by the large number in audio.

Psychoacoustics makes that claim and backs it up with research.


Neuroscience makes that claim and backs it up with research.

Neurophysics makes that claim and backs it up with research.

Engineering uses the work of those fields, and their research to define the parameters for the products, methods, and concepts that they develop.  If you have an issue, it is with the above fields, not engineering. 

You may grand statements about "this is not the way the ear works", but perhaps you can back that up with some research from psychoacoustics, neuroscience, and/or neurophysics and show how "engineering" is not properly using these principles as it relates to audio? 

teo_audio1,243 posts11-19-2019 11:04am
Where engineering analysis makes the judgement numerically as a comparative value. And makes the mistake in the thought that the tiny number is swamped by the big number.

This method and way is absurd as it has nothing to do with how the ear works or how the ear hears. The measurement is correct. The concocted and assumed meaning of it is not correct.

That is the mistake.

atdavid

I, do not want to be one more unqualified comment in a long stream of unqualified comments ... There is no value in yet another comment.

Again, sez you. But this group does not exist solely for your amusement and satisfaction. Some of us enjoy reading about others' listening experiences, even if you insist they are "unqualified" and have "no value." That's just something that - sooner or later - you'll have to accept about this group.