How Audiphiles are Different


So, I can’t spell Audiophile. Doh.

Again, moving this to a new thread to avoid polluting the OP that got me thinking about this.

A couple of events have intersected for me which made me realize just how very different audiophiles can be. Not just in their tastes but the very way in which the ear/brain mechanism is wired for them. This then profoundly affects their priorities in equipment and rooms. There is no one right way to be but those who argue purity of reproduction is the only reason to be an audiphile, well, I have news for you...

At a show many years ago the rooms varied a great deal in the amount of acoustic treatments. Some very expensive gear was in some really poor sounding rooms. From a couple of these rooms I overheard several participants talk about how great the demos were. I was a little surprised. I couldn’t hear anything. All I could hear was the ocean spray of the room.

After this somewhere I read about how exhausting meeting room and class rooms can be. Our brain is always listening through the room acoustics for words. This takes effort. In a reflective room we literally burn more calories just listening than we do in a dampened room. It makes it harder to study or listen, and we get tired more quickly. I’ve also thought about how musicians listen and how many of them don’t hear the recording or the room, they hear the musician's technique. Their brain’s entire symbol system and language is wired to feel technique and expression.

I have hypothesized these things:

  • Some of us can listen through bad room acoustics much more easily than others
  • Being able to hear minute differences (say in DACs) which don’t appear in steady state tests may very well be possible given long term averaging or some other feature we replicate in modern machine learning/neural networks.
  • We train ourselves to be different types of listeners.

And as a result:

  • Different listeners have different ear / brain wiring which focuses their preferences one way or another.
  • At least to some degree this must be something we learn/train ourselves to do.
  • If this is something we can train ourselves to do maybe we should be careful to train ourselves to listen for musical enjoyment rather than discriminating across equipment.
  • We should embrace the diversity of audiophiles rather than claim a single purity of purpose.
  • Charlatans and snake oil salesmen will never go away.

All of this is just about ear / brain mechanisms. It’s also possible some of us have physical receptors or a combination of different ears/different brains which cause us to hear differently. I remember chatting with a rare lady who was an audiophile and she pointed out that for years she couldn’t listen to DAC’s. They gave her headaches. This was about the same time that DAC’s started getting good at Redbook playback.

What are your thoughts?

 

erik_squires

You are creating a false equivalence. How many tones, what frequency, etc. really does not matter if the artifacts are below human detectable limits which they appear for many products (not all) to be well below especially considering that loud sounds make quiet sounds at the same time impossible to hear.

w.r.t. "what you like", that is a matter of taste, not a matter of reproduction. Why would I spend 10, 20, 30K+ for a piece of equipment that colors the music in a fixed way (that I may not always like), when I could get equipment that has no audible artifacts and color it myself, based on my mood and what music I am listening too?

How does one even test for the right color, when most audiophiles don't adequately and certainly don't consistently do acoustics in their room so insisting on a test for flavor of a single component seems pointless and out of place. I would posit this is the failure of audio reviews, and reviewers and the ad-hoc ones on audiophile sites. The review of any component is just the end results of a collection of errors and the odds of you having the same errors are slim. When comparing two products that likely sound exactly the same, the brains invents a difference which too many gladly accept.

There seems to be some acceptance of certain distortions causing potentially pleasant tonal shifts, and obviously tube amplifiers with high output resistance can cause significant frequency changes depending on the speaker. That information is all readily available in the test suites I see run, it seems to be simply a matter of how to interpret that and I see (not so much here) that being done by knowledgeable classically educated people in this field. From audiophiles I simply see declarations of magic and no information at all that is portable to my or someone else's situation.

You are right!

By the way i admired mikelavigne dedication...

Our way are different but i am sure we will understand each other...

I work with low cost devices and basic acoustic and psycho-acoustic... He work with high end gear in a dedicated acoustic...

Different means same goal...

By the way i am not envious at all about any audio system on earth....

Why?

Because i am glad to be on the top low Price/S.Q. ratio...

My system is average but not my three embeddings workings controls...

My listening experience is not average at all...

For sure it is not lavigne system but we can live without in our own sonic paradise...

 

Audiophiles should all get to the same place which is the enjoyment of music but we all approach it really differently. Look at two contributors here @mikelavigne vs @mahgister. Completely different approaches but I don’t think that either enjoys the music any more than the other. There’s no right or wrong as long as makes you happy.

You are creating a false equivalence. How many tones, what frequency, etc. really does not matter if the artifacts are below human detectable limits which they appear for many products (not all) to be well below especially considering that loud sounds make quiet sounds at the same time impossible to hear.

 

I disagree with this so much, but it is so far afield from my core point that I will not answer it here.

w.r.t. "what you like", that is a matter of taste, not a matter of reproduction.

Reproduction is an ideal in electronic engineering...It does not exist in the same simplistic way in acoustic/psycho-acoustic...

In acoustic experience, the recording trade-off choices of the sound engineer are taken mathematically exactly like they are ( reproduced from analog to digital or the reverse thanks to Fourier) but TRANSLATED in the specific speakers/ specific room acoustic "lingo " for a specific pair of ears....

There is no reproduction at the end but an acoustic/psycho-acoustic translation....

It is in this  possible personal translation where  the human subjective interpretative factor reside in the recreation of his own experience...

What i like is now for the last 10 years in my case the results of my listening experiments...It is not ARBITRARY nor universal....

We must learn to listen, and it is not and never will be just a question about "accuracy"...Acoustic concepts are not reducible to electrical measures...Sorry...

Accuracy is a multidimensional concept in acoustic/psycho-acoustic... Not so much in electrical engineering...

Accuracy of timbre...Of dynamics... Of the ratio of LEV/ASW, accuracy of imaging.... Accuracy of what?

 

 

Erik you forgot the looks of components and speakers. I know some as long as they look good, they like it,