audiophiles gone crazy (again)

[jjj]

Whilst people are busy mocking audiophiles which is like lumping ALL serious photographers together, this forum at times is no different with it's measurebating and pixel peeping.
It should also be noted that like the wine with prices nonsense, people think higher MP prints are better even when there is no actual difference.

[amolitor]

Both what we "see" and what we "hear" are largely constructs of the mind in the first place.

What we "see" is almost entirely invented, from an astonishing small amount of actual visual data. Our visual cortex will cheerfully edit out memories to cover up its mistakes, which makes the whole thing quite challenging to get a handle on.

The ear is a much more sensitive instrument at doing what IT does, but what we hear is still largely a construct.

So, obviously, our preconceptions and ideas can hugely effect what we see and hear.

[AreBee]

Unfortunately, all too often those that pursue superb sound quality do nothing to address perhaps the greatest contributer to it: the room.

The video is a perfect example. The irony is that the subjective improvement in sound quality can be objectively measured.

[Tim Lookingbill]

So you have what is (I assume) a great system recorded with a portable video recorder, downsampled for posting on youttube and probably played back through a mediocre set of electronics (a pair of £53 headphones for the last poster) and people praising how wonderful it is, even talking about a 'scoop out' at a certain frequency.
Shows how appearances can affect it all.

I agree, if not a bit over simplistic because I have actually heard a REAL difference in sound quality comparing that YouTube video and my vintage, cheapo high end system from what I've heard in high end systems at Best Buy which don't even come close to the sound quality. So there still is no real, consistent connection to price point vs sound quality.

From what I've seen in the market it's all over the map making finding the price/quality sweet spot almost impossible if only by chance which I think is how the industry overall wants it. You can apply the same marketing strategy to any device whose source of quality is never fully understood because of all the complexity and obscure nomenclature that makes it appear like it's of high quality.

IOW as it's often put..."If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". That's the impetus behind why Standards & Poor gave AAA ratings to crappy bundled securities when they knew they were crap. Happens all the time to the best of them, but best only by name.

Oh, from my observations I now never underestimate the affect of reverb both accidental (electronically) and intentional (process engineered) has on audio quality perception. I believe that's actually the secret sauce for creating a high quality stereo image and it doesn't have to cost an arm and leg. You can hear it in the YouTube video by listening to changes in phasing from one ear to the other as the camera moves around the room.

Same thing I experienced comparing the stereo imaging on my 1992 Panasonic CD player (great imaging) vs a 2002 Onkyo 6 CD changer. I sent back the Onkyo.

[PeterAit]

And with perfect irony, the folks that want "perfect" sound quality often listen to the most horrid music. This is a perfect analogy to the photographic "peepers" who will put enormous effort and expense into creating a perfectly exposed and tack-sharp image of the most boring subject.

[jjj]

And with perfect irony, the folks that want "perfect" sound quality often listen to the most horrid music. This is a perfect analogy to the photographic "peepers" who will put enormous effort and expense into creating a perfectly exposed and tack-sharp image of the most boring subject.

You are comparing two very different things. Enjoying other people's work and creating one's own work.
The fact you do not like someone else's choice of music is irrelevant. The only person who cares about your personal taste is yourself. Your sneering at other's taste only demonstrates your snobbery. Not to mention, how do you know what people listen to anyway? Oh yes you cannot know such a thing.

[Tim Lookingbill]

And with perfect irony, the folks that want "perfect" sound quality often listen to the most horrid music. This is a perfect analogy to the photographic "peepers" who will put enormous effort and expense into creating a perfectly exposed and tack-sharp image of the most boring subject.

Come on, dude. "Daft Punk" never sounded so good as on that YouTube video. Check it out.

The entire album won a Grammy for best sound engineering.

[jjj]

Unfortunately, all too often those that pursue superb sound quality do nothing to address perhaps the greatest contributer to it: the room.

Again people talking about things they cannot know. The amount of sneering going on in this thread is quite remarkable. People I know who are fussy about their music do actually alter their rooms.
My office has sound issues as it is almost exactly a cube, so standing waves are a problem and my audio doesn't sound as good in the current office as it did in office my previous house. So it needs sorting because I also do film editing at times.

[jjj]

Come on, dude. "Daft Punk" never sounded so good as on that YouTube video. Check it out.

The entire album won a Grammy for best sound engineering.

What album won? Daft Punk or the Sonny Rollins one.? The latter I'd guess.
Personally I'd choose Daft Punk anyday over that sort of noodly jazz. I love swing music, but later jazz like that track I actively dislike. Whereas most music that I do not positively like, I'm indifferent to. But hey other people love it, so that's fine.

[AreBee]

jjj,

Again people talking about things they cannot know.

Writing "all too often" reflects my own experience, but I am confident that it more accurately reflects reality than your own. One has only to read posts by others on audio forums and view videos posted on YouTube to confirm that a majority of those for whom the pursuit of high quality audio is important do little, if anything, to address their room acoustics.

The amount of sneering going on in this thread is quite remarkable.

You are mistaken if you consider that I am sneering. Actually I am saddened that those who pursue superb sound quality could so easily achieve a dramatic improvement if they would but address their room acoustics.

In my opinion photographers get off lightly. At least with audio we can, under carefully controlled conditions, objectively measure if a difference exists. Compare that to photography, where some photographers consider that they can clearly see a difference between MFD and 35mm, but cannot define it, and no test can prove it - one way or the other.

Sounds to me like an environment ripe for buyers to be manipulated by sellers.

My office has sound issues as it is almost exactly a cube, so standing waves are a problem...

Standing waves adversely affect every room.

...and my audio doesn't sound as good in the current office as it did in office my previous house. So it needs sorting because I also do film editing at times.

Don't you do that near-field?

[jjj]

Writing "all too often" reflects my own experience, but I am confident that it more accurately reflects reality than your own.

So despite knowing nothing about me, you claim that experience is superior to mine. Well that puts things in perspective. 

At least with audio we can, under carefully controlled conditions, objectively measure if a difference exists. Compare that to photography, where some photographers consider that they can clearly see a difference between MFD and 35mm, but cannot define it, and no test can prove it - one way or the other.

That'll come as a big surprise to say the folks at DXO, amongst others.

Standing waves adversely affect every room.

Some far more than others as I've found out.

Don't you do that near-field?

My monitors are near field but even so, the room doesn't sound so nice for music compared to my last far more oblong office with other features to break up standing waves.

[amolitor]

But standing waves are how it all works.

We sort of have this idea of a column of air from the speaker to our ear, vibrating just so, but that's not it AT ALL.

A room, any room, has a whole whack of resonances. When a speaker vibrates, it excites all those resonances to one degree or another. If it's playing a A440, you'll get a strong cluster of resonances around 440Hz, another around 880, and so on.

Now when a room has some really really dominant resonant frequencies, you can run in to problems, and that's what people generally mean by "standing waves", but in reality it's all standing waves. It's not a column of air, it's a 3 dimensional drumhead, and you're in it, somewhere. And your brain reconstructs that A440 piano note from the incredible dirty mess it gets from the room, it locates the speakers largely by the differences in what one ear hears over another (delays in attack and phase relationships), as well as constructing a surprising amount of information about the room that we're normally unconscious of.

[Tim Lookingbill]

What album won? Daft Punk or the Sonny Rollins one.? The latter I'd guess.
Personally I'd choose Daft Punk anyday over that sort of noodly jazz. I love swing music, but later jazz like that track I actively dislike. Whereas most music that I do not positively like, I'm indifferent to. But hey other people love it, so that's fine.

Random Access Memory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_Access_Memories

Here's the Kendrick Sound YouTube for "Get Lucky" video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFRzcZz1_6s

Sweet sound! Perfect balance!

Here's some more audio craziness only not for the audiophile but folks who like music as a hair dryer... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKEu7e7ESwM

It's a whole other subculture I stumbled upon searching for Audacity bass boost edits on YouTube.

[Petrus]

From what I've seen in the market it's all over the map making finding the price/quality sweet spot almost impossible if only by chance which I think is how the industry overall wants it.

The way I have approached this problem is to use professional studio equipment. On that side of the fence there is not so much BS and esoteric marketing speak, as buyers actually understand something about the real meaningful quality parameters. So I have no need to worry and upgrade constantly.

So: player: Tascam "industrial" rack player. DAC/Controller: Crane Song Avocet. Power amps: Hypex sourced PMC class-D 200W cigar boxes. Speakers: PMC IB2s transmission line mid field monitors and Genelec 7071A subwoofer.

For multichannel SACD: Denon Pro preprocessor/preamp, OPPO 103 universal player with HDMI out, ADAM X8 and X7 active monitor speakers for center and back channels.

Room: semi dedicated 4x5 meter room with wood floor and paneling, ceiling height from 2.3 to 2.9 meters, 70 cm of padding at the speaker end of the room.

[hjulenissen]

Again people talking about things they cannot know.

I have some knowledge about how regular people and people with "audiophile" tendencies decorate their rooms. Based on this knowledge, I think it is fair to say that "many" audiophiles do not alter their room beyond what it was like when they purchased their house, or beyond what any non-audiophile might be expected to do with a room (insert furniture etc).

The amount of sneering going on in this thread is quite remarkable.

What is your point?

People I know who are fussy about their music do actually alter their rooms.

I certainly know _some_ who alter their rooms. The thing is that for every user altering their room, there are (say) 100 users purchasing silly power cables at $100 a piece. My experience selling those cables is that many self-proclaimed audiophiles have some lack of critical thinking combined with an enormous confidence in poorly executed anecdotal experiences ("I felt that the sound was improved, therefore the magic stone must by definition have altered the soundwaves hitting me")

I tend to think that it is important to talk about "borderline beliefs", such as commonly found among audiophiles, homeopaths and what not. These alternate beliefs seems to often include a rejection of science and/or claims of conspiracy. In the case of audiophilia, there is an ecosystem of manufacturers, magazines etc that have an interest in keeping the myths.

-h

[AreBee]

Good morning jjj,

...despite knowing nothing about me, you claim that experience is superior to mine.

Don't put words in my mouth.

My statement that "all too often those that pursue superb sound quality do nothing to address perhaps the greatest contributer to it: the room" is either correct or incorrect. There is no "superior".

That'll come as a big surprise to say the folks at DXO, amongst others.

Please can you refer me to test(s) carried out by DXO or others under scientifically controlled conditions to determine the existence of the so-called Medium Format look?

[jjj]

I tend to think that it is important to talk about "borderline beliefs", such as commonly found among audiophiles, homeopaths and what not. These alternate beliefs seems to often include a rejection of science and/or claims of conspiracy. In the case of audiophilia, there is an ecosystem of manufacturers, magazines etc that have an interest in keeping the myths.

You argued this before and there is also a bunch of people like yourself equally deluded who because they cannot discern any difference then claim equally falsely, that there can be no difference.
I certainly don't buy into some of the daft claims such as those made for the cables in the original post, but I have heard systems sound markedly better simply with decent connectors added. Homemade and very cheap connectors at that. Plus I had no idea the connectors had been changed, so unprompted I asked why the system now sounded better.

[jjj]

Don't put words in my mouth.
My statement that "all too often those that pursue superb sound quality do nothing to address perhaps the greatest contributer to it: the room" is either correct or incorrect. There is no "superior".

I didn't put any words in your mouth, you put them there yourself. Unlike the rejigged quote above, which you re-edited to hide your smugness the quote below is the one I replied to where you act all superior.
'Writing "all too often" reflects my own experience, but I am confident that it more accurately reflects reality than your own.'

Please can you refer me to test(s) carried out by DXO or others under scientifically controlled conditions to determine the existence of the so-called Medium Format look?

That's is not what you said before. You said 'some photographers consider they can clearly see a difference between MFD + 35mm, but cannot define it and no test can prove it.' Quite a different claim.
My girlfriend watches America's next top model, so I sometimes see the the judging session and even on the old small SD TV, it's pretty obvious when a photographer used a DSLR and not MFDSLR. I rewind to see if I'm right before you query how I know I'm correct. Not got it wrong yet either.
I can also see a big difference in the screen grab here, the MF shot is measurably better as one can read far more of the text than in the other shots.

[AreBee]

jjj,

I didn't put any words in your mouth...

I have not claimed that my experience is superior to yours. Don't put words in my mouth.

Unlike the rejigged quote...

The post in question was edited to add "scientifically". You may believe me or not as you see fit.

...which you re-edited to hide your smugness...

There is no smugness. Again, you may believe me or not as you see fit.

That's is not what you said before. You said 'some photographers consider they can clearly see a difference between MFD + 35mm, but cannot define it and no test can prove it.' Quite a different claim.

I apologise for the confusion. I should have made specific that I referred to the so-called Medium Format look.

I can also see a big difference in the screen grab here, the MF shot is measurably better as one can read far more of the text than in the other shots.

Yes, I find I can read larger text more easily than smaller text too.

[jjj]

jjj,

I have not claimed that my experience is superior to yours. Don't put words in my mouth.

Yes. You. Did.
'Writing "all too often" reflects my own experience, but I am confident that it more accurately reflects reality than your own.'

The post in question was edited to add "scientifically". You may believe me or not as you see fit.

The quote I replied to was re-edited to completely change its meaning in your rebuttal.
I replied to
Writing "all too often" reflects my own experience, but I am confident that it more accurately reflects reality than your own. One has only to read posts by others on audio forums and view videos posted on YouTube to confirm that a majority of those for whom the pursuit of high quality audio is important do little, if anything, to address their room acoustics.
You changed it to....
My statement that "all too often those that pursue superb sound quality do nothing to address perhaps the greatest contributer to it: the room" is either correct or incorrect. There is no "superior".

There is no smugness. Again, you may believe me or not as you see fit.

I apologise for the confusion. I should have made specific that I referred to the so-called Medium Format look.

Yes, I find I can read larger text more easily than smaller text too.

Which demonstrates what you claimed could not be shown. But then you were careless with your writings, again.

BTW different sized sensors do give different renditions if all else is equal, so there is in fact a look specific to each sensor size because of the variation in depth of field, resolution, pixel pitch. Also MF cameras until recently had a different kind of sensor which like the Foveon chip gave a different look to the image.
The fact that if you alter settings, the rendition [or look] due to DoF from different cameras will overlap a certain amount doesn't mean different camera do not look different from each other. If you look at large prints, the differences become even more marked. Though it will be instructive to compare the new Canons at 50MP with a 50MP Hasselblad/Pentax.