audiophiles gone crazy (again)

[amolitor]

Obviously there is at least one cue. There are usually several, in these informal experiments. It's probably not whatever your first impression is, though.

[Petrus]

Yes, it's the sub-woofer that counts, and the amps to drive it, as any teenage head-banger could tell you. I confess to shopping for my first "adult-sized pay-check" audio system with selections like organ music, to check out the low end.

I find it funny that most audiophiles are obsessed with high frequencies and demand higher sample rates, super tweeters etc. All that trouble for frequencies they and nobody can hear.

At the same time they have speakers which do not reproduce the lowest octave of musical instruments. So they miss out on sounds which A) do exist in recordings (at least classical/organ) B) which can be easily heard and felt by everybody (even by deaf persons) and  C) can be reproduced quite easily.

This is the subwoofer I have: http://www.genelec.com/products/7071a/

Goes both low and loud, perfect for an organ enthusiast  and recordist like me.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I find it funny that most audiophiles are obsessed with high frequencies and demand higher sample rates, super tweeters etc. All that trouble for frequencies they and nobody can hear.

Hi,

That's a common error that people make. One may not hear the frequencies themselves as well, but the interference with other frequencies, or to draw the analogy to photography, the aliasing artifacts have a lower frequency which may well distort the real frequencies we can still detect. So there is a benefit to oversampling the high frequencies, even the ones we cannot hear.

At the same time they have speakers which do not reproduce the lowest octave of musical instruments. So they miss out on sounds which A) do exist in recordings (at least classical/organ) B) which can be easily heard and felt by everybody (even by deaf persons) and  C) can be reproduced quite easily.

I agree, it adds a lot of realism to a recording. Although some can still prefer a certain deviation from absolutely neutral, like in photography we may shift the color temperature to add a bit of mood, I prefer to start calibrating the whole system in its environment of use to a neutral setting.

A useful software utility can be this (Windows) Freeware Holm Impulse. If you play a Sinusoidal frequency sweep through your system, it will clearly show the frequencies where the tweeters cross-over to mid-tone speakers which in turn cross-over to the woofers, and where the sub-woofers can extend the frequency response of the woofers (it helps if the room is long enough to fully accommodate the low frequency wavelengths). It also allows to tune the output of the extreme ends of the frequency spectrum with the room absorption characteristics (before we compensate for our own hearing deficiencies), and even see how it varies with listening position.

Cheers,
Bart

[Petrus]

That's a common error that people make. One may not hear the frequencies themselves as well, but the interference with other frequencies, or to draw the analogy to photography, the aliasing artifacts have a lower frequency which may well distort the real frequencies we can still detect. So there is a benefit to oversampling the high frequencies, even the ones we cannot hear.

If supersonic signal interference causes audible artefacts at lower frequencies, they are picked up by the microphones during the recording already. There is no need to recreate them by including them on the recording and trying to reproduce them with super tweeters. Is has been also shown that supersonic frequencies on high resolution recordings cause harmful intermodulation distortion in amplifiers, actually lowering the audible fidelity of the signal.

[BernardLanguillier]

Obviously there is at least one cue. There are usually several, in these informal experiments.

Not in this case, there was no physical change done to the system between tests.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

If supersonic signal interference causes audible artefacts at lower frequencies, they are picked up by the microphones during the recording already.

Hi,

Not really what I was talking about, aliasing originates from discrete sampling when the analog signal is converted to discrete digital samples (ADC), which is why high sampling frequencies do help. I assume you are referring to sound waves that amplify or dampen each other by interference before the microphone picks it up, but that's not what higher than audible sampling frequencies are about.

Cheers,
Bart

[amolitor]

Actually you can drop the fundamental from a low frequency note with almost no perceptual difference. You may have to adjust the levels of the harmonics to produce the same perceived volume, I forget.

Your brain will cheerfully fill the the fundamental back in.

Hearing, like seeing, is a construct of the mind.

[jjj]

Huh? When did I do that?

Here.....

And with perfect irony, the folks that want "perfect" sound quality often listen to the most horrid music.

[jjj]

I happen to own pretty good hifi equipment and to be an engineer.

We did a blind test a few weeks back to compare the USB and Ethernet connections between my source (a Mac mini) and my dac/amp (Devialet 250). There were some other software differences in the set up, but both were supposed to be bit exact, free of any significant jitter (replay of stream on dac side) and therefore expected by my 2 other engineer friends to sound identical.

Over 10 tests, I was able to correctly identify the USB connection 10 times, average in less than 3 seconds.

My second friend didn't know which was which, but he got 9 out of 10 right in terms of coming from the same source.

So was one better or were they simply different?

[amolitor]

Each new generation of audiophiles invents whole new domains of ignorance of digital sampling.

[jjj]

Each new generation of audiophiles invents whole new domains of ignorance of digital sampling.

On the subject of ignorance - people's negative lumping together of all audiophiles is exactly like that of when racists slate say black people or immigrants.
Just as bigoted and ignorant. You get the same thing with idiots attacking cyclists in online forums, the 'thinking', language and attitude is indistinguishable from racist behaviour.

[BJL]

On the subject of ignorance - people's negative lumping together of all audiophiles is exactly like that of when racists slate say black people or immigrants.
Just as bigoted and ignorant. You get the same thing with idiots attacking cyclists in online forums, the 'thinking', language and attitude is indistinguishable from racist behaviour.

I agree, especially about cyclists, being both a cyclist and at times enraged by the self-centered and self-rightious obnoxiousness of _some_ other cyclists; I did try to warn about that right at the beginning:

More of what gives legitimate lovers of fine audio reproduction a bad name: ...

But contrary to the case with race, national origin or choice of transportation device, I do not see the mockery of the unscientific extremist audiophile fringe leading to any harm to audiophiles (extremists or otherwise); satire of extremism might even have benefits, by warning some people away from succumbing to it.

[jjj]

Or otherwise known in logic as generalization or abstraction. Or finding a dominant commonality in statistics.

Or in human terms, bigotry with no connection to any facts needed.

[jjj]

I agree, especially about cyclists, being both a cyclist and at times enraged by the self-centered and self-rightious obnoxiousness of _some_ other cyclists; I did try to warn about that right at the beginning

Indeed. Thinking all cyclists are OK is as dumb as thinking all cyclists are red light jumping, rule breakers. However I have wondered if cyclists were armed and allowed to shoot drivers in self defence, would the 'impatience gene' be eradicated within a couple of generations. 
Either way any group of humans some will be nice and some will be dicks. That's simply how life works.

But contrary to the case with race, national origin or choice of transportation device, I do not see the mockery of the unscientific extremist audiophile fringe leading to any harm to audiophiles (extremists or otherwise); satire of extremism might even have benefits, by warning some people away from succumbing to it.

Extremism is rarely if ever healthy, but people are being lazy and are talking about/judging an entire group by the behaviour of a few individuals.
What I've noticed now that racism is not tolerated in most places is that the bigotry has migrated to other targets, red heads, cyclists, hipsters, audiophiles and so on. People like to hate/denigrate it would seem 

[amolitor]

Closeted? ! I am completely open about my hatred of racers!

[PeterAit]

Here.....

Please learn to read and understand. I did not knock any particular kind of music, I pointed out that some audiophiles are more interested in the sound quality of the music reproduction than in the music itself. Doesn't matter the genre - classical, rock, jazz, folk, whatever - it can still be bad music, but if the sound quality is "right" they will lap it up.

[BernardLanguillier]

So was one better or were they simply different?

Hum... that's really a matter of taste I would say.

USB with Audirvana is sharper, incredibly defined, but a bit harsh at times.

On the other hand Air though wired internet is more fluid but feels less defined and suffers from interruptions once in a while.

Which works best depends on the kind of music and taste. Overall, I probably prefer ethernet.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Manoli]

USB with Audirvana is sharper, incredibly defined, but a bit harsh at times.

Have you tried running it through a Weiss DAC202 ?
I'd agree with your preference for Ethernet, although Air rules for practicality - but hard wired from a Mac mini into a DAC beats them both, IMO.

Best
M

[jjj]

Please learn to read and understand. I did not knock any particular kind of music, I pointed out that some audiophiles are more interested in the sound quality of the music reproduction than in the music itself. Doesn't matter the genre - classical, rock, jazz, folk, whatever - it can still be bad music, but if the sound quality is "right" they will lap it up.

I did read and I did understand that you hold audiophiles in contempt as they listen to, in your words 'horrid music'. Genre is not relevant nor was it mentioned, but it's still the sort of childish behaviour you expect from teenagers, i.e. other people listen to rubbish music, whilst of course you listen to superior music.
You have your taste in what you like, others have their taste in something else. Thinking one's taste is somehow better than others is deluded. It's not, it is simply your taste.
If people listening to their music though whatever sound system enjoy it, does it matter what others think of their music? Whatever the music anyone listens to on any kind of audio system, most people will prefer something else.

[jjj]

There you go, Andrew, I bet you didn't know you are a closeted racist

And obviously you do not understand the difference between being a bigot and being a racist.
BTW, My remarks were directed at anyone who slags off entire groups of varied people as a homogenous whole, not just Amolitor.