Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Your most hated audiophile-related misconceptions?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Your most hated audiophile-related misconceptions? - Page 9

post #121 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by IEMCrazy View Post

The money expenditure competition: "Mine costs more than yours, therefore yours is low end" as though that relates to SQ.

The measurements crowd: If it doesn't measure like an anechoic chamber it's bad!

And finally the opposite of the measurements crowd "My ears tell my it sounds better when I keep a turntable within 3ft of my PC, don't knock it until you try it, it's just what my ears tell me!"

 

ROFL

 

So true k701smile.gif

post #122 of 201

My most hated audiophile-related misconceptions have to do with the wild claims some people on these sorts of forums make about the sonic artifacts and differences in equipment that they swear up and down that they can hear. All sorts of dubious "facts" and guff get spread around as a result, and new members look at that and accept it because it's popular consensus, or else judge the hobby based on the intensity of the often circular arguments that repeatedly erupt about burn in or cables. They often conclude that they need to spend a bunch of money on stuff they probably don't need or, worse yet, they take up sides in these arguments just to fit in and thus keep the cycle going.

 

You see, some audiophiles (certainly not all) feel that their ability to enjoy audio at a deeper level than most people (which is truly a gift, don't get me wrong) makes them special and superior. It builds them up inside. That can eventually go to anyone's head and morph into all sorts of ridiculousness. People can convince themselves of nearly anything if it stokes their egos, especially if it bigs them up or they've sunk money into it. But the fact that I rarely see anyone interested in trying to prove these claims to themselves empirically tells me that, more likely than not, they know deep down there's a very real possibility they're winding themselves up and they don't want to be humbled to the fact or have to admit that they just wasted their money.

 

So they hide behind their jargon. They collect among like-minded individuals and reinforce their beliefs. And, though it's not really that common on Head-Fi, nevertheless sometimes they react with hostility toward anybody who challenges their claims.

 

There's a quote in my signature about this. It's based on my own experience, when I finally came down off my high horse and used the ABX comparator in Foobar. My transparency point for Lame MP3 is V0, which is quite high. But that's with a specially-selected killer sample. Realistically V1, and possibly even V2, would be fine. For AAC it's far lower, at around 160kbps. I used to think things like, "I can tell the difference. Listen to those reverb trails!" You'll be shocked what you can't hear when it's your cold, dispassionate computer that's keeping tally. And you'll be happy for it because you'll gain a much truer and more realistic sense of not just your own limitations (which is most important), but of the realistic limitations of any human.

 

And, just between you and me, you'll also save a boatload of money, time, and worrying about "What would happen if I upgraded x?" or "Would the midrange sound fuller if I encoded in lossless?".

 

So take what I've said as you will. Flame or agree as you see fit. I don't spend near as much time on Head-Fi these days because I'm often too busy with other stuff. But I'll say this much. I haven't got a clue who made the cables in my headphones, what chip is in my DAC, or what production run my DT880 came from (it's got the new strain relief as opposed to the original one that Beyerdynamic now only uses on the T-series phones, so of course it sounds different!). When I slap my cans on my head and put on some Genesis or the LSO, all I care about is kicking back and enjoying the music.

 

Because that's ultimately what it should be about.

post #123 of 201

What drives me crazy is how many audiophiles completely ignore the power of expectation bias. If product X is significantly more expensive than product Y, most people are going to think it sounds "better" because: (1) they buy into the faulty logic that it must sound better if it's more expensive, and (2) they want to think they have good ears and can hear how much better the more expensive product sounds, even if it doesn't. There simply is no way around this problem other than by conducting a blind, large-scale test. For example, listen to 30 systems (operated by someone else, of course) that are completely identical except for the component you're testing. Unless that component is the headphones or speakers, the vast majority of audiophiles will not be able to pick it out except by luck. Of course, such a test is extremely impractical, which is why no one does it.

 

The problem is compounded with "reviews" of audio equipment in which the "reviewer" is basically compelled to say that a more expensive product sounds better than a less expensive one. If they don't, they lose credibility among the vast majority of readers who think more expensive equals better. Honestly, when was the last time you read a review that said, "This product is twice as much as that one but doesn't sound any better."

 

I'm not denying there are sonic differences between amps, dacs, etc. I'm saying those differences are almost always minute, and certainly not as magical and earth-shattering as many people (led by expectation bias) claim.


Edited by jk6661 - 10/12/12 at 2:13pm
post #124 of 201

Snake oil salesmen and audio reviewers who say snake oil works. For example, gushing reviews of products like this http://www.lessloss.com/blackbody-p-200.html?zenid=50npn2qtduu9hj309ats8ju7q7 Such reviews are of course entirely subjective since measurements would reveal that the noise floor is exactly the same before and after the application of snake oil.

 

Then a few reviews later photos reveal that this snake oil product is no longer in the reviewers listening room. That is very revealing...

 

Also claims that this or that product will lead to audiophile nirvana. Anyone who claims that should be sentenced to spend at least the next 10 years with absolutely NO changes to his or her system. It's nirvana, right so they should be delighted.

post #125 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooster View Post

Also claims that this or that product will lead to audiophile nirvana. Anyone who claims that should be sentenced to spend at least the next 10 years with absolutely NO changes to his or her system. It's nirvana, right so they should be delighted.

 How cruel! lol very_evil_smiley.gif

post #126 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by jk6661 View Post

What drives me crazy is how many audiophiles completely ignore the power of expectation bias. If product X is significantly more expensive than product Y, most people are going to think it sounds "better" because: (1) they buy into the faulty logic that it must sound better if it's more expensive, and (2) they want to think they have good ears and can hear how much better the more expensive product sounds, even if it doesn't. There simply is no way around this problem other than by conducting a blind, large-scale test. For example, listen to 30 systems (operated by someone else, of course) that are completely identical except for the component you're testing. Unless that component is the headphones or speakers, the vast majority of audiophiles will not be able to pick it out except by luck. Of course, such a test is extremely impractical, which is why no one does it.

 

The problem is compounded with "reviews" of audio equipment in which the "reviewer" is basically compelled to say that a more expensive product sounds better than a less expensive one. If they don't, they lose credibility among the vast majority of readers who think more expensive equals better. Honestly, when was the last time you read a review that said, "This product is twice as much at that one but doesn't sound any better."

 

I'm not denying there are sonic differences between amps, dacs, etc. I'm saying those differences are almost always minute, and certainly not as magical and earth-shattering as many people (led by expectation bias) claim.

That would probably lead to a ban from the forums....very_evil_smiley.gif

post #127 of 201

Clearly, quite a few here arent familiar with some of Wes Phillip's recent rants in Stereophile. And he isnt the only one - the tide started to turn the day the GFC hit, IMO, but boutique audio has a whole new market of aspirational middle-class in Asia so I dont think this will stem the tide of 30K tonearms and equipment racks that cost more than most here have spent on audio since the day they were born.

 

Of course, in certain corners of this universe, espousing such views is heresy and gets you slammed with the 'anti-snobbery' and 'class warmonger' tags - there HAS to be a middle ground somewhere that says its OK to spend 10-15K (your figure may vary, but quite a few Head-Fiers would have that sort of outlay in total)  to get the toys you want without going completely nutso for audio jewelry over sound quality. That said, how many of us would turn down the chance to have a complete system  from Meridian installed in our homes for a month ? How thrilled would we be when they turned up to take it away at the end of that month ? We might look at the price tags and say 'Thats nuts !', but properly setup I'd like to think such a system would sound pretty darn good.

post #128 of 201

Forgot to mention - my other pet hate is people who spend more time trawling forums than they do listening to music. Er, wait - I think I hear something downstairs .... eek.gif

post #129 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by jk6661 View Post

The problem is compounded with "reviews" of audio equipment in which the "reviewer" is basically compelled to say that a more expensive product sounds better than a less expensive one. If they don't, they lose credibility among the vast majority of readers who think more expensive equals better. Honestly, when was the last time you read a review that said, "This product is twice as much as that one but doesn't sound any better."

 

True, but some expensive headphone didn't have much success here:

hd700, ultrasone  edition 10.

It was surprising that there was some bashing regarding a sennheiser headphone, but soon the fan of the brand came to the rescue.

However, it seems the current trend to bash  ultrasone headphones, while there was a time there were the best for "bass heads".

 

I  remind someone that kept on repeating that the srh940 was as good as the hd800.

He repeated it so many time, that he exasperated lot of people.He was banned at the end.

And curiously the "debate" encouraged me to get the hd800, as well as an other guy.

post #130 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

True, but some expensive headphone didn't have much success here:
hd700, ultrasone  edition 10.
It was surprising that there was some bashing regarding a sennheiser headphone, but soon the fan of the brand came to the rescue.
However, it seems the current trend to bash  ultrasone headphones, while there was a time there were the best for "bass heads".

Because Tyll said they were bad. wink.gif
post #131 of 201

That spending hundreds, or more-so, thousands, will allow you to enjoy your music more and therefore is a justifiable decision.

I'm enjoying my music no more and no less when I went from T50RPs to LCD-2s, I'm still trying to justify that months later.


Edited by eltocliousus - 10/12/12 at 8:59pm
post #132 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by eltocliousus View Post

That spending hundreds, or more-so, thousands, will allow you to enjoy your music more and therefore is a justifiable decision.
I enjoyed my music no more and no less when I went from T50RPs to LCD-2s, I'm still trying to justify that months later.

Agreed. More outlay doesn't mean more enjoyment, just like more expensive food doesn't make you full "better." Or more expensive hooch doesn't make you drunk "better." beerchug.gif

Another one that irks me: that being an amateur musician somehow gives you brownie points when dealing with audio gear. They are separate and fairly unrelated concepts, but I see plenty of "well I played flute in band, and this one time at band camp...so that's why I know more about this than all of the rest of you!"
post #133 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by eltocliousus View Post

I'm enjoying my music no more and no less when I went from T50RPs to LCD-2s, I'm still trying to justify that months later.

That's what I call a "technically superior" headphone. No additional enjoyment , but technically ... it's superior. biggrin.gif

Sad part, is that my ears don't care much of the technicalities. I mean, if I listen to the music, I don't have to pay attention all the time , to what makes a headphone special.

post #134 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post


Agreed. More outlay doesn't mean more enjoyment, just like more expensive food doesn't make you full "better." Or more expensive hooch doesn't make you drunk "better." beerchug.gif
 

Well you will certainly feel better in the morning after fine dining and single malt scotch than you would after taco bell and $5/bottle vodka.

post #135 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewy4 View Post

Well you will certainly feel better in the morning after fine dining and single malt scotch than you would after taco bell and $5/bottle vodka.

I didn't mean to combine the two! ph34r.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Your most hated audiophile-related misconceptions?