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 4

post #46 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Focker View Post

I find it annoying that one's latest purchase is by default better than anything else they've had. If I had a dime for every time I've sent a PM to someone after seeing a glowing review of their DAC or amp from 6 months earlier, only to find out they've changed it at least once or twice and what they have for THIS 6 month window is the greatest ever. Some people are addicted to the honeymoon phase, and the minute it wears off they go searching for their next fix. 

 

That's a given. and I started an extensive thread on that very phenomenon some time ago:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/604282/end-game-headphone-rigs-unicorns-and-other-myths

 

Many of the guys at Audiokarma have got it far worse than most Head-Fiers, and some have just accepted that they like being able to setup a rig in each room of their house, swap preamps and speakers in and out etc. I dont have a problem with that, but you have hit it on the head when you say that each new gadget (particularly DACs ...) simply HAS to be the 'best eva'.  I have had the same DAC for over 2 years now - God knows there have been plenty of temptations in that time - while some folk have burned through 4 or 5 in the same timeframe.

post #47 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by estreeter View Post

 

That's a given. and I started an extensive thread on that very phenomenon some time ago:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/604282/end-game-headphone-rigs-unicorns-and-other-myths

 

Many of the guys at Audiokarma have got it far worse than most Head-Fiers, and some have just accepted that they like being able to setup a rig in each room of their house, swap preamps and speakers in and out etc. I dont have a problem with that, but you have hit it on the head when you say that each new gadget (particularly DACs ...) simply HAS to be the 'best eva'.  I have had the same DAC for over 2 years now - God knows there have been plenty of temptations in that time - while some folk have burned through 4 or 5 in the same timeframe.

hoarders head-fi edition?

post #48 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Focker View Post

 

This is a point I have spent a lot of time thinking about. The problem is that there is a lot of evidence that any differences among amps aren't audibly discernible. Amps, DACs, and cables are usually the gear that has been tested most frequently over the years, and just about every study I've seen had similar results. That being said, I agree with you that a lot of people will take a hardline objectivist stance and go trolling. That's why this site is smart to sort of separate those DBX related discussions from the main board so that people have an area to debate and discuss that aspect of the hobby. As for me, I'm somewhere in the middle. I pay attention to the objective data, but I allow my ears to be the final judge. If I want to go out and spend a few bills on a higher quality amp or try recabling my headphones, then dammit Im going to do it. If there isn't any change then there isn't any change...but this is a hobby for me above all else, not a science experiment. But my main point is that it's hard to argue this as a misconception since there have been so many trials that support the notion. 

 

If differences in amps were not audibly discernible then people would never change amps? I could never understand why folks say all amps sound the same? Every amp sounds different to me?IMO 

post #49 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post

 

If differences in amps were not audibly discernible then people would never change amps? I could never understand why folks say all amps sound the same? Every amp sounds different to me?IMO 

 

Personally I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. In my experience there are discernable differences between amps but they're nowhere--repeat nowhere--near as great as people on sites like this make out. All this 'A blows B out of the water' and so on--speakers may blow each other out of the water but amps, never. I think we need to recognise there are differences but try to temper our language.

post #50 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post

 

Personally I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. In my experience there are discernable differences between amps but they're nowhere--repeat nowhere--near as great as people on sites like this make out. All this 'A blows B out of the water' and so on--speakers may blow each other out of the water but amps, never. I think we need to recognise there are differences but try to temper our language.

I have stopped with the Head-Fi debates years ago, but on this subject it is truly Night and Day. Why would folks spend all the money? Oh ya, they like the new looks of an expensive amp, it's just snake-oil-placebo and bragging rites.eek.gif Ya right!

post #51 of 201
1. Most claims about impedance, output impedance, and my god "ohm rating" is like nails on a chalkboard.
2. "Ohm rating" as a phrase.
3. "Ohm rating" as a metric.
4. "Ohm rating" as a topic.
5. Use of "Ohm rating" to describe something's "driveability."
6. "Ohm rating."
7. Most discussions of impedance or other science/engineering concepts to argue about things, or fabrication of fill-in data related to those, to argue about things. For example, "Ohm rating" as a magical catch-all explanation. Or the ad-nauseum debates about what "should" be output impedance or what output impedance "does" and so on.
8. As someone said earlier, the discussion of sub $2000 products as "mid-fi"
9. The discussion of headphones, amps, etc as if they were Detroit cars, that have specific model years, and that you always have to buy the newest one to be "up to date" (an example would be like "oh the HD 650 sucks, it came out a few years ago, surely technology has advanced massively since then, it's outdated!").
10. Discussion about build quality when all people have is pictures or video experience with the item.
11. Misunderstanding of SPL and hearing damage, and the belief that NIHL and associated data (e.g. the OSHA charts) only matter in industrial settings (I've legitimately had people insist that you can listen to music at whatever volume you want, because "the 85 dB thing is only for industrial noise, like steel mills and stuff").

And reason #0, above all else: people arguing with, and attacking, each other for disagreeing on personal preference things, and especially when these arguments are started because one half of that dyad is trying to push Scientism on everyone else as some sort of "be all end all" world view, and they get pissy when someone doesn't want a graph/chart/paid review/FOTM/etc shoved sideways down their throat.

Oh yeah, and #12 - "Ohm rating" (are we noticing the trend yet?)
post #52 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post

1. Most claims about impedance, output impedance, and my god "ohm rating" is like nails on a chalkboard.
2. "Ohm rating" as a phrase.
3. "Ohm rating" as a metric.
4. "Ohm rating" as a topic.
5. Use of "Ohm rating" to describe something's "driveability."
6. "Ohm rating."
7. Most discussions of impedance or other science/engineering concepts to argue about things, or fabrication of fill-in data related to those, to argue about things. For example, "Ohm rating" as a magical catch-all explanation. Or the ad-nauseum debates about what "should" be output impedance or what output impedance "does" and so on.
8. As someone said earlier, the discussion of sub $2000 products as "mid-fi"
9. The discussion of headphones, amps, etc as if they were Detroit cars, that have specific model years, and that you always have to buy the newest one to be "up to date" (an example would be like "oh the HD 650 sucks, it came out a few years ago, surely technology has advanced massively since then, it's outdated!").
10. Discussion about build quality when all people have is pictures or video experience with the item.
11. Misunderstanding of SPL and hearing damage, and the belief that NIHL and associated data (e.g. the OSHA charts) only matter in industrial settings (I've legitimately had people insist that you can listen to music at whatever volume you want, because "the 85 dB thing is only for industrial noise, like steel mills and stuff").
And reason #0, above all else: people arguing with, and attacking, each other for disagreeing on personal preference things, and especially when these arguments are started because one half of that dyad is trying to push Scientism on everyone else as some sort of "be all end all" world view, and they get pissy when someone doesn't want a graph/chart/paid review/FOTM/etc shoved sideways down their throat.
Oh yeah, and #12 - "Ohm rating" (are we noticing the trend yet?)

"I can't dooo it captain; I don't have the Ohm rating!"

post #53 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Finnely View Post

"How the artist intended." The ONLY way you will kind of hear how the artist "intended" is if you have the exact same setup. And even that isn't an accurate reflection of how an artist wants it to sound. Exactly how they want it to sound is only in their head.

 

I'm glad you mentioned this. The truth is, you would not even be hearing what the artist intended for many recordings even then. You would be hearing what the producer intended. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snag1e View Post

6. That just because someone personally likes something, it must be better than EVERYTHING else for EVERYONE else.

 

I wouldn't call this an audiophile misconception, but a newbie misconception: the lack of understanding about how truly subjective headphone/speaker preference is. 

post #54 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post

1. Most claims about impedance, output impedance, and my god "ohm rating" is like nails on a chalkboard.
2. "Ohm rating" as a phrase.
3. "Ohm rating" as a metric.
4. "Ohm rating" as a topic.
5. Use of "Ohm rating" to describe something's "driveability."
6. "Ohm rating."
7. Most discussions of impedance or other science/engineering concepts to argue about things, or fabrication of fill-in data related to those, to argue about things. For example, "Ohm rating" as a magical catch-all explanation. Or the ad-nauseum debates about what "should" be output impedance or what output impedance "does" and so on.
8. As someone said earlier, the discussion of sub $2000 products as "mid-fi"
9. The discussion of headphones, amps, etc as if they were Detroit cars, that have specific model years, and that you always have to buy the newest one to be "up to date" (an example would be like "oh the HD 650 sucks, it came out a few years ago, surely technology has advanced massively since then, it's outdated!").
10. Discussion about build quality when all people have is pictures or video experience with the item.
11. Misunderstanding of SPL and hearing damage, and the belief that NIHL and associated data (e.g. the OSHA charts) only matter in industrial settings (I've legitimately had people insist that you can listen to music at whatever volume you want, because "the 85 dB thing is only for industrial noise, like steel mills and stuff").
And reason #0, above all else: people arguing with, and attacking, each other for disagreeing on personal preference things, and especially when these arguments are started because one half of that dyad is trying to push Scientism on everyone else as some sort of "be all end all" world view, and they get pissy when someone doesn't want a graph/chart/paid review/FOTM/etc shoved sideways down their throat.
Oh yeah, and #12 - "Ohm rating" (are we noticing the trend yet?)

 

For me it's discussions of bass.

 

What is bass heavy? What is bass light?

You are a bass head if you like any phone with any bass emphasis. You don't like bass if it's not drowning out the other frequencies.

Good bass is powerful, over-emphasized bass, as opposed to good bass SQ and frequency extension. At least in the car audio crowd, they actively discuss whether or not someone is into bass for SPL vs SQ. 

post #55 of 201

Honestly the only thing that bugs me is when people look at me like I am insane for paying over 20 dollars on headphones, yet they go through 5-10 a year because most priced at that break every couple months, before I bought quality I use to go through a crazy amount of headphones, then bought a pair of PX100's and they lasted me 3 years...then bought nicer ones and they lasted even longer, if anything I saved money.

post #56 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

For me it's discussions of bass.

 

What is bass heavy? What is bass light?

You are a bass head if you like any phone with any bass emphasis. You don't like bass if it's not drowning out the other frequencies.

Good bass is powerful, over-emphasized bass, as opposed to good bass SQ and frequency extension. At least in the car audio crowd, they actively discuss whether or not someone is into bass for SPL vs SQ. 

 

Oh god, this. Definitely this.

 

All I know is that while I definitely like having bass extension and presence, I sure don't want XB500s (or their deriatives) where it's all bass stomping on the rest of the spectrum.

 

Also, I have another pet peeve to add to the list that goes along with this:

 

Audiophiles hate equalizers.

 

If they think that, say, a headphone has a bit too much or not enough bass, the EQ never comes to mind. Instead, they'll go through countless headphones/amps/DACs/etc. to find something that's just right out of the box instead of trying something that's close enough for far less cost and at least trying to tune it using the EQ to get it just right.

 

I'm not saying the EQ's the end-all be-all solution here, but it can certainly help when used correctly.

post #57 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by NamelessPFG View Post


Also, I have another pet peeve to add to the list that goes along with this:

Audiophiles hate equalizers.

This. But also the other side where "equalization can make anything into anything else, and you don't have to buy more than iBuds - just equalize them to be SR-009 or whatever other can you want!"
post #58 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post

 

If differences in amps were not audibly discernible then people would never change amps? I could never understand why folks say all amps sound the same? Every amp sounds different to me?IMO 

 

I truly think it's a shock to the people who are the subjects in the tests, too lol. And again, I"m not saying I necessarily agree with this, it's just that it's one of those areas where there is at least some basis for arguing the point, you know? You may have also seen a recent study with wine. They did a double blind test with wine off the shelf at walmart vs top of the line aged wine that cost in the thousands. The results of at least one study showed that when you don't know which one you're drinking, your taste buds alone can't decipher. When people are using this information to further their understanding of the mind, it's fascinating. When they use it to troll, as you very rightly pointed out earlier in your post, then it just causes problems. 

post #59 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post

 

Personally I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. In my experience there are discernable differences between amps but they're nowhere--repeat nowhere--near as great as people on sites like this make out. All this 'A blows B out of the water' and so on--speakers may blow each other out of the water but amps, never. I think we need to recognise there are differences but try to temper our language.

 

Definitley agree. There are very few "night and day" differences in audio, IMO. 

post #60 of 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Focker View Post

I truly think it's a shock to the people who are the subjects in the tests, too lol. And again, I"m not saying I necessarily agree with this, it's just that it's one of those areas where there is at least some basis for arguing the point, you know? You may have also seen a recent study with wine. They did a double blind test with wine off the shelf at walmart vs top of the line aged wine that cost in the thousands. The results of at least one study showed that when you don't know which one you're drinking, your taste buds alone can't decipher. When people are using this information to further their understanding of the mind, it's fascinating. When they use it to troll, as you very rightly pointed out earlier in your post, then it just causes problems. 

ph34r.gif

Because, you know, taste and audition are totally the same thing. And taste is just as well understood and documented, and just as easily measured and quantified, and even if it weren't, we could totally still draw parallels between unrelated things because it's all broadly "science" and "science" told me that you're wrong. Oh wait...

Yeah, back to point #0. angry_face.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?