[sokolov91]

I like this place a lot.
 
I really do.
 
Lots of great people here, great advice, and fun stuff to read. Keeps me checking up on it just about every day.
 
We are all hobbyists here, some more into it than others. Some with more money than others, and some with more technical knowledge than others.
 
 
But I want to know why things have to be so controversial around here... Why is science shunned to the science forum? And most of all... why is it OK, even encouraged, to post conjecture?
 
 
Why are people allowed to post whatever they want - no matter how far fetched, and not be held responsible for the validity of their statements? People who ask for some sort of justification are automatically trolls it would seem, and that is not fair. This site is to promote headphones above all else and to help other hobbyists and further the enjoyment of the community, so why then are we helping perpetuate the various myths associated with our hobby instead of snuffing them out? There are only a select few people benefiting from this... and it is just about no one on head-fi.
 
We used to bleed people to cure illness... seemed like a good idea right? Get the bad out. Why question it? Those who did question it were laughed at. Don't see my doctor doing this, and if I recommended it to a friend I might be liable...
It won't threaten a head-fiers life, but why complicate it by recommending burn in and other hi-fi relics? They came here for help, not lore.
 
 
I re-read a few of my old reviews and kind of laughed. They were reviews of a head-fier that wanted to be a head-fier. Most of the differences are valid since they were being A/B in my home on my equipment. Recently I haven't contributed any reviews because I really wanted to wait but that also go me thinking. What I would write now is not what the community wants to read, so why bother?They want to hear about magical differences cables made to my headphones. Burn in that cured mids, bass, highs, soundstage. Fuses that brought my system to life. And I can say then I was into trying to hear all these differences, I sure did. Everything had a very subtle BUT REAL!!! change. Now I feel sheepish looking at what I wrote... but hey you have to start somewhere. This is the theme of this thread: Moving forward, furthering, and improving. I will write reviews I feel are accurate and down to earth and keep things simple. The more detail people start getting into... it is like English clash when the teacher asks you to "dig deep" to the point where you are pretty sure you are making things up from the tiniest of justification.
 
After learning the basics of the scientific model (research methods) in college I did some experiments myself at my house with my family, and that was a rude awakening. Causality, critical thinking, internal and external validity seem to take a back seat here. This got me pretty interested and I have been learning lots, and amp going to build my first amp soon.
 
I also study psychology and learned just how poor the human ear is at perceiving sound, and how naive it is. Just take psychoactives as an example... People can have the time of their life and see sound (yes, actually perceive sound visually) which changes in brain chemistry so why is the mind the last place people look for answers? Not to mention you don't hear raw data, your brain recreates the stimuli your ears provide.
 
I am not close to an authority on these topics, but I can put 2 and 2 together and form a conceptual understanding and apply it to my real life experiences. This has nothing to do with you, with me. It has to do with US as a group of hobbyists. People take it as a personal attack, when they are just tiny piece of the whole.
 
 
We have data that points uniformly in one direction for many of these myths, so why then is everyone putting on their hand brakes and pointing fingers?
 
Take burn in as an example. If you play a headphone for 100 hrs non stop and measure the frequency response... there is no change... headphones don't tend to wear out either (which surely they would if they loosen up over time, why would they just stop at a point?)... look at the relics people enjoy on these forums. The only thing that changes, from what people can tell is someones expectation, there bias. So when bass all of a sudden comes in, or highs tame... and the FR is the same... what then has changed? Clearly it is nothing mechanical or electrical because the measurements have not changed.
 
And my question is why is this notion offensive? We are all human, we all have our biases, and have all experience placebo at one point in our life. Why then do so many people show signs of a hystrionic personality disorder when it comes to Hi-Fi? Most people here are well educated, friendly, and intelligent, so why are we not more open? Everyone is cool until their golden ears are questioned... how could they possibly be wrong?
 
                                                                                                           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histrionic_personality_disorder 
 
Where do we draw the line between fantasy and reality? Between offensive and frank? Between helpful or snake oil? And why is it taking so long!!?
 
I don't want a flame war below, it is not the point of this thread. What would be nice is suggestions to make head-fi better. Whether or not it would kill the fun of Hi-Fi if everyone was on the same page. Stuff like that etc.
 
Head-fi shouldn't be about asserting ones golden ears or their ego through outrageous claims that cause other people to follow in their steps. It should be about building our hobby up and promoting it.

 

[Uncle Erik]

It's like the sideshows of old.

They were run on two levels. One, to fool the credulous who would accept that something like a "Feejee Mermaid" might be real. Everything is possible, right?

The other level was poking fun at someone who would believe a sideshow gaff was real.

They collected money from both. The believers got a great thrill from a fraud. The other camp got a good laugh from people who took a fraud seriously. Both were happy and the sideshow made money.

Audio is exactly the same. Some accept the sideshow as "real" and some have a lot of fun seeing people think the sideshow is "real."

If the great P.T. Barnum was still around, he'd be an audiophile.

I see sideshows, hoaxes and snakeoil as part of a great American tradition. And highly amusing. Don't make the mistake of thinking those things don't exist today.

 

[sokolov91]

That is a really good analogy, but at the same time were not here to laugh at each other in a negative way and I think anyone could agree on that.
 
There is a huge collective interests of the hobbyists (whether they know/believe it or not) for things to start getting less fairytale-esque, and more serious. However, many gimmicks are sold at incredible profit margins and thus are lucrative and have cash to sponsor head-fi. A movement towards rational and reality is a catch 22 in that sense. People benefit, but head-fi is less ideal for people to invest in. Why invest in a place where you can't sell your snake oil? Or have a very hard time doing so at any rate.
 
That is why this is so confusing for me. People only stand to gain from investigations like these, so why the hate?
 
Another issues is that the perceived changes are indeed very real, but inside the brain. So to call such things entirely useless would be false in that respect. But finding other ways to achieve these ends, or to prevent the "cable addiction" from forming in the first place.
 
However, peoples' expectations and biases are all formed at some time. If you could get people to enjoy their systems to their fullest without stimulation from the knowledge they are using obscenely expensive gimmicks would be a very valuable asset to give to the community. People would save a bundle and worry about things that really don't matter.
 
The last thing I want when listening to music is to worry about things that could not be perfect... and just about no audiophile will ever be fully satisfied with their tweaks. Who then is really enjoying their music more? The one listening for flaws, goblins and pixies? Or the one who is immersed in the music? I am not saying audiophiles are incapable of enjoying music, thats crazy, but I would hate to fuss and obsess so over something I loved so dearly... especially with a ticking timebomb that are human ears.
 
As funds to acquire these crazy gimmicks increase, the hearing capability diminishes... there really is no positive to buying into these things.

 

[VictoriaGuy]

While I sympathize entirely with your point of view, I think you are facing an 'uphill fight'.
 
You can't legislate rational thinking. (Look around!! How many people think the universe is 6000 years old?).
 
Also, convincing people not to waste their money on self-delusion is a difficult job.
 
As UE so rightly points out- the audiophile scene is a world of flim-flam.
 
Folks like you and UE and Solderdude at RockGrotto do a valuable job in trying to keep newbies from wasting their money.
I tip my hat to you!
 
But you've gotta pick your fights- Today I read that 'Hospital Grade' receptacles improve audio because they are designed to keep 'oxygen from igniting and exploding'...sometimes you just have to 'let it slide'...
 
John

 

[tjohnusa]

I absolutley agree with you and have felt that "snake oil" is sad. I have recently seen this device being sold in another audio forum that connects to the grounds of speakers, and in line cables that is supposed to cure electrons from "pooling" thus releasing definition that is held up....something to do with Lutz wire....are you kidding me....please. Is there nothing else after buying a $4000 set of speakers except a set of $1500 set of speaker cables that will make them sound better? I guess if your dropping that much cash on speakers then you can afford to drop that much more on wire. I could keep going but you get how I feel about it. IMO

 

[catscratch]

The problem with scientific posts is that you have to know said science really well to be able to tell who knows what they're talking about, and who doesn't. Very few people here really do. I'm not one of them, and I'm not going to presume to judge the scientific merit of most posts unless it's something obviously wrong.
 
Also, if you think science is something that's uniform or agrees on everything, it isn't, and it certainly doesn't, so in many cases you're not going to reach a consensus either way.
 
I agree that it's very difficult for the newcomer to know who to listen to when there's so much conflicting information. But what exactly are you going to do about it on a board this size? Get well-educated mods to monitor content? Some mods here really know their stuff, but would you have them start moderating posts based on what they believe/know to be scientifically correct? You're going to upset a whole lot of people doing that, and HF will have to change its MO quite a bit for that to happen. On a board of this size and momentum it's not really possible.
 
It's good that you bring up critical thinking. That's mostly the key - you need to educate yourself to the best of your ability (after all you're spending a lot of money). At the same time it pays to set ego aside and listen to people with both a lot of knowledge and experience. You have to have some knowledge yourself to be able to tell who they are, but once you find them their opinions will be really valuable. Everyone else's should be taken with some salt.
 
Don't be in a rush. Learning is never easy. If it is, you're doing it wrong.

 

[bangraman]

Lots of good posts here.
 
 
And yes, I also remember my initial, enthusiastic comparison sessions with Duncan and the total lack of any controls over how these were relatively evaluated, and some of what I said back then is now somewhat cringeworthy in hindsight. But I did start to move on as I amassed more gear and started to see the flaws in the way I was reviewing stuff.
 
 
Critical thinking is indeed the key, and I don't think we have anywhere near enough of it. It's the ability to poke holes in arguments WITHOUT the 'my ears are perfect' mantra, which - let's face it, the vast majority of stated opinions on this board start at, and which then ensures that the majority of contrary discussions simply becomes a battle of egos. Whereas you should be controlling any tests based on the premise that your hearing, or more specifically your audio memory, is the weakest link in the review chain. That single fact, and figuring out how to work around it, is more important IMO than any specific dbt practice.
 
 
When making definitive comparative statements for example (certainly in the last few years) I've taken the basic step of re-buying headphones that I wanted to compare the sound with, and not rely on my memories of them... because although I may have listening notes still, they're not enough to supplement audio memory. I made a post in the Sound Science subforum about burn-in a short while back, and my proposed methodology (that I did do a few years ago) was countered by 'But most people can't afford to buy two headphones'', whereupon the thread basically resumed it's ego vs ego track. That guy may not, but there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of Head-Fi members who could, and it just staggers me that in almost ten years no-one else seems to have attempted it. You do really get the feeling that you are pissing against the wind, and to be honest being unable to share my opinion as a valid counter to a barrage of complete subjectivists is a large part of why I no longer post with any regularity on Head-Fi. Because in that context, either opinion is worthless to the other yet neither side will see a need to yield. I think that you should be able to enjoy your music however you want. However if you're going to share your opinion with the rest of the world, then you should be making some effort to make it a more universal point of view than one purely shaped by your ego.
 
 
One of the flipside problems with attempting objective review or measurements to counter the pure subjectivity is that if the methodology is flawed, then the results are flawed... but maybe that if you brought in a load of plausible-looking test gear or you used some fancy software, it appears perfectly plausible and it gets quoted as gospel... which is in many ways just as bad as opinions that are fished out of your ass. Few are immune to this: e.g. After I rented the same head that Headroom uses/(d?) and started to run some measurements, I began to realise that Headroom likely wasn't controlling the phone location on the artificial head properly (i.e. by using a brace, template and a human head(s) as reference). And it's probably quite likely someone will find holes in a testing procedure I might have outlined before. Critical thinking enters here as well in terms of always having doubt with however you're setting things up for testing and considering what factors you've missed.
 
 
These days I have to say I'm not a fan of the aforementioned pissing against the wind and don't really want to get involved in these arguments... and when I do these measurements (and I probably do these more often than when I was a regular Head-Fi member) they are primarily for me in that I'm reasonably convinced that I have the optimal setup for me. It doesn't mean however that I skip on thinking through how I measure or evaluate stuff.
 
 
As for stratospherically-priced gear. I pick my delusions with care in that yes, I am absolutely aware that some of the sources/etc I own, in terms of objective quality in some cases I could be perfectly happy with something that costs ten times less. However in terms of what I could call 'functional furniture/art' I allow myself certain license... especially if there is an improvement, no matter how small.
 
 
You could for example change a lot of how people perceive different phones, and introduce them to how an objective mindset changes your preception at a Head-Fi meet by mandating one rule: A volume measurement of any combination to an agreed standard before anyone puts a phone on their head. I'm not saying it's the most doable of things, but it is just one example change that can radically alter people's comparative experiences and introduce them to the idea of controls, without necessarily getting in the way of a good time.

 

[wild4sound]

I think your frustrations are shared. There is no white paper with absolute proof. Avoid the doubt and speculation and be honest with yourself, try to hear for yourself only. There will always be promotion , you have to like it or leave it and bugger the rest . Don't be afraid you might have missed out on something, you will get a second chance to buy it later. If you feel compelled to write a review only do so in a positive way if you like it but add YMMV and YMHD. All the seasoned headfiers have big bags of salt next to their computer and regularly use it.
I don't have all the answers but consider this.
 
      Anias Nin said , we don't see things as they really are , we see things as we are. I believe we can just substitute see with hear. This is a Human condition, period.
 
I think we are somewhat possessed by an illusion of perfect sound . We so want to hear a piece perfectly reproduced even though we have never heard the original. We tout and buy gear to get as close to perfection as possible and generally the thought is the more expensive the closer we get. 
 
I read a story about perfection. 
 
An old man lived in a village a long time ago. It was his job to fetch water from the river in clay pots suspended in vines hanging from a piece of wood carried on his shoulders. It was hard work and for sixty years he struggled. Water on the table for thirsty and weary towns folk was very valuable and supporting. 
 
One day as the old man walked down to the river he was startled by one of the pots that spoke!    
 
The pot was sad and troubled by the fact that it had a crack and wasted water on the way back up the hill . He begged the old man to replace him with a perfect pot as he felt inferior losing water. 
The old man asked the pot to not worry but look on the bright side .
 
Back at the village and putting water on the table the pot felt ashamed and complained again . 
 
The old man sat down and pointed out to the pot all the beauty , the happy and contented folk , the smiles and peace in the village and all the pretty  flowers . 
He explained that as a boy he noticed the crack , collected seeds from the few natural flowers in this barren place , he sowed it on the side of the path he carried the cracked pot. 
He then thanked the pot for watering the flowers for all these years and explained that if the pot were perfect there would be no beauty in this world. 
 
Just think, if Andrea Bocceli had perfect sight he most likely would never have learned to sing and his imperfection gave us his heavenly  voice to enjoy. 
 
But we are caught up in comparison , the bigger better deal , we listen to our gear and not our music. We want to have , not enjoy , we want to prove , not share. 
 
To the OP, I get your drift , don't let the issues get you down , nothing will change , there will be lies and truth , take care of your pitching arm and enjoy the music.

 

[VictoriaGuy]

Excellent posts!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts....makes the day a little brighter!
John

 

[sokolov91]

Well thanks for the good posts guys.
 
Wasn't getting down really, just feeling very out of synch with the community at this point.
 
Was much easier just to follow what everyone else was doing, and maybe it was more fun.
 
Now almost everything I read is a reminder a lot of people here have no idea what they are talking about, and I mean that in the nicest of ways. They are just kind of too caught up in their quest for perfect sound they aren't stopping to smell the roses... or should I say listen to the music.
 
I am sure in many ways they are deriving more pleasure from this hobby then I am at certain points, but I believe overall I am the happier one.
 
Now that I do not fuss over silly things I find it much easier just to sit down and enjoy my music.
 
 
I think that is an important concept too because people are putting themselves at a disadvantage. When nothing is hi-fi enough or good enough... then how can one ever be happy?
 
 
I've decided I will write reviews for both my LCD-2 and HD 800 soon because it is about time I got off my duff and gave something back to the community. They won't be overly long, and preposterously detailed but as good a judgement my ears can give them with simple stuff like volume matched head to heads. Trying to escape subjectivity when reviewing is impossible and that shouldn't be anyones aim... but keeping one's review as BS free as possible is good. I will mention my amp and dac but nothing else, and not make any comments as to how I THINK the components are causing changes. If people want to think I have tin ears because I don't go on and on about my cables and so forth that is up to them.
 
 
Guess it is kind of pointless to talk about since like VictoriaGuy said: you can't mandate rational thinking (lol if only). That, and what would people fill head-fi with if it wasn't folklore? There is only a small minority that is actually tech savvy and competent so I guess it only makes sense that most of it be ... of less quality.
 
 
I think peoples' experience is good, and will eventually help them find whatever they want. But relying on peoples' years of experiencing placebo is not necessarily where I would want to put my trust. Funny too because there are a number of head-fiers who do not share my views (or refuse to listen to reason

) but I have much respect for them and trust their ears. Then again, there are far more though who I think are a bit off their rocker.
 
All we can do is wish the noobs luck I suppose!

 

[Currawong]

The problem I find is with the most argumentative people who are no interested in improving their knowledge, but only arguing what they believe is right.  I find it deplorable when some of them abuse science to justify their beleifs, when science is about furthering knowledge and understanding.
 
As for stopping and smelling the roses, I'm probably not the only person who has joked that this forum is really "Gear-Fi", as like so many other hobbies, much of it is about the gear, more so than the music.

 

[bangraman]

Quote:

The problem I find is with the most argumentative people who are no interested in improving their knowledge, but only arguing what they believe is right.  I find it deplorable when some of them abuse science to justify their beleifs, when science is about furthering knowledge and understanding.
 
As for stopping and smelling the roses, I'm probably not the only person who has joked that this forum is really "Gear-Fi", as like so many other hobbies, much of it is about the gear, more so than the music.

Well in all honesty if it wasn't Gear-Fi then this place would be a dustbowl.
 
 
It's really about the way you arrive at your point of discussion more than anything else, I guess.

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

The problem I find is with the most argumentative people who are no interested in improving their knowledge, but only arguing what they believe is right.  I find it deplorable when some of them abuse science to justify their beleifs, when science is about furthering knowledge and understanding.
 
As for stopping and smelling the roses, I'm probably not the only person who has joked that this forum is really "Gear-Fi", as like so many other hobbies, much of it is about the gear, more so than the music.

Well objective data is the only data that can even hope to be without bias and we speak of things that are hard to measure in some cases, in others not.
 
Because science is the only real proof anyone can use as justification for an argument both sides have to use it to be taken seriously. Saying silver conducts better than copper, therefore I hear a difference is an example of someone misusing science because it is convenient and seems to make sense. There is no causal relationship between the conductivity and any audibility that anyone has established, yet the data does indeed say silver conducts better. So this is where critical thinking shatters pseudoscience whether people like it or not.
 
People here make definite and causal relationships here all the time based on nothing, or very little all too often.
 
This happens all the time and I am sure at some point everyone has been guilty of this - misusing information to suit their argument, knowingly or not.
 
Another issue is that even if we had rock solid evidence for one side, people would just flat out refuse to believe it and you can't do anything about that except facepalm.
 
I was touching more on my impression that most people here would rather read fairy tale reviews than down to earth stuff, and that was why I have yet to write any review on my recent stuff.
 
The second any kind of control is used other than "golden ears" it seems the "data" has been tainted.
 
 
Bangraman points out one of the most forgotten issues with audio: Our mind. Seems people look at all other parts of "the chain" than thing actually processing information.
 
I know UE spoke of doing a huge cable test at CanJam and if he ever did that would be HUGE head-fi approved data and would be a great source no matter which way the findings go. Setting a controlled volume for review would not be a bad idea either... the closer we bring the community together, the more we can help one another.
 
Another experiment I would like to do my self eventually is show how powerful the mind is in terms of the audio chain. It is my strong suspicion that very low-fi gear could subjectively mop the floor with the highest-of-fi with the aid of certain psychoactives.
When I am further along in my studies, and if I stay in the same field I will certainly do something like this.

 

[ardgedee]

What I try to keep in mind on this forum is that we are discussing nice things, not necessary things. And that I'm not responsible for other people purchasing things they believe are nice which I believe are not.
 
It is actually okay for people to spend money on cables, effects, and furnishings which do not strike me as plausibly having an effect on sound. As long as they're not toxic or self-endangering, as long as the owner does not risk his finances by doing it, there really is no harm. It allows the owner to enjoy doing what he does, whether it's listening to music, listening to the effects on the music, or simply admiring the setup he has.
 
That's the point to this hobby.
 
When people begin making incredible claims about this or that which violate the laws of mechanics or electronics, it's really just enough to disagree politely, with a politely worded defense if necessary, and then move on. Getting fighty is rarely persuasive, and leads to the audience judging the arguers, not their arguments. A little gentleness will go farther to convince people, even if not in the short term, possibly in the long run. What you write here will continue to be skimmed and read by unknown numbers of people in the coming months and years.

 

[bangraman]

@sokolov91
Referring to the latter part of your last post, absolutely. 
 
 
There's also degrees of Fi, in that EQ and psychoacoustic effects such as BBE etc can play a huge part in preference of sources which have the right 'flavour' but downright abysmal measured technicals. 
 
 
And let's not forget looks in the choice: It's no coincidence that converted Hammond cases are now long gone as a backbone of the indy manufacturer's offerings. I've been fortunate enough to have been once on the PR dime of a consumer electronics company and I was also able to do things which satisfied my own curiosity as long as it involved the company's products. I've for example ran tests where I've asked people to compare two headphone amps in radically different cases and ask them to point out which one sounded better. Most chose the more substantial-looking amp, although some suspected reverse psychology and pointed out the one in the cheaper plastic case as being better. No-one wrote 'both the same' which was actually the 'case' (ahaha).
 
 
The upshot is that if you want to, you can pretty much make anyone hear anything you like as long as you're in control of the methodology / sources and you have a rough idea how your test group would interpret 'better' sound.