[gtp]

Getting into HeadFi over the last year or so, and reading over at HydrogenAudio periodically, I have become confused about the somewhat opposing points of view.

Aside: If this has been beaten to death before, let me know.

Let's start with the premise that we all want our music to sound good, and this is consistent regardless of whether we are interested in equipment (HeadFi) or digital formats (HydrogenAudio).

In the most general terms, people here have HD650s/high-end amps and listen to CD/WAV or lossless because presumably their equipment is so good that they can hear the difference between, say, mp3s and lossless. People there have unknown (to me) equipment and repeatedly say/prove that Alt-Preset-Standard is "transparent" compared to WAV.

So my basic question is whether the difference in acceptable music formats is a function of them having subpar equipment, listening possibly to speakers rather than headphones, or ignorance on either side, or what???

I am not asking for anybody to defend why they listen to APS or lossless, rather I want to know why there seems to be a strong difference in opinion, given the common goal of good sound.

Thanks,
George

 

[Firam]

I believe that it is due to decreasing gain. Us at Head-Fi want to get every last drop of musical goodness our of our music. So we spend money on fancy amps, DAC, headphones, ect. For that reason there is no reason to degrade the signal by ripping to lossy formats. Hydrogen Audio people are more focused on signaificant improvement where as we want the best no matter the cost.

 

[granodemostasa]

okay, i went and checked it out. despite my heavy reading of Head fi over these last few months, i have no clue what they are talking about on hydrogenaudio. i guess i'll have to read more.

 

[familyman]

i don't get it, the difference between a cd and a 128 mp3 is staggering, even on a sub $500 system. You lose depth, soundstage, dynamics is a big one, quiet background sounds and noises are pretty much erased.

Do they have different ears over there?

 

[NotJeffBuckley]

Go to "audiophile" in Wikipedia and read Objectivist vs. Subjectivist.

Jude has stated officially that Head-Fi is a subjectivist website. HA is an objectivist website.

The difference is primarily that Objectivists are interested in that which can be proven to exist in audio, while Subjectivists ... aren't. Read the article, it describes the devide much more fully.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotJeffBuckley The difference is primarily that Objectivists are interested in that which can be proven to exist in audio, while Subjectivists ... aren't.

The difference is primarily that Objectivists are interested in that which can be proven to exist in audio by certain measurements or devices, while Subjectivists are willing to consider evidence that Objectivists discount or won't consider.

 

[grawk]

Objectivists listen with meters, subjectivists listen with ears

 

[NotJeffBuckley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk Objectivists listen with meters, subjectivists listen with ears

Objectivists listen with ears, then try to confirm what their ears hear with various methods of measurement. Subjectivists don't bother with the last part.

The difference is only a "big deal" because of the subjectivist agenda to discredit scienctific methodology in favor of Marketing Worship.

 

[Leporello]

Subjectivists tend to trust sighted listening tests. Objectivists do not: they like to verify their findings by blind tests.

See, I did not mention "measurements" even once

.

But of course we objectivists are the true subjectivists: we listen with our ears. The other subjectivists actually measure the thickness of a megabuck amplifier's faceplate and then hear with their eyes that the amp sounds good.


Regards,

L.

 

[3DCadman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk Objectivists listen with meters, subjectivists listen with ears

I like that!

 

[SennFan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotJeffBuckley Objectivists listen with ears, then try to confirm what their ears hear with various methods of measurement. Subjectivists don't bother with the last part. The difference is only a "big deal" because of the subjectivist agenda to discredit scienctific methodology in favor of Marketing Worship.

Marketing worship?

 

[NotJeffBuckley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SennFan Marketing worship?

It's a purposefully inflamatory statement. Disregard it, as it's made in jest, to mock the guy who said "subjectivists listen with their ears while objectivists just measure stuff HURR"

I don't harbor any ill will to the subjectvist position insofar as it exists without harboring ill will towards me.

 

[Jahn]

where's my "debbie downer" pic. "vs." threads can only end in sadness and churros.

 

[SennFan]

Quote:

Aside: If this has been beaten to death before, let me know.

Yes it has been.

Anyway, I had never heard of the site you mentioned (i.e. H Audio). I just checked it out briefly and don't understand their mission. It really just seems like a bunch of people talking about format encoding, algorithms and other things. It's much more esoteric, narrow and limited than this site.

 

[chych]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk Objectivists listen with meters, subjectivists listen with ears

Meters, on the other hand, are many times more accurate and consistent compared to ears (drink a few beers for proof, and tell me how good britney spears sounds

).