Svperstar
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2004
- Posts
- 1,404
- Likes
- 504
After a discussion I had last night in another thread, just started me thinking. People take this hobby very seriously, as do I.
One of my personal principles I live by in my day to day life, is No Sacred Cows. I highly support critical thinking about absolutely everything.
Basically Question Everything, just because people say something is true, doesn't mean it is, just because a majority of people say something is true, doesn't mean it is. Just because someone in a position of authority says something is true, doesn't mean it automatically is.
Now the flip side is being so cynical that you don't trust anyone or anything, that is NOT what I advocate or believe.
I think I figured out why some people latch onto this mentality, but I'll get to that at the end
I have a background in scientific research, and also history, I am a member of the Phi Beta Theta historical honor society(or at least I was, haven't paid dues in a long time
).
Even when it comes to history, just because someone has an Ivy League Ph.D., and has a very popular new take on a particular era of history, doesn't mean their theory is automatically right, or it should be less scrutinized. If anything it should be scrutinized even more so!
How does all of this relate to audio?
Well some people involved in this hobby, not just on here but many places online, advocate the idea that you shouldn't critically examine audio equipment or claims of fellow audiophiles.
Now as I stated above, critical thinking is imperative, and I refuse to not think about audio as critically as I do everything else.
Now I would never advocate being a rude jerkoff. However there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with what someone says. It doesn't make you a bad internet person. There is nothing wrong with questioning someone elses claims if they run contrary to what you think.
For example, the idea of "purity" many of us have when it comes to the audio signal. People go through great lengths to make sure the sound is pure. Never ever using EQ, making sure they listen with ASIO or Kernal streaming to make sure they get the cleanest signal possible.
Then the same people will us upsampling. Now from what I know of upsampling, basically it uses an extremely complex mathematical algorithm to produce the higher sample rates. However these samples do not actually exist in the recording. So why would you want to "color" or modify the signal to introduce samples that aren't even a part of the original recording?
Also as to "No EQ", I have actually used EQ in Foobar to drop the low end down on my Sennheiser 580s. Why? Because heavy booming bass really hurts my ears. So I just dropped around 50hz and below down a few DB, this way my ears dont bother me. However people have reacted to me with shock and horror "You use EQ on a Sennheiser?!?!?!!!
" Said in the exact same tone as they were saying "You mean you like to mug 80 year old woman?!?!?!?
".
I don't see anything wrong with EQing, especially when the mixing board that was used to make the CD you are listening too probably had the EQs up and down, I highly doubt the EQ was just straight across.....also who knows what kind of opamps and such were used. I am sure you get my point
Also I have had many people recommend the DPS for my Gilmore Lite, I would love to try it but the Elpac is pretty large and sturdy, plus its not like I am plugging it into the wall. If you look at my sig I have a nice power center, MSRP is $400. It has special plus for amps that are designed to give amps extra power. I really don't see what I would gain from having the DPS for my Gilmore, or what the science is behind this.
Yet again people are like "but it gives it more POWER!!!" How much power does it really need?
On another forum I was talking lossless audio. Personally I love Monkey Audio .APE. I mean all lossless encoders are lossless(Captain Obvious). So its not like FLAC or WavPack or Apple Lossless have higher sound quality that my .APE files.
I have had people say, "You use .APE? Didn't you know that it isn't truely as open source as FLAC? I refuse to use .APE because of that!" also "FLAC is the widest supported Lossless codec! Even some DVD players and such are supporting flac! APE doesn't have good support!"
Well thats nice for that person but honestly I am not a programmer anymore, and I don't care about the APE license, I just know in high compression mode it uses less space than FLAC. About a year ago I did a *.FLAC search in my Music hard drive, and I batch converted every single FLAC file I had to .APE. Saved me a great deal of space, which is the whole point of running lossless compression over .WAV. Also I don't care if DVD players and such support FLAC, I will never ever listen to my music out of a DVD player.
Also I had someone really, really annoy the crap out of me when they said "You still use .APE? LOL, NOBODY that is into the audio scene still uses .APE these days, we all (meaning members of the large audio forum) stopped using .APE a long time ago. It isn't updated as much as it used to be. Now we all use WavPack." The whole conversation made it seem like I should now frantically convert all my lossless audio to .WP simply because this individual said nobody in their audio circle liked it.
Now I am always open to try new things but I don't get the point of converting all my lossless audio to another format simply because its fashionable or the latest trend. APE now supports multi-core CPUs, has a very attractive UI, and just works well. Plus they have a FREAKING MONKEY! How cool is that?
On the flip side of this argument, I had someone tell me they used Apple Lossless because they only use iTunes to rip their music, and their iPod supports lossless. They said mp3s were "garbage".
Honestly I use my iPod for working out, and listening too at work. I use well encoded MP3s via EAC with secure mode and LAME for encoding. I highly doubt iTunes is as good of a ripper as EAC when it is properly set up for ripping and encoding.
Also the idea that MP3s are crap....
Last night when I was talking I mentioned a story I read on another forum. A guy there had an audiophile friend with "Golden Ears"(his words). This guy had a $50,000 setup, and he despised MP3 and refused to use any lossy codecs in his system.
He convinced this friend of his to do some ABX testing with high bitrate mp3s. I cannot recall if it was 256 or 320. Regardless he had his friend do this test, and even out of his $50,000 pair of speakers he only guess right about 50% of the time. Just as good as pure chance, because properly encoded MP3s are extremely difficult to separate from lossless.
How did they guy with Golden Ears react? Not very well. I guess he became visibly upset, like eyes watering on the verge of tears. Any time his friend would bring it up, he wouldn't talk about it.
Honestly I don't think that is ok, put aside all the arguments for and against. If not being able to hear something you think you can would reduce you to tears then its time to back off of this hobby and really do a life inventory. That is not a healthy way to live.
Yet I still see people on other forums, with less expensive and simpler setups than mine claim "If you have a good setup, 320k constant mp3s are easy to spot, 100% of the time" Well maybe that is true, if you are a dog, or superman...
I occures to me that for some people, being an "audiophile" isn't just the love of music and equipment, rather it has become something much more. Instead it has become a sort of Esoteric Mysticism, a post-modern religion. Those that *gasp* actually listen to MP3s are not members of the "order". They just aren't "saved". Why does ProductX make the signal better? It just does, have faith. This might make you laugh but think about it.
Also, like any religion, where faith is the mainstay, people bitterly and viscously lash out on anyone that even suggests that there should be reasons that things sound a certain way.
On this forum and others now I have had people blatantly tell me that the Scientific method, which can be used to study anything, is suddenly invalid when it comes to audio. They are awfully angry when they say it as well.
I'm sorry but refusing to question is not a virtue.
*wheew* long post!
One of my personal principles I live by in my day to day life, is No Sacred Cows. I highly support critical thinking about absolutely everything.
Basically Question Everything, just because people say something is true, doesn't mean it is, just because a majority of people say something is true, doesn't mean it is. Just because someone in a position of authority says something is true, doesn't mean it automatically is.
Now the flip side is being so cynical that you don't trust anyone or anything, that is NOT what I advocate or believe.
I think I figured out why some people latch onto this mentality, but I'll get to that at the end
I have a background in scientific research, and also history, I am a member of the Phi Beta Theta historical honor society(or at least I was, haven't paid dues in a long time
Even when it comes to history, just because someone has an Ivy League Ph.D., and has a very popular new take on a particular era of history, doesn't mean their theory is automatically right, or it should be less scrutinized. If anything it should be scrutinized even more so!
How does all of this relate to audio?
Well some people involved in this hobby, not just on here but many places online, advocate the idea that you shouldn't critically examine audio equipment or claims of fellow audiophiles.
Now as I stated above, critical thinking is imperative, and I refuse to not think about audio as critically as I do everything else.
Now I would never advocate being a rude jerkoff. However there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with what someone says. It doesn't make you a bad internet person. There is nothing wrong with questioning someone elses claims if they run contrary to what you think.
For example, the idea of "purity" many of us have when it comes to the audio signal. People go through great lengths to make sure the sound is pure. Never ever using EQ, making sure they listen with ASIO or Kernal streaming to make sure they get the cleanest signal possible.
Then the same people will us upsampling. Now from what I know of upsampling, basically it uses an extremely complex mathematical algorithm to produce the higher sample rates. However these samples do not actually exist in the recording. So why would you want to "color" or modify the signal to introduce samples that aren't even a part of the original recording?
Also as to "No EQ", I have actually used EQ in Foobar to drop the low end down on my Sennheiser 580s. Why? Because heavy booming bass really hurts my ears. So I just dropped around 50hz and below down a few DB, this way my ears dont bother me. However people have reacted to me with shock and horror "You use EQ on a Sennheiser?!?!?!!!
I don't see anything wrong with EQing, especially when the mixing board that was used to make the CD you are listening too probably had the EQs up and down, I highly doubt the EQ was just straight across.....also who knows what kind of opamps and such were used. I am sure you get my point
Also I have had many people recommend the DPS for my Gilmore Lite, I would love to try it but the Elpac is pretty large and sturdy, plus its not like I am plugging it into the wall. If you look at my sig I have a nice power center, MSRP is $400. It has special plus for amps that are designed to give amps extra power. I really don't see what I would gain from having the DPS for my Gilmore, or what the science is behind this.
Yet again people are like "but it gives it more POWER!!!" How much power does it really need?
On another forum I was talking lossless audio. Personally I love Monkey Audio .APE. I mean all lossless encoders are lossless(Captain Obvious). So its not like FLAC or WavPack or Apple Lossless have higher sound quality that my .APE files.
I have had people say, "You use .APE? Didn't you know that it isn't truely as open source as FLAC? I refuse to use .APE because of that!" also "FLAC is the widest supported Lossless codec! Even some DVD players and such are supporting flac! APE doesn't have good support!"
Well thats nice for that person but honestly I am not a programmer anymore, and I don't care about the APE license, I just know in high compression mode it uses less space than FLAC. About a year ago I did a *.FLAC search in my Music hard drive, and I batch converted every single FLAC file I had to .APE. Saved me a great deal of space, which is the whole point of running lossless compression over .WAV. Also I don't care if DVD players and such support FLAC, I will never ever listen to my music out of a DVD player.
Also I had someone really, really annoy the crap out of me when they said "You still use .APE? LOL, NOBODY that is into the audio scene still uses .APE these days, we all (meaning members of the large audio forum) stopped using .APE a long time ago. It isn't updated as much as it used to be. Now we all use WavPack." The whole conversation made it seem like I should now frantically convert all my lossless audio to .WP simply because this individual said nobody in their audio circle liked it.
Now I am always open to try new things but I don't get the point of converting all my lossless audio to another format simply because its fashionable or the latest trend. APE now supports multi-core CPUs, has a very attractive UI, and just works well. Plus they have a FREAKING MONKEY! How cool is that?
On the flip side of this argument, I had someone tell me they used Apple Lossless because they only use iTunes to rip their music, and their iPod supports lossless. They said mp3s were "garbage".
Honestly I use my iPod for working out, and listening too at work. I use well encoded MP3s via EAC with secure mode and LAME for encoding. I highly doubt iTunes is as good of a ripper as EAC when it is properly set up for ripping and encoding.
Also the idea that MP3s are crap....
Last night when I was talking I mentioned a story I read on another forum. A guy there had an audiophile friend with "Golden Ears"(his words). This guy had a $50,000 setup, and he despised MP3 and refused to use any lossy codecs in his system.
He convinced this friend of his to do some ABX testing with high bitrate mp3s. I cannot recall if it was 256 or 320. Regardless he had his friend do this test, and even out of his $50,000 pair of speakers he only guess right about 50% of the time. Just as good as pure chance, because properly encoded MP3s are extremely difficult to separate from lossless.
How did they guy with Golden Ears react? Not very well. I guess he became visibly upset, like eyes watering on the verge of tears. Any time his friend would bring it up, he wouldn't talk about it.
Honestly I don't think that is ok, put aside all the arguments for and against. If not being able to hear something you think you can would reduce you to tears then its time to back off of this hobby and really do a life inventory. That is not a healthy way to live.
Yet I still see people on other forums, with less expensive and simpler setups than mine claim "If you have a good setup, 320k constant mp3s are easy to spot, 100% of the time" Well maybe that is true, if you are a dog, or superman...
I occures to me that for some people, being an "audiophile" isn't just the love of music and equipment, rather it has become something much more. Instead it has become a sort of Esoteric Mysticism, a post-modern religion. Those that *gasp* actually listen to MP3s are not members of the "order". They just aren't "saved". Why does ProductX make the signal better? It just does, have faith. This might make you laugh but think about it.
Also, like any religion, where faith is the mainstay, people bitterly and viscously lash out on anyone that even suggests that there should be reasons that things sound a certain way.
On this forum and others now I have had people blatantly tell me that the Scientific method, which can be used to study anything, is suddenly invalid when it comes to audio. They are awfully angry when they say it as well.
I'm sorry but refusing to question is not a virtue.
*wheew* long post!
