[cel4145]

Just had to post another pic

 

[U-3C]

Just had to post another pic

 
...
 
Thank you for the pic!

xDDD
 
If I ever become a rich billionaire, I might just buy that simply as a piece of furniture for my house/mansion, just to troll my friends.
 
\(>v<)/

 

[Dillan]

Oh my god look at that thing! Hahaha yea I'm with you, its almost worth it just for novelty reasons. My friends and family would die if they saw that in my living room and me trying to keep a straight face telling them it's my iPhone speaker!

 

[U-3C]

Um...what happens if the iPhone dies and Apple decides to, I don't know, use a new, proprietary connection (like they always do once in a while).
 
Will the iPhone still sit perfectly with a cheap adapter and not fall over and call down all audiophilia hell, or will you have to spend about $10k to get a custom adapter that covers the entire top, so the iPhone sits perfectly on it and the adapter blends in seamlessly, so people can enjoy the original design style?

 

[Brooko]

Dillan
 
I'm going to highlight a few portions of your post - and this is not Brooko the "Mod" talking - but Brooko the audio enthusiast / music lover / Head-Fi member (who happens now to have a knowledge of the inner workings for the forum).
 
Quote:

  Obviously people in this thread are less guilty, but its like everyone just wants the cost of things to go up. A/B testing, double blind testing and the mention of pricing is highly discouraged in every thread and even banned in most cases. How laughable is that?
 
<snip>
 
....... to think beyond the bias, pricing and marketing that goes on as well as one of the major portals of discussion and research (head-fi) which discourages blind testing and price discussion. Every time I have seen it being brought up in fact.. a mod steps in to warn, ban or delete it.
 
<snip>
 
I love the community and I love the hobby, but we are slowly buying our way out of sanity and reason and it's turned us into a joke. The fact that we openly have the theme of "Welcome to Head-Fi, sorry about your wallet" - kind of explains it all. Our sound science forum is dead and people on the outside view audiophiles as brainless snake-oil buying jokes and audio manufacturers see us as dollar signs.

 
The three sections I've kept may be your impression of what goes on - but they are blatantly false.  You don't get banned for talking about blind-testing, or for objective testing.  In my time here it hasn't happened (to my knowledge anyway).
 
There is a rule however that if you want to talk about those subjects, placebo etc - it should be done in the Sound Science section.  There is a reason for this.  People are passionate about audio. Most of the people who come here lean heavily on the subjective side. Suggesting that their impressions are wrong, and they should be blind testing, volume matching, ABXing etc inevitably leads to massive debates which then lead to full blown arguments. If it was allowed, then the forums would cease to function effectively. So it was decided (well before I joined) to make a section of the forum available where you could debate these points, and where it was OK to ask for proof.
 
Now here is the ironic thing - if we'd gone the other way, and made a small section of the forum just for the subjectivists, and said in this small part of the forum you couldn't insist on testing etc - guess which part would grow, and which would shrink?  So the forum is the way it is for a reason.
 
I'd actually prefer if we could bring more objectivity to the forums.  I try to use as much as I an in my own reviews.  I challenge people on cables and burn-in.  But I also live within  the rules.
 
The reason Sound Science is dead is because not enough people use it.  I wish more did - but that's up to the community to embrace it.  You want it to grow - create more interesting threads.  We don't put things here to die - we do it so they can be explored properly.  I'll give you a couple that I set up - one a couple of years after I first joined, one more recently:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding
http://www.head-fi.org/t/815002/discussion-on-mee-p1-and-burn-in
 
Sound Science is a great part of the forum - and it can grow if you actively use it.  That onus is on you and others in the community.
 
But please don't spread the litany that the Mods here do things like:
 - maniacally protect sponsors
 - jump down the throats of any objectivists
 - ban people for no reason
 - act like fascists etc
 
In reality - nothing could be further from the truth.  I see a lot of the PMs between Mods and members and most of them are courteous, polite and understanding. The last thing we want (as volunteers) is to be involved at all.  We'd prefer the forum runs smoothly.  But with a million visitors a week, we are kept pretty busy.  The reason the forums run so smoothly is because we manage to allow all people to express their opinions without having massive arguments.  To do this we have to have rules.
 
The only times I see the Moderation team get grumpy - is when we post a simple advice of the rules, and we basically get told to "eff off".  Or when we get a post or PM claiming things which are blatantly false.
 
Did you notice that despite your digs at Jude = he hasn't shut this down, hasn't given any warnings, has allowed you to have your opinion.  That's what the Mod/Admin Team is really like.  its a pity more people didn't give them some due respect.

 

[krismusic]

The three sections I've kept may be your impression of what goes on - but they are blatantly false.  You don't get banned for talking about blind-testing, or for objective testing.  In my time here it hasn't happened (to my knowledge anyway).

There is a rule however that if you want to talk about those subjects, placebo etc - it should be done in the Sound Science section.  There is a reason for this.  People are passionate about audio. Most of the people who come here lean heavily on the subjective side. Suggesting that their impressions are wrong, and they should be blind testing, volume matching, ABXing etc inevitably leads to massive debates which then lead to full blown arguments. If it was allowed, then the forums would cease to function effectively. So it was decided (well before I joined) to make a section of the forum available where you could debate these points, and where it was OK to ask for proof.

Now here is the ironic thing - if we'd gone the other way, and made a small section of the forum just for the subjectivists, and said in this small part of the forum you couldn't insist on testing etc - guess which part would grow, and which would shrink?  So the forum is the way it is for a reason.

I'd actually prefer if we could bring more objectivity to the forums.  I try to use as much as I an in my own reviews.  I challenge people on cables and burn-in.  But I also live within  the rules.

The reason Sound Science is dead is because not enough people use it.  I wish more did - but that's up to the community to embrace it.  You want it to grow - create more interesting threads.  We don't put things here to die - we do it so they can be explored properly.  I'll give you a couple that I set up - one a couple of years after I first joined, one more recently:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding
http://www.head-fi.org/t/815002/discussion-on-mee-p1-and-burn-in

Sound Science is a great part of the forum - and it can grow if you actively use it.  That onus is on you and others in the community.

But please don't spread the litany that the Mods here do things like:
 - maniacally protect sponsors
 - jump down the throats of any objectivists
 - ban people for no reason
 - act like fascists etc

In reality - nothing could be further from the truth.  I see a lot of the PMs between Mods and members and most of them are courteous, polite and understanding. The last thing we want (as volunteers) is to be involved at all.  We'd prefer the forum runs smoothly.  But with a million visitors a week, we are kept pretty busy.  The reason the forums run so smoothly is because we manage to allow all people to express their opinions without having massive arguments.  To do this we have to have rules.

The only times I see the Moderation team get grumpy - is when we post a simple advice of the rules, and we basically get told to "eff off".  Or when we get a post or PM claiming things which are blatantly false.

Did you notice that despite your digs at Jude = he hasn't shut this down, hasn't given any warnings, has allowed you to have your opinion.  That's what the Mod/Admin Team is really like.  its a pity more people didn't give them some due respect.

I have huge respect for the Mods.
I realise that the role is voluntary and it is the Mods who help make this forum the friendly place it is.
As do the rules.
I was not happy with the bashing tone of some of this thread and perhaps should have said so.
There are points raised in this thread that are very valid and interesting to me though.
That is it to say that I do not enjoy the hobby aspect of audio. Reading about the latest gear, going to meets, hearing amazing set ups.
When it comes to parting with money though, I have to be careful. I am very fortunate and live well but I have little disposable income, so it is very useful to have a corrective to the consumer enthusiasms that abound on here.
I do think that there is a lot that is valuable about HeadFi though. After all I have been a member for quite a few years and obviously enjoy being here.
Having met Jude I know that he is a lovely guy and a real enthusiast.
However it is probably worth bearing in mind that he and this site are working within commercial realities. We don't pay to belong here. Isn't there an old internet truism," if you don't pay for content, you are the content"?!
That is not to say that interactions between members are not genuine.
There are also strict rules about how industry insiders operate on here, which keeps things transparent.
I find Sound Science very valuable and it has saved me going down several expensive rabbit holes. There are some very technically knowledgeable members on there who can give sound insight into products other than " it's shiny"!
It does get a bit dry though and other areas of the forum offer a lot of eccentricities and entertainment.
Not to mention keeping me up to date with all the latest and greatest gear.
All in all it is a good thing not to be naive.
I'm sure there are charlatans and hucksters within audio.
There are also sincere, genuine people working hard to push forward the possibilities. Some technical people have an approach that is similar to that of an artist.
As consumers it is worth keeping our feet on the ground however. I have heard some very esoteric rigs. I have yet to hear anything that blows me away. For £145k the MSB would have to reproduce the sound of angels breathing into my ears!
I have come to the conclusion that audio, in particular headphones, only gets so good.
It is easy to get very used to top quality sound and start looking for "the next level" and plenty of people on here will encourage you.
There is a limit. I think when you forget that is when you start chasing unicorns.

 

[mulder01]

I think the times I have mentioned trying things blind in the subjective section of the forum I've never had an issue...

To be honest I've not visited the Sound Science part of the forum in a while. (Only here because OP linked to this thread from the LCD-4 thread). From my limited experience though, I've found that very few people are completely open minded about audio. Most either completely ignore the science, or make every decision based around it. I was here ages ago when a little device from Synergistic Research called the "HOT" came out and it seemed ridiculous and everyone bagged the crap out of it because how could it possibly do anything. I laughed along with everyone. Somebody bought one and didn't like it and donated it to a few of the sound science regulars to do some testing on it to see if it did anything. They did every test imaginable, but when I asked if they listened to it, they hadn't. Isn't the obvious test to see if something makes the sound different to listen to it? But they refused, because the theory and the measurements told them that it CAN'T do anything. So it seems like there are very few people in the middle. On one side you have people that firmly believe in the importance of things like premium interconnects and feel like the difference is so obvious that they don't have to do a blind test just to prove themselves to the skeptics, and on the other side, you have the people that feel like they don't have to prove to the cable believers that they're right, because there is no possible way that they can do anything so they don't even need to listen to them...

I'm an electrician and have a fairly good understanding of electrical theory. I'll admit that the idea of upmarket cables seems sketchy. How can they possibly do anything. I was telling a retailer one day who started talking to me about cables that I wasn't entirely convinced. He said that plenty of people are in the same boat and he gives them a cable and tells them to take it home and try it. Listen to it for a few days or a week and if they don't like it, bring it back for a full refund. He reckons they never come back. Said that plenty of people are skeptical and not willing to try, but the ones that are skeptical but ARE willing to try always stick with it - claims that he has never met the guy who was open minded about cables, tried them and went back to standard $20 ones. Was it true or just part of the pitch? I dunno. Is the whole industry built on people's fear of not having the best? Are they all simply worried that if they go back they will be missing out on something so they keep it 'just in case'? I dunno.

So I figured the only way to put the issue to rest is to try things for myself. In the past (in store) I have tried a bunch of different dacs. No joy. As far as I'm concerned the sound science guys were right on that one. Tried the almighty Yggy. No different to my ears to any other DAC I've tried.

I have literally just sat down with a pair of Cardas Clear interconnects that I bought second hand off audiogon. This 0.5m pair of coax cables retails for AUD $2499. Which is flat out ridiculous IMO. (paid USD $500 for these used with postage). I have a pair of Abyss and a respectable dac/amp to try them on. Too many people compare a $40 cable to a $120 cable and say "yep sounds the same to me! CONCLUSION: all premium cables are a lie" (yes that is slightly exaggerated). So I figured to be able to put this debate to bed (to my satisfaction) I'd go for the flagship cable of one of the world's most respected brands and compare it to a blue jeans cable (to ensure the "cheap" cable is definitely a reasonable quality cable - not just something that costs a dollar and may have an issue that makes the premium cable sound better). I WANT it to sound amazing and if it does, I will accept that it does even though I don't understand why, but I also want it to sound the same so I can sell it for what I paid for it and I got to have an extended in home demo with one of the world's "best" cables and have satisfied my curiosity and it cost me nothing. I am going to hold onto them for a while so I can let some other head fi'ers have a listen to see if we all agree, and we will be absolutely ABX testing them. Should be interesting. I'll post my/our findings when it's all said and done and include a link to the "for sale" section if need be.

Anyway sorry for the very long post, but that's what science is about to me - you make a hypothesis based on what you know and expect and then you ACTUALLY DO the experiment to see if you were right...

 

[Joe Bloggs]

I guess I'm in an even deeper hole than most of you guys, because not only do I find the expensive products lacking in quality over the inexpensive ones, I also find that said expensive products are pushing superior products / methodologies out of existence. All I need for music fidelity in all situations, besides a basic pair of headphones and DAC/amp, is a sophisticated digital effects host that can process all system audio with equalization, multiband compression and cross channel impulse convolution (for crossfeed and/or multichannel processing). The "purist", "bit-perfect" and DSD movements are pushing such an approach to the lunatic fringe.

Allow me to pimp my latest DSP project here, this one greatly enhancing soundstage from headphones: http://www.head-fi.org/t/811837/natural-crossfeed-on-headphones-earphones-for-foobar2000-v2-0-major-update-made-public

It may not work for everybody, but if you want to create a setting that works best for you, it's a matter of shelling out about $100 for a measurement mic and sitting in front of a stereo (doesn't have to be even that good a stereo) for recording.

You may also note that such an approach calls for a fixed sample rate / conversion to said fixed sample rate, which is apparently an existential threat to audiophiles the world over. :rolleyes:

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

 
[1] Most of the people who come here lean heavily on the subjective side.
 
[2] Now here is the ironic thing - if we'd gone the other way, and made a small section of the forum just for the subjectivists, and said in this small part of the forum you couldn't insist on testing etc - guess which part would grow, and which would shrink?

 
1. Isn't this a circular argument? I don't have any figures but my guess is that many/most of those who come here for the first time do not "lean heavily on the subjective side". Don't most first-timers come here for information on how to spend their money wisely to replace or upgrade part/s of their audio chain? If so, I would think most don't lean heavily on any side, most first-timers probably don't realise there even are "sides" but if they did, wouldn't they want to come down more on the objectivist side because they just want to get the best bang for their buck and not get ripped off? They generally don't want to know the science behind say how a DAC works, they just want their seemingly simple question answered, so they don't come to the sound science forum, they go to the forum with the name which best matches the audio component area they're looking to replace/upgrade. As soon as they do, they effectively become targets for indoctrination by subjectivists (+ those who profit from subjectivists) and the vast majority will succumb to this indoctrination and become subjectivists themselves. So yes, most who come here will will eventually lean heavily on the subjective side.
 
2. I think we all know which would grow ... the really sad part is why! The bottom line is that there's countless millions of $ to be made from pushing subjectivity at the expense of objectivity and relatively little/nothing to be made from pushing the opposite. If objectivity ruled: There wouldn't even be a market for $500 consumer DACs, let alone DACs which cost many times that amount. There would be no cable market beyond say Amazon Basics. There would be no consumer audio formats or consumer audio content beyond 16/44.1. Etc. ... There is no financial advantage in stating these facts and therefore it's not worth investing any finances in marketing them but with millions at stake, it's certainly worth investing finances in pushing subjectivity at the expense of objectivity. With substantial budgets for a range of sophisticated marketing strategies verses no budget for any marketing at all, it's not difficult to guess which part would grow and which would shrink!
 

  The three sections I've kept may be your impression of what goes on - but they are blatantly false.  You don't get banned for talking about blind-testing, or for objective testing.  In my time here it hasn't happened (to my knowledge anyway).

 

1. It's not just the OP's impression and it's not blatantly false. Sure, just mentioning objective testing doesn't get one banned but talking about what the results of objective tests actually mean, does!
 
2. The general rule here on head-fi is no insults/abuse, which seems fair enough. The problem is in how that rule is applied. I personally find the use of pseudo-science and the deliberate (or even inadvertent) perversion of the facts/science to be "abuse", a very insulting abuse. However, this abuse is perfectly acceptable here on head-fi (except occasionally on this sub-forum), even to the point of it appearing to be encouraged by some! Any hint of an insult or abuse towards the abusers, even just refuting the claims of the abusers, that's effectively forbidden?
 
The problem for some of us is that we would like to see head-fi exist to help newcomers and thereby (due to it's size) actually influence the manufacturers of consumer audio equipment and content to produce (value for money) high-end products. Unfortunately, head-fi in effect does the opposite: It misinforms newcomers and encourages manufacturers to produce products which are no higher-end than vastly cheaper equivalents but are simply marketed as higher-end through the abuse/perversion of facts.
 
I'm not attacking you personally Brooko, you and castleofargh are two of the better mods IMHO, trying to take a more moral stance against a system which is stacked against such a stance. I'm not even attacking the rules of head-fi. What I'm attacking is whoever has decided to interpret those rules, whoever it is who has decided that posting perversions of the facts is not abuse, insulting or disrespectful to others but strongly refuting those perversions is!
 
G

 

[Brooko]

The thing is Gregorio - people know what they sign up for when they join.  The rules are there in black and white. And as part of the sign up process you actually have to acknowledge them (I personally doubt a lot of people read them - but there you go).
 
The second thing is that there are a lot of people who would fall in the middle ground (I'd like to think I fit that mould) - maybe acknowledging their human weaknesses (bias whatever you want to call it) and also ready to listen to a reasoned response.  Those people aren't the issue.
 
The ones who are the issue are the ones on both sides of the spectrum who are vociferous in their responses, and are often unwilling to hear the other side of the debate.  And to be honest one side is as bad as the other.  Neither listens, both try to drown each other out, and before you look around - you have a thread going off the rails.
 
The thing is - its not my forum - I just choose to spend my time here.  Why?  Because the people are nice, its a great source for music ideas, and I've learnt a whole lot about myself, my hearing, my limitations, how audio works etc.  But I'm interested in that stuff - others aren't. Question - how would you police things if they weren't run the way they are now?  Start banning everyone who continually argues from both sides? You'd likely end up with a very heavily moderated forums.  Hydrogen also has a set of rules - and people live by them.  if they make claims they better be able to back them up.  Why is their forum necessarily any better than here?  people will gravitate to where they feel comfortable.
 
And  how do you settle the debates on burn-in, cables, formats etc? And do you realise how many people who are here that just want to relate their experiences and not worry about it?
 
I think you know me well enough by now to know that my hearing isn't the greatest - age and tinnitus are my enemies. I know I can't tell aac256 from FLAC or DSD for that matter.  Most well made DACs actually do sound the same to me (transparent).  But you know what - I have a iDSD Micro (and am also testing a DAC Box RS).  Both have little lights which flick on telling you when you're playing DSD (both can upsample).  I know there is no way I can tell the difference, but that little light actually makes me feel better when music is playing. The secret is I know it makes no audible difference to me - but the machine gives me pleasure.
 
What I'd love to see s a forum where that sort of discussion could be fostered.  I agree there is too much snake oil out there.  I'd love to see the scientific side of things discussed a lot more.  But I'd also like the pure science types to apply a little human empathy and emotion.  I don't listen to sound - I listen to music.  Technically its sound - but its the actual music that moves me.  Ideally there should be a mix of both on the forum.  If you can find a way to have both, and not have the throat ripped out of half the threads on the way - I'm sure a lot of people would be interested.

 

[Brooko]

Oh - and actually this bit is wrong - sorry:
 

 1. It's not just the OP's impression and it's not blatantly false. Sure, just mentioning objective testing doesn't get one banned but talking about what the results of objective tests actually mean, does!

 
I talk about it quite often - even before I became a mod. The difference is the manner of how it is explained.  And this comes back to the people at the fringes of both sides of the debate. Before you know it - they are shouting - and thats where the warnings come in. The bans come when people are warned not to be abusive, and they continue.  And 9/10 the poor people stuck in the middle who might have asked the seemingly harmless question will wonder what the heck they have done to start such a massive brawl.
 
The fault is on both sides.
 
The problem is that neither side wants to acknowledge their part of the problem.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

The problem is, Brooko, the truth doesn't always lie somewhere in the middle.

 

[gregorio]

They did every test imaginable, but when I asked if they listened to it, they hadn't. Isn't the obvious test to see if something makes the sound different to listen to it?

 
No, it's not, it just seems like it's the obvious test.
 
1. The perception of sound is massively influenced by all kinds of biases, not least of which is what we know about what we're listening to. Our perception of sound means that we can hear substantial, very obvious differences where there are none or hear no differences where there are substantial differences and not only that but our perception is not constant, it changes over both the long term and the short, depending on various factors, including context. For anyone who is unaware of these basics of the perception of sound then just listening to it would seem like the obvious test but for those who are aware, it's not. The first thing I'd want to do is test whether or not there is actually any difference because if there isn't then whatever difference I perceive from a particular listening test or even several listening tests is just my perception playing a trick on me, a trick which can change at any time due to a change in context, biases or knowledge about what I'm listening to. Personally I'm unwilling to spend substantial amounts of money without knowing there is some actual difference.
 
G

 

[Brooko]

The problem is, Brooko, the truth doesn't always lie somewhere in the middle.

 
If at the end of the day, the person is happy - does it matter?

 

[Joe Bloggs]

If at the end of the day, the person is happy - does it matter?

How many of these people are actually happy with their gear?

How long does this happiness last before the next upgrade bug bites?

I'm as happy as can be with my gear, have been for years--with the only caveat of worrying that the tools I use to achieve audio nirvana will one day be obsoleted out of existence by the mass market.

Can the same be said of head-fiers in general?

If objectivists have earned a reputation for being a cranky lot, it certainly isn't because of dissatisfaction with their own gear.