Sound Science Corner Pub

[Davesrose]

I think we should be more distinct with the words audiophile and audiophool. 71 dB explained what the difference is above.

For example, we shouldn’t say “audiophile marketing”, we should say “audiophool marketing”. Not every audiophile is an audiophool.

If regulars decided to have two different labels for an audiophile that has subjective bias (audiophool) vs one that enjoys music (that also wants argument over science), would forum activity continue to go down?

I've sometimes noticed exchanges in which a new poster posts an impression of their setup, and can quickly be dismissed as just having a bias. A few times I've found that enough questions were asked about their gear to figure out that even if they did a DBT, they would hear differences. An example I remember was a member claiming that DTS sounded better than Dolby Atmos with their headphones. They were quickly dismissed as not understanding that their gear was processing 3D audio as stereo, and it should sound the same. I found out that their TV model is one of the few that accepts DTS:X streaming services (which there's not very many titles available in) as well as Dolby Atmos. Most TVs (and streamers) just recognize the Dolby Atmos track: apparently there are a few models that give you the choice of choosing DTS or Dolby Atmos. DTS:X (which IMAX has an association with) can sound different than Dolby Atmos, because they are different sources (where DTS:IMAX is a different mix with higher levels).

I realize that there can be a fine line between having good faith and trying to gather objective data, vs trying to have an exchange with someone who is only concerned with their subjective impressions. But if new posters come on, have good faith as to why their setup might sound different, will they more quickly be dismissed as an audiophool? If so, then it will more be a place where it's more a place for mocking [audiophiles/audiophools], that at times might have useful science.

 

[castleofargh]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Elegiac]

I think that saying 'audiophile' instead of 'audiophool', in general, makes your pronouncements a little less acerbic. I mean, I don't mind either way. But someone will. Plus, audiophile is already a dirty word. Nothing you say will put more dirt on it. Tar em all with the same brush and let reason decide.

 

[2leftears]

Head-Fi posting guidelines request the term "audiophool" not be used. It is not prohibited, but they suggest to try and avoid the use:

Likewise, avoid weasel or derogatory words such as shill, fanboy, koolaid, audiophool, snakeoil, etc.

 

[bigshot]

I don’t think we should be so aggressive with each other. It’s a sign of insecurity.

 

[theveterans]

I think we should be more distinct with the words audiophile and audiophool. 71 dB explained what the difference is above.

For example, we shouldn’t say “audiophile marketing”, we should say “audiophool marketing”. Not every audiophile is an audiophool.

Are you still called audiophile or audiophool if you enjoy prefer to listen to 50's audio amp circuit (tube amps)?

 

[Davesrose]

Are you still called audiophile or audiophool if you enjoy prefer to listen to 50's audio amp circuit (tube amps)?

I think the discussion moved on in agreeing one shouldn't label and audiophile who expresses subjective impressions as "audiophool". I just hope there can be common agreement that tubes add analog distortion (or are really slow and unreliable transistors for digital applications!). When an audiophile goes on about a vinyl record having infinite resolution (because there's infinite noise), I just shake my head. I've collected old records for their masterings, historic value, or new easter eggs: I realize there's inherent distortion in which it can be more pleasing to have some treble roll off. I've found that's also the same with tube rolling-IE why NOS tubes are more coveted than new tubes made in Eastern countries. It's about pleasing distortion, and not accuracy/fidelity.

 

[theveterans]

I think the discussion moved on in agreeing one shouldn't label and audiophile who expresses subjective impressions as "audiophool". I just hope there can be common agreement that tubes add analog distortion (or are really slow and unreliable transistors for digital applications!). When an audiophile goes on about a vinyl record having infinite resolution (because there's infinite noise), I just shake my head. I've collected old records for their masterings, historic value, or new easter eggs: I realize there's inherent distortion in which it can be more pleasing to have some treble roll off. I've found that's also the same with tube rolling-IE why NOS tubes are more coveted than new tubes made in Eastern countries. It's about pleasing distortion, and not accuracy/fidelity.

Agreed. That's another reason why I never liked accuracy/fidelity. Waay too lifeless and shrieking timbre to the point that I barely listen to my portable setup anymore since I have brain burned-in to the sound of toobs and dislike going back to accurate/fidelity setup. Long live toobs and harmonic distortion as an audiophile

 

[Davesrose]

Agreed. That's another reason why I never liked accuracy/fidelity. Waay too lifeless and shrieking timbre to the point that I barely listen to my portable setup anymore since I have brain burned-in to the sound of toobs and dislike going back to accurate/fidelity setup. Long live toobs and harmonic distortion as an audiophile

Yeah, plus current circuitry is not 50s tech. 50s tech did not have transistors as we know them....just some hand traces going to a lot of vacuum tubes. Now those analog stages that have tubes: they're some final outputs in integrated circuits. When it comes to pure digital vs an analog stage (vinyl record or tube amp), it depends on setup. Most audio I listen to is surround sound movies: where I have a nice digital receiver-that has a nice calibration setup and there's also a lot of settings for treble attenuation and subwoofer levels. I've had a couple special TT preamps for my TT: but I've gotten rid of them now that my high end receiver also has a TT input (which is properly grounded in my area where I can get a lot of interference with a radio tower). If I go from memory, there might be a little more treble now when I listen to a go to record (don't know how much is signal and RIAA curve): but I could get a lot of noticeable hiss from my current location. I have digital systems I like (that have had certain DSPs or EQs) for my speaker system or BT headphones, as well as analog distortion (analog source or tube amp stage) that's either stereo mains or wired headphones. There is a middle ground of acknowledging that it's very easy to have "transparent" music with basic digital systems, and analog sources or tube amps can add pleasing distortion. These also have a much larger potential difference in sound vs how much you spend on an interconnect or power cable.

 

[castleofargh]

Are you still called audiophile or audiophool if you enjoy prefer to listen to 50's audio amp circuit (tube amps)?

It never had anything to do with preferences. I know plenty of people who completely assume their non-objective taste. I never had an issue with them on the subject of preference because it is a preference(like food, eat whatever, it does not concern me). They don't invent stories to make their preferences seem to be more than preferences. They make a decision and live in peace with it. No attempt to impress others, no attempt to convince them that something objectively inferior is in fact more accurate. No claim that something causes something else when they have no idea and have never done or read about tests supporting that claim. They just wanted the stuff and got it, now they enjoy it, or send it back if they don't. That's the entire story for those people, and what should always happen. If others share their taste, they're glad, if not, oh well, good for them. No battle of egos over taste, no insecurity in need of invented justifications.

It's not about picking or enjoying something, to me audiophools are all about the science fiction they must force-feed others. It's about how far someone will go to call the fake, real, or to make the trivial a "night and day" difference. Because those are, in the end, foolish behaviors.
When someone comes claiming that he clearly hears the improvement from 24 to 32bit even though nothing can resolve 24 and people already fail a properly controlled test between 16 and 24 at normal listening level. When someone claims that what really improved his system is the audiophile Ethernet box. When someone talks about his burn-in process for cables, and how it changes the sound, etc. You get the idea.
Some have a fertile imagination and so little actual knowledge that they can invent everything on their own, but mostly, audiophools are those who got fooled by absurd marketing and come repeating the catchphrases that tricked them.
Obviously there are levels to that thing, some are just small exaggerations or misunderstandings about how things work, while some imply living in a different universe with novel laws of physics. And personal preferences have nothing to do with any of that.

 

[Davesrose]

When someone comes claiming that he clearly hears the improvement from 24 to 32bit even though nothing can resolve 24 and people already fail a properly controlled test between 16 and 24 at normal listening level. When someone claims that what really improved his system is the audiophile Ethernet box. When someone talks about his burn-in process for cables, and how it changes the sound, etc. You get the idea.

Well now that there is audio sessions in which the source recording is floating 32bit audio (and editors working with 192dB of audio to bring up levels)....I don't know if there will be any audiophiles saying oh they need to listen to these source files. I am suspecting that now that 32bit float is becoming more the nomenclature for audio recording, that will mean that audiophiles will then demand that their audio format be 32bit float (even though that's not needed for output, what's final delivery). Within the computer graphics realm, we have cameras recording up to 16bit per channel, while common delivery is JPEG 8bit per channel. We also have, for new HDR displays, 10bit per channel HEIC compressed images.

 

[castleofargh]

Well now that there is audio sessions in which the source recording is floating 32bit audio (and editors working with 192dB of audio to bring up levels)....I don't know if there will be any audiophiles saying oh they need to listen to these source files. I am suspecting that now that 32bit float is becoming more the nomenclature for audio recording, that will mean that audiophiles will then demand that their audio format be 32bit float (even though that's not needed for output, what's final delivery). Within the computer graphics realm, we have cameras recording up to 16bit per channel, while common delivery is JPEG 8bit per channel. We also have, for new HDR displays, 10bit per channel HEIC compressed images.

It's not about asking for the best, of course it's cool to have the best. It's claiming it is audibly more *********(insert flowery lingo and stuff about soundstage), that is nonsense and foolish if it's so far beyond audibility levels.

 

[Davesrose]

It's not about asking for the best, of course it's cool to have the best. It's claiming it is audibly more *********(insert flowery lingo and stuff about soundstage), that is nonsense and foolish if it's so far beyond audibility levels.

Oh, but I need to buy this system because I can turn it to *11 Though I am more photo-fi myself.....where here it seems folks are easy about spending thousands of bucks on a headphone, cables, or one audio component. I've recently changed my Canon DSLR to mirrorless, and with an adaptor, I can still keep all my L lenses. That means that my lenses, worth thousands of dollars, still keep their main quality of being sharp and having the nice Canon color contrast. At least with my photo-fi, it's not so foolish since especially the camera I'm picking has the latest features that are good for me (and I've had various reactions about how good my photography is).

 

[castleofargh]

I had an EOS RT in the early 90's, with the transparent film instead of a moving mirror. The OG of "kind of" mirrorless. For some things, it felt like a revolution. It was a good deal quieter, and tracking subjects(like cars at the 24H du Mans) became so easy. Of course, losing nearly 1 stop to that film was hard to swallow, given that more money than I had, had just gone into a 200mm 2.8 lens.
Cameras have come such a long way, the progress in sensor of course, but IMO, the autofocus is where magic happened. I still have my old EOS 5D MKII somewhere(still works), the autofocus felt so fast a precise when I first got it, I almost had every third picture sharp at the right place with my 85mm opened at 1.2(my forever favorite lens but such a PITA to handle). The 5DMKII feels so slow and inaccurate now, compared to the autofocus of modern cameras. And the first time I got to try a friend's camera that tracked the subject for me, I considered calling an exorcist. So yes, I'd say things are quite different in the camera world. I'm a little sad to see that now the focus is so much on video, given that I never gave a crap about video, but we're still getting significant evolutions.
I love those toys. I had the eye controlled autofocus on the EOS5(non D), and was so sad that it didn't get implemented by Canon on all models. I think I used it more than the EOS1 because of that feature. Thinking about it, I really was into gimmicky stuff when I was younger. I didn't know how to take good pictures, but I was already spending my time on infrared films, E6 to C41 developments and doing all the weird tricks(masking, solarization, superimposing stuff) in B&W. I probably should have learned magic instead of photography.

 

[Davesrose]

I had an EOS RT in the early 90's, with the transparent film instead of a moving mirror. The OG of "kind of" mirrorless. For some things, it felt like a revolution. It was a good deal quieter, and tracking subjects(like cars at the 24H du Mans) became so easy. Of course, losing nearly 1 stop to that film was hard to swallow, given that more money than I had, had just gone into a 200mm 2.8 lens.
Cameras have come such a long way, the progress in sensor of course, but IMO, the autofocus is where magic happened. I still have my old EOS 5D MKII somewhere(still works), the autofocus felt so fast a precise when I first got it, I almost had every third picture sharp at the right place with my 85mm opened at 1.2(my forever favorite lens but such a PITA to handle). The 5DMKII feels so slow and inaccurate now, compared to the autofocus of modern cameras. And the first time I got to try a friend's camera that tracked the subject for me, I considered calling an exorcist. So yes, I'd say things are quite different in the camera world. I'm a little sad to see that now the focus is so much on video, given that I never gave a crap about video, but we're still getting significant evolutions.
I love those toys. I had the eye controlled autofocus on the EOS5(non D), and was so sad that it didn't get implemented by Canon on all models. I think I used it more than the EOS1 because of that feature. Thinking about it, I really was into gimmicky stuff when I was younger. I didn't know how to take good pictures, but I was already spending my time on infrared films, E6 to C41 developments and doing all the weird tricks(masking, solarization, superimposing stuff) in B&W. I probably should have learned magic instead of photography.

Growing up, I inherited my parent's Canon AE-1 manual SLR. Eventually did learn film photography with some college classes with it in the 90s. At the time I would have loved to have gotten the EOS film cameras of that era that had eye control. Now Canon has just brought back eye control with my R5 mkII. So I think especially since new viewfinders are about hundreds of AF points, I find the focus can be hit or miss. But then again, we've got so many other shortcuts (like also you can slide and drag an AF point with the rear viewfinder). So if you're into focusing for a person or animal, you're going to have some kind of continuous mode to have some AF for tracking. My first serious DSLR was the Canon 5D (c) because it was the first prosumer camera that was FF 35mm. While I quickly found it was bad with dynamic range with its exposure, I was also amazed how detailed 1600 and 3200 ISO was compared to equivalent film. While it was my first autofocus system...I found it quite lacking. I found a 3rd party split prism focus screen. I didn't upgrade to the 5D2 because I saw it had the same focus system. It was only the 5D3 and then 5D4 that I upgraded: that finally they had an autofocus system that was a step down from the 1D system. I've finally decided to move on since I got a MFT mirrorless system: and now I'm kind of expecting a full coverage system for my viewfinder and an exposure simulation. BTW, eye control was another selling point for me with the R5 mk II (Canon is now introducing it again with R3 and now R5). I'm finding in some situations, it works, and a lot of others it doesn't' (back with the 5Dc, you had 7 focus points, where now its hundreds)....so I have a shortcut for enabling or disabling.