Jun 28, 2024 at 4:41 AM Post #17,731 of 19,085
To me an audiophile buys expensive (good components) gear with a minimal interface after listening to different gear very carefully and choosing what for them needs little to no adjustment.
I think that in the early days of audiophilia (1960’s and ‘70’s) expensive and “good” were synonymous, because to an audiophile high fidelity is good, to achieve high fidelity requires low distortion and noise and analogue components with low distortion/noise were difficult and expensive to make. However, a divergence started in the 1970’s when solid state (and later, IC) op amps started maturing, which had low distortion/noise but were not expensive to make and within a few years of it’s introduction digital technology increased this divergence dramatically. A $200 amplifier could match and in some cases actually provide higher fidelity than amps costing 50 times more. A moderately priced CD player could outperform even the most expensive turntable or cassette player and by around the mid/late 1990’s, when mass production of micro-electronics hit full swing, even extremely cheap CD players could outperform the best analogue gear. With the exception of transducers, “good” (high fidelity) gear was no longer synonymous with being expensive, expensive was only synonymous with “brand names” and was no longer correlated with fidelity but many self-styled audiophiles can’t or won’t accept that modern decorrelation.
I think that when audiophile claims and myths get discussed on this forum, one must be careful not to conflate criticism of those claims and myths with criticism of the manner in which people choose to enjoy the hobby of audio equipment and listening to music. Different people have different objectives; not all of it makes sense to everyone and not all of it falls under the definition or objectives of being an audiophile.
Very true but if their objectives do not fall under the definition or objectives of being an audiophile, then they are deceiving themselves and/or others if they then claim to be audiophiles, and it’s that deception of others that I feel perfectly justified in criticising. For example, someone might spend an inordinate amount on say an R2R/NOS DAC, a DDC and a tube amp because they like the cost, the pretty lights, the brand names or feeling of owning “luxury” products, that’s all fine in my book. It only becomes a matter for criticism IMHO if they then claim they’re achieving higher fidelity than others who’ve spent less (because they’re actually achieving less fidelity) and/or claiming to be an audiophile. Unfortunately, this probably covers the majority (or even vast majority) of those who claim to be audiophiles, in fact our example “audiophile” will not only consider and tell others they are an audiophile but probably consider themselves to be a better or more accomplished audiophile because they’ve spent so much on gear for the same or lower fidelity!
I think it is at the commercial exploitation of unfounded audiophile claims & myths that criticism can rightly be directed because, through advertising, it has the power to influence people's (purchase) objectives, not just only their (purchase) decisions.
Although true, I wouldn’t put it quite that way because there’s quite a bit of additional nuance to the issue. Off the top of my head, ALL those unfounded audiophile claims & myths are actually based on false advertising/marketing to start with, and some, more ethical manufacturers end up having little/no choice but to comply with it. The most obvious example I can think of would be Lavry: Dan Lavry went to great lengths to debunk the 192kHz sampling frequency for consumers (as it is technically lower fidelity) and stated that his company would never produce a DAC that supports a 192kHz sample rate. A number of years later he did just that and was obviously reminded of his pledge. He stated he did not have the many millions it would cost to develop his own DAC chip and without exception, all the high performance audio DAC chips then available had a 192kHz sample rate, so he had no choice. There are other cases where (generally honest) manufacturers feel compelled to include some feature/option because it’s a “demand” of the audiophile market, although they are honest and state selecting that option is sub-optimal. I personally don’t feel these two examples (and other similar ones) warrant criticism, even though they are effectively “commercially exploiting unfounded audiophile claims & myths”.

G
 
Jun 28, 2024 at 6:06 AM Post #17,732 of 19,085
There are other cases where (generally honest) manufacturers feel compelled to include some feature/option because it’s a “demand” of the audiophile market, although they are honest and state selecting that option is sub-optimal. I personally don’t feel these two examples (and other similar ones) warrant criticism, even though they are effectively “commercially exploiting unfounded audiophile claims & myths”.

True, when the "commercial exploitation" happens due to external pressures, as in the examples you gave, and the manufacturers are open and honest about that in their advertising, then criticism indeed isn't warranted.

The same applies to manufacturers having to comply with poorly thought-out/implemented legislation that may have unintended consequences for the industry. RoHS is an example; whilst laudable in theory, its implementation can in some specific cases lead to counterproductive practices (counterproductive with respect to the objectives RoHS is trying to achieve.) EDIT: Actually, that's maybe NOT a good example, RoHS does achieve what it is trying to achieve; a reduction in use of a very specific set of chemicals.
 
Last edited:
Jun 28, 2024 at 10:17 AM Post #17,733 of 19,085
The problem for manufacturers is, if many components sound exactly the same, how do you differentiate your product in the market? The point of advertising is to convince the consumer to choose one brand over another. If two products are basically the same, either you have to point to inaudible specs that might be “better”, but don’t matter in practice, or cite anecdotal, unsubstantiated, subjective testimonials from customers that aren’t necessarily true.
 
Last edited:
Jun 28, 2024 at 10:28 AM Post #17,735 of 19,085
Yeah, the box becomes more important than what’s in it.
 
Jun 28, 2024 at 11:44 AM Post #17,736 of 19,085
The problem for manufacturers is, if many components sound exactly the same, how do you differentiate your product in the market? The point of advertising is to convince the consumer to choose one brand over another. If two products are basically the same, either you have to point to inaudible specs that might be “better”, but don’t matter in practice, or cite anecdotal, unsubstantiated, subjective testimonials from customers that aren’t necessarily true.
In an ideal world, you make it more durable and reliable. But now you are touching on the problem(s) of economic models and consumerism.

The "problem" of maturing development, engineering and manufacturing is not unique to audio. There are only so many ways you can keep reinventing/improving a fridge, or a toaster, or a juicer. I am convinced this realisation is one of the real incentives behind the trend of smart devices, rather than some of the ones we are usually told. Devices which have absolutely no fundamental requirement to be connected to the internet, but are designed specifically to be internet-enabled so that they can either be tied to a subscription service model, or can be made obsolete though dependency on evolving software. If fear under the auspices of continued economic growth and management of consumer behaviour, for such devices the line between having an optional internet connection and a required internet connection may prove to be a thin one.

Juicero (Wikipedia)

(Apologies for being slightly off-topic, but then again, it is somewhat relevant)
 
Last edited:
Jun 28, 2024 at 8:05 PM Post #17,737 of 19,085
This is a very nice depiction of what is an audiophiles! :ksc75smile:

I won’t attempt to define an “audiophile” from a scientific perspective (way too ambitious for me!), but they appear to share two common characteristics: an incontrovertible trust in their ears as the absolute gauge for any audio-related topic and, an incontrovertible trust in their brain as the absolute judge for any audio-related topic. No measurement equipment will ever supersede their ears, no scientific test will ever change their opinions.

This thread may be able to debunk some of the audiophiles claims and myths… but it wont impact self-proclaimed audiophile’s opinions le
As Gregorio pointed out, an audiophile is just someone who loves audio. Some audiophiles trust their ears over measurements, others don’t. I see it as a totally neutral word though it has become an epithet that objectivists hurl at subjectivists.
 
Jun 28, 2024 at 10:03 PM Post #17,738 of 19,085
In French we have melomane, which is abused Greek for music lover. Yes it changes nothing. :smile_cat:
 
Jul 3, 2024 at 6:39 AM Post #17,739 of 19,085
Everyone knows the Mellianus is a scam...

Don't want to start a flame war but... just everyone knows. Adjusted for buying force, they cost 5700$ and e-earphone buys them for 1800$ in perfect condition. I talked to an employee and he said that almost every single one that gets bought, gets returned and nobody buys the used ones due to the bad ratings/reputation.

Talking about IEM (Real IEM, In-Ear Monitor, not earphone), you get as close to perfection as possible IEM for 1-2k (new!). Everything above is just a scam and most things for 2k already qualify as a scam.

I don't know why audiophiles are so easy to be scammed, but it always breaks my heart as they spend a lot of money in good intention to end up with something worse.


They're not a scam I wasn't getting a good enough seal. I finally had enough of mediocre sound and tried cheap double flange tips and pushed them deeper than usual, as very wary of doing so after another iem cut out one side trying to get a good fit.
The sound is now as you'd expect an expensive earphone (bought discounted) to be, large stage, clear, precise with distinct instrument separation and realistic timbre. Bass goes deep and is very controlled. A real pleasure now listening with these, very well tuned and makes me realise the importance of getting a proper fit even though most of my iem's don't need this much attention to fit.
 
Jul 3, 2024 at 3:47 PM Post #17,740 of 19,085
When I started listening to quality audio equipment, I knew where it was coming from and I always put music as the culmination of all the rest, it just helps... and what a help! First a music lover, then an audiophile.
 
Jul 3, 2024 at 4:58 PM Post #17,741 of 19,085
First a music lover, then an audiophile.

Absolutely! And the best way to get better sound quality out of your system is to listen to better recorded music. Listening to music is also the best way to discern problems in your system. Square waves and test tones have their purposes I suppose, but it’s all about listening to music.
 
Jul 3, 2024 at 5:43 PM Post #17,742 of 19,085
I’m open to most audiophile claims but every time I hear audiophile fuse or Synergistic Research my blood pressure rises.
 
Jul 4, 2024 at 5:13 AM Post #17,743 of 19,085
Absolutely! And the best way to get better sound quality out of your system is to listen to better recorded music. Listening to music is also the best way to discern problems in your system. Square waves and test tones have their purposes I suppose, but it’s all about listening to music.
I'm a big proponent of regularly attending live acoustic performances. I think you need to keep your ears trained as to what a wide variety of acoustic instruments sound like in reality, like e.g. a cello, Spanish guitar, African kora, and in particular the glissando on instruments like the Japanese koto or silk-strung Chinese guqin. As good as audio equipment can be these days, transduction between the electrical and acoustic domains (incl. microphone setup and the limits of stereo recording) are still imperfect. Of course one cello won't sound like another cello, but if you keep yourself (and your ears) familiar with the sound of live acoustic instruments, it is much easier to notice if the sound of a cello on a recording or audio system is "off" compared to that of an electric guitar/amp combo being "off". At least that has been my experience.
 
Last edited:
Jul 4, 2024 at 5:14 AM Post #17,744 of 19,085
Some audiophiles trust their ears over measurements, others don’t. I see it as a totally neutral word though it has become an epithet that objectivists hurl at subjectivists.
I see that “hurling” as entirely justified though, because the invention and polarisation of objectivists from subjectivists AND of trusting or not trusting ears over measurements is a false characterisation which was created by audiophile marketers many years ago, in an effectively fraudulent but apparently successful attempt to justify false claims about objective metrics (measurements, DBTs, etc.)!

It’s maybe worth understanding the fundamental process of creating the content being reproduced by all consumers: The actual fact and the one employed by music/sound engineers the world over for a century or more, is that it is NOT a case of believing one or the other, ears OR measurements, the actual reality is a belief (and an actual working practice) in both at the same time! This is because they actually evaluate different things, measurements tell us what is happening with the sound and audio signal/s, the actual properties of sound and audio signals, while our “ears” (really our brains) evaluate how those properties affect our perception. Everything to do with “musicality”, our emotional responses and other perceptions cannot be measured, they can only be evaluated “by ear” (our brains). For example, we measure say sound/signal amplitude, frequency content, phase, fidelity and/or other properties at the same time as we listen, evaluate the perceptual/emotional effect and then we manipulate those audio properties in order to influence our perceptions and emotional impact/effect. Both MUST be done, “ears” and measurements together, not just one!

The problem arises in the audiophile community when both sound/audio properties and perception are evaluated “by ear” because “by ear” is at least an inaccurate and typically a hugely inaccurate method of measuring anything other than perceptions. It is entirely the wrong tool for the job of measuring sound/audio properties, actual measurements of sound/audio properties are obviously the right tool for measuring sound/audio properties. We do not measure the 0-100kph time of a car by asking a bunch of people how fast it feels, because perception is inaccurate and different people will judge/perceive that acceleration differently, what we obviously do is actually measure the 0-100kph time. Furthermore, if there were a conflict, say someone were to feel/perceive that a 0-100kph time of say 4 seconds is slow, who would question and cease to believe in the accuracy and validity of all 0-100kph measurements, believe instead in whatever perception was reported and then start a dispute between objectivists and subjectivists or would we question the perception of that individual/s?

All of this seems so blindingly obvious to me that it almost feels silly even discussing it but clearly it’s not obvious to many audiophiles. Maybe it’s just because I’m an audio engineer used to thinking in these terms or maybe it’s because many audiophiles have simply accepted the false characterisation presented by audiophile marketers without even thinking about it, or maybe it’s both? But even so, I still find it a bit shocking that so many come to this forum and argue who clearly haven’t thought about it (first!) or even worse, have thought about it but are still unable to see or accept the “blindingly obvious”.

G
 
Jul 4, 2024 at 5:49 AM Post #17,745 of 19,085
… it is much easier to notice that the sound of a cello on a recording or audio system is "off" compared to that of an electric guitar/amp combo being "off".
True, but isn’t that the problem? Is the sound of that cello due to the recording or due to the audio system reproducing that cello? Many audiophiles seem to think that if an instrument doesn’t sound how they expect but it does on another reproduction system (or piece of equipment within that system), then necessarily the second piece of equipment or system must be higher quality/fidelity. But that is simply a fallacious conclusion! Maybe the recording was deliberately designed to sound somewhat different and the first system is actually higher quality/fidelity, maybe their expectation of what the cello should sound like is incomplete; maybe it’s a slightly unusual cello, maybe it was played slightly unusually or in a slightly unusual acoustic or maybe that is actually how a cello will sound in that particular circumstance, maybe they’re just interpreting the cello sounding that way due to other unrelated elements in the mix or maybe it’s just their imagination?

There are all sorts of possibilities but they’ll typically jump on the one which agrees with marketing/reviews they’ve seen and not even consider the others. And if you mention the above, a common response would be that they don’t consider the recording because they have no control over it, only over the reproduction of it. This is clearly untrue however, because obviously they have complete control over whether they use those recordings as a reference, as well as complete control over their personal understanding of what the reference actually is.

G
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top