[jcx]

most faithful reproduction of music possible, replicating a live experience?

sorry guys but audio production for commerical release is soo past that

there is no live reference for the vast majority of commerical releases - any "sound staging" or "ambience" is synthetically dialed in during mastering at the audio workstation/mixing board from close miced tracks with the performers often in different rooms in the studio

 

[Uncle Erik]

The difference is a cultural one. The audio sphere nurtures magical thinking and encourages mass delusions. There are also a bunch of credulous perfectionists who are willing to try anything, no matter how ridiculous or demonstrably wrong. There's also an strong element of fashion. Various FOTMs are no different than seasonal colors, shoe styles or dress patterns. Finally, there's an element of what's best described here as genital-waving.

Add those up and it's no wonder that silly beliefs are reported as fact and insisted upon.

That might seem harmless, but it impacts the hobby as a whole. The average person rolls their eyes at audiophilia, having seen obscenely priced cables, Mpingo Discs and other assorted snakeoil.

What people here don't realize is that if reasonable scientif standards were insisted upon, then the pool of potential hobbyists would increase. The payoff there would be lower prices and more equipment on the market.

There is room for subjective opinion after you banish the snakeoil. People perceive sound differently and gear performs differently based on the music you play. There will always be room for opinion, however, the silliness has to go if we want this hobby to be taken seriously.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif The difference is a cultural one. The audio sphere nurtures magical thinking and encourages mass delusions. There are also a bunch of credulous perfectionists who are willing to try anything, no matter how ridiculous or demonstrably wrong. There's also an strong element of fashion. Various FOTMs are no different than seasonal colors, shoe styles or dress patterns. Finally, there's an element of what's best described here as genital-waving. Add those up and it's no wonder that silly beliefs are reported as fact and insisted upon. That might seem harmless, but it impacts the hobby as a whole. The average person rolls their eyes at audiophilia, having seen obscenely priced cables, Mpingo Discs and other assorted snake oil. What people here don't realize is that if reasonable scientific standards were insisted upon, then the pool of potential hobbyists would increase. The payoff there would be lower prices and more equipment on the market.

The hobby is populated by human beings; therefore, there are a lot of imperfections, errors, emotions, prejudices, ignorance, etc., involved. But, IMO, I think you over state the case against audiophiles. Similar types of criticisms could be applied to many other hobbies, professions, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is room for subjective opinion after you banish the snakeoil. People perceive sound differently and gear performs differently based on the music you play. There will always be room for opinion, however, the silliness has to go if we want this hobby to be taken seriously.

There is room for subjective opinion regardless of whether snake oil exists.

And this hobby is taken seriously by a lot of people. Just look at the number of people who are members of, or visit, sites like these. Sure, it may not be taken seriously by some (again, I think you're guilty of a bit of hyperbole), but people often don't take seriously things that don't interest them. I don't take quite a few hobbies "seriously," as they don't interest me at all.

 

[Berlioz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif The hobby is populated by human beings; therefore, there are a lot of imperfections, errors, emotions, prejudices, ignorance, etc., involved. But, IMO, I think you over state the case against audiophiles. Similar types of criticisms could be applied to many other hobbies, professions, etc. There is room for subjective opinion regardless of whether snake oil exists. And this hobby is taken seriously by a lot of people. Just look at the number of people who are members of, or visit, sites like these. Sure, it may not be taken seriously by some (again, I think you're guilty of a bit of hyperbole), but people often don't take seriously things that don't interest them. I don't take quite a few hobbies "seriously," as they don't interest me at all.

The criticisms Uncle Erik mentioned could definitely be leveled against other hobbies, but there are not many I can think of that are both as expensive and as obscure, but with the potential to reach out to your typical person out there. There are some very obscure hobbies out there (competitive ironing), and some very expensive ones (skydiving), and some can be both.

But everyone that I've ever met likes music. I let my friends listen to my portable when I can, and they are always amazed by the quality. No, they don't want to spend as much money as I did, but they can appreciate good sound. The Audiophile hobby has a ton of potential for spreading, but a lot of people see it as a waste of time, and point to cables and ebony disks and brilliant pebbles, etc.

Also, the more people that defend a fraudulent product the easier it is to sell it, and then more variations will appear from different companies, and suddenly everyone is paying a whole lot more for the same thing, or perhaps something a little worse, or even useless. I think this is the fear that some audiophiles have, and they're probably quite right about it.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berlioz /img/forum/go_quote.gif But everyone that I've ever met likes music. I let my friends listen to my portable when I can, and they are always amazed by the quality. No, they don't want to spend as much money as I did, but they can appreciate good sound. The Audiophile hobby has a ton of potential for spreading, but a lot of people see it as a waste of time, and point to cables and ebony disks and brilliant pebbles, etc.

That's funny. I rarely, if ever, have anybody object to me that they don't want to pursue high fidelity sound due to expensive cables and brilliant pebbles. Most non-audiophiles I know don't even know about such things. Typically (like your experience), they think the music sounds better with what I have them listen to, but it's just not that important for them, in terms of their value system and opportunity costs, to spend more money on higher fidelity. They want to get a faster car, or nicer clothes, take a vacation, or whatever, instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berlioz /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also, the more people that defend a fraudulent product the easier it is to sell it, and then more variations will appear from different companies, and suddenly everyone is paying a whole lot more for the same thing, or perhaps something a little worse, or even useless. I think this is the fear that some audiophiles have, and they're probably quite right about it.

I think I agree with you generally, although it sort of begs the question about what is a "fraudulent product." I think many of us would tend to put a $25,000 power cable in that category, but there are people on Head-Fi who, if pressed, would say a $1,000 CD player is a fraudulent product (to the extent the price is based on SQ).

 

[Drubbing]

If everyone chose their perfect partner via the patented 'super match' system that was always 100% correct, verified, and independently validated, divorce would be even more popular than it already is.

 

[KingStyles]

It will always be subjective untill the scientific equipment is buying the product. Cars have stats too measured by scientific equipment that state that one car should win over the other car. Why dosent it win. Because there is a human element involved which can change the formula that science cant account for. Have any of the equipment measured human emotion, quirks, the ear of each individual, the trained brain response and the involuntary brain response. When you listen to a pair of cans, use a cable, or try a new amp, science cant accurately access the many combinations of human natures reaction to our environment as is perceived by our very unique and individual senses, perceptions, and responses.

 

[smoth]

Do you think, maybe, we could stay on topic? This is meant to be a dicussion of audiophile's point of refence, not of hifi as a hobby vs casual listening, and certainly not of monetary value. As a matter of fact, I do not see any connection between cost and point of reference.

Thank you.

 

[Berlioz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's funny. I rarely, if ever, have anybody object to me that they don't want to pursue high fidelity sound due to expensive cables and brilliant pebbles. Most non-audiophiles I know don't even know about such things. Typically (like your experience), they think the music sounds better with what I have them listen to, but it's just not that important for them, in terms of their value system and opportunity costs, to spend more money on higher fidelity. They want to get a faster car, or nicer clothes, take a vacation, or whatever, instead. I think I agree with you generally, although it sort of begs the question about what is a "fraudulent product." I think many of us would tend to put a $25,000 power cable in that category, but there are people on Head-Fi who, if pressed, would say a $1,000 CD player is a fraudulent product (to the extent the price is based on SQ).

Yeah I agree with your first point there. I think I exaggerated my bit about people shying away from the audiophile hobby solely because of snake oil. I definitely have met some people who think a $300 headphone is all anyone needs to have the best quality sound.

When I bring up the topic of amps or sources, they just use $10,000 cables as an example of how ludicrous some audiophile claims are. It can get a little frustrating sometimes.

It's true that most people are simply interested in other things, and as long as those hobbies make them the happiest, I think that's perfectly cool.

As for your second statement, you illustrate an important point. It's hard to define what is truly fraudulent and what isn't, since the concept of diminishing returns is well known to all audiophiles, and the bar is always moving. When I first got into this hobby I thought a $300 headphone amp was already getting unreasonable; now I realize that it would never satisfy me.

 

[Berlioz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you think, maybe, we could stay on topic? This is meant to be a dicussion of audiophile's point of refence, not of hifi as a hobby vs casual listening, and certainly not of monetary value. As a matter of fact, I do not see any connection between cost and point of reference. Thank you.

Fair enough, although I think some people here have been merely trying to explain why Audiophiles are more easily swayed towards subjectivism, and that starting another discussion about the ramifications it may have.

I definitely think that comparing this hobby to others bears some importance, as analyzing sound is more intensive compared to analyzing video, in my opinion anyways. This could explain why audiophiles are more hesitant to trust instruments as opposed to a videophile, and how subjective evaluation enters the equation.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you think, maybe, we could stay on topic?

What's the topic? Seriously. I mean, what's the precise question we are supposed to discuss?

 

[BIG POPPA]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berlioz /img/forum/go_quote.gif Fair enough, although I think some people here have been merely trying to explain why Audiophiles are more easily swayed towards subjectivism, and that starting another discussion about the ramifications it may have. I definitely think that comparing this hobby to others bears some importance, as analyzing sound is more intensive compared to analyzing video, in my opinion anyways. This could explain why audiophiles are more hesitant to trust instruments as opposed to a videophile, and how subjective evaluation enters the equation.

Audiophiles are subjective???? HELLO!!!! What part of this hobby is not subjective?

 

[smoth]

double post

 

[smoth]

Maybe I have not been clear in my intentions for this discussion. The base question is: what is an audiophiles' (your) point of reference that you use to determine which components produce a better sound. As a subtopic, you may feel it is necessary to define "better" as part of your response to the base question. Is "better" accurate, processed to highlight certain frequencies, does it vary depending on material, is it completely subjective and how/why. As a second subtopic, you may address any factor which you feel defines your point of reference. Possible examples include: room shape, environmental conditions, mental states, etc. Obviously I do not have the answer since I am asking the question so if you feel something else needs to be stated to define your point of reference please feel free to include it. If your answer is "it costs more so it must be better" you do not need to respond, but almost anything else had the potential to be a valid answer. Since this is the Sound Science forum, I would expect your responses to have sound science and/or explanations behind them. I will not dismiss an anecdotal "why", but if you feel that quality is subjective please explain how you have gone about creating your kit.

Personally, I rarely listen to music casually in an environment where I can actually hear differences in quality. However, I try spend a few hours each day critically listening to compositions, often accompanied by a lecture on the piece. I have been to many live orchestral performances and concerts and have always found the sound produced by the actual instruments' reverberations throughout a concert hall to be more revealing than any recording on any system that I have ever heard. At the local symphony there is usually a lecture given before the performance which I try to attend, so that I know what to listen for during the performance and have some understanding of the composer's intentions and the performers interpretation. I find this analysis of the music fascinating. As such, when looking for equipment I try to obtain a sound that resembles the live performance as that is usually what the composer and performers used to base their decisions. As I said in an earlier post, its all about effective communication and I do not feel that I should alter someone else's words (sound) to fit my own preferences. Its like changing "I don't like you" to "I hate you". Similar meaning, but yet not the same emotion. From this persepective, my ears and perception have no bearing whatsoever on sound quality and as a result, I believe that one could conclude that sound quality is objective.

 

[Riordan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoth /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... From this persepective, my ears and perception have no bearing whatsoever on sound quality and as a result, I believe that one could conclude that sound quality is objective.

smoth,
neither the human ear nor the human brain is somehow "calibrated" nor can it be (and i agree with the subjectivists that this is a good thing). video analogy: the exact same shade of red reproduced on even one single monitor looks different dependent on its settings and the current ambient light. measurably so.

now put two different monitors with different settings next to each other...

people's perceptions differ from each other in a similar way. what is played in that concert hall and what is perceived by you is NOT the same. the sound perceived by the person in the seat next to you is quite likely different - now which of you has the correct ears for "objective perception"?

nice thread, by the way. i haven't seen such an amount of "sound reasoning" from the subjectivist side in a looong time (*). congratulations for setting this up

* not counting the recent crop of astoundingly civilized dbt discussion.