7 ms·

It is refreshing to see these types of articles. Of all disciplines of human interests and hobbies, Audiophiles are one of the most stubborn, misinformed, anec

It is refreshing to see these types of articles. Of all disciplines of human interests and hobbies, Audiophiles are one of the most stubborn, misinformed, anecdotal and delusional bunch. Of course I am generalizing, but every time I engage in a discussion about audio quality, it is a losing battle. Not because of lack of data or supporting evidence, but because of the fundamental dissent for data driven arguments. You cannot argue reason when the first step is to be born with "audiophile ears". Why is it hard to understand that we have sophisticated metrology and instrumentation that can analyze things better than human ears can? I can understand a separate discussion about personal opinions regarding how "warm" a particular sound is, but that should remain distinctly as - subjective and that's perfectly OK. It feels like the entire audio industry is promoting pseudoscience barring a very few vendors that actually care. We have a $8500 mp3 player from Sony claiming all kinds of things to the overwhelming abundance of cheap Shenzhen exports. There is just so much noise. I absolutely abhor audiophiles.

ohazi 8y ago
Someone I know was recently trying to have a conversation with an audiophile about the possibility of re-purposing some audio equipment to make noise floor measurements for another system that had similar frequency and dynamic range characteristics. The technique worked just fine, but man, that guy was loony. He was trying to claim, with a straight face, that a GPS disciplined oscillator wasn't stable enough for his audiophile-grade Rube Goldberg machine.
- brokenmachine 8y ago
  Oh god, jitter... If ever there was a more pseudoscience audio term, I haven't heard it. I wish there was a separate term between audiophiles who just want to spend a lot of money on hocus pocus, and audiophiles who want the measurably best performance. Then the audiophile forums would not be polluted with people who spend thousands on cables and other rubbish, when the room response/treatment and speaker selection has a million times more effect on the actual sound.
albertgoeswoof 8y ago
Nothing wrong with vinyl, that’s more about physically handling the media, reading the sleeves, listening to an album the whole way through etc. Than the audio quality. No vinyl enthusiast would say the quality is objectively better, but the experience arguably is
- fermienrico 8y ago
  Yea, I removed the Vinyl argument. That's for another time. Nothing wrong with Records but I've had the same issue talking to people about Records wrt to audio quality. I own Records and like you, I enjoy the experience. There is something amazing about listening to the entire album without distractions and in the sequence that the artist intended. You could do this with mp3/CD, but Records get me in the right mood :-)
  - mbell 8y ago
    There are objective reasons to favor vinyl even today. The 'audio quality' if measured in terms of SNR is objectively much worse than any modern medium, however the mixes used for vinyl tend to not be compressed to death so the dynamic range can offset this shortcoming.
    - dbrgn 8y ago
      In that case you're comparing mixes, not media.
      - mbell 8y ago
        Yes, but the two are intertwined. You often can not get a flac file from source with the same mix that was put on vinyl, just the unfortunate reality of it. This is exactly what I'm saying, people will say that vinyl "sounds better", and they aren't wrong in a lot of cases. Not because vinyl is a better medium, but because a good mix isn't available in any other medium.
    - fermienrico 8y ago
compiler-guy 8y ago
Much of this is cultural driven by a historical time when we didn't have the tools to measure this stuff, and reproduction was so bad that nearly anything that changed the sound in any way could be argued to be an improvement. Those days are long gone, but the culture remains. Getting good sound out of an old victrola--which were very expensive--truly is an art. Getting passable sound out of today's average off-the-shelf electronics doesn't take much at all. But many audiophiles act like are living in the late 1800s.
- blattimwind 8y ago
  > Much of this is cultural driven by a historical time when we didn't have the tools to measure this stuff, and reproduction was so bad that nearly anything that changed the sound in any way could be argued to be an improvement. [citation needed] State of the art distortion measuring techniques resolved something like 0.002 % in the 70s.
  - jtbayly 8y ago
    Which is quite a bit later than the timeframe the parent is referring to.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
loser777 8y ago
(EDIT: Parent deleted argument about Vinyl) Vinyl has a few more dimensions than the "quality" aspect. I totally agree that there is no argument for vinyl offering superior quality. However, I have bought a few records simply because they were actually the _easiest_ way for me to buy something I could play back for a few albums/tracks that never saw a proper online release. It's also easier to display a 12" sleeve as "art" than a CD or a FLAC download ;). Turntables are better decorative living room items than CD players or tape decks, but that's also subjective ;).
- bigiain 8y ago
  This is a Quora answer of mine from (sigh) 2011: I _like_ vinyl, but I'm happy to admit its almost certainly due to non-audio non-hifi reasons. I like the "ceremony" associated with cleaning the disk, dropping the needle on the lead in track, and getting up to flip it over and do it again every 5 or 6 songs. I like the cover art - there is arguably a loss to the world of a beautiful art form due to the demise of the 12" record and it's large art-work ready packaging. And, as you'll hear on a lot of '90's CDs - I like the 33 1/3 rpm flaws, the clicks, scratches, and wow and flutter - when I hear the opening bars of Tear Drops from Massive Attack's Mezzanine, I get nostalgic, not for the late nineties when it was released, but for the early eighties - that scratched, fuzzy, played-too-much vinyl sound they used - that was the soundtrack to my late teens. Whatever the minor differences in the audio reproduction, those 33 1/3 and 45 rpm noises bring back some wonderful memories... Which is enough reason for me to keep the turntable set up and occasionally spin some discs...
  - H1Supreme 8y ago
    In the late 90's & early 2000's, I bought a ton of vinyl. The majority of it was techno, house, and drum n' bass singles. It was quite literally the only format to buy it in. Then, the "digital revolution" came to music, and you could buy it online. Which, for nearly every case, was better. Especially for people who weren't in driving distance of a major city. However, once I started to get a digital collection going, the size was overwhelming. Especially in regards to dj'ing. With vinyl, your entire collection isn't always available. You make little stacks, shift things in and out, and it's much more organic. Digital misses that. Plus, I never really knew track names. I just remembered album or record artwork. It was easier to find things that way.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
willtim 8y ago
Your generalisation is unfair. Most Audiophiles just want to listen to music the way the artists intended. This is not easy in a industry where colouring the sound is even celebrated, e.g. 'Beats by Dre'. I recently tried the latest noise cancelling headphones by Sony (1000XM3). The noise cancelling was excellent, but the bass was +5db overblown, boomy and drowned out most of the mids, the treble was dark to hide the NC hiss. It was unlistenable for jazz and classical without EQ. But the mainstream tech press think they are wonderful, even "WhatHifi" gave them 5 stars. An Audiophile is simply someone that cares about sound quality, most people don't.
- dharma1 8y ago
  As far a noise sound quality for cancelling wireless closed headphones go, the Sony's are the best along with Sennheiser Momentum 2.0 on-ear. There are of course much better headphones, and I wouldn't call them audiophile headphones, but I haven't found other wireless ones that do noise-cancelling and isolation as well and still manage to sound acceptable.
  - smnscu 8y ago
    I swear by B&W PX. I prefer them to the more expensive B&O H9i, which are also not bad at all.
  - randomfinn 8y ago
    If in-ear headphones work for you, you can find both very good isolation and excellent sound quality. I like my Shure SE530's for some peace and quiet on airplanes, and often find myself just enjoying the sound of them (or rather the original recording).
- chadcmulligan 8y ago
  Yes the noise surrounding headphones is incredible (pun not intended), even stranger I find the denigration of 'studio monitor' quality very odd. Recently I bought a nice pair of headphones, naturally enough I wanted the ones that colour the music the least, went looking in the headphone section at the nearest consumer electronic shop for the ones that were on their web site and couldn't find them. There were stands of beats, and Sony etc at crazy prices. I asked the guy where they were and they were poked away in the corner in a different section. I laughed - the best headphones that were cheap were hidden away and all the overpriced plastic nonsense were displayed prominently.
madengr 8y ago
You don’t align your speakers with the grain of the carpet? Or have little saw horses to rest your speaker wires in? Maybe an iron brick to lay on top your transformer?
lucianthorr 8y ago
There's also the chance that microphones and signal analysis aren't the best metaphors for how ears and brains process sound. But if the audiophiles you're talking about are endoring $8500 mp3 players, maybe we're talking to different people. That does sound silly.
Karunamon 8y ago
Of course they’re anecdotal - listening to music is a subjective experience. If someone really thinks their music sounds better after adding $100 cable lifters and taping $50 bags of rocks to their $10,000 system, they are automatically correct. Their ears, their hobby. It would be like saying that something can’t work because it’s a placebo - even if all they’re getting is a sugar pill, if the symptoms went away, that’s not really something that you can argue with. I put audiophiles on the same level as sommeliers. The best wine is the one that tastes best to the drinker. You can haul out your GCMS to test the wine and your ABX testing software to test the audio and tell someone their subjective experience is Wrong, but this misses the point. We’re not talking about medical efficacy here, we’re talking about artwork.
- gruez 8y ago
  >We’re not talking about medical efficacy here, we’re talking about artwork. if only audiophiles see it this way themselves...
- 88 8y ago
  Placebo effects are real.
  - deltron3030 8y ago
    Ears are easy too fool by visuals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
  - russh 8y ago
    Placebo effects are real profitable.
- jrace 8y ago
  The issue is I have is that people are being convinced they need to spend $100's and $1000's of dollars to get the placebo effect. If it is indeed just placebo it should be acheivable for free. Instead what you have is not placebo effect, but perceived value effect. After working in high-end audio for many years it became apparent that the (high) price tag was in fact the benefit. Some people just want what there neighbor cannot afford.
bcheung 8y ago
> one of the most stubborn, misinformed, anecdotal and delusional bunch I've had professional recording artists tell me they won't use MIDI over USB because the volume is lower than the old 9-pin connectors.
- seandougall 8y ago
  Wait, what? The “volume” of MIDI? I’m guessing they’re not referring to cc#7...? (Also, I’ve never encountered a 9-pin MIDI connector. 5-pin maybe?)
  - aidenn0 8y ago
    I usually see midi as a 5-pin DIN, but some sound-cards used a DB-9 which required an adapter.
    - hunter2_ 8y ago
      Ah, the joystick port as I called it.
  - bcheung 8y ago
    Must be the 5-pin. Been a while since I've used one of the old MIDI connections.
modzu 8y ago
why generalize like this? indeed discussing virtually any subject with virtually anybody (except perhaps within academic circles) usually reveals how "stubborn, misinformed, anecdotal and delusional" their beliefs are if i had to guess, it sounds like you have poor hearing ;P
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ohazi 8y ago

Someone I know was recently trying to have a conversation with an audiophile about the possibility of re-purposing some audio equipment to make noise floor measurements for another system that had similar frequency and dynamic range characteristics. The technique worked just fine, but man, that guy was loony. He was trying to claim, with a straight face, that a GPS disciplined oscillator wasn't stable enough for his audiophile-grade Rube Goldberg machine.

brokenmachine 8y ago
Oh god, jitter... If ever there was a more pseudoscience audio term, I haven't heard it. I wish there was a separate term between audiophiles who just want to spend a lot of money on hocus pocus, and audiophiles who want the measurably best performance. Then the audiophile forums would not be polluted with people who spend thousands on cables and other rubbish, when the room response/treatment and speaker selection has a million times more effect on the actual sound.

albertgoeswoof 8y ago

Nothing wrong with vinyl, that’s more about physically handling the media, reading the sleeves, listening to an album the whole way through etc. Than the audio quality. No vinyl enthusiast would say the quality is objectively better, but the experience arguably is

fermienrico 8y ago
Yea, I removed the Vinyl argument. That's for another time. Nothing wrong with Records but I've had the same issue talking to people about Records wrt to audio quality. I own Records and like you, I enjoy the experience. There is something amazing about listening to the entire album without distractions and in the sequence that the artist intended. You could do this with mp3/CD, but Records get me in the right mood :-)
- mbell 8y ago
  There are objective reasons to favor vinyl even today. The 'audio quality' if measured in terms of SNR is objectively much worse than any modern medium, however the mixes used for vinyl tend to not be compressed to death so the dynamic range can offset this shortcoming.
  - dbrgn 8y ago
    In that case you're comparing mixes, not media.
    - mbell 8y ago
      Yes, but the two are intertwined. You often can not get a flac file from source with the same mix that was put on vinyl, just the unfortunate reality of it. This is exactly what I'm saying, people will say that vinyl "sounds better", and they aren't wrong in a lot of cases. Not because vinyl is a better medium, but because a good mix isn't available in any other medium.
  - fermienrico 8y ago

compiler-guy 8y ago

Much of this is cultural driven by a historical time when we didn't have the tools to measure this stuff, and reproduction was so bad that nearly anything that changed the sound in any way could be argued to be an improvement. Those days are long gone, but the culture remains. Getting good sound out of an old victrola--which were very expensive--truly is an art. Getting passable sound out of today's average off-the-shelf electronics doesn't take much at all. But many audiophiles act like are living in the late 1800s.

blattimwind 8y ago
> Much of this is cultural driven by a historical time when we didn't have the tools to measure this stuff, and reproduction was so bad that nearly anything that changed the sound in any way could be argued to be an improvement. [citation needed] State of the art distortion measuring techniques resolved something like 0.002 % in the 70s.
- jtbayly 8y ago
  Which is quite a bit later than the timeframe the parent is referring to.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

loser777 8y ago

(EDIT: Parent deleted argument about Vinyl) Vinyl has a few more dimensions than the "quality" aspect. I totally agree that there is no argument for vinyl offering superior quality. However, I have bought a few records simply because they were actually the _easiest_ way for me to buy something I could play back for a few albums/tracks that never saw a proper online release. It's also easier to display a 12" sleeve as "art" than a CD or a FLAC download ;). Turntables are better decorative living room items than CD players or tape decks, but that's also subjective ;).

bigiain 8y ago
This is a Quora answer of mine from (sigh) 2011: I _like_ vinyl, but I'm happy to admit its almost certainly due to non-audio non-hifi reasons. I like the "ceremony" associated with cleaning the disk, dropping the needle on the lead in track, and getting up to flip it over and do it again every 5 or 6 songs. I like the cover art - there is arguably a loss to the world of a beautiful art form due to the demise of the 12" record and it's large art-work ready packaging. And, as you'll hear on a lot of '90's CDs - I like the 33 1/3 rpm flaws, the clicks, scratches, and wow and flutter - when I hear the opening bars of Tear Drops from Massive Attack's Mezzanine, I get nostalgic, not for the late nineties when it was released, but for the early eighties - that scratched, fuzzy, played-too-much vinyl sound they used - that was the soundtrack to my late teens. Whatever the minor differences in the audio reproduction, those 33 1/3 and 45 rpm noises bring back some wonderful memories... Which is enough reason for me to keep the turntable set up and occasionally spin some discs...
- H1Supreme 8y ago
  In the late 90's & early 2000's, I bought a ton of vinyl. The majority of it was techno, house, and drum n' bass singles. It was quite literally the only format to buy it in. Then, the "digital revolution" came to music, and you could buy it online. Which, for nearly every case, was better. Especially for people who weren't in driving distance of a major city. However, once I started to get a digital collection going, the size was overwhelming. Especially in regards to dj'ing. With vinyl, your entire collection isn't always available. You make little stacks, shift things in and out, and it's much more organic. Digital misses that. Plus, I never really knew track names. I just remembered album or record artwork. It was easier to find things that way.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

willtim 8y ago

Your generalisation is unfair. Most Audiophiles just want to listen to music the way the artists intended. This is not easy in a industry where colouring the sound is even celebrated, e.g. 'Beats by Dre'. I recently tried the latest noise cancelling headphones by Sony (1000XM3). The noise cancelling was excellent, but the bass was +5db overblown, boomy and drowned out most of the mids, the treble was dark to hide the NC hiss. It was unlistenable for jazz and classical without EQ. But the mainstream tech press think they are wonderful, even "WhatHifi" gave them 5 stars. An Audiophile is simply someone that cares about sound quality, most people don't.

dharma1 8y ago
As far a noise sound quality for cancelling wireless closed headphones go, the Sony's are the best along with Sennheiser Momentum 2.0 on-ear. There are of course much better headphones, and I wouldn't call them audiophile headphones, but I haven't found other wireless ones that do noise-cancelling and isolation as well and still manage to sound acceptable.
- smnscu 8y ago
  I swear by B&W PX. I prefer them to the more expensive B&O H9i, which are also not bad at all.
- randomfinn 8y ago
  If in-ear headphones work for you, you can find both very good isolation and excellent sound quality. I like my Shure SE530's for some peace and quiet on airplanes, and often find myself just enjoying the sound of them (or rather the original recording).
chadcmulligan 8y ago
Yes the noise surrounding headphones is incredible (pun not intended), even stranger I find the denigration of 'studio monitor' quality very odd. Recently I bought a nice pair of headphones, naturally enough I wanted the ones that colour the music the least, went looking in the headphone section at the nearest consumer electronic shop for the ones that were on their web site and couldn't find them. There were stands of beats, and Sony etc at crazy prices. I asked the guy where they were and they were poked away in the corner in a different section. I laughed - the best headphones that were cheap were hidden away and all the overpriced plastic nonsense were displayed prominently.

madengr 8y ago

You don’t align your speakers with the grain of the carpet? Or have little saw horses to rest your speaker wires in? Maybe an iron brick to lay on top your transformer?

lucianthorr 8y ago

There's also the chance that microphones and signal analysis aren't the best metaphors for how ears and brains process sound. But if the audiophiles you're talking about are endoring $8500 mp3 players, maybe we're talking to different people. That does sound silly.

Karunamon 8y ago

Of course they’re anecdotal - listening to music is a subjective experience. If someone really thinks their music sounds better after adding $100 cable lifters and taping $50 bags of rocks to their $10,000 system, they are automatically correct. Their ears, their hobby. It would be like saying that something can’t work because it’s a placebo - even if all they’re getting is a sugar pill, if the symptoms went away, that’s not really something that you can argue with. I put audiophiles on the same level as sommeliers. The best wine is the one that tastes best to the drinker. You can haul out your GCMS to test the wine and your ABX testing software to test the audio and tell someone their subjective experience is Wrong, but this misses the point. We’re not talking about medical efficacy here, we’re talking about artwork.

gruez 8y ago
>We’re not talking about medical efficacy here, we’re talking about artwork. if only audiophiles see it this way themselves...
88 8y ago
Placebo effects are real.
- deltron3030 8y ago
  Ears are easy too fool by visuals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
- russh 8y ago
  Placebo effects are real profitable.
jrace 8y ago
The issue is I have is that people are being convinced they need to spend $100's and $1000's of dollars to get the placebo effect. If it is indeed just placebo it should be acheivable for free. Instead what you have is not placebo effect, but perceived value effect. After working in high-end audio for many years it became apparent that the (high) price tag was in fact the benefit. Some people just want what there neighbor cannot afford.

bcheung 8y ago

> one of the most stubborn, misinformed, anecdotal and delusional bunch I've had professional recording artists tell me they won't use MIDI over USB because the volume is lower than the old 9-pin connectors.

seandougall 8y ago
Wait, what? The “volume” of MIDI? I’m guessing they’re not referring to cc#7...? (Also, I’ve never encountered a 9-pin MIDI connector. 5-pin maybe?)
- aidenn0 8y ago
  I usually see midi as a 5-pin DIN, but some sound-cards used a DB-9 which required an adapter.
  - hunter2_ 8y ago
    Ah, the joystick port as I called it.
- bcheung 8y ago
  Must be the 5-pin. Been a while since I've used one of the old MIDI connections.

modzu 8y ago

why generalize like this? indeed discussing virtually any subject with virtually anybody (except perhaps within academic circles) usually reveals how "stubborn, misinformed, anecdotal and delusional" their beliefs are if i had to guess, it sounds like you have poor hearing ;P

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]