3 ms·

This just isn't true. My father (who is well over 30) would have no trouble telling the difference between a $100 Walmart stereo, my $700 speakers, and the $400

This just isn't true. My father (who is well over 30) would have no trouble telling the difference between a $100 Walmart stereo, my $700 speakers, and the $4000 speakers at the local hi-fi shop in a scientifically controlled blind test. And I'd bet that over 95% of the population can do the same.

robonerd 4y ago
> This just isn't true. Asserting that a scientifically controlled blind test would reveal something is not the same as actually performing that test. Have you?
jacquesm 4y ago
> This just isn't true. Ok then. Let's just say that I find something very funny about people listening to 128 K MP3s or streaming services on high end audio. I wonder if they're trying to nail down that extra bit of distortion the compressor introduced or to re-create the missing frequency bands from the carefully compressed MP3s. > And I'd bet that over 95% of the population can do the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZeSZFYCNRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZeSZFYCNRw
- ratww 4y ago
  I don't really think this clip is a good counter example. I'm pretty sure 95% of the population would be able to guess correctly, in a blind test, who is Joshua Bell and who is me playing some stuff on the violin, and I'm actually quite alright at it. Still doesn't mean they'd stop on the subway for either one of us... I'd still call bs on GP's father being able to tell between a 700 and 4000 set of speakers on a REAL double blind test, but between a 100 and the others? I don't see why not. There's lots of crappy cheap hi-fis on that price range.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    That clip is a fantastic counter example: it offered a front row seat to a world class performance utterly distortion free. Ok, not the ideal venue but I would have been more than happy to miss any number of appointments just to stand there for the full duration. Of course some of those people were probably in a hurry to not be late for the evening's performance ;)
    - ratww 4y ago
      I really don't see how being able to hear the difference between a bottom-shelf generic consumer system and something better (like GP said) would correlate with being interested in seeing someone playing violin in the subway. I'm all for debunking audiophile snake-oil but you're going too far in the other direction, like saying that above 30 you can't hear differences "no matter how bad", which is as cuckoo and anti-scientific as audiophile snake-oil. Sorry.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        The point is that it probably wouldn't get any better than that in your life. Ever. No matter how much you spent on audio gear. As for the differences over 30, it's annoying because I very much wished it wasn't true but high attenuation is so well documented I wonder why anybody would even try to argue with it, to all intents and purposes your ability to distinguish the finer points of that violin concerto in the 15KHz+ range (where a violin still puts out plenty of harmonics): you won't. Especially not if it has been recorded and then played back, doubly so if it was compressed along the way. Of course you're going to hear major differences, but the kind of subtlety that requires high end audio gear will be lost on you. If it makes you feel better to spend $20K on a turntable or a set of speakers, by all means. But realize that it most likely won't move the needle (pun intended).
        ratww 4y ago
        > The point is that it probably wouldn't get any better than that in your life. Ever. No matter how much you spent on audio gear. Again: and...? The claim put forth by you and challenged by default-kramer wasn't about wanting to own audiophile gear or wanting to hear high quality music, but rather being able to differentiate between low-quality and higher quality equipment. You claim that one can't hear differences "no matter how bad" the equipment is. Both of us said that's bs. Read again what you wrote yourself: "no matter how bad". That's obviously hyperbolic bs. > to all intents and purposes your ability to distinguish the finer points of that violin concerto in the 15KHz+ range (where a violin still puts out plenty of harmonics) And that's exactly the same bullshit that audiophiles say when they make claims about things like "only vinyl preserves the super important finer harmonics over 20k that CD cuts". Harmonics over 15k don't really make much of a difference, especially on something like a violin. I bet one could get away with putting a smooth low-pass filter in quartet recording around 15k and releasing it. There is A LOT of music under 15k hertz. And also a lot to go wrong under 15k, that people could use to identify bottom-shelf vs non-bottom-shelf in a blind test. > If it makes you feel better to spend $20K on a turntable or a set of speakers, by all means. But realize that it most likely won't move the needle (pun intended). As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, most of my music listening is made in a $20 set of Apple Earbuds rather than on a $20k turntable. I never even ever owned anything in the audiophile realm! But thanks for confirming my suspicions that you'd make such an assumption followed by an attack :) Also, you're the one writing audiophile-style marketing copy like "the kind of subtlety that requires high end audio gear will be lost on you", not me. How the turntables... :)
- default-kramer 4y ago
  Perhaps I should have been more specific. I was refuting your claim: "your stereo - no matter how bad - will handily outperform your ears." This is trivially untrue. Another commenter mentions blown speakers as a counterexample. Or if I had to, I could build a set of speakers so terrible only deaf people could tolerate it. So the idea that your ears can't appreciate the difference between ANY pair of competing stereos, "no matter how bad" one of them is, is obviously wrong. We might disagree on where the quality floor is, but we must agree that it exists.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    That floor is reached long before you get into audiophile territory.

robonerd 4y ago

> This just isn't true. Asserting that a scientifically controlled blind test would reveal something is not the same as actually performing that test. Have you?

jacquesm 4y ago

> This just isn't true. Ok then. Let's just say that I find something very funny about people listening to 128 K MP3s or streaming services on high end audio. I wonder if they're trying to nail down that extra bit of distortion the compressor introduced or to re-create the missing frequency bands from the carefully compressed MP3s. > And I'd bet that over 95% of the population can do the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZeSZFYCNRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZeSZFYCNRw

ratww 4y ago
I don't really think this clip is a good counter example. I'm pretty sure 95% of the population would be able to guess correctly, in a blind test, who is Joshua Bell and who is me playing some stuff on the violin, and I'm actually quite alright at it. Still doesn't mean they'd stop on the subway for either one of us... I'd still call bs on GP's father being able to tell between a 700 and 4000 set of speakers on a REAL double blind test, but between a 100 and the others? I don't see why not. There's lots of crappy cheap hi-fis on that price range.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  That clip is a fantastic counter example: it offered a front row seat to a world class performance utterly distortion free. Ok, not the ideal venue but I would have been more than happy to miss any number of appointments just to stand there for the full duration. Of course some of those people were probably in a hurry to not be late for the evening's performance ;)
  - ratww 4y ago
    I really don't see how being able to hear the difference between a bottom-shelf generic consumer system and something better (like GP said) would correlate with being interested in seeing someone playing violin in the subway. I'm all for debunking audiophile snake-oil but you're going too far in the other direction, like saying that above 30 you can't hear differences "no matter how bad", which is as cuckoo and anti-scientific as audiophile snake-oil. Sorry.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      The point is that it probably wouldn't get any better than that in your life. Ever. No matter how much you spent on audio gear. As for the differences over 30, it's annoying because I very much wished it wasn't true but high attenuation is so well documented I wonder why anybody would even try to argue with it, to all intents and purposes your ability to distinguish the finer points of that violin concerto in the 15KHz+ range (where a violin still puts out plenty of harmonics): you won't. Especially not if it has been recorded and then played back, doubly so if it was compressed along the way. Of course you're going to hear major differences, but the kind of subtlety that requires high end audio gear will be lost on you. If it makes you feel better to spend $20K on a turntable or a set of speakers, by all means. But realize that it most likely won't move the needle (pun intended).
      - ratww 4y ago
        > The point is that it probably wouldn't get any better than that in your life. Ever. No matter how much you spent on audio gear. Again: and...? The claim put forth by you and challenged by default-kramer wasn't about wanting to own audiophile gear or wanting to hear high quality music, but rather being able to differentiate between low-quality and higher quality equipment. You claim that one can't hear differences "no matter how bad" the equipment is. Both of us said that's bs. Read again what you wrote yourself: "no matter how bad". That's obviously hyperbolic bs. > to all intents and purposes your ability to distinguish the finer points of that violin concerto in the 15KHz+ range (where a violin still puts out plenty of harmonics) And that's exactly the same bullshit that audiophiles say when they make claims about things like "only vinyl preserves the super important finer harmonics over 20k that CD cuts". Harmonics over 15k don't really make much of a difference, especially on something like a violin. I bet one could get away with putting a smooth low-pass filter in quartet recording around 15k and releasing it. There is A LOT of music under 15k hertz. And also a lot to go wrong under 15k, that people could use to identify bottom-shelf vs non-bottom-shelf in a blind test. > If it makes you feel better to spend $20K on a turntable or a set of speakers, by all means. But realize that it most likely won't move the needle (pun intended). As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, most of my music listening is made in a $20 set of Apple Earbuds rather than on a $20k turntable. I never even ever owned anything in the audiophile realm! But thanks for confirming my suspicions that you'd make such an assumption followed by an attack :) Also, you're the one writing audiophile-style marketing copy like "the kind of subtlety that requires high end audio gear will be lost on you", not me. How the turntables... :)
default-kramer 4y ago
Perhaps I should have been more specific. I was refuting your claim: "your stereo - no matter how bad - will handily outperform your ears." This is trivially untrue. Another commenter mentions blown speakers as a counterexample. Or if I had to, I could build a set of speakers so terrible only deaf people could tolerate it. So the idea that your ears can't appreciate the difference between ANY pair of competing stereos, "no matter how bad" one of them is, is obviously wrong. We might disagree on where the quality floor is, but we must agree that it exists.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  That floor is reached long before you get into audiophile territory.