Do audiophiles hear something we don't?

[panteragstk]

I don't agree with your reasoning. There exists a thing called a point of diminishing returns to which audiophiles exceed almost all the time.
Also, what some of them are moved by is egotism, elitism and unmitigated consumerism.

You could spend $350,000 on a fast car, but in the end a car is just but a means to an end to get and person from point A to B. If you take in consideration the traffic laws, you can't even use the performance you get from such a car.

Good point. I guess I didn't articulate what I was thinking all that well.

For my point, the car should be "track only" to eliminate the issues you pointed out.

For sure they get way past diminishing returns, but I for one would LOVE to spend more than I do on audio, just can't justify the cost. That's what I'm really getting at.

 

[Bucknekked]

I don't agree with your reasoning. There exists a thing called a point of diminishing returns to which audiophiles exceed almost all the time.
Also, what some of them are moved by is egotism, elitism and unmitigated consumerism.

You could spend $350,000 on a fast car, but in the end a car is just but a means to an end to get and person from point A to B. If you take in consideration the traffic laws, you can't even use the performance you get from such a car.

Auditor55
I would grant you all your points from a pragmatic and fit for purpose point of view. From a pragmatic use point of view, your thoughts are pretty accurate.

But, that's not what million dollar cars, $500,000 audio systems, or watches that cost a small ransom are to their owners. They are not the pragmatic item most people use. In that part of the spectrum, the object of desire (as @Swerd described it) is no longer about the functionality of the item. It has crossed over in to "something else altogether" territory.

I personally know a fine fellow who has dumped close to $60k in to his audio system during the last year. For him, it needs to sound beautiful (and it does). But, that's not the reason for the lavish investment. He's in his mid 70's, knows he doesn't have that many miles left, and he wants to splurge and have a ball with his audio hobby like he has never done during his lifetime. For him, its worth every dime. And he's not out evangelizing and suggesting anybody else do it: he's just enjoying his hobby.

I've owned several Rolex's over the years. Most folks don't buy a Rolex to tell time. It is a watch. But, that's usually not why you buy it. I don't own them anymore. I now have audio stuff

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

You could spend $350,000 on a fast car, but in the end a car is just but a means to an end to get and person from point A to B.

Wrong!

That’s like saying your “unit” is only for reproduction and taking a whizz. Or your tv is just for watching the news. Yeah right...

 

[Auditor55]

Wrong!

That’s like saying your “unit” is only for reproduction and taking a whizz. Or your tv is just for watching the news. Yeah right...

A TV is for watching video content. That is why I wouldn't spend 20,000 dollars on a 65 inch 4K TV, when I could get one $3,500 that does the same thing. That's the point I was trying to make, the point of diminishing returns. For some audiophiles, there is no point of diminishing returns, that's what makes some of them audio-fools instead of audiophiles. They exist in a world of compete subjectivity, where facts, logic, practicality, science have no place.

 

[Auditor55]

Auditor55
I would grant you all your points from a pragmatic and fit for purpose point of view. From a pragmatic use point of view, your thoughts are pretty accurate.

But, that's not what million dollar cars, $500,000 audio systems, or watches that cost a small ransom are to their owners. They are not the pragmatic item most people use. In that part of the spectrum, the object of desire (as @Swerd described it) is no longer about the functionality of the item. It has crossed over in to "something else altogether" territory.

I personally know a fine fellow who has dumped close to $60k in to his audio system during the last year. For him, it needs to sound beautiful (and it does). But, that's not the reason for the lavish investment. He's in his mid 70's, knows he doesn't have that many miles left, and he wants to splurge and have a ball with his audio hobby like he has never done during his lifetime. For him, its worth every dime. And he's not out evangelizing and suggesting anybody else do it: he's just enjoying his hobby.

I've owned several Rolex's over the years. Most folks don't buy a Rolex to tell time. It is a watch. But, that's usually not why you buy it. I don't own them anymore. I now have audio stuff

If that person wants to that which you described, before he's laid to rest, that's good for if it brings happiness to his life.

Hopefully that gentleman dropped $$ into a home theater system with room treatments and all.

 

[highfigh]

BSA
I'm going to agree with the preponderance of audiophools at high end audio shows (having never been to one I'm risking painting with too broad a brush) but at the same time there is genuine accomplishment.

What I thought was one of the major takeaways from the article was the author poking fun at all the audiophoolery but at the same time acknowledging with some astonishment the sonic achievement of many of the systems he listened to. In other words, in spite of the nonsense the sound systems were awe inspiring.

That was one takeaway. Another was that is was all men. All men. The rumor of a woman in the building was never substantiated. He found that hilarious. I think it mirrors my reality in the hobby. I have no idea why, but, it seems to be a hobby dominated by men. For what reason I can only guess. I don't want to ask the woman in my life because I'm pretty sure she would tell me the answer.

Most women don't care about the sound quality as much as men who are interested. Women who ARE interested, definitely care.

That said, I challenge you to find ten women who are extremely interested in high end audio.

It's like some bands- they have four-decade careers and every show is a sausage-fest.

 

[hemiram]

Lying about the price of things you buy to your parents or GF/wife is so common, it's almost universal. I used to lie and tell my mother that a radio or scanner I bought was $200, when it was $400, as is almost everything decent in any hobby. Later on, I would do the same thing with various GF's over the year. Cameras, stereos, scanners, it's the $400 is switched to $200, and $1000 is knocked down to $500. It was a lot easier to get away with pre internet.

 

[Victor rODRIGUEZ]

Sometimes all these people who listen to grow the grass by spending 2000 on some cables predisposes their brain to find differences, if in addition it is an eloquent person to qualify it with a multitude of audiophile adjectives

 

[Victor rODRIGUEZ]

he spent 300,000 and was deaf

 

[Victor rODRIGUEZ]

Lately, especially in Europe, there is a current in the automobile sector if there are more kilometers with less gasoline. I love high fidelity for more than 30 years but I think that there must come a time when you are satisfied with your stereo and do not justify small investments by giving your brain a placebo and a dislike to your pocket. Sorry for my English
I think that the addiction of many audifiles takes them to limits that is never enough, that generates a feeling of permanent dissatisfaction that many high-end brands live with.

 

[Bucknekked]

I read an article this week that may explain some differences between what some people hear and the rest of the unwashed masses. Its a theory, but, hey, its an educated theory. Maybe audiophiles do hear something I don't.

ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 12 June 2018. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180612185148.htm

The essence of their research report is this "Southern Methodist University. "People who deeply grasp pain or happiness of others, process music differently in brain: Higher empathy people appear to process music like a pleasurable proxy for a human encounter -- in the brain regions for reward, social awareness and regulation of social emotions."

So maybe the reason I don't hear some of the more esoteric claims for audiophiles is that I am an unfeeling, uncaring, heartless SOB. Maybe if I got in touch with my empathetic side I would hear more musical detail. Maybe .

 

[mtrycrafts]

I read an article this week that may explain some differences between what some people hear and the rest of the unwashed masses. Its a theory, but, hey, its an educated theory. Maybe audiophiles do hear something I don't.

ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 12 June 2018. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180612185148.htm

The essence of their research report is this "Southern Methodist University. "People who deeply grasp pain or happiness of others, process music differently in brain: Higher empathy people appear to process music like a pleasurable proxy for a human encounter -- in the brain regions for reward, social awareness and regulation of social emotions."

So maybe the reason I don't hear some of the more esoteric claims for audiophiles is that I am an unfeeling, uncaring, heartless SOB. Maybe if I got in touch with my empathetic side I would hear more musical detail. Maybe .

Interesting theory but those who claim to hear what you don't can be tested to confirm their claims. Yet, few come to that table to test and even fewer pass the test if any.

 

[PENG]

Interesting theory but those who claim to hear what you don't can be tested to confirm their claims. Yet, few come to that table to test and even fewer pass the test if any.

And, audiophile purists would not hesitate to quote Dr. Toole when he claimed auto room EQ systems wouldn't work because what the mic measured wasn't what we heard, the our ears are the best.... etc.etc., yet they seemed to ignore him when he, the same Dr. Toole, also claimed the only way to get consistent results is to do it blind, in one of the 1 hour and 14 minutes long video, he said "if you know what are you are listening to, I don't care what you think.....it doesn't matter.......

If anyone want to listen to that part of the video, skip to around 56:40/1:13:56. I watched it more than once before though never the whole thing, then TheWarrior linked that to me not long ago and I watched it again.

 

[mtrycrafts]

..., yet they seemed to ignore him when he, the same Dr. Toole, also claimed the only way to get consistent results is to do it blind, in one of the 1 hour and 14 minutes long video, he said "if you know what are you are listening to, I don't care what you think.....it doesn't matter....... If anyone want to listen to that part of the video, skip to around 56:40/1:13:56.

Who wants consistent results? Hair today, gone tomorrow

 

[PENG]

I read an article this week that may explain some differences between what some people hear and the rest of the unwashed masses. Its a theory, but, hey, its an educated theory. Maybe audiophiles do hear something I don't.

ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 12 June 2018. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180612185148.htm

The essence of their research report is this "Southern Methodist University. "People who deeply grasp pain or happiness of others, process music differently in brain: Higher empathy people appear to process music like a pleasurable proxy for a human encounter -- in the brain regions for reward, social awareness and regulation of social emotions."

So maybe the reason I don't hear some of the more esoteric claims for audiophiles is that I am an unfeeling, uncaring, heartless SOB. Maybe if I got in touch with my empathetic side I would hear more musical detail. Maybe .

Interesting, but keep in mind there is also music versus sound quality. Both are almost equally important to me.

 

[Bucknekked]

Interesting, but keep in mind there is also music versus sound quality. Both are almost equally important to me.

what I took from the article was that perhaps some of those empathetic folks who are feeling the music at a much greater level than the rest of us and using more portions of their brains to process it would also be some of the folks spending extra coin and effort on the sound system side of the equation. I drew the conclusion that may be an explanation of some of their behaviors. Just my take on it

 

[PENG]

what I took from the article was that perhaps some of those empathetic folks who are feeling the music at a much greater level than the rest of us and using more portions of their brains to process it would also be some of the folks spending extra coin and effort on the sound system side of the equation. I drew the conclusion that may be an explanation of some of their behaviors. Just my take on it

I think so too, but to what extent on the perceived sound quality side of the influence, is the interesting point. Based on some of the posts I have read (not so much on this forum) from those appear to have very discerning abilities, I don't get the impression that they would be of the more empathetic type. But of course I shouldn't judge, so just saying...

 

[TheWarrior]

And, audiophile purists would not hesitate to quote Dr. Toole when he claimed auto room EQ systems wouldn't work because what the mic measured wasn't what we heard, the our ears are the best.... etc.etc., yet they seemed to ignore him when he, the same Dr. Toole, also claimed the only way to get consistent results is to do it blind, in one of the 1 hour and 14 minutes long video, he said "if you know what are you are listening to, I don't care what you think.....it doesn't matter.......

If anyone want to listen to that part of the video, skip to around 56:40/1:13:56. I watched it more than once before though never the whole thing, then TheWarrior linked that to me not long ago and I watched it again.

Glad to know you keep watching! I do just want to point out that "getting consistent results is to do it blind" is solely related to individual loudspeaker subjective preference ie. the speaker shuffler at Harman. With the exception of the question he posed - "Is the room the fundamental problem?"

What he teaches in his writing, both the book and paid-public AES Paper 'Measurement and Calibration of Sound Reproducing Systems' is that Listening position measurements are necessary, but insufficient data with which to prescribe a solution, which unfortunately is the basis of most current Room EQ programs.

Furthermore, without comprehensive anechoic measurements (CTA2034) of the loudspeaker(s) being employed, it is impossible to deduce the contributions of the room from the sound coming from the speaker itself, making any EQ above bass Transition (where sound waves stop being omni directional and gain increasing forward bias with increasing frequency) likely to compromise the performance - short of tone control adjustments to suit the variability of recordings.

PS I am starting to explore DIY monitors for my computer as well, and will be sure to send along that info!

 

[sterling shoote]

Seems to me that audiophiles share an insatiable appetite for audio realism. What interests me is their need to pursue this objective, even though the engagement is always going to be limited to the audiophile's ability to pay for the equipment seen as today's state-of-the-art. This scenario means, for most of us, we either choose to accept the audio systems we have had the money to buy, or we choose to be frustrated with them. Those that are frustrated are a sorry lot as they will never be happy; but not knowing that, they become easy prey to those selling snake oil, since snake oil is a means of deluding one's self into believing nirvana can be realized within a budget.

One more thing, from the story:James tells me he sometimes feels he's not listening to music, but to his hi-fi system: he's a fan of Kraftwerk and Joy Division, but finds he's been buying "plinky-plonky jazz" because it shows off his equipment. "I would never," he says heavily, "have bought a Diana Krall album unless I was into hi-fi. But play a Diana Krall album on my system…" He blows out his cheeks. "Bloody hell." I too, was introduced to Diana Krall through a Stereophile review of one of her recordings. In my case, I enjoyed her way with the "Standards" so much, I now believe I own all of her output. One multi-channel SACD of her's called Love Scenes is most compelling, even from my humble home theatre effort.

 

[Bucknekked]

SThis scenario means, for most of us, we either choose to accept the audio systems we have had the money to buy, or we choose to be frustrated with them. Those that are frustrated are a sorry lot .

there's some food for thought in that simple sentence. I am more of a reader/browser than a poster on audio forums. As such I read a lot more articles that I post about. Being unhappy and frustrated seems to be one of those unwritten themes in a lot of audiophile posts about wanting something better because they can't hear some aspect of music they believe must be there.

Diana Krall was my first listening experience in HT back in the day when lots of stereo outlets and shops had setup a HT room with good equipment. You couldn't go and see one without Diana Krall tickling the ivories. On the right system, she makes great music.