 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
130.164.67.35
In Reply to: RE: "Using false information to judge your audio decisions" posted by Analog Scott on May 23, 2007 at 14:17:11
I just realized is that to most audiophiles, making a mistake in audio is not too costly. For instance, If I buy something that sounds bad, or sounds great but is perhaps too costly, or if I'm just done evaluating a component and never intended on keeping it long-term, I return it to the dealer during the return period, or resell it for a small loss. If I buy something that sounds good but is too expensive, again, I can return it.
But in reality there's a cost to everything. Some components (cartridges in particular) are for the most part disposable, and you may never going to get close to recouping the purchase price. Some things are just really hard to resell, or have very unpredictable resale value, or can't be returned. I myself have a very hard time returning stuff within the money-back guarantee period. Evaluating a wide variety of components can take lots and lots of time that I don't have.
Long story short, in my experience making a bad audio purchase, or maybe something as simple as an evaluation, generally costs me a lot of money.
On top of this, based on my personal experience, a whole lot of stuff out there doesn't effect my listening perceptions in the slightest. I would conservatively put on this list: All power cables, virtually all interconnects, all redbook, SACD and DVD-A sources, most vibration dampening devices. I have also demonstrated a marked ability to not hear a difference between tube and solid state amps. Yeah, if you're looking for a lead-ears kind of guy, I'll admit, I'm your man. But this implies that quite a lot of stuff out there is probably going to be useless to me, so there is a high risk of failure for testing out any new piece of equipment.
Oh, and on top of *that*, when I do make an evaluation of some equipment, often it changes 180 degrees later on. When I first bought my iPod, I thought I felt more relaxed listening to it than listening to my RME PAD. Now I'm more relaxed with the PAD. What am I supposed to make of that?
This puts me in a catch-22. Buying stuff is very expensive. It also happens to not help most of the time. The only good way out of this is to base your buying decisions off of information *before any listening is made*. That means using the reviews of others, or using objective metrics.
I'm going to end this here because I've spent so much time on the response and I'm not quite sure where to continue. But I think the cost factor may matter more than either side of this argument cares to admit.
Follow Ups:
nt
How about "information that is of no use to my listening or buying decisions"?
That metric would also cover golden ears making pronouncements that are perfectly reproducible, and objective, yet involve things I don't hear.
I'll admit I'm grasping at the right words for this. There's a small paradox in defining what is and isn't of use to me.
If anyone is buying things that they don't percieve to make a difference then that is their problem. OTOH *You* are not harmed by another audiophile who buys things *you* don't believe make a difference. Likewise those audiophiles often really do enjoy such purchases despite the protests of others who believe the buyers are being conned.
AS
"You* are not harmed by another audiophile who buys things *you* don't believe make a difference."
True enough, but this is a technical forum where questions of audibility are proper and relevant.
AS
"Likewise those audiophiles often really do enjoy such purchases despite the protests of others who believe the buyers are being conned."
Sure, some may like Gucci watches, too. It's a matter of preference. But many cheap watches seem to tell the time quite satisfactorily. In audio, I suspect most like reliability. Some like prestigious equipment. Some like the looks. Some like the features. Some others, like Peter Aczel and David Rich, like well-engineered equipment that is well-built accurate (more accurate than necessary), and also more capable than is required in most applications.
On the other hand, many people come on line to ask what really makes an audible difference. Many people are quite cost conscious.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
It's a hobbyist Forum. It's fair to ask it is not fair to expect empirical evidence on demand.
> > In audio, I suspect most like reliability. Some like prestigious equipment. Some like the looks. Some like the features. Some others, like Peter Aczel and David Rich, like well-engineered equipment that is well-built accurate (more accurate than necessary), and also more capable than is required in most applications. < <
How do you know?
> > On the other hand, many people come on line to ask what really makes an audible difference. Many people are quite cost conscious. < <
Nothing wrong with wanting to save money but this has the foul oder of class envy. "If I can't afford it it isn't really better." How on earth is that a technical assertion?
What's that? The elite rallying cry against the masses?
I simply pointed out that many people want to know if they are getting value for money in audible terms. They often want to know if buy-wiring will improve the sound, whether expensive speaker cables and interconnects will provide better sound, whether expensive amplifiers will make their speakers perform better (bass, midrange, highs, etc). While the relationship to cost is not strictly a technical question, whether this piece of equipment will perform better than that piece of equipment involves a lot of technical issues of different kinds.
Besides that, people can develop preferences for one piece of equipment over another based on non-technical issues.
ME
> > In audio, I suspect most like reliability. Some like prestigious equipment. Some like the looks. Some like the features. Some others, like Peter Aczel and David Rich, like well-engineered equipment that is well-built accurate (more accurate than necessary), and also more capable than is required in most applications. < <
AS
"How do you know?"
I guess I have more experience than you. You must lead a sheltered life. I've met people who have those concerns as well as others--it's hardly a complete enumeration. Peter Aczel is quite explicit about how The Audio Critic evaluates equipment.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
> > What's that? < <
You have never heard of class envy before? Ever heard the story about the sour grapes?
> > The elite rallying cry against the masses? < <
Yes indeed the elite are taking down the masses by puchasing and enjoying high end audio. The horror!!!
> > I simply pointed out that many people want to know if they are getting value for money in audible terms. < <
'Value" is quite subjective. This must create quite a dilema for those who actually believe they can really be "objective" in their evaluation of audio products.
> > They often want to know if buy-wiring will improve the sound, whether expensive speaker cables and interconnects will provide better sound, whether expensive amplifiers will make their speakers perform better (bass, midrange, highs, etc). < <
If they really want to know why don't they just use the products as they were meant to be used and decide for themselves? What do you do when you want to know if something tatses good? Do you take it to a chemist or do you actually just taste it? I just taste it.
> > While the relationship to cost is not strictly a technical question, whether this piece of equipment will perform better than that piece of equipment involves a lot of technical issues of different kinds. < <
It really involes purely perceptual qualities. Then one can go on to try to tie those perceptual qualities to technical causes. Some people seem to want to deny the perceptual qualities as a premise. That would be audio religion rather than a geniune technical approach to audio.
> > Besides that, people can develop preferences for one piece of equipment over another based on non-technical issues. < <
Yes. In fact there is not much one can do to avoid this. To bad the "objectivists" struggle with and deny this simple truth. Some how they seem to think that by testing blind (or simply making assumptions since so few objectivists actually do blind tests) they can continue to live blind with their equipment free of any bias effects. LOL.
> > > > In audio, I suspect most like reliability. Some like prestigious equipment. Some like the looks. Some like the features. Some others, like Peter Aczel and David Rich, like well-engineered equipment that is well-built accurate (more accurate than necessary), and also more capable than is required in most applications. < < < <
> > > How do you know? < < <
> > I guess I have more experience than you. You must lead a sheltered life. < <
Well, looks like all you have now is irrational personal attacks. Typical "objectivist" repsonse when called on their bullshit. Thanks for the concession.
> > I've met people who have those concerns as well as others--it's hardly a complete enumeration. < <
Oh you know a guy... is that your idea of proof on a technical forum? Pathetic. IOW you got no proof of anything just lame personal anecdotal evidence. Pretty weak. This is a technical forum didn't you know? Anecdotal evidence has no place here. How about some varifiable statistically meaningful evidence to support your assertion? Oh yeah, all you have is insults.
> > Peter Aczel is quite explicit about how The Audio Critic evaluates equipment. < <
Who cares?
The story of sour grapes has nothing to do with the quality of the grapes.
AS
"Yes indeed the elite are taking down the masses by puchasing and enjoying high end audio. The horror!!!"
Well, you're probably more honest than you know. It's called conspicuous consumption.
AS
"If they really want to know why don't they just use the products as they were meant to be used and decide for themselves? What do you do when you want to know if something tatses good? Do you take it to a chemist or do you actually just taste it? I just taste it."
Well, using a product is a way of forming a preference for it. If that's the way you want to choose your equipment, fine. Indeed, I do not generally suggest buying something without trying it out. What gives you some other idea?
AS
"Well, looks like all you have now is irrational personal attacks. Typical "objectivist" repsonse when called on their bullshit. Thanks for the concession."
Personal attack my foot! You intentionally asked a stupid question and I gave it an answer it deserved--that if you don't know that some people prefer different things from some other people, then you clearly lack experience. But of course, when pressed, you give the same sort of answer I did, below.
But strangely, often people can't tell the difference between various products under controlled blind conditions. I find it nice to be aware of that in audio. It can save some money, though it need not. That's a matter of preference.
AS
"It really involes purely perceptual qualities. Then one can go on to try to tie those perceptual qualities to technical causes. Some people seem to want to deny the perceptual qualities as a premise. That would be audio religion rather than a geniune technical approach to audio."
"Purely perceptual qualities"? I'm not at all sure what you would mean by such a phrase, which seems to me somewhat confused.
Me
"> > Besides that, people can develop preferences for one piece of equipment over another based on non-technical issues. < <"
"Yes. In fact there is not much one can do to avoid this. To bad the "objectivists" struggle with and deny this simple truth. Some how they seem to think that by testing blind (or simply making assumptions since so few objectivists actually do blind tests) they can continue to live blind with their equipment free of any bias effects. LOL."
My my! After whining about the preliminary discussion, we find you actually agree with me in the first sentence. I know, you hate to admit I've convinced you of anything, but there it is.
Now, if you want to look at personal insults, your remarks really take the cake in the remaining sentences. First, you falsely imply that I am an objectivist, an term I reject. It is simply used as a pejorative term, very difficult to counter since it has no other definite meaning. Second, you imply that I recommend that people use blind tests to choose their equipment, if that is not their preference.
Me
"> > I've met people who have those concerns as well as others--it's hardly a complete enumeration. < <
AS
"Oh you know a guy... is that your idea of proof on a technical forum? Pathetic. IOW you got no proof of anything just lame personal anecdotal evidence. Pretty weak. This is a technical forum didn't you know? Anecdotal evidence has no place here. How about some varifiable statistically meaningful evidence to support your assertion? Oh yeah, all you have is insults."
I simply pointed out that *some* people prefer different things. I made no statement about the statistics for a general population. Oh, BTW, by your standards, you just personally attacked me.
Me
"> > Peter Aczel is quite explicit about how The Audio Critic evaluates equipment. < <
AS
"Who cares?"
ROTFLOL!! You evidently care because *you* asked about it.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
"The story of sour grapes has nothing to do with the quality of the grapes."
Neither does the "objectivist" attitude toward high end audio. Class envy. Can't afford it so it must not really be better.....
AS
"Yes indeed the elite are taking down the masses by puchasing and enjoying high end audio. The horror!!!"
Pat
Well, you're probably more honest than you know. It's called conspicuous consumption.
"Honest?" Tripping over your own rhetoric? You call it conspicuous consumption I call it sour grapes.
AS
"If they really want to know why don't they just use the products as they were meant to be used and decide for themselves? What do you do when you want to know if something tatses good? Do you take it to a chemist or do you actually just taste it? I just taste it."
Pat
Well, using a product is a way of forming a preference for it. If that's the way you want to choose your equipment, fine. Indeed, I do not generally suggest buying something without trying it out. What gives you some other idea?
What gives you the idea that I don't try things out before buying? Never heard of home auditions?
AS
"Well, looks like all you have now is irrational personal attacks. Typical "objectivist" repsonse when called on their bullshit. Thanks for the concession."
Pat
Personal attack my foot!
Maybe you are simply too stupid to know when you are making a personal attack.
Pat
You intentionally asked a stupid question
Wow you are psychic now.
Pat
and I gave it an answer it deserved
No I asked a fair question and you didn't have a good answer so you fell back on personal attacks. It's a rather old and shallow tactic. Looks like it suits you well.
Pat
--that if you don't know that some people prefer different things from some other people, then you clearly lack experience. But of course, when pressed, you give the same sort of answer I did, below.
You don't even know when you are being mocked. Guess you are an idiot. That's all the time I have for an idiot.
Nice to see you admit it.
When you come up with any technical discussion on this forum, let me know.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Oh yeah, you are a last word freak too. Is it an OCD thing or do you think the last word will turn victory into defeat? If you had a point to make you should have made it before giving up and turning it into a mud slinging contest. But you really didn't have a point to make or a legitimate answer to a simple question did you? It must really suck to be you. You know I have a solution. Instead of pretending all that great gear you cant afford doesn't really sound better you could pretend it doesn't even exist at all. Give that dellusion a try. It isn't that much more far fetched then your current set of dellusions.
Scott,
I'm too poor to afford your more expensive, better looking and therefore better sounding equipment. I'm so envious. Could putting make up on the face of my ugly stereo components improve it's sound quality and make it sound as good as yours? Surely a bunch of make up will be less expensive than even one piece of you elitist hardware? Are you too bigoted to help those poorer than you with a free makeover?
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
