Why do audiophiles claim to hear the inaudible?

[Deang]

Funny though how audiophile tweaker types have better sounding systems than those who think everything sounds pretty much the same and doesn't make a difference.

[TheEAR]

Hey listen anyone who has Klipsch LOUD speakers cannot claim to hear the inaudible,Klipsch are LOUD and project the information so clearly...anyone can hear the changes in the setup. []

I myself became a snooty,elite audiophile by buying Tenor Audio 15W OTL monoblocks,I can hear GOD speak directly to me,nobody with lesser gear can even hope to hear truth so true. []

[dtel]

Re: Why do audiophiles claim to hear the inaudible?

#1 To make them feel special or better than the average person.

#2 To justify the cost of their equipment looking for that last 10 % of sound quality.

[ben.]

Funny though how audiophile tweaker types have better sounding systems than those who think everything sounds pretty much the same and doesn't make a difference.

Dean, I must tell you... the record was just finishing side 1 when I read this. I was still literally laughing out loud when I dropped it on side 2.

[Audible Nectar]

Hey listen anyone who has Klipsch LOUD speakers cannot claim to hear the inaudible,Klipsch are LOUD and project the information so clearly...anyone can hear the changes in the setup. []

I myself became a snooty,elite audiophile by buying Tenor Audio 15W OTL monoblocks,I can hear GOD speak directly to me,nobody with lesser gear can even hope to hear truth so true. []

LMAO!!! Congratulations Arthur, you are now officially initiated into the Two Channel forum[][][] Hehehehehehe......[]

[Audible Nectar]

On a more serious note, I guess it depends on what one considers to be "audible". If one demands that it be measurable or quantifiable, then we run into a host of problems.

But it need not be measurable in order to make an audible difference (well, I suppose you could measure it, if the proper instrument existed, but anyway...). I have repeatedly observed differences in different capacitors in like components - enough to now assume that parts DO NOT sound the same. To what degree those parts are worth messing with is up to the user. But I have come to understand that everything from source to ear matters in the system. The CD player, the IC to the preamp, the preamp and associated caps, the tubes in that preamp, the IC from pre to amps, the caps in the amps, the tubes in the amps, the wire from the amps to the speakers, and the crossovers and caps/parts used in those all make a difference. And then there is the room, of course.

I wasn't one to believe this when I first came here, but am now a member of the "parts matter" club. Doctor call me crazy - some says I am, some says I ain't.

[SilverSport]

...everything sounds better to me after I put on my silk smoking jacket with the Family Crest on the breast pocket, ascot with the diamond tac, have Jeeves pour me a snifter of Napoleon and sit back in my leather wingback with a hand rolled Cuban...it sounds better because it is better than yours, I hear more with my superior hearing and because I am better than you...[]

Bill

[mas]

I already realize that my comments are most likely out of place, as many here are having fun with the post... (Hmmm...I guess that makes me psychic...or within 2 letters of an equally plausible conclusion... [] )

But the rhetorical question begs the answer - or to put it another way, how does one hear what is inaudible - thus the question is as spurious as many of the claims it purports to refute.[] Oh gee, now I will be seen as the guy who says there is no Santa Claus! [:'(][]

What would be a welcome change is for some to make the effort to learn more about what can be heard, how we hear (the psychoacoustical aspects), and to learn more about what we can actually measure and what correlation exists between objective and subjective measures. As, with all respect, simple emotional exposition (for or against) is just as vapid as a simple abstract measurement. Both lack context and meaningful interpretation within the context of what we know and can know.

Okay, ignore this and go back to your fun. []

[maxg]

This is, in many ways, typical of a question that is designed to ellicit a specific response.

It remnds me of poor survey questions in that respect.

Why do audiophiles claim to hear the inaudible?

If it is truely inaudible they obviously can't therefore they are either lying or fooling themselves.

Suppose we re-phrased the question a little:

Why can't we substantiate the claims of audiophiles to hear minute changes in their systems?

It could be that we are not testing the right things, or not testing them in the right way.

It could be that audiophiles are lying/fooling themselves and there is, therefore, nothing to test.

Opinions over what does, and does not, make an audible difference to the sound produced vary from; nothing except the speakers, to, every componont of every item within the system.

The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of those 2 extremes.

Also remember that there can be perfectly reasonable explanations for someone hearing a difference when changing, for example, an interconnect cable.

These can range from poor connection to oxidation, to cable damage, to electromagnetic interferance from other sources to who know what else.

Changing, or even re-routing, a cable under these circumstances could well result in a sonic change detectable by a listener.

Now, of couse, we have not touched on the genuine variation in people's ability to hear, to interpret what they hear and to be able to expouse on it.

Forget systems for a moment, and audiophiles:

I have a friend who is a concert violinist. She can spot the audible difference between a Stradivarius and a more common violin in an instant. Very few people can - unless someone explains to them what to look for - and even then the success rates are very variable.

Equally I know people that can identify one of 20 sopranos singing any given aria, people that can identify the make of a piano when it plays and even identify the location of an Operatic performance from the recording.

Such subtle distinctions are beyond most people. They can apply just as much to wine tasters as to music lovers (I cannot tell a Bordeaux from a Chablis - other than by colour - well that is a bit extreme but you get the picture - others however, can.)

As a final point:

In my re-phrased question I should have added - in a blind test. In other words:

Why can't we substantiate the claims of audiophiles to hear minute changes in their systems in a blind test?

The fact remains that in sighted test people do perform much better. Most would argue that what they hear is therefore largely determined by what they expect to hear from what they see.

I can accept that as an arguement except for the following:

For some people a meal has to look good as well as taste good. The whole essence of Nouvelle Cuisine was the designing of the food layout on the plate to look pleasing. For some this does seem to enhance the enjoyment of the food. It tastes better because it looks better.

Maybe simply seeing something that looks good (expensive, exotic W.H.Y.)- in audio terms again, hightens my own sense of listening and expectation. I have certainly seen the reverse.

If I go to someone's house and they have an Aiwa bundle my expectations are low and the sound it not offensive to me. On the other hand if I go to someone's house with an obviously expensive setup and the sound is off (to my ears) it really bothers me.

In other words the visual stimulus at the very least affects my interpretation of what I hear - if not my actual hearing. Rob me of this visual input and I would expect it to affect what I hear.

[Cal Blacksmith]

Very well said Max.

However, I think the real measure of someones ability to discern small changes and thus should be the ones who are listened to, is................ []POST COUNT![][] Those with fewer than your own don't need to be listened to, those with more must know better than you do.

Ok, I will go back into my hole and listen to those who REALY know more than I do, running and ducking all the way![]

[jmorgan32]

I am very new to this, but it didn't take me long to learn! I MUST HAVE LOUSY HEARING!

I went from a small pair of 15 year old Infinity bookshelves to a new pair of Klipsch floorstanding.

So, I naturally decided my "el cheapo" (and YES IT REALLY was el cheapo) receiver had to be upgraded. It was a Sherwood that retails NEW for 79.00. It was rated 100 watts per channel but I don't remember the THD rating. Gave it away, and bought a new Denon 2 channel receiver. (same wattage rating but I remember the THD % being lower. Of course, it SHOULD HAVE improved the sound dramatically. I will admit I never did an A/B comparison, but would swear to God and bet significant $ if blindfolded 99% of the people could not hear a difference. (personally, I think the THD % are "overrated" or not correct so to speak.) Didn't Julian Hirsch once state that ALL amplifiers sound exactly the same?

Then a month later, I had read "it all starts at the source", so I upgraded my Sony CD player to a Cambridge Audio. Once again, ZERO DIFFERENCE!

So, now I sit with 2 very attractive boxes with nice brand names on them but no difference in sound to me. (ie-the Denon and Cambridge Audio versus Sherwood and Sony)

YES........The Klipsch speakers COMPLETELY blow away the puny Infinity bookshelves that I also gave to my sister. I just have to conclude that for ME, speakers make 99.9% of the improvement. (with equal amplification power.)

Lastly, I admit I just felt like a total "cheapskate" knowing my old receiver retailed for $79.00! I now think it may very well be one of the best audio "values" in the entire marketplace!

All the best,

Joe

[Cal Blacksmith]

Joe, hang in there,

We will get you trained to hear the difference. There have been some things I have changed that have made no difference but there have been many things that I have changed that made a Big difference and some others that have been minor differences.

I am sure that if you were to to be able to switch between the two systems, back and forth, you would hear a difference. Some people just don't have as good of a "audio memory" as others and NONE of us have a great one!

[Lascaladan]

This is the kind of thread that I like. I happen to be one of those individuals who "do hear the difference". My ears are quite sensitive, but, I have been at this for 35 plus years. If one does not hear differences, it could be (1) Not knowing what to listen for (2) System not being up to par, including room acoustics shadowing these differences (3) Poor system set up, dressing the a/v cables away from the electrical cables, proper polarity,etc (4) The need for Qtips, this is not a joke. Bad room acoustics can always make things that are audible, inaudible. A good set of headphones can always be used to hear differences in, say, cables. I use a seperate headphone amp because my preamp does not have one built in. Speakers mounted on floors/carpet, as in all Heritage, should be "coupled" to the floor. Spikes, tiptoe type devices are quite necessary. Because Klipsch speakers play quite loud, are quite dynamic, and cover a full frquency response, airborne and mechanical viobrations in the associated equipment will mask many of these "differences" that should be heard. There is a point where these differences are more subtle than others, but time , patience and, trial and error, will usually bring these differences to light. Many of these things do not cost money, or, not much. There is a science to this hobby. If you enjoy music, which it is all about, you will get there! Hang in.

[jmorgan32]

THANKS CAL.

I also realize I should NOT have made the claim "99% of people" could not hear a difference either. That is a little on the "aggressive side" of claims.

Please accept my "edit" on that statement. I just have bad ears!

Thanks again,

Joe

[mas]

I have a problem with this emphasis on things sounding "different".**

- I got rid of the old cheap component and the new expensive component sounds "different". Or even the oft heard "I bought this ridiculously expensive and exotic piece of gear and it sure sounds great (read "different from the slightly less expensive and exotic piece of gear it replaced)." -

My reaction to this tends more towards: "So?"

My reaction would be more oriented towards, which configuration results in the reproduction of the signal such that it more accurately reproduces the original signal - be it good or horrendous. I guess I am an old fart and still consider the ultimate system to be 'a straight wire with gain'.

I am not looking for a system to correct for an engineer's oversight, or to retune a violinist's "A".

Now I realise that in much of today's synthesized world, how does one tell what is the original ( and in that sense you simply like what you like and their is no reference for comparison. that also means there is no good or bad except for your preference.)

But many seem to express preferences based on how loud or low or whatever a piece of gear can play. And while that is great, it does not necessarily translate into the accurate reproduction of recorded material - however well or bad it was recorded.

There are plenty of fx generators on the market. And they are a vital part of many composer's arsenal of tools in the creation process. If you want the grandaddy, may I suggest you get a Sans-Amp - a marvelous piece of engineering that would serve many much more than trying to simply buy tubes or solid state for some supposed advantage that they are trying to create. With the SansAmp, you can achieve virtually whatever effect you like- be it tube or SS, or whatever type of distortion you find most pleasing.*** And this seems to be the focus of perhaps the majority of threads on the forum. But this unfortunately has little application to accurately reproducing a signal.

So again, simply sounding 'different' doesn't quite cut it for me. IMHO, what is sorely lacking is the comparison between the actual source and the reproduction. And the closer they come to being equal (a linear unity transfer function), the more I like it. The fact that a particular component makes it sound more this or that without reference to the source is facinating...but ultimately a waste of time and effort and money.

But what do I know?...[]

**Please note - I am using this example simply as a jumping off point. I am not implying any disrespect nor positing that former contributor is wrong!

***BTW, the SansAmp has become a staple in the studio for creating or re-creating 'sounds' (at least in Nashville and among the many musicians I know who now refuse to carry 26,000 pieces of gear to a recording session.) You want a 1968 Ampeg SVT, got it. You want a B-15 bass rig...got it. You want to duplicate the strangest most unusual distorted effect off a 1967 one hit wonder or to duplicate the tone of Jimi on a particular number without searching for, and acquiring the same gear they used - got it.

[Klipschguy]

The question of "Why do audiophiles claim to hear the inaudible?" is a humorous take off on Bob Crites (BEC) little definition statement he has tagged to his posts. I guess inaudible should be in quotation marks. The question is not intended to explore subtle differences in systems (which add up and I believe are audible myself), but to explore the MINDSET of the audiophile. Just lighthearted probing into our rather entertaining hobby.

The stuff I am really thinking about is pretty blatant. For instance, I was reading in some audiophile magazine where a guy was comparing the sound of different manufacter's component stands (all designed for high end audio use, not milk crates). He had an opinion on every component stand regarding how it sounded; things like: "this stand gives a more focused image, but does trade off some depth of image as a result." Forgive me, but I do not think this guy hears squat worth of difference. Why doesn't he just say "I can't hear the difference?" Ear pride, I guess.

Now compare a McIntosh 2105 to a Fisher 500C. You claim to hear a difference between these two power sources and I'm on board (at least I hope I could hear the difference!)

[pauln]

Apart from the flawed premise of the question as noted by Max, there is an important reality here...

Try to remember the first time you heard a really good reproduction of music... maybe your first time in a high end audio store or at a friend's place who just happened to have a great system set up right. Did the scales fall from your ears, so to speak? Was it a profound magical moment to realize such a realistic and true representation was possible? Did it make everything you had heard before sound entirely inadequate and did you resolve that one day you would have a system that was great?

I suspect that all fo us have had this experience at least once and that this was the beginning of our quest. This was the occasion of hearing a difference that meant something to us - was worthy of acheiving.

If we have been fortunate this experience may have stepped up a level or two by happening again when listening to even better systems (hopefully your own). But these additional improvements are naturally ruled by the law of diminishing returns...

My point is that the original first encounter and the feelings of joy and amazment might be hard to reproduce with subsequent upgrades - the first step in one's learning about the possibilities might have been hearing the leap from a pedestrian commercial dorm room or modest home system to a full blown showroom set up.

There is no doubt that a big jump like that will be understood by virtually everyone. But as the increments lessen due to the law of diminishing returns, each individual will eventually reach a point beyond which no more differences may be heard.

At what point this topping out occurs depend on the physical health of one's ears, lack of auditory pathologies or damage, one's experience and exposure to music, one's knowledge of music and instruments (you might be a musician), and one's subtle tastes and preferences.

What is commonly call 'tone deafness' is not an on-off thing - the degree to which individuals are sensitive to the harmonic and melodic structures in music vary widely with experience, training, and even cultural background.

Like the visual arts (painting for example), some of the population has one or more of the various forms of color blindness. Many of them might not know they are colorblind and enjoy viewing paintings, but sometimes wonder about the claims of what others can see.

Human variability is somewhat imbalanced in the sense that if you are gifted to be lucky in having superior hearing, sight, or some other aspect it is easy for you to see your inferior friend's deficit - but it may be impossible for your friend to understand your superiority except by inference.

This reality may turn cruel, contencious, and may cause hurt feelings when pushed as in, "I'm better at this than you, therefore I can understand how poor at this you are, but you can't understand how much better at this I am".

[Klipschguy]

Aren't the Emperor's clothes beautiful!!

[jacksonbart]

I like good music

[jacksonbart]

I should add, I love great music.