Why do audiophiles claim to hear the inaudible?

[Mike Lindsey]

I like bad music as long as it's well recorded.

[jacksonbart]

I like bad music as long as it's well recorded.

bingo, thats an audiophile

[garyrc]

On the one hand, I object to reviewers attributing to the equipment, differences between components they have heard this week and those they heard last year, sometimes in different rooms, at different distances, and even with different program material.

On the other hand, I tend to do the same thing.

What am I to do with this contradiction?

I don't doubt that there are very subtle differences that are real. These real differences may vary in repeatability over a reliability range of 0.00 to 0.99.

As I said, even my equipment seems to sound different at different times, with the same program material, and I have witnesses (unfortunately, I'm all too familiar with the reliability and validity problems with eyewitness or earwitness testimony). Both the listener and (I'll bet) the equipment having our little moods has been true with every set of components I've ever had (8 sets, with 6 varieties of speakers). And, with speakers as efficient as Klipschorns, I find that the ever-present hum ranges from barely audible to annoyingly worse. My local High End store attributes this to the power company ... who knows?

When doing experiments with perceived auditory complexity at SFSU, I had people from Physics, Stereo Recording, and Psychology (I was a Psych grad student at the time) cautioning me to control for temperature, humidity, light level, light color, and immediately previous experience.

Many of these factors have to do with cortical arousal level, which might vary with everything from lighting, very subtle differences in SPL, whether a speaker is clad in fine rich hardwood, or looks cold, gray & metallic (edwinr showed one of the latter), to how much coffee the dealer has given you. Vladimir Konecni apparently found that even preference for paintings could be "pushed up and down" and even reversed depending on arousal level, the source of the arousal, and whether the affect produced was positive, negative, or absent (Konecni & Sargent-Pollock, 1977, in Motivation and Emotion, I, 75 -93).

[edwinr]

I hear the music just fine. But I have trouble hearing my wife.

Me too. But my wife doesn't have any trouble hearing me - even if I'm muttering under my breath in the next room...

[Mike Lindsey]

I like bad music as long as it's well recorded.

bingo, thats an audiophile

[]

[JBryan]

I think that what a person hears is very much dependent on what they're listening for and everyone develops their own set of priorities. I can't count the times a fella has been spitting pride as he demos his system for me by cranking it over 100dB. What do I care if a system can easily hit 120dB - I won't be around to appreciate it. As well, when I've shown my system, I've been asked to both "turn it up!" AND turn it down!". And there's always that salesman who thinks a sub doesn't sound right unless the walls are buzzing.

I also think that reviewers in general and discerning listeners have "refined" their priorities through listening to many components in different setups as well as "live' shows. Its fair to assume that there is no one speaker out there that covers all the bases. However, the more experienced reviewers have heard good examples of many different designs. For example, single-driver designs excel at offering a coherent image while 3 and 4-way speakers have a superior frequency range. By listening to good examples of both of these approaches, one may discern the differences and recognize when they hear a speaker that approaches both of these ideals or more appropriately, how it has been compromised. Conversely, if I had only heard 3 speakers in my life and they were all say, Rectilinear or such, I wouldn't know how good an image could actually be and I might praise some semi-decent single-driver setup for its outstanding imaging leaving some S-D enthusiasts scratching their heads or dismissing my opinion altogether. I've plenty of experience having my opinion dismissed.

There are other factors involved but I think the tendency is to hear what one is listening for and to prioritize what we hear based on our experience. Just a thought.

[JJkizak]

The best vinyl playback I ever heard was my uncle's old 1960s Heathkit system with a crummy Gerard changer and a crummy GE cartridge set at 6 grams tracking force. There were no pops, scratches, or distortions and I have never heard any vinyl system anywhere anytime since that would beat it. And that's when my hearing went to 16.5 khz. I still can't believe it was that good because I hate Vinyl and wonder why this 2 bit system blows away 50k systems for clarity purposes only.

JJK

[Tarheel]

By the time I change out tubes or interconnects I can't recall what the previous component sounded like ( too much time has elapsed) or what the specific difference is. I recently swapped out el-34s in my horn monos to some JJ KT-77s and thought there was an improvement but couldn't put my finger on it without putting the el-34s back. I think you need to A-B components very quickly or the change is not as pronounced. I recall psychological theories from my college days about "two point threshold" and "just noticeable difference" that tried to explain these concepts.

I just got a catalog in the mail with all these product tweaks for audio such as high dollar cables, maple blocks, cone feet, isopads, spay on electronic enhancers, line conditioners, electrical receptacles and the like and just wondered how much of it is snake oil. One claim was that getting your speaker wire off the carpet was like taking a wet blanket off your speakers. They offered a product that looked like 3 sticks with a rubber band that forms a tripod to lift your speaker wire!

I also read a cartridge review recently that stated that the Clearaudio Maestro Cartdidge($1000) was a big improvement over my Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood cartridge($800) and I thought to myself that I doubt the reviewer could pick one cartridge from the other in a blind test. But if they said this no one would be buying their new products. The illusion that there is an improvement or the possibility that there could be sells a lot of gear.

Chuck

[ttrhp]

For all those that can not hear the different..this is the tweak of the year..

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina41.htm

I went out to wallmart and purchased something similiar..I am glad that walmart have a 30 days return policy......LOL

[Mike Lindsey]

For all those that can not hear the different..this is the tweak of the year..

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina41.htm

I went out to wallmart and purchased something similiar..I am glad that walmart have a 30 days return policy......LOL

I hear they're as good as the audio wall outlets that are selling for $29.95. Where do I sign up? []

Mike

[maxg]

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. ================== How exactly do you establish a source reference? md

For a moment there Mark I thought you were going to come up with the answer. You ended with a question instead.

Bottom line is - there is no way to compare to live - or even original recording (Tape master - W.H.Y.) without introducing many other variables.

In the end we go for what we think we like - and that is about as far as we go.

I like the idea that my system replays fairly accurately - I have much anecdotal evidence that it does. Certainly the way it replays a violin is very much in keeping with the sound I think a violin should have. How close is it really - who the hell knows?

On the other hand - I have fellow audiophile friends that strive for a particular type of sound and screw reality. They know it is not real - but they like the sound. Their system, their money, their choice - t'aint wrong. May not be right for you or me but that is not the point.

Some audiophiles strive for "reality" - some dont.

[ZAKO]

Max ....Good point.

[jackpod]

it is what is pleasing to your ear. I gave up on these so called "reviewer's" several years ago Magnepan had just released their MGMC line. I had them and one of the stereo rags had a review on them used in a HT environment. It wasn't a spectacular review, I was puzzled. Several months later there was an article about how reviews are done. The guy who had reviewed the mags was doing his reviews in a 10' X 11' spare bedroom in his house. Maggies need room, no wonder he gave them a mediocre review.

I too have noticed that the same system in the same room with the same program material doesn't sound the same day after day. There are many things that can affect your hearing.

[maxg]

MAX-- Only the question at the end is my part. I was just quoting the other poster. I am always interested in how people make reference to an accurate source. I know of some very, very complex experimental setups to do this, but they don't involve any source software (LP/CD), and thus I am not sure what the meaning would be at the end of the day. I guess I have no trouble understanding the premise: I want it to sound THIS way. But, I am baffled by the premise: I want it to be accurate. md

Oops - missed that - thought you had gone off the deep end.

[pauln]

I am sure many or most of the weird tweaks are baloney, but I like to read about them in order to see what they claim to be the operational effect taking place - sometimes they almost make sense. For example, the tweak (and expensive kits) to elevate the speaker wires is rarely accompanied with a coherent physical explanation... but I did find a site that claimed the reason for elevating them was oriented to those of us that have a concrete slab floor with - yes, the grid of rebar reinforcement inside. The claim was that the rebar grid acts as an ungrounded electrical noise catcher that could pass this noise to the speaker cables if layed on the floor. Since a megnetic field falls of in strength by the 6th inverse power with distance it only takes a few inches of elevation to avoid it.

Does that sound reasonable, or just creative stretching?

For that matter, I've asked a zillion times without an answer --- those spikey feet -- are they supposed to ISOLATE vibration (like under a turntable) or are they supposed to CONDUCT vibration (like under a speaker)????

Heck, while we're at it, just how does gravity get out of a black hole????

[Audio Flynn]

tkd;

I still consider you an audiophile. But I lump you in with Colter and Indy Klipsch fan.

Gotta get a tube(even a lowly vintage integrated) amp to really experience your speakers.

Hopeless tube snob;

Rick

[psg]

Should I even admit any of this?

Stuff I could easily tell were different:

- The sound of different loudspeakers (duh!)

- Replacing 28 year old caps on my Klipschorns.

- Replacing the K77 with Bob's

Slight difference:

- Going from a Rotel RCD-02 CDP to a Philips 623 SA DVD as a CD source.

Almost no difference:

- Going from a Pioneer DV333 DVD player to a Rotel RCD-02 as a CD source.

- Difference between a Nikko Alpha 220 amplifier and a Carver m4.0t amplifier, fed from

the pre-outs of my receiver (hk avr 325), driving a fairly easy load (Klipschorns)

No difference:

- Using the amplifiers from my hk avr 325 receiver or a separate Nikko Alpha 220.

- Speaker wire (I use bulk 12 AWG)

- Cables.

Based on the above, ny next upgrade will be aftermarket crossovers.

[ben.]

Why do audiophiles claim to hear the inaudible?

What?

[garyrc]

Pauln:

The reason I heard for elevating speaker wires was that the various things rug pads are made out of (latex, etc.) exert some kind of electrical influence (capacitance ????) on the speaker wires.

Since speaker wires carry relatively high level signals, compared to everything else in stereo system, I have my doubts.

A friend's uncle ( in businesses other than selling little tripods for speaker wire) used to think ways to charge affluent customers top dollar for fairly meaningless extras. He claimed to believe that these folk wouldn't be happy unless they were constantly spending. One business was a limousine touring service. His extra special deluxe tour (the same as the cheaper one, except that the customers were charged incredibly more to be driven to the most expensive hotels along the way) was given a mellifluous name that rolled off the tongue. He concocted this name by combining Latin, Yiddish, and French -- it meant "F____ 'em good and deep"

As to the Black Holes, all I can say is "gravity sucks."

[DrWho]

Take a class in transmission line theory and then go review some of these claims concerning lifting speaker wires off the floor....people will make up any kind of crap to sell their product. [6]