I tend to disagree with this notion.
Over the twenty odd years of ’ streaming’ i have used a variety of devices.
I have enjoyed the musical qualities of this method of digital replay but i still play music on vinyl…
Musical enjoyment for me is the primary reason for being an ‘audiophile’.
We all make different choices in equipment to suit our budgets.
I have settled on a combo of Qobuz/ Roon and one of Linn’s finest streaming devices.
Every day i enjoy relaxing to the fabulous music library we have access to today.
1 Like
Out of curiosity, do the Youtubers you’ve been watching who apparently espouse this notion have a combination of any or all the following:
- Salt & Pepper hair?
- White hair?
- Male-pattern baldness?
I’d wager that to be the case, not that all in the above categories would argue this way (I’m grey & losing more hair every day), just that it’d probably be more likely to be the case, because anyone still making the argument about streaming lossless vs. CDs is still living in the last decade in terms of digital playback. It would be akin to me continuing to argue that CPU processing power still affects .FLAC de-compression when that hasn’t been an issue for a modern computer in fifteen years.
Do not quite understand this hostilely towards high end industry as a whole, as if they were all fraudsters ripping off poor uneducated customers by selling them CD transports. To my knowledge, everyone into high end has a free choice of googling prior to buying, and finding answers what is regarded to be technically reasonable and what not. We do not live in the 1980s or 1990s when hi-fi dealers and audiophile magazines were the only source of information, bearing the risk of misleading people who did not want to be misled.
Yes, there are lots of implausible claims when it comes to high end, but neither is this an issue limited to high end audio, nor is a CD transport a typical product one would sell using questionable claims in order to make big money.
The sad thing in my eyes is that such feuds are putting both highenders and their fierce critics in a bad light. Why cannot we accept that other people spend their money on things of their own choice, even if we find it implausible? Isn’t the common goal of listening to music the best way possible worth a certain level of tolerance and harmony?
2 Likes
That’s what all the discussion actually is about.
In a time of ever more accumulated knowledge and technical advancement, the average audiophile looses understanding of how everything works together to form their perceptions.
Loath to do some homework, many opt to just believe in olden times quackery and magic.
That in itself would be okay, it’s just a hobby.
But what’s not okay is. that rather than just quietly indulging in their bubble of beliefs, they need to shout it out into the world and make it a crusade to reform the uninitiated.
The drawback of such a mindset is, that it doesn’t stop there.
It becomes the standard in handling all things in life.
History shows where that takes us, and that’s, where your ‘fierce critics’ come in.
They don’t want to be taken back into the dark ages of inquisition and dictatorship.
We want real openmindedness and understanding, and that’s why we call for substantiated, and not alternative, facts.
Don’t let them get by, speak up!
5 Likes
Funnily these two aspects apply to the extreme opposite fraction on a similar level, if not more. The quackery about identical bits sounding different is not far from any quackery about irrelevant measurements and ridiculous FR target curves, except for the fact that the latter are presented as rock-solid facts by a fraction of the opposite-club believers.
While I agree that some 20 or 30 years ago implausible audiophile claims were popular and oftenly presented as facts by dealers and press alike with no-one around to fact-check that, we have a different situation nowadays. My understanding is that the self-declared objectivist fraction shouting for blind-tests and condemning everything that cannot be measured and proven, is much louder, much more dogmatic and more likely to gain air superiority in any discussion.
And while I agree with many technical aspects of an objectivistic approach (such as the ´bits are bits´claim), I find their ultra-dogmatic and intolerant way of communicating not helpful. My guess would be that most of neutral or indecisive observers would rather walk away from that approach coming to the conclusion that audio is in general and expensive gear as well as subjective listening enjoyment in particular, a topic for lunatics. That is what I find very sad.
I would fully agree if we were talking about important aspects of life such as politics, health, nutrition, security, financial issues or whatever. But we are not. It is purely a hobby and many people believing in (from a technical perspective) ridiculous claims show no signs of being overly esoteric or easily indoctrinatable in other aspects of life. People who promote vitamin pills or wholemeal bread as healthy are by the underlying ideology much much closer to the worst types of dictatorship you were mentioning, compared to those preferring a CD transport.
On the other hand the intolerance and dogmatism of self-declared objectivists in my understanding is closer to suppressing free speech in an inquisitional manner.
2 Likes
Sums it up very nicely.
If you accept one set of ridiculous beliefs, you’re training your brain to accept more. You’re influencing those around you who may trust your judgement, such as your friends and your children. All quackery should be resisted. Teaching yourself to “do your own research” and believing in magic is a sure way to destroy your ability to understand the world as it is, rather than as you wish it to be. That path leads to… Well, take a look at the world right now. It’s been taken over by people who choose their own reality. Don’t be a dupe a sap or a rube by choice.
The reason people get angry and rude about this is the sheer frustration of talking to people who refuse science and engineering proof that what they think is wrong. It’s going backwards to the time of shamans and medicine men.
5 Likes
Once again, you are arguing from fallacy to, I presume, confuse the reader. The premise of this entire thread is that identical bit streams cannot produce a different sound on the same equipment. This refers to the digital domain, not analogue, nor frequency response or equilization.
Moreover, I think the sentiment here is clearly to enjoy the music. However, anyone who makes claims irrespective of personal points of view needs to back them up. So, if someone says, the greater the cost of equipment, the better the performance, this needs qualification. Likewise, if someone says, “bits are bits”, this needs to be demonstrated.
Intolerance doesn’t appear to be a trait owned by one group. Likewise, I see no evidence of free speech being suppressed. Everyone is free to post about their experiences, and similarly, people are free to challenge any such claims.
The moderators do not censor discussion, and always err on the side on caution, to allow topics time to develop–even when the subject has appeared before. However, we do not permit blatent flouting of the forum guidelines, which among things, includes endless contrarianism, axe grinding, and knee-jerk contradiction. To encourage well-considered responses, the time between replies is sometimes extended.
4 Likes
So which one is it, an industry or a hobby?
Kinda makes a big difference to how one addresses the various anti-scientific claims out there. If the claim is made by a hobbyist, well then to each his own. However if the claim is made by someone from the industry, such as a manufacturer or a PAID reviewer then it’s fraud, in spite of all the “white papers” published in support of the claim.
Over the years the subjectivitists are pretty much winning since thier beliefs are catered to by the high end audio industry. Something to do with a fool and his money.
3 Likes
This is part of the problem. Claiming “hobby” or “hobbyist” is the refuge of the staunch subjectivist audiophile when they lose the technical/factual argument. “Hey, it’s just a hobby.” And if they would leave it at that, there might not be a problem. But so many turn around and go right back to promulgating pseudoscience and concocting never to be proven theories to support their audiophile belief systems that it clearly is more than “just a hobby.”
AJ
5 Likes
You would have been slightly more convincing if you were arguing from facts and not fighting some strawmren that do not really exist anywhere.
Those you seemingly want to address by calling their beliefs on differently sounding CD transports ´quackery´, clearly see it as a hobby. For those who are not affected as they sell expensive speakers, amplifiers, DACs or whatever, it is a business which partly is unfairly put into the same basket with quackery. At least the number of brands selling CD transports explicitly claiming they sound better than a streaming bridge, seems to be pretty limited.
That is a funny explanation, as the objectivist´s position got popular and widely reposted only during last one or two decades. Compared to 30 years ago, it is clearly the louder and more present one today. You can google for any wild audiophile claim, you will find forum threads or explanations why it is quackery and debunked claims. Judged by the sheer mass of postings, measurements and traffic of popular objectivistic audio sites, the ´quackery´ and ´subjectivist believers´ should be a very tiny minority by now.
In contrary, you claim they are not, but increasing in number. And my explanation would partly be: because they see audio as a hobby. That is not implying from my side that implausible claims have to be accepted, but rather as an explanation why the vast majority of subjectivists does ignore the loud ubiquitous ´Quackery!´, ´Fraud!´, ´Deliver proof!´ fireworks.
If you want to bring people to rethink their position and accept some reasonable understanding of audio technology, you have to offer more than just insults and pushy demands for a proof. I personally prefer to educate people on executing proper listening tests on their own, understanding about room acoustics, improving their system with whatever reasonable method seems plausible, learning to deal with parametric EQs and alike. So they eventually understand that the objectivistic approach combined with some expertise and understanding their subjective goals, actually delivers superior sound quality and eventually fun.
My guess would be: Once they get into actually working methods to have superior sound quality, they hopefully will forget about implausible and esoteric tweaks.
I agree. I just find different methods of helping people to overcome unscientific beliefs more fruitful.
Understood, that is why I tried to point out why you cannot fight such implausible claims with equally implausible claims and dogmatism.
May I ask for the base which backs up your claims on obligation to back up claims in general? So far my understanding was that in a free market anything can be sold and bought without proof of concept, even if it is completely baseless from scientific point. It is the buyer deciding.
´The better the performance´ is solely subjective, which for audiophiles (not for me!) includes their right of taking imaginary differences as a base for public claims. So we are not getting a single inch closer to solving the problem.
That is not true. There have been cases where manufacturers had to remove unproven claims from their product descriptions.
I’m not claiming anything, merely stating the fact that in a public community forum, what people write is open to reply. Therefore, if someone makes a wild claim without substantiation, it is not unreasonable to expect a challenge. The corollary is to qualify what is stated.
I don’t think a reasonable person has any issue with the following remarks:
- I prefer streaming from TIDAL because …
- I’ve spent $$$$ on my system, and it makes me feel …
What’s more, I wasn’t commenting on industry representatives (your highlighted text above.) In this forum, industry representatives, whether employees of audio equipment companies, sellers of Hi-Fi gear, or reviewers of such devices, need to be transparent and declare their status–it should be visible below the profile name.
Furthermore, in the UK and Europe, and most likely other jurisdictions, manufacturers and sellers cannot make claims that are not supported by proof. This is why, all-too-often, some manufacturers use woolly language to describe their equipment.
I can only speak for the UK, but thirty years ago, it was the norm to see specifications including measurements with audio equipment. So, I would argue that thirty years ago people had honest dealings with Hi-Fi manufacturers and retailers, and could, therefore, focus on preferences.
Anyway, I am coming to the conclusion that this topic is winding up, and has become a circular discussion. I already posted about avoiding endless contrarianism, and it would seem that this advice was ignored.
5 Likes