This is an archive of past discussions about Audiophile. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The subjectivist vs. objectivist debate was moved to it's own article. The objectivist article consisted mostly of what was wrong with subjectivists. I tried to create a more neutral POV in the other article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holme053 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Clean up Talk:Audiophile?
Someone would be doing the community a favor if they'd go through and amputate about 90% of this Talk page with the goal of leaving the essence of the debate in place, removing or archiving the outdated and duplicative material. It seems to me that there are a small number of related but distinct issues in play:
- Whether it is reasonable to describe beliefs of audiophiles when such beliefs have been apparently falsified by high-quality science.
- What citations are appropriate to support assertions about what the beliefs of audiophiles are.
- Whether the size of the article is excessive.
I'd be happy to engage in discussion of these subjects, but frankly I can't see where in this rats'-nest to pitch in. So... time to archive this sucker and replace it with a short list of headings like those above? Tim Bray06:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that moving 90% of the discussion out of the way into an archive is a good idea. However, I notice you have skipped suggestions for performing major surgery on the article which was my immediate reaction when I first read it.
The audiophile phenomenon is remarkable compared with almost all other similar hobbies because of the role of scientifically incorrect beliefs rather than the usual enthusiastically skewed weightings of valid performance parameters. The pressures that lead to it's emergence in the mainstream 30 years ago, it's presence outside the mainstream prior to this, how it grew to dominate the previous "high-fidelity" approach, how the beliefs evolved to be more extreme, the crucial role of audiophile publications, how and why the process works and the industry maintains its position in the face of external pressures from scientific knowledge and other audio sectors, what is making the future look bleak in it's present form, the distinctive beliefs held by the majority, the more extreme distinctive beliefs that are held by only a few, how big is it, plus no doubt several other general topics I have failed to mention. Surely an article in an encyclopedia should look more like this and less like the mess of details and arguments the article currently contains? HonestGuv10:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Generally agree, but I don't think 'whither now?' really belongs in an encyclopaedia. Incidentally to be honest I was unaware that audiophile was a pejorative term until I read this article. Is that generally true or is that the viewpoint of a small clique? Greglocock00:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair point about the future.
Audiophile was a rare word 30 years ago when it entered the mainstream and high-fidelity universally understood. In the home sector, audiophile grew and high-fidelity shrank. Today, some people consider the two terms to be essentially the same but others make a big distinction based around the scientifically invalid beliefs which are crucial to maintaining much, though not all, of the current audiophile industry. For those working in the sound or audio sector but not in the audiophile sector it is a pejorative term because the presence of this "flat-earth" sector is an embarassment with a real risk that others will associate them with it (i.e. it is personal). Similarly, for those that had/have a genuine interest in sound quality (high-fidelity sense) for the home the disappointment caused by the growth and dominance of "flat-earth" audiophile products can have an emotional element. Until I started informally studying the audiophile sector about a year ago I was unaware that anybody with a basic technical knowledge might use the term in any other way than "flat earth" home audio enthusiast.
The term is unquestionably ambiguous, it is all but impossible for the pejorative use to disappear for those that work in the sound and audio sectors but for those with little direct interest in the audio and audiophile sectors it would appear that audiophile enthusiast is progressively coming to mean any home audio enthusiasts. Since audiophile products now dominate the expensive end of the home audio sector this use is not unnatural. However, I still await the day someone calls me an audiophile to my face! HonestGuv09:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Original Research?
Haven't been here for a while, and I don't see much here in the Talk page to back up the OriginalResearch badge, except for here, where there is a claim that the normal use of the word is derogatory, essentially from the position that the article describes as "Objectivist". I disagree, and based on a quick scan through Google, and some news-stand research (I spent some time in airports yesterday), I think the normal default usage of the word is to describe the phenomenon that the article is about. So unless someone wants to bring some new evidence to the table, I'm going to remove the badge soon. Tim Bray18:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops, having taken an edit-for-style sweep through the whole article, I ran across all those Citation-needed tags. Fair enough. That's going to be a great big chunk of work Tim Bray19:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want to find out if audiophile is a derogatory term trying calling a sound/acoustic/audio professional an audiophile and note the response.HonestGuv21:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I know a few who are studio engineers and audiophiles and the're ok with it. Audiophile meaning one who likes high quality music playback, period. No silly audio-voodoo involved. --Pitdog21:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
If you were to replace the word audiophile by paedophile, and objectivist by Albert Einstein in this article then the tone would be about right. At the very least it needs a total rewrite and removal of all weasel words and constructions. Enyclopaedic articles do not attack their subjects. Greglocock01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
" All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." We are supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia, not building a soapbox. Greglocock01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
"Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source." So this neutral point of view representing views fairly, proportionately, and without bias must be attributable to a reliable source. Objectivists have supported their views with reliable sources. Greglocock, where are the reliable sources for the subjectivists? Contemptible magazines like Stereophile and The Absolute Sound? We are supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia, not building a soapbox for marketing bull. William Greene18:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The subject of this article is audiophiles. It is not an article about what science has established about sound, sound perception and audio equipment but an article about audiophiles and what they believe about sound, sound perception and audio equipment. If you wish to contribute to an article containing only a scientifically valid view may I suggest the high-fidelity article instead.HonestGuv19:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well said. In my opinion this article is overlong, and contains an absurd amount of invective, and is so far from being NPOV I'd recommend deletion. FWIW I am a professional engineer who has worked in the field of automotive noise and vibration for 20 years. During that time I have spent a fair amount of time establishing the equivalence between subjective ratings and objective measurements, and working on the sound quality of engines. Do I think we can explain everything in terms of objective measurements? No. The ear is a lot cleverer than that. For an obvious example, look at the problems with HRTFs and localisation. OTOH do I think that there is a good case for 100$ per metre speaker cable? No. But I can certainly see some merit in the idea for example that a non switching amp may introduce fewer peculiar artefacts into the signal than a switching one. Greglocock01:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
For amplifiers, CD players, and wires, objective measurements alone can predict sound quality. Golden-ears have repeatedly used your argument that the ear is a lot cleverer than objective measurements. But the problem is that no so-called golden-ear has ever provided the evidence that they can hear a difference between inexpensive amplifiers, CD players, and wires and their sky-is-the-limit counterparts if objective measurements alone predict that no audible differences should be detectable when listening to music in double-blind tests. William Greene20:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Shrug. You can set all the straw men up you want. I have given you a concrete example where the best minds in the business have been unable to measure and reproduce a real audio effect. Greglocock23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
portable DA players as a sound source
I believe that the scope of this page clearly on sources should exclude MP3 (regardless of sampling rate) and portable digital audio players. I would argue that no more than a cursory mention is merited, as these are not generally considered audiophile sources at the present time. Likewise, MP3 is not considered an audiophile file format. I have thus made the distinction between 'serious listening' and 'casual listening'.
Apparently I am supposed to be polite. How on earth does leaving large chunks of data out of the datastream improve the final signal? Have no effect, possibly, but /improve?/Greglocock09:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, the iPod is capable of storing and playing uncompressed AIFF files and Lossless Compressed files. Just because something is portable, does not mean it's necessarily poor quality (but that's for the golden ears to decide I suppose). And there are many audiophile forum threads on how to rip music from CD, so compression is not always out of bounds in audiophile circles. Bruno23 (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a small but growing segment of Hard disc based music storage systems being used as surrogate sources, and this could be mentioned in the 'trends' section. Ohconfucius06:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Greene, I really love your one sided arguement. I'll agree with you on MP3 and FM..afterall, layer 3 was designed mostly to carry remote broadcast links over ISDN lines. I disagree with you on the record statement. I've trasnferred some CD-4 LP's to DVD-A using a good cartridge and shibata stylus and 96khz 24-bit resolution. While I couldn't get all the way up to 50khz with my hardware, i did register the lower sidebands of the 50khz signal. MP3's currently only go up to 48khz sampling, which is about 24khz of bandwidth. The problem with vinyl is that nobody knows how to play it properly. You don't just buy a turntable and drop a LP on it..you gotta adjust your tonearm, balance it..all that. I also happen to know what an ipod is and find it's sound quality, even with good headphones, to be subpar compared to the DAC's in my computer. I laugh whenever I hear the words ipod, sound, and good in the same sectance, and not because of the lossy formats...high bitrate AAC I find quite acceptable for a standard-def lossy format. DewDude
Hello, DewDude. It is a myth that will never die: records sound better than digital formats. I said it before, and I shall say it again: please supply the citations for anyone being able to hear above 20 kHz. I agree that just dropping a record on the turntable will probably not result in the best possible sound. Assuming that the audiophile knows how to set up his turntable, tonearm, and cartridge and knows how to keep his records and stylus clean, knows how to store his records, knows how often to check for stylus wear, buys audiophile-grade records, knows how to minimize record wear, has a high-quality turntable, tonearm, and cartridge, etc., I shall agree with you that records are able to sound very good. But let me ask you a question. If records sound better than digital formats, why do few people buy them? Do you have citations for the superior sound of records compared to digital formats? What are the technical reasons for records' superiority? Do you have citations for these technical reasons? If you do have these citations, then why have you not provided them?
Yes, I know that you know what an iPod is. That was my point. Well, it appears that many people believe that iPods are capable of sounding good. The difference between the objectivists and subjectivists is that the objectivists have evidence on their side. If you do not believe me, then please examine some of the links and citations in the main article. William Greene14:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Asian Culture
218.103.34.213 dropped in a note about Asian audiophile culture. I moved it to a slightly more comfortable location in the article, but it seems very broad-brush, overgeneralized, un-sourced. One might even say it's verging on bigoted. I'm considering taking it out; can someone figure out how to improve it? Tim Bray20:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The note was added following a discussion which took place on pink fish media on the habits of audiophiles, particularly in Hong Kong. I thought that the place of insertion was appropriate as it dealt with an extreme manifestation of subjectivist behaviour as it follow on from 'cuntish behaviour', which I consider this to be. The tendencies have been commented on in local discussion fora, where some audiophiles confessed to the fact that music was indeed incidental to the enjoyment of the hobby of hi-fi ownership. Whilst I confess that the comments were perhaps too generalised ie not applicable to all Japanese and Chinese, the tendency is certainly more common than in Europe or America. Anecdotally, one of my correspondents has visited the homes of a number of these audiophiles, to find a distinct lack of correlation between the number of discs owned and the value of the hi-fi system in question. This is without even mentioning the number of hours spent listening to and exploring diverse music material as opposed to evaluating and re-evaluating pieces of equipment by playing brief snippets repeatedly. Articles appearing in local hi-fi magazines which feature readers' systems and music collections also bear witness to this. I am not adamant about the inclusion/excision of the paragraph, but believe that it does shed light on regional behaviour of audiophiles. ohconfucius 15 June 2006
Who is the audiophile? The person that spends $20 000 US on his system and $200 000 on his CDs? Or the person that spends $200 000 US on his system and $20 000 on his CDs? William Greene15:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I dont think so
Why subjectivism?
I think a lot--not all--of the blame goes to magazines like Stereophile and The Absolute Sound. They are just glossy and very large brochures disguised as magazines that do whatever they can to help some unethical high-end companies sell their products, accessories, and treatments. I think there are few professors of electrical engineering or audio researchers that take subjectivists and their magazines seriously. Part of the blame must, of course, go to the subjectivists themselves. Many are gullible, because they do not have the technical knowledge to make an informed buying decision.
Another problem is that once they have spent many thousands of dollars on their system--perhaps more than $200 000 US--they may hate being told that they have been taken for a ride. I know that if I spent more than $100 000 for a pair of vacuum-tube monoblocks and was presented with evidence that they sound the same as a $200 receiver, there is a good chance that I would refuse to accept the evidence. To accept the evidence would mean a devastating blow to my ego. Magazines like Stereophile and The Absolute Sound have used this to their advantage to keep the myths alive.
The article "Audiophile" would be much better if it rebuts all the myths thrown up by the subjectivists instead of allowing both sides equal time. Allowing both sides equal time is like an article on cosmology giving equal time to those that believe in a flat earth. An encyclopaedia article should never have room for myths unless, of course, the article is supposed to be about myths--for example, ancient Greek myths. William Greene22:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
That's a tough distinction to draw. I agree with the idea of scientific POV == NPOV when dealing with such matters, but a great many Wikipedia editors don't. It's definitely a source of tension, and you're right that a lot of subjectivist magazines serve only to reinforce subjectivist prejudices. (In a way, it rather reminds me of a former roommate of mine who simply refused to believe that chess could be played on a purely mathematical models, despite the outcome of the Kasparov v Deep Blue challenges. In a way it's a sort of vitalism, perhaps logically akin to the God of the Gaps argument.) Another issue is the problem of "musicality" in amplifiers -- while to an objectivist distortion is only desirable in situations such as a guitar amp, a subjectivist will not only demand subtle distortion, but might insist that it actually increases the fidelity of the sound. (On that count, such subjectivists are fooling themselves.) As for myths... well, the audiophile world is full of them. Haikupoet06:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Literal meaning of audiophile
According to Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary,audio comes from the Latin audire, to hear. So audiophile literally means one who loves to hear. William Greene14:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
This article is fundamentally flawed
This article is based on the most simple definition of an "audiophile" being defined as someone who desires to reproduce the most literal sound, or closest to the original version. However, every single time I have heard the word used it is used to describe those who have irrational viewpoints about sound, specifically the subculture which advocates listening to music turntables with diamond needles.
Now even though this may be a massive stereotype, and describe only a minority of self-described audiophiles, not making big distinctions about this in the article is inherintly a NPOV/Original Research problem. This would be like if the article on first person shooters was equally about battlezone and rail gun games as it were about what everyone calls an fps. While this would be correct from the most literal definition of the title, it would misrepresent the subject entirely.
I've not heard that myself. And whenever I've read or heard the term it's referred to audio "purists" (those who are really into audio and are more demanding than your average listener). To a very small degree, I'm one such person. I typically rip CDs in MP3 format at higher than average bitrates (256-320 kbps VBR - I don't take it as far as lossless file formats, but 256-320 kbps is higher than most rip at).
Audiophile is a pejorative word to those with a technical knowledge about sound/audio and, particularly, professionals working in the audio field of an age to have observed the creation and growth of the sector after the end of the 60/70s hi-fi boom. Audiophiles themselves do not consider it a pejorative word or, in many cases, even seem to know how they are viewed by the technically literate (the audiophile world has generally had to isolate itself from the audio/technical/scientific mainstream because of its beliefs). There is a small but identifiable group of "objective-audiophiles" that can be observed on audiophile websites who do not hold the mainstream audiophile beliefs yet would seem to feel part of the audiophile community. However, I suspect the majority who are interested in high-fidelity sound in the home and do not hold audiophile beliefs would rather be called audio enthusiasts, hi-fi buffs or almost anything apart from audiophiles. I do not know if this distinction between the words "high-fidelity" and "audiophile" is as strong in the younger generations as in the older generations - the almost unrecognisable definition of audiophile on the main page would perhaps suggest not!HonestGuv15:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Rewrite
I'm about to drop in a massive rewrite. This article currently fails on two fronts: first, its take on the audiophiles-vs-skeptics fails to achieve NPOV. Second, it is extremely thin on information on what audiophiles actually believe and do. Tim Bray 01:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Response: I've been kind of goofing around with the prior version, inserting hyperlinks everywhere and statements here and there, but the article was in need of this type of rewrite. Looks good. LGreen 20:12, 13 Mar 2005
Hey LGreen, good stuff, improvements all round. Tim Bray 06:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
ok sorry but this article is crap as it is now (2 november 2006)
why even give in to "audiophile"-speak by calling people who think audiophile beliefs are bogus by using science "objectivists" ? it that some kind of euphemism to mean "scientist" without the authority of the term ?
also most of the reason in the "Subjectivists' criticisms of objectivism in audio" are weapons grade baloney , often they don't even apply
for example:
"Subjectivists were experimenting with room acoustics (sonic dampening, speaker positioning) long before component manufacturers began to consider them a factor influencing sound quality"
how can that possibly qualify as "Subjectivists' criticisms of objectivism in audio"
buy all the 1000$ power cables you want, but don't mix belief with science thanks
216.113.96.8923:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Shodan
One definition
People who have somehow decided that the audio equipment they purchase and use must be much more expensive and have fewer features than the average ones.
In extreme cases they will even spend $5000 for a roll of speaker wire that calls itself bi-directional copper. There are a few specialty stores that carry this wire, and they actually sell a few.
Tubes for distortion or fidelity?
"This tendency however pervades the entire professional sound engineering and production industry, which to this day heavily uses analogue tape and vacum tube equipment because it sounds "warmer"."
Yes, but sometimes they use it to get a specific sound, which is a "valid" concern. Audiophile deals more with people who want a "pure" "unchanged" sound, and yet their sound is not unchanged. But using analog tape saturation to compress drumbeats or vacuum tube responses to shape guitar waveforms is not really the same thing. - Omegatron 03:18, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but it is sometimes used to get that sound ON PURPOSE, using saturated tape recording and tube amplifiers to get the "warmer" sound on a guitar signal or whatever, which is different than the audiophile ideal of trying to get perfect sound reproduction. Please clarify this in the article. Or I guess I will... :-) - Omegatron 20:37, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
The problem is this: I believe this article uses possibly an original research definition of audiophile, meaning one who strives for perfect fidelity to the original sound. However, I have almost always seen the term used in a pejorative sense to describe only those who use irational means to improve their sound.
An audiophile is a person who strives for high-fidelity sound, regardless of whether they are chasing imaginary problems. Just because you've only heard it used in the pejorative doesn't mean that that's the only connotation of the word. There are self-professed audiophiles, such as... Audiophilia magazine, which disproves your premise. — Omegatron00:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I can attest that a back-to-back comparison of two large guitar amplifiers, one solid state the other tube, used as a monitor in a noisy (crowded) live performance, demonstrated that the tube amp was "punchy" and clear while the solid-state amp essentially produced only hiss and white noise.
This example relates to music *production* and is irrelevant to "Audiophile" which is about music *reproduction*. So what if the musician uses a valve amp? That is no argument for the home listener to do same. It is equivalent to arguing that a violin has to be reproduced by a wooden box of the same materials and dimensions as the violin: illogical. -- Nowater57 (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
My friend swapped the solid-state amp during the middle of my set, and I had to drag the tube amp back because I literally couldn't hear what I was doing.
This is backed up by some studies which say that tube amps perform better under clipping scenarios, which is your first lesson that analog reproduction is basically unlimited (soft clipping) whereas digital reproduction is designed around limits (hard clipping). Broodlinger07:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't be taking any lessons from this teacher. A typical class A or B transistor amplifier is analog, just like a valve amp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nowater57 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
An audiophile is a dickhead. End of.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.159.16.11 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 10 March 2007.
People see beauty in different places
People see beauty in different places. To someone who hears music as the most perfect art, thousands of dollars for a stereo system is no different than spending money on a nice car, house, or vacation.
Thanks for your money. - Omegatron 23:35, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
It's your choice. You can also buy snake oil if you want, it's a free country. As I see it, the first $100 spent will buy you a system with a certain performance, we'll call it 1.0. The next $1000 might improve it to 2.0 The Next $10,000 will improve it to, ooh say 2.1... so there's some exponential at work there. Still, it's your money... earn it how you want, spend it how you want. Graham 02:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have no problems with people spending lots of money on their gear. I have problems with people reinforcing myths. There may be some panache to owning a Patek Philippe. But did you ever hear of a watch collector claim that his Patek was more accurate than a Casio? William Greene22:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Removed assertion.
There is one well-known case of a substantial double-blind test failing to detect a flaw in a digital archival format that was obvious when pointed out by an educated listener.
I'm a little incredulous at this. I don't see anything in the 'external links' section to back it up, so it's going to stay here until someone sources it. grendel|khan 13:39, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
Fair enough. It was the Swedish national broadcaster; they were selecting a digital format for long-time archiving and did a big double-blind study on the winner, with excellent results. Then some record producer who heard it said "Gack, you've got a problem in the high midrange" and it turned out that yep, there was a digital filtering error. I read the article and actually emailed with a guy at ATT who consulted to the study; mind you this was in about 1988... anyhow, I should be able to dig it up. Tim Bray 06:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Connectors vs cables
Removed:
"Measurable differences in the quality of the connection (i.e.phono plugs) are tremendously greater than those seen in the actual cables themselves; in fact, the improvement made by soldering the interconnects directly between components is hugely greater than any differences between cables."
Triboelectric effects cause significant noise in poorly made cables when they are bent, the capacitance of the cable can cause filtering of high end while using low-output impedance sources, etc. Connectors you really just have to worry about the reliability of the connection. Will it lose contact if you touch it? Will it corrode? - Omegatron 23:35, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
All equipment at 16 kHz?
"n 20 kilohertz, even though most recording equipment will not reproduce anything higher than 16 kilohertz."
which recording equipment is this?? besides vinyl, i mean... :-) - Omegatron 00:25, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
This came from a talk some recording engineer guy gave to a bunch of audiophile/engineer types I attended. He basically made the point that the equipment doesn't record anything above 16K 'How do I know this? Because I designed a lot of it'. The audience was abuzz. Given that I don't have any other evidence on the topic, I guess I can't stake much on it's being true.Gzuckier 14:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In my experience, most "professional" equipment -3 dB point goes significantly above 20 kHz, so I would say the 16 probably only goes for very cheap or old equipment. Things like AM radio (~5 kHz! (10 kHz per channel)), cassettes (~15 kHz), and vinyl records (~15–18 kHz) probably, but not any modern formats or equipment.
Whether the typical person can hear above 16 kHz, on the other hand... - Omegatron 16:48, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Hey. I can't hear above 16 kHz, and I'm not even close to middle aged. But check the Equal-loudness contour. It only goes up to 11 kHz! - Omegatron 23:03, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Many audiophiles cannot even hear up to 15 kHz. This is especially so for middle-aged or older males. This is even worse for those that have listened for a long time to music at average levels above 85 dB. William Greene20:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I carry out tests on loudspeakers, to check the frequency response, and we can measure up to 30KHz. We do it repeatably and can check the variation between different speakers. I believe the kit works up to 30Khz at least. Furthermore, whilst when carrying out tests on listeners hearing range where you play a sine wave up to high frequencies to determine where the treshhold of hearing is, people can only hear up to 20KHz max, and most people far below that. In the context of listening to music rather than a single frequency sine wave, humans can detect a difference between sound that has a roll on at 16KHz and a roll on of 30KHz, its just really subtle.--Manc ill kid15:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
20kHz maximum is derived from the lengths of 'cillia' (misnomer, microvilli really) on cochleal inner hair cells. Cells simply don't exist in humans to hear outside the range of (roughly) 20Hz-20kHz. You can work out pretty accurately the frequency the cell responds to from the length of the cillia. The higher frequency cells are the most sensitive and the mildest toxicity (e.g. from some antibiotics) or loud high frequency noise will permanently cause these cells not to function. Also, that Equal-loudness contour does go up to 20kHz, it's a logarithmic scale.--KX3613:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The Nakamichi Dragon supposedly had a -3Db point @ 23KHz. using a Type IV metal cassette tape. I know my Teac V-900X was also capable of recording over 20K using a high quality Type IV tape. It was one of the features that sold me on it in the first place. So that engineer was either designing the type of shoddy equipment typically found at your local electronics store or the entire industry was lying to us all. These numbers can easily be verified simply by perusing the technical specifications written in the manual.
I removed: What the skeptics often forget in this case is that the filters (intentional or not) which prevent higher frequencies from passing (lowpass filters) have significant phase shift in the passband even when the attenuation is minimal. While the human ear is basically a frequency analyzer, phase shifts are still audible as a decoherence of transients. It's not that this isn't a possibly valid point, but that it didn't belong as a rebuttal in the skeptics' case section. Let each put his case - I think a point-by-point rebuttal is likely to be to the great detriment to the article. This is not the place to HAVE the argument, it's a place to PRESENT the arguments, coherently and neutrally, and let the reader make their mind up. Thus the current wording "what skeptics often forget..." sounds like having the argument to me, not presenting the arguments. If the writer of this bit, or an audiophile who understands the point would like to have another go and find a home for it in the audiophiles' case section, I certainly have no objection, provided it is done in the spirit of presenting the argument as part of an encyclopedia article and not scoring points.Graham 12:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Don't remove things; improve things. (My new motto that I invented just for you!) :-)
I wrote it, and I am one of the "skeptics". The "Audiophile rejoinders" section has double bullet rebuttals, too. See articles like Arguments for and against drug prohibition#Point-counterpoint against drug prohibition for examples of similar formats. I am all in favor of choosing a different format as long as all the information is covered. The article needs a lot of cleaning up. - Omegatron 13:33, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the current setup "skeptics' case" and "audiophiles' rebuttal" is kind of inherently lopsided. Probably should be "skeptics' case" and "audiophiles' case", no?Gzuckier 14:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I certainly want to improve things - I just couldn't quite see how to do that simply by cutting and pasting the section to another place, as it rebuts a specific argument. (Incidentally, improvement and removal are not mutually incompatible ;-) However, I stick to my point that it should go in the audiophiles' case section, not as a rebuttal in the skeptics' case. I think this goes for the other double-point rebuttals too - the skeptics have made their case, they don't need to rebut the audiophiles' case and vice versa. Thus all these double-point rebuttals need to be reworded and moved to the appropriate section. FWIW, I'm a skeptic too - but that shouldn't bias the way we present the arguments here. Graham 02:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Digital versus Analogue
I found this citation on high-endaudio.com which seems agreable to me:
The sonics on this album are truly amazing. It is extremely immediate, pure and clean; to the point of being "stunning". The dynamic qualities are also superb, and there is incredible precision and detail. The sound is also very natural, with excellent harmonic structure, but this is a digital recording, with at least a few of the unavoidable problems. The decays are a little shortened, and the performance space is not fully developed, so it almost sounds like it was recorded in a small, dead studio. The (soprano) voice is also not as successful. It is decently captured, but it is veiled and there is an occasional strain at high volumes, plus it noticeably "drops out" at very soft volumes. This album would be in the top two classes if it weren't for these downsides, but it still makes the Basic List.
I'd like to go beond the Digital/dynamic, Analogue/warmer debate since warm or cold is just a question of frequence respnice, and the content of this text seems to fit well to this purpose (on the side of the analogists).
Opinions?
Sure. Digital recording involves sending an audio signal through a calculator. As we all know, this results in a "flatter frequency response" and "improved dynamic range." Huh? Is there something about measuring an audio signal that inherently proves you're measuring it properly? Analog recording dispenses with the measurement process and simply attempts to capture as much of the signal as possible.
In some cases, you can capture more than what the spec was designed for (three channels on a VHS tape can be saturated with two audio channels and no video). At the very least, you will capture it with more soft, rounded clipping, which is impossible in the digital domain. Broodlinger07:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
FaZ72 26/08/2005
p.s. how do you make a signature with link, time and date?
You can easily "sign" your talk posts by ending them with four tildes (~~~~). When you press (Save page), these will be replaced by your username (or IP address) in a handy Wikilinked format. This will also contain a timestamp for your posting.
The article uses the word "clipping" a couple of times:
- "Tube amplifiers are heavily used in music production ... because of their distinctive "soft clipping" when overdriven."
- "transistor-based amplifiers are often frowned on for guitar use due to the harsh clipping artifacts"
Could somebody please put in a quick definition of "clipping" for those readers who, like myself, have no idea what this means?
(And for that matter, a quick definition of "overdriven", as used in the first example here)
Thanks -- 11 October 2005
Clipping is easier to explain in terms of pictures than words, but basically imagine a sine wave. The top-to-bottom width of the waveform is the amplitude or loudness. If the amplitude gets too wide, it will hit a point where the circuit reproducing it can't handle the full strength of the signal and will only pass as much of it as it can. The result is that, at the points where the amplitude crosses the limits of the circuit, the extra signal is cut off, generating distorted waveforms that manifest as harmonic distortion in the sound. Clipping, in other words, is basically what happens when you overdrive something.
The difference in clipping characteristics between tubes and transistors is that when a signal is overdriven, the transistor will cut off the signal completely at the amplitude limit, while the tube will attenuate but not completely cut off the signal, resulting in less harsh distortion, which is sometimes percieved as "more musical". In practice, it isn't necessarily an issue for a well-designed amp since such an amp has as wide an amplitude range as possible to create more faithful sound reproduction. There are times, however (guitar amps mostly), where you want the circuit to be intentionally easy to overdrive to create that distorted sound, and tubes generally produce what is percieved as smoother, "more musical" distortion. That's the basic story. Haikupoet02:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes??? Get yourself on an analog synth that has sine, triangle, and square wave options. You will quickly discover that square waves produced by a clipping amplifier are musically useless. Think about it...square waves are essentially a DC signal.
It's also dangerous to say that solid-state amps have enough overhead to make clipping a non-issue. If clipping was a non-issue, then we wouldn't be talking about it. Broodlinger07:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Negative feedback
"... the universal acceptance of the fact that, while this technique was indeed beneficial to amplifier stability and test results using steady-state waveforms, it was inherently problematic for constantly changing waveforms as in real music..."
Negative feedback is good to linearize amplifier response. But a crappy and slow amplifier with lots of negative feedback won't make a very good amplifier, leading to poor transient response and great high-frequency distortion. That was that happened with some early negative feedback audio amplifiers. But this was hardly an unknown issue for the people that developed negative feedback applications to electronics. However, it seems it was for part of the audio industry. Today, negative feedback is usually used properly in audio amplifiers, and is not problematic at all with any kind of audio signals.
"...and resulted in amplifiers that tested well and sounded bad."
This was because "standard" measurement practices in audio industry on those years did not include high frequency distortion measurement. KikeG16:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
"...steady-state waveforms" is a fundamental misconception. A sinewave viewed on an oscilloscope might *look* static, but it is of course a signal of constantly varying amplitude and rate of change. The amplifier has no knowledge of previous repeats of the same sequence of voltages and voltage changes, and thus doesn't care whether the current state of affairs is derived from a sinewave generator or a full symphony orchestra
nuh uh. Negative feedback circuits have a time constant, and thus constitute a low-pass filter. As such, a steady state application of a sinewave will not be affected, but a mixture of sinewaves of various frequencies will. In practical terms, a cheap amp knows damn well whether this cycle of a sinewave right here was preceded by more of the same, or by a full amplitude excursion of the signal. Gzuckier18:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course the time-constant of practical audio amps using negative feedback is far shorter than the period of even the fastest signal frequency applied to the amplifier. So to claim that the amp has some knd of memory for the practical signals applied to it is pretty much wrong.
I agree. THe most that can be said is that there will probably be a frequency dependent phase shift in the amplifier and feedback network. THe analysis is standard for determination of phase and gain margin.
Any delay in either network can be determined by its Group delay characteristic which is d(phi)/dw. If phi is constant with freq, this implies no (group) delay. If phi is liearly increasing with frequency, this implies a non zero group delay.
Every properly conducted and interpreted double-blind test has failed to support subjectivists' claims of significant or extremely subtle sonic differences between devices if measurements alone predict that there should be no sonic differences between the devices when listening to music. If there are any properly conducted and interpreted double-blind tests that show otherwise, I am very interested in seeing the citations. And please do not give citations from disreputable sources like Stereophile and The Absolute Sound.
Here are two citations from reputable sources:
1. Peter Aczel: "In controlled double-blind listening tests, no one has ever (yes, ever!) heard a difference between two amplifiers with high input impedance, low output impedance, flat response, low distortion, and low noise, when operated at precisely matched levels (±0.1 dB) and not clipped."
"There are problems in applying double-blind methods to comparison of audio devices; audiophiles assert that a relaxing environment and sufficient time, measured in days or weeks, is necessary for the discriminating ear to do its work;"
However, many times audiophiles don't need such long periods of time to make claims about great sonic differences when doing sighted comparisons. Also, double blind testing doesn't exclude long time testing.
"further, that the introduction of the switching apparatus, involving as it does either another metal connection at the switch or another level of electronic processing with solid state switches, obscures the differences between the two signal sources being tested."
There's no need to use switching apparatus to perform double-blind tests. Just the help of an assistant or two. Quick switching apparatus is used just to ease the process. However, audiophiles don't use quick switching when performing sighted comparisons. KikeG17:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The most important aspect of a double-blind test is bi-directionality. That is, if you go from 1-->2, you must go from 2-->1 to account for human memory and curiosity. It is not a small thing to say that humans frequently prefer experiences that are worse out of pure curiosity. For example, why gasoline sometimes smells "good." If you just go from 1-->2 then human curiosity becomes overwhelming to prefer whatever signal is the least familiar. Broodlinger07:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
No. I think you do not understand the purpose of double-blind tests. The most important aspect of a double-blind test is to try and remove as many biases as possible. Quick-switching double-blind tests are done specifically to account for the notoriously short memory of subjects when it comes to comparing short passages of music. It is even more difficult to try to compare long passages of music. Curiosity has nothing to do with it.
It is about the ability to hear a difference when you do not know which source is playing. And familiarity has nothing to do with it too. A double-blind test can be arranged so that you always can hear the two sources whenever you want. You are only asked to identify the random source, which is either A or B--one of the two sources that is always available to you at a click of a button to listen to. William Greene17:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Professional Practices
"Audiophiles tend to hold commercial music recording practices in low regard. Particularly in the pop-music domain, most recordings are based on the heavy use of multitrack technology, the studio dominated by a huge mixing board with as many as eighty channels, each channel operating in the digital domain and subjected to a wide variety of tonal and "effects" processing. Audiophiles believe that this complex signal chain degrades the quality of the signal and lessens the spontaneity and integrity of the musical performance. There are some professional musicians and audio engineers that agree with this view. Currently-active recording artists who apply audiophile recording principles include Neil Young, the Cowboy Junkies, and the White Stripes."
What are you saying? I only listen to Ween, they hold Leonard Cohen in high regard. I have no idea about Cohen's music or his preferences for recording formats. Broodlinger07:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Current trends
"Because manufacturers have failed to agree on a single format and because there are relatively few releases in these formats, acceptance so far has been limited."
Unfortuately, although the Compact disc, now over 20 years old, are still going strong, these newer formats (only about 10 years old and still not catching on, at least here in Australia) are already "on their way out." The reasons may be found on this page
One cannot fool all the people all the time. I think consumers have realized that the "improvements" in sound quality of SACDs and DVD-Audio discs are minor or just not worth the expense. If a person already has a large CD collection, why replace it with SACDs or DVD-Audio discs? The better sound, convenience, and portability of CDs compared to records, however, did justify the replacement of records with CDs. For lovers of classical music, I think a good signal processor along with, say, six to eight channels of amplification and loudspeakers is a much better value than replacing a huge collection from scratch. William Greene20:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The better sound of CD's over vinyl is the biggest canard in all of music history. Fact is, anything you hear about "pops" and "distortion" from vinyl recordings is based on the idea that testable vinyl recordings were made 20 years ago.
Dance clubs prefer vinyl for a good reason, it has a wider frequency response and greater detail. Granted, CD's often have crisper treble response, but I have a $5 vinyl cartridge and a $75 scratch cartridge. Ask me again when I get Ortofon NCE's (sharper needle, $3-400/pair).
The biggest blockbuster to this myth is that vinyl records of the last ten years (since dance music got big) sound amazing. And the difference is huge between a vinyl record played for the first time and played for the 50th time (after the grooves wear down). In short, there is a great deal of dynamic range on vinyl being ignored by the pro-CD crowd, who harp on pops and hisses that are mostly artifacts from the 1960's.
Another damning statement is that when my vinyl pops (dust on the album), and I record it to CD, I don't hear the pop anymore. Surprise! Reduced fidelity in digital formats.
The article gives a good short technical overview of why CDs are superior to records; the article also has citations for this opinion. And consumers have voted with their wallets. Records are inherently inferior to CDs. I think dance clubs prefer records, because they were easier to mix than CDs and because many fans of dance music still believe in the myth that records sound better than CDs for technical reasons. Please supply a citation for the wider frequency response of records.
Digital sound has no clicks, pops, wow, flutter, audio feedback, or rumble, has a higher signal-to-noise ratio, has a wider dynamic range, has less total harmonic distortion, and has a flatter and more extended frequency response. But you claim that records have greater detail. Citation please. Reduced fidelity in digital formats? Citation please. William Greene19:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I have had it all
ok to all the people in the world let me tell you. I have spent over 5 million dollars on audio !!!
I have had every untra- high end speaker( be it panal, electrostat. , or horn) every type of amp(SE, PP ,solidstate, tube, Class D, experimental, DIY, cross bread) and all kinds of sources best and worst turntables, best Dac's, transports, you name it....
I have come to one conclusion..
If your setup cant reproduce 10Hz its junk.
SE is the only way to go(DHT all the way--driver DHT,ect.)
DHT preamps are best..
Solid state electronic suffer high resistance kill music taste( the path of least risistance is achived via a vacume!!!!)
All 12ax7, , el 34, twin triodes, and "golden age of audio" tubes are crap!!!
Negative feedback is the BIGGEST PROBLEM!!!! I have tested it -- i have had every setup imaginable --
300B is nothing compared to the experimental ultra-ultra-high end tubes.
Good records are rare--- Good Cd's are ultra rare---
electrostatic speakers will kill the energy of your living space
Photovoltic power is the onlyy way to get quiet hummmless music..
THe room must be an extention of yourself---- dont do basements,-- the ground has a 60 HZ humm that will get into yor system even if you dont hear it..
PURE silver from Tube base to speaker winding....
wirewould risistors-- custom build by NASA or MIT(higher QT if you give them enought money) only---
THE SPEAKER IS THE WEAKEST LINK IN YOUR SYSTEM --spend the most money there----
THE MAGNET IS THE LEAKEST PART OF A DRIVER!!!!!!!!!
EI core trans pooor efficency-----only use Trodial!!!!
the midrange should not have a X-over
the woofer should not have a X-over
the tweeter should
.....
NANO technology and TUBE's are the future!!!!
I have made plans with CERN to biggin a project into creating the Perfect tube!!!(more to come on that later- you all will deffinetly hear about it in the next 2-3 years)
Love music not your system
Re-evaluate your needs, desired every 3mo.
Understand who you are, were you came from,,who you are competing with!
And dont do drugs when you listem to music,
Dont drink when you listen to music,,
and dont think!!!!!!!!!!!
Live inside the music!!!
If you dont have money you are not a happy person... cant affort that music system-don't put a 2nd morgage on your house to buy that new turntable that cost more then your car.. buy a nice car, and keep the cheep Turntable-- you will be happier.
This is the best rebuttal of so-called "subjectivists" I've ever heard. Ridiculous.
This article is starting to show the world just how crazy audiphiles are.
Doesn't it though? BTW, for those of you reading this as I'm posting it, James Randi is talking audiophile yahoos again on his newsletter at randi.org. Haikupoet06:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
heh heh heh
I'm not sure where this belongs in the article, but here's some magic pebbles you can put in your room to make your sound better. Appears to be serious. This magic foil appears real, too. This is obviously a joke. — Omegatron04:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Put this in your pipe and smoke it ...
Just ran across an information-rich site which includes a good deal of stuff about audio, including this little gem:
... we appear to be in the paradoxical situation that the most expensive equipment provides the worst objective performance.
(You can find this here. He includes specs that back up this observation.) The man is obviously a diehard objectivist. I find this fascinating: that more and more deluded audiophiles are paying more and more money ... and actually getting worse performance for all their troubles! Hey, maybe someone can work this into the article somehow. ILike2BeAnonymous06:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't have an argument with it myself, but it seems that in a postmodern world such as this scientific POV != neutral POV. The diehard subjectivists are so wedded to their position that it's unlikely you'd sway many of them. I'm reminded somewhat of an old roommate of mine who steadfastly maintained that chess is a deeply psychological game that can never properly be mastered by a computer. Not long after that Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov playing chess strictly by the numbers. I don't know what his position is on the matter now, as it's been years since I've spoken to him. Haikupoet06:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Identifying bias through comedy
From the article:
Subjectivists....prefer this analog sound even though digital sound has no clicks, pops, wow, flutter, audio feedback, or rumble, has a higher signal-to-noise ratio, has a wider dynamic range, has less total harmonic distortion, and has a flatter and more extended frequency response.
Wow! Sounds like subjectivists are idiots. Now let's turn to the Wiki article on Texans:
Texans....prefer this small-town diner hamburger even though McDonalds burgers have no char, fat, protein, or pink color, attending waitstaff, or restaurant atmosphere, has a higher carbohydrate ratio, has a wider profit margin, has less total nutrient content, and has a flatter bun and an extended gastrointestinal presence.
Damn Texans are stupid too! Who could possibly turn down a McDonalds hamburger when it's obviously so much better?
Point being, both articles are full of a heavy dose of fundamentalist religion. For starters, some of the things they're saying about McDonalds aren't even correct. McDonalds doesn't have a higher profit margin than a diner, their burgers are sold practically at a loss. But even if they did, why would this be good for the customer?
In conclusion, apparently McDonalds hamburgers have some kind of magical quality that makes all known problems disappear and yet...I'm not sure I'd want one.
Deleted the sentence "To an audiophile, any loss is considered unacceptable."
This sentence is inconsistent with the rest of the article in not one, but two big ways:
Firstly, this sentence was supposed to explain why audiophiles don't convert .wav files to .mp3 format - and yet .wav is a lossy format, so this explanation makes no sense.
Secondly, in the beginning of the article it is stated that everyone agrees current equipment falls short of perfect sound reproduction. Thus, all audiophiles realize they are dealing with loss, and their hobby is based around trying to minimize that loss.
I could go on, actually. In another part of the article, it is stated that exactly what the human ear can and cannot hear is debated; thus, an audiophile who believed a certain upper freqeuncy range was inaudible to the human ear would not care if there was loss in that frequency. But I think by now, I've proven my point.
I love your justification that wav is a lossy format; however, you fail to mention how it's lossy because it's not lossy in the same way mp3 is lossy. WAV in reality is a header, and can contain many formats, however, it's mostly recgonized as containing uncompressed PCM audio, same format as audio CD. It's from this PCM stream that a mp3 encoder starts plucking audio out. Now, calling wav a lossy format..that dives into digital vs. analog in saying that digital sampling of the original analog waveform does degrade the original wav.
i'm not getting in to that one. that's a debate that will never end.
As for your last point, I don't know any real hardcore audiophiles and I myself am at the lower end of the spectrum. I don't find CD's all that bad if they're mastered properly (dynamics are a gooood thing..if it's too quiet, get a real system), and I myself tend to feel an aura..almost euporic state when listening to really good sounding audio...and if something doesn't sound just right, it tends to throw the balance off.....then again..i'm weird like that. DewDude 25-9-2006
I adjusted the link to the tone disambiguation page to point at timbre. If there is a more appropriate place to point it, by all means update it. That may mean creating a new page in this case as timbre appeared to be the closest match. Upholder06:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The turntable picture is captioned "Modern entry-level high-end turntable" - surely it's either entry-level or high-end, it can't be both! AdorableRuffian13:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
According to the Usenet newsgroup rec.audio.high-end, "price is generally not significant in determining whether or not a given component may be considered 'high-end.'" William Greene21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Not a reference. Rec.audio.high-end is a moderated newsgroup. "Price is generally not significant in determining whether or not a given component may be considered 'high-end'" is used to set a boundary for discussion in that newsgroup. All I wanted to say was that not every audiophile believes high end is high price. Even Robert Harley's book The Complete Guide to High-End Audio--which is awful, read the reviews at Amazon.com--says that high end does not have to be expensive. William Greene17:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
ILike2BeAnonymous's reverts of citations
ILike2BeAnonymous, in your edit summary, you wrote "Revert: You've got to be more careful in your selection of citations. This one says nothing about the age of audiophiles, only that they're men, and is unsupported and unverified." I know that citation says nothing about the age of audiophiles, but, as I wrote in my edit summary, I asked interested readers to refer to the third citation which does say: "At the same time, our subscriber base (as distinct from our retail base) has been slowly shrinking, consisting mainly of elderly people, alas."
I read the Wikipedia's guide for citations and believe that the citation that you reverted is of good quality. The other citation (PDF) that you reverted supported the idea that, traditionally, audiophiles have been overwhelmingly men. And here is the fourth citation (PDF). You now have been given four citations that, to me at least, would seem to support the idea that the majority of audiophiles are men over 35. Please give your definition of a supported and verified citation. William Greene19:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that you seem to be using a shotgun approach to providing citations. It's not enough to find a citation somewhere out there in the vast universe of the web that simply mentions the thing you're trying to support in passing. There are several criteria for references that I won't go over here which should be met in order for them to be acceptable here. The ones that I removed didn't meet those qualifications. For instance, the PDF that supposedly supported the assertion that "most audiophiles are men over 35" said no such thing, for one: for another, it was not a reputable source to begin with. So I still say you need to be more careful about finding citations. You seem to have it backwards: you don't make a statement here and then backfill by trying to find a supporting reference for it. +ILike2BeAnonymous20:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I looked at that last reference you provided (had to download it outright, as it hung my browser trying to open it as a link: PDFs should be used sparingly and judiciously for this reason). Sorry, have to reject it. It's obviously a PowerPoint presentation (in other words, a piece of marketing material) for a magazine. What it says, if it is to be believed, is that 98% of the magazine's readers (note the distinction from audiophiles) are males between the ages of 35 and 55. So all this proves, if it is true, is that the magazine's readers are males of this age. See the problems here? +ILike2BeAnonymous20:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
CD Sampling Rates and other assorted ramblings
I remember there was a lively debate for over 2 years before the CD Sampling rate was established by Sony. After Sony and Phillips had proposed their 44.kHz sampling rate for the Compact Disk, the audiophiles almost immediately began to protest. As you know, a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz. is the minimum required to record a 20 kHz signal. However, the audiophiles among us felt that was far too low. I personally had over a dozen people sit down and proved that the majority of people under the age of 30 could detect frequencies above 20 KHz. Even if we could not directly 'hear' the frequency, 10 out of 12 could tell a difference in the 'airyness' of the music. According to my own spectrum analyser and a high end microphone, My system was capable of faithfully reproducing frequencies up to 26 KHz. But when I filtered out all frequencies above 20 KHz (at 24 Db/octave), all but two in twelve could tell the difference. The high end of the spectrum just went flat. I, along with many other audiophiles, wrote to Sony asking that they wait but a couple more years for the technology to improve enough to accommodate at least 24 KHz.. At the time, the 44.1 KHz sampling rate was more of the result of limited IC technology than actual audio reproduction concerns. Simply put, the digital filters would be more efficient and therefore effective at higher sampling rates, but the AD and DA converters could not be driven at higher speeds without heat problems and sampling errors. The first CD players put onto the market had an audible high pitched hiss or whine that was the result of inadequate digital filtering technology. The whine was reduced a few years later and all but eliminated shortly thereafter.
Sony, through a couple of articles in various magazines at the time, promised everyone that as technology improved, so would the standard. That was enough to quell the protestations of many an audiophile, but as time passed and technology progressed, Sony never did increase the standards. Only now, decades later, are we seeing improvements in the standards. But only in completely new formats, rather than improvements in the old CD format. And as I understand it, they are not looking to extend the frequency range, but rather to increase the sampling rate and therefore the sampling density. That's also important, but IMO, not as important as extending the frequency of digital media to at least 24 KHz or better. With todays technology, both could technically be done with relative ease.
As I recall, there was also a lesser argument about the 20 Hz. low end of the frequency range as well. Some audiophiles wanted it to be 10, 12, or 15 Hz..
Aside from that debate, there was three audiophile camps featuring three different philosophies; the minimalist, the purist, and the live concert philosophies. This article seems to only consider one of them adequately. The minimalist philosophy, as stated, was due to the fact that increasing complexity also increased distortion. The other two philosophies diverged from each other when one asks "what kind of space should be reproduced?" The first philosophy was the purists who wanted the music to be as close to the studio sound as possible.
At this point, I would like to mention the part in the article that says audiophiles almost universally having no tone control at all is true only of the minimalist philosophy. Most every audiophile knows that the room dimensions, geometry, speaker placement, furnishing, carpeting, windows, etc.., literally every aspect of the room affects the sound. The minimalists that are covered in the article had a dilemma that their lack of control over their music meant that the listening environment also had to be tightly controlled. Which means that the listening room needed to be just as minimalist as their stereo. They had to remove most everything to start and then use carpeting, drapery, and furnishings only to prevent excessive absorption and echo of the mid to high frequencies. Failure to do so resulted in either excessively muddy or shrilly sound. These components also could not compensate for weaknesses in one's own hearing. So if one had a hearing loss of 4 Db. centered at 2 KHz. then there was nothing one could do to compensate. However, the stereo systems based upon this philosophy generally had the highest signal to noise ratios, highest stereo separation and lowest total harmonic distortion of the three.
The one aspect of audiophiles that could be considered truly universal is our contempt for receivers. This is mentioned in the article, but I would like to expand upon it. Receivers minimally consist of a tuner, preamplifier/switching unit, and an amplifier. A company might be known for making a great tuner, an excellent amplifier, or a high quality preamp, but no company would ever be the best at making all three - let alone placing all three into a single unit. Not to mention the problems of crosstalk and feedback associated with all three parts sharing the same power supply. Therefore, all receivers were considered compromises of price or ease of use over quality - a contemptible idea for the true audiophile.
To compensate for listening environment shortcomings, quality components such as equalizers were designed with white or pink noise generators to compensate for (cancel out) the listening environment. The equalizer/spectrum analyzer, contrary to popular use, was not to shape the sound to one's particular taste or to give some graphic display of the music (heh heh), but to compensate for one's listening environment. Only those of us crazy enough to get our hearing comprehensively tested could also compensate for lapses in our hearing as well. But as the article mentioned, adding components also added distortion and noise. As one added components, the signal to noise ratio, the stereo separation, and the THD (total harmonic distortion) of each component became more and more crucial. I've even seen components designed to compensate for the shortcomings of other components. For instance, DBX corporation produced a component called a subsonic synthesizer that could compensate for the lack of a speakers low end response, to allow one to filter out excessive wowing in a turntable and then restore the low end atificially, or to drive a subwoofer. All three functions were designed to compensate for the shortcomings of some other component in the system. Equalizers/spectrum analysers, high and low pass filters, dynamic range companders, etc.. all were designed to compensate for some other real or perceived shortcoming in the system. Each would decrease the overall quality of a 'pure' signal, and all were capable of degrading the system until it was no longer 'high fi' at all. But when properly used, they were capable of making a good system into a superb system.
Another note I would like to add is that FM reception is generally one of the worst sources one could use because most FM stations use dynamic range compression in order to increase the effective distance (and thereby maximizing their listening area) of their transmitters. Also, the atmosphere also degrades the signal and introduces noise. In addition, the demodulation circuits of all tuners produce poor stereo separation. The real killer of FM sources is clearly the compression. Unless one had a high quality dynamic range compander (compressor/expander) to compensate for the dynamic compression, FM was generally far too low quality to be used as a source. However, most dynamic range companders suffered from frequency and or phase shifting. Low end dynamic range companders suffered from 'breathing' of the sort commonly found in analog tape sources recorded using DBX noise reduction. The alternative, of course, is to only listen to radio stations that do not compress their media - a rarity in most geographic locations.
Back to the other two philosophies, they diverged according to the listening environment one wanted to simulate/recreate. One philosophy attempts to recreate the quasi anechoic chamber experience of the studio while the other attempts to create the live concert experience. I was solidly in the former camp, doing everything I could to produce a sound that was as close to the studio as possible. That is how most music I listened to was recorded and so that is how I wanted it to sound. My personal collection consisted of very few live performances. This philosophy believes that since one's ability to compensate for the listening environment and the shortcomings of one's own hearing is dependent upon controlling the sound, one can never have enough control over that sound. Quite the opposite of the minimalist philosophy.
In addition, while selecting stereo components, I would study product specifications of a dozen or more different make and models of the same component to ensure the highest quality that was compatible with my existing stereo system before making a purchasing decision. The average person today does not even see the specifications before their purchase. The concept of listening to how a component sounds without regard to compatability or faithful reproduction is one I personally find contemptible; as is purchasing everything from a single manufacturer. But to get something purely by the specifications is asking for trouble too. One requires a combination of the two philosophies if one is to build a truely outstanding system.
The third philosophy made a comeback in the 1980's with the introduction of surround sound processing. I was not old enough to have experienced the 'quadraphonic' sound of the late sixties, which is a precursor to the 'live' sound processing we have today. But I was there when the first surround sound processors were brought to market. At first, I was unimpressed until I heard the flexibility of the Yamaha DSP1. The flexibility and the wide range of environments that it could reproduce was staggering. However, the DSP1 pushed the envelope of digital technology. The DSP1 had the same high pitched hiss of all early digital equipment due to the poor digital filtering technology of the day.
I noticed that under the heading of Professional Practices, it mentions that today's pofessional mixing boards convert the signal to digital and then add effects. It mentions that this complex signal chain degrades the quality of the signal and lessens the spontaneity and integrity of the musical performance This is true of analogue mixing boards. Each track has it's own signal to noise ratio and every effect added to an analogue signal increases that noise. This is why analogue mixers are held in such low regard. But on a digital mixing board, all the loss of fidelity is in the digital conversion. Adding effects could be considered reducing fidelity, but so can a wawa pedal or any other form of analogue effects added to guitar or other instrument. The argument ultimately favors straight microphones in front of symphony orchestras and no other source. For the rest of us, whatever effects added to the source is considered what the recording artist wanted, regardless of whether the effect was added during performance or by mixing. Despite the loss of fidelity in the digital conversion, there is one nice thing about digital mixing; no matter how complex the signal chain gets, there is no degradation to the signal to noise ratio; which is the downfall of the analogue mixer. Thus, the audiophile holds the analogue mixer in very low esteem, not so much the digital one - unless one seeks out purely analogue sources.
I get a kick out of the image of the typical audiophiles listening room in this article. That cannot be the room of a minimalist audiophile because the number of overstuffed chairs and the wall material. Add to that a group of people and the audio in that room would muddy, almost completely lacking in high frequency tones. Unless one has an equalizer to compensate, that room would never sound right. But an equalizer is the last component a minimalist would ever resort to. To make things worse, the sound in that room would change according to the number of people in it and what they wore (heavy coats vs. T-shirts). Sorry, that room presents a minimalist audiophiles worst nightmare room. This only underscores the fact that home theater is not a minimalist philosophy.
Today of course, the dominant philosophy is the live concert experience that we find in almost all low to medium quality stereo systems. However, with the exception of some simple delay and volume options, I've noted a definite lack of control in todays popular brands of surround sound processors. It's a shame too, since it was the ability to adapt to any listening environment that impressed me about surround sound processing in the first place. After several hours of experimentation with the DSP1, I was able to create a listening environment that sonically seemed to lack walls. Most people can listen to music with their eyes closed and hear when they are approaching a wall. But a well adjusted DSP1 could sonically make walls disappear or to appear in places where there were none. However, the DSP1 had a steep learning curve and was definitely not for the casual listener.
The minimalist philosophy and the live concert philosophy seems to be the dominant two today. However, I would consider the former as being the philosophy of todays audiophiles while the latter is more of a mass marketing gimmick for the average masses. I suppose the third philosophy (my own) is somewhat of a rarity today.
One last note about amplifiers. Tube amplifier aficionados claim that tube amplifiers produce a 'warmer' or 'more mellow' sound than solid state amplifiers through the same speakers. Indeed, tube amplifiers are typically capable of producing greater current on demand than solid state amps. However, tube amplifiers generally produce more distortion and phase shifting than solid state devices of the same power ratings. Meanwhile, integrated amplifiers, although capable of extremely low distortion levels, almost universally suffer from low current capacity and a general lack of headroom. Generally speaking, to an audiophile there is no such thing as the perfect amplifier. Whether it be tube, traditional transistor, FET or IC, all options have strengths and drawbacks. It's amazing when people tell me that their stereo produces six hundred or a thousand watts. But when I see their specs, that's divided into 4 or 5 channels into 4 or 6 ohm speakers at 10% distortion (or more). To me, specs like that would probably be marginally good enough for a dumpster. Simply stated, I would not even bother listening to it if the specs did not measure up first. Only if they did would I put it to the hearing test. And believe me, I heard a lot of components that had good specs but poor sound - but nothing ever had bad specs but good sound (nothing I ever heard, at least). It was in this manner that I found a tape deck by Teac that actually beat the Nakamichi Dragon in all categories except frequency response on metal tape, which it nearly equalled - at a third the cost.
Well, I guess that's all I had to say. Hope I informed as much as entertained. I don't like changing the actual text of wikis but if someone experienced in doing so wants to, then they can expand on it using parts of what I wrote - changing the text as they see fit, of course.
"I personally had over a dozen people sit down and proved that the majority of people under the age of 30 could detect frequencies above 20 kHz."
I doubt it. You should submit your paper to a scientific journal for peer review. If there is anything to your research, other researchers will try to duplicate your results.
"The first CD players put onto the market had an audible high-pitched hiss or whine that was the result of inadequate digital-filtering technology. The whine was reduced a few years later and all but eliminated shortly thereafter."
I doubt it. So far there are no double-blind tests that show that anyone can consistently hear any audible differences between any two competently-designed CD players using music instead of test signals.
"That's also important, but in my opinion, not as important as extending the frequency of digital media to at least 24 kHz or better."
Twenty kHz is enough. I suspect, moreover, that for the vast majority of audiophiles, 15 kHz is the most that they can hear.
"As I recall, there was also a lesser argument about the 20 Hz low end of the frequency range as well. Some audiophiles wanted it to be 10, 12, or 15 Hz.."
The specifications for one of my DVD players says that with CDs, the frequency response is 2 Hz to 20 kHz +/- 0.5 dB. And I do not think that the CD standard has changed from the standard in use in 1982. There is little music below 16 kHz--maybe some pipe organs at 8.12 Hz from 64-foot pipes and artillery fire and killer synthesizers at about 5 Hz. Few audiophiles have loudspeakers or subwoofers that can reproduce realistic levels below 16 kHz.
"The minimalist philosophy, as stated, was due to the fact that increasing complexity also increased distortion."
I doubt it. No one has yet to demonstrate that they can consistently hear the difference between minimalist amplifiers and ordinary amplifiers in double-blind tests.
"Therefore, all receivers were considered compromises of price or ease of use over quality--a contemptible idea for the true audiophile."
Maybe some separate tuners are superior to some tuners found in some receivers. But getting a better antenna may be more important. The sound quality, however, of the preamplifier and power-amplifier sections of receivers are, according to double-blind tests, often the sonic equivalent to the best separates.
"Generally speaking, to an audiophile there is no such thing as the perfect amplifier. Whether it be tube, traditional transistor, FET or IC, all options have strengths and drawbacks."
Not according to double-blind tests.
"And believe me, I heard a lot of components that had good specs but poor sound, but nothing ever had bad specs but good sound."
If the specifications for an ordinary receiver predicts that there should be no audible difference between it and the best preamplifiers and power amplifiers--assuming that a laboratory confirms that the specifications are honest--and an audiophile says that the receiver sounds terrible, then the audiophile is probably imagining it.
Specifications of audio components do not tell the whole story. Nor do 'double blind' tests that do not provide the subjects with a full range of music sources, listening environments, and volume levels. One also needs to consider the interaction of each component. For instance, the specs of a good pair of speakers and a receiver with an integrated amplifier output may seem to indicate a good stereo, but if the speaker impedeance drops below 4 ohms at low frequency while the receivers finals are not designed for high current output , you will have clipping and distortion no matter what the specs say. This will not become apparent during a 'double blind test' unless the power output of the receiver is sufficient to make it apparent. Nor is it the fault of the speakers - it's just that the two were not designed for each other. Some speakers costing over a thousand dollars each will drop down below 4 ohms impedeance at low frequency. Low end speakers will do so even more often. High quality electrostatic speakers were notorious for huge current requirements. A $4500 pair of Final Sound's Model 500 Electrostatic Speakers simply will never work with most integrated amplifiers and even with many receivers. BTW, an integrated amplifier is traditionally known as an amplifier that primarily uses an Integrated Circuit to amplify the signal. They are traditionally notable for their extreemly low distortion but also for their lack of current capacity. As such, they are typically unsuitable for driving loudspeakers that drop down to low impedeance. I don't know when the definition changed to a preamp/amp combination, but that's what Wiki calls it these days.
The buzzing of early DACs was not that of the sampling signal; it was from the lack of oversampling and the poor anti aliasing filters at the time (see ccrma.stanford.edu/courses/192a/SSR/Digital%20Audio.pdf
See Also Analog sound vs. digital sound) And I note the comments about double blind tests are unsourced; poor procedure for such a scientific person as yourself; must have been an oversight. In addition, there is no way a typical receiver with an output rated up to 10% distortion is going to produce the sonic equivalent of a quality standalone amplifier rated at .005% distortion (ceteris paribus). Expecially since receivers generally use under spec'd transformers and a single power supply to feed the whole thing (introducing crosstalk and multiplying feedback distortion throughout the unit). You are right, nobody can hear the difference between .5% and .05% distortion. But that does not mean we should all tolerate the 5% distortion typical of the garbage sold at the popular consumer electonics stores, (not to mention any names). Assuming you are right, it's good to hear that they've managed to eliminate the poor stereo separation and THD caused by the crosstalk and feeback typical of tying all the components to a common ground and single power supply and transformer in receivers. It's good to know that quality receivers can drive loads as low as 2 ohms with little distortion and use multiple gangs, multiple filters and multiple IF bandwidths and extra fine stepping to pull in distant stations when you have a nearby station just a few KHz or Mhz down the spectrum. It's good to know that the same receivers have subharmonic synthesizers, dynamic range companders, noise reduction units, and quality 31 band per channel equalizers built in. The only question remains: why can't I find them? It's not just about specs; it's also about features and control.
For the 20K hearing limitation, I did not claim people could directly 'hear' the difference; I wrote that people could **tell the difference**. Whether this is due to subarmonics or some means of detecting high frequency sound pressure is not mine to say. I never investigated **how or why** people could tell a difference. I merely established the fact that most could. However, a 'scientific' skeptic like youself should find it easy enough to recreate the experiment in a controlled environment to prove me wrong; knock yourself out. The claims of your CD player being able to reproduce a tone as low as 2Hz may be so, but that does not mean that anything below 20Hz was recorded onto audio CDs. That just means your CD player has exceeded the industry standard - a good practice for any quality product. That, more than anything, shows a general ignorance of the audio industry and its standards. Between that and your defence of receivers, I dont think you're qualified to discuss audiophile related issues. Don't take it personally, but I just don't believe you are. As for the rest, you'll just have to find an archive of Stereo Review and Stereophile magazines going back into the early '80s. There's just not a whole lot of online reference material that dates back 30 years. J --99.130.69.53 (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
“Specifications of audio components do not tell the whole story. Nor do 'double-blind' tests that do not provide the subjects with a full range of music sources, listening environments, and volume levels.”
The simplest explanation is that no audible differences were ever detected, because no audible differences ever existed. You and all the other subjectivists can go on and on about lack of choice in double-blind tests, stress, fundamental flaws in double-blind tests, “science does not have all the answers,” “double-blind tests are not sensitive enough,” “the switching apparatus obscures detail,” etc., because this is easier than admitting that you are wrong. The Audio Critic provides a rebuttal to subjectivists’ objections regarding double-blind tests.
“For the 20K hearing limitation, I did not claim people could directly 'hear' the difference; I wrote that people could ‘’tell the difference.’’ Whether this is due to sub harmonics or some means of detecting high-frequency sound pressure is not mine to say. I never investigated how or why people could tell a difference. I merely established the fact that most could. However, a 'scientific' skeptic like you should find it easy enough to recreate the experiment in a controlled environment to prove me wrong.”
It is not the sceptics that have to prove you wrong. It is you who has to back your claims with evidence. So why not get your paper published in a scientific journal for peer review? If there really is something to your research, you would have done something good for the audiophile community. William Greene (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Why are you still attempting a rebuttal? It's clear you are ignorant as evidence by your absurd claim about CDs and players.
"You and all the other subjectivists can go on..." Personal attack? You are also profoundly biased in your opinions. I've also read that you think an encyclopedia should attack it's subject whenever it's deserved. That absolutely ridiculous in that you mean the encyclopedia should attack it's subject whenever YOU think it should. Get out of the way and let OBJECTIVE people do their job instead of constantly trying to interject with your ranting hatreds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlech (talk • contribs) 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
“Why are you still attempting a rebuttal?” Why should I not attempt a rebuttal?
“It's clear you are ignorant as evidence [sic] by your absurd claim about CDs and players." What absurd claim? Absurd claims such as those made in The Audio Critic? Absurd claims such as those made in the Boston Audio Society? Absurd claims such as those made at http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx.htm?
"’You and all the other subjectivists can go on...’ Personal attack?” Where is the personal attack?
“You are also profoundly biased in your opinions.” Profoundly biased in favour of evidence. Profoundly biased against nonsense.
“I've also read that you think an encyclopedia should attack it's [sic] subject whenever it's deserved. That absolutely [sic] ridiculous in that you mean the encyclopedia [sic] should attack it's [sic] subject whenever YOU think it should.” Please do not try to put words in my mouth. Please read Wikipedia articles like those on Hitler and Stalin. Wikipedia allows articles to be critical of its subject as long as what is written is supported by citations to reliable sources.
“Get out of the way and let OBJECTIVE people do their job instead of constantly trying to interject with your ranting hatreds.” Thank you for your kind invitation, but I prefer to continue to edit the article. William Greene (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Criticisms of Subjective Audiophiles
I'm quite biased on this issue - I have a degree in physics so it's difficult not to be an "objectivist." However one thing that I didn't see adequately addressed in the criticisms of the subjectivists was the perfectly normal psychological explaination for many subjectivist behaviors, including the entire justification for double-blind studies.
I do not have credentials in the field of psychology, however it appears that there are two related biases going on here, Confirmation bias and Post-purchase rationalization. These types of biases apply just as much to scientists and other "objectivists," which is why observations need to be carefully unbiased through the use of proper experimental procedure. I think there should be mention of this in the article. Unfortunately, not being an expert on this subject, I do not know where to find a proper citation for it, even though it should be blindingly obvious to anyone with knowledge of experimental theory that these effects are, at the very least, quite likely to affect any observations that are not carefully protected from them. - 172.129.230.15918:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I had a glance at this page, and my understanding is that the complete hearing experience seems to be sometimes summarized/confused here as frequency bandwidth discussion. Thus, I took the liberty to add a paragraph concerning phase dispersion in CDs, above at the beginning of the page, at a place I felt appropriate (chapter 3, labelled : The Phase Factor : why vinyl sound(ed) better than CDs, or the digital audio myth). Also took the liberty to add a little Note in the article, although I am a newbie in this type of exercise. Hope I did not mess anything up. Any phase perception feedback welcome; I also suggest links and further contributions to the psychoacoustics article within wikipedia (deserves further work). Cheers [Pablo, on Feb 13th 2007]
More fodder for the subjectivist vs. objectivist debates
Quick comment - the more sprawling this article becomes, the better its representation of the silliness of debates to what constitutes or delivers good sound (what ever that is). There's one article by Roger Russell, a speaker designer who worked at Macintosh Labs for decades, that I love. It debunks the marketing hype around expensive speaker wire. Mattnad21:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Roger Russell currently sells an audiophile loudspeaker and advertises the use internally of an audiophile brand of wire. It would seem audiophile products are made to be bought by audiophiles regardless of whether the earth is flat or round.HonestGuv17:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
And he even admits in that article listed above that he's doing it purely for marketing and not performance reasons. Goes to show the power of suggestion. Mattnad18:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
1000 watts RMS per channel?
"On the other hand, there are others who use solid-state amplifiers rated at over 1,000 watts RMS per channel."
I am not an audiophile, my experience of watts comes mostly from guitar amplifiers, but i find it hard to believe that there would be 1000W RMS per channel amplifiers in production (other than made by electronics hobbyists). That's a rediculously large number, and that's per channel?! I can't find anything in any of the references to back up this claim and I'm thinking the author may be thinking of 'peak power' rating, which seems to be more often given on commercial HiFi systems than RMS (which is the common meaning of 'wattage' in guitar amplifiers) and is comparitively larger than RMS for a given device; unfortunately they're both commonly referred to as 'wattage'.--KX3613:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I dunno about 1000W per channel, but I've had very nice experiences with an amp that delivered about 200W per channel (x2), and my current setup is rated at 125 W/channel (x5). The advantage, of course, is that you never clip so you never have to have those pointless arguments about whether tubes or transistors sound better when clipping and you tend not to roast tweeters as a result of hard clipping (although you sure can roast them from noise transients arising from your audio sources; DirecTV is great at that). The big amp also had an amazing damping factor (low output impedance) so it made some cheap speakers of mine sound a lot better than they did with wimpier amps.
A lot of amplifier and receiver specs these days are victims of marketing divisions, rather than engineering departments. Consider a standard 100 watt stereo amplifier. The Audio power standard is supposed to be X watts per channel RMS (Root mean square) into a simple 8 ohm resistive load. A marketing division can say that since there are two channels, there is 200 watts. And since that is RMS, you can mulitply by 1.414; making it 283 watts (peak power). And if the amplifier is a good one, it will provide double the wattage into a 4 ohm load. Now their claims are up to 565 watts. And if they are unscrupulous, they can even use Peak to peak instead of just peak; doubling it again. But wait, there is no speific distortion level specified by the standard. So marketers can arbitrarily set it at 10% and get an extra few watts out of the thing. So a marketing department can claim that a standard 100 watt amplifier can put out over 1200 watts and sell it for only $100 or so. Most don't go that far, but if you step into a typical consumer electronics store that sells low to mid end car audio, home theater and/or receivers, you will see often find ratings that use at least one or more of these ruses to hype up the product ratings. J --99.130.69.53 (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding amplifiers always boosting output with lower ohms, this is not always the case with higher end units. McIntosh amps use "autoformers" that adjust power output for lower ohms speakers. At least with McIntosh Amps, "1000 watts per channel" applies at 2, 4, and 8 ohm impedances. That's also why big McIntosh (and other over-engineered) amps have such gigantic heat sinks with designs for the extreme (and atypical) set ups. If someone is using typical 8 ohm speakers with reasonable efficiency, then a good, smaller (e.g., 100-200 WPC) amp is plenty and the rest of this is overkill. I personally have an older 75WPC McIntosh amp that's great with pretty inefficient (86db) speakers. Bruno23 (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
More than that goes into considerations for an amplifier, although I do not neccessarily disagree with anything you wrote. Most people listen to music at a level where an amplifier is operationg below 1 watt most of the time (see Sound Pressure Level; the rest is considered 'headroom'. At higher volumes and with lower efficiency speakers, the headroom shrinks. Some music - generally more for digital recording than analogue - there are peaks and spikes in the sound that can be over 2 dozen decibels above the average listening level (see audio bit depth - Dynamic Range). At an average listening level of 1 watt, a 2 dozen decibel peak requires up to 250+ watts in reserve or the amplifier will clip and distort. A 1 watt average is a pretty loud listening level, but CDs have a maximum dynamic range of over 90 decibels. You can see why some audiophiles go with gigantic power reserve even if they seemingly never use it. It's supposed to be there only for those few moments - like when playing "The 1812 Overture" by Tchaikovsky, or "Get your filthy Hands Off My Desert" by Pink Floyd. Both are examples of high dynamic range songs that would need lots of amplifier reserve. J --76.241.188.126 (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Who is an audiophile?
Current definition in the article:
Audiophile, from Latin audire "hear" and Greek philos "loving," is a person dedicated to achieving high fidelity in the recording and playback of music [1] [2]
This is a poor definition for the following reasons:
(1) the term "high fidelity" has a well understood meaning in being true to the source and this is not generally reflected in the audiophile approach.
(2) most technically educated people involved in "the recording and playback of music" would be offended to be called an audiophile because of the beliefs this implies.
(3) audiophile involvement in the recording of music is small - the domain of the audiophile is primarily playback in the home.
Suggestion:
Audiophiles are interested in the high quality reproduction of music in the home. They are distinguished from nonaudiophiles with similar interests by holding a range of beliefs about sound, sound perception and audio equipment that is in conflict with the current scientific view.
Would this definition be acceptable to audiophiles?
Is there a significant number of people that are happy to be labelled audiophiles and genuinely hold an informed scientific view? If so, this would mean my definition needs modifying to reflect the 3 groups: subjective-audiophiles, objective-audiophiles and nonaudiophiles all with the same interests and the last two only being distinguished by the meaning they hang on the word audiophile.HonestGuv20:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe I hold an "informed scientific view," and would be content to be labeled an audiophile. I've always understood the word as being broadly defined, and including both subjectivist and objectivist camps. However, the article currently defines subjectivists as those who generally subscribe to audiophile values, thus excluding objectivists as audiophiles. This dichotomy seems contrary to the dictionary definition, and should definitely be cited if we're even going to consider keeping it. Headwes07:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The Audiophile wiki page has become inherently polluted with esoteric beliefs of each subjective and objective camp. The reality is that any definition of an audiophile is one who identifies with the terminology and by following popular dictionary term and popular consensus is that an audiophile is someone who strives to achieve perfection in sound, but how this is obtained is open to arguement. Perhaps a separate wiki page should define the investigated practices as the arguments here are among audiophiles and those who are not may be confused by the dilution of the term.
Oregoniansdoitintherain08:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input but..."by following popular dictionary term and popular consensus is that an audiophile is someone who strives to achieve perfection in sound". This may be your popular definition but the word is in none of my paper dictionaries and the online ones I have just looked at appear to have been largely copied from each other and essentially say "hi-fi enthusiast". Since the word "audiophile" was originally introduced about 30 years ago in order to help distinguish the "audiophile" from the "high-fidelity" a reasonably full description such as that here ought to reflect the fact. In addition those in my peer group use the word as a derogatory term for the "subjectivist" group with everyone else with similar interests being "hi-fi" or "audio" enthusiasts or almost anything without the word audiophile in it. Others have posted here saying they use the term in the same way but you use it differently and you are certainly not alone in that. It is ambiguous and what to do about it is the question. I do not understand you last sentence. HonestGuv16:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Minimalism
Even given agreement on the goal, opinions vary widely among designers and listeners on how best to achieve it. If there is one shared design principle, it is minimalism. Given that capturing, storing, and playing back music inevitably degrades it, the fewer and simpler the stages, the better.
The article later contradicts itself discussing such complex schemes as bi-amping. Until someone can provide a reliable source showing minimalism as the predominant audiophile design principle, this statement should probably be removed. Headwes04:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Minimalism is most certainly a widely held belief by audiophiles and to delete it would be wrong. It expresses itself as an opposition to explicit frequency modification via tone controls (implicit equalisation is widespread but rarely acknowledged as such), small numbers of amplifier stages and similar.
Bi-amping comes in two forms: one audiophile (does effectively nothing) and one real (small improvement at significant cost). The audiophile one is currently accommodated on almost every loudspeaker in the audiophile market and is most certainly real in this sense. The real one is not popular with audiophiles but dominates the upper end of the professional audio market. I am not sure audiophiles really see bi-amping as being more complex and for active bi-amping (the real one) the removal of the crossover components between the amplifier and loudspeaker does makes things simpler and it is largely from here that the benefits derive.
By the way, I have never seen any audiophile argue in favour of integrated amplifiers although I am sure a small proportion will do so. Most favour not only separate pre and power amplifiers but separate amplifiers for each channel and even separate cases for the power supplies in a some instances. HonestGuv14:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
How to cite audiophile beliefs?
Audiophiles have a problem because they cannot cite "reputable publications" that act as a positive source for their beliefs. Reputable sources that discuss audiophile beliefs in a negative way are not an issue and are not being considered here.
Because audiophiles hold scientifically incorrect beliefs, the audiophile world has had to largely isolate itself from the audio, scientific and general mainstreams. The only authority audiophiles have are the audiophile publications which, with a negligible number of exceptions, derive all or almost all their income from the industry via advertising. Consequently these publications primarily seek to become attractive vehicles for that advertising and this is reflected in their content which would not normally be consider suitable for citation.
I consider it is unreasonable to attach 'citation required' to the expression of every audiophile belief and then to later delete every statement because a citation of a reputable source cannot be provided.
Similarly, I consider it unreasonable to point out that two audiophile beliefs are inconsistent with each other and then to delete one of them. Audiophile beliefs are not based on reason and are often inconsistent with each other.
These beliefs held by audiophiles are their most striking distinguishing characteristic. These are not like religous beliefs about matters outside the scientific domain, these are not exagerated preferences like most enthusiasts for technical devices, these are beliefs about matters that lie in the scientific domain and are incorrect in exactly the same way that those that believe the earth is flat are incorrect. Except, of course, that there isn't a mainstream industry promoting and benefiting from the belief that the earth is flat.
If we want constructive and useful input from audiophiles I believe they must be allowed to cite what they consider to be reputable sources for their beliefs. This can be handled in an explicit manner by a minor modification to what is currently done in the article by separating the audiophile and nonaudiophile references. Currently these are called "subjective" and "objective" which are audiophile terms that are not wholly aligned with the meaning in use by the general population. Is this reasonable? HonestGuv11:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It is reasonable to attach citation required to every controversial statement--subjectivist or objectivist--and then delete controversial statements that lack a reputable citation after a reasonable length of time--say, one week. Where there are clashing beliefs, only the belief or beliefs that are supported by reputable citations should be kept. Irrational subjectivist or objectivist beliefs should be deleted. Subjectivists' most striking characteristic is their refusal of evidence, and in this way is like religious beliefs.
You cannot have an article about people who believe the earth is flat and then remove every reference to the earth being flat because it is scientifically wrong and is not supported by a reputable reference. If you disagree with this can you please state what you consider to be the subject of this article? (Traditional religous beliefs and audiophile beliefs are quite different because the scientific method can refute the latter but not the former.) HonestGuv09:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and the article already describes some of the subjectivists' beliefs. But the danger with disreputable references is that some readers may believe that, because it is a reference, it is reputable. What is wrong with using reputable references? What is wrong with giving an example of what subjectivists believe, show why it is wrong, and provide a reputable reference that shows why it is wrong? There are enough reputable references such as the Boston Audio Society, The Audio Critic, Ian G. Masters, Sound and Vision, etc., that describes subjectivists' beliefs and show why they are wrong. For the most part, this is the way the article is written as of now.
Can the article be improved? Obviously yes. But the basic design is correct. And if anyone wants a more detailed description of subjectivist nonsense, there are many subjectivist links at the end of the article so that the reader can get it straight from the source. Your comparison with the flat-earth idea is a bit flawed because, perhaps, at least 99.9 per cent of readers believe that the earth is spheroidal; in this case I agree with the idea of describing the arguments in favour of a flat earth, citing works written by flat-earth believers, and presenting no arguments in favour of a spheroidal earth. I used religious beliefs only in the sense that it could be difficult to convert a believer from one set of ideas to another set of ideas. William Greene20:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Subjectivists can contribute--and have--by holding objectivists to the same high standards that objectivists impose on subjectivists. Sources like Stereophile and The Absolute Sound have close to zero credibility. Do not make the problem worse by allowing citations from these ludicrous sources. Instead of using audiophile and non-audiophile, I prefer subjectivist and objectivist. Not all audiophiles live on Fantasy Island.
The definitions, moreover, of subjectivist and objectivist are given in the article, so anyone unfamiliar with audiophiles should know what these words mean after reading their definitions; after reading the article, links, and discussion, they will know the definitions of subjectivists and objectivists. Because of these reasons, I believe that your suggestion is unreasonable. William Greene18:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I object to the term "subjectivist" because they are not subjectivists in the normal meaning of the word and this will confuse readers unfamiliar with how audiophiles misuse the term. I object to the term "objectivist" because this is principally a word used by "subjectivists" to describe those that oppose their beliefs. Almost everybody in this group will not only reject the term audiophile but also the term objectivist. The number of people who claim the label "objectivist audiophile" would appear to be small and, in my experience, are usually converted "subjectivist audiophiles". Many audiophiles claim to be a mixture of both "objectivist" and "subjectivist" so what does this mean in a rational article?
The vast majority of the population are not audiophiles regardless of whether or not they have a firm grasp of the technical side of sound, sound perception and audio. The small audiophile population has a range of correct, incorrect, confused and conflicting beliefs. I would suggest writing the article from the perspective of the latter is not sensible. HonestGuv09:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the article can expand on the definitions by saying that the objectivist view is the scientific view and the one that is based on evidence and that the subjectivist view is the antiscientific, irrational, gullible, misinformed, mistaken, fanciful, or any other word or words that you like to use to indicate that the view is heavily influenced by marketing hype and is the opposite of that established by science and evidence. Perhaps the subjectivist definition could mention that this view is heavily influenced by the audio equivalent of the placebo effect and that when this placebo effect is eliminated in double-blind tests, alleged sonic differences are not reliably detected.
Perhaps the article could mention that some audiophiles have beliefs from both camps. I think most objectivists agree with you that the sceptical point of view is the scientific point of view. Subjectivists will argue that science does not have all the answers. And I agree with them. But when it comes to double-blind testing and the debunking of subjectivist myths, it has enough answers. Also, English is always changing with sometimes additional definitions for old words. William Greene20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"I consider it is unreasonable to attach 'citation required' to the expression of every audiophile belief and then to later delete every statement because a citation of a reputable source cannot be provided."
Which is why I leave most all of my commentary here in the discussion rather than in the Wiki itself. If I had a reference going back 30 years, I would cite it in the Wiki. As it stands, most of my recollections simply don't belong there for the very reason you cited. But I believe it important to have some background on the matter from which the article can draw upon. --99.130.69.53 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Possible restructuring?
There are two conflicting viewpoints present in this article; one from active audiophiles and the traditional one based on scientific knowledge. The result is rather unsatisfactory in that it leads to too much coming-and-going of text and requires the reader to work at determing which viewpoint is probably in use. The section where the viewpoints are separated is an unsatisfactory list of unconnected statements. Suggestions:
(1) Move most of the "Objective versus subjective" bullet points into the main text leaving a section describing what the two terms mean when used by audiophiles. This will require a fair amount of work to place the points in context.
(2) To add an "audiophile view" subsection at the end of any section which requires one where the audiophile view point can be expressed in opposition to the traditional one and using citations acceptable to audiophiles. Everything outside these "audiophile view" subsections to follow the normal rules for acceptable citations.
It is not perfect in that the audiophile view becomes slightly second class. An alternative would be two subsections for the "scientific view" and the "audiophile view" which balances things up a bit but the audiophile citation concession would still be needed. Thoughts? HonestGuv18:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The article will improve as additional editors delete unsubstantiated claims leading to an article that is all or almost all objectivist. Adding a subjectivists'-view subsection at the end of any section is a bad idea if no credible citations will be provided to support subjectivists' claims. The normal rules for acceptable citations should apply everywhere. It is not about which side is first class or which side is second class. It is about credibility, evidence, honesty, truth, science, and trust. No concessions! The purpose of Wikipedia is to enlighten. Let the world see how absurd the subjectivists are. William Greene18:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the definition of a source is not that it should be credible in /your/ opinion, it is that it is verifiable by other editors. Therefore Stereophile and the like are acceptable sources. Greglocock00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process." Stereophile et al. has close to zero credibility.
'Their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The authors at Stereophile et al. are generally regarded as untrustworthy and far from authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
"In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses." Books and journals published by universities agree with Stereophile et al.? No way. A mainstream magazine like Sound and Vision agree with Stereophile et al.? No way.
"What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."
Objectivists engage in checking facts and scrutinizing the writing of the subjectivist magazines like Stereophile et al., because these subjectivist magazines do not check the facts and scrutinize their own writing. And this fact checking and scrutinizing has exposed these magazines as unreliable publications. So the definition of a source is not that it should be credible in my opinion or your opinion, but Wikipedia's opinion. And Wikipedia makes no mention that sources are reliable if they are verifiable by other editors. Therefore magazines like Stereophile and The Absolute Sound are unacceptable sources. William Greene21:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear. Let me explain how much credibility any consumer/enthusiast magazine has when it comes to technical matters. NONE. eg (for a recent example) CR and its child seat testing. Their primary objective is to sell magazines and advertising. The opinion of one side of the turf war about the sources of the other is no guide to credibility. Incidentally, you may be arguing from a false premise here - I am not, especially, a subjectivist. I am mostly objecting to the ridiculous slant in this article and its talk page. Greglocock23:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps professor Greiner believes that The Audio Critic has credibility when it comes to technical matters. Consumer Reports admits mistakes. But I doubt Stereophile or The Absolute Sound admits mistakes. Fundamental mistakes. "Hey, everyone! We wrote marketing bull. Sorry." Yes, it does appear to be slanted towards the objectivist side. I wonder how it got that way. Perhaps a lack of persuasive arguments on the subjectivists' side. Perhaps no persuasive arguments on the subjectivists' side. William Greene18:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
...or more likely /your/ tireless energy at dissenting with and belittling the subjectivist POV? I would like to see most of the article devoted to audiophiles, with no mention of SvO, and one little rancid corner left to your great SvO war, with an introduction, and an arguments for and against each of the two camps, for the amusement of the seventy six people who actually care. Greglocock21:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Seventy-six persons? When I googled audiophile, I got about 4 980 000 hits. Number one is the Wikipedia article "Audiophile." The public does care. William Greene20:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. It would seem the idea of a different citation approach for the audiophile viewpoint compared with the scientific viewpoint has gathered no support even though this is done to some extent in the current article.
This still leaves the question are audiophile publications valid citeable sources for audiophile beliefs? I initially read the Wikipedia guidelines as no but a rereading suggests the spirit might be yes (being used to scientific writing I find Wikipedia a bit strange). In which case, so long as the content of the article makes the relationship clear between audiophile publications and established knowledge about sound, sound perception and audio (not currently in the article) it would seem reasonable to me to admit mainstream audiophile publications as citeable sources for audiophile beliefs because, to be blunt, there are no others of which I am aware.
The suggestion of moving the subjective versus objective bullet points into the main text has received some support and no opposition. It is certainly a challenge if those from the two camps are going to accept it as neutral. HonestGuv11:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The objectivist mantra (1) 0.1 dB
Now, it is perfectly possible to measure a signal to 0.1 dB. But, the objectivist mantra says that when comparing two systems you MUST set the levels of the two so that they are within 0.1 dB. This is repeated again and again and again. I call B/S. I could set up two stereos so that they reproduced a 1.000 +/- 0.001 kHz tone at (say) 65.0+/- 0.1 dB (lin) re 2e-5 Pa. But... that is no guarantee that the overall sound level when playing a piece of music is the same. I can see no way of realistically meeting this spec in practice, therefore it is just being used as typical technobabble. Greglocock00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
To perform a controlled listening test for the perception of a difference without matching levels in a defined manner is absurd because one will not be able to determine the differences due to level from whatever was the objective of the test. This has got nothing to do with objectivist mantra it is a fundamental requirement of performing audibility experiments HonestGuv10:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not possible, because two different systems almost certainly cannot reproduce the same level for a variety of broadband signals, however measured (A weighting ? Lin? Fast, slow? etc etc) if they have different frequency responses and behaviour wrt transients (etc). The statistically robust approach is to perform the listening study at a variety of levels, and then back calculate its effect on the ratings of the systems. Greglocock21:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Very simple example. Sample 1 is a pure 1 kHz tone, at 0 dB. Signal 2 consists of 3 equal tones at say 100 1000 and 10000 Hz, all at 0 dB. Overall signal is 4.77 dB. Now set up a second system that has 0.5 dB lift at 10 kHz. Set it to play signal 1 at 0 dB. Now, suppose we play signal 2 through the second system. Overall signal is now 4.91 dB. This is an error greater than 0.1 dB, hence the objectivist would say that the comparison is invalid. I cannot see any interpretation of this requirement that can be done practically, unless your systems are identical, or you restrict yourself to playing single pure sine waves. Admittedly the latter is the impression that I get from some of these articles. In practice finding loudspeakers that matched to within 0.5 dB is pretty unlikely. Greglocock23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
You would appear to be misunderstanding what level matching in an audibility experiment means. The alternative to level matching is not to level match which would mean the unknown difference in level is free to bias the audibility in an unknown manner. This is absurd because it renders the results of an audibility experiment completely meaningless when it involves small differences. The chosen method of matching levels will depend to some extent on what is being studied. Since the alternative methods (e.g. 1kHZ tone or white noise) will in general give different settings for different transfer functions then the method adopted must be reported because it can have an influence on the results. Now the 0.1dB simply refers to the maximum tolerance to be used when adjusting the knobs on the amplifiers after adopting a particular method of level matching. It does not mean that all the other methods of level matching are also matched to within 0.1dB and, as far as I can judge, the objectionable objectivists are not claiming that it does. HonestGuv09:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement with you on the importance of level matching in double-blind tests. But differences in levels biases the experiment in a known manner: subjects prefer the louder amplifiers, CD players, or wires. They are then said to be more musical, have greater rhythm and pace, have tighter bass, are less shrill, etc. I will not insult the reader's intelligence by explaining how unscrupulous audio salesmen can exploit this knowledge of louder means better. Incidentally, for those of you who might claim to be unable to match levels within 0.1 dB, Larry Klein, former technical editor of Stereo Review, said that one does not need any instrumentation to match levels within +/- 0.1 dB. Play with the volume controls until A and B sound identical. This is when levels match. (PDF) The Audio Critic, issue # 29, page 6 (PDF page 7).William Greene20:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so a subjective assessment of the loudness is the correct criterion to get within 0.1 dB. Well, thanks for clearing that up. Bizarre. Incidentally do you actually measure any of this stuff and do statistically valid experiments, or just pull quotes from enthusiast magazines? Greglocock21:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of getting within 0.1dB anyway? Furthermore, how do you ensure that you are within this range? I imagine you use 'objective' measuring instruments right? But then, once within this range you revert back to 'subjective' eardrums right? Isn't subjectivity what it's all about? What's 'statistically valid' about measuring something undetectable to the human ear? Audiophile: an enthusiast of sound, but not music (as that requires soul and character). 07:08 17 March 2009 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.178.230 (talk)
If I were you I wouldn't waste one second of time thinking about it. It is a stupid idea and impossible, as explained by my example. If somebody can provide objective evidence to the contrary, they are of course welcome. But they can't beat the maths, the only time it is feasible for broadband signals is if the frequency response of the two systems is identical to better than 0.5 dB (crudely, it is more complex than that). Greglocock (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
“What is the point of getting within 0.1dB anyway?”
“But then, once within this range you revert back to 'subjective' eardrums right?”
Yes.
”Isn't subjectivity what it's all about?”
Please explain.
“What's 'statistically valid' about measuring something undetectable to the human ear?”
Please explain.
“Audiophile: an enthusiast of sound, but not music (as that requires soul and character).”
I prefer Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary: “a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction, as on radios, phonographs, tape recorders, etc.” William Greene (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The objectivist mantra (2) 15 kHz
Older audiophiles are often attacked for having inferior hearing, because typically they can only hear up to 15 kHz, whereas brats can hear to 20 kHz. That is very true. So that is 5000 Hz that is missing, almost a quarter of the signal!! Well, that is a daft way of looking at it. Human being's hearing works in octaves, fundamentally, so the truth is that a brat can hear say 10 octaves, and an old curmudgeon such as myself can hear a little over 9.5 octaves. So yet again technobabble is used to exaggerate a point. Greglocock00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
In the Sound sources section it rattles on about 18 kHz (yes folks that's two semitones you are missing), many of the references use 15 kHz (not a number I'd argue with, obviously) as a baseball bat. Greglocock21:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I am well aware of that. However, in signal analysis terms the information stored is proportional to the bandwidth, and the technobabble boys make it out to be a big deal. Greglocock22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do you use the loaded word "technobabble" if you want a fair discussion? Your argument could be flipped around: "some audiophiles tells us that the extended bandwidth of SACD and DVD-A is highly needed, when all scientific evidence fails to prove that". It is and objective fact that hearing loss means that many adults loose 1/4 of the linear bandwidth they once could sense. Nowhere does that imply that this leads to 25% reduction in joy or in music-recognition Knutinh (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The objectivist mantra (3) ABX testing
I like ABX testing. It gave me statistically valid results that were used to justify spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. It also lets me know whether there is truly a difference between two signals, ie how good my discrimination is. But, as usually described it is /practically/ useless for evaluating hifi systems. In order to perform an ABX test it must be possible to listen to the two systems without knowing which is being listened to. This would involve removing system A and installing system B, or vice versa, or making just as much noise and not changing them, for an AX or BX comparison. Meanwhile our patient evaluator sits there and ignores the muffled curses coming from behind the curtain.
OK, so that ain't gonna work. You could make it work by recording the output of the two systems, and then performing the ABX on a PC. This is what I used to do. I would guess the number of people world wide who could justify setting up such an arrangement is rather small. And of course it introduces its own errors.Greglocock21:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Floyd Toole managed to do carefully controlled ABX DBTs of loudspeakers in the early 80s. Every lossy audio codec has been subject to DBTs. If you are going to spend "hundreds of thousands of dollars", then spending a day or two making sure that that money is well spent, seems like a rational thing to do. Knutinh (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
External links
I have ejected the links below from the main article as being in violation of WP:EL. If these are refences to contents in the main article, they should be included as such, in a format acceptable to WP:FOOT. Otherwise, they should remain deleted.
Objectivist
The Audio Critic - Thirty-year publication, now online only, with in-depth independent verification of manufacturers' claims.
The Audio Press - Criticism of industry, subjectivist magazines, and reviewers. Written by a subjectivist, but makes many points objectivists agree with.
"Some audio magazines and equipment vendors use testing and extended listening to evaluate equipment, which indicates that both perspectives are useful for components like loudspeakers, headphones, and cartridges."
Magazines like Stereophile,The Sensible Sound, and Sound and Vision test and listen. Some vendors--or venders--of loudspeakers, headphones, and cartridges probably test and listen too. For example, for loudspeakers, The Audio Critic has a few articles that talk about loudspeaker testing. In issue number 28, Floyd Toole talks about loudspeaker testing, and he is now Corporate Vice President of Acoustical Engineering at Harman International Industries, Inc. Also, issues 18 to 20 of The Audio Critic has some interviews with some important people involved in audio. In some of these interviews, the importance of testing in the design of loudspeakers is described.
Specifications are sometimes provided for headphones and cartridges. I have assumed that some vendors have tested their products and have not pulled these numbers from a hat. I have also assumed that some vendors listen to their products in an audio system before deciding to manufacture them. Why the citation-needed tag? William Greene18:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a dubious tag would've been a better choice. The use of extended listening by magazines and vendors could just as easily be explained as an appeal to the beliefs of their target demographic. Or, it is possible the magazines, vendors, and customers all share the same delusional belief. The simple observation that a method is widely used says nothing of its actual utility. If it did, we could say, "Some newspapers regularly publish horoscopes and weather forecasts, which indicates that both perspectives are useful for predicting future events." -- Headwes20:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This “article” is like an essay. Wikipedia should try to get experts to look over its articles and give these experts the authority to remove bad edits. William Greene20:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've reviewed your edits. Many of your addition meet your description of being essay-like. We should be reporting what other reliable sources say about the subject, not presenting our own opinions under the thin guise of fact by using non-encyclopedic sources. GlassFET21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this article could be a lot better. I can guess how this strayed so far. Audiophile beliefs debates, and businesses that market specialty products to them, can attract some derision (unfairly or fairly). Attempts to bring in the bigger picture naturally invite the same BS that infest audiophile debates. Still for people who are not familiar with this world, it would be helpful to provide definitions, and a taste of the culture. Bruno2322:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And I have reviewed some of your edits. Perhaps you are suggesting that you are unbiased? I am an objectivist. The Audio Critic is a reliable source. Ian G. Masters is a reliable source. But you removed citations from these sources. And you accuse me of being a hypocrite? I have always wanted this article to be credible and therefore supported only by reliable sources. Exceptions should be allowed as long as the article makes it clear that the citation that is about to appear is from an unreliable source.
The problem with articles that deal with science or use science as a support is that crackpots believe that they have an equal opportunity to make edits to these articles. They also believe, mistakenly, that because Wikipedia advocates a neutral point of view, this crackpot point of view should be given equal time.
So what are the encyclopedic sources? Stereophile? Please present a list of encyclopedic sources and a list of non-encyclopedic sources and the reasons why you feel this is so.
My list of encyclopedic sources would be entities like The Audio Critic, Ian G. Masters, Stereo Review,Sound and Vision, Floyd Toole, Peter Aczel, Ken Pohlmann, R. A. (Dick) Greiner, Stanley Lipshitz, E. Brad Meyer, and The Boston Audio Society. My list of non-encyclopedic sources would be entities like Stereophile,The Absolute Sound, John Atkinson, Michael Fremer, Robert Harley, and Harry Pearson. I believe that my list of encyclopedic sources meets Wikipedia’s standard of a reliable source and that my list of non-encyclopedic sources fails to meet Wikipedia’s standard of a reliable source. William Greene22:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem with an entry like this one is the fact that it reports upon a culture that is riddled with non-scientific beliefs. It's not the function of Wiki to pass judgement upon those beliefs by deciding whether they should be mentioned or not. The purpose is to define and explain the term, the people, the culture. But just because you don't believe in magic does not mean an entry on witchcraft should be devoid of any mention of it. It is best to state the facts about their beliefs and then add a refutation of those beliefs if you feel compelled to refute them. These beliefs exist regardless of you or I believe them. To remove all references to things not scientifically supported is essentially passing judgement on them and does a disservice to anyone wishing to learn about what an Audiophile is as a group. J --76.226.57.103 (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately you seem unable to write about this subject in an encyclopaedic fashion. Balance is important. For instance, one of your recent edits claimed use of some tomfoolery was widespread among audiophiles. Widespread is a weasel word, even if it was a direct quote from one of your chosen references. If you get your act together and start to include researched non inflammatory language then this article might improve. I have my doubts as to whether that is likely. Your opinion of what constitutes a reliable source matters zip, the question is does the source meet the requirements of Reliable Sources? Greglocock23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
“Unfortunately you seem unable to write about this subject in an encyclopedic fashion. Balance is important.” Only if the arguments presented by the subjectivists are supported by citations from reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia not me.
“For instance, one of your recent edits claimed use of some tomfoolery was widespread among audiophiles.” Bull. My edit said that there is widespread acceptance of nonsense by many audiophiles.
“Widespread is a weasel word, even if it was a direct quote from one of your chosen references.” The Audio Critic is a reliable source; you dislike it, because you disagree with it. What you should have done was to present a dissenting view in the article and support it with a citation from a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia not me. For example, perhaps something like: “Some, however, believe that the overwhelming majority of audiophiles refuse to accept these myths.” (And here you would provide a citation from a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia not me.)
“If you get your act together and start to include researched non-inflammatory language, then this article might improve.” Truth inflames.
“I have my doubts as to whether that is likely. Your opinion of what constitutes a reliable source matters zip. The question is does the source meet the requirements of reliable sources?” Your opinion of what constitutes a reliable source matters zip. William Greene (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Now that I think more about this section, perhaps it shouldn't be in this article at all. But if it is to stay, I'm not sure removing the details of Russell's article for POV reasons holds water for me. Given the section was about criticisms, of course it takes a point of view. To be honest, I don't quite understand reservations about including the details. When I read his essay, I saw that he backs up his position with examples, and documents McIntosh Labs' experiences and measurements. It's also difficult to believe that a person with his training and experience (not to mention the reputation of the company he worked for), would be unfairly biased. McIntosh equipment is pretty much audiophile grade which is why his critiques are all the more compelling. I'm inclined to restore much of the material unless you can explain why a section on criticism of audiophile marketing, cannot be more explicit without being POV. Bruno2321:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no problem with individual sections in an article presenting one or other side of a controversy, so long as the overall balance of the article, and especially the introduction and so on, are neutral. However at no time are weasel words or inflammatory language acceptable. Selective quotation, and distortion of referenced material, should also be edited out. I thought the McIntosh stuff was a good insight into the market. Greglocock23:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I object to the use of the Russell quote in a box. It overemphasizes the section and in particular the views of a single author. Please leave out the quote. There is a link to the article if the reader wants to read it. GlassFET23:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, I think it is worth highlighting since it gets to the nub of the biggest rip-off. I think the article is in pretty good shape now. As a matter of interest are architectural acoustics treatments really described as 'tweaks' in the sub-culture? I'd have thought that they were a bit more serious than that. Greglocock23:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you, GlassFET, have reduced the clarity of this section. You have removed the topic paragraph that helps to define the scope of criticisms. I would be happy to provide other critiques aside from Russell's, but I think you would find a way to object. You have attacked this section with multiple complaints but really have not addressed my subtantive rationale for including Russells observations (and not just his name and a link at the bottom of the article as you propose). I could just as easily trop out wiki legalisms as you do, but I'd prefer that you explain why you think Russell does not make a point worth including in this article. Bruno2323:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I think a summary of Russell's opinions are perfectly acceptable. I believe that the argument that he must have a quote highlighted in a box is specious. GlassFET00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sigh... Then we can reduce everthing in Wikipedia to summary. No examples, no details. You also removed non boxed details. I have to say, this looks like WP:OWNBruno2300:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup. There is no wiki requirement that a section called criticisms should be NPOV, the requirement is that overall the article balance should be neutral, and that neutrality in intro and main sections is important. In my opinion we have pushed this article as far as a rational being can manage towards the invisible sky fairy school of thought, without jumping on that bandwagon (and I have some, technically based, sympathy for the sky fairy school, whilst as a professional noise and vibration engineer (as opposed to magazine reader) I have some sympathy for the objectivist viewpoint as well). Bruno, in particular, I think you are doing some nice edits lately. Let's keep to the encyclopaedic attitude rather than polemicisizing. GlassFET, by all means start a new section in support of the ripoff artistes... just use reliable sources, and bear in mind that we'll be using the wiki policies. I would be fascinated to see some objective ananlysis that countermands the speaker cable argument, or indeeed, anything, that really justifies using a $1499 mains cable. Greglocock10:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
What's all the more ironic, is that McIntosh Labs did subjective tests as well with the A/B testing. Expensive Speaker cable was no better than zip cord of similar gauge. But at least Speaker cable, expensive or not, does serve a purpose. Thinks like putting the wires up on ceramic insulators, wire conditioners, etc. are of especially dubious value by comparison. Bruno2312:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Beauty is in The Eyes of The Beholder
I plead that English is not my native language but Bulgarian. I am hight Деян (Deyan).
I cannot understand on what the would-be objectivist's skepsis is based. It is beyond peradventure of doubt that there are innumerous number of asinine and fastuous notions and tenets asserted and upheld by, let us deign to them and yclept them “audiophiles.” Anent objectivists I would lief to solicit them to disclose, or better say expound the way they weigh one audio component objectively. I conjecture that there are twain methods of doing this, primo: by employing any mathematically based electronic divices and secundo by employing their own ears. I am under the impression that the objectivists are incapable of discerning what they listen to, regardless of how elementary character is that. By now the would-be objectivists seem to have the perverse object of muddling the water, a fortiori, they proved to be non-contributing curbstone criticasters. In general the objectivists' woes do not seem credible. Somewhere above I have read something that asserted a $200•000•oo SET may renders itself in the same way as a $500•oo receiver-- sound sans difference; apropos my wordlywise granny declined my desire to defenestrate her vernacular VEF down onto the surcharged bin's pile. ¿I? I remain objectivist in a highly individual way.-- Деян 10:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Could we get back to the original purpose of the Wiki?
So far I've seen a whole body of information about the various audiophile philosophies deleted to favor a single philosophy held by a few who believe they are the only one's who can be right. Ladies and gentlemen, there are more than a single philosophy in the audiophile category. Now whether or not you agree with any one or another is irrelevant to getting them all written down for posterity. All the arguing and name calling on the discussion page are missing the point: Wiki is not designed to be where we argue the merits of each philosophy, but rather just to get them down into a compendium. Argue the merits or "delusions" of other peoples' philosophies elsewhere.--J 99.130.69.53 (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Деян: None know the initial purpose, this is Wikipedia, the truth matters de minimis but disdain, scorn, aspertions, bloquy and traducement. It reflects our 21 century devolution. Your last sentence's meaning eludes me.
Edits by Oatalay
I've deleted a significant collection of additions by Özhan Atalay a.k.a. User:Oatalay a.k.a. 81.214.254.250 because of several reasons: unsupported assumptions are made and unreferenced conclusions are drawn regarding interconnect cables being "one of the most critical factors" in a sound system. Clearly, the parts of a sound system that have the highest distortion would be the most critical, leading to the conclusion that transducers such as loudspeakers and magnetic cartridges would be the most critical. The one reference offered by User:Oatalay was an article authored by Özhan Atalay which itself is devoid of careful research, and the text I deleted was a direct copy and paste of the online article. The editing by User:Oatalay appears commercial in nature; the referenced website sells interconnects.
There's a moving jigsaw globe image immediately recognizable as a riff on Wikipedia's logo at the top of Oatalay's hifi website. This makes me think this editor will be back. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Jesus Christ there's so much ambiguity/weaseling...
Apparently, I've been misguided in my self-descriptor of "audiophile". It was my understanding that an audiophile was someone who loved sound, voice and music, especially of unique or particular nature - not someone who purchased top of the line equipment so they could specifically experience the most "original" sound. Even the baser structure of the word "audiophile" suggests this.. I may be wrong in my assumptions, but either way, this article does need a serious edit, given the structure and vagueness in the article. Aurora Storm (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The word's roots certainly support your earlier understanding. Audiophile's current definition, though, has evolved more toward "someone who purchases sophisticated sound reproduction equipment." Oh, well. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Wrong Def. Of Audiophile / Subjective Nature Of Listening / Audiophiles As An Elite Group
In my decades of experience, there are many types of audiophiles. Not all of them are trying to reproduce the original performance, and some are not even self-aware of their own goals.
Each person has a different personal agenda along with different listening skills - two factors that greatly affect a person's goals and opinions. Differing agendas can include types of music (classical vs. rock), as well as different psycological experiences while listening to the same music (focusing on rhythm vs vocals). Limited listening skills make it easy for newcomers to reject audiophiles as quacks.
To a greater or lesser extent, all equipment colors sound. An individual's equipment preference in part reflects on how well that coloration caters to that listener's agenda and skill.
Audiophiles commonly recognize snobbery within their community, and often distinguish themselves from other audiophiles with various groups. These groups include some topics mentioned: vinyl vs. cd, tube vs. solid state, dynamic vs. panel speaker vs. horn, MM vs. MC cartridge, high-cost vs. budget, and single-ended amp vs. push-pull. It is not uncommon for groups to look down upon each other for following the 'wrong' path. Reflecting this, stores cater to a select portion of these groups, adopting a philosophy within the audiophile community. These divergences within the community makes any single stance at odds with the others within that group, making it difficult at best to write a balanced entry. David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.174.15 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the definition of audiophile to something a bit more rational. If it is not reverted or picks up a bit of support I will try to move the contents of the article in a similar direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.119.87 (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
