Audiophilia - From skeptic to believer

[Paulhoff]

Are you sure your audiophile "friend" is real and not imaginary? You seem to talk a lot about him, it's like you live together.

I use my multiple personalities to keep me balanced. It keeps be from slipping too far into one direction. If you go to the extreme end of believer or skeptic, there will be problems, so I have developed multiple personalities to keep me sane. One personality is at each side trying to run away, and the 3rd is sitting on the fence and pulling both personalities with a rope. It is the best of both worlds, and there is no slipping, the rope is very strong. I can control it good, I sit on the fence and can visit both sides and grab the information from there without slipping into the world of bias. I'm in control of the rope, I let it stretch so I can visit deeper and deeper, and I'm still sitting on the fence, it works great. No problems.

You my little friend, should not stop taking your pills.

Paul

 

[ExtremeSkeptic]

You my little friend, should not stop taking your pills.

Paul

I stopped taking the pills 16 years ago. Doctor gave them because I was floating in air, free from bias.

 

[JonnyFive]

It's more of a bet, as you have to match his 100k skr ($14745) - the winner takes all.

The guy says he can differentiate between two sets of two meter speaker cable with similar impedance, capacitance, and inductance. Success criterion is eight correct of ten tries in all(!), no detail of exactly how the blinding will be done. He picks the venue, the music and the time (within an agreed upon week).

Ah, I see. Well, now, that's not much of a "challenge," is it?

What about the skeptics who make general statements about the audiophiles?

They shouldn't, but being a skeptic has nothing to do with whether one makes blanket statements. Personally, what bothers me is the companies selling thousand dollar cables based on spurious or dubious claims.

I have a 2560x1600 display with 1080p upconverted to 2560x1440 with Video Enhancer, I don't know what is so special with that. It still doesn't look like real life. It's like stock earbuds in audio. It will take a long time until video quality becomes acceptable.

You should really consider running the picture at your display's native
resolution (and crop the upconverted video), as otherwise it'll look fuzzy due to the pixel stretch. I get the same thing when I run, say, 1600x900, because my display is a 1920x1080 native. If you have a display that will allow you to display an unstretched, 1-1 representation then you're good, but a lot of displays will stretch it, which tends to look funky.

Like it or not, it's the best thing going right now. You must not remember what 480p video looked like. What resolution is your source video, anyway?

It will never look "like real life" because of the medium involved, just like your audio will never actually sound "like real life" because of reproduction and recording factors.

That "video enhancer" thing is just basically running an AA pass on the video. You just can't add detail that isn't there to the source (which is why the Blu-ray and HD-DVD thing makes sense). You want to see how crappy it looks compared to the hi-res source, check this out: http://www.thedeemon.com/articles/video_upsize_methods_comparison.html

(that's not a 1080p source, it looks like 480p for the "hi-res" - isn't that thing designed for computer videos?)

 

[JonnyFive]

Actually, if you're using Video Enhancer, I suspect you're probably just upconverting a low-res source, not a 1080p (1920x1080) source. The res of 1080p is sufficient to yield acceptable results without upconverting (just scaling would be sufficient). If you are bothering to upconvert 1080p, you'd probably get better results by simply not. It'll stretch to your display's native just fine. If you're using the low res source, I suggest you try hooking it up to a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player... that is quite nice looking.

2560x1600... you using one of them fruity Mac monitors? (I'm kidding, they're great monitors!)

 

[JonnyFive]

I'm sure it rocks... looking at getting a 46" display and the whole nine yards installed some time next year. But there's a world of difference between what you are saying, and someone claiming that they need a $1500 HDMI cable in order to get "the truest color" or some such bullcrap.

Yeah, I know. I love the idiocy involved. My favorite is BS about "signal noise" on the all-digital DVI-D and HDMI cables.

Some moron at Best Buy tried to sell my wife an RGB component cable for her old SDTV once. He claimed it produced "better picture" and "better color." Uh... no, idiot, it doesn't. It sends a standard signal to the SDTV which is displayed in gloriously crappy looking 480i standard picture. The cable's theoretical ability to handle up to a 1080i signal has nothing to do with the display's complete and utter inability to display it... or the source's ability to transmit that data, for that matter.

 

[JoeEllison]

What resolution is your source video, anyway?)

It is probably a really fancy VCR...

 

[JoeEllison]

Yeah, I know. I love the idiocy involved. My favorite is BS about "signal noise" on the all-digital DVI-D and HDMI cables.

Some moron at Best Buy tried to sell my wife an RGB component cable for her old SDTV once. He claimed it produced "better picture" and "better color." Uh... no, idiot, it doesn't. It sends a standard signal to the SDTV which is displayed in gloriously crappy looking 480i standard picture. The cable's theoretical ability to handle up to a 1080i signal has nothing to do with the display's complete and utter inability to display it... or the source's ability to transmit that data, for that matter.

My Playstation2 was a perfect test of this. I bought the component cable for it, which really helped... when I was playing games that could be displayed in 1080i. Otherwise, no significant improvement with the cables.

Of course, maybe if I tied the cable a foot off the ground, and wrapped it in aluminum foil?

 

[jimlintott]

Yeah, I know. I love the idiocy involved. My favorite is BS about "signal noise" on the all-digital DVI-D and HDMI cables.

Some moron at Best Buy tried to sell my wife an RGB component cable for her old SDTV once. He claimed it produced "better picture" and "better color." Uh... no, idiot, it doesn't. It sends a standard signal to the SDTV which is displayed in gloriously crappy looking 480i standard picture. The cable's theoretical ability to handle up to a 1080i signal has nothing to do with the display's complete and utter inability to display it... or the source's ability to transmit that data, for that matter.

There is no shortage of bad information out there. I had some friends buy a nice little 42" plasma. They got an HD satellite receiver and an HDMI cable but weren't happy with the picture. Sales guys tried to sell them all kinds of stuff. The cable wasn't expensive enough. They needed a $400 power conditioner. All kinds of crap.

I looked at it for five minutes and realized that they were watching the cable box via the RF modulated coax output. I switched their TV to HDMI input and it was magically fixed. They did have the audio in the wrong input which is why they probably watched it the wrong way. It's annoying because all these sales people didn't actually try to figure out the problem. They had fancy, expensive, solutions but no understanding. None of their solutions would have worked. Luckily my friends could call me before getting ripped off.

I suspect that ES doesn't actually have a 1080p source.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I posted to a website over the weekend about the new amplifier I'm getting(tomorrow!). They don't know what other equipment I have, or even what style of music I play, but I have already been advised that I need to change every tube in it to match whatever tubes the cool kids are using, I need to scrap the speaker cabinet for one of a handful of handmade boutique speaker cabinets, and been told all sorts of interesting things about electrical resistance, at least some of which could possibly cause the amplifier to catch on fire.

I love these types of forum gurus.

If they only put in that amount of time in their practice of guitar playing, instead of pontificating about this and that...I wouldnt have any audio editing software to rep.

 

[pipelineaudio]

ExtremeSkeptic, at what point does the benefit/cost ratio drop to the point where buying additional crap gear is no longer worth it to you?

IF there's an actual benefit, the sky is the limit to keep spending..its whether or not theres a benefit that usually counts heh

 

[JonnyFive]

There is no shortage of bad information out there. I had some friends buy a nice little 42" plasma. They got an HD satellite receiver and an HDMI cable but weren't happy with the picture. Sales guys tried to sell them all kinds of stuff. The cable wasn't expensive enough. They needed a $400 power conditioner. All kinds of crap.

I looked at it for five minutes and realized that they were watching the cable box via the RF modulated coax output. I switched their TV to HDMI input and it was magically fixed. They did have the audio in the wrong input which is why they probably watched it the wrong way. It's annoying because all these sales people didn't actually try to figure out the problem. They had fancy, expensive, solutions but no understanding. None of their solutions would have worked. Luckily my friends could call me before getting ripped off.

When it comes to video stuff, there's a serious lack of consumer knowledge. People don't know what the stuff they own can and can't do, and the sales people try to get you to buy whatever they're selling so they can earn a nice little commission on sales volume.

Our cable box doesn't have an HDMI output for some reason, but since the highest signal over the cable is 1080i anyway, we just use the component cables. I tried the DVI-D too, but it didn't make a difference, and the cable was short so it was a pain in the butt to set up.

Now I have a spare DVI-D cable sitting around gathering dust. At least it didn't cost me a couple hundred bucks.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Have you considered the possibility that this "training" you speak of may be more a process of convincing yourself that you're hearing "better" or your system "sounds better" after your tweaking?

Lets be a little careful now. I drive musclecars with the windows down. My hearing is CERTAINLY farther from ruler flat from 20hz to 20khz than a average young girl's would be.

That said, I will gurantee 100% that I will more accurately identify timing, pitch, and likely actual equipment used, right down to the microphones quite often, than someone who has no "ear training" (horrible phrase, but I dont know what else to say...the long long process of twidlling knobs, moving microphones around, kicking guitar players in the nards, editing the crap out of horrid performances, for years and years)

 

[JoeEllison]

Lets be a little careful now. I drive musclecars with the windows down. My hearing is CERTAINLY farther from ruler flat from 20hz to 20khz than a average young girl's would be.

That said, I will gurantee 100% that I will more accurately identify timing, pitch, and likely actual equipment used, right down to the microphones quite often, than someone who has no "ear training" (horrible phrase, but I dont know what else to say...the long long process of twidlling knobs, moving microphones around, kicking guitar players in the nards, editing the crap out of horrid performances, for years and years)

Yeah, whatever. You're all woo now.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Who is pretending, the one who thinks that human ears can't get any better, or the one who tries to improve them and finds out they could be improved after all.

OK, you're not pretending. You're self-deluded.
Presbycusis starts at around 18 and is gradual and often not noticed. It can be scientifically measured on a Bekesy audiometer. It's a fact. No amount of training can reverse it.

 

[JonnyFive]

OK, you're not pretending. You're self-deluded.
Presbycusis starts at around 18 and is gradual and often not noticed. It can be scientifically measured on a Bekesy audiometer. It's a fact. No amount of training can reverse it.

Ah, but I bet there's some fancy looking stones you can put on your stereo that'll make things right as rain.

Miracle Hearing Stones, only $3,499.99 a pair!

 

[WDB]

ExtremeSkeptic I'm curious, you must be extremely limited in the selection of music that you can buy to listen to that will sound great on your system. Presumably your average CD recorded in a normal recording studio using standard power cables and off the shelf equipment must have already lost too much information to ever sound any good ?

Also I'm interested what speakers you use as you don't seem to mention it anywhere, and to what extent have you acoustically modified your house to create a suitable listening room ?

 

[pipelineaudio]

Presumably your average CD recorded in a normal recording studio using standard power cables and off the shelf equipment must have already lost too much information to ever sound any good ?

He shoots, he scores!!!

Thats the funnest part. Hearing an audiomolestor tell me he can hear the musicians playing together in the tracking room better than I could when I tracked them.

Never mind that they were never together but just overdubbed one at a time for the most part.

But boy oh boy, he can hear them smiling at each other and stuff.

 

[Paulhoff]

He shoots, he scores!!!

Thats the funnest part. Hearing an audiomolestor tell me he can hear the musicians playing together in the tracking room better than I could when I tracked them.

Never mind that they were never together but just overdubbed one at a time for the most part.

But boy oh boy, he can hear them smiling at each other and stuff.

Yea, again my friend would talk about hearing the space between the musicians in a recording, when in fact the musicians may have never played together from the start like you said.

Paul

 

[Graham Jackman]

OK, everyone. I was hesitant to be so specific before, but in light of ES's assertion that he was prescribed psychoactive drugs and now refuses to take them, I think we should stop feeding his obsessions and delusions. He doesn't listen and is probably only interested in gaining attention. I don't think our attention is doing him any good.
I'm glad to see that others have picked up on my point that one cannot have an original performance against which to make a comparison, so any perceived benefit that cannot be objectively measured must be suspect. The closest you could come would be to reproduce the recording on a "perfect" setup. ES would doubtless agree that such a thing doesn't exist, so how will we ever know?
let's get back to enjoying the music for its own sake and maybe doing some real good in the world with our money.

 

[illogical]

Lets be a little careful now. I drive musclecars with the windows down.

if this is true, and you've done mixing at high levels (2 assumptions), then a typical audiophile will hear better in the midrange. that is the area where a lot of speakers have issues.

despite his alleged mental illness (actually considered libel in my country), his viewpoint is not unlike the audiophiles who subscribe to Stereophile.