Why Audiophiles resist change?

[Ambio]

In my long journey of music listening, the first thing I noticed was, people resist change. In the earlier years, people resisted to stereo. Vinyl lovers resisted CD. CD lovers resisted to HiRez downloads.

When SACD was released in multi channel I was all excited. Unfortunately, audiophiles did not want to move from stereophony. It died. Audiophiles resisted multichannel.

It looks like recreating live like music is no longer the prime objectivity of audiophiles. What are they really aiming for?

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Some changes are best resisted. Some should be embraced. Sometimes changes should be embraced with the understanding that early implementation might be bad, but that they may be something worth while in the future.

The development of stereo and hifi up to this point in time has been a wonderful thing. Currently it is in a phase of lunacy. I wonder where it will be in a decade or two?

 

[Shivam]

Resisting change ?
You have it wrong in my opinion. Audiophiles are actually one of the most change loving people. Take a look at any audiophiles' upgrade history and you will understand that for good sound, the changes that they make to their system (sometimes going beyond their means) are extensive.

Vinyl to CD resistance was not due to change but due to sound quality. CDs in its early days sounded terrible. Now the CDs have created their own niche and as a format has improved a lot. No wonder HD downloads are also not on a priority list.

I have nothing against multichannel but the cost involved for the equivalent sound quality is too high and I like to have the stage in front of me.

 

[omishra]

At OP: can you tell me if humans have only two ears how we get sense of direction and distance of sound source? Why we don't need n-number of ears in each direction for that sense? Also why not different ear for different frequency spectrum?

 

[corElement]

Resistant to change? Dude, everyday I think of what to try out next :O

 

[Ambio]

At OP: can you tell me if humans have only two ears how we get sense of direction and distance of sound source? Why we don't need n-number of ears in each direction for that sense? Also why not different ear for different frequency spectrum?

I am not sure I understood your question. At best, probably god may be able answer why we have only two ears. :lol: But if you are going to argue that since we have only two ears and therefore anything more than two channels is just superfluous, then I am afraid you are wrong.

There is no such thing as stereo sound in nature. Sound is essentially mono.

 

[omishra]

I am not sure I understood your question. At best, probably god may be able answer why we have only two ears. :lol: But if you are going to argue that since we have only two ears and therefore anything more than two channels is just superfluous, then I am afraid you are wrong.

There is no such thing as stereo sound in nature. Sound is essentially mono.

You are correct! We listen mono sound but it enters our ears with difference. Then our brain depicts about direction and may be estimates where source is, that is depth. Any stereo speakers can fool human brain provided sound is recorded and reproduced same way. Does all multichannel things remain that simple? No. Though we moved to digital still people buy digitally remastered LP records. change is there.

 

[Ambio]

Resisting change ?
You have it wrong in my opinion. Audiophiles are actually one of the most change loving people. Take a look at any audiophiles' upgrade history and you will understand that for good sound, the changes that they make to their system (sometimes going beyond their means) are extensive.

Vinyl to CD resistance was not due to change but due to sound quality. CDs in its early days sounded terrible. Now the CDs have created their own niche and as a format has improved a lot. No wonder HD downloads are also not on a priority list.

I have nothing against multichannel but the cost involved for the equivalent sound quality is too high and I like to have the stage in front of me.

I realised since 2001 that no matter what cable, amplifier, speakers, Cd player, preamp, cones, placements, racks, room treatment, green marker, valves, SS, power conditioners, tube rolling, gold disc, black gate caps and etc, etc....it not going to create the 3D sound you hear in nature. Stereophony got serious limitation. How many of you would dare to take a blindest to say they could hear the difference between SACD and CD?

About HD downloads, you should try some DSD from Blue Coast records or Lindberg DSD classical downloads. Great recording technique and superb sound quality.

CD from day one was measured to be superior than vinyl in all aspect but why do you think people say vinyl sounded superior in the early days. Audiophiles resist change?

---------
P.s. Dear Sir, I responded to your reply to my post in Ambiophonics and keenly awaiting for your reply since what you described cannot be true unless you have a broken equipment in your playback chain.

 

[arj]

its not Audiophiles, its a human thing..we dont like change as a large majority.period.

Human beings as a majority dont like change and resist it. some are early adopters or Mavens and others follow than then the rest intially resist it and then gradually take it up

it has always been so and it always will be .

 

[Vinod.R]

There is an inherent resistance to change in all humans. It is natural. So why not an audiophile, is he also not human?

Change brings in discomfort from what you are used to. Change brings in changes in the way you have perceived things. Thus it took a long time to disapprove the original theory that Earth was the center of the solar system.

But coming back to audiophiles, I think change costs money, time, investment in reading, changing equipment and changes in technology always cost quite a bit when new. Good example: When 40 inch plasmas came in they used to cost what about 2.5 lakhs? 4K tvs also cost quite a bomb.

So bottom line, change is expensive.

 

[Ambio]

You are correct! We listen mono sound but it enters our ears with difference. Then our brain depicts about direction and may be estimates where source is, that is depth. Any stereo speakers can fool human brain provided sound is recorded and reproduced same way. Does all multichannel things remain that simple? No. Though we moved to digital still people buy digitally remastered LP records. change is there.

You are contradicting yourself. If real sound is mono then why we need two speakers to create the depth and localization. If the sound is mono then why are we playing it in stereo?

 

[omishra]

If real sound is mono then why we need two speakers to create the depth and localization. If the sound is mono then why are we playing it in stereo?

Because mono will be interpreted in direction of speakers or centre directly. With another counterpart speaker it can manage it to divert away from speakers in some direction. That why stereo. This is simplest multichannel.

 

[Ambio]

its not Audiophiles, its a human thing..we dont like change as a large majority.period.

Human beings as a majority dont like change and resist it. some are early adopters or Mavens and others follow than then the rest intially resist it and then gradually take it up

it has always been so and it always will be .

There is an inherent resistance to change in all humans. It is natural. So why not an audiophile, is he also not human?

Change brings in discomfort from what you are used to. Change brings in changes in the way you have perceived things. Thus it took a long time to disapprove the original theory that Earth was the center of the solar system.

But coming back to audiophiles, I think change costs money, time, investment in reading, changing equipment and changes in technology always cost quite a bit when new. Good example: When 40 inch plasmas came in they used to cost what about 2.5 lakhs? 4K tvs also cost quite a bomb.

So bottom line, change is expensive.

I didn't see such resistance when it comes to mobile phones, transportation and definitely not to audio or visual advancement. 90 percent of human would want to have HT sound or a 4K TV. Only the non-human still believes that stereo is true to source sound.

Change is expensive? Ever seen how much audiophiles spend on cables instead of embracing newer tech? hyeah:

 

[corElement]

I think its more of a matter of fear of the unknown more than resistance to change. People expect things to be on their terms and change is dynamic. People are open towards if they know something on their own terms.

 

[Ambio]

Because mono will be interpreted in direction of speakers or centre directly. With another counterpart speaker it can manage it to divert away from speakers in some direction. That why stereo. This is simplest multichannel.

So whatever sounstage that stereo capable of recreating will be confined within the two speakers right? Occasionally, you do hear outside the two speakers but that is due to phase manipulation but leave that aside for now, please.

Let,s say your speakers are 10 feet apart and if you have a sound( guitar) just two feet inside the left speaker then you have to have certain amount of loudness in left speakers and much lesser loudness in the right channel to shift the sound to move two feet away from the left speaker; correct?

Now let's get back to reality. Isnt it similar like two persons, say playing a guitar, in unison. One is louder than the other at the speakers' position. That means the orginal single guitar recording is now played by twice simultaneous in playback. How can that be ever be correct?

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Miscellaneous misunderstandings...

Natural sound is only "mono" if you are listening to one sound from one thing, but how often does that happen in the world? Two ears allow us to place sound in relation to us; two eyes allow us to not only see by measure distance.

We could go further and say that the world behind us does not remain respectfully silent until we turn and face it, so no, we don't really live in a stereophonic world, we live in a surround-sound world. There are still experiments going on in reproducing this. One day it might be sonically and economically acceptable to music listeners just as it is now to home-theatre watchers.

CDs measured better right from the start...

Did they? The underlying theory was better at the start, but was the implementation? Did CD players sound better right from the start? Was digital recording done better right from the start? I am afraid those questions may not get such a positive response. I have an expensive, digitally-recorded double LP set which I listened to once, because it sounded dead, and, albeit vinyl, it has remained my example of how digital music can go wrong.

Now let's get back to reality. Isnt it similar like two persons, say playing a guitar, in unison. One is louder than the other at the speakers' position. That means the orginal single guitar recording is now played by twice simultaneous in playback. How can that be ever be correct?

Because it creates an illusion, and the illusion works very well indeed. If you think it doesn't work, then you'd better go back to 1930-something and tell them that they're making a big mistake with this new stereo thing!

You can always fight the illusion (or just connect your speakers out of phase) and hear it as two separate sound sources. You probably can't beat something like the McGurk effect by mental effort, but the stereo illusion is a little more fragile.

Thing is, though, just as we sit down to willingly immerse ourselves in the fiction of film or book, we are equally happy and willing to immerse ourselves in the fiction of stereo music. Best illusion ever!

 

[Fantastic]

Most sounds are mono. They come from a single point . But the ear receives the two sounds with a time gap due to their different location. That gives it a cue to where the source is located.
We usually use two spaced out points to imitate the ear to record them so that we can reproduce location cues to enable the ear to decode it's position on playback. Multi channel attempts to generate cues from other directions that stereo speakers located at the front can't do by themselves. All done to try and enable the ears to locate one or several mono sources !

A good stereo system still sounds great if set up right and complications involving multiple speakers is fascinating but not required to enjoy good music ! Multichannel is good for movies and the profit margins of the manufacturing industry.
Most people don't even fully explore the possibility of a great stereo system and plonk tons of money on all kinds of complicated gadgets in the hope that they will get better enjoyment.

 

[Shivam]

I realised since 2001 that no matter what cable, amplifier, speakers, Cd player, preamp, cones, placements, racks, room treatment, green marker, valves, SS, power conditioners, tube rolling, gold disc, black gate caps and etc, etc....it not going to create the 3D sound you hear in nature. Stereophony got serious limitation. How many of you would dare to take a blindest to say they could hear the difference between SACD and CD?

About HD downloads, you should try some DSD from Blue Coast records or Lindberg DSD classical downloads. Great recording technique and superb sound quality.

CD from day one was measured to be superior than vinyl in all aspect but why do you think people say vinyl sounded superior in the early days. Audiophiles resist change?

---------
P.s. Dear Sir, I responded to your reply to my post in Ambiophonics and keenly awaiting for your reply since what you described cannot be true unless you have a broken equipment in your playback chain.

Please see the bold parts in your reply. I can not tell the difference between the SACD and CD layer of a disc. So why should SACD matter to me?

What makes the HD downloads worth downloading is their high quality sound recording and mastering. The medium itself has nothing to do with it.

Regarding the Ambiphonics, I tried it but did not like it (maybe my attempt was flawed like you said) but I am happy with the present sound.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

What makes the HD downloads worth downloading is their high quality sound recording and mastering.

When and if it actually is better recorded and mastered. I'm cynical that all available "HD" music is from different source material, and as for future recordings, probably the 44.1 recording would be just as good assuming the same engineering care.

 

[Fantastic]

....... I am happy with the present sound. .....

The happiest and richest audiophile is one who is satisfied by a good and not very expensive system. He has enough money lefty to BUY any music he wants and enjoy it often with possibly a great single malt .

This person is to be envied ! No continuous mental stress about what should be changed next and " how he could further improve ( if possible !)" the 'good' sound he is currently listening to ! From what I have seen, not many people are on that lazy, happy ( lucky!) boat !