Why Audiophiles resist change?

[Thad E Ginathom]

That is very true. I find myself becoming discontent with being discontent.

I haven't beaten it yet, though. I'm still telling myself that I just need those speakers, that headphone, then I'll be happy...

 

[Ambio]

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?

It happens all the time. Sound in nature is mono. You are confusing with multi source to stereo. Read here as it is very relevant to explain your misunderstanding about stereo. STEREO: A MISUNDERSTANDING

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.

Yes. please refer to the RedBook. One LP is enough for you to come to a irrefutable proof? And why emphasis the word expensive? To proof big money will give better sound? The only people screaming CD sound was bad were those with 100s of LPs in their collection and some analogue producer and audiophiles. Difference means difference not necessarily bad. If you get extended high frequencies in CD and super low bass and flat frequency response and clean sound and no wow and flutter, and better channel separation and higher dynamic range than vinyl it is going to sound hell of a difference the first time you hear. If what you are saying is true then the world would not have embraced CD so quickly especially at that time the cassette medium was more practical.

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!

Well ...err ...actually Sir George Martin thought so!

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!

Seriously? Do you even know what is being out of phase means? Does sound out of phase happen in nature normally? And what is relevance of McGurk effect here? Seeing two speakers means you get the stereo effect?!

 

[Ambio]

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.

If you have been to classical orchestra in a Philharmonic concert hall then you would know how limiting is stereo. It is not I am suggesting you have not been but I am bring it to your attention that it is only then we can onsider stereo sound to be good if it can remotely come close to it.

 

[shafic]

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 !

Very practical thoughts!!:clapping: I have one friend of the first category too. He is not a member of any kind of forum!!

 

[Ambio]

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.

Yes, neither could I even though Iwould like to believe so. But have you compared direct to DSD recording and 24/96 recordings in a standard CD? The higher quality sound was preserved because it was orginal recorded in DSD. having said, I only sparingly buy HiRez and content with 16/44.1. The difference lies in the original recording format. As far as I am concerned I don't think anyone could tell any difference beyond that reliably.

Ok thanks for clarifying of your omission regarding ambiophonics.

 

[arj]

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:

Mobile phones is not mainstream today..but was not like that. not sure if you remember the late 90s when mobile phones started coming in. was not accepted that well initially by most- even called evil by some who preferred their pager which kept them offline.

HT is a different thing. would like an HT but for the same quality of sound from 5 or 8 speakers as from teh 2 today ..and not even getting to the same quality amp and cables) makes it really expensive
better 2 good ones and 5 average ones.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Ambio, none of those points you pick up in my post woudl make an interesting conversation. If you want me to prove that the Mahler album I bought was lousy, that's easy: I still have it ---but hey, it was anecdotal: true for me, but quite possibly of no consequence to anyone else.

Perhaps I misuse the technical term "phase," But I think you know what I mean.

I am listening to stereo music right now, and, even having read this thread, guess what... it still works! That it may not be perfect is quite true, but what are you suggesting: that we throw all out kit out and twiddle our thumbs in silence until the next thing comes along?

 

[Ralph Glasgal]

I do research in psychoacoustic and am both a physicist and an electrical engineer. You can read about my work at Home Page

This is an interesting thread although not very technical. I would hazard a guess that many audiophiles seem to resist change because they really believe that with a perfect speaker, recording, room treatment, high-rez media, etc. they can perfect the 85 year old stereo loudspeaker 60 degree triangle so as to achieve something close to concert-hall realism or everyday normal binaural hearing.

But this kind of reproduction makes use of a sonic illusion that bears little relationship to normal two eared (binaural) hearing. It is as if you had to use your eyes to only look at 2D printed optical illusion pictures instead of direct normal two eyed 3D vision. Archaic 60 degree speaker stereo can be viewed as an artform like black and white photography which can be improved, just like black and white film, in resolution, contrast (dynamic range) linearity, etc. But just as perfect black and white print paper and enlargers will never have color or 3D, so stereo will never have the localization characteristics of normal hearing where the front stage can extend to 180 degrees or in the case of concert halls and surround movies 360 degrees. There is of course more than just localization involved when comparing the stereo sonic illusion to binaural hearing but that is likely too much to go into here.

If you want to go beyond ordinary stereo an learn how anyone can play the existing library of LPs, CDs, SACDs, MP3s, DVDs, etc. using the new loudspeaker binaural technologies take a look at the technical stuff on the Ambiophonics website or write me. [email protected]

 

[greenhorn]

to quote a Zen joke -

"Change must come from within"

 

[Ambio]

Mobile phones is not mainstream today..but was not like that. not sure if you remember the late 90s when mobile phones started coming in. was not accepted that well initially by most- even called evil by some who preferred their pager which kept them offline.

HT is a different thing. would like an HT but for the same quality of sound from 5 or 8 speakers as from teh 2 today ..and not even getting to the same quality amp and cables) makes it really expensive
better 2 good ones and 5 average ones.

That is incorrect. We have over 6 billion mobile subscribers and world's population is 7 billion. Mobile phone penetration is far greater than anything else that was recently invented. My figures can be confirmed from various reports such as Nielson's. There are many things may have been said in the papers and for some they believe in them and live a separate lives from the rest. One of my acquaintance refuses to own a mobile phone citing almost word to word of the evils mentioned in the old papers. Btw, she is only in her 40s.

You mentioned about HT sounding inferior. But are you making apples to apples comparison? Which receiver? How many watt output? Yes, my HT is pale compared to my main setup but I also know why. But when I add a dedicated multichannel amp to the receiver and take time to add bass trap and side wall it can be improved.

Having said that, I am not a multichannel fan though it can be misleading as my dedicated room setup for stereo comes with 4 channels.

 

[arj]

That is incorrect. We have over 6 billion mobile subscribers and world's population is 7 billion. Mobile phone penetration is far greater than anything else that was recently invented..

Not sure if you noticed but I clearly mentioned in the 90s..not today

Once a change takes over then everyone adopts it. But the first reaction is usually an avoidance.


Regarding HT and multichannel music, I don't think i can afford to spend 3 times the amount for the same quality of speakers I have for 2 channel. .forget amps and cables

 

[Ambio]

Ambio, none of those points you pick up in my post woudl make an interesting conversation. If you want me to prove that the Mahler album I bought was lousy, that's easy: I still have it ---but hey, it was anecdotal: true for me, but quite possibly of no consequence to anyone else.

Perhaps I misuse the technical term "phase," But I think you know what I mean.

I am listening to stereo music right now, and, even having read this thread, guess what... it still works! That it may not be perfect is quite true, but what are you suggesting: that we throw all out kit out and twiddle our thumbs in silence until the next thing comes along?

Thad, your statement was without ambiguity. There was no misunderstanding and you were wrong. Out of phase and McGurk illusion got nothing to do with the topic which you now claim would not make an interesting conversation after I pointed out of the serious flaws in your argument. You inadvertently misled due to ignorance of the topic. It is a classic case of why audiophiles resist change.

Going back to you Mahler Album, have you asked how could such a mediocre album went through the production engineer and various people out there before reaching your hand? Could those people who produced the album be so tasteless and clueless about sound quality that it only warranted one time listening by yourself before being discarded for good.

Either the company which produced the expensive album do not know anything about sound quality or they just attempted to swindle the gullible audiophiles or the end user doesn't know what a good sound quality is or it is a simple case of not following a simple instruction. It can only be one of these. Are they still in business? Could you give me more info of this album. I will try to get hold of it and listen for myself.

I hope you still like me for being direct.

 

[omishra]

Technical advancement got us new media, great n accurate gadgets. But where is my music which I like? That's not converted to new media accurately or not available. What can do with CDs which does not have my favourite albums. Or new formats have been remastered to add, delete, or alter something which I don't like. Then new gadgets are worthless, no ROI.

 

[Ambio]

Not sure if you noticed but I clearly mentioned in the 90s..not today

Once a change takes over then everyone adopts it. But the first reaction is usually an avoidance.


Regarding HT and multichannel music, I don't think i can afford to spend 3 times the amount for the same quality of speakers I have for 2 channel. .forget amps and cables

Yes sir, I saw that but that's not the truth. I was using the briefcase type ATUR mobile in the late 80s due to my frequent travelling to the interior part of my country. Everyone I knew bought one when they could afford.

I understand the point you are trying to make. Those were the misleading words of tabloids. The truth is US penetration was 5% in 1991 and exceeded 40 per cent within 7 years. That was the fastest growth of a new technology that we knew of. By comparison landline took 39 years. But due to some early reports of people preferring Pagers the falsehood continues till today.


No need to spend anymore. Best HT with 2 speakers with Ambiophonics. email Ralph and ask how to do it.

 

[Ambio]

Technical advancement got us new media, great n accurate gadgets. But where is my music which I like? That's not converted to new media accurately or not available. What can do with CDs which does not have my favourite albums. Or new formats have been remastered to add, delete, or alter something which I don't like. Then new gadgets are worthless, no ROI.

You can still use your old media and rediscover music all over again. BUt I agree the newer music are no longer appealing to us. I think it is due to generation gap.

 

[Kannan]

It is incorrect that an audiophile resists change as change is the mother of invention.
If he had resisted change, he would have even resisted the LP and would have only insisted on live music shows.
An audiophile as the term defines is someone who looks for re creating the perfect studio or live recording in his listening domain with gadgets.
There are some audiophile who live by a 100% analogue medium, then there are those who are close to 100% digital and then there are the mix bag.
But then every resistant audiophile ultimately has to cross the boundary and imbibe the technology as it has moved from LP to CD to music played from a hard disk and keep spending lakhs and lakhs on the intervening equipments which promises to keep the audiophile sentiments intact.

 

[Ambio]

It is incorrect that an audiophile resists change as change is the mother of invention.
If he had resisted change, he would have even resisted the LP and would have only insisted on live music shows.
...

No way audiophiles could have resisted LP. The emergence of audiophiles and high fidelity was a 1950s phenomenon. It is most likely the heading in TIME magazine that said something like ultimate sound for money no object that created an elite group that turned musical enjoyment into boutique hobby.

Please look at another thread in here where two members defend thier digital and vinyl preference. I cannot find any fault in a well setup turntable or digital player but couldn't understand the blind sentiment and argument that one format is better than the other. What's worse is neither one is remotely close to true 3D sound that you hear in a concert hall.

 

[hydra]

I don't think there is a resistance to change among people who like music or like the various ways of reproduction of music. We all try to improve things in every little way that we can. We all keep experimenting with speaker position, listening seat position, room treatment tweaks, anti-vibration tweaks, etc, etc. Not to mention the tendency to upgrade the equipment.

...
Please look at another thread in here where two members defend thier digital and vinyl preference. I cannot find any fault in a well setup turntable or digital player but couldn't understand the blind sentiment and argument that one format is better than the other. What's worse is neither one is remotely close to true 3D sound that you hear in a concert hall.

This aspect I agree to. But a description of this phenomena would be more like "Audiophiles have definite preferences, and they tend to stick to (and defend) those preferences".

This is true of many things, not just music, and this is particularly applicable where there's an aspect of subjective appreciation involved, like beauty, art etc. These preferences may change over time (depending on how open-minded the person is), but in the short term, people tend to stick to their preferences. And, depending on their nature, people vehemently defend these preferences, and typically try to convert others to these preferences.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Thad, your statement was without ambiguity. There was no misunderstanding and you were wrong. Out of phase and McGurk illusion got nothing to do with the topic which you now claim would not make an interesting conversation after I pointed out of the serious flaws in your argument. You inadvertently misled due to ignorance of the topic. It is a classic case of why audiophiles resist change.

Going back to you Mahler Album, have you asked how could such a mediocre album went through the production engineer and various people out there before reaching your hand? Could those people who produced the album be so tasteless and clueless about sound quality that it only warranted one time listening by yourself before being discarded for good.

Either the company which produced the expensive album do not know anything about sound quality or they just attempted to swindle the gullible audiophiles or the end user doesn't know what a good sound quality is or it is a simple case of not following a simple instruction. It can only be one of these. Are they still in business? Could you give me more info of this album. I will try to get hold of it and listen for myself.

I hope you still like me for being direct.

Oh, sure, no problem at all with that but I feel that either I have missed your point, or you have missed mine --- or maybe we're talking about different things!

Going back to the premise of the thread... Are we, the group loosely called audiophiles, resistant to change? I don't think we are. Look at the formats that have passed across our horizons over the decades!

Speaking personally, and anecdotally, with exceptions, I am not. It took me a while to take CDs on board, simply because I had stack of LPs and a heap cassette tapes. Soon after that, though, I had a minidisk equipment and PC audio. I would have taken in digital tape, except it was not affordable!

There was plenty of change there, and I don't think I'm that different from the average audiophile, allowing for the fact that some of us may be a little more geeky about equipment than others.

(as to the side issues: is it possibly that a multi-national recording company can issue a bad recording, on any medium? How could it not be?)

Now, there is a saying, "change is good" which people like to bandy around, and it is a bad saying. Good change is good.

I consider that the road along which the music and music music-reproduction industry is heading, with increasing unstoppable speed, and which audiophiles are sadly failing to resist to be lunacy based on lies and misrepresentation. except in so far as I have to accept it, to listen to music I want to hear, I am resisting that change.

But, whether that is all right or all wrong... we have audiophiles not resistant to change. Lapping it up, in fact

 

[Ambio]

Oh, sure, no problem at all with that but I feel that either I have missed your point, or you have missed mine --- or maybe we're talking about different things!

Going back to the premise of the thread... Are we, the group loosely called audiophiles, resistant to change? I don't think we are. Look at the formats that have passed across our horizons over the decades!


(as to the side issues: is it possibly that a multi-national recording company can issue a bad recording, on any medium? How could it not be?)

We are missing the point because you are not answering the questions posed. The albums catalogue would be a great starting point to understand your opinion about horrible digital sound that you experienced. That would be helpful for many here to have clearer understanding of what to avoid in the future.


Having said that, I would like to reiterate that audiophiles resist change and refuse to explore. The proof is here in this very thread.

In post 28 a physicist, electrical engineer, teaches in NYU, an early member of antarctica explorer, contributed to auroral phenomenon study, an activist in Greenpeace and to honour his contribution an Island was named after him.

He designed stereo dimension control for Fisher Radio which he later patented. Obviously, he knew more about stereo than any of us here. If that is not enough he also designed the RIAA filter for RCA Victor recording company which would have been used in your many RCA LPs in your collection.

He mentioned the shortcomings of the current stereo setup and the ways to retrieve the hidden information in millions of recording that we already have. It costs nothing except change of attitude and moving the speakers closer.

How many of the audiophile here even acknowledge his post? Fear of unknown? fear of being proven what you have been doing all these years is wrong? His biggest mistake (IMHO) making his research and discovery freely available for the public. He argues that it is his gift for mankind.

But that would not worth the time of audiophiles who still believes they can reach the moon with their jet propelled ship.