Are Audiophiles Obsessive Nuts?

Plasma; I just spent some time in the high-endaudio.com website. It impressed me as being just one audiophile's opinions and rhetoric-- no more, no less. My own opinions are more valuable to me than his, and that's the way it should be. Cheers. Craig.

Nice discussion. He says unnaturally interested. Feels pretty natural to me, though I would have bought a description that used the word "cursed". I think sound just makes a different impression on me than it does a lot of other people. I have friends that think I'm nuts. But they, like the EE, don't seem to hear sound the way I do.

I may not be the bestest critical listener, but I can paint a picture in my mind what sounds looks like. Sort of translate sound to an image like. I like that picture to look a certain way. I don't know too many that also can build such an image (hence my presence in this forum). I also don't know when it happened, or how, it just did. But I don't feel sorry for them, I feel sorry for me.

I sort of wish I never noticed a difference between sounds. Because once you start to, you can't not. Once you are at the point where you can't not, you are ruined, and it gets expensive. Shitty sound (or sound that may not be to your preference) just doesn't work. I want it the way I like it, and no other way. Obsessed? or human?

Could be the same for any other thing, food, drink(time for a joke--I'm not an aficionado of wine connoisseurs), cars, whatever, GOLF! (talk about obsessed wacko's for a hobby, most of 'em I know) Right?, otherwise there wouldn't be such a thing as a cafeteria, and we'd all be eatin white rice and water for every meal.

EE's may just not be impressed by music and sound the way I am. Fine. I'm not impressed by clever math formulas like they are. I think in this sense, thay have no business commenting on something they do not understand, not about the equipment and math, but about people. Small details are everything in anything. It's not about better, it's about what I like. I agree with one, it is a chase. I for one, wish I would finally find it.

I also think maybe audiophilia (to borrow a term) does have A LOT to do with stuff that has nothing to do with sound and how one hears it. All else equal, I want the thing costing $10 more, but looks trick, and sounds less to my preference (by up to 2-3%), than I do the yuck job for less that sounds slightly better. By the same token, I don't care how good it looks, it better sound good too, or it can't stay. But again, personal human preferences that just as easily translates into anything else. I'm a walking dichotomy.

One last thing. I have already said this on numerous occasions: Stereophile sucks for anything other than the letters to the editor and the pictures. On the whole, the ink is useless. Even when they do say something, they usually say nothing. The only other waste of ink that compares is with legal documents.

Again, nice discussion.
Chris

I feel the need to defend the honest-to-God electrical engineer. A number of the posts above imply that having a EE degree (as I do) is incompatible with having a good or trained ear, or an interest in music. This is just plain unsupportable by any means at all. First, if you look at the engineering population you'll find a pretty high percentage of musicians; probably greater than in the population at large - there's a strong correlation between math and music skills. For what it's worth, I'm also a musician and I used to work for a guy with an MSEE from MIT; he'd double-majored in performance on flute as an undergrad. I play in groups chock-full of EEs, CSs and other technical types. Anecdotal, of course, but that certainly seems to pass for sufficient evidence in most audiophile discussions!

Second, there's also a bit of "EEs just have book-learning. They can't really design anything." True, I guess, discounting your computer, all of the networking equipment, your TV, your cell phone, your microwave, the control systems in your car and about a bazillion other things that you take for granted every day. Yes, the "tweakers" have brought some good stuff to light, but most of it falls into the realm of green pens, power cords which need to be burnt-in, blue-light CD players (actually, I think that Monsieur YBA has an engineering degree, could be wrong though) and other fairy tales.

Having an EE degree doesn't automatically make somebody a good designer. An undegreed tweaker may be truly gifted. But all else being equal, I know which way I'd bet!

Cheers,
JHunter

Let's be honest, Plasma's IEEE reference is spot on. The ensuing references to differences in sound detectable only by well-trained, golden audiophile ears is a classical manifestation of the placebo effect, pure and simple. Do I dispute that many above honestly BELIEVE that they hear differences? No, but their beliefs/reactions are no different from those of participants in clinical studies that report improvements in various symptoms occurring as a result of having taken nothing more than a sugar pill.

In the end, audio is/should be a simple and fun diversion. Unfortuately, there are many in pursuit of an agenda, the audio press chief among them, that get caught up in pretense, puffery, and outright deceit. These individuals invent terminology without offering operational definitions and they wouldn't know the scientific method if it bit them in the ass. If you doubt this, when was the last time that you read any review that used a double-blind panel when evaluating equipment?

I've read lengthy replies to precisely that criticism made by the audio press --- "Gee, we just don't have the time, money, nor inclination to use anything approaching an objective method, besides our reviewers are so "objective", we don't need no stinking scientific method, trust us." The truth is that the majority of claims that they make about the sonic superiority of this or that would never survive empirical testing.

WE WERE ALL ABUSED CHILDREN...