7 ms·

I would disagree with the initial premise that it's about the pursuit of "perfect sound reproduction". There's many people who do that, but that's not what the

I would disagree with the initial premise that it's about the pursuit of "perfect sound reproduction". There's many people who do that, but that's not what the audiophile world really has become. It's about a bunch of hand waving and big checkbook spending to impress other audiophiles. Oddly, that describes a lot of "hobbies". Nobody who feels that a $4,000 power cable is important has any semblance of sanity remaining. It's the homeopathy of consumer electronics.

w0utert 14y ago
As someone who spends far too much money on 20+ years old cars, I think I have to agree with you. Being an audiophile is a bit like being a car enthusiast: there really is nothing rational about spending so much money on something that most people don't see the value of, something that is so subjective that you can't explain it to them. I think in the end, it's more about the joy you get out of the idea of being able to spend that kind of money on something that so few people are willing or able to do. Subliminally, it affects your perception of how awesome the car or the audio setup actually is, if you ask an outsider, chances are he or she doesn't see or hear anything better that what 'normal' people are using.
- mikeash 14y ago
  At least you could tell the difference between a cheap car and an expensive car in a blind test.
  - brianpan 14y ago
    But it's not about cheap and expensive, and it's only partly about measurable performance. It's just as much about style (this car was designed with the "perfect" stance) and about personal preference. Things you're not going to get everyone to agree on, and occasionally are plain irrational.
  - TylerE 14y ago
    You can't really say that for cars, either. Look at the premiums paid for "numbers matching" cars.
  - w0utert 14y ago
    > At least you could tell the difference between a cheap car and an expensive car in a blind test. If I show my car to people, most of them don't see a 'modern classic', a 'rare limited edition', a 'real drivers car' or a 'high performance vehicle' with 'upgraded specifications'. They just see a re-sprayed 20-year old clunker without satnav, double airbags or cupholders ;-)
    - mikeash 14y ago
      Sure, but you can still tell the difference. Not even audiophiles can distinguish much audiophile equipment from more mundane equipment in a blind test.
      - davidcuddeback 14y ago
        > Not even audiophiles can distinguish much audiophile equipment from more mundane equipment in a blind test. That's a pretty broad generalization about a large group of people. Do you have any facts to back it up?
        adamzochowski 14y ago
        http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/ http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the...
        davidcuddeback 14y ago
        Let's start by considering the original source for the story. It comes from this forum post: http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15412-post28.html http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15412-post28.html First off, that begs the question: how reliable do you consider a comment on a forum? Are you going to condemn an entire industry based on that? But that doesn't really matter. As I mentioned in my reply to mikeash, that's just not enough evidence. I'm not going to repeat myself here. You can read my other comment to understand why one piece of evidence isn't conclusive. To address the Engadget article, it took one paragraph of that post out of context to make a narrow point about Monster cables. If you read the rest of the post (and probably the rest of the forum thread), it's clear that the author is not advocating that there's no difference between any stereo equipment. In fact, the thread that he's posting in is about how to choose the right loudspeakers. The paragraph that was taken out of context is just part of the author making a point to the other forum participants. In another post (in the same thread), the author writes: "Some systems sound boring, some are absolutely alive (such as on large horn speakers). Others are polite, compressed, but accurate (Martin Logans, Quads). Then again, others are explosive and extremely good at creating 'illusion' of reality such as Wilson Wamm, and like speakers in the $50,000 to $125,000.00 bracket. They draw you into an altered state of mind (hypnosis)" [1]. It seems to me that he's saying he can hear the difference between speakers, which is exactly contrary to the conclusion that you're using his words to support. "Audiophile equipment" and "mundane equipment" includes more than just speaker cables. [1] http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15419-post31.html http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15419-post31.html
m104 14y ago
I think there are two main sects in audiophile-land, really: perfection and experience. The perfection side has scopes, meters, and blind testing among its tools. The goal is in fact "perfect sound reproduction". The problem here is that between the original source (microphone, usually) and the listener's brain is all of this stuff that distorts the sound. Removing it completely is really hard, and replicating that quality repeatedly is even harder. The experience side has experts, rituals, and demos. The goal there is to reach the limit of audio experience, literally to hear what wouldn't otherwise be heard with lesser systems. The problem on this end is that "near-perfect" systems deliver less exciting and engaging experiences than what the experience experts deem to be better. They don't enjoy the systems calibrated to perfection as much as their own custom systems with tweaks and rituals applied. These two sides really are in a bit of opposition, but it's nice to have both to drive the high-end market of audio equipment.
- gknoy 14y ago
  It reminds me a lot of Geordi talking to Data about a perfect shave needing to not be perfect.
fusiongyro 14y ago
I have a $2500 setup so I may not be a sane voice on this issue, but I honestly think part of it (the mid-range?) is partly about setting up an environment in which "just" actively listening to music is acceptable (as opposed to watching TV or a movie).
- davidcuddeback 14y ago
  I think that's something that's misunderstood by a lot of people. When actively listening to music without other distractions, the distortion in low-end systems becomes very apparent and detracts from the experience. When listening to music in the background and while doing other things (cleaning the house, cooking, driving, socializing with others, working out at the gym, etc), distortion is easily lost in other background noises (and you're not paying as much attention to it anyway). For a lot of people, I think this is the only way they ever listen to music, and so it's understandable why they wouldn't see the value in higher quality components. For someone like yourself, who will actively listen to music without other distractions, it makes sense to spend a few thousand dollars for a better experience. With more expensive systems, I think you start to see diminishing returns. (But I'm not as dismissive as other commenters in saying that there's no difference.)
stinkypete 14y ago
I also question the sanity of anyone spending that much on equipment and seemingly nothing on room treatments. If your goal is accurate sound reproduction, your room is going to be one of the biggest sources of problems (phase smearing, standing waves/room nodes, flutter, etc), especially in smaller square-shaped rooms. Spending $10k on a sound system and zero on room treatment is like putting monster truck tires on a lawn mower. It's no coincidence that studio control rooms, especially ones that do commercial-quality mastering, use all kinds of room treatment tricks to ensure the mastering engineer can accurately hear everything in a mix. And while I don't think audiophiles are just about spending money to impress friends, sometimes they go about things in incredibly inefficient ways and pretend they are not susceptible to placebo effects.
Le_SDT 14y ago
Agree, a real audiophile is not one who pays 250k his system. After a few thousand dollars there is no real difference.. I'm sorry but I've been mixing/mastering for over 10 years and for 2000$ plus a great room, you have it, the best sound you can imagine. Buying more and more expensive stuff is more like a drug than a true need. Audio entertainement (and) professionnal are two of the most overpriced fields.
dredmorbius 14y ago
I suspect it has far more to do with status and/or affluence signaling than audio fidelity myself. As with most hobbies.
iloveyouocean 14y ago
"Nobody who feels that a $4,000 power cable is important has any semblance of sanity remaining." This line of argument is one of the most common attacks against the 'irrational snake-oil' that audiophiles purchase. Yet, I have to disagree. Its not that I believe that a $4k power cord has any/significant technical advantage over a $4 power cord. You used the words 'feels' and 'important'. The feeling of listening to a $4k power cord is clearly internal and subjective as is the determination of its importance. If the listener 'feels' that the $4k cord makes a difference, makes the experience better, then it has value to them and I think that they certainly have the freedom to assign how much importance it has. If audio is your passion, then perhaps there is real value, if perhaps only symbolically, to devoting large sums of cash to it in tribute. In my experience, audiophiles aren't simply gullible rich guys mindlessly blowing money on $4k power cords. Many have very deep relationships with music and with their stereo equipment. This relationship is often complex and rich enough that spending large amounts of money on a new 'X' would almost be like purchasing your wife a gold bracelet. Almost.
- juiceandjuice 14y ago
  A $4000 placebo effect is often worth it.
epsylon 14y ago
The best resource I ever stumbled upon on the subject is NwAvGuy's blog : http://nwavguy.blogspot.fr/2011/05/subjective-vs-objective-debate.html http://nwavguy.blogspot.fr/2011/05/subjective-vs-objective-d...

w0utert 14y ago

As someone who spends far too much money on 20+ years old cars, I think I have to agree with you. Being an audiophile is a bit like being a car enthusiast: there really is nothing rational about spending so much money on something that most people don't see the value of, something that is so subjective that you can't explain it to them. I think in the end, it's more about the joy you get out of the idea of being able to spend that kind of money on something that so few people are willing or able to do. Subliminally, it affects your perception of how awesome the car or the audio setup actually is, if you ask an outsider, chances are he or she doesn't see or hear anything better that what 'normal' people are using.

mikeash 14y ago
At least you could tell the difference between a cheap car and an expensive car in a blind test.
- brianpan 14y ago
  But it's not about cheap and expensive, and it's only partly about measurable performance. It's just as much about style (this car was designed with the "perfect" stance) and about personal preference. Things you're not going to get everyone to agree on, and occasionally are plain irrational.
- TylerE 14y ago
  You can't really say that for cars, either. Look at the premiums paid for "numbers matching" cars.
- w0utert 14y ago
  > At least you could tell the difference between a cheap car and an expensive car in a blind test. If I show my car to people, most of them don't see a 'modern classic', a 'rare limited edition', a 'real drivers car' or a 'high performance vehicle' with 'upgraded specifications'. They just see a re-sprayed 20-year old clunker without satnav, double airbags or cupholders ;-)
  - mikeash 14y ago
    Sure, but you can still tell the difference. Not even audiophiles can distinguish much audiophile equipment from more mundane equipment in a blind test.
    - davidcuddeback 14y ago
      > Not even audiophiles can distinguish much audiophile equipment from more mundane equipment in a blind test. That's a pretty broad generalization about a large group of people. Do you have any facts to back it up?
      - adamzochowski 14y ago
        http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/ http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the...
        davidcuddeback 14y ago
        Let's start by considering the original source for the story. It comes from this forum post: http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15412-post28.html http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15412-post28.html First off, that begs the question: how reliable do you consider a comment on a forum? Are you going to condemn an entire industry based on that? But that doesn't really matter. As I mentioned in my reply to mikeash, that's just not enough evidence. I'm not going to repeat myself here. You can read my other comment to understand why one piece of evidence isn't conclusive. To address the Engadget article, it took one paragraph of that post out of context to make a narrow point about Monster cables. If you read the rest of the post (and probably the rest of the forum thread), it's clear that the author is not advocating that there's no difference between any stereo equipment. In fact, the thread that he's posting in is about how to choose the right loudspeakers. The paragraph that was taken out of context is just part of the author making a point to the other forum participants. In another post (in the same thread), the author writes: "Some systems sound boring, some are absolutely alive (such as on large horn speakers). Others are polite, compressed, but accurate (Martin Logans, Quads). Then again, others are explosive and extremely good at creating 'illusion' of reality such as Wilson Wamm, and like speakers in the $50,000 to $125,000.00 bracket. They draw you into an altered state of mind (hypnosis)" [1]. It seems to me that he's saying he can hear the difference between speakers, which is exactly contrary to the conclusion that you're using his words to support. "Audiophile equipment" and "mundane equipment" includes more than just speaker cables. [1] http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15419-post31.html http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15419-post31.html

m104 14y ago

I think there are two main sects in audiophile-land, really: perfection and experience. The perfection side has scopes, meters, and blind testing among its tools. The goal is in fact "perfect sound reproduction". The problem here is that between the original source (microphone, usually) and the listener's brain is all of this stuff that distorts the sound. Removing it completely is really hard, and replicating that quality repeatedly is even harder. The experience side has experts, rituals, and demos. The goal there is to reach the limit of audio experience, literally to hear what wouldn't otherwise be heard with lesser systems. The problem on this end is that "near-perfect" systems deliver less exciting and engaging experiences than what the experience experts deem to be better. They don't enjoy the systems calibrated to perfection as much as their own custom systems with tweaks and rituals applied. These two sides really are in a bit of opposition, but it's nice to have both to drive the high-end market of audio equipment.

gknoy 14y ago
It reminds me a lot of Geordi talking to Data about a perfect shave needing to not be perfect.

fusiongyro 14y ago

I have a $2500 setup so I may not be a sane voice on this issue, but I honestly think part of it (the mid-range?) is partly about setting up an environment in which "just" actively listening to music is acceptable (as opposed to watching TV or a movie).

davidcuddeback 14y ago
I think that's something that's misunderstood by a lot of people. When actively listening to music without other distractions, the distortion in low-end systems becomes very apparent and detracts from the experience. When listening to music in the background and while doing other things (cleaning the house, cooking, driving, socializing with others, working out at the gym, etc), distortion is easily lost in other background noises (and you're not paying as much attention to it anyway). For a lot of people, I think this is the only way they ever listen to music, and so it's understandable why they wouldn't see the value in higher quality components. For someone like yourself, who will actively listen to music without other distractions, it makes sense to spend a few thousand dollars for a better experience. With more expensive systems, I think you start to see diminishing returns. (But I'm not as dismissive as other commenters in saying that there's no difference.)

stinkypete 14y ago

I also question the sanity of anyone spending that much on equipment and seemingly nothing on room treatments. If your goal is accurate sound reproduction, your room is going to be one of the biggest sources of problems (phase smearing, standing waves/room nodes, flutter, etc), especially in smaller square-shaped rooms. Spending $10k on a sound system and zero on room treatment is like putting monster truck tires on a lawn mower. It's no coincidence that studio control rooms, especially ones that do commercial-quality mastering, use all kinds of room treatment tricks to ensure the mastering engineer can accurately hear everything in a mix. And while I don't think audiophiles are just about spending money to impress friends, sometimes they go about things in incredibly inefficient ways and pretend they are not susceptible to placebo effects.

Le_SDT 14y ago

Agree, a real audiophile is not one who pays 250k his system. After a few thousand dollars there is no real difference.. I'm sorry but I've been mixing/mastering for over 10 years and for 2000$ plus a great room, you have it, the best sound you can imagine. Buying more and more expensive stuff is more like a drug than a true need. Audio entertainement (and) professionnal are two of the most overpriced fields.

dredmorbius 14y ago

I suspect it has far more to do with status and/or affluence signaling than audio fidelity myself. As with most hobbies.

iloveyouocean 14y ago

"Nobody who feels that a $4,000 power cable is important has any semblance of sanity remaining." This line of argument is one of the most common attacks against the 'irrational snake-oil' that audiophiles purchase. Yet, I have to disagree. Its not that I believe that a $4k power cord has any/significant technical advantage over a $4 power cord. You used the words 'feels' and 'important'. The feeling of listening to a $4k power cord is clearly internal and subjective as is the determination of its importance. If the listener 'feels' that the $4k cord makes a difference, makes the experience better, then it has value to them and I think that they certainly have the freedom to assign how much importance it has. If audio is your passion, then perhaps there is real value, if perhaps only symbolically, to devoting large sums of cash to it in tribute. In my experience, audiophiles aren't simply gullible rich guys mindlessly blowing money on $4k power cords. Many have very deep relationships with music and with their stereo equipment. This relationship is often complex and rich enough that spending large amounts of money on a new 'X' would almost be like purchasing your wife a gold bracelet. Almost.

juiceandjuice 14y ago
A $4000 placebo effect is often worth it.

epsylon 14y ago

The best resource I ever stumbled upon on the subject is NwAvGuy's blog : http://nwavguy.blogspot.fr/2011/05/subjective-vs-objective-debate.html http://nwavguy.blogspot.fr/2011/05/subjective-vs-objective-d...