I am curious as to how audiofools perceive things and why?
For example some describe "a blacker background"
Does this have anything to do with:
(1) Colours they may associate with things they hear?
(2) Noise in the background?
Crispy treble:
Is that to do with increase in treble?
Organic sound:
Now I have no idea what they mean by this.
Or is it they are imagining things and making placebo names up for any change they hear?
Yea - what do these terms mean and are they used the same way from one audio fool to another?
I'm afraid though, that they can mean anything each person wants them to mean, so each is interchangeable with any other term.
Or is it they are imagining things and making placebo names up for any change they hear?
Rather imagining things and making up placebo names for any change they
don't hear.
If you're into synthesizers, the "organic" sound comes from buchlas, vactrols, those kinds of stuff
You can't quite describe it but you can tell when it's "organic" or not
You sound angry. Maybe you should work on your chakras and let it go. There are worse things out there than people trying to get some pleasure out of what you consider completely futile.
Just a thought.
My friends used to use the term "it is good but it is a little smeary in the midrange" just to make fun of all the Audiofanatics. It would be used especially when someone had spent good money on a really nice brand audio setup.
The thing is we make take the p*ss out of them but you can find the same sad types in the Test Gear/Metrology areas where the idea of using tin plated wire would send them into a tirade of insults.
I am curious as to how audiofools perceive things and why
Since , apparently, there are none of these types here in this thread, you need to ask those who use these phrases and
what they mean to them and why .
Anyone else will just be guessing
But I can make things up as well as the next guy, so anything "blacker" might mean the perception of absense of background "something" in betweeen the intentionaly audible parts. like listeing to a piano in the middle of a busy open market vs an empty auditorium.
Crisper treble is easy, since this is my favorite. Find a speaker and cover the tweeter with your hand. The treble will become "less crispy".
As for organic sound. Not sure about this one. But if you are listening to a recording, alone, and without looking you feel there is someone else in the room....this might be "organic"
All of the above is better understood if you have tasted purple and red AND can tell them apart.
All of the above is better understood if you have tasted purple and red AND can tell them apart.
Only if it is Deep Purple it will have a meaning
About the organic, that is most likely a typo. You want to hear the organ, some prefer a Hammond, others a church (pipe) organ and some rather have it with a leslie.
my opinion-
memory plays tricks on people as they age, the smell of new audio cable is perceived as better frequency response.
faith in your own financial judgment , having spent way too much money on speakers, the need to believe you can hear the difference!
lest you feel like a fool for buying them on the look of the driver cones. an amplifier on the feel of the knobs or color of blinking LED's.
look no further than boomboxes of the 80s as to how looks can be perceived as better sound by teen buyers.
meanwhile the dad is adding more rack mount cases to his over the top wood grain Japanese hifi system.
I am curious as to how audiofools perceive things and why?
I don't think I understand the purpose of this thread, other than an attempt to reinforce OP's negative preconceptions (I can't think of any other reason for the title and "how do audiofools percieve" in the first line). It should probably go with the other audiophool threads in the Dodge Technology section.
I have a decent sound system myself, not audiophool but decent, mostly self-designed and constructed at a sensible budget. People hear things in reproduced music and sometimes struggle with describing the perceptions that it induces in easily transferable language. Taking the OP's examples:
For example some describe "a blacker background"
Does this have anything to do with:
(1) Colours they may associate with things they hear?
(2) Noise in the background?
Black or dark background could be different from an anechoic chamber recording (very unpleasant). It maybe captures subtle reflections from instruments, it may be a recording from a large and well damped auditorium. Our vocabulary for sound is more limited than for visual - that have we got? Silent, quiet, echoey, dry (oops, that's moisture level - hmm, how does that work with wine?).
Crispy treble:
Is that to do with increase in treble?
If you just take it as increase in level, then what about audible distortion artifacts in drivers which will affect the perception of the treble (at the same sound balance).
Organic sound:
Now I have no idea what they mean by this.
I would probably put that down as pleasant and clear sounding, lacking in perceptible artifacts.
Bottom line, sound reproduction (and live music) creates psycoachoustic impressions for the listener and we lack a vocabulary to accurately describe them without venturing into similies. Does that make it audiophoolery? In my book that is falling for obvious marketing hype, spending several £k on interconnects, not a listening experience that we don't really have a universally understandable vocabulary to describe.
Thanks for your opinions and I like to hear them.
Sorry if I sound negative.
Bottom line, sound reproduction (and live music) creates psycoachoustic impressions for the listener and we lack a vocabulary to accurately describe them without venturing into similies. Does that make it audiophoolery? In my book that is falling for obvious marketing hype, spending several £k on interconnects, not a listening experience that we don't really have a universally understandable vocabulary to describe
Talking of psychoacoustic. I have this really old sound card that I loop my audio feed through which amplifies things that are a little low in the background. It is called an Aztech 2320 and has the above effect SRS3D that can be switched on and off from the driver.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Retrieval_SystemThe driver even though built for Windows NT apparently works under Windows XP without a problem and the effect can be turned on and off for show and tell.
http://pcang.com/Aztech_sound.htmIt didn't cost much I only paid 50p down a bootsale 23 years ago then I brought others for spares like for £5 or so if that breaks. I know Windows media player had some software effect since 2001 but this sound card does it for everything in the line in. All I think it does is make the background a little louder and things that I can barely hear but that means I hear more noise like with a record and a higher scratchy sound I think from the needles. So I don't think it improves it physically but depends on the condition and quality of the recordings like the muffled low bit rate audio I find sounds more noticeable with it.
I was shown this CD recently with Pink Floyd "Wish you were here" that mentioned this "Roland Surround sound system" and it sounded to me virtually the same as that output/effect of the soundcard above. I did look to see if they were using their patents but I couldn't find much about it other than some appliance they made in Japan in 1995 according to this article:
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/roland-rss10Roland RSS10 Sound Space Processor
twisted pairs, cryogenic frozen and aligned on atomic level cables
I wonder the manufacturing processes for that.
All of the above is better understood if you have tasted purple and red AND can tell them apart.
Only if it is Deep Purple it will have a meaning
I guess the red needs to be simple ,and when talking about black you most certainly dont want it lacey
But ... I still don't understand a fundamental issue with these audiophools. Upon what basis do they make the determination that what they have
needs to be improved?
Say you buy a brand new audio system. A very very good receiver, turntable, speakers - you spend tens of thousands of dollars on it. You get nice quality made audio hookups and AC power cords. OK. You turn it on, listen, and then you think it needs to be improved? How do you know the sound doesn't match what the artists sound was in the first place?
What they could do, forget about the rocks and stuff sold in the novelty shops and buy the big adjustable equalizers, then they can play around with the sliders all day and relate to the differences (in the track of course) by frequency instead of a belief.
It's because perception and our senses are pretty much entirely subjective and perception from one sense is influenced by the others. Your sight, hearing, smell and taste can change depending on the conditions, sometimes quite quickly. I don't mean synesthesia.
Coupled with the fact one can never experience exactly what someone else experiences, meaning we can only describe something with words (which are themselves somewhat subjective) means one can describe a sound or feeling in a way that cannot be tested, validated, or confirmed. They may very well be genuinely trying to describe what they "hear", but it is difficult without referring to other sounds, just like trying to describe the colour blue to someone who was born blind.
For many it seems audio gear provides an "experience" which includes the knowledge they have spent alot of money on something they desire, so it must sound "better" (in whatever way they wish to describe that improviement). I'm sure to them, it really does sound "better" but that is both relative and subjective. What we percepieve is based on preconcieved ideas.
Ultimately the terms you described have no value other than for salesmen. I'm am not suggesting its all "lies", just that with no objective measure, or specific properties to measure objectively, its somewhat meaningless. Some properties are of course quantifiable - noise floor, bandwidth, THD etc..
Couple all this with an industry that - like most businesses - exists to make money, and there is a market for extremely expensive audio gear for those who have lots of money to spend, and want to spend a lot of audio gear. To justify that cost, manufacturers must use materials and technologies that aren't used on consumer gear - it doesn't actually matter if those materials/methods/techology are in any way beneficial to the quality of sound - but if you charge $50,000 for a 30W amplifier, why would it cost that much unless you're doing something "better". After all, people generally believe that, the more something costs, the "better" it must be.
Re: Placebo. Placebo effects (because its more than just one) are most strongly associated with subjective measures (fatigue, pain, anxiety sight, hearing etc..), and tends to be very weak for objective measures (actual medical outcomes, serum levels etc..). Given hearing is very subjective it's prone to strong placebo effects/biases.
and buy the big adjustable equalizers,
But that's another stage to introduce distortion and phase differences that's going to affect how good there "music " sounds.And on that point do they actually play proper music, like the stuff with rocks in? At best you might get a bit of steely dan but generally it always seems to be some sort of insipid jazz or venezuelan throat warbling
[2:48] they always have to come out with bigger
and better ridiculous as sounding
explanations for how their cables are
better you know it's how they're better
than their previous model you know of
this new one
I see, I think I understand now, it is not the cable that is manufactured but the audiofool.
Where the process of manufacturing is who believes the claims and buys into it.
I don't think I thought of it like that before.
Strange terms for things we hear aren't just for audiophools. When I worked on the development of speech and general audio codecs it could be very hard to put into words what many of the compression artefacts sound like. You end up with some strange jargon for things among colleagues.
The problem with this kind of (very popular on EE forums) topic is that it tends to invariably mix up what is purely subjective, what is purely marketing, what actually makes some sense and what absolutely doesn't. So it often ends up not being particularly fruitful. And you're not going to change the mind of this type of audiophiles, those who fall for pure marketing, if that's the goal.
This mix up sometimes leads to extremes, assertions such as "listening to some music on my tablet's speakers is every bit as good as listening to it on $10k worth of equipment". No, it's not, even when $1k would likely be good enough already. The really expensive stuff, for the right reasons (not the stupid dust moon cables), these days, are the speakers, and it will be hard to find something really good for under $1k or so. Now usually, at least for stereo sound for a moderate-size room, spending more than this is just luxury.