Audio Myths?

rbbert

rbbert

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,683
Location
Reno, NV
This article came up on my Google News feed. After skimming through it, my thought was how many audiophiles actually "believe" in any of the "myths" (realizing that this article is perhaps aimed more at the home theater audience rather than audiophiles per se)?

10 Audio Myths Debunked For Better Sound | Audioholics
 
I saw "audiophiles", "myths" and I knew I didn't want to click but I saw some replies so curiosity, thenI saw "audioholics and knew I made a mistake. This thread is nothing more than a new place for the usual suspects to rail on everything audiophile. This has to be the only purpose they remain.

mep said:
Just more noise in the audiophile world.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah - Audioholics is in direct opposition to 99% of what's of interest in this forum, lol. From my perspective they're outright anti-audiophile; I'm sure they would disagree.

An actual audiophile myth to me would be the so called "law of diminishing returns" - no, if you hit diminishing returns, it means you didn't upgrade the right thing :D
 
Mr Peabody said:
I saw "audiophiles", "myths" and I knew I didn't want to click but I saw some replies so curiosity, thenI saw "audioholics and knew I made a mistake. This thread is nothing more than a new place for the usual suspects to rail on everything audiophile. This has to be the only purpose they remain.
Click to expand...

Exactly. What's next? How long until someone starts posting links to Ethan Winer videos?
 
mulveling said:
Yeah - Audioholics is in direct opposition to 99% of what's of interest in this forum, lol. From my perspective they're outright anti-audiophile; I'm sure they would disagree.
Click to expand...

Not really, the fact of the matter is most over at Audioholics have just as much enthusiasm for Hi-Fi as those of us do here.

Audiophile Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

I think the confusion comes in over what groups truly feel represents an 'audiophile'
 
What I found interesting is that the article identifies a bunch of "myths" that (IME) are widely acknowledged in the audiophile community to be just that, myths. OTOH, perhaps they are thought to be true in the HT community; more damning, some of them are actually held to be true by "objectivists" and measurement-oriented commentators, so in a sense Audioholics is metaphorically shooting itself (or at least a significant portion of its audience) in the foot.
 
I wouldn't go out on a limb and say the audiophile community at large doesn't agree with some of the non-HT myths outlined in that article.
 
Mikado463 said:
Not really, the fact of the matter is most over at Audioholics have just as much enthusiasm for Hi-Fi as those of us do here.

Audiophile Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

I think the confusion comes in over what groups truly feel represents an 'audiophile'
Click to expand...

I covered that with the "I'm sure they would disagree" part. Yes, I'm certain they're quite enthusiastic about...stuff.

rbbert said:
What I found interesting is that the article identifies a bunch of "myths" that (IME) are widely acknowledged in the audiophile community to be just that, myths.
Click to expand...

Some of these "myths" seem like they were fabricated just for the article (or at least made to look far more controversial/contentious than they are), to lend themselves more weight as a technical authority.
 
The folks over at audioholics are a strange bunch to say the least. They don't believe that class A amps and tube amps sound any better than standard issue receivers or cheap multi-channel home theater amplifiers. It is a middle of the road home theater website at best.
 
still-one said:
Too often I think that the internet was the worst thing that has ever happened to audio.
Click to expand...

x 2

These guys concludes that a power cord doesn't make any difference just measuring.
They don't lose any time listening to it.:disbelief:

After that i just don´t care about anything, and i repeat anything, they tell about audio.
One day, science, real science, will show how wrong are these anti-audiophile.
 
Spock said:
x 2

These guys concludes that a power cord doesn't make any difference just measuring.
They don't lose any time listening to it.:disbelief:

After that i just don´t care about anything, and i repeat anything, they tell about audio.
One day, science, real science, will show how wrong are these anti-audiophile.
Click to expand...

Please tell us what 'real science' would be ? I sure hope you don't believe it's nothing but subjective listening...….
 
Mikado463 said:
Please tell us what 'real science' would be ? I sure hope you don't believe it's nothing but subjective listening...….
Click to expand...

Real science is the one that, face to face with the facts, it doesn't laugh, it investigates.
Real science is aware of its own limitations, and at every moment it reflects on them, never presenting itself as finished and definitive.
The subjective hearing that you refer, in most cases, is linked to very objective phenomena, insofar as they are obviously observed by thousands of people all over the world. Real science does not seek to deny facts but to investigate them.

José Rodrigues dos Santos (*), a world-famous Portuguese writer (whose writing rivals with Dan Brown), recently said in an interview that the most commonly spoken phrase by a scientist at the time of a discovery is not "Eureka" but "How strange!"
I have no doubts that measuring instruments are not yet adequate to measure what so many ears witness.
I say again that I have never seen a UFO but I do not ridicule anyone who claims to have seen it. That's the problem with audio skeptics. They are always looking to ridicule other audiophiles, but I still look forward to the day when real science will make them lose their smiles.

(*) Jose Rodrigues dos Santos – Wikipedia, a enciclopedia livre
 
Spock said:
Real science is the one that, face to face with the facts, it doesn't laugh, it investigates.
Real science is aware of its own limitations, and at every moment it reflects on them, never presenting itself as finished and definitive.
The subjective hearing that you refer, in most cases, is linked to very objective phenomena, insofar as they are obviously observed by thousands of people all over the world. Real science does not seek to deny facts but to investigate them.

José Rodrigues dos Santos (*), a world-famous Portuguese writer (whose writing rivals with Dan Brown), recently said in an interview that the most commonly spoken phrase by a scientist at the time of a discovery is not "Eureka" but "How strange!"
I have no doubts that measuring instruments are not yet adequate to measure what so many ears witness.
I say again that I have never seen a UFO but I do not ridicule anyone who claims to have seen it. That's the problem with audio skeptics. They are always looking to ridicule other audiophiles, but I still look forward to the day when real science will make them lose their smiles.

(*) Jose Rodrigues dos Santos – Wikipedia, a enciclopedia livre
Click to expand...

I hear 'ya Spock, 'live long and prosper' ......... :bonkers:
 
Science is about much more than measurements, and the science of perception (a "soft" science) is inherently more challenging than that of the "hard" sciences (e.g., physics or chemistry)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top