Talk:Audiophile

message: This is in dire need of some modicum of objectivity. As it stands, it appears the article has been written by an audiophile - approaching it in the same way an external commentator would approach, say, UFO enthusiasts, is likely to yield better results.
Also, whilst I'm at it, the stuff about vinyl being technically better is horribly wrong. For starters, 192/24 has no known advantage...I'm getting sucked in...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.222.84 (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What He Said 

message: It's funny how at the top of this page we read "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Then the next thing you read (well, after this) is...a long drawn-out discussion of the topic.
Here's the bottom line: This is a terrible article that doesn't even come CLOSE to a NPOV on the subject. While it is inevitable that "hobby horse" topics like audiophilia, or Operating System wars, or discussions of high-performance motor vehicles, are going to engender a huge debate wherever their proponents gather, this article doesn't even make it through the first sentence before it devolves into a string of the writer's opinions on the subject.
Trash it and start over, says I. I came here looking for information, not the opinion of whomever was the last to edit this worthless article. 
Oh, and one last thing: Seeing as how almost no one here felt it necessary to obey the first rule at the top of this page, I took it upon myself to ignore the second. B. Polhemus (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, I think Tim Bray (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metacriticism First 

message: The cited reference saying that 1989 was the first known instance of WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor) is wrong. The underlying concept was discussed in HiFi magazines of the 1950s and 1960s, but those articles remain largely undigitized. Even by searching the digitized articles, it is easy to find an exact match for WAF earlier than 1989. How about Larry Greenhill writing about the Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker in Stereophile, September 1983? Greenhill says he heard the term first from Glenn Hart, but that the term was coined by Lewis Lipnick. Binksternet (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WAF 

message: Economist John D. Branch (2007) interviewed 11 audiophiles several times between July 1998 to February 1999 and wrote a useful paper about the audiophile microculture, his paper is available on Google Books. Contributors should read his paper (and others like it) and incorporate key findings into the article. I think the article would be greatly improved and become more encyclopedic if certain sections written from a more sociological perspective, rather then from an insiders viewpoint. --Diamonddavej (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Audiophile and his microculture

message: http://xkcd.com/841/
Maybe this could be used in the article to illustrate the typical Audiophiles vs Non-Audiophiles?
It illustrates the issue, double morality/hypocrisy, while pointing out the humorous arguments that often ensue.
As you can see at the bottom of the strip, the artist does allow hotlinking, so if someone asked him he/she would probably be ok with it being used in this article and hosted on the wiki under fair use!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.212.176 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: XKCD Audiophiles image

message: In the Sound Sources section we read,"Newer formats such as DVD-Audio and Super Audio Compact Disc (SACD), with sampling rates of 88.2 kHz or 96 kHz or even higher, have been developed in an attempt to address this criticism." Confusingly, no clear criticism addressed by these higher sampling rates is apparent in the previous sentences. Perhaps it was there but dropped in a later edit. I assume the criticism is that the Nyquist limit is insufficient to avoid aliasing distortion or something along those lines and if so I wish a knowledgeable editor would add/restore this missing piece of the puzzle. —Blanchette (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A year later, I fixed this one Tim Bray (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Criticism? 

message: There needs to be a section of gadgets to improve the HIFI experience. Such as the CD lathe, this allows you to polish the edges of your CDs and so avoid light scatter which causes data errors. http://www.audiodesksysteme.de/index.php?kat=10_17_6 Kwenchin (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  CD Lathe and other Audiophile Innovations 

message: I haven't visited here in a while, but at least the top section is in need of major surgery, multiple paragraphs of windy uncited prose. The introduction could be reduced to a couple of paragraphs, which say
- Audiophiles are people who are interested in high-quality audio reproduction
- The interest extends to recording techniques, data storage, and playback technology
- Playback technology includes CDs, turntables, yadda yadda
- It is acknowledged that it is difficult to recreate the experience of live music in a good acoustic setting in an audio playback system
That's all. Tim Bray (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Did it. Front section is drastically shorter, some others are greatly tightened up. Tim Bray (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thinking about major surgery 

message: An audiophile also includes DIY (do it yourself) to build the best audio equipment.  FYI.  • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  NwAvGuy - The Audio Genius Who Vanished 

message: The final sentence in the controversies section has just had a cn added
"There is disagreement on how equipment testing should be conducted and as to its utility. Audiophile publications frequently describe differences in quality which are not detected by standard audio system measurements and double blind testing, claiming that they perceive differences in audio quality which cannot be measured by current instrumentation,[23] and cannot be detected by listeners if listening conditions are controlled,[24] but without providing an explanation for those claims.[citation needed]"
I appreciate the frustration but how the hell do you add a citation for an absence of explanation in a source? If there IS an explanation in refs 23 and 24  then the last clause is incorrect, but if there is no explanation it is correct.
Greglocock (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  cn in final sentence in the controversies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Audiophile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050906014840/http://www.mastersonaudio.com:80/audio/20030101.htm to http://www.mastersonaudio.com/audio/20030101.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060320173912/http://www.soundstageav.com/mastersonaudio/20050415.htm to http://www.soundstageav.com/mastersonaudio/20050415.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070830120742/http://www.mastersonaudio.com:80/audio/20020901.htm to http://www.mastersonaudio.com/audio/20020901.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130711222233/http://www.linearaudio.nl:80/linearaudio.nl/images/pdf/Volume_1_BP.pdf to http://www.linearaudio.nl/linearaudio.nl/images/pdf/Volume_1_BP.pdf
*Added archive How to connect airpods when case is dead
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101118071651/http://www.audiophilia.com:80/wp/? to http://www.audiophilia.com/wp/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106141001/http://www.baasnotes.com/ to http://www.baasnotes.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Seems that this talk page has been dormant for years, but I wanted to bring up this point before editing [seeing as I'm a very new editor].
I think it's necessary to discuss class privilege when talking about audiophilia.This professional audio blog posted a great writeup on elitism in the high end audio market, and how mid-market speakers approach top quality. The phenomenon of old, one-percenter, predominantly white men spending upwards of ten grand on their turntable setup is half the story when approaching the audiophile scene. On the other hand, perhaps it would be too commy of me to include this without making the article biased. Thoughts?
I think I'll dig around for more sources and give it a week for anyone to chime in before I go ahead and make a change.
FuunnyFaces (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for inclusion of a subsection on class privilege under the Controversy section 

message: Should this be retitled Random Talking Point or Politics of Envy or First World Problem ?
I wish I could unsee that drivel. Greglocock (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Another ed has removed it, for valid reasons, which could be summarised as Don't make stuff up. Greglocock (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class privilege 

message: "The 44.1 kHz sampling rate of the CD format, in theory, restricts CD information losses to above the theoretical upper-frequency limit of human hearing – 20 kHz...."
Wrong.
Sampling rate of a recording being made is how many 'data' points gathered every second digitally to reproduce the original. More data points per second equals more closely it resembles the original. It has got nothing to do with the hearing limit of the human ear.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.252.152 (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not wrong. Your statement isn't wrong either, but rather irrelevant to the point being made. As it happens 44.1 is a bit low, forcing them to use the infamous brickwall filter, but if you were to run a 96kHz sampling rate signal through the same filter the sound to a human would be identical, and if you filtered it at say 48 kHz using a gentler filter then the average human wouldn't pick the difference - it might be possible for some people to hear artefacts caused by the brickwall, I am not sure. You can do all of these experiments yourself using a program like GNU/Octave to create the sound files and ABX (if it still exists) to do the listening tests. Greglocock (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you still don't know since you say it is irrelevant. The sampling rate has got -nothing- to do with filters, or human hearing limits or any other pseudo-scientific wording. It is only the amount of times a file (a recording) is processed when making a copy ...either the DAC within any audio equipment reproduces the sound with a certain 'times per second' so that you can hear it OR if a copy of the original is made so that the copy sounds the best it can be. Thats it!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.252.152 (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Sampling rate