Audiophile Guru Syndrome

[tima]

Do you think I should just be quiet and not offer this sort of advice?

No. However my sense of this from reading discussions is that giving the same advice over and over when someone talks about SETs turns people off.

I did start a thread like you suggested. It got a few likes and no other activity. The message obviously isn't going to get out that way

What counts as "the message getting out"? What do you want or expect to happen? Do you believe people must take your advice or express belief in it for you to be successful?

 

[microstrip]

There is a lot of that kind of petulance going around...

Interestingly, in his book Sound Reproduction — an opus much revered in objectivist circles, and an objectively excellent work — Floyd Toole (with Sean Olive and Todd Welti) notes that “listeners are the final judges of what constitutes good sound (…) so it is worth trying to understand what they are hearing.” (That’s from memory, not a literal quote.)

I was happy to read someone knows about Sound Reproduction, written by Floyd Toole, not Olive or Welti, a book revered in both objectivist circles and knowledgeable subjectivist circles. Unfortunately your memory is deceiving you - Toole never wrote the text you refer in his book.

He writes however something with similar words stating that listeners, in blind conditions (non biased), are "excellent detectors of artifacts and distortions; they are remarkably trustworthy guardians of what is
good. Having only a vague concept of what might be correct, listeners recognize what is wrong" - curiously I have quoted the whole sentence before. Surely the strict need for non biased, blind conditions excludes the high-end.

In other words, even if a particular measurement suggests that Device X should provide all the sound quality anyone could need, it’s still important to consider why some listeners choose something else — and what they’re actually hearing that leads them to that preference.

As far as I remember this was never addressed in the book. Toole does not care about audiophile individual preferences - they are not his objective.

 

[Atmasphere]

Ever since I got my Arya Audio Airblades to augment my Zus, I've been told that they *can't* work, either as specified/advertised, indeed at all.

They look quite interesting! I assume they are working for you?

my sense of this from reading discussions is that giving the same advice over and over when someone talks about SETs turns people off.

Yeah... there's that thing about doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results...

If the same people keep reading that I imagine so. Funny thing about that though, if there is a simple solution, why not try it? I've offered that over and over as well.

Seems to me there's a bit of that 'not invented here' thing going on. So some take issue rather than being pragmatic and trying the proposed 'fix'.

The other concern is a good number of people jump into threads without reading the whole thing. If you don't stay on point, some of them are going to miss a message that could save them thousands of dollars.

For example, I've seen plenty of people trying to use a 7 Watt (300b) amp with speakers that are only 93dB. Most SETs have no feedback (and I'm explaining this for the benefit of people that haven't read all this stuff; not for you in particular...), so they are making a fair amount of distortion by the time they get to only 20% of full power. Higher ordered harmonics thus turn up in greater amounts. Since the ear uses those harmonics to sense sound pressure, and since transient leading edges are where power demands are often the highest, the result is greater higher ordered harmonics on transients, which leads the ear to perceive those transients are louder than they really are. This is why people write about how 'dynamic' SETs are. Its distortion, not actual dynamic contrast.

(to that end, I've often also stated that the mark of the best systems is they lack the property of sounding 'loud' even when they are)

So its clear that in a situation like that, neither the amp or speaker is being shown in its best light. IOW, not a good investment. To me making this information clear is simply good faith. If you like the SET, fine, get a more efficient speaker (in the case I just mentioned, perhaps about 8-10dB more efficient). If its the speaker you like more, get a more powerful amp. Funny thing about that though, in the case of a speaker of that efficiency, you stand a good chance of using a smaller push pull tube amp that might outperform the SET on that speaker in every way (that audiophiles like). That amp might not be all that expensive either; a good example (and one I've recommended in the past) is the Dynaco ST35, which is much more musical amp than its larger brothers. There's one in town here on Craigslist for $900.00. Heck, you might pay more than that for the tubes that go in a 300b amp!

What counts as "the message getting out"? What do you want or expect to happen? Do you believe people must take your advice or express belief in it for you to be successful?

Great question! I just hope that when people are gathering their systems that they go in with eyes open. This is really all about getting the most enjoyment out of the investment, at least that's how I see it.

 

[spiritofmusic]

They look quite interesting! I assume they are working for you?

Yeah... there's that thing about doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results...

If the same people keep reading that I imagine so. Funny thing about that though, if there is a simple solution, why not try it? I've offered that over and over as well.

Seems to me there's a bit of that 'not invented here' thing going on. So some take issue rather than being pragmatic and trying the proposed 'fix'.

The other concern is a good number of people jump into threads without reading the whole thing. If you don't stay on point, some of them are going to miss a message that could save them thousands of dollars.

For example, I've seen plenty of people trying to use a 7 Watt (300b) amp with speakers that are only 93dB. Most SETs have no feedback (and I'm explaining this for the benefit of people that haven't read all this stuff; not for you in particular...), so they are making a fair amount of distortion by the time they get to only 20% of full power. Higher ordered harmonics thus turn up in greater amounts. Since the ear uses those harmonics to sense sound pressure, and since transient leading edges are where power demands are often the highest, the result is greater higher ordered harmonics on transients, which leads the ear to perceive those transients are louder than they really are. This is why people write about how 'dynamic' SETs are. Its distortion, not actual dynamic contrast.

(to that end, I've often also stated that the mark of the best systems is they lack the property of sounding 'loud' even when they are)

So its clear that in a situation like that, neither the amp or speaker is being shown in its best light. IOW, not a good investment. To me making this information clear is simply good faith. If you like the SET, fine, get a more efficient speaker (in the case I just mentioned, perhaps about 8-10dB more efficient). If its the speaker you like more, get a more powerful amp. Funny thing about that though, in the case of a speaker of that efficiency, you stand a good chance of using a smaller push pull tube amp that might outperform the SET on that speaker in every way (that audiophiles like). That amp might not be all that expensive either; a good example (and one I've recommended in the past) is the Dynaco ST35, which is much more musical amp than its larger brothers. There's one in town here on Craigslist for $900.00. Heck, you might pay more than that for the tubes that go in a 300b amp!

Great question! I just hope that when people are gathering their systems that they go in with eyes open. This is really all about getting the most enjoyment out of the investment, at least that's how I see it.

Yes, they are absolutely working for me. And a handful of guys I know with seriously better systems than mine.
Yet, more audiophiles don their guru persona to tell me they're plainly wrong, and my (and by extension, these other guys') hearing is faulty.

 

[morricab]

There is a lot of that kind of petulance going around...

Interestingly, in his book Sound Reproduction — an opus much revered in objectivist circles, and an objectively excellent work — Floyd Toole (with Sean Olive and Todd Welti) notes that “listeners are the final judges of what constitutes good sound (…) so it is worth trying to understand what they are hearing.” (That’s from memory, not a literal quote.)

In other words, even if a particular measurement suggests that Device X should provide all the sound quality anyone could need, it’s still important to consider why some listeners choose something else — and what they’re actually hearing that leads them to that preference.

Circling back to @Atmasphere’s example about SETs and bass: instead of debating whether SET amps “have bass” or not, an alternative approach is simply to ask SET users whether they’re satisfied with the bass they’re getting — and take the conversation from there.

Yes, many of us think SET bass sounds more natural.

 

[morricab]

Yes, decorum is important. Sometimes it seems like you don't perceive how you may come across to others when injecting yourself into a discussion. This is not about how much more you know than others, it's more interpersonal.

I'll give you an example. There have been several discussions about SET amps. You jumped into these dialogs to tell everyone that SET amps don't do bass very well. You say you want to correct misperceptions and you give technical information to support your point that most do not understand. I believe your intentions are honorable but you can imagine some don't like lecturing or continual correction. This has nothing to do with who knows what. By claiming a particular design typology is weak in a certain way some people will interpret this as dissing products they own, whether you think you are doing that or not. This is but one example, there are others.

Since you are manufacturer and a dealer, criticism of certain products and approaches, however generic, will be perceived by some as promotion of other products and approaches even if you do not mention those.

I gave you a suggestion on how to avoid avoid interpersonal agitation. Again this is not about who knows the most. Instead of correcting others in discussion, get your message across in a different way. For example: start your own thread: "SET amps don't do bass very well and here's why". That way you are not going into what you want to say by approaching the topic as a correction of another person or another's claim. It allows you to teach proactively without the risk of offending.

I think the pot calling the kettle black is the very short answer to Rslph’s post…all couched in a ‘I am just trying to steer those misguided lost souls away from the rocks of listening to the Siren’s call of SETs’ Righteousness.

 

[nc42acc]

Would the audiophile guru syndrome have any correlation to the Dunning–Kruger effect ?

 

[Anton D]

Would the audiophile guru syndrome have any correlation to the Dunning–Kruger effect ?

Well done!

Maybe it’s the Depeche Mode effect. Everyone is their own personal guru.

Audiophilia has more freaking flexing than Gold’s Gym.

 

[oldvinyl]

For example, I've seen plenty of people trying to use a 7 Watt (300b) amp with speakers that are only 93dB. Most SETs have no feedback (and I'm explaining this for the benefit of people that haven't read all this stuff; not for you in particular...), so they are making a fair amount of distortion by the time they get to only 20% of full power. Higher ordered harmonics thus turn up in greater amounts. Since the ear uses those harmonics to sense sound pressure, and since transient leading edges are where power demands are often the highest, the result is greater higher ordered harmonics on transients, which leads the ear to perceive those transients are louder than they really are. This is why people write about how 'dynamic' SETs are. Its distortion, not actual dynamic contrast.

(to that end, I've often also stated that the mark of the best systems is they lack the property of sounding 'loud' even when they are)

So its clear that in a situation like that, neither the amp or speaker is being shown in its best light. IOW, not a good investment. To me making this information clear is simply good faith. If you like the SET, fine, get a more efficient speaker (in the case I just mentioned, perhaps about 8-10dB more efficient). If its the speaker you like more, get a more powerful amp. Funny thing about that though, in the case of a speaker of that efficiency, you stand a good chance of using a smaller push pull tube amp that might outperform the SET on that speaker in every way (that audiophiles like).

Other workable solutions include bi-amping the speakers, assuming they accommodate it. Find a speaker with a tube friendly impedance - not dipping to low impedance at either end of the frequency spectrum. Speakers with built in powered subwoofers can also work well with SET amps since they can be tuned for rolling off at 40, 60, 80 Hz (etc).

Or, more difficult, find a high powered SET amp.

Another aspect often not discussed is that any low powered amp will have difficulty damping the back drive of the woofers.

I always appreciate the explanation that gets at the underlying physics of the issue. Helps me understand amps and speakers better.

 

[Gregm]

I was happy to read someone knows about Sound Reproduction, written by Floyd Toole, not Olive or Welti, a book revered in both objectivist circles and knowledgeable subjectivist circles. Unfortunately your memory is deceiving you - Toole never wrote the text you refer in his book.

I don't wish to be seen as nitpicking -- but he did, I checked.

As far as I remember this was never addressed in the book. Toole does not care about audiophile individual preferences - they are not his objective.

Yes, I wrote that -- not Toole.
BTW, the 4th edition of this book is authored by "F Toole with Olive, Welti"
Regards

 

[microstrip]

I don't wish to be seen as nitpicking -- but he did, I checked.

Sorry, but not in the sense you imply. Please quote properly and I will be happy to comment. When we expressly "quote" someone who are supposed to keep his intentions.

Yes, I wrote that -- not Toole.
BTW, the 4th edition of this book is authored by "F Toole with Olive, Welti"
Regards

Thanks for letting me know the promised 2026 4th edition is already available - yes, it adds Olive and Welti as authors, as it adds a new sections :

• Sections on 2-channel stereo, headphones, binaural listening and DIY multiple-subwoofer solutions to room resonance problems
• Measurable performance guidelines for loudspeaker designers
• Criteria for the selection of timbrally neutral loudspeakers and headphones using industry-standard measurements
• Guidance for how best to employ loudspeakers in stereo and multichannel formats in small rooms with problematic bass resonances
• Advice on identifying and separating the recording and playback factors that influence sound quality and the spatial/enveloping perceptions that contribute to our satisfaction

Surely not the fundamental highend subjectivist favorite book ...
Just bought it, thanks!

 

[Zuman]

The biggest challenge for me personally is knowing when to accept the word of an "expert," "engineer," "manufacturer," or "scientist," as definitive truth, and when to continue to search for a "different truth" in other places.
There are hundreds of designers trying to make a living by carving out their own niches in the market. Almost universally, those designers are attempting to create their niche by developing something that is better than their competition in some way.
I think (although I am not certain) that most "better mousetraps" result from new/unique combinations of already-existing technologies, and audible differences are often highly system-dependent. It must be extremely challenging for a designer to create a marketable product that is readily and demonstrably superior to the competition in a wide variety of systems, and of course, this is further complicated by personal preferences, personal physiologies, and room differences.
Nevertheless, most of us want designers/manufacturers to be able to say "because I did this, the sound created does that, and you will like it better." The answers they give then tend to pit designers against each other, and even more often pits their acolytes (customers) against each other as they try to promote and defend their purchase decisions in the courts of public opinion. Many engineers and scientists rise to take this bait, primarily because their training - and the personal tendencies that led them to their professions - prize objective absolutes, I think. And when they cannot provide the desired objective absolute, some actually lie (or to be charitable, hope too desperately), as in many cases of "quantum" anything.
The great fallacy in communities such as Audio Science Review is analogous to the claim that because the difference in chemical composition between individual human beings is de minimis, my daughters are the same as anyone else's daughters. My own great fallacy, of course, is claiming that - because I sired, raised, deeply love, know very well, and admittedly prefer my daughters to yours - they are clearly superior.
I'm sorry, designers/experts/engineers/manufacturers/scientists, but while I may be convinced that you know how to create audio components that function, I cannot so readily accept that you have a clear path to maximizing listening satisfaction in anything close to a universal sense. As creatures in a world with such (often horrific) variance in perceptions, tastes, and values, I believe you will have to settle for providing us with a range of flavors from among which we can choose our own favorites.

 

[microstrip]

The biggest challenge for me personally is knowing when to accept the word of an "expert," "engineer," "manufacturer," or "scientist," as definitive truth, and when to continue to search for a "different truth" in other places.

Well, in the high-end there is no "truth" , so surely no definitive truth.

There are hundreds of designers trying to make a living by carving out their own niches in the market. Almost universally, those designers are attempting to create their niche by developing something that is better than their competition in some way.

Surely.

I think (although I am not certain) that most "better mousetraps" result from new/unique combinations of already-existing technologies, and audible differences are often highly system-dependent. It must be extremely challenging for a designer to create a marketable product that is readily and demonstrably superior to the competition in a wide variety of systems, and of course, this is further complicated by personal preferences, personal physiologies, and room differences.

Yes, but some manage o do it. They find a new cheese that attracts mice or or create a path that brings them to the mousetrap.

Nevertheless, most of us want designers/manufacturers to be able to say "because I did this, the sound created does that, and you will like it better." The answers they give then tend to pit designers against each other, and even more often pits their acolytes (customers) against each other as they try to promote and defend their purchase decisions in the courts of public opinion. Many engineers and scientists rise to take this bait, primarily because their training - and the personal tendencies that led them to their professions - prize objective absolutes, I think. And when they cannot provide the desired objective absolute, some actually lie (or to be charitable, hope too desperately), as in many cases of "quantum" anything.

This task is mostly handled by the marketing people, with a few honorable exceptions. Most of the time designers hide behind the intellectual property barrier - sometimes with reason for it others not. As the messages are most of the time unclear and not debatable, many consumers just parrot them.

The great fallacy in communities such as Audio Science Review is analogous to the claim that because the difference in chemical composition between individual human beings is de minimis, my daughters are the same as anyone else's daughters. My own great fallacy, of course, is claiming that - because I sired, raised, deeply love, know very well, and admittedly prefer my daughters to yours - they are clearly superior.

The major problem of such communities is their intolerance to the high-end and the ignorance of some of their more aggressive members. We have knowledgeable WBF members that post in both forums.

I'm sorry, designers/experts/engineers/manufacturers/scientists, but while I may be convinced that you know how to create audio components that function, I cannot so readily accept that you have a clear path to maximizing listening satisfaction in anything close to a universal sense.

No wise high-end designer would aim at such objective or at less I never read about anyone I consider claiming it.

As creatures in a world with such (often horrific) variance in perceptions, tastes, and values, I believe you will have to settle for providing us with a range of flavors from among which we can choose our own favorites.

As Nelson Pass said, " We create amplifiers that we like to listen to, on the assumption that we share similar taste."

 

[Atmasphere]

Other workable solutions include bi-amping the speakers, assuming they accommodate it. Find a speaker with a tube friendly impedance - not dipping to low impedance at either end of the frequency spectrum. Speakers with built in powered subwoofers can also work well with SET amps since they can be tuned for rolling off at 40, 60, 80 Hz (etc).

Or, more difficult, find a high powered SET amp.

Another aspect often not discussed is that any low powered amp will have difficulty damping the back drive of the woofers.

IMO/IME your first solution is the best one. That allows you to experience what the SET does best.

The higher the power of nearly any tube amp the harder it is to get bandwidth out of the output transformer. In SETs this is complicated by the need for the gapped output transformer, a need I apparently ad nausem have explianed fairly often in the past.

The solution a lot of modern SETs use is to rate the transformer for much greater power, resulting in a much larger transformer. To give you an idea of that, an SET design I'm working on employs output transformers rated to 50 Watts, for use with a single 300b so will only make 7 Watts. Those transformers are easily 4 times the size of the output transformers in a Dynaco ST35, which can make about 2.5 times more power and have wider bandwidth at both extremes.

The problem with larger output transformers, if bass is not sacrificed, is getting bandwidth at high frequencies. So a higher power SET usually will have compromised bandwidth.

Usually damping the woofers isn't a problem and you're right, the issue isn't often discussed. The reason is if the speaker is one meant for amps with a higher output impedance, the woofers won't need much damping if they need any at all. Literally the design rules for such speakers are different from the Voltage rules many of us grew up with. For more on this topic see https://www.atma-sphere.com/en/resources-paradigms-in-amplifier-design.html

Would the audiophile guru syndrome have any correlation to the Dunning–Kruger effect ?

Sure seems like it to me! I worry about that in me every day.

I'm sorry, designers/experts/engineers/manufacturers/scientists, but while I may be convinced that you know how to create audio components that function, I cannot so readily accept that you have a clear path to maximizing listening satisfaction in anything close to a universal sense

IMO, IME that is often because the circuits they make are designed to exhibit a certain measurable quality; usually lowest distortion. The problem with that is one must not ignore the rules of human hearing which are common to all individuals on the planet except those with damaged or non-existent hearing.
If the designer ignores those rules, one thing that can happen is while the circuit (for example an amplifier) might be low distortion, what distortion there is might be unmasked higher ordered harmonics, to which the ear assigns brightness and also harshness.

I think that puts me in the same camp as Daniel VonRecklinghausen, who (IMO) rightly stated:

If it measures good and sounds bad, — it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, — you've measured the wrong thing.

 

[Bruce B]

Humility goes a long way.... even in life. I have a tendency to keep my mouth shut, instead of interjecting. A lot of folks could learn from that.
Some of you have seen that I have cut back on posting, because I don't want to listen/read the drama. As you get older, your time becomes more precious. I've always followed Ralph's posting... I just have to weed out the minutiae....
Happy hunting....

 

[oldvinyl]

IMO/IME your first solution is the best one. That allows you to experience what the SET does best.

The higher the power of nearly any tube amp the harder it is to get bandwidth out of the output transformer. In SETs this is complicated by the need for the gapped output transformer, a need I apparently ad nausem have explianed fairly often in the past.

The solution a lot of modern SETs use is to rate the transformer for much greater power, resulting in a much larger transformer. To give you an idea of that, an SET design I'm working on employs output transformers rated to 50 Watts, for use with a single 300b so will only make 7 Watts. Those transformers are easily 4 times the size of the output transformers in a Dynaco ST35, which can make about 2.5 times more power and have wider bandwidth at both extremes.

The problem with larger output transformers, if bass is not sacrificed, is getting bandwidth at high frequencies. So a higher power SET usually will have compromised bandwidth.

Usually damping the woofers isn't a problem and you're right, the issue isn't often discussed. The reason is if the speaker is one meant for amps with a higher output impedance, the woofers won't need much damping if they need any at all. Literally the design rules for such speakers are different from the Voltage rules many of us grew up with. For more on this topic see https://www.atma-sphere.com/en/resources-paradigms-in-amplifier-design.html

Yes, thanks. I basically already understood that. There are other electrical engineers in our midst. My specialty is in design assurance of complex electronic hardware and software, not in analog circuit design. My EE program did not have any classes on tubes (1970s).

 

[Atmasphere]

Yes, thanks. I basically already understood that. There are other electrical engineers in our midst. My specialty is in design assurance of complex electronic hardware and software, not in analog circuit design. My EE program did not have any classes on tubes (1970s).

Mine didn't either (mid 1970s). But I went to tech school as well. They had exactly one day on tubes.

 

[Salectric]

Mine didn't either (mid 1970s). But I went to tech school as well. They had exactly one day on tubes.

In contrast, my high school electronics class involved 3 years of nothing but tubes. I kept waiting for Mr. Crozier to get to transistors but that was covered in just a couple weeks at the end. Those 3 years were 1967-70, so a few years made all the difference.

 

[oldvinyl]

Mine didn't either (mid 1970s). But I went to tech school as well. They had exactly one day on tubes.

The EE building had a couple racks from an ENIAC computer in the lobby. Quite a piece of history. My interest was in learning how computers worked from the quantum level of transistors up to computer programming.

 

[Gregm]

Sorry, but not in the sense you imply. Please quote properly and I will be happy to comment. When we expressly "quote" someone who are supposed to keep his intentions.

My goodness Micro, you really do like pontificating! It is exactly as I mentioned.
Suggestion: do purchase the 4th edition, thereby helping the authors, and check if you wish. (however, it doesn't really matter if you do or not.)