Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Article: Why We Need Audiophiles (Read 552408 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 19 Guests are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #900 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Here is an appropriate visual representation of lossy compression artifacts.

The first is a high resolution lossless 24 bit image of 11,2 MB size.
The second is an example of perceptual lossy compression by which its size could be reduced to 2 MB.

Bitmap
JPEG


I can't tell those apart.  Your pictures must be rigged.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #901 –
Quote from: 2tec on
It's hardly just nits we're haggling over, it's the validity of the author's experience and his subsequent comments that is what is of concern to me. Simply put, the fact they listened to different musical selections doesn't diminish the results at all.


I must admit to being completely baffled by your comment.  What's specifically being haggled over is the sound quality comparison of LP and iPod mentioned in the article.  As you know, this comparison was done using two different pieces of music.

On my system, I listen to a lot of 50s and 60s jazz.  Many of these old recordings sound dull and lifeless, and that's the sound quality I experience.  However, I also have some some more modern, high-quality recordings, and the experience I have when listening to some of them could almost be described as "magical".  So the quality of the sound, and the overall experience listening to the system is profoundly influenced by the quality of the recording being played.

Now consider trying to do a comparative test of two components.  But let's add a special twist - the two components are identical.  Let's say we decided to use two different recordings to evaluate the components - say recording 1 was always used with device A, and recording 2 with device B.  Let's also assume that recording 1 is of high quality, and recording 2 is of mediocre quality.  The conclusion of such an experiment would likely be that device A sounds much better than device B.  But by construction, the devices are identical.  So we have constructed a faulty experiment.  Fixing this part of the problem is simple - use the exact same program material for both components and match the levels.

All of this seems completely self-evident, does it not?  So, what does this say about the validity of the sound quality comparison between the LP and iPod sources as stated in the article?  I would say it's unknown.  We cannot say whether the conclusions are correct or incorrect, because the (implied) experiment was uncontrolled.  Yet as readers of the article, we are implicitly expected to assume they are correct.

Edits: Fixed some redundant and/or unclear statements

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #902 –
Quote from: andy_c on
\
I must admit to being completely baffled by your comment.  What's specifically being haggled over is the sound quality comparison of LP and iPod mentioned in the article.  As you know, this comparison was done using two different pieces of music.


There are so many variables that simply aren't known that have absolutely nothing to do with compression or lack thereof.  First of all, when you're talking about Bowie's "Heroes" you're talking about a song that all ready has a sort of brittle, clattery and abrasive texture to it just because that is the sound that Bowie and Eno chose.  Then you consider that there are, I think, three distinctly different CD masterings of the Bowie catalog out there and we don't know from which the track in question was sourced.  (I still have the Rykos myself.)  If the track was a purchase from iTunes or Amazon mp3 then I would assume that it is from the most recent mastering which means that it possibly suffers a bit from the effects of the "loudness wars" and could have inherent sound quality issues that are simply being accurately reproduced.  Then there's the business of not knowing how the sound got from the iPod to Fremer's speakers.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #903 –
Quote from: Frumious B on
I can't tell those apart.  Your pictures must be rigged.


If you zoom into both you can see that the first one is raw data and the second one compressed. At native resolution there should be no difference perceivable, though. The equivalent audio analysis would be a pitch corrected time stretching of lossy and lossless material, that else would be transparent at native speed.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #904 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: Frumious B on
I can't tell those apart.  Your pictures must be rigged.


If you zoom into both you can see that the first one is raw data and the second one compressed. At native resolution there should be no difference perceivable, though. The equivalent audio analysis would be a pitch corrected time stretching of lossy and lossless material, that else would be transparent at native speed.


That was meant to be a stab at humor actually.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #905 –
Quote from: knucklehead on
Oh, and by the way, does implying that someone is small-minded despite any evidence actually fit in with your ideas of polite discourse?

It was closed-mindedness I directly referred to, which is an issue in a discussion. By the way, does misrepresentation fit in with your concept of polite discourse? Aren't you, perhaps, taking this a little too personal?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #906 –
Oh, forgot that you were the original poster of the Sgt. Pepper's cover issue...

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #907 –
Quote from: andy_c on
I must admit to being completely baffled by your comment.  What's specifically being haggled over is the sound quality comparison of LP and iPod mentioned in the article.  As you know, this comparison was done using two different pieces of music.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that different sources were used. Indeed, I completely agree with your well-stated, and yes, quite self-evident position, however, my point is even given all that you say, the author experienced a level of quality of reproduction in excess of all of his prior audio experience.

Quote
Because, with all honesty, I have never heard anything like that song played on that stereo system at that moment. Ever.
~ John Mahoney from Why We Need Audiophiles

Isn't what John Mahoney experienced exactly what some people around here are striving to achieve?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #908 –
Quote from: 2tec on
...however, my point is even given all that you say, the author experienced a level of quality of reproduction in excess of all of his prior audio experience.


Thanks for the clarification.  My post was only intended to address the specific issue of the validity (or not) of the comparison of sound quality between the two sources, not the more general issue of John Mahoney's overall experience.  If his experience were not actually what he said it was, that would make him quite dishonest indeed.  I don't doubt his overall experience at all.

Quote
Because, with all honesty, I have never heard anything like that song played on that stereo system at that moment. Ever.
~ John Mahoney from Why We Need Audiophiles


Quote from: 2tec on
Isn't what John Mahoney experienced exactly what some people around here are striving to achieve?


I can't speak for others, but it's what I'm trying to achieve.  Have I achieved it?  I can't say.  Our experiences are very personal and subjective, so it's not really possible to "equate experiences" as it were.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #909 –
Quote from: 2tec on
Quote from: shakey_snake on
2tec, you continue to carelessly muddle "experience" with "sound quality".

I don't think anyone here really cares to disagree with whatever the author's total experience was; it was obviously quite captivating. He was not going to a listening test, but he seemed to go visit Mr. Fremer expecting something of "a show" and Mr. Fremer seems to have delivered upon that expectation.

That may be an indication that Mr. Fremer has good production values when it comes to being a host, but it doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the sound quality. The fact that the author then attempts to make quality claims about the mp3 on his iPod being "dull and lifeless" is just simply a non sequitur.

Actually, despite your comment, I've been carefully trying to discuss the relationship between direct experience and sound quality. Are you really suggesting they aren't connected in some meaningful way? Furthermore, it's seems as if you're claiming that good showmanship produces a memorable listening experience that is completely irrespective of the equipment involved? Wow, now I know that all I need is showmanship, I'm going to hire a good MC for my room. 

You may be more right than you probably realize. A study has been published (PNAS, 2008, 105, 1050-1054) in which was demonstrated that subjects consistently reported that more expensive wines tasted better, even when they were actually identical to cheaper wines. Even more striking was that when subjects were told they were getting a more expensive wine, more activity was observed in a part of the brain known to be involved in our experience of pleasure.


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #910 –
We have already discussed the wine study and analogy ad nauseum earlier in this thread.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #911 –
Quote from: 2tec on
Quote from: shakey_snake on
2tec, you continue to carelessly muddle "experience" with "sound quality".

I don't think anyone here really cares to disagree with whatever the author's total experience was; it was obviously quite captivating. He was not going to a listening test, but he seemed to go visit Mr. Fremer expecting something of "a show" and Mr. Fremer seems to have delivered upon that expectation.

That may be an indication that Mr. Fremer has good production values when it comes to being a host, but it doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the sound quality. The fact that the author then attempts to make quality claims about the mp3 on his iPod being "dull and lifeless" is just simply a non sequitur.

Actually, despite your comment, I've been carefully trying to discuss the relationship between direct experience and sound quality. Are you really suggesting they aren't connected in some meaningful way?
I'm arguing that they are not necessarily connected in any meaningful way.

Quote from: 2tec on
Furthermore, it's seems as if you're claiming that good showmanship produces a memorable listening experience that is completely irrespective of the equipment involved? Wow, now I know that all I need is showmanship, I'm going to hire a good MC for my room. 
Just as a good car salesman could create an enjoyable test drive experience in not necessarily the best car ever, yes absolutely.

It's called salesmanship.
elevatorladylevitateme

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #912 –
Quote from: allchemie on
You may be more right than you probably realize.

I've been arguing all along that the placebo effect exists in almost every listening experience, and that it's an influence that really shouldn't be disregarded nor disparaged, but merely accounted for. Obviously acoustic fidelity is a speakers main criteria, but for a dedicated listening room speaker, power and presentation appears to influence enjoyment. From what I understand, near field studio monitors are great in recording studios but they aren't appropriate for an average living room, exactly as living room speakers aren't appropriate as studio monitors. Is this incorrect?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #913 –
Quote from: 2tec on
Quote from: andy_c on
I must admit to being completely baffled by your comment.  What's specifically being haggled over is the sound quality comparison of LP and iPod mentioned in the article.  As you know, this comparison was done using two different pieces of music.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that different sources were used. Indeed, I completely agree with your well-stated, and yes, quite self-evident position, however, my point is even given all that you say, the author experienced a level of quality of reproduction in excess of all of his prior audio experience.

Quote
Because, with all honesty, I have never heard anything like that song played on that stereo system at that moment. Ever.
~ John Mahoney from Why We Need Audiophiles

Isn't what John Mahoney experienced exactly what some people around here are striving to achieve?


You are misstating what John Mahoney experienced. Whether it was a level of reproduction, or simply a different kind of reproduction is unknown. None of us were there and there is no logical reason to believe that his description of his experience was a perfect description of what happened. It has to has any number of obvious flaws that have already been discussed, and there are no doubt far more.

What John Mahoney experienced was a combination of audio and visual influences and perhaps other sensory influences, that he may have never experienced before, or at least never experienced in that combination before. Since we don't know exactly what he experinced, we have no reason to strive to achieve the same experience.


Aren't you into experiencing things for yourself before making judgements? Have you been in Fremer's place yourself, or are you just guessing about what it would be like?

I'm not very excited about listening to vinyl on a really high-resolution system. Vinyl has a lot of inherent audible problems, and listening to vinyl on a high resoltution sytem just makes them that much more obvious. It is quite pssible that in his brief exposure to Fremer's system, there was inadequate listener training for Mahoney to notice the known audible problems with vinyl that he would surely notice later on.

It is well known that when people are put into unfamiliar environments, they don't have the same insightful and detailed perceptions and memories that people who are far more familiar with that same environment obtain.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #914 –
There's some vinyl rips from Michael Fremer available here, so it's possible to get at least some insight into the sound out of his phono preamp.  The downloads are the two "Step Right Up" AIFF files.  I'm not taking sides here, just mentioning this as an FYI.

BTW, I tried these in Foobar and they didn't work, but I don't know why.  Winamp plays them okay though.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #915 –
Quote from: andy_c on
I tried these in Foobar and they didn't work, but I don't know why.  Winamp plays them okay though.


They are "sowt" AIFFs, ie, little-endian rather than the  traditional big-endian. Not all programs will recognize them.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #916 –
Quote from: Frumious B on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Frumious B on
OK...Let's talk about this picture.



Why? Did the use of lossy compression render it anonymous?

Quote
Obviously, this is an attention getter that makes you want to scroll down, but what is the meaning behind it?  What is the intention here?  Sgt. Pepper's... is one of those watershed kind of albums in pop music history with, arguably, the most famous and instantly recognizable album cover shot in pop history with a lot of symbolic power.  It's also a cultural touchstone for millions of people who came of age during the era in which it was released.


So you _did_ recognize it. Obviously my art director didn't try hard enough :-)



Since you're the Editor, Big Cheese, Big Kahuna, Head Honcho, etc. that picture was either your own idea or you approved it.  Otherwise it wouldn't be there.  Since the appearance of that image is not remotely analogous to the way that the music of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band actually sounds when presented in mp3 or aac even at the lowly and much maligned 128kbps CBR bitrate and since you are obviously knowledgeable and intelligent enough to be fully aware that your image choice isn't analogous then the only possible conclusion is that the image in question represents a deliberate attempt to mislead and misinform. 


With all due respect, you are taking this _way_ too seriously.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #917 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
You are misstating what John Mahoney experienced.

Actually, what I did was provide a quote from him.

Quote
Whether it was a level of reproduction, or simply a different kind of reproduction is unknown.

What I actually said, which you are misstating, was, "the author experienced a level of quality of reproduction in excess of all of his prior audio experience."

Quote
None of us were there and there is no logical reason to believe that his description of his experience was a perfect description of what happened.

The author was there and there is no reason to believe that his description of his experience wasn't a perfect description of what happened.

Quote
It has to has any number of obvious flaws that have already been discussed, and there are no doubt far more.

Why does it have to have any number of obvious flaws and where were they discussed? Why are you convinced there are far more flaws and exactly what flaws would they be? Perhaps you could enlighten us?

Quote
What John Mahoney experienced was a combination of audio and visual influences and perhaps other sensory influences, that he may have never experienced before, or at least never experienced in that combination before. Since we don't know exactly what he experinced, we have no reason to strive to achieve the same experience.

Spoken like a true virgin.    Personally, since I have no reason to suspect that Mr. Mahoney was either exaggerating or  lying, I can only take his words at face value and conclude that, subjectively at least, Mr. Fremer's stereo is impressive in regards to what appears to be an average or typical listener.

Quote
Aren't you into experiencing things for yourself before making judgements?

I'm sorry but exactly which judgment are you alluding too? You, on the other hand, seem to be implying that my judgment lacks experience. What exactly is your basis for that implication? 

Quote
Have you been in Fremer's place yourself, or are you just guessing about what it would be like?

Are you suggesting that only in Fremer's place could high fidelity be experienced or that I would need to guess about what it would be like?

Quote
I'm not very excited about listening to vinyl on a really high-resolution system. Vinyl has a lot of inherent audible problems, and listening to vinyl on a high resoltution sytem just makes them that much more obvious. It is quite pssible that in his brief exposure to Fremer's system, there was inadequate listener training for Mahoney to notice the known audible problems with vinyl that he would surely notice later on.

All of which is completely irrelevant from my perspective. I'm not talking about the source, but rather the result. In fact, the fact that Mr. Mahoney was impressed by vinyl after listening to a digital player says something about the potential of analog reproduction.

Quote
It is well known that when people are put into unfamiliar environments, they don't have the same insightful and detailed perceptions and memories that people who are far more familiar with that same environment obtain.

Is it well known? Can you provide a reference, or is this just your personal belief? Personally, I've always heard that "familiarity breeds contempt."
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #918 –
Quote from: knucklehead on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I know some people actually believe that, but in fact that is an idealistic expectation.  It is all about image. Look at how Atkinson cherry-picks points to reply to. Look at how people here get distracted by that.


Actually, Mr. Atkinson's evasiveness has been repeatedly commented on, and seems to be quite apparent to most here. I don't think he's scoring any points at all with that little trick.


It's a not  a "trick," merely a reflection of the reality that with so many asking questions of me in this thread and some even playing "gotcha," such as implying I have hearing damage, I don't have the time to respond to all the posts. I have a more-than-full-time job if not a life :-) I am also traveling in the SouthWest this week, so have even less time to satisfy people's curiosity.

I tend also not to respond when the questioner seems not be capable of demonstrating the usual social skills or is merely name-calling or expressing a negative opinion. I would have thought it obvious in such cases that my opinion is different and there is no point in arguing about whose opinion is more valid. If you are looking for external validation of your opinions and beliefs as contrasted with mine, I have no intention of going along with you for the ride. I also have no desire to discuss questions concerning high-end audio as a whole or things that have been said or written by other people. Life is too short.

And in the case of Mr. Krueger's post he was clearly putting words in my mouth and I don't see why that shouldn't be pointed out for the benefit of those who seem to have missed it.

And to put to death another strawman promulgated by Mr. Krueger, to the best of my knowledge, the Gizmodo writer's iPod was played though Michael's regular system, which is indeed capable of sounding superb.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile



 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #919 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Frumious B on

Since you're the Editor, Big Cheese, Big Kahuna, Head Honcho, etc. that picture was either your own idea or you approved it.  Otherwise it wouldn't be there.  Since the appearance of that image is not remotely analogous to the way that the music of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band actually sounds when presented in mp3 or aac even at the lowly and much maligned 128kbps CBR bitrate and since you are obviously knowledgeable and intelligent enough to be fully aware that your image choice isn't analogous then the only possible conclusion is that the image in question represents a deliberate attempt to mislead and misinform.


With all due respect, you are taking this _way_ too seriously.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Could you elaborate why as regards content? He seems to be correct with slightly exaggerated tone. Stereophile's misleading illustration indeed either indicates missing in-house knowledge about lossy compression or the intend to malign. And its not just about one silly picture, but seems to be just a building brick of a larger agenda: Stone age encoders, low bitrates, avoidance of DBTs (which are very easy to do for lossy vs. lossless through Foobar), etc.

Many posts about the whole complex were very convincing, much more at least than your cherry picking. You are very convincing about proving that you are a very sophisticated rhetorician. But we did know that much from Stereophile already.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #920 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
It's a not  a "trick," merely a reflection of the reality that with so many asking questions of me in this thread and some even playing "gotcha," such as implying I have hearing damage, I don't have the time to respond to all the posts.

Wow.  I was in no way implying that you have hearing damage, rather to gauge whether you have a measurable advantage in distinguishing hi-res from CDDA or lossy from lossless.  Based on what you said, it doesn't seem like you do.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #921 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
With all due respect, you are taking this _way_ too seriously.


And you've made light of me twice on this while making no attempt whatsoever to actually respond.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #922 –
Why we need audiophiles. 

My old Harmon receiver with that KLH speaker connected by lamp cord was the center of my audio system.  I and my friends, young classical musicians, avid jazz aficionados and early rock adopters on the San Francisco scene, adored that system.  We played LPs well into the night, enveloped in the sound of that single speaker.  In contrast, a friend returning home from the war, purchased a stereo system in Japan that was impressive to say the least.  Given his sensitivity to his system, I never expressed to him that I 'felt' something was missing from the sound.  It wasn’t just stereo, it was something else.  I didn't quite know how to express it then but I would come to know how later. 

When the old Harmon was past its prime, I acquired a loaner Kenwood receiver and a set of speakers from a coleague who had upgraded to tide me over while I considered my options.  He also gave me a copy of Stereophile to help in my quest.  I was in complete shock.  The words the writers used to describe the ‘sound’ of amplifiers and the ‘sound’ of cables were so utterly esoteric, I seriously thought they were insane.  As a long-time reader of Audio and Stereo Review, I was staunchly grounded in the laws of measurement, and by extension, the mantra that equal measurements yielded equal sound.  I was rooted in the Gow/McIntosh cable DBTs, and I absolutely rejected the absurd notion of differences in the 'sound' of cables.  Stereophile’s deviation from the accepted credo that specs told the story and putting forth the notion that listening was the proper way to evaluate a component was pure heresy.  I thought JA was pompous and his staff writers lunatics.

Against this backdrop, I was given the opportunity of ‘auditioning’ a preamp and amps in my home by a prospective vendor.  I really wasn’t in the market for tubes and I didn’t believe in ‘auditioning’ components, but I thought what the heck.  I realized in short order what I was missing with the Kenwood receiver.  Over the course of a few weeks, I went back and forth between the receiver and the tubes because the analytical side of my brain simply would not accept what the creative side was hearing.  It was the conundrum of ‘same-difference’ and I was at war in my own mind.  Was Easter Sunday about eggs, or was I believing in something else?

Since that time, I have come to appreciate hearing in 3D, instruments occupying their own space, positions and depth within the soundstage, transparency, nuances of the warmth of tubes and that difference I couldn’t describe back then:  ‘timber truth’.  Yes, the receiver reproduced music extremely well, and yes, I enjoyed it tremendously; but, in critical listening, the tubes added a visceral ‘sense’ of the timber of instruments in space.  My mother and her friends, all opera singers, heard these differences, especially in the human voice, without a clue about the technology, which I found very evidential.  Those ‘Stereophile words’ used to describe ‘sound’ were now their words, taking on the life and vibrancy of Chaucer in the language of their reality and what they heard.  I now view the notion of 'hearing' differences in components analogous to string theory.  There are dimensions that await measurement and tools that await development to measure what audiophiles hear that others cannot - or will not.  For them, the pragmatic side of the brain dominates, Easter is about eggs and there was no...but wait! 

There are those who see two dimensionally in paintings and see little detail where others see in three dimensions and a wealth of depth.  Alcohol by volume consumed equals the same state of inebriation despite the source, but there is no measurement to determine the subtle nuances in taste differneces of high end wine or well crafted ale.  Ah, that lovely Abott's.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and good drink is in the hands of those who can afford it.  So, let us all then relegate ourselves to paint by the numbers and drink from the egailtarian sameness of audio?  Technically correct notation yields a technically correct score, but can technical correctness equal the playing of Beethoven, Horowitz, Tatum, Peterson or Rubalcaba?

I have accepted the notion that one should audition audio over time in privacy and comfort for proper evaluation, but given the plethora of components and logistics, this can be daunting.  This is why I believe we need audiophiles.  Audiophiles serve as proxy resources for those who believe in differences in components and want to narrow choices by vicariously experiencing a component through words.  In that regard, audiophiles serve as a beacon.  For the other side, judging by their reactions, they serve as a bane who are ‘bamboozling’ the masses out of their money and it is their crusade to save them from the ‘con’ and the damnation of hell.  I find this rather presumptuous given the vast number of people who believe in differences, value their money and simply want to enjoy the experience.  If anything, audiophiles serve to sift through the chaff.  There is resurgence within our youth who believe in these differences and want to hear them.  They understand the utility of IPODs but they also appreciate the best that audio has to offer.  One of my sons, who is a musician, brings his boys over so they can to revel in the old man’s ‘tubes and ribbons’.  The Foo Fighers record in analog and tubes.

I believe that audiophiles are necessary, along with engineers and designers, to help advance our hobby and both have a valid place in the continuum.  It is insulting to dismiss the vast body of audiophiles, who span age, religious, ethnic, geo-political and socio-economic divides - personalities notwithstanding - as lunatics.  There are far too many audiophiles worldwide who ‘hear’ to be dismissed as statistically insignificant phenomena. The debate between objectivity and subjectivity is interesting but has become far too hackneyed and contentious, as promulgated by some, and has taken on the tenor of school yard bullying. 

Ah, yes, I came to respect JA and his staff of writers as insightful and talented.  I have enjoyed them tremendously over the years and would revel in hearing MF's $350K system with him and having a few pints with JA to hear his system and discuss the state of audio when I come East.  Now, if I can just hear the sound of those cable elevators. 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #923 –
Oh carp somebody just went Deepak Chopra on us. You forgot to use quantum entanglement. Or maybe string theory just sounds like a better choice for a totally irrelevant analogy of esoteric scientific-sounding mumbo jumbo?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #924 –
Quote from: andy o on
Oh carp somebody just went Deepak Chopra on us. You forgot to use quantum entanglement. Or maybe string theory just sounds like a better choice for a totally irrelevant analogy of esoteric scientific-sounding mumbo jumbo?


Nah, just like messin' with your head.