Thank you. This is precisely why I stopped buying Hi-Fi magazines years ago. The absolute nonsense these people dribble is astounding. Using all the buzz words to sell you snake oil is deceiving in the least and bordering on criminal. Cable manufacturers are the worst and I’m looking at you AudioQuest. No reviewer is going to “test” a pair of $3000 speaker cables and say they can’t hear a difference, it would make them look inferior. The people that buy $3000 speaker cables are never going to say they can’t hear a difference because it would make them look stupid and will repeat the vernacular of reviewers to convince themselves and others that they made a most important purchase.
I've watched this 6 times now and can't stop laughing. They say sarcasm is the lowest form of humour but I disagree. It has been scientifically proven beyond doubt that it's the best.
Enjoyed the humour! Sometimes Audiophile rambling can be pretty entertaining (particularly when taken out of context). I must say though that sometimes the use of similes can help drive home a point. I remember a reviewer using the expression “black background” to describe how noise free the Clearaudio Concept turntable was. I bought it! That is I bought the turntable and I have to say it truly has a black background. Always good to have a little fun with this topic. Keep them coming.
Nice video and funny. it always amazes me when reviewers say a flat frequency response amplifier has "bright", "sharp" or "dull" high-end. Unbelievable.
3:56 - I think the whole "how the artist intended" has a lot of problems: 1. We don't know what that intent is. We don't have them listening to our system and saying "nope, I didn't intend for the snare to sound like this, it should have a faster snap." 2. Because all the various artist mixes on different pro systems, they all have different characteristics, even if you get one right, your system maybe off according to another artist. For these two reason, trying to get to "what the artist intended" is us looking at modern art and trying to guess the message the artist is trying to convey without the artist really telling us. Basically we're making it up and that intent is not object intent from the artist but perceived intent from the listener, which is fine. But let's just call that for what it is... "how I like my music to sound".
The problem with this analogy is that the speakers are not the painting but rather the frame and the lighting. The painting itself is the recording. It makes a huge difference if you’re using tinted glass for your artwork or if one shines it with a lightbulb which has 2200K (warm light).
I once showed two pairs of speakers I had to a friend. One pair were 3 way with 12" woofer 6" mid and 1" tweeter in a traditional short fat box like the JBL L100 but a bit deeper. The other pair were a tall and slender vertical array in a 2.5 way set up with 4 X 6.5" mid woofers and a 1" tweeter. My friend asked how I thought they sounded, I told him one pair sounded short and fat and the other sounded tall and slender. He laughed.
When you say "Dark" I think it would b e helpful to say "Vader Dark" or "Hitler Dark" because when playing Charles Manson covers you want synergy right?
I love it. They would describe a steaming pile of dog poo as “warm” and “chocolatey in the midrange”. “It can seem a little sharp, so you will need an audiophile set of nose plugs”. Sith Audio of course.
Man I wish I had found this 2 years ago. I get confused with bass and bass. My pescatarian (less of a friend, more of a drug mule) friend tells me one of them is a fish. Which one ?
I hate that phrase...So you hear what the artist intended. Tell me what did Beethoven or Mozart intended you hear when they recorded their music? How about Scott Joplin? What specifically did Elvis say to Sam Phillips on how to record That's Alright Mama? What was Jim Morrison's input on how Break On Through should be recorded? How did Chuck Berry instruct the Chess Brothers when they recorded Maybellene? When Louis Armstrong walked into the studio what specifically did he say to the recording engineer as to how his music should sound? How about Meet The Beatles? Those very early Beatles albums were not recorded well at all. The people who recorded that, the studio knew the target audience were kids who played the records on their suitcase record players. So the studio didn't care about forking over the cash to record those albums to anything resembling audiophile standards. The Beatles albums sound different depending on where it was pressed in England or the U.S. Did the Beatles have a say in that? My question is do the audiophiles that say that stupid sentence buy any remastered audiophile box sets or albums of their favorite bands? Do they buy any of those half speed remastered recordings? If the answer is yes, then shut up.
Love this ha ha ha ha i am getting divorced, quality! But i do read that sentence a lot "my wife won't let me" Either get a wife with the same passion for music, put your foot down or stay single!
this is amazing bc i’ve been trying to learn actual things and have come across about all these characters on here. and learned nothing from them! except how weirdly pseudoscientific audioperves are. boomers just ripping off boomers, mostly.
... but only when someone has a clue about wines. Which I don't. So comparisons are useless to me, unless you delve into subjective words which presumably would be as equally open to ridicule as the audiophile ones.
"... the Denon sounded subdued. Maybe even POLITE, dynamically speaking..." (from the mouth of Mr. Yamaha Sound on a recent Denon A/V Receiver review) 🎼👀🤣🤣 I take it he means the exact opposite of "confident amplifier."
At last somebody with their correct senses about recording I am electric Eng and recording eng I heard a lot BS about recording integrity and faithful Reproduction they don’t know a hint what’s involve on it there are digital like pro tools and digital performer software and Analogue reproduction like studer and neve otari tape recorder how about monitors Tad west lake Urei are
I'm afraid the bone dry humor in some of your videos is going over the Cheapaudioman's head. He said he didn't know if you were being serious or not, and if not, it was some "Andy Kaufman level" humor, lol.
I have always appreciated your sense of humour and I do this time as well. But if you take this seriously, I utterly disagree. First, because "sound like the intention of the artist" doesn't exist and even if it existed, I am the only one who has to enjoy the music so I listen with what I like, how I like and nobody is authorised to use derogatory terms for my musical taste or equipment. You don't agree? fine do what you feel is best for you, you have my blessing, but don't tell others what they should like or don't like. I am well aware that research has stated that, when listening blind, we all tend to like the same thing. I am not saying it is not true but that it is irrelevant because we do not listen blind and the way the equipment looks and feels is an integral part of the experience of being an audiophile. If it is not for you, again, I am absolutely fine with that, but do not tell others what they should do and be patronising if they don't..
Yeah, this notion of ""sound like the intention of the artist" strikes me as, well, bs. In a certain sense, the intention of the artist is irrelevant. It sounds the way it sounds. "The death of the author" and all that. In another sense, what if the artist intended for the work to sound *different* to different listeners; that is, the artist intended that different listeners hear different things? How would a "perfect" reproduction "sound like" that intention? *That* sort of intention is seemingly at odds with mechanically "perfect" reproduction. Unless you expand your notion of "perfect" to encompass audible differences in the reproduction, to save the artist's intention? I don't think that's a particularly useful way of thinking about art or its reproduction.
That gets into a lot of thorny issues. The harman target is a preference curve, not an accurate curve, so I tend to like Genelecs and Neumann speakers that are flat but can play shockingly loud. This allows me to eq them for my room, as opposed to a product with a built in curve. However, since the harman target is more low-end and less high frequency, so little power goes up top that all but the worst tweeters can be eq'd a bit higher without creating additional distortion.
I like that you are bringing some sanity to the audiophile community on TH-cam. Yet, using wine comparisons to explain audiophile terms means nothing to us. If you really want to make an impact, come up with a scale or legend to describe sound quality that everyone can actually understand...
"Tight" usually corresponds to a lack of stored energy in the woofer and/or an amplifier which has good control of the driver so that it starts moving quickly and has little overshoot. "Airy" refers to details that might be heard in a large reverberent room, even when the orchestra is not playing. It is like you are hearing the air in the room. Go into an empty cathedral and sit quietly. If your system is capable of making those sorts of noises, you could say it is airy.
Funny af, though I don’t care if people like speakers that sound unrealistic or color the sound. My favorite bullshit audio phrase that I hear all the time goes something like “you need a Hegel amp to make those speakers sing!” Makes me cringe
All the YT reviewers are new media. Its the place where the Advertising Dollars that no longer have a place to go. That A&P is now converted into samples and free gear that these reviewers use to create content. Advertisers, will send all kinds of gear to these YT talking heads, which seldom criticize the free gear in hopes that consumers get dupped into buying their headphones or DACs after the video airs. Its a flawed system that does not use any kind of measurements and some of these YT Talking heads go as far as to openly sell the gear to their audience so they can pay their extravagant lifestyles. One even bought a $700K home from silly reviews on the backs of Advertising $ and Patron supporters. None of them (maybe one or two) dont posses any technical or engineering credentials and they just say good things about the products so they keep getting more to review and keep you watching. Only 2 reviewers Amir from ASR and Erin are the only ones that measure, report and asses as it should be. Where are you Julian Hirsch when we need you. Google him if you dont know.
There are a lot of consumer-reviewers-and the jargon they use is exactly what the Scientific Audiophile is lampooning. There are also reviewers with slightly more background who conduct measurements and contextualise them, while also providing insights into how the products they're reviewing perform in "real-world" scenarios. Then there are those who are almost solely focused on measurements, sometimes while seemingly not understanding how the measurements are derived or what inferences they are (and aren't) capable of supporting. I think the first group is easy to make fun of for its rhetorical flourishes and flowery language. The third group is easy to make fun of because they don't even do "reviews" per se; they mindlessly measure and expect the resulting data to say more than it might even be capable of saying. It's funny because the "Ordinary Consumer"-someone who is relying on these reviews to make judgments about what to buy-can easily be fooled by both. And I'm sure we've all seen examples of that, of people who've bought something on the premise that it sounds "lush" only to wonder, upon listening, what on earth the reviewer was talking about; or who've spent a significant sum on something that measures extremely well only to find that there's no audible improvement compared to what they had before or, in some cases, even a poorer listening experience compared to prior due to mismatched partner equipment, etc. It would be nice to see more reviews that take care to explain the listening experience in a way that brings together the measurements and sets them in the context of what the product can realistically be expected to do, with appropriate qualifications regarding how outcomes may vary due to things that aren't necessarily accounted for in the measurements. As a complete aside, it's interesting to me how this sort of "debate" tends to recur in different fields (and I mean professions here), as well as different hobbies. It generates plenty of heat, but also nice to see some good humor out of it too.
You use Wit and intelligence. ....To say these reviewers are all B..S..artist... Hoping that thier channel will meet this month RENT/ Groceries/ maybe get em layed.....lmao
OMG, Zeos is....unbearable. He has no bears. No bears, I tell you! TH-cam audio vloggers should do speakers and speakers alone for audio quality. Electronics should be reviewed for design, ergonomics, features, distortion and power only. They should not have a sound of their own. If they do, they are garbage. I have an NAD M10 that was panned by Audio Science Review because the SINAD was 85ish dB. Oh, so a unit with a noise level 85 below signal is awful? Clearly, Amir doesn't use a turntable or audio tape. Those have SINADs of like 50dB maximum, sometimes considerably worse. So much BS out there. An "expert" commenter once argued with me that the Yamaha A-S801 "has no bass". I would argue that he either "had no brain" or had his speakers connected out of phase.
I watched The Audiophile Man's review of the Q Acoustics Concept 30 last night...I think he used more flowery subjective language than I'd ever seen. Didn't make much sense but I'm sure his regular viewers love trying to decipher all of that nonsense.
I listen to him when I can't fall asleep. His long videos of endless rambling in thar weird cadence and posh accent just put me to sleep. I figure I am at least 20% of his views.
What a totally useless, needlessly malicious call-out video. I have an idea! - How about the 'scientific audiophile' just stays in his lane of 'expertise'? One NEVER makes themselves look good by insulting/ belittling others. What an unamusing, annoying as hell video that was. My goodness, some people are 'funny' (and not in a good way).
I agree with you. Cables make a diffrence. I took out my speaker cables and I couldn´t hear anything.
Thank you. This is precisely why I stopped buying Hi-Fi magazines years ago. The absolute nonsense these people dribble is astounding. Using all the buzz words to sell you snake oil is deceiving in the least and bordering on criminal. Cable manufacturers are the worst and I’m looking at you AudioQuest. No reviewer is going to “test” a pair of $3000 speaker cables and say they can’t hear a difference, it would make them look inferior. The people that buy $3000 speaker cables are never going to say they can’t hear a difference because it would make them look stupid and will repeat the vernacular of reviewers to convince themselves and others that they made a most important purchase.
I've watched this 6 times now and can't stop laughing. They say sarcasm is the lowest form of humour but I disagree. It has been scientifically proven beyond doubt that it's the best.
It's humor as the artist intended!
Enjoyed the humour! Sometimes Audiophile rambling can be pretty entertaining (particularly when taken out of context). I must say though that sometimes the use of similes can help drive home a point. I remember a reviewer using the expression “black background” to describe how noise free the Clearaudio Concept turntable was. I bought it! That is I bought the turntable and I have to say it truly has a black background. Always good to have a little fun with this topic. Keep them coming.
That Z clip was great.
Not even close to the weirdest thing that's ever come out of his mouth LMAO
@Shadepariah I don't mind that , he doesn't take things too seriously.
Nice video and funny. it always amazes me when reviewers say a flat frequency response amplifier has "bright", "sharp" or "dull" high-end. Unbelievable.
My favorite audiophile term is "musical" lol.
3:56 - I think the whole "how the artist intended" has a lot of problems:
1. We don't know what that intent is. We don't have them listening to our system and saying "nope, I didn't intend for the snare to sound like this, it should have a faster snap."
2. Because all the various artist mixes on different pro systems, they all have different characteristics, even if you get one right, your system maybe off according to another artist.
For these two reason, trying to get to "what the artist intended" is us looking at modern art and trying to guess the message the artist is trying to convey without the artist really telling us. Basically we're making it up and that intent is not object intent from the artist but perceived intent from the listener, which is fine. But let's just call that for what it is... "how I like my music to sound".
The problem with this analogy is that the speakers are not the painting but rather the frame and the lighting. The painting itself is the recording. It makes a huge difference if you’re using tinted glass for your artwork or if one shines it with a lightbulb which has 2200K (warm light).
Love your work!
This is so good!😂😂
Chicken good or beef good?
@@scientificaudiophile Prawn
You should do a weekly or biweekly feature to translate audio reviewers meanderings
3:14 "I'm getting divorced". Haha.
This video is so truth revealing that some screens can harm your eyes.
I once showed two pairs of speakers I had to a friend. One pair were 3 way with 12" woofer 6" mid and 1" tweeter in a traditional short fat box like the JBL L100 but a bit deeper. The other pair were a tall and slender vertical array in a 2.5 way set up with 4 X 6.5" mid woofers and a 1" tweeter. My friend asked how I thought they sounded, I told him one pair sounded short and fat and the other sounded tall and slender. He laughed.
When audio gear sounds “warm”
lol the divorce one
Omg the z reviews one. I burst out laughing. I kinda love z because he says shit like that
Just saw this! Thanks for the inclusion haha. Nicely done!
OMG,that is spot on!
BTW best video ever. Please dont stop . I just stumbled upon this, so fun
best audio channel on youtube
An English publication called private eye, have a whole section on this‘Coleman balls’
Hilarious content, keep it up!
Thanks al lot for this ultimative guide to audiophile BS talk
Great analyses.
This video hits the nail on the head 😂 🔨
Cheap audio maam would be the perfect used car salesman.
Ah shit,. this video made my damn day.
No sharur? COME ON!
What does "it's a speaker with its own unique personality" mean?
They f'd up the frequency response.
It means the speaker saw the Exorcist 167 times. And it keeps getting funnier every time it sees it.
When you say "Dark" I think it would b e helpful to say "Vader Dark" or "Hitler Dark" because when playing Charles Manson covers you want synergy right?
Love this content, dry humor with a lot of truth. Or is it? ;-)
Lol.. When working at an electronics store we would laugh at the wire scam behind closed doors... The mark up was crazy... I mean crazy.. 1000%
played this at 1.25x and it is 1.25 times funnier. gold!
💥Audio gear reviewers are like real estate agents or jewelry salesmen
I have a question about Chap or expensive Remote Controllers used with integrated amplifiers: Can they improve the quality of trumpet music?
Yes, absolutely
I love it. They would describe a steaming pile of dog poo as “warm” and “chocolatey in the midrange”. “It can seem a little sharp, so you will need an audiophile set of nose plugs”. Sith Audio of course.
all music should refer to a stage. that’s all there is to think about whilst musicing. stages.
Hello, mister S.A.! Any good iem/headphone under 1k?
Moondrop Variations
@@scientificaudiophile Thanks a lot!
Man I wish I had found this 2 years ago. I get confused with bass and bass. My pescatarian (less of a friend, more of a drug mule) friend tells me one of them is a fish. Which one ?
Good stuff
Thanks for the visit
I hate that phrase...So you hear what the artist intended.
Tell me what did Beethoven or Mozart intended you hear when they recorded their music?
How about Scott Joplin?
What specifically did Elvis say to Sam Phillips on how to record That's Alright Mama?
What was Jim Morrison's input on how Break On Through should be recorded?
How did Chuck Berry instruct the Chess Brothers when they recorded Maybellene?
When Louis Armstrong walked into the studio what specifically did he say to the recording engineer as to how his music should sound?
How about Meet The Beatles? Those very early Beatles albums were not recorded well at all. The people who recorded that, the studio knew the target audience were kids who played the records on their suitcase record players. So the studio didn't care about forking over the cash to record those albums to anything resembling audiophile standards.
The Beatles albums sound different depending on where it was pressed in England or the U.S. Did the Beatles have a say in that?
My question is do the audiophiles that say that stupid sentence buy any remastered audiophile box sets or albums of their favorite bands? Do they buy any of those half speed remastered recordings?
If the answer is yes, then shut up.
Love this ha ha ha ha i am getting divorced, quality! But i do read that sentence a lot "my wife won't let me" Either get a wife with the same passion for music, put your foot down or stay single!
Still laughing. Love it.
Stitches...I'm in stitches...
Prefer the Accord, at least the electronics and starter motor won't shit themselves 3+ years down the line.
this is amazing bc i’ve been trying to learn actual things and have come across about all these characters on here. and learned nothing from them! except how weirdly pseudoscientific audioperves are. boomers just ripping off boomers, mostly.
does ramen with chicken broth require a subwoofer ??
finding a way to describe the sound we are getting was always going to be difficult.
That's why I compare to wines. Simple and super effective.
... but only when someone has a clue about wines. Which I don't. So comparisons are useless to me, unless you delve into subjective words which presumably would be as equally open to ridicule as the audiophile ones.
I don’t understand your wine analogy as I am not an alcoholic.
audio reviewer bingo
Amateurs: nemesis of audiophiles 😮
you are funny, this one was great
"... the Denon sounded subdued. Maybe even POLITE, dynamically speaking..." (from the mouth of Mr. Yamaha Sound on a recent Denon A/V Receiver review) 🎼👀🤣🤣 I take it he means the exact opposite of "confident amplifier."
Thanks for this small guide because I usually can't make sense of what they are trying to say.
Z reviews is awful. He just rambles on and on for 30 mins without really saying anything at all!
At last somebody with their correct senses about recording
I am electric Eng and recording eng I heard a lot BS about recording integrity and faithful
Reproduction they don’t know a hint what’s involve on it there are digital like pro tools and digital performer software and
Analogue reproduction like studer and neve otari tape recorder how about monitors
Tad west lake Urei are
Dang, I knew Crutchfield was the good guys 🤝
I'm afraid the bone dry humor in some of your videos is going over the Cheapaudioman's head. He said he didn't know if you were being serious or not, and if not, it was some "Andy Kaufman level" humor, lol.
Ouch! I'm glad you didn't sign my yearbook. :~}
I have always appreciated your sense of humour and I do this time as well.
But if you take this seriously, I utterly disagree. First, because "sound like the intention of the artist" doesn't exist and even if it existed, I am the only one who has to enjoy the music so I listen with what I like, how I like and nobody is authorised to use derogatory terms for my musical taste or equipment. You don't agree? fine do what you feel is best for you, you have my blessing, but don't tell others what they should like or don't like.
I am well aware that research has stated that, when listening blind, we all tend to like the same thing. I am not saying it is not true but that it is irrelevant because we do not listen blind and the way the equipment looks and feels is an integral part of the experience of being an audiophile. If it is not for you, again, I am absolutely fine with that, but do not tell others what they should do and be patronising if they don't..
Yeah, this notion of ""sound like the intention of the artist" strikes me as, well, bs. In a certain sense, the intention of the artist is irrelevant. It sounds the way it sounds. "The death of the author" and all that. In another sense, what if the artist intended for the work to sound *different* to different listeners; that is, the artist intended that different listeners hear different things? How would a "perfect" reproduction "sound like" that intention? *That* sort of intention is seemingly at odds with mechanically "perfect" reproduction. Unless you expand your notion of "perfect" to encompass audible differences in the reproduction, to save the artist's intention? I don't think that's a particularly useful way of thinking about art or its reproduction.
Your facial reaction to Zeos' "Dark Realm" comment 🤭
I spit out my coffee. 🤣
Synergy.... lol
I can't decide if my system tastes like kelp or algae.
Perhaps you should try "kelp rolling"?
Synergy from B.S audio.......
Really good content! What in your oppinion is accurate sound reproduction in terms of frequence response (harman target etc.)?
That gets into a lot of thorny issues. The harman target is a preference curve, not an accurate curve, so I tend to like Genelecs and Neumann speakers that are flat but can play shockingly loud. This allows me to eq them for my room, as opposed to a product with a built in curve. However, since the harman target is more low-end and less high frequency, so little power goes up top that all but the worst tweeters can be eq'd a bit higher without creating additional distortion.
@@scientificaudiophile There's the science!
I like that you are bringing some sanity to the audiophile community on TH-cam. Yet, using wine comparisons to explain audiophile terms means nothing to us. If you really want to make an impact, come up with a scale or legend to describe sound quality that everyone can actually understand...
Lucky for you I just came up with a new rating system. th-cam.com/video/_IRAbjCWtuE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=dU16shITD3G15VtD
How about "airy" and "tight"?
Sounds like an asshole to me!
"Tight" usually corresponds to a lack of stored energy in the woofer and/or an amplifier which has good control of the driver so that it starts moving quickly and has little overshoot.
"Airy" refers to details that might be heard in a large reverberent room, even when the orchestra is not playing. It is like you are hearing the air in the room. Go into an empty cathedral and sit quietly. If your system is capable of making those sorts of noises, you could say it is airy.
You have led a misspent youth if you think it has anything to do with speakers.
Funny af, though I don’t care if people like speakers that sound unrealistic or color the sound.
My favorite bullshit audio phrase that I hear all the time goes something like “you need a Hegel amp to make those speakers sing!” Makes me cringe
I don't often watch a video twice
Congratulations;)
All the YT reviewers are new media. Its the place where the Advertising Dollars that no longer have a place to go. That A&P is now converted into samples and free gear that these reviewers use to create content. Advertisers, will send all kinds of gear to these YT talking heads, which seldom criticize the free gear in hopes that consumers get dupped into buying their headphones or DACs after the video airs. Its a flawed system that does not use any kind of measurements and some of these YT Talking heads go as far as to openly sell the gear to their audience so they can pay their extravagant lifestyles. One even bought a $700K home from silly reviews on the backs of Advertising $ and Patron supporters. None of them (maybe one or two) dont posses any technical or engineering credentials and they just say good things about the products so they keep getting more to review and keep you watching. Only 2 reviewers Amir from ASR and Erin are the only ones that measure, report and asses as it should be. Where are you Julian Hirsch when we need you. Google him if you dont know.
I'd add Audioholics as a TH-cam channel that measures and so does Crinacle+. But that's close to it.
@@scientificaudiophile you are right. I knew Audioholics not Crinacle. Audioholics recently content has suffered IMPO.
There are a lot of consumer-reviewers-and the jargon they use is exactly what the Scientific Audiophile is lampooning. There are also reviewers with slightly more background who conduct measurements and contextualise them, while also providing insights into how the products they're reviewing perform in "real-world" scenarios. Then there are those who are almost solely focused on measurements, sometimes while seemingly not understanding how the measurements are derived or what inferences they are (and aren't) capable of supporting. I think the first group is easy to make fun of for its rhetorical flourishes and flowery language. The third group is easy to make fun of because they don't even do "reviews" per se; they mindlessly measure and expect the resulting data to say more than it might even be capable of saying. It's funny because the "Ordinary Consumer"-someone who is relying on these reviews to make judgments about what to buy-can easily be fooled by both. And I'm sure we've all seen examples of that, of people who've bought something on the premise that it sounds "lush" only to wonder, upon listening, what on earth the reviewer was talking about; or who've spent a significant sum on something that measures extremely well only to find that there's no audible improvement compared to what they had before or, in some cases, even a poorer listening experience compared to prior due to mismatched partner equipment, etc. It would be nice to see more reviews that take care to explain the listening experience in a way that brings together the measurements and sets them in the context of what the product can realistically be expected to do, with appropriate qualifications regarding how outcomes may vary due to things that aren't necessarily accounted for in the measurements.
As a complete aside, it's interesting to me how this sort of "debate" tends to recur in different fields (and I mean professions here), as well as different hobbies. It generates plenty of heat, but also nice to see some good humor out of it too.
But 'Z' is, "Z".... Best, D.
😀
I feel like my sacred cows have been made fun of 😂🤣😂
Luckily you are not Hindu then.
I laughed 2,3 times
You use Wit and intelligence. ....To say these reviewers are all B..S..artist... Hoping that thier channel will meet this month RENT/ Groceries/ maybe get em layed.....lmao
And who's the arbiter of good music?
You?
Yes. Diane Bish is best, all other organ music is second best, classical is third and there is no point in listening to anything else.
@@scientificaudiophile Why?
How did you come to this conclusion?
@@mynthecooldude When you put yourself in a position of authority, as I have, then you become the arbiter of quality.
@@scientificaudiophile Ok
@@scientificaudiophile 🤣
🤣🤣🤣Spot on
Wait.Is he serious?
OMG, Zeos is....unbearable. He has no bears. No bears, I tell you!
TH-cam audio vloggers should do speakers and speakers alone for audio quality. Electronics should be reviewed for design, ergonomics, features, distortion and power only. They should not have a sound of their own. If they do, they are garbage. I have an NAD M10 that was panned by Audio Science Review because the SINAD was 85ish dB. Oh, so a unit with a noise level 85 below signal is awful? Clearly, Amir doesn't use a turntable or audio tape. Those have SINADs of like 50dB maximum, sometimes considerably worse.
So much BS out there. An "expert" commenter once argued with me that the Yamaha A-S801 "has no bass". I would argue that he either "had no brain" or had his speakers connected out of phase.
I watched The Audiophile Man's review of the Q Acoustics Concept 30 last night...I think he used more flowery subjective language than I'd ever seen. Didn't make much sense but I'm sure his regular viewers love trying to decipher all of that nonsense.
I listen to him when I can't fall asleep. His long videos of endless rambling in thar weird cadence and posh accent just put me to sleep. I figure I am at least 20% of his views.
@@jimmyayotte5529 And you have to be a Patreon member to see his system, because he thinks it's so special, people should pay to see it, lol.
@@minsleyskidoo6327 Well sign me up!
He's old school ! Before we knew better. They will sell you anything, in the pockets.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣👍
Sad
I hope that you have a beefy asbestos suit.😂
Bwhahagahahaha
Alcoholic
If drinking six glasses of wine a day make me an alcoholic, then I'm proud to be an alcoholic.
There's a lot of BS among audio reviewers but this guy just reeks of arrogance and pretentiousness. I'll pass.
There were lots of reviewers mentioned in the video. Which one do you think reeks of arrogance and pretentiousness?
Well you did miss out Mr GR research. You know the one, the man who makes every speaker better. And can teach people how to listen.
@@scientificaudiophile 🤣😂😅😆
Dude, it's sarcasm.
What a totally useless, needlessly malicious call-out video. I have an idea! - How about the 'scientific audiophile' just stays in his lane of 'expertise'? One NEVER makes themselves look good by insulting/ belittling others. What an unamusing, annoying as hell video that was. My goodness, some people are 'funny' (and not in a good way).
Thanks for watching. When we actually fine our lane of expertise, we'll be sure to stay in it.
I loved the video. Audiophiles will believe any old crap.