10 audiophile myths busted

[walpurgis]

Does a jar of Tesco instant qualify?

[mikmas]

If you fon’t Have a burr grinder, then you are not grinding. You need burrs to grind.

Nope - apparently there's more than one way to skin the proverbial:
https://www.homegrounds.co/how-to-gr...out-a-grinder/

"From a basic perspective, a burr coffee grinder and a food processor do the same thing: they shred big stuff into little stuff. Yet, how they go about it makes a world of difference in coffee land."

[Marco]

Hi Alex,

Good thread

In the world of audiophilia, a lot of the self-proclaimed 'preachers' tend to hide behind what they claim is hard scientific facts. Some even like to dazzle the unwased masses with mathematics. Bunch of losers...

Lol... We are in full agreement! It's also one of the worst of my bête noire. Consider though, that those you're referring to are doing it simply to appease their own sensibilities, and thus make themselves feel better, not necessarily because they think that you're completely wrong...

The fact is [and experience bears this out], many objectivists can't handle (subjective) opinions being expressed in audio that defy their 'scientific teaching', or what logic 'established wisdom' apparently dictates, so far better simply to pooh-pooh it, than entertain the notion that what's being stated might be right, and that conversely what science (physics) apparently states is true, might be wrong - or more likely in many of these instances, not telling the whole story!

We've been here before. It's a classic case of cognitive dissonance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Essentially, many objectivists can't handle the mental discomfort of considering that their scientific belief system is fallible, and with it, exposing to scrutiny, and possibly proving as fallacy, what they've always automatically accepted as fact, so worry not, it's THEIR problem, not yours!!

Marco.

[struth]

reason to use slow burrs is not to burn the delicate oils in coffee. a good hand grinder goes slowest but is a lot of work. you wouldnt want to grind a pound of it at once. adding things like sugar is allowed but it will change the experience from drinking coffee to drinking sugared coffee...
i add a bit of vanilla personally as i like it. so not a true coffeephile

[Marco]

Sure, but that's not what Alex was saying. I stand by everything I've just written, based on the main premise of his opening post. He dislikes the arrogant and blinkered mentality (as outlined) of the people he's referring to, as do I, and that can apply to ANY subject, coffee, hi-fi or whatever - simples!

Marco.

[mikmas]

reason to use slow burrs is not to burn the delicate oils in coffee. a good hand grinder goes slowest but is a lot of work.

Exactly
I have a hand grinder that uses burrs; bought after checking out opinion on coffee forums (fora) about which of the many options was best.
Opinions were as sharply divided as any hifi discussion about belt v direct-drive TTs ... and quite a few posters used 'science' to back up their views

Photography is another hobby where the internet gives voice to a whole gamut of opinion on issues ranging from the self-same 'analogue v digital' debate to whether a phone camera is actually a camera at all or worthy of a 'true' photographer. Again, 'scientific' arguments often raise their head..

The idea posed by the OP that hifi is somehow 'exclusive' or 'unique' in this respect is (IMV) completely unfounded.

[Sherwood]

This simply sidesteps the basic issue - that coffee is simply a matter of preference whereas hi-fi has a clearly defined objective. Whether or not the currently accepted scientific measurement techniques are valid isn't the point. The point is that accuracy isn't a matter of personal preference.

Surely the cd vs vinyl debate suggests that it is. If you cannot reliably measure accuracy on a cardinal scale then accuracy is not an objective parameter!

Geoff

[struth]

Exactly
I have a hand grinder that uses burrs; bought after checking out opinion on coffee forums (fora) about which of the many options was best.
Opinions were as sharply divided as any hifi discussion about belt v direct-drive TTs ... and quite a few posters used 'science' to back up their views

Photography is another hobby where the internet gives voice to a whole gamut of opinion on issues ranging from the self-same 'analogue v digital' debate to whether a phone camera is actually a camera at all or worthy of a 'true' photographer. Again, 'scientific' arguments often raise their head..

The idea posed by the OP that hifi is somehow 'exclusive' or 'unique' in this respect is (IMV) completely unfounded.

the other reason i forgot to mention is grain size uniformity. most important, as you want it small for espresso, but an espresso grade is no use in a coffee press etc...a chopper of the equiv of a kitchen blender will give various different sized grains, mostly burnt, and bitter.
so there is science in there, it just depends on how much of it is needed, and how much is superfluousness...if thats a word

[Sherwood]

For me, accuracy remains the goal. How to measure it or assess it is another matter. Dismissing the goal of accuracy is simply giving yourself carte blanche to argue about preferences.

I agree that accuracy is important but it is clearly not a goal for all. Just look at the large number of systems that sell on the basis of bloated bass heavy speakers and sledgehammer graphic equalisers. People like what they like!

Geoff

[Marco]

If you cannot reliably measure accuracy on a cardinal scale then accuracy is not an objective parameter!

Precisely.

Achieving accuracy, with anything [essentially performing a task as well as it can possibly be done], is undoubtedly a laudable aim, and something that one should always strive to achieve.

However, it's not always possible, certainly in areas of audio where we don't always know *exactly* what to measure, in order to successfully identify the existence a particular phenomenon [or deny it], so in that instance, one can only apply an educated guess as to what is 'accurate'.

Therefore, considering that accuracy is not a given, it is subsequently not always a realistic goal to have - so strive for it, yes, but understand that what you've ultimately achieved, in actuality (despite what measurements say), might not be accurate.

Marco.