Announcement

Collapse

HUG - here for all audio enthusiasts

The Harbeth User Group is the primary channel for public communication with Harbeth's HQ. If you have a 'scientific mind' and are curious about how the ear works, how it can lead us to make the right - and wrong - audio equipment decisions, and about the technical ins and outs of audio equipment, how it's designed and what choices the designer makes, then the factual Science of Audio sub-forum area of HUG is your place. The objective methods of comparing audio equipment under controlled conditions has been thoroughly examined here on HUG and elsewhere and should be accessible to non-experts and able to be tried-out at home without deep technical knowledge. From a design perspective, today's award winning Harbeths could not have been designed any other way.

Alternatively, if you just like chatting about audio and subjectivity rules for you, then the Subjective Soundings area is you. If you are quite set in your subjectivity, then HUG is likely to be a bit too fact based for you, as many of the contributors have maximised their pleasure in home music reproduction by allowing their head to rule their heart. If upon examination we think that Posts are better suited to one sub-forum than than the other, they will be redirected during Moderation, which is applied throughout the site.

Questions and Posts about, for example, 'does amplifier A sounds better than amplifier B' or 'which speaker stands or cables are best' are suitable for the Subjective Soundings area only, although HUG is really not the best place to have these sort of purely subjective airings.

The Moderators' decision is final in all matters and Harbeth does not necessarily agree with the contents of any member contributions, especially in the Subjective Soundings area, and has no control over external content.

That's it! Enjoy!

{Updated Oct. 2017}
See more
See less

Gender equality

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gender equality

    Besides Emma, are there any XX-chromosomed members of the species out there? I doubt it. If so, stop reading now.

    Anyway, a remarkable thing happened today. My wife turned on the stereo (a French metal slab and SHL5+) and played music all on her own whilst I was out at work. I thought there was less chance of that happening than getting a hippopotamus to dance the Rose Adagio.

    This has never happened before. One month ago this required a complex process akin to a moon landing, now reduced to pressing one button and opening a music app. Touching or even looking at the actual audio system is not required.

    She put the system to good use, selecting some Yoga music and doing her thing on the floor for an hour or two. Probably the first time SHL5+ have been used for Yoga. She then told me she played the music really loud and had such fun, from a woman who complains when I go over 75dB. She now wants her own system in her therapy studio.

    Is domestic audio made complicated primarily to repel our womenfolk? Is this the fatal flaw in the Devialet system?


  • #2
    The boys must suffer with their toys

    Well, even though my wife does not suffer gear anxiety, I do indeed think there is an unfortunate and in my view unnecessary disconnect between the world of high quality audio and the world of convenient audio.

    The message seems to be that you have to suffer to have good sound. In practice, that often excludes women from the joys of good audio, turning it into a world of toys for the boys. What is behind this is in part, I think, that much of these conveniences depend on integrated circuit designs that are only available to mass market producers, and not to the craft industry. As I have argued before, the Sonos model merits more respect.

    Comment


    • #3
      My wife will play music on the system on occasion but if it is not turned on she is more likely to play it through the iphone, she is disinterested in how well the music is replayed as long as it is there.

      I think it this a big question and has less to do with audio and more to do with how the genders behave around their pastimes, anecdotally I can say that several men in my neighbourhood have an obsessive tinkering hobby of sorts (the ones I know of (im sure there are others), one has a boat and fishes, one likes to fiddle with and repair small machines, several follow sports teams, each one has a plethora of coveted equipment that goes along with the hobby, including collections related to the hobby. The fisherman like the audiophile ends up with something (music, fish) but we all know that the boat/equipment/organizing are part of the fun. The obsessive passion of each hobbyist probably triggers the same reward centers in the brain, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a difference between the genders in this regard, how many women do you see at an audio show slapped between the loudspeakers stroking her chin and taking notes??

      Getting to know my C7ES3

      Comment


      • #4
        I think acroyear has a point, the Y chromosome must have a "process" gene, X genes only being interested in "outcome".

        I agree with Willem about Sonos, way ahead of the field, reflected in annual sales of about $1billion for a company 10 years old. However, even the Sonos app defeated my wife. We have a Sonos soundbar under the TV. Rather than mastering the Sonos app with Qobuz embedded providing her with an infinite choice of music, she simply switches on the TV and selects the relevant satellite channel for BBC R3, R4 or Classic FM.

        I suspect the XX ability to multi-task is defined by their ability to reduce every task to its fundamentals, rather than the the XY approach of the objective almost being a by-product of the process.

        All we need to establish is whether it is a matter of social conditioning or is indeed a genetic trait.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ssfas View Post
          ....

          I suspect the XX ability to multi-task is defined by their ability to reduce every task to its fundamentals, rather than the the XY approach of the objective almost being a by-product of the process.

          All we need to establish is whether it is a matter of social conditioning or is indeed a genetic trait.
          Or, as seems likely, both?

          Comment

          Working...
          X