A different dog. No doubt just as annoying a bark, depending on which side or the fence you're on.
Tim
What's wrong with Redbook, really?
- Thread starter Phelonious Ponk
- Start date
A different dog. No doubt just as annoying a bark, depending on which side or the fence you're on.
Tim
Again I'm flattered, Tim. For you to maintain a reservoir of appropriate quotes to have on hand to hurl as projectiles shows a keen interest in the affairs of my mind, most appreciated ...
For a number of people the "nonsense" is real; they are not going to discard the quality of sound they've achieved for the sake of blending with the thinking of the "in" crowd ...:b
Frank
No, Tim, it's the listener's mind that does this trick at the time, NOT the electronics. Others also echoed those sentiments at the time of that post, but in somewhat different terms. The key is that the listener is tuning in, really tuning in to what's relevant and important at that moment, and subjective masking takes place. Masking is hailed as the great saviour of MP3 and other assorted mangling algorithms, but for some reason it's not considered by some to have validity in the context of high quality sound, and musically unrelated noise, and distortion. Or maybe I do indeed have faulty hearing ... perhaps next time I go to a live concert I should work on, concentrate on improving my ability to be constantly irritated and disturbed by every sound that's arriving at my ears that's not directly a result of musical instruments' pure tones and harmonics.
I've already pointed out the context in which I made the remark, and have iterated over and over again, that the more subtle causes, the key reasons for audio reproduction nearly always failing to convince, virtually always take some time to rear their ugly heads; rapid switching won't reveal them. But if I offended you by using the term "hangup", I do apologise ...
For a number of people the "nonsense" is real; they are not going to discard the quality of sound they've achieved for the sake of blending with the thinking of the "in" crowd ...:b
Frank
Equally annoying IMO. You don't have to be sitting on the fence to be annoyed either way either. Then again it is what it is, just annoyances.
Last edited:
As a second response to your post, Jack, I would submit that at least one vital ingredient of that "perfect" sound is that it maintains its tonal integrity from the softest whisper to ear busting volumes: in the same way as you experience live sound from a distance, and then get closer and closer to the point of rubbing shoulders with the musicians, so should it be for a playback setup as you wind it up to clipping.
Frank
Hey, we're talking about definitions of perfect sound!! There's gotta be as least some commonality of thinking here ... how 'bout a thread nominating all the possible aspects of such; My God, people could even vote on it !!!
Frank
Frank
Happily you did not. Many times I also think about it. Why should expensive high-end sound better than than reasonable price equipment? Why do not other manufacturers exactly duplicate the sound of the Alexandria X2 or the TheSonusFaber at one tenth the cost?
Why do people find that a Burmester DAC with horrible jitter specifications sounds much better than other that measure better costing one tenth the price?
Going on on well known examples - I have hosted all the SME turntables, except the latest SME30/12. And there is no doubt, I can assure you - every time you go up in price there is a significant jump in sound quality.
IMHO, this top performance is real - you will find that once people get this level of performance in their systems most of them keep it for long time, even after the models are discontinued.
Surely, I got the good examples - you can get the poor ones, high-end also has them. But if we could find the real answers to these questions and not putting it all in bias expectation, as suggested, it would be a real service to sound reproduction.
BTW, there is no real democracy in music.
Because of place of residence some of us have regular access to the best orchestras in great auditoriums, others (my case ) only exceptionally have this possibility. This does not prevent me from debating music with these privileged people, but surely limits the my intervention capability. BTW2, I am serious thinking about going to Vienna, Austria to assist to a performance in the Musikverein Vienna. Then I would write in my signature
No, I do not own X2 or Q7. But I was at the Musikverein
And I would throw in another: intensity of sound, also called "big" sound, or "pressurising" the room; this is the level when the AGC of the ear/brain cuts in in a big way ...
Frank
Micro, I would agree that there is no true democracy in audio or any consumer product. Some are going to be better than others. There is really no way around that. In high-end audio, and a few other luxury categories I can think of, there are a few dynamics at work that throw the whole equation in the bin:
1) The price/performance ratio is on an absurdly steep curve
2) What's "better" is highly disputed. If accurate reproduction (high fidelity) is the criteria, I can beat many very high-end systems with a few thousand dollars worth of pro gear
3) There is little realistic representation of audio quality in the hobby or in the industry. Equipment is often assumed to be better because of its size/price/pedigree.
So while you can, I know, come up with many "top-performance" examples that are excellent, I can come up with many that are placed in that category that are quite compromised. And by any objective criteria, I suspect I could match or exceed the performance of any "top-performance" high end example you might come up with at a fraction of its cost. You've already alluded to the phenomenon yourself, with the Burmester DAC example. Why do a relatively very small number of people consider the Burmester superior to DACs that actually perform better? Because they like the way it sounds. But that's a purely subjective judgement, tastes vary, and the tastes of millions of music lovers have been formed on a very different model than those of the very small club known as audiophiles.
Tim
1) The price/performance ratio is on an absurdly steep curve
2) What's "better" is highly disputed. If accurate reproduction (high fidelity) is the criteria, I can beat many very high-end systems with a few thousand dollars worth of pro gear
3) There is little realistic representation of audio quality in the hobby or in the industry. Equipment is often assumed to be better because of its size/price/pedigree.
So while you can, I know, come up with many "top-performance" examples that are excellent, I can come up with many that are placed in that category that are quite compromised. And by any objective criteria, I suspect I could match or exceed the performance of any "top-performance" high end example you might come up with at a fraction of its cost. You've already alluded to the phenomenon yourself, with the Burmester DAC example. Why do a relatively very small number of people consider the Burmester superior to DACs that actually perform better? Because they like the way it sounds. But that's a purely subjective judgement, tastes vary, and the tastes of millions of music lovers have been formed on a very different model than those of the very small club known as audiophiles.
Tim
Tim,
Sometime ago, I would be tempted to say immediately yes, and refer to the law of diminishing returns, discuss what is a logarithmic scale and we would happily agree.
But, if you study the law of diminishing returns, you will see it in not applicable, unless the amounts of all other factors of production (in our case the system) stays constant.
My feeling is that there is no such thing as well behaved curve for price/performance for single components. We have to consider the whole system. Considering typical audiophile listening conditions – remember most of us do not consider building auditoriums or changing house to get improved listening conditions, what we get from some very expensive products is so far from normal price audio that it can not be analyzed using an oversimplified formula.
In the end of the XV century Portuguese and Spanish divided the newly discovered lands outside Europe by a meridian with the benediction the Pope Alexander VI, to avoid disputes between these countries – the Treaty of Tordesillas. If we agree to divide sound reproduction in accurate objective reproduction and in reality framed subjective reproduction, you claim that high fidelity rests in your side of the meridian. Ok, I accept this price for peace, but we still have to learn about the council opinion. And may be we will claim that high-end is the other side
We have to assume something to start. We choose what seems normal and rely on evolution to show if it was or not valid.
Surely, but it will not affect my point. I am not referring to the industry quality, but the performance of those excellent products, not the poor ones.
It only shows we are on different sides of the meridiam!
BTW, audiophiles respect diversity and are not such a small club in absolute terms. Who do you imagine are paying salaries to the high end industry?
You know, you have bandied this statement about more than a few times, enough that I actually think you believe it. I now challenge you to define the “very high-end systems” that you can “beat” with a few thousand dollars of pro gear. You need to define the actual “very high-end systems” with a list of components and their total cost and then define your pro system with its components and total cost. And I’m assuming that we are not discussing a system that sits on top of a desk, but one that is representative of what most people in this hobby own. If your whole budget is a “few thousand dollars” and you are going to beat “many very high-end systems,” I would think your budget would be blown on the speakers alone.
I for one have never believed your assertion so now I’m calling your bluff and asking for some real world examples that would back up your boast.
Mep, you beat me too it. Pro systems can [in my experience] handle only part of the equation when it comes to musical reproductive qualities. If you are a certain type of listener, this may be wonderful. That said, how one actually listens and what it is they are listening for might explain some things. I could be wrong but with what has been mentioned, Tim may be relaying evaluations simply based upon different listening preferences. That said, some real world experience would benefit the thread and possibly shed some light.
I can only assume that if Tim responds with a list of "very high-end systems" that his pro gear will give a drubbing to, it won't be equipment he has ever heard together and he will be using a spec sheet as a guide to determine the "winner." And if this is simply specmanship vice listening to an entire system in a given room, we could stop with a 1980s CD player (remember, they had perfect specifications) and a 1980s Japanese integrated amp with another set of "perfect" specifcations. All we need to complete the deal is a pair of Tim's beloved powered speakers that have good specs and no bass. Tim will have to add some pesky subs that might blow his budget of a "few thousand dollars."
It kind of reminds me of when I was around 13 years old and had cobbled together a stereo system that comprised some old TV cabinets filled with TV speakers (10’ and 12” speakers), an old mono Columbia record player converted to play stereo by rewiring the arm and mounting a stereo cartridge, and some cheap SS amp I pulled out of another cheap portable record player and mounted in a case. I can remember playing records and telling myself that no one was hearing sound any better than I was!
It kind of reminds me of when I was around 13 years old and had cobbled together a stereo system that comprised some old TV cabinets filled with TV speakers (10’ and 12” speakers), an old mono Columbia record player converted to play stereo by rewiring the arm and mounting a stereo cartridge, and some cheap SS amp I pulled out of another cheap portable record player and mounted in a case. I can remember playing records and telling myself that no one was hearing sound any better than I was!
Do we really want to bother with this, Mark? We'll just end up, as we always have, disagreeing over the criteria. I'll insist on the objective criteria that are available, ie: measurements and/or blind listening results. You'll insist that the measurements aren't comprehensive enough, or that the right things have not been measured, or that what we're looking at are not measurements but specifications (and on the "high-end" side, all of that will probably be true), or that there is something at work here that simply can't be measured.
I'll insist, again, on the objective criteria that is available. And I can find plenty of "high-end," by any definition, in vinyl, tubes and horns which will offer enough in noise and distortion alone to make a poor showing, objectively, against a Macbook, a Benchmark, a good pair of active monitors and a sub. You'll come back with dynamics, which won't go far because dynamics are a function of signal to noise, so high noise levels are going to destroy that argument objectively, so then you'll go to pressurizing the room which, of course begs the question "what room?" Which doesn't matter much anyway, because for a few thousand more I could bump up to midfield monitors which could pressurize your house, and still out-perform, by any objective criteria, any system containing a turntable. You can't possibly win this one without crossing the line into opinion. And you're welcome to it, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Are there high end systems out there that can equal or exceed any pro monitoring system I can come up with? Probably, at a price. But that's not the question here. Let's ask that question again: Can I define a "high end system," even one made up of very well regarded components, that can be out-performed, by any objective criteria, by a really good pro monitoring system at a fraction of the cost? It wouldn't even be hard. All I have to do is start with the high-ends' darling; vinyl. It really doesn't matter what you put behind it.
Would the pro system only cost a few thousand? OK, a bit of overstatement on my part. It would take several thousand. But under $10K shouldn't be much of a challenge.
So I started this with "do you really want to go there?" but I think I already have. On the pro side I'll take a MacBook, a Benchmark and a pair of good, quiet monitors with well-integrated sub. <$10k. On the high end side, I'll pick anything that begins with a turntable. And it won't be at all hard to get into six figures.
None of this means that you don't like the high-end system better, or that you shouldn't. It just means that it is your preference, not something that has been shown, in any way that matters to anyone who doesn't share your opinion, to be objectively superior to a lot of much more accessible gear. Do those people who don't share your opinion matter? Well, when you look out there at the world of music lovers, there is the world, and then there's this little island over here, about the size of Bermuda, that is audiophiles. And they don't get to tell everybody else what's good; not without being asked to back that up. It doesn't work that way.
Enjoy.
Tim
Just for clarification, please. What is your definition of pro gear? Could you clarify a tad please?
When I think of pro gear, I am thinking of something that would be used in an auditorium. Monitors and a sub don't exactly fit into that type of arena....
I shouldn’t be surprised that you have flipped this argument on its head and have turned it into a digital vs. analog system debate. I’m having none of that. Let’s compare apples to apples. You assemble a “very high-end system” that is based on a digital front end and then assemble your now expense increasing pro system that is going to beat it and tell us what it is. And, let’s keep both systems all solid state to further put your boast in a box.
Or, was your entire boast predicated on picking examples of high-end systems that would have the worst possible specs and your boast of “beating” them was based on the specification sheets?
Or, was your entire boast predicated on picking examples of high-end systems that would have the worst possible specs and your boast of “beating” them was based on the specification sheets?
One so called expert said you couldn't measure a soundstage, that arrival time and addressing first reflections are the only things that matter. I proposed a simple but tedious way to map a soundstage, something that is done similarly in a number of DRC solutions. The dogma kicked in and I was talked down to like an impudent child. So what are the objective metrics used for loudspeaker resolution, dynamic contrast, truthfulness of harmonic texture and spatial projection?
FWIW loudspeaker FR measurements published are typically measurements of one speaker not a pair in tandem. These single speakers are either measured at 1m with a 300Hz cut or full range measured at 2m plotted as 1m. How much can these measurements really tell you about real world applications when placement alone can make tandem measurements so far removed from the usual spec sheet you wouldn't know they were the same loudspeakers?
FWIW loudspeaker FR measurements published are typically measurements of one speaker not a pair in tandem. These single speakers are either measured at 1m with a 300Hz cut or full range measured at 2m plotted as 1m. How much can these measurements really tell you about real world applications when placement alone can make tandem measurements so far removed from the usual spec sheet you wouldn't know they were the same loudspeakers?
Last edited:
How about these as talking points?
Loudspeaker Resolution ETC and Waterfall plots, Distortion and Frequency Response
Dynamic Contrast Dynamic Linearity and Power Compression
Harmonic Texture Frequency Response on and Off Axis
Spatial Projection That’s a tuff one related to Dispersion and the interaction with the room.
Should read Toole on that one
Of course paired measurements are meaningless.
Read Tooles book. They can tell you quite a bit enough so you can predict what the typical inroom response will be. Go look at Revels measurements. They have an inroom curve as part of their published specifications. They are unusual in this respect and many companies simply don't have the facilities for that type of measurements.
Rob
Similar threads
- Sticky
Members online
- Mike Lavigne
- dan31
- ecwl
- andromedaaudio
- Scott W
- John T
- Piotr_905
- Leekg
- Corinthian
- jeromelang
- Zarir
- Król_Artur
- ThatStereoSound
- Blake
- kswanson27
- Tremayne
- bonzo75
- TST
- dminches
- thekong
- Stbo
- speakerlust
- dmm714
- Notdead
- patleguen77170
- Geoffkait
- ticktock
- CraigS
- Sharok
- Tommyz01
- fbs
- svirid petrovich
- RickS
- Juiced
- poonbean
- Don Reid
- defride
- MarkusBarkus
- Triode Pete
- pdxaudio
- brad225
- Tuckia
- Gregadd
- Salectric
- Dezy
- kimurastanley
- fleetowner123
- LarryK
- jadis
- kotjac
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |