Hi-Fi is NOT a subjective hobby.

[Lagonda]

Here are some things not on the average audiophiles‘ radar I have found degrade the soundstage. it’s no wonder most systems, even very advanced ones, lack a big beautiful soundstage. By the way, none of these things below have anything to do with acoustic waves in the room or anything in the signal path anywhere in the system, with the exception of 3, open cell foam. This is not (rpt not) intended to be a complete list. Not by any means.

1. Any type of media in the room, including books and magazines, telephone books, LPQs, CDs, videos.

2. Too much wood, glass, metal in the room.

3. Open cell foam in the room, including SONEX room treatment and chairs, couches.

4. Cell phones and clocks and watches. Big no-no!

5. Spare/unused electronics, cables, cords, musical instruments, speakers.

6. Static electric charge on clothes, carpets, electric cords, windows, etc. degauss them pronto!

The big beautiful soundstage has been in your room the whole time, you just can’t hear it properly due to reasons 1-6.

Don‘t blame me, I didn’t create reality.

An ordinary man has no means of deliverance.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Damn, now i have to remove the wall to wall telephone book library i am using for diffusers, it took me many year to curate this wonderful collection !

 

[Lagonda]

If you are reading a book or looking at your watch? Otherwise, this sounds like a belated April fool prank.

Like most of his posts !

 

[Geoffkait]

Like most of his posts

Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look, what’s he afraid of? Oh, I get it. VIP/ Donor.

 

[Lagonda]

Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look, what’s he afraid of?

Stomach cramps from giggling !

 

[Geoffkait]

If you are reading a book or looking at your watch? Otherwise, this sounds like a belated April fool prank.

thimk outside the box.

 

[Geoffkait]

Stomach cramps from giggling !

Does milk squirt out of your nose?

Where I live the streets don’t stop at the edge of town. They keep going, they go to other towns and to cities.

 

[Geoffkait]

If you are reading a book or looking at your watch? Otherwise, this sounds like a belated April fool prank.

Thread death spiral alert!

 

[Geoffkait]

So, as I was saying, there are many things that reduce, distort or constrain the soundstage. More things that are in the listening space you might not have considered include, but are not limited to, iPads, laptops, TVs, the acoustic vibrations coming off windows and walls.

 

[Rexp]

I have found in listening sessions with experienced audiophiles and music lovers that there is less disagreement about WHAT is heard but more disagreement on how it made them feel and or how they translated it back to what they think is "right". Given that you can sit people down and get a pretty good agreement that A images better than B and greater transparency but B has more rich tone than A; however, they will not agree on what they think is the way it SHOULD sound and that is the wholly subjective part, IMO.

I am reminded of the Audio Note DAC"s I demoed for folks back in the day. They were very midrange centric which made them sound more analog but they didn't reproduce spatial details that should be there. So yes someone can choose not to hear what's on the recording, it's not HiFi though.

 

[morricab]

I am reminded of the Audio Note DAC"s I demoed for folks back in the day. They were very midrange centric which made them sound more analog but they didn't reproduce spatial details that should be there. So yes someone can choose not to hear what's on the recording, it's not HiFi though.

Sorry, not really following what point you are making.

 

[Rexp]

Sorry, not really following what point you are making.

You were saying people will disagree on what things should sound like, but if we are pursuing high fidelity sound then we should agree on details like where singers are positioned in a particular recording for example.

 

[morricab]

You were saying people will disagree on what things should sound like, but if we are pursuing high fidelity sound then we should agree on details like where singers are positioned in a particular recording for example.

That's not what I meant by should sound like. I meant from the real world, not produced recordings.

 

[Another Johnson]

Chesky, Telarc, Sheffield, and a handful of others have released recordings with maps of performer placement. A system that images acceptably well will put them in their general places correctly.

To an audiophile, this may seem like proof of goodness. To a performer on the recording it is more likely to sound unfamiliar. It may not even sound right to a person who was in the audience.

Focusing on spatial cues is popular among audiophiles because when a system images well, most listeners near the sweet spot can tell. If that’s what high fidelity is about for some, enjoy.

I would point out that after WWII when the term high fidelity came into common use, stereo was not available yet. Mono recordings played back on a monaural system can present depth to a discerning ear, but no legitimate left to right placement of performers. We still called it high fidelity.

To my ears, a recording that makes the orchestra sound like they’re playing kazoos, but places the kazoos perfectly, is not high fidelity. My best test for high fidelity, and I only rarely use it to sate my curiosity about new speakers, amps or phono cartridges, is to trot out an old vinyl recording of my Mother singing Summertime (accompanied by piano). If that sounds right, I’m certainly happy to label the system “faithful” to the performance.

Like it or not, this is a VERY subjective hobby, and folks who argue that it is not are just thought police attempting to impose group think.

 

[Geoffkait]

Opus 3, Test for Soundstage, even P. McCartney had a map on one of his albums showing placement of instruments/singers. The problem is there are DEGREES of soundstage characteristics. Systems often sound congealed, two-dimensional, threadbare, no air, no bass, compressed, synthetic, bland, digital, unresolved, opaque, like papier-mâché. Even the dimensions x, y, z are very variable system to system. Everything is relative, it’s oft difficult to know where your current system sound is in the overall scheme of things. Are you stopping when you think your SQ is 5% from the best it could be? So what else is new?

 

[hopkins]

Focusing on spatial cues is popular among audiophiles because when a system images well, most listeners near the sweet spot can tell. If that’s what high fidelity is about for some, enjoy.

This is also why immersive sound is so appealing to some. As you pointed out, we all focus on different aspects.

 

[mtemur]

Hifi is not a subjective hobby that’s for sure but Audio hobby is. Hifi is about lifelike reproduction of instruments and vocals in your home without fatigue but unfortunately main debate here is focused on stage depth, soundstage as it has always been. On the other hand Audio hobby is about pleasing sound. Whichever you’re after is up to you.

 

[Another Johnson]

Hifi is not a subjective hobby that’s for sure …

Hifi is about lifelike reproduction of instruments and vocals in your home without fatigue

Still subjective. You fool yourself if you insist that your “objective “ evaluation is universally applicable.

 

[mtemur]

Still subjective. You fool yourself if you insist that your “objective “ evaluation is universally applicable.

...and you can only fool yourself thinking that you have a hobby called HiFi.

 

[andromedaaudio]

...and you can only fool yourself thinking that you have a hobby called HiFi.

Alternative views are a blasphemy .
Havent we heard that before ....

If only i could afford a pair of horns , my life would be so beautifull

 

[morricab]

Alternative views are a blasphemy .
Havent we heard that before ....

If only i could afford a pair of horns , my life would be so beautifull

Why don’t you just build a pair?