Is HiFi purely about subjective preference? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Is HiFi purely about subjective preference?



Ajani
10-14-2011, 01:49 PM
Log on to just about any HiFi forum and you'll see different camps of audiophiles in endless "debates" about which product or technology is the most accurate or sounds the most like live music, etc… So are the planar guys right that the enemy of sound is monkey coffins (boxes)? Are the SET lovers right that it’s all about the 1st watt? Are the TT lovers right that it’s all about the vinyl? What about the measurement guys? The Megawatt SS fans? The high resolution digital fans? The mini-monitor lovers with their pinpoint imaging? The multi-drivers traditional tower speaker fans with their foundation shaking bass?

Clearly all these different camps can’t all be right, can they?

IMO, yes they can…

I believe that despite various objective tests and comparisons between live and recorded music that all those debates really just comes down to subjective preferences…

Simple example: Two audiophiles listen to a live event, then hear it played back on 2 different systems, both persons think a different system sounds more like the live event: Person 1 is very sensitive to timbre (so a piano should sound exactly like a piano) and hence picks system A (a SET/ HE Speaker combo) which he feels best captures the sound of the piano. Person 2 is not bothered if timbre is slightly off as he doesn’t notice that in his regular listening sessions, but he is very sensitive to variations in frequency response. So he picks system B (mega watt SS with multi-driver towers) which has a dead flat frequency response, rather than system A which had obvious peaks in the treble and suck outs in the mid-bass. Person 1 is not bothered by variations in frequency response and can easily listen around them as long as timbre is right. Person 2 can ignore timbre being slightly off as long as the frequency response is flat.

So which person picked the system that sounded more like the live performance? In typical audiophile manner they go onto a forum and quarrel endlessly about who buys based only on specs, who loves the sound of harmonic distortion, who is tone-deaf, etc, etc… And they both miss the point that this hobby really comes down to listening preferences (realism triggers as the absolute sound refers to it). We buy systems based on our budgets (meaning that we have to accept compromises in certain areas of the sonic performance). As a result we buy systems that compromise the least on the things that are most important to us. Whether that is dynamic range, imaging, single point source, PRAT, frequency response, lack of background noise, surface noise, soundstage, cohesion etc etc etc will determine what we think sounds best within our budget... It's the reason why with a $5K budget one person will buy a small monitor with a 5" woofer, while another will buy a large 4 way tower and yet another will buy a planar.

But what do you think? Is there a right technology and everyone else just needs to hear it to be converted?

blackraven
10-14-2011, 03:09 PM
It is all subjective. We hear things differently and have our own likes and dislikes. It's just like our taste buds. If we did not hear things differently or have different likes and dislilkes than there would only be a handful of audio companies. Thats why I never say to some one that you have to get this brand or type of speaker. I can make recommendations and give my opnion for what ever that is worth.

RGA
10-14-2011, 11:30 PM
I certainly agree with your points about "aspects" of sound that people are more sensitive to or place greater value on. For instance I care more about micro and midi dynamics, timbre and tone than spatial aspects. I don't really care for example if one instrument is 2 feet more to the right than another system that is a little more vague.

On the flip side a lot of the people that engage in endless debates on certain things often have never heard that which they rail against. You make an assumption that people who prefer SS to SET have actually fairly heard a high quality SET. For instance - most audiophiles have probably auditioned at a bare minimum 20 SS amplifiers of known pedigree. Indeed, audiophiles often borrow or at least listen in shops to many different known SS amps from the likes of Classe, Krell, Bryston, NAD, Rotel not to mention receivers by the dozen. But most dealers don't carry SET and most sell entry level tube gear - ASL or Jolida and the like. What subset of SET are they comparing - which tube type - 300b or 211 - huge difference.

And most dealers if they carry a HE speaker is what? Klipsch. Hardly a reference standard.

If one has actually auditioned the better examples of the technology "fairly" and come to whatever conclusion they come to I don't have much issue with that - nor should they with mine. For instance - I liked system A - people said I needed to go listen to certain technologies more - so I went out and made the time to audition those technologies. I went and listened to digital amps, Meridian active systems, ATC active systems, Genelec and PMC in the professional side, upscale panels, PASS Labs, Omni-directionals.

I know two reviewers at Stereophile who both raved about the AN E (neither of them Art Dudley who owns them) and both like a speaker from Vivid. I plan to audition them very closely as a result. And it has an interesting design.

Different ways to skin the cat as they say.

Take me for example - people assume Mr. Audio Note - but in fact I like Gallo 3.5 and King Sound Prince II. Here are three speakers that are just MILES apart in every possible way from a design perspective. I think I could be happy with all three. It's not really which one is necessarily better so much as which one would be better overall when all things are factored in. Ultimately, I would choose the AN J over them simply because of all the "non-Sonic" factors and the volume level I need and flexibility. But the other two and many others would work just fine for me if sound quality was the only factor. So would certain SS amps like those from Sugden or Pass Labs for example.

And I bet if SS/LE and Panel guys listened to better examples of other designs they would find a lot of stuff they would be just as happy with - if they didn't let their eyes and pre-conceived technological ideas get in the way.

dingus
10-15-2011, 06:21 AM
from the end user/listener's point of view, it is almost all subjective including their goals; ie, not everyone would agree that the goal of hifi is to accurately reproduce a live performance, and for many the goal is not about certain aspects of signal reproduction, but the acquisition of hifi gear.

that said, the objective work is primary and needs to be done by the engineering, design and production folks (both in the factory and in the studio). without that we wouldnt have much to argue about.

E-Stat
10-15-2011, 07:46 AM
Is HiFi purely about subjective preference?
For the most part, I think it is more indicative of musical preference than gear. Except of course for folks who talk about one brand in 90% of all their posts. :)

How do you get closer to reproducing your favorite musical genre(s)?

rw

JoeE SP9
10-15-2011, 03:21 PM
I've gone about as far as I can go with the gear and room. I admit I want a pair of 120 Watt tube mono blocks. They will come in handy this winter.:D

I've decided to rely more on "chemical" help for the you are there or the they are here illusion.:crazy:

texlle
10-16-2011, 06:59 AM
It's all about personal preference and interpretation, as stated. What makes the audiophile community even richer with character is that many of us don't settle on one preferred character of reproduction (I.E. the two most obvious of characters being SET driven vinyl vs. SS driven digital) but rather multiple styles. The warm, airy nature of my tube+vinyl 2-channel set makes me just as happy as my bassy, and slightly analytical nature of my Yamaha driven B&W 5.1. I find that it's important to establish multiple concepts of preferred sound to be able to appreciate different factors of sound rather than to simply understand and be able to differentiate them- liking different styles of sound for different reasons.

jhenayon69
10-16-2011, 08:09 AM
Not mainly a subjective preference.
But you know what, I have to agree with the other, it's somewhat personal preference. And I believe we are entitled to that, same with our opinions.

Ajani
10-16-2011, 10:01 AM
I certainly agree with your points about "aspects" of sound that people are more sensitive to or place greater value on. For instance I care more about micro and midi dynamics, timbre and tone than spatial aspects. I don't really care for example if one instrument is 2 feet more to the right than another system that is a little more vague.

On the flip side a lot of the people that engage in endless debates on certain things often have never heard that which they rail against. You make an assumption that people who prefer SS to SET have actually fairly heard a high quality SET. For instance - most audiophiles have probably auditioned at a bare minimum 20 SS amplifiers of known pedigree. Indeed, audiophiles often borrow or at least listen in shops to many different known SS amps from the likes of Classe, Krell, Bryston, NAD, Rotel not to mention receivers by the dozen. But most dealers don't carry SET and most sell entry level tube gear - ASL or Jolida and the like. What subset of SET are they comparing - which tube type - 300b or 211 - huge difference.

And most dealers if they carry a HE speaker is what? Klipsch. Hardly a reference standard.

If one has actually auditioned the better examples of the technology "fairly" and come to whatever conclusion they come to I don't have much issue with that - nor should they with mine. For instance - I liked system A - people said I needed to go listen to certain technologies more - so I went out and made the time to audition those technologies. I went and listened to digital amps, Meridian active systems, ATC active systems, Genelec and PMC in the professional side, upscale panels, PASS Labs, Omni-directionals.

I know two reviewers at Stereophile who both raved about the AN E (neither of them Art Dudley who owns them) and both like a speaker from Vivid. I plan to audition them very closely as a result. And it has an interesting design.

Different ways to skin the cat as they say.

Take me for example - people assume Mr. Audio Note - but in fact I like Gallo 3.5 and King Sound Prince II. Here are three speakers that are just MILES apart in every possible way from a design perspective. I think I could be happy with all three. It's not really which one is necessarily better so much as which one would be better overall when all things are factored in. Ultimately, I would choose the AN J over them simply because of all the "non-Sonic" factors and the volume level I need and flexibility. But the other two and many others would work just fine for me if sound quality was the only factor. So would certain SS amps like those from Sugden or Pass Labs for example.

And I bet if SS/LE and Panel guys listened to better examples of other designs they would find a lot of stuff they would be just as happy with - if they didn't let their eyes and pre-conceived technological ideas get in the way.

I suspect that if most audiophiles were willing and able to properly audition all the different types of technology, then they would find examples of other tech that they really like... In fact, they might even find a new favourite brand and/or tech.

Note: by properly audition I mean an extended (preferably in-home) audition in which all your biases are kept in check... So the aim is just to enjoy the music and see if it moves you, rather than to pick apart the tech and confirm your existing stance on what tech is best..

texlle
10-16-2011, 10:44 AM
This above statement is so true. Each of my components were auditioned extensively before I purchased them. I just can't buy something based on what I read in a professional or consumer review. Murphy's law states that I will be thoroughly unimpressed with it unless I try it out before hand.

If there was an "overlord" audio retail store that sold for every audio manufacturer in existence today, I would be able to expand my frame of reference so far beyond what I already know about the brands I have experienced in person.

Feanor
10-16-2011, 11:37 AM
When I first got interested in hi-fi circa 1970 I assumed it was a about high fidelity, i.e. "accurate" reproduction of the recording. I heard little in the magazines or fellow enthusiasts at the time to contradict that impress.

My interest wained a bit in the late 80s and I didn't regain my full interest until till after 2000. Since that time I've become aware that audiophilia is, or has become, much more about subjective preference than accuracy (as defined above) -- this is apart from the fact that far too many people insist their particular subjective preference is "accurate" or truer to live preformance. Of course the fact is with such divergence of taste, not all can be accurate.

If I have an area of emphasis in my own subjective preference it is for high resolution combined with "air" (separation of instruments and voices), and with realistic extension of instrument timbres. Perhaps this is because of my interest in classical choral music in particular.

LeRoy
10-17-2011, 07:24 PM
If there was an "overlord" audio retail store that sold for every audio manufacturer in existence today, I would be able to expand my frame of reference so far beyond what I already know about the brands I have experienced in person.

I agree. Our selections are based on exposure, preferably long term and in our own environments, along with each of our unique personal preferences for what music is supposed to sound like. In the end it all gets reduced to what a person is finally gets the musical bang for the buck which meets their own criterion.

michaelhigh
10-17-2011, 11:49 PM
If quality could be measured there would be one knob on everything named "Good". It goes up to 12 and it's good-er the louder you make it. Obviously they put tone controls on most amps for a reason, and ones that don't can easily be adapted to use an eq to adjust tone where the gear comes up short. To each his own, AFAIK.

itsoundsbetter
10-20-2011, 01:52 PM
My opinion is that ears ar too inaccurate to perceive much differences. It is a matter of feelings, environonment and suggestion. If you find the right mix, then you will be satisfied. ;-)

bobsticks
10-21-2011, 07:14 AM
Is HiFi purely about subjective preference?

Yes.


What's next?

Ajani
10-21-2011, 09:08 AM
Is HiFi purely about subjective preference?

Yes.


What's next?


Picanha and a bottle of wine?

bobsticks
10-21-2011, 09:19 AM
Picanha and a bottle of wine?

Good man. I'll have the Cain 5 Cab from Napa...make it the double magnum.

Greenies for you, my friend...:ihih:

poppachubby
10-21-2011, 09:30 AM
It's all about big cars, pimpin ho's and fat wallets...

bobsticks
10-21-2011, 09:42 AM
It's all about big cars, pimpin ho's and fat wallets...

Was it Thoreau or Balzac that said that?

poppachubby
10-24-2011, 04:52 PM
Was it Thoreau or Balzac that said that?


Nah ***** that was Too Short...in yo mouth...

poppachubby
10-24-2011, 04:57 PM
OK to show I am not a thread crapper, I will comment...

I agree that of course it's subjective, particularily when none of us can really hear what the other is hearing. However, I HATE when people use this subjective angle as a cop out. What I mean is some people refuse to admit or respect that there is indeed a ladder of improvement when it comes to fidelity. "My Technics receiver sounds better than Brand X mega buck amp, and I am right because this hobby is all subjective".

Ya sure it does, but you're deaf.

The forums at Audio Karma are full of these type of people, drive me nuts.

RGA
10-24-2011, 06:50 PM
poppachubby

I agree 100% but the problem is once you open the door you get people like me.:ihih:

Seriously though - I suppose in a black and white view it is either all subjective or it is all objective. The former means that the Bose 901 and the $100 Sony speakers with the 12 inch woofer is just as good as a Dynaudio Temptation or Soundlab U-1, Revel Salon II because "it's all subjective."

Of course the notion is ridiculous.

However, if we now say wait a minute there is "objectivity" to it then we get into endless debates as to which is better than what at what price or technology and people blather about measurements and blind listening (myself included).

What I think would be beneficial is for people to have a general league table of what they think is the best at doing what and maybe why. The review press - even the guys at Stereophile don't really do a great job of this. That is why there are strongly held camps that seem to be polar opposite the other camp. No one gives any ground on their position.

The problem with ladders of improvement is that it generally only works within a brand line-up and less so across brands. Simply because most speaker lines have a house sound which often differs from another brand. If you prefer the House sound of one maker you may like their $7K speaker than the house sound of a competing speaker maker at $50k. This is because the $50K version is an extension, usually, of the house sound of lower priced models. In other words - simply making a bigger more powerful version of a speaker you don't really care for isn't going to change your view because it has a high price tag. But if you LOVE the sound of the lower model and you know it very well - you may hear the higher priced model and be able to really tell what it brings to the table. And the $50k price point might be justifiable. After all $50k to Bill Gates is like 50cents to you or me.

Ajani
10-24-2011, 07:32 PM
OK to show I am not a thread crapper, I will comment...

I agree that of course it's subjective, particularily when none of us can really hear what the other is hearing. However, I HATE when people use this subjective angle as a cop out. What I mean is some people refuse to admit or respect that there is indeed a ladder of improvement when it comes to fidelity. "My Technics receiver sounds better than Brand X mega buck amp, and I am right because this hobby is all subjective".

Ya sure it does, but you're deaf.

The forums at Audio Karma are full of these type of people, drive me nuts.

Don't let the title of the thread fool you... I really should have titled it more like "Is HiFi mostly about subjective preference?" or something like that...

I think RGA's response best sums up my views on some of this: House sound plays a huge role... So if I love the sound of Jolida and hate the sound of Krell, then I'll probably claim that a $1K Jolida integrated sounds better than a $16K Krell... Which is why I don't think anything of claims in reviews (whether from pros or consumers) where a product is claimed to be better than competitors costing 3x as much...

The way I see it is that it really only makes sense comparing products that excel in the areas that you regard as sonic priorities.. What's the point of me ripping on a speaker that focuses on creating a huge soundstage, if I could care less about soundstage? Then I'm totally missing the point of that speaker...

So that funny part is that somebody could find that a cheapy Technics receiver does something (that is a priority to them) better than a megabucks amp... However, if they were to actually look for more expensive products that cater to their sonic priorities, they'd find a lot of better sounding products than the Technics...

tube fan
10-24-2011, 09:23 PM
I certainly agree with your points about "aspects" of sound that people are more sensitive to or place greater value on. For instance I care more about micro and midi dynamics, timbre and tone than spatial aspects. I don't really care for example if one instrument is 2 feet more to the right than another system that is a little more vague.

On the flip side a lot of the people that engage in endless debates on certain things often have never heard that which they rail against. You make an assumption that people who prefer SS to SET have actually fairly heard a high quality SET. For instance - most audiophiles have probably auditioned at a bare minimum 20 SS amplifiers of known pedigree. Indeed, audiophiles often borrow or at least listen in shops to many different known SS amps from the likes of Classe, Krell, Bryston, NAD, Rotel not to mention receivers by the dozen. But most dealers don't carry SET and most sell entry level tube gear - ASL or Jolida and the like. What subset of SET are they comparing - which tube type - 300b or 211 - huge difference.

And most dealers if they carry a HE speaker is what? Klipsch. Hardly a reference standard.

If one has actually auditioned the better examples of the technology "fairly" and come to whatever conclusion they come to I don't have much issue with that - nor should they with mine. For instance - I liked system A - people said I needed to go listen to certain technologies more - so I went out and made the time to audition those technologies. I went and listened to digital amps, Meridian active systems, ATC active systems, Genelec and PMC in the professional side, upscale panels, PASS Labs, Omni-directionals.

I know two reviewers at Stereophile who both raved about the AN E (neither of them Art Dudley who owns them) and both like a speaker from Vivid. I plan to audition them very closely as a result. And it has an interesting design.

Different ways to skin the cat as they say.

Take me for example - people assume Mr. Audio Note - but in fact I like Gallo 3.5 and King Sound Prince II. Here are three speakers that are just MILES apart in every possible way from a design perspective. I think I could be happy with all three. It's not really which one is necessarily better so much as which one would be better overall when all things are factored in. Ultimately, I would choose the AN J over them simply because of all the "non-Sonic" factors and the volume level I need and flexibility. But the other two and many others would work just fine for me if sound quality was the only factor. So would certain SS amps like those from Sugden or Pass Labs for example.

And I bet if SS/LE and Panel guys listened to better examples of other designs they would find a lot of stuff they would be just as happy with - if they didn't let their eyes and pre-conceived technological ideas get in the way.

Yes, I have heard the Gallo 3.5, the Audio Note, and the King II, but IMO, my 30 year old Fulton Js DESTROY them all. Micro and micro dynamics, detail, bass (NO COMPETITION here), correct timbre, and a killer midrange. Oh yes, and unlimited high end. Their only flaw is in the spacial reproduction, but they are only SLIGHTLY inferior to the best I have heard. BTW, I use the Gallo Strada speakers in my office system. It's good, but compared to my reference system (Fulton Js, Audio Research SP 8, Audio Research D-70, Fosgate phono, Auditorium 23 tranny, VPI Scoutmaster, Benz Ruby 3), it's crap!

tube fan
10-24-2011, 09:28 PM
Of course, IMO, you need to use blind testing to determine objective quality. Blind tests are quite easy, but the audio press has a vested interest in giving all reviewed products a positive review. just read any Stereophile. They like or LOVE every reviewed unit!

RGA
10-25-2011, 01:35 AM
Don't let the title of the thread fool you... I really should have titled it more like "Is HiFi mostly about subjective preference?" or something like that...

I think RGA's response best sums up my views on some of this: House sound plays a huge role... So if I love the sound of Jolida and hate the sound of Krell, then I'll probably claim that a $1K Jolida integrated sounds better than a $16K Krell... Which is why I don't think anything of claims in reviews (whether from pros or consumers) where a product is claimed to be better than competitors costing 3x as much...

The way I see it is that it really only makes sense comparing products that excel in the areas that you regard as sonic priorities.. What's the point of me ripping on a speaker that focuses on creating a huge soundstage, if I could care less about soundstage? Then I'm totally missing the point of that speaker...

So that funny part is that somebody could find that a cheapy Technics receiver does something (that is a priority to them) better than a megabucks amp... However, if they were to actually look for more expensive products that cater to their sonic priorities, they'd find a lot of better sounding products than the Technics...

I think this also goes back to your other thread. Someone may very well like something relatively inexpensive versus something else. And may the preference as better than X at 3times the price of an alternate technology. Your Jolida example is fair. If you like the sound of a given tube amplifier and you don't like the sound of Krell - Then you may like something 1/4 the price. And as you note - before jumping to conclusions about the Jolida it would be wise to compare it to "like" technologies - tube amps from ARC, Copland, Antique sound Labs, Grant Fidelity, Mystere, BAT etc. Then see if the Jolida still holds the "better than Z at 3 times the price."

Speakers have types and so naturally it fits. I know audiophiles (in person) who will own nothing if it is not Horn - others feel the same passion about electrostats (one won't even listen to a speaker that has a box - will not even try them). You have headphones are king folks and others that hate them. You have the large speaker camp and the if it has more than one driver it's crap camp. The large surface area versus "timy point in space is best" camp. Right down to the driver types who choose a given woofer type as best and everything else they can't stomach.

So I think perhaps there is "subjectivity" in preferring classifications of sound - but I think within those areas there is some objectivity. So you could judge High power tube amps as one class, SETs versus each other (rather than grouping them as tubes) or you could go further by tube output. So while it may not be really appropriate to compare tubes versus solid state since the general realms are quite different you should be able to league table tube amps against tube amps of the same tube types; likewise, you should be able to judge planar/panel speakers against other planar/panel designs simply because while they sound different within their "field" they still have more of a like sound that comparing to a B&W boxed speaker.

Personally, I make no secret that I tend generally to prefer the path that has the least amount of stuff in the way of the sound. So I generally prefer (though always exceptions) systems from start to end that have less in the signal path. Single drivers, 2 ways, over large multi-driver speakers. I suppose I am closer to the UHF reviewers in their ideal presentation. I will forgo the frequency extremes for purity of tone and I will seek the emotional factor over the hi-fi attributes of sound.

But I think it's important to be able to differentiate the better speakers of designs you don't favour. So when I audition the big multi-way boxed speakers I still want to know which ones I find the best out of that lot. Usher, Sony's new speakers (I keep forgetting the name of it) are ones that I would rank considerably higher than models I've heard from more mainstream brands. I also think I could live with those two - or if I had a large room they'd be first two on the list - and while others may choose something else - generally speaking I doubt too many would find much fault with them.

StevenSurprenant
10-25-2011, 02:51 AM
It seems that most people are in agreement on this.

As for "sounds live"...

Many years ago I was at an audio shop and they had all their speakers connected to a switch box. They also had what they considered their highend room. The speakers in that room were some of the better ones for that time period, but I wouldn't say cream of the crop. I was in there switching between speakers and the one thing that glared at me was that everyone of them sounded completely different. Everyone of them sounded fairly good too, for different reasons. That was my first revelation in audio. It's still that way today.

I also agree that the same brand sounds similar, aka, house sound.

I'm partial to dipoles, but I've heard other technologies sound just as good, but in a different way. With any system, what catches my attention the most is whether I notice the sound "or" the speakers first. Another way of saying this is whether the speakers disappear.

As for the electronics, I've heard most of the different topologies, and there doesn't seem to be any correlation between them in terms of one type always having the same characteristics. Some tubes sound like SS and vice versa, it's relative. Like speakers, electronics, many times, have a house sound.

I'm sure you've all heard it all, but there is no right or wrong, only personal preference.

I will say this, "planer guys" will often hear the boxes, but people that own these box speakers do not hear it. Sometimes, it's very distracting. I have both dipoles and box speakers in my house and I hear the boxes on my "box" speakers. They still sound good, IMO.

Good post Ajani!

bleachershane
11-07-2011, 03:17 PM
I would say so. All our ears are different, our music tastes differ again and what we consider good, bad and pah is widely differing and debatable...

mlenda
12-11-2011, 08:48 AM
So I think perhaps there is "subjectivity" in preferring classifications of sound - but I think within those areas there is some objectivity. So you could judge High power tube amps as one class, SETs versus each other (rather than grouping them as tubes) or you could go further by tube output. So while it may not be really appropriate to compare tubes versus solid state since the general realms are quite different you should be able to league table tube amps against tube amps of the same tube types; likewise, you should be able to judge planar/panel speakers against other planar/panel designs simply because while they sound different within their "field" they still have more of a like sound that comparing to a B&W boxed speaker.

I think this is the crux of the debate. People constantly try comparing apples to oranges and are shocked when everyone disagrees with them.

Comparing across a given thing, like a tube or a preamp, definitely has objectivity: usually, a $500 preamp is going to be better than a $30 preamp; a $1000 speaker will sound better than a $100/pair set. But after that, and once you start chaining things together and start integrating vertically (not in the physical sense :smilewinkgrin: ), it's all down to that wiggle room.

quality = [something objective] +/- [wiggle room]

And really, the final show-stopper is your ears. If you can't hear that extra oomf from that $10k system, then your $10k system is a waste!

-m

tube fan
12-22-2011, 10:09 PM
We all have our own reality triggers, but blind testing would reveal that most "golden ear" experts could not consistently pick out their reference gear. Remember, the very same experts who hail the new latest digital audio as nearly perfect, were praising early digital, which was, can we all agree, PURE CRAP!!! The same applies to manufactures of audio equipment and to wine makers. Of course, some of us can consistently identify higher fidelity equipment and better wines in blind tests. The list is very short however.

Feanor
12-23-2011, 07:24 AM
Of course, IMO, you need to use blind testing to determine objective quality. Blind tests are quite easy, but the audio press has a vested interest in giving all reviewed products a positive review. just read any Stereophile. They like or LOVE every reviewed unit!
Generally I think reviewers simply ignore stuff they don't like.

As we know, there is huge objection to blind tests; most this because the objectors, (on some level), know perfectly damned well that they would not be able to distinguish the differences they suppose they can hear.

Blind tests are for establishing differences. The other dimension of evaluation is accuracy in the absolute sense. To be clear, I'm speaking of accuracy to the recording, not accuracy to "live", which depends on the recording process itself over we have no control. Granted, it's at least hard to measure this absolute accuracy as it is to set up a blind testing procedure people can agree on.

Here again, most audiophiles aren't interested in absolute accuracy, what they want -- and some admit it and some don't -- is their personal preference. Once you get into preferences there is an endless variety and all objective criteria go out the window.

Feanor
12-23-2011, 07:29 AM
We all have our own reality triggers, but blind testing would reveal that most "golden ear" experts could not consistently pick out their reference gear. Remember, the very same experts who hail the new latest digital audio as nearly perfect, were praising early digital, which was, can we all agree, PURE CRAP!!! The same applies to manufactures of audio equipment and to wine makers. Of course, some of us can consistently identify higher fidelity equipment and better wines in blind tests. The list is very short however.
Yep, rigorous blind testing would establish that many differences supposed heard by most Golden Ears are imaginary. Rather than admit this, virtually all GEs contemn all blind testing regardless of the nuance and rigor.

E-Stat
12-23-2011, 09:47 AM
Remember, the very same experts who hail the new latest digital audio as nearly perfect, were praising early digital...
Exactly to whom do you refer who said early digital was "nearly perfect" when it arrived thirty years ago? Certainly not the audio reviewers I know. :)

Ajani
12-23-2011, 10:43 AM
Generally I think reviewers simply ignore stuff they don't like.

That is the point I think most persons who constantly criticise North American reviewers fail to get... Reviewers are NOT going to choose to spends months auditioning a piece of equipment that they think sounds bad from the offset... So generally anything they review appealed to them in some way during the early stages...

In the UK, there are lots of negative reviews & products (from major brands that advertise in the same magazine btw) get stink ratings like 1 out of 5... This occurs because the review system in the UK is different: they generally audition gear for a much shorter period of time, often by a panel rather than one person (as done in North America). Also, they review larger volumes of gear: so just about anything they get their hands on...

Ajani
12-23-2011, 10:51 AM
Yep, rigorous blind testing would establish that many differences supposed heard by most Golden Ears are imaginary. Rather than admit this, virtually all GEs contemn all blind testing regardless of the nuance and rigor.

Not to be petty, but DBT won't prove that the differences don't exist. DBT will prove that the GEs are full of it when they claim night and day differences between various components and tweaks. Stressful conditions can make it hard to distinguish between very subtle differences, but clear differences will be obvious regardless...

If you held a gun to my head and a clamp to my sensitive parts, I could still tell the difference between Neon Pink and Dark Green. That's a night and day difference... What a lot of GEs call night and day are either really subtle differences or figments of their imagination.

E-Stat
12-23-2011, 10:57 AM
That is the point I think most persons who constantly criticise North American reviewers fail to get... Reviewers are NOT going to choose to spends months auditioning a piece of equipment that they think sounds bad from the offset...
Exactly. I've seen stuff at reviewer's homes that never saw print (from them at least).

RGA
12-23-2011, 07:59 PM
That is the point I think most persons who constantly criticise North American reviewers fail to get... Reviewers are NOT going to choose to spends months auditioning a piece of equipment that they think sounds bad from the offset... So generally anything they review appealed to them in some way during the early stages...

In the UK, there are lots of negative reviews & products (from major brands that advertise in the same magazine btw) get stink ratings like 1 out of 5... This occurs because the review system in the UK is different: they generally audition gear for a much shorter period of time, often by a panel rather than one person (as done in North America). Also, they review larger volumes of gear: so just about anything they get their hands on...

Hi-Fi Choice not only listens in a panel (with manufacturers often as the panelists) they do so level matched and blind. They don't do it with everything though so it's important (if you care) to make sure they state they have done so. I don't find the results whether blind or not to make much of a difference to the end result. Since everything I like has always won their blind level matched panel tests going back to the Sugden A21a which I did not buy but I liked a lot better than the amp I did buy (trusting the reviews instead of my ears). Later that amp was easily chosen in their blind listening group sessions (against the replacement model of Arcam that I had bought) among about 7 others. The amp I currently had easily bested everything in the store for the money in my sighted auditions and later it too "easily" won the blind level matched listening sessions it was in.

I never quite understand the hoopla of such tests when if you can hear worth an iota it is patently bloody obvious within 5 minutes of listening to pretty much any music whether there is something to the system or there isn't. I say system because some components may mask the goodness of a speaker and get you to think wrongly on the speaker when it was merely sounding poor because of the system attached to it.

If it is clearly better it will be clearly better blind or sighted. I agree with your second point that many differences called night and day are not and that is probably why people want DBT done but I find those night and day claims on tweaks and even cables more from forumers than reviewers. I am skeptical of sweeping statements on cable improvements or power conditioners or even most SS equipment. Something may show an improvement in my system and not yours so to categorically say that X cable is going to transcend the music landscape or some such verbiage I have never found to be the case with various cables.

The power conditioner I bought very clearly fixes up the sound of my CD player but less so with my amp. Therefore, it is very likely that in another system with a better noise filtering cd player that that device will have no more affect than using the cheapest power bar at walmart. I can report only on what it did for my system. What I find troubling is that some will tell others to rush out and spend $3,500 on such a device having never heard the other guy's amp or cd player or system.

Cable difference I never understood the arguments - most hi-fi shops will give you a trial period - BestBuy has a 14 dat return policy on cables. And many "well reviewed" cables are inexpensive so it's not like you're out a whole pile of cash. And the guy who spends $3000 a meter on a Speaker cable and needs 4 meters biwired - well it's not like that guy has money problems - spend the effort saving people who "need" to be saved not the guy who can easily spend $20,000+ on cables - who is probably a smart enough person to have read the DBT arguments and knows what he's getting into.



That said there is a level of training for the ears involved - and Hi-Fi Choice does do level matched blind listening on cables - some of which get 2/5 and some of which get 5/5. If most agree one way or the other then you're on to something.

If most people around the world use the same vocab to describe a given CD player's or speaker house sound - then it's probably the case that if you listen you will hear what it is they're talking about. I think people tend to hear it all the same way - they simply value different parts of what they hear differently. For instance take every poster on this board and play for them AC/DC on the same stereo system - we all hear AC/DC the exact same way - but some people will HATE what they are hearing and some other People will LOVE it and want to buy tickets for the next concert while the Haters would rather listen to a dentist drill.

This despite having HEARD the exact same notes played through the exact same speakers. And that is not a lot different that someone who finds one speaker beautifully warm while the other finds it slow and overly polite - while another finds a system detailed and accurate while another finds it cold/harsh/ear bleedingly bright.

Feanor
12-24-2011, 07:38 AM
Not to be petty, but DBT won't prove that the differences don't exist. DBT will prove that the GEs are full of it when they claim night and day differences between various components and tweaks. Stressful conditions can make it hard to distinguish between very subtle differences, but clear differences will be obvious regardless...

If you held a gun to my head and a clamp to my sensitive parts, I could still tell the difference between Neon Pink and Dark Green. That's a night and day difference... What a lot of GEs call night and day are either really subtle differences or figments of their imagination.
First, true that DBT cannot prove that difference don't exist.

Second, I've seenf various DBT test procedures that are unlikely to elicit differences that actually do exist, thus a lot of simple, ABX-type tests are likely to produce negative results. My guess is that if the listener is familiar before the test with the items being tested, then distinquishing differences is much more likely than if the items are unfamiliar with those items. I don't see that pre-familiarity would invalidate a rigorous DBT. Same goes the listener being able to control which passages he/she listens to, and the duration.

I'm not sure I buy that stress is a big factor; how stressed is the typical person likely to be by having to choose between components, (at least if there are no incentives such as cash reward or electric shock! :shocked:).

swan24
12-25-2011, 02:04 PM
There is one somewhat objective hearing test I like to use to determine if an audio system is up to snuff: I compare the sound to what I hear in the control room when I'm recording... The sound through a good set of headphones, and piped in directly from a pair of high quality condenser mics is pretty neutral, and as accurate as you'll ever get, really...

If I can get that sound from my HI FI, then I'm doing good, IMHO... Incidentally, the closest I've come to date is a SET amp with horn speakers... (m.)

joe.1412
12-26-2011, 06:28 PM
This above statement is so true. Each of my components were auditioned extensively before I purchased them. I just can't buy something based on what I read in a professional or consumer review. Murphy's law states that I will be thoroughly unimpressed with it unless I try it out before hand.

If there was an "overlord" audio retail store that sold for every audio manufacturer in existence today, I would be able to expand my frame of reference so far beyond what I already know about the brands I have experienced in person.

agreed

tube fan
12-27-2011, 10:16 AM
Exactly to whom do you refer who said early digital was "nearly perfect" when it arrived thirty years ago? Certainly not the audio reviewers I know. :)

Look at the stereophile reviewers who ONLY have digital components in their references. Almost all of these critics have been mainly using digital long before "high res" digital was available. Remember, humans ONLY hear analogue. In digital sound (be it CDs or MP3 or "high res") the original analogue sound has to be converted from analogue to bits, and, then, after being processed in millions of ways, these digital bits have to be reconverted back to analogue. I got most of the "high res" digital representatives at the 2111 CAS to admit that analogue tape copies of master tapes were far superior to the best "high res". The only room that had sound that I was envious of was using analogue tape as a source. The sound had an ease and tonal beauty that none of the other rooms could compete with. This was the deHavilland, Sonist room, which used tapes bought on e-bay as a source! I got the Audio Note salesman to admit that analogue tape was far superior to the best digital (and AN was only using digital).

Feanor
12-28-2011, 05:46 AM
.... Remember, humans ONLY hear analogue. In digital sound (be it CDs or MP3 or "high res") the original analogue sound has to be converted from analogue to bits, and, then, after being processed in millions of ways, these digital bits have to be reconverted back to analogue.
...
This line of reasoning is completely bogus. Of course human beings only hear analog, but the digital chain recreates the analog to which we listen. However your preferences analog (especially vinyl) and tube equipment betray your bias towards for subjective preference over accuracy.

There isn't anything wrong with prefering a certain sound which, to you, is euphonic. However it is sad a rather large segment insist that what is really just their personal preference must be accuracy.

Feanor
12-28-2011, 06:06 AM
We all have our own reality triggers, but blind testing would reveal that most "golden ear" experts could not consistently pick out their reference gear. Remember, the very same experts who hail the new latest digital audio as nearly perfect, were praising early digital, which was, can we all agree, PURE CRAP!!! The same applies to manufactures of audio equipment and to wine makers. Of course, some of us can consistently identify higher fidelity equipment and better wines in blind tests. The list is very short however.
BTW, we do not all agree that digital is "pure crap". :hand:

E-Stat
12-28-2011, 11:46 AM
Look at the stereophile reviewers who ONLY have digital components in their references.
How does that observation support your assertion of what happened decades ago?

If you ever were to read TAS from the 80s, you would find that all the reviewers had problems when digital first came out.

Feanor
12-28-2011, 01:52 PM
How does that observation support your assertion of what happened decades ago?

If you ever were to read TAS from the 80s, you would find that all the reviewers had problems when digital first came out.
I wasn't an assiduous reader of reviewers back then. But I distinctly recall finding the sound of CDs on my first CD player, a Yamaha, quite sharp. (Nevertheless I was happy to mover away from the fuss of handling LPs.)

Nevertheless when I play some CDs from the late '80s I find the sound to be very good indeed. I feel that the problem mainly lay with (a) many poor transcriptions of masters made for vinyl, and (2) CDPs that were poor by today's standards. I don't think it the technology was inherently bad, (as does TubeFan), though hi-rez is better. The preference for vinyl, on the other hand, is a preference for a filtered sound.

E-Stat
12-28-2011, 02:38 PM
I feel that the problem mainly lay with (a) many poor transcriptions of masters made for vinyl, and (2) CDPs that were poor by today's standards.
Well, sure. Harry hated the first CD players when they came out since they sounded nothing like his Goldmund / Koetsu combination back then. On the other hand, I've heard quite a few players at Sea Cliff that sounded pretty good. I bought my GamuT CD-1 ten years ago after hearing it directly against the Burmester 969/970 combination and the analog equivalent for some recordings. While the CD-1 wasn't quite as good, it fared quite well given the vast price difference. Earlier this year, I heard the EMM Labs XD-S1 there and was quite impressed. To call that "pure crap" is hyperbole.


The preference for vinyl, on the other hand, is a preference for a filtered sound.
While I soundly disagree with that sentiment (listen to the Clearaudio Statement with a great phono stage and see if you still feel the same), I sure enjoy the convenience of digital - especially when on a server. On the other hand, I still maintain two turntables because of my existing vinyl library.

RGA
12-28-2011, 10:24 PM
Frankly I would leave out all bias towards ease of use and running time out of the equation - the fact that something is much easier to use and cheaper may very well bias the hearing of it to be deemed better because one WANTS it to be better because it is easier to use.

I don't know any company that makes both turntables and digital who like their digital players better. And some of them make the best digital available.

Master Tapes are getting a little ridiculous - since the availability of music is so low that their being better is largely a moot issue. DAT is/was better than other formats just as Beta is/was better than VHS and laserdisc was better - but the oddball selection made them fringe players.

The best sound I have heard in playback as been on vinyl - and it's not close. But the practical aspects MUST be in play. The expense of the player is vast. Not happening. Tape is arguably better but selection very tiny.

The people who say CD is better have never heard a good turntable playing a good record - expensive doesn't mean good. Though it often does.

I'm not sure that the Tube Fan gets it though - Most music post 1990 is digital and most of it is NOT available on any other format. Sorry but I am not willing to close the door on 20 years of music just because the perceived sound quality of vinyl is better.

Reviewers who choose a digital based system is fine since they have only so much money to go around. They choose to spend the bulk of their money in one direction. The direction where all the music is heavily centered. Further if they have a $10k budget on source - they can spend it all on digital - they don't have to allocate it out into a $3k CD player and $7k on the turntable/arm/cart/phono-stage.

I have no issue with anyone who buys and only uses CD or digital streaming or Soolos type interfaces. I don't even mind if they think it sounds better - my only request to that is instead of purely relying on external information that they actually bother to say listen to 3-4 of what are deemed the world's best turntables and 3-4 of the world's best digital rigs and compare them both with the same music. Then decide. Regardless of the ease of operation or the pain in the ass nature of vinyl and go strictly by the resulting sound. Not comparing your 1970 $100 Technics turntable with el cheap misaligned cartridge and belt that hasn't been replaced (ever) and a beat to hell record to a $2000 Ayre digital processor of a great remastered edition of a piece of given music.

Tube Fan

Nobody at Audio Note thinks their digital is in league with even their modest turntables using their entry level MC cart. And AN IMO and IME is easily the best maker of CD players out there. Most like the sound better than top flight SACD machines. The problem is that the people who argue the points never audition good turntables - they remember their father's $50 Yorx or Fisher or only slightly better Duals - all of which sound like complete crap. You can really get horrendously awful sound from a turntable very very easily. But when Richard Vandersteen brings a turntable to an Audio Show - he brings a turntable - a real one - one you can say - "I get why you would buy a turntable - and I get what the sound is all about." The people you are arguing with have never ever heard a GOOD turntable - most have never ever heard a good stereo system. More to the point they don't want to. You see if they did and they had even remotely decent hearing (a big if) and they did get "blown away" they'd have to admit they were wrong - and they're never wrong - after all they have read a graph - and that is gospel.

Feanor
12-29-2011, 05:16 AM
Quote:
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>Originally Posted by Feanor http://forums.audioreview.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.audioreview.com/general-audio/hifi-purely-about-subjective-preference-37297-post374513.html#post374513)
The preference for vinyl, on the other hand, is a preference for a filtered sound.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
While I soundly disagree with that sentiment (listen to the Clearaudio Statement with a great phono stage and see if you still feel the same), I sure enjoy the convenience of digital - especially when on a server. On the other hand, I still maintain two turntables because of my existing vinyl library.
Whether vinyl can equal digital is moot for me. AS I've said on a good many occassion, vinyl isn't an option of me because the music I listen to isn't available on LP. This is a situation that has existed since I got back into hi-fil listening 8-9 years ago.

With my present equipment -- and I'm referring principally to my -- computer playback system -- I have no problem at all with CD sound. No harshness, no brightness, no compression, no etch, no lack of resoution, (I've notice hi-rez is tiny bit better): no problems. Yes, of course, some recordings are much better than others, and granted, I'm not seeking euphonic warm or smoothness. I'm not going to dumb down all my recordings for the sake of the 20% that sound substandard.

I have a $500 amp, a $300 preamp, and a $100 DAC: this stuff beats far more expensive equipment I've owned in the recent past. I've recently added (free software) DSP equalization to my computer playback for a further, not suble, improvement.

Bottom line is I would be nuts to spend thousands of dollars for a
half-decent LP playback system. Maybe I'm the only enthusiast who feels this way or, more likely, I'm not.

Geoffcin
12-29-2011, 06:17 AM
I would agree that people's sonic preferences in audio are purely subjective. However, the standard definition of "High Fidelity" as regards to sound reproduction is; The electronic reproduction of sound, especially from broadcast or recorded sources, with minimal distortion.

If you think that an obsolete technology like phono sounds subjectively "better" it's not because of phono's higher fidelity, (it simply doesn't have it) but because you like the sonic profile of the added distortion that is inherent in phonographic reproduction. Nothing wrong with that, but you should understand the truth of it.

Here's a white paper I've found that displays graphically how distortion is pervasive in phonographic audio reproduction.

High Fidelity Phonograph Cartridge - Technical Seminar (http://shure.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4072/~/high-fidelity-phonograph-cartridge---technical-seminar)

http://shure.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/29265/

RGA
12-29-2011, 06:56 AM
Distortion isn't the only factor of what constitutes a high fidelity system. The ear is the ONLY acceptable and viable arbiter of quality sound reproduction. Just as it is for taste.

And this is why SET amps always win blind level matched sessions even when top SS makers sit and listen to their OWN amplifiers they still choose the SET as being more truthful to the musical event. It's also why so many try to build amps that sound more like tubes or more analog. It never happens the other way.

And the title of the link is "High Fidelity Phonograph Cartridge" so for one they're using the words High Fidelity right in the title. And secondly this is a 1978 article - cartridges have come a long way - and Shure doesn't make any of the best ones - at best they make entry level "decent" cartridges but they're nowhere near the best - and the V15 wasn't exactly viewed as a great cart - a great number preferring the M97xE which at best is mediocre get you by on the cheap cartridge. I know I had one.

Geoffcin
12-29-2011, 07:24 AM
Actually lower distortion of the signal IS what separates a "High Fidelity" reproduction from one that is not. Your subjective preference has nothing to do with it.

The Shure V15 type IV was a well respected cartridge in it's day. The current permutation, the Shure v15vxmr is very well received by the audiophile community, even though very little improvement in distortion levels were, or are achievable with phono technology.

RGA
12-29-2011, 08:04 AM
THD is the threshold? Would you argue this for loudspeakers too?

E-Stat
12-29-2011, 08:12 AM
AS I've said on a good many occassion, vinyl isn't an option of me because the music I listen to isn't available on LP.
As I've said on a good many occasions, NOT having a vinyl playback system isn't an option for me because a lot of the music I have on vinyl isn't available on digital.


I'm not seeking euphonic warm or smoothness. I'm not going to dumb down all my recordings for the sake of the 20% that sound substandard.
Nor am I. I've tossed the truly bad recordings I once had.


Bottom line is I would be nuts to spend thousands of dollars for a
half-decent LP playback system. Maybe I'm the only enthusiast who feels this way or, more likely, I'm not.
Since I'm 54, I already have two turntables - one purchased in 1976. No need for new investment other than the twenty year old Shinon Red in the Ariston/SME table needs retipping from Soundsmith..

Feanor
12-29-2011, 08:27 AM
Distortion isn't the only factor of what constitutes a high fidelity system. The ear is the ONLY acceptable and viable arbiter of quality sound reproduction. Just as it is for taste.
...
So that leaves no doubt about your position. Your statement defines good sound quality as subjective. QED

Feanor
12-29-2011, 08:31 AM
...
Since I'm 54, I already have two turntables - one purchased in 1976. No need for new investment other than the twenty year old Shinon Red in the Ariston/SME table needs retipping from Soundsmith..
I'm 66 and had my first TT in 1971, (I was a late starter). I recently retired my latest TT and phono preamp to the basement; there they lie awaiting any impulse I might have in future to play any of my remaining LPs.

RGA
12-29-2011, 08:39 AM
Feanor

If measurements that were done told a 100% complete picture I would be on board - they don't.

I am quite comfortable at looking at certain measurements - Distortion in a loudspeaker is far higher than distortion on amplifiers or even sources.

For instance as a Magnepan owner one of the reasons you LOVE them is because of their bass response - it sounds more natural and better than a boxed speaker. And yet. (Home theater magazine)

Feanor
12-29-2011, 09:04 AM
Feanor

If measurements that were done told a 100% complete picture I would be on board - they don't.

I am quite comfortable at looking at certain measurements - Distortion in a loudspeaker is far higher than distortion on amplifiers or even sources.

For instance as a Magnepan owner one of the reasons you LOVE them is because of their bass response - it sounds more natural and better than a boxed speaker. And yet. (Home theater magazine)
Where I'll agree is that after all these decades we still don't know the measurements most related to preceived good sound. This is true of distortion measures especially; frequency response measures are less controversial.

I own Magneplanars but I've never bragged about their base response. I like the good resolution (at their price points) and the dipole soundstage.

As for Maggy measurement, I recently published my measurements with and without EQ, (including PSB subwoofer):

Without EQ ..

http://gallery.audioreview.com/data/audio/500/medium/OmniMic_FR_Music-700.jpg

With EQ ...

http://gallery.audioreview.com/data/audio/500/medium/OmniMic_corrected_main-700.jpg

Since then I've further refined the EQ, e.g less sag around 5.5 kHz. Flatter is better.

Geoffcin
12-29-2011, 12:12 PM
Well I own Magnepans and I rave about their response, especially the bass! Graphing the distortion at 50hz is always going to be a lesson in futility though, as the dipole back wave will be read as distortion. My guess is that the true distortion is more like what was recorded at 1000hz;
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/2011/august-2011/magneplanar-1.7-speakers/magneplanar-1.7-speaker-1-khz-.gif
FWIW; I've always been sensitive to bass distortion. One of the reasons I run Velodyne servo subs in the HT system.

Ajani
12-29-2011, 02:04 PM
Frankly I would leave out all bias towards ease of use and running time out of the equation - the fact that something is much easier to use and cheaper may very well bias the hearing of it to be deemed better because one WANTS it to be better because it is easier to use.

I don't know any company that makes both turntables and digital who like their digital players better. And some of them make the best digital available.

Master Tapes are getting a little ridiculous - since the availability of music is so low that their being better is largely a moot issue. DAT is/was better than other formats just as Beta is/was better than VHS and laserdisc was better - but the oddball selection made them fringe players.

The best sound I have heard in playback as been on vinyl - and it's not close. But the practical aspects MUST be in play. The expense of the player is vast. Not happening. Tape is arguably better but selection very tiny.

The people who say CD is better have never heard a good turntable playing a good record - expensive doesn't mean good. Though it often does.

I'm not sure that the Tube Fan gets it though - Most music post 1990 is digital and most of it is NOT available on any other format. Sorry but I am not willing to close the door on 20 years of music just because the perceived sound quality of vinyl is better.

Reviewers who choose a digital based system is fine since they have only so much money to go around. They choose to spend the bulk of their money in one direction. The direction where all the music is heavily centered. Further if they have a $10k budget on source - they can spend it all on digital - they don't have to allocate it out into a $3k CD player and $7k on the turntable/arm/cart/phono-stage.

I have no issue with anyone who buys and only uses CD or digital streaming or Soolos type interfaces. I don't even mind if they think it sounds better - my only request to that is instead of purely relying on external information that they actually bother to say listen to 3-4 of what are deemed the world's best turntables and 3-4 of the world's best digital rigs and compare them both with the same music. Then decide. Regardless of the ease of operation or the pain in the ass nature of vinyl and go strictly by the resulting sound. Not comparing your 1970 $100 Technics turntable with el cheap misaligned cartridge and belt that hasn't been replaced (ever) and a beat to hell record to a $2000 Ayre digital processor of a great remastered edition of a piece of given music.

Tube Fan

Nobody at Audio Note thinks their digital is in league with even their modest turntables using their entry level MC cart. And AN IMO and IME is easily the best maker of CD players out there. Most like the sound better than top flight SACD machines. The problem is that the people who argue the points never audition good turntables - they remember their father's $50 Yorx or Fisher or only slightly better Duals - all of which sound like complete crap. You can really get horrendously awful sound from a turntable very very easily. But when Richard Vandersteen brings a turntable to an Audio Show - he brings a turntable - a real one - one you can say - "I get why you would buy a turntable - and I get what the sound is all about." The people you are arguing with have never ever heard a GOOD turntable - most have never ever heard a good stereo system. More to the point they don't want to. You see if they did and they had even remotely decent hearing (a big if) and they did get "blown away" they'd have to admit they were wrong - and they're never wrong - after all they have read a graph - and that is gospel.

For the most part this argument sounds reasonable. Except for the bold section: That is pure theory and IMO irrelevant to just about any buying decision...

If I have a budget of $500, $1K, $2K or even $5K for a source, then all that matters are the best examples of digital and analog available within my budget... I could care less whether a $100K turntable smokes a $100K CDP as I will never own either...

Just because the top vinyl beat the top CDP, doesn't mean that within my budget, vinyl is better than CDs...

RGA
12-29-2011, 05:42 PM
Geofcin and Feanor

I actually don't take issue with the bass of the panels - but the graph is what the graph is and if we're going to say that the graph is wrong or irrelevant on one speaker it is thusly so on all speakers.

The issue is this is NOT JUST a speaker measurement - it is a speaker coupled to the room measurement. If you notice every review of every dipole the measurements suck but the reviewer will always say - this is because of the room. Odd since who cares how the speaker measures in an Anechoic chamber or how it would measure in the middle of a football field? Unless you listen in those environments those "pretty measurements" don't count.

The fact is most rooms are going to throw frequency measurements out of whack. Using a sophisticated EQ you can defeat/add db at given frequency points. A speaker is 3db too high at 1khz reduce to 0db - one speaker is 3db too low increase by 3db etc. Feanor could adjust his Magnepan but he could also adjust any boxed speaker in the same way.

But the only measurement that matters is still the "in room response at the listening chair." Distortion is a factor but so is pair matching - if the left speaker doesn't sound the same as the right speaker then what do you have? Many holy grail speakers are off by more than 3db and some more than 6db including some of the big boys with supposedly all the money to make the best speakers.

RGA
12-29-2011, 06:00 PM
For the most part this argument sounds reasonable. Except for the bold section: That is pure theory and IMO irrelevant to just about any buying decision...

If I have a budget of $500, $1K, $2K or even $5K for a source, then all that matters are the best examples of digital and analog available within my budget... I could care less whether a $100K turntable smokes a $100K CDP as I will never own either...

Just because the top vinyl beat the top CDP, doesn't mean that within my budget, vinyl is better than CDs...

I agree on buying decisions you have to go with your budget - but not when making sweeping commentary on the "sound quality" the technology is capable of. The fact that wow and flutter is an issue for a turntable while measuring it as being far lower on a CD player is moot if the wow and flutter of said turntable is so low that no ear can detect it.

An entry level turntable today is much better than they were in the 1970s so there is that. I have not heard them all because I am not in the market for $500 tables. But these guys have not even bothered to audition these tables let alone the $2k and $5k models.

Again - I have no issue for people not wanting to go down the vinyl path - it's a pain in the arse on a number of fronts but don't come on saying that you have some truth about the sound without ever hearing even a "good" model let alone a "great" model or "reference standard" model as if it's bad because you read a graph some place. Especially when every maker who sells both will tell you the table kicks their digital player's arse.

The result is the only thing that counts - does system A sound more natural and "right" than system B. if yes system A is the better audio reproduction system. Regardless of what "some" very limited measurements may indicate.

Ajani
12-29-2011, 06:48 PM
I agree on buying decisions you have to go with your budget - but not when making sweeping commentary on the "sound quality" the technology is capable of. The fact that wow and flutter is an issue for a turntable while measuring it as being far lower on a CD player is moot if the wow and flutter of said turntable is so low that no ear can detect it.

An entry level turntable today is much better than they were in the 1970s so there is that. I have not heard them all because I am not in the market for $500 tables. But these guys have not even bothered to audition these tables let alone the $2k and $5k models.

Again - I have no issue for people not wanting to go down the vinyl path - it's a pain in the arse on a number of fronts but don't come on saying that you have some truth about the sound without ever hearing even a "good" model let alone a "great" model or "reference standard" model as if it's bad because you read a graph some place. Especially when every maker who sells both will tell you the table kicks their digital player's arse.

The result is the only thing that counts - does system A sound more natural and "right" than system B. if yes system A is the better audio reproduction system. Regardless of what "some" very limited measurements may indicate.

Agreed...

I don't audition TTs, as the technology is a royal pain & being a younger audiophile, all my albums are on CD (in fact a good deal of the music I listen to is not available on vinyl)... So whether Vinyl sounds better is completely irrelevant to me... I'm not going to change my musical tastes to fit a technology...

I don't worry at all about sweeping generalizations about which technology is better as all that is pure nonsense IMO... In general I might prefer panel speakers to boxes, but that doesn't mean I prefer any panel to any box... Same for tubes versus SS... IMO, the quality of the design of the component is even more important than just the underlying technology... A good SS amp will whoop a poorly designed tube amp and vice versa...

RGA
12-29-2011, 07:55 PM
I agree with you 100%. I have general preferences perhaps for certain technologies - but I still like SS over some tube amps and I like panels over numerous boxes (maybe even most boxes).

The Vinyl/CD debate is problematic since in many cases it largely comes down to the actual recording and NOT the medium. I have albums on both formats and the CD sounds better and vice versa. To me if you want the best sound you need both formats since again any given album may sound better on the other format. Ray Charles and most of the music I listen to from that era sounds vastly better than it does on every CD version I have. While several other albums from 70s onwards is a mixed bag affair - some CD's have been remastered for example and sound better than the CD.

Add to that your argument and mine to Tube fan that everything is on CD from 1990 onwards - and that isn't the case with vinyl. A lot of mainstream music is on vinyl of course and a lot of jazz. Vinyl also has a lot of remix music for clubs that are popular with DJ's so there has been a lot of this kind of music that was never produced on CD. Further a lot of vinyl has had "extra tracks" not available on the CD version. Though this does occur the other way around as well.

Vinyl also has a problem of local availability. If there is no store in your area then it's probably not worth it because new records tend to be expensive. So unless you can "save" money in the long run on vinyl purchases to offset the expense of owning a good turntable then it is financially cumbersome. Where I live in BC I live near a recycling center so every month I head down and go through the vinyl - $2 and I am allowed to fill a bag with as many records that will fit - maybe 25-30. All of which are in very good condition. So the "software" cost is absurdly low.

If I didn't have this and the two big used cd/vinyl shops in my town I would not have bothered with vinyl (having grown up on CD and SS). Further - unlike some - I believe you have to spend at a certain level to really get what it is about vinyl that is superior. I had the budget tables and they are so-so IME. They hint at what is possible. Perhaps an entry level Pro-Ject with an upgraded cartridge might convince. The cart seems to me to be the most critical aspect assuming the table is competent and the arm is not a total disaster. But cartridges - good ones - cost a significant amount of money. And you really do hear the difference very noticeably just going from a $60 one to a $100 one to a $150 to a $400 to $1000 to a $1500 one for example. An aspect that I like about turntables and carts etc is that you really hear the BIG improvements immediately. I can't say that about $200 to $600 CD players from $800 to $1500. To me the gaps need to be larger to really appreciate improvements rather than just small differences.

E-Stat
12-31-2011, 08:18 AM
I actually don't take issue with the bass of the panels - but the graph is what the graph is and if we're going to say that the graph is wrong or irrelevant on one speaker it is thusly so on all speakers... If you notice every review of every dipole the measurements suck but the reviewer will always say - this is because of the room.
I couldn't disagree more. Dipoles radiate into the room differently and I don't know of a single sole who listens to their panel speakers at the 45" distance that Atkinson chooses to measure. If you've read his comments, you would already understand this. To wit:

With the exception of large panel speakers, such as the Apogee Stage and Audiostatic ES-100, the 45" distance has proved acceptable.

RGA
12-31-2011, 09:16 AM
Don't get me started on the way JA measures speakers - You won't get argument from me - I find the whole thing to be ridiculous - it's easy to do but it isn't good.

Measuring a speaker (incidentally - only one of the two) at a distance no one listens at is problematic. The problem with Stereophile's measurements is that if you are going to measure something - but you know that the graph you just showed is mostly meaningless because you don't have the proper space or tools or whatever then what exactly was the point of the endeavor?

Measurements not done at the listening position don't say much. Beyond ease of drive measurements the rest is pretty weak.

And if you can't tell if it sounds good by listening to the bloody things then you may as well shop at Sears. I use to read every spec measurements going and it confounds the issue. It makes me think I should like something more based on a measurement - it makes me think I should dislike something due to the technology being used.

I'd be happier going with blind level matched auditions with classical and jazz trained musicians over reading frequency plots of one speaker at 1 meter not measured correctly.

Erorrorse
01-28-2012, 04:22 AM
HiH

I've been lurking here for many many months but this is my first time posting.

There's a treasure trove of information here but I was wondering about additional resources you use for this type of stuff.

Please let me know other sites/forums you use

I'll go post an intro now!

swan24
01-28-2012, 06:26 AM
While the production and measurment of HI FI equipment can be largely objective, it is hearing that is subjective... Also, there are immeasurable artifacts in certain gear that make it sound 'good.' The word 'good' also implying a subjective evaluation...

Fortunately, most of us 'know' when everything is right... We listen into the wee hours of the morning and marvel at the sound... (m.)

LeRoy
02-17-2012, 02:39 PM
Here is a link that you guys may have in interest in:
Mandala of Tone | BYOB.info (http://bringyourownbliss.info/mandala)

My thoughts are everybody goes through their own personal audio evolution and each person, based on exposure to many system configurations, settles on a particular music re-recreation the he or she allows as a benchmark of satisfactory musicality. Since I am not a biological replica of anyone else my ears and brain are unique processors of musical information and thereby by default my end evaluation of a product or system is subjective.

Hope you like the link above.

tube fan
02-17-2012, 09:42 PM
The only speakers that have really impressed me in the last twenty years are the Audio Note E and the Magnepan 1.7. Yes, neither matches my 35+ years old Fulton J speakers. The only CD I have heard that I liked was an Audio Note $4,500 one. My goal is truth to the absolute sound: live unamplified music. In audio, cost is NOT related to quality. My least favorite rooms at the CAS 2011 were the $500,000 MBL and Wilson ones. The sound was just dreadful in both rooms. Yes, the MBL room was THE WORST EVER system I have ever heard: everything was bright, hard, and congested!

Janjuc
02-17-2012, 11:37 PM
Very subjective, we all distinguish sounds slightly differently in our brains due to age, ethnicity, aural damage and many other things. Blind testing with no idea of what product is being tested is possibly the only way to listen prior to purchase as previous biases should not then become involved....

JJ

crowley
03-21-2012, 04:58 PM
Hifi sound preference or the illusion of a good sounding system is definately subjective based on many variables of the individual listener. I've listened to many a set of bookshelf speakers before choosing my M/A RX2's, not liking some of the more expensive or more highly rated equipment over the RX2's.

Auditioning the gear before you buy is a definate must when shopping around, you don't want to waste money on a bit of highly rated kit only to find out it doesn't suit your tastes.

It's just a shame nowhere allows auditioning of older equipment in Aus, I'd love to listen to some older kit.

Mash
03-25-2012, 03:26 PM
Is HiFi purely about subjective preference?

Not if you want lasting satisfaction!

Lasting satisfaction will only be obtained if you attend enough live recitals to make live music your reference.

Mash
03-25-2012, 03:44 PM
Measuring a large panel speaker up close & personal is silly... you do not sit there to listen to them. Also the room is, like it or not, a big part of the solution.... or the problem.

Our previous house was a *real* log chalet. The listening room had a 20' ceiling and effective dimensions of 26' by 36'. The Tympani and even the servosubs were smooth, sharp, & distinct. That rock-solid listening room produced excellent results. Would the system sound as good in the typical flexy 13' by 18' by 8' room? Never. So why does Atkinson publish such silly results?

Mash
04-05-2012, 08:05 AM
HEY! Where is the post by "Voineekib" ...??? I just saw it in an email from AR.

He/she was on a real tear... the post read like a high-end audio equipment review...............

Mash
04-05-2012, 08:33 AM
I tried this years ago, and the equalizer trashed the attack / transient response of the Maggies.

Feanor
04-05-2012, 06:24 PM
I tried this years ago, and the equalizer trashed the attack / transient response of the Maggies.
I use a digital equalizer, Electri-Q, within my Foobar2000 player; it doesn't have have that effect. The digital equalized doesn't introduce phase shift as do analog equalizers.