"Audiophile Debate"

[E-Stat]

With vinyl, all bets are off. I'd wager that the turntable/arm/cartridge is at least as important as the speakers.

Agreed. That's why I used the term transducers.

rw

[musicoverall]

Agreed. That's why I used the term transducers.

rw

I thought of that myself, but the table and arm aren't transducers.

That brings up another argument where I seem to go against the audiophile grain... the relative importance of table, arm and cartridge. I go "backwards" there as well, as I feel the cartridge is most critical. But, as with the original "debate", I think they're all important. A crappy table with a good arm and cartridge will give you crappy sound, just not as crappy as a good table with a crappy cartridge.

And I'm now crapped out on the subject.

[musicoverall]

[QUOTE=emaidel]The source of one's system can go even beyond either the turntable/cartridge, or CD player. Often the recording itself can make all the difference. A shrill, overly-bright CD (or LP) will likely sound awful no matter what it's played on, just as a dull, lifeless CD or LP will sound dull and lifeless regardless of the system it too is played on.

QUOTE]

Absolutely! Even the best speakers won't make a lousy recording sound good. Quite the contrary - the best speakers will bring out the all the shortcomings of the disc and make it sound worse than it would on lesser speakers.

[Mr Peabody]

We might actually agree on turntables. Way back in the beginning I always heard vinyl playback depended on the cartridge. My first real turntable was an old Pioneer PL-51, it quit spinning one day. I bought me one of those new Technics direct drive, quartz locked, yatta yatta. It was not a linear tracker though. I took the cartridge right off the Pioneer and put it on the new Technics, what? the sound isn't the same, not even as good. I took the Technics back and put the Pioneer in the shop. The Pioneer served many years after that fix until I discovered turntables went to even a new dimension hearing my first Rega.

[E-Stat]

I thought of that myself, but the table and arm aren't transducers.

True, but a cartridge cannot function by itself!

I go "backwards" there as well, as I feel the cartridge is most critical.

You and I are on the same wavelength. I begin with choosing either the cartridge or the speaker and then determine what is required to optimize their operation. The choice of cartridge determines the optimum mass of the arm. The choice of speaker determines the optimum amplifier (and cable) required to drive them.

rw

[musicoverall]

We might actually agree on turntables. Way back in the beginning I always heard vinyl playback depended on the cartridge. My first real turntable was an old Pioneer PL-51, it quit spinning one day. I bought me one of those new Technics direct drive, quartz locked, yatta yatta. It was not a linear tracker though. I took the cartridge right off the Pioneer and put it on the new Technics, what? the sound isn't the same, not even as good. I took the Technics back and put the Pioneer in the shop. The Pioneer served many years after that fix until I discovered turntables went to even a new dimension hearing my first Rega.

The deal with the table is how well it keeps noise (rumble, etc) away from the cartridge. The better the suspension, the quieter the table - and those cartridges pick up ANY signal, be it music or noise, and reproduce it. Once you have that down, the cartridge and arm have to work together. The Rega is a nice table. I have fond memories of mine. The coolest thing about it is the arm. Killer arm for the money - and if "for the money" sounds like a slam, it isn't. That arm beats the crap out of everything else in its price range and then jumps up and pounds everything a range or two up from it.

When I dumped the Rega, I took the arm and put it on a VPI HW-19 mk III. Later moved to a Sota Cosmos with a Graham arm. Nice expensive combo that showed off the strengths of even a cheap cartridge while also showing off its weaknesses. So I understand your point about a front end's personality coming through regardless of the quality of the next part in the chain. On the flip side, I once put a Benz Ruby on my Rega P3. Oh..... MAN!!!!!!! A $3K cartridge on a $600 (at the time) table was certainly overkill but I enjoyed the hell out of that for the short time it was installed. I was surprised my friend allowed me to keep it for a week.

[musicoverall]

True, but a cartridge cannot function by itself!


You and I are on the same wavelength. I begin with choosing either the cartridge or the speaker and then determine what is required to optimize their operation. The choice of cartridge determines the optimum mass of the arm. The choice of speaker determines the optimum amplifier (and cable) required to drive them.

rw

True... except if one of those "pulse" bombs ever goes off and electricity dies, I'll be sitting there spinning vinyl on my finger with a phono cartridge attached to a horn, digging the music. That's one advantage vinyl has over CD!

Cables??? Don't they all sound the same? I think I read that somewhere. Good thing I listen better than I read! LOL. But...er... cables have been debated to death so PLEASE!! Anyone reading this - I didn't mean to start anything! Live your life with zipcord. I won't bother you if you don't bother me!

[musicoverall]

We might actually agree on turntables. Way back in the beginning I always heard vinyl playback depended on the cartridge. My first real turntable was an old Pioneer PL-51, it quit spinning one day. I bought me one of those new Technics direct drive, quartz locked, yatta yatta. It was not a linear tracker though. I took the cartridge right off the Pioneer and put it on the new Technics, what? the sound isn't the same, not even as good. I took the Technics back and put the Pioneer in the shop. The Pioneer served many years after that fix until I discovered turntables went to even a new dimension hearing my first Rega.

The Audio Note DAC (3.1X) is the best DAC I've ever heard. An electrical engineer friend of mine explained to me that I was enjoying the extra distortion it dished out and I liked the sound of vinyl so I was drawn to a poor digital design. I told him to go f**k himself. Great DAC! Is the 1.1 nearly as good?

[Feanor]

....

I have some Phillips and EMI European recordings of great classics with truly outstanding performances, but with sound that tends to be a bit thin, and shrill. No matter what I do, those recordings will always sound that way. ...

After speakers the most critical consituent of the sound is the recording. The greatest components cannot compensate for bad ones. Some labels are better than others on average, but none are consistently excellent. The most consistent is Reference Recordings but their catalogue is very small. Here are my own principal reference recordings are these, which include two Reference Recordings, two Telarcs, and two Harmonia Mundi ...
http://gallery.audioreview.com/showp...&ppuser=199052

While you can't entirely compensate for crappy recording with your equipment choices, lots of people really try.

• First, IMO, you need excellent resolution. I have plenty of recordings, (CDs and LPs), that sounded edgy and sharp on my entry level system that were revealed by my present equipment to actually have lots of detail and air and are a lot more listenable than I originally thought.
• Secondly, tubes can make mediocre recordings sound better, especially those that are bright or edgy.
• Thirdly, I admit that LPs are much less likely to sound edgy, bright, or "cool" than CDs, although some suffer these qualities.

IMHO, the tubes and vinyl essentially act as filters that "improve" rather than simply convey the sound. In my experience, the very best recording, such as my references above, do not benefit by being passed through tubes, and sound as good as any vinyl.

[Mr Peabody]

E-stat, you live in Arkansas, that explains any wavelength you are on

Actually the 1.1x is the only AN DAC I've heard. It is very good, I preferred the sound over my Krell 280cd. I switched them back and forth a lot because I was having problems with it being better than my Krell. The AN just sounds more like I believe an instrument or voice should, many have described the AN as organic and as many audio adjectives it's open to interpretation but the instant you hear the AN DAC you know exactly what they meant. AN doesn't use digital filtering which I think may give them their good sound but it could be the tube. Either way unless I hear something else better my front end of choice wil be AN. I'd love to get a 3.1x. Actually, my plan is to some day down the road get one of their single unit CD players. It probably won't happen as long as the 1.1x is serving it's purpose though.

[Mr Peabody]

I don't believe I miss any detail when listening to my Conrad Johnson in comparison to my Krell gear but the CJ does make it easier to listen to a poor recording. The Krell holds a hard line and forgives nothing. Krell also seems to present everything with the same emphasis where CJ allows subtle to be subtle and that which is in the background to remain there.

[Slippers On]

Glad to see such a healthy debate on Audiophilia.

Circles, circles, circles.

From where I'm sitting, with my slippers on, I can see that you guys agree that the source material, whether it be vinyl or CD, is most important. We can not improve the source material. We can only tweak it to suit us.

In the original post aimed at defining an audiophile it was stated:-


I would venture to redefine the meaning of Audiophile by at least including the words:-

"steadfast in his resolve to extrapolate every piece of information ingrained on the source material whether it be CD, LP, Tape or other; not necessarily in the way it was originally played in the studio or on stage but in the way the mixer imagined we should hear it.


What you guys are agreeing on is that you choose your equipment to suit your listening tastes. Be it vinyl, CD, SACD or other. You are in effect "tweaking" using DACs, amps, cables, speakers.

For example; I received a few CDs this Christmas. As an audiophile I read the small print. I want to know if I can expect full digital 1s and 0s Then I put one on my CD player, (why do I keep using capital letters for a cd - they don't yet deserve it ) So, I'm lucky enough to have a couple of hi-fi set ups and I decide to play female vocals on the tube set-up. I know that the valve units will make her sound good - to my hearing -. In the future If I like her songs I might swap cables or pre-amps to try to make her better. I cannot improve on the recording, I can only try improving on the way it sounds to me.

When I am satisfied that my front end, (cd player + dac etc) is performing as it should then, (if I need to), I will experiment with the 'chain' to see if I can improve my sound.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why someone should buy the best speakers available and then try to work backwards to the source material

I get the feeling on this forum that some of you guys have some excellent equipment but haven't yet experienced what it is capable of Its all about synergy but the basis for all of this is the original recording.

[E-Stat]

E-stat, you live in Arkansas, that explains any wavelength you are on

I'm only a recent transplant.

rw

[Mr Peabody]

E-stat why don't you list your equipment in your profile?

[E-Stat]

E-stat why don't you list your equipment in your profile?

I did at one time, but was too lazy to maintain it both here and on AA. There are some pics in the gallery though. Here's a link:

E-Stat's Stuff

rw

[Mr Peabody]

Upstairs you are using an ARC SP-9 with phono stage? The SP-9 must be a cherry piece, I've run across a few people who still use one. Ironically, one of the guys worked for our ARC dealer and had VTL monoblocks as well. He sold his though. He was using the ARC digital amp until he decided which way to go. I heard the VTL's and really liked them. I was not impressed with ARC's digital amp despite his enthusiasm. It was matched with the LS-16 pre, I think that's the right model, it ran about $3,500.00. I didn't care for the sound at all. I actually brought those two pieces home for an audition when I was looking for some tube gear.

[E-Stat]

Upstairs you are using an ARC SP-9 with phono stage?

Actually, the MKIII flavor. Its tonal balance is warmer than the first two versions. And I use it only when using the phono source.

It was matched with the LS-16 pre, I think that's the right model, it ran about $3,500.00. I didn't care for the sound at all.

While the earlier models (like mine) are 6922 based, the newer ones use the 6H30 tube. I confess that I have not heard any of those models. Conrad-Johnson, for example, still uses 6922s in the ART III (which I have heard at Seacliff).

rw

[jim goulding]

Sea Cliff? My, you are an old tiger. Might I recognize your name if I were to hear it?

postnote- Visited "upstairs" on AA. I formerly used stats in my main listening room, Acoustat Threes. Bet you'd recognize my other gear of the time, too. I still use a vintage Koetsu Black on occasion but an Accuphase MC yielded more excitement. Not that the Acoustats are in the same league, but produce sound similarly. I use some self powered mtm monitors now that are very synergistic with my room in soundstage openess. Walls disappear, and all that, with the thing I do contributing. What I miss most about my stats is the linearity of sound in this room and the physically warming bass. A Bosendorfer couldn't be mistaken for anything else. And the tone of well recorded acoustic bass would melt a hard heart. I may have a treat for you. It's an old Paul Chambers re-release said to be recorded in Rudy Van Gelder's living room, Bass On Top (Blue Note). Do carry on! Many thanks.

[E-Stat]

Sea Cliff? My, you are an old tiger. Might I recognize your name if I were to hear it?

Nope, only my mentors. I met Dr. Cooledge (JWC) when I worked at a hi-fi shop in Atl in the 70s. It was through the good doctor I met HP. Business takes me to Long Island from time to time where I can hear his latest toys.

postnote- Visited "upstairs" on AA. I formerly used stats in my main listening room, Acoustat Threes.

Bob Rieman and Jim Strickland brought a pair to JWC for review in the magazine. All of us from the shop met them over at chez Cooledge. Soon after, we sold the product and I bought a pair of the X.

Bet you'd recognize my other gear of the time, too. I still use a vintage Koetsu Black on occasion but an Accuphase MC yielded more excitement. Not that the Acoustats are in the same league, but produce sound similarly.

Oh yes. Had an AC-2 myself some time ago. I enjoyed various Acoustats (Monitor 4, 2+2) for over twenty five years. Indeed I find something special about most all full range stats. It was hearing JWC's Dayton-Wrights that got me started.

rw

[Slippers On]

Name-dropping has no place here in audiophilia...if you want me to start...............

Get back to encouraging new Audiophiles.

One Slipper on, one off

[jim goulding]

Sure, Slip, whatever you say . I thought it was courteous of the man to reply to me.

[Slippers On]

Sure, Slip, whatever you say . I thought it was courteous of the man to reply to me.

Apologies are mine, I over-reacted.

I feel the thread is getting away from itself. I am hoping to put up a case for shaking the living daylights out of those, (commercial enterprises including press), who have hi-jacked the meaning of the word 'Audiophile', and seek to turn it into a cliche to fill their pockets.

I believe it is important that they understand that WE are the guys who call the shots and THEY should feel priviledged to have us as customers. Not that up and coming audiophiles should be dictated to by commercial interests.

Slippers On

[jim goulding]

Uh, OK mate. No harm done.

[E-Stat]

Get back to encouraging new Audiophiles.

We are the sum of our experiences. I wish there were some sort of *audiophile camp* where those who express an interest could be immersed in the finest sound quality components and instructed in the listening process. I feel extremely privileged (and lucky) to have effectively had that opportunity when I was Basite's age. I had several mentors who exposed me to the beauty of classical music and how to listen critically using some of the best stuff back then.

I have clear memories of not only the first time I heard Magneplanars (1974 - I was 17), but the song playing at the time. Similarly, I remember first hearing the incredible (for its day) Infinity IRS system in a superb system back in 1980. Those experiences recalibrated my point of reference.

rw

[hermanv]

So what is an Audiophile? We can’t really define it in regards to the music itself. Most everyone enjoys a live event to a reproduction. So I feel that it may be impossible to define what an audiophile is without a debate on how or what equipment we use to achieve the reproduction of music.

In a similar vein, the discussion about front end vs. back end improvements of the reproduction chain is not very worthwhile because the improvement in reproduction is so highly dependent on the starting point and the goal.

No amount of front end investment will make a 2 way bookshelf speaker that is deficient in bass become a bass powerhouse, similarly the best speaker made can not fix a poor signal from the front end.

One of the reasons I got caught up in an upgrade merry-go-round was that each improvement I made, revealed a deficiency that was previously either unheard in my system or acceptable before the new piece was added. Even if you had the money a mass market system would be hard pressed to help you decide if the Burmester, Meridian or Boulder CD player had the better sound.

Conversely a $54 Best Buy CD player will make it difficult if not impossible to chose between a Dynaudio, B&W or Kharma speaker. So it seems that you must have good speakers to hear a good front end and conversely you must have a good front end to hear a good speaker. Much of the rest is sales mumbo jumbo.

All this is made worse by a deficiency in language or knowledge to describe what it is that’s missing or wrong with the reproduction chain. Yes, we all know what distortion means on a performance graph, how many of us can identify not only the amount of distortion, but whether it is even or odd harmonic by just listening?

So it turns out that every contributor to this thread seems at least partially right in their opinion.

Let me try for a definition of a true audiophile:
An Audiophile is a person who spends more than average effort in getting the best sound quality for a given environment and budget. A person who asks, how could I make this experience more faithful to live music, how can I make it better within my means than it is now?

Regarding the relationship between money and sound quality, money alone won’t do it; I have heard exotic expensive equipment not do a good job. Knowledge alone won’t do it either; room treatments might help but won’t make that $150 system sound like top of the line gear. It takes some money to buy good equipment at a given price point and some knowledge to achieve the best sound you can get for the gear that you have.

I strongly recommend a buddy system. You listen to each others gear, you swap one of your pieces of equipment for one of his and you discuss what it is you hear that's different, worse or better. Both parties profit by this exchange, both parties learn about audio language, the contribution of a room and the relative value of a piece of equipment.