Open Call to Mtry, Skeptic, Naysayers, and ABXers

[Thomas_A]

okiemax,

many of my HiFi friends including me made a lot of experimenting and tweaking when we were younger, claiming better performance. If you want % per year in the world I cannot give any.

T

[okiemax]

okiemax,

many of my HiFi friends including me made a lot of experimenting and tweaking when we were younger, claiming better performance. If you want % per year in the world I cannot give any.

T

Maybe you and your friends were working with mid-fi gear which wasn't responsive to tweeking. The listening rooms also could have been limiting factors. I use an old Kenwood reciever with Rado Shack speakers in my computer room, which is not the best size and shape for good sound, and this system is not responsive to anything I have tried other than changes in speaker placement.

[skeptic]

Mid Fi is a derogatory term invented by extremely stupid snobs who want to justify the outrageous prices they paid for equipment that may be no better in many, most, or all usable respects than far cheaper equipment. One guy's ultra high end is another's mid fi. The ultra high end of today is the mid fi of tomorrow and the mid fi of today was the cutting edge of yesterday. The rationale for buying much of the most expensive equipment on the market has nothing to do with usable performance. People who think that there is a lot which can't be measured and therefore doesn't show up in tests and specifications are mostly kidding themselves. Such differences if and when they exist are generally extremely subtle if they can be heard at all. And what you consider high end, I consider a joke. Examples? A $10,000 audio amplifier that can only produce 10 watts of power. A pair of $3000 loudspeakers which cannot reproduce the lowest octave or two of audible sound. A phonograph cartridge that costs hundreds of dollars and needs 1 1/2 grams of force to track most records. Cables costing hundreds of dollars for which not one shred of evidence exists that they perform any better than Home Depot wire except in the fantasies of the guys who bought it. To me that's all Low Fi. Low Finance that is. A total waste of money on useless oversold junk. See, it's a matter of perspective.

[996turbo]

You are correct in saying that everybodyhas their perspective. I have some of that expensive junk you are talking about. What you fail to realize that if I feel I got good value out of it who else cares. I have yet to have a person sit in my chair and not be amazed. Alot of them have systems. They always say man I thought what I had was good but this stuff is amazing.
I did not buy any of my gear to imnpress others though I bought it for myself. I am proud of it and when people ask about it I demonstarte its abilities. I rarely tell people what it cost as I feel that it really does not matter to get into that discussion with them. I usually just say I bought alot of it used and got pretty good deals on it.
I would like to know how you know what my rationale in buying this gear was when you obviously have never bought it yourself. I would prefer you keep opinions about other peoples motives to yourself. AS if you have never walked in my shoes how do you know what went through my mind when I bought that gear.
There are alot of fine things in life that people can spend their recreational dollars on. I personally think boats are a waste of time and money. I do not tell my friends with 30k or more in a bass or sking boat that they are kidding themselves that that bass boat will help them catch any more fish.
Or how about an expensive piece of Jewelry am i a fool for going to Tiffany's and spending money there when I could go to walmart and buy a piece of jewelry there.
I know there is a difference and I am not kidding myself. The vast majority of people who have experienced a true Hi end system are impressed. You are talking about inteligent and affluent people who buy these systems. Do you think they got to where they are with out having a concept of value. The people who buy that gear are the movers and shakers of society they did not get ther by kidding themselves.

[Resident Loser]

...of only adding to your opinion of me but, are you really that naive?

First, you take all this bull far too personally. I don't see where skeptic singled you out. As I have stated previously, there is a "stereo"type that exhibits the traits he alludes to.

Friends say a lot of nice things to friends, because that's what they do.

There was no comment on YOUR rationale, he was speaking to the type...you however have made an unwarranted assumption about him, stating: "...you obviously have never bought it yourself.." You don't know that about him or anyone else who posts here...Ever hear "been there, done that"...that pesky thing called experience. I know...I've "been there, done that"...Excellent performance can be had for a fraction of the cost of high-end stuff, from what the "type" would call "mid-fi" gear.

Anyone can choose to spend whatever on their particular hobby, that's a given...but I have some news for you, better gear CAN improve your skills; fishing, photography, hunting or whatever and I don't think audio falls in line with the same interactive mechanics required. The former can produce definitive, demonstrable, physical results...can the same be said for the latter?

If you could purchase the same watch or ring or? at Wal-Mart, buying it at Tiffany's would simply be an ego-stroke to provide you with bragging rights and a little blue box complete with white ribbon.

"...The vast majority of people who have experienced a true Hi end system are impressed..."

Highly debateable on any number of levels...

"...You are talking about inteligent and affluent people who buy these systems..."

Again, highly debateable...

"...Do you think they got to where they are with out having a concept of value..."

Quite honestly and in many cases, my answer is: YES! A great many wear their wealth on their sleeves...Value? Some folks love to show off, and only the "best" will do...

"...The people who buy that gear are the movers and shakers of society they did not get ther by kidding themselves..."

Actually, they probably "got there" by being cheap, slimey, SOBs.. and why are they thought of as "movers and shakers"? Could outward appearances play any part?

jimHJJ(...simply beaing a realist...)

[996turbo]

I understand where you are coming from I know he was not speaking directly to me only a group. I was just speaking out as a member of that group.
You make alot of presumptions in your post as I did I guess that is a downfall of both sides in any discussion.
I have never met you and would reserve judgement on you until I have experienced you in person. I am sure you are a very interesting person and not how you come across occasionally on this board(as I would think you would say of me)
I will reserve my opinions on things until I have experienced them.
I guess it is like a person who never votes in an election and then *****es about who is in office or what is going on.

[Resident Loser]

...looking at things from my own perspective, them dang biases are obviously at work...however, what seemed presumptive on my part?

jimHJJ(...just curious...)

[okiemax]

Mid Fi is a derogatory term invented by extremely stupid snobs who want to justify the outrageous prices they paid for equipment that may be no better in many, most, or all usable respects than far cheaper equipment. One guy's ultra high end is another's mid fi. The ultra high end of today is the mid fi of tomorrow and the mid fi of today was the cutting edge of yesterday. The rationale for buying much of the most expensive equipment on the market has nothing to do with usable performance. People who think that there is a lot which can't be measured and therefore doesn't show up in tests and specifications are mostly kidding themselves. Such differences if and when they exist are generally extremely subtle if they can be heard at all. And what you consider high end, I consider a joke. Examples? A $10,000 audio amplifier that can only produce 10 watts of power. A pair of $3000 loudspeakers which cannot reproduce the lowest octave or two of audible sound. A phonograph cartridge that costs hundreds of dollars and needs 1 1/2 grams of force to track most records. Cables costing hundreds of dollars for which not one shred of evidence exists that they perform any better than Home Depot wire except in the fantasies of the guys who bought it. To me that's all Low Fi. Low Finance that is. A total waste of money on useless oversold junk. See, it's a matter of perspective.

The term "mid-fi" may be derogatory if you feel a need to be defensive about owning audio gear you suspect is mid-fi. I certainly didn't mean to be derogatory in using the term. At times, mid-fi gear was all I owned, and I didn't feel that made me less of a person. I still use mid-fi gear in my computer room. It's much better than what came with the computer, which I would call low-fi, if I can use that term without being accused of snobbery.

Your seeing "mid-fi" in print launched you into a tirade. I don't understand why you react with such strong emotion to the fact that some people believe they can improve their listening enjoyment by buying better components. In what way have they harmed you?

[Resident Loser]

...I believe you are quite mistaken...In this arena, the term is usually used as one of derision and is hardly the result of some sort of self-loathing, contrary to your opinion.

I, for the most part, usually use the term as sarcasm in correspondence with the "golden-eared" among us who use it, with regularity, as some sort of arbiter of hearing ability...

One can achieve excellent results with well-chosen "mid-if" stuff and for a fraction of the price of the "salon" gear, new or used.

"...Your seeing "mid-fi" in print launched you into a tirade..."

Hardly a tirade IMO, seems a reasonable estimate of the genre, albeit a startlingly frank one...

"...I don't understand why you react with such strong emotion to the fact that some people believe they can improve their listening enjoyment by buying better components. ..."

"...believe they can improve their listening enjoyment..." Which opens a whole 'nother can of worms...and brings us right back to square one, beliefs and facts may be mutually exclusive and there is no accounting for what may seem to "improve their listening enjoyment"...

" In what way have they harmed you?"

That's not the point, skep and the rest of "us" know better...however there are those who don't!

jimHJJ(...both sides of the story and all that...)

[okiemax]

...I believe you are quite mistaken...In this arena, the term is usually used as one of derision and is hardly the result of some sort of self-loathing, contrary to your opinion.

I, for the most part, usually use the term as sarcasm in correspondence with the "golden-eared" among us who use it, with regularity, as some sort of arbiter of hearing ability...

One can achieve excellent results with well-chosen "mid-if" stuff and for a fraction of the price of the "salon" gear, new or used.

"...Your seeing "mid-fi" in print launched you into a tirade..."

Hardly a tirade IMO, seems a reasonable estimate of the genre, albeit a startlingly frank one...

"...I don't understand why you react with such strong emotion to the fact that some people believe they can improve their listening enjoyment by buying better components. ..."

"...believe they can improve their listening enjoyment..." Which opens a whole 'nother can of worms...and brings us right back to square one, beliefs and facts may be mutually exclusive and there is no accounting for what may seem to "improve their listening enjoyment"...

" In what way have they harmed you?"

That's not the point, skep and the rest of "us" know better...however there are those who don't!

jimHJJ(...both sides of the story and all that...)

The term "mid-fi" is not in any dictionairy that I can find. Regardless of how it might usually be used on this Forum, the word in itself clearly is not derogatory. A Google search confirmed the word usually is used to describe a level of quality, and that is the way I used it. Certainly, "mid-fi" could be used in a deragatory way, such as in .....

Ignore the advice of the meter readers, they only know mid-fi.

Hey tin ears, ditch that mid-fi garbage and get some real gear!

Double blind yourself, you mid-fi moron!

I would expect statements such as these to provoke an angry response. However, I only used "mid-fi" in reference to performance differences in components. Perhaps the mere suggestion of performance differences provokes anger.

Although "mid-fi" may not have a dictionary definition, "tirade" does, and here is the one from Cambridge Dictionaries Online .... "a long angry speech expressing strong disapproval." Sketic's speech was long, angry, and expressed disapproval. And his calling people stupid certainly is derogatory.

Why not address the reason for the anger underlying Skeptic's tirade? Anger usually stems from fear of being hurt or from having been hurt. Obviously, he has strong feelings about isteners who claim to hear differences in components. I'll ask the question again. In what way have they harmed you?

[skeptic]

I have never said that some equipment isn't better than other equipment. Exactly the opposite. However, the term mid fi would make that distinction based on an artificial caste system and the term was invented for exactly the same reason that all caste systems are invented. Caste systems exist to promote the notion that worth is not an objective measurable attribute but is related to the mystique imbued into certain products to elevate their position far beyond their intrinsic worth at the expense of better products which do not have the same cache. Most so called high end audio equipment today falls into that category. Even where so called high end equipment outperforms so called mid fi equipment, it usually does it very marginally. The only thing that isn't marginal is the vast difference in price. The good news is that the so called mid fi of yesteryear is not in great demand because of ignorance and therefore much of it is available on the used market for far less than it would otherwise be worth.

[Resident Loser]

...there are countless words and phrases in the English language which are innocent by themselves, but take on a completely different connotation when used in specific contexts...surely, I needn't explain THAT...

As I stated, IMO, a "tirade" it was not...It wasn't all that long and it wasn't all that angry..."frank" was the word I chose...Did it become a "tirade" to you when costs vs. performance issues were cited? Not nearly as farfetched as some "performance" and "improvement" claims I've witnessed...Also, I recall only "snobs" being referred to as "stupid"...

Anger? Wasn't it Dick Nixon who said something to the effect of " in order to be angry with someone, you have to respect them"? IMHO, he quite simply doesn't suffer fools easily...

In what way have they harmed you?

None. Again, that's not the point. In fact, I could give neither feather nor fig about how anyone spends their money...most have more money than brains...however, anecdotal postings should and will continue to be treated as they have thusfar...

jimHJJ(...both sides of the story and all that...)

[E-Stat]

...most expensive equipment on the market has nothing to do with usable performance.

Please define "usable performance". I've yet to hear a system better than mine where the audible improvements were not "usable".

rw

[Thomas_A]

Please define "usable performance". I've yet to hear a system better than mine where the audible improvements were not "usable".

rw

Define your view of audible improvement. Is it to reproduce the chain without audible coloration of the signal, or to your own personal taste? (Since it is impossible to reproduce the exact situation of every recording studio in the world, the perfect recreation of the signal as it was heard in the recording studio is not possible.)

[DMK]

[QUOTE=Thomas_A]Define your view of audible improvement. Is it to reproduce the chain without audible coloration of the signal, or to your own personal taste? QUOTE]

That question has been posed before and it always makes me think and/or wonder. The answer to it is, of course, both! In a perfect world, components that are measured as transparent would also sound good and those that sound good would measure properly. The fact that neither is an absolute true statement across the board makes me wonder if sonic neutrality/transparency is really what I'm after with a stereo rig.

I've listened to systems that measure nearly perfectly. With even stellar recordings, they sound flat and distorted - nothing at all like live music, which I go hear at every opportunity. I'm aware of the length of sonic memory but I believe that once one has the sound of an instrument in his head i.e the sound of a piano, guitar, violin, that this sound is ingrained - at least his hearing of it. These perfectly measuring systems are so far away from the sound of live music (let's say, a solo violin for simplicity) that I would not own one as my main rig. I'm not just talking about cheap receivers with their infintesimal THD numbers, I'm also talking basic solid state from the likes of Krell and Classe, to name two. Tubed amps, which measure worse, sound much closer to a live instrument, whether is because of their measured distortion or in spite of it. Vinyl, also, communicates this sound much better than CD in most cases.

It's not enough to offer an either/or - either transparent or euphonic. There needs to be a third choice as an audible improvement in MY system occurs when my system takes a closer step towards the sound of live music. It's a subjective ideology, of course, but so is music itself. It's when I try to place music and its reproduction into neat, quantifiable categories that make sense on paper, that I lose sight of the enjoyment of it. My current system has been in place for several years with the exception of my phono cartridge. When it is time to upgrade, it's not going to be the component with the best measurements that I purchase - unless reality somehow meets theory and it's the best sounding piece!

[E-Stat]

Define your view of audible improvement. Is it to reproduce the chain without audible coloration of the signal, or to your own personal taste? (Since it is impossible to reproduce the exact situation of every recording studio in the world, the perfect recreation of the signal as it was heard in the recording studio is not possible.)

You have a mastery for stating the obvious. I have, however, participated in one very nice Telarc recording by the ASO. I do know how that sounded. I know how that hall sounds having been there many a time.

To an extent, the answer to your leading question is some of both: I seek accuracy to the original - subject to my listening priorities given an imperfect world. I will happily give up some performance at the frequency extremes to achieve the most natural midrange.

rw

[Thomas_A]

E-Stat,

one problem with your subjective method is that IF there are true audible differences in your tested players, there is no way you know if you are preferring players with some flaws that are otherwise compensating for any other flaw in the system (e.g. treble level). Thus claiming any superiority of certain expensive players with differences in frequency response may just be plain wrong when it comes to reproducing the original signal.

[skeptic]

"I've yet to hear a system better than mine where the audible improvements were not "usable"."

Why don't you define better. Does better mean more expensive? Does it mean those guys over at Stereophile Magazine gave it a higher rating, A minus instead of B plus.

What is usable? A turntable with lower wow, flutter, and rumble is usable improvement up to a point. Once those are below the threshold of audibility, further improvements no longer matters. When rumble is minus 100 db, it won't sound any quieter if it gets down to minus 1000 db.

How about a cartridge which tracks at lower pressure and less distortion. That's usable. A lot of cartridges track at a gram and a half to two grams, have a high frequency peak, are hand made in small batches so no two are quite alike, and cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Do you call that usable? I don't. Some even have bodies made of wood, the worst conceivable material for manufacturing phonograph cartridges.

How about amplifiers which put out a few miserable watts so that the user is restricted to about three percent of the loudspeakers on the market yet these amplifiers cost thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. Is that usable performance? Or what about amplifiers that cost thousands that don't offer any benefit in terms of distortion, frequency response, bandwidth, or power output over amplifiers which only cost hundreds.

How about a $3000 pair of loudspeakers consisting of one or two 8" woofers and a 1" tweeter in a pair of 200 pound cabinets which can't reproduce the bottom two octaves of audible sound and if you say Mr. manufacturer what about it, he tells you to spend another $1500 on a subwoofer and figure out yourself how to integrate it with the rest of the system. What kind of crap is that?

Why does this stuff sell? Because it has cache. It's high up on the rank of "recommended equipment" in some Audio geek magazine. It's got prestige in the caste system which puts it above "mid fi." Funny thing is, you'd think if it was half as good as people claim it was, they wouldn't constantly be coming here to find out what kind of cables to buy because when you put it all together it sounds too bright or doesn't have enough of this or too much of that. And not one control incorporated by the manufacturer of any of it to help the end user adjust for unknown variables it will confront in its installation. Not a tone control, not a tweeter or midrange level control. Just a bunch of little spikes to rip up your carpet or scratch up your oak flooring. For an industry that has come so far, the state of the art in many ways is pathetic. And why? Because many of the people who buy this stuff have lost all sense of perspective. They know what everything costs, but have no idea of what it's worth. That's also a matter of perspective.

[DMK]

[QUOTE=skeptic
"Why don't you define better. Does better mean more expensive? Does it mean those guys over at Stereophile Magazine gave it a higher rating, A minus instead of B plus."

With a few exceptions, I seriously doubt anyone at Stereophile has heard the components I own and certainly none of their writers have heard the whole shebang together.

"What is usable? A turntable with lower wow, flutter, and rumble is usable improvement up to a point. Once those are below the threshold of audibility, further improvements no longer matters. When rumble is minus 100 db, it won't sound any quieter if it gets down to minus 1000 db."

True but there are other factors that make turntables sonically different from one another.

"How about a cartridge which tracks at lower pressure and less distortion. That's usable. A lot of cartridges track at a gram and a half to two grams, have a high frequency peak, are hand made in small batches so no two are quite alike, and cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Do you call that usable? I don't. "

I don't, either. Consequently, I only enjoy MC cartridges that do NOT have high frequency peaks. The only cartridge I've listened to with much regularity that tracks at very low pressure sounds very flat and unlifelike i.e more distortion from a sonic viewpoint. There's that personal taste again.

"How about amplifiers which put out a few miserable watts so that the user is restricted to about three percent of the loudspeakers on the market yet these amplifiers cost thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. Is that usable performance? Or what about amplifiers that cost thousands that don't offer any benefit in terms of distortion, frequency response, bandwidth, or power output over amplifiers which only cost hundreds."

Amps with a "few miserable watts" may sound more like live music. Wattage in and of itself isn't "usable performance", at least not in my lexicon. Some of the foulest sounding amps out there have more power than most of us would ever need. Conversely, some of the finest sounding amps have 25 watts or less - which consequently is more than I need. It's all about sound.

"How about a $3000 pair of loudspeakers consisting of one or two 8" woofers and a 1" tweeter in a pair of 200 pound cabinets which can't reproduce the bottom two octaves of audible sound and if you say Mr. manufacturer what about it, he tells you to spend another $1500 on a subwoofer and figure out yourself how to integrate it with the rest of the system. What kind of crap is that?"

How about the myriad of sub-$1000 loudspeakers (or even more expensive) that CAN give you the bottom two octaves but sound like cats fighting in the treble, or like singers are holding megaphones in the midrange, or bass that hangs in your room and sounds like thumpy syrup? Based on your posts over the years, you buy components based on sound rather than pure numbers. So what's with THIS post???

"And not one control incorporated by the manufacturer of any of it to help the end user adjust for unknown variables it will confront in its installation. Not a tone control, not a tweeter or midrange level control. " .[/QUOTE]

Agreed. The argument is that we have to suffer through bad recordings. The problem is we may also have to suffer with certain anomalies in the room. Some user adjustments are often necessary.

[E-Stat]

Why don't you define better.

Brings me closer to the musical event.

Does better mean more expensive?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I don't look at pricetags first.

Does it mean those guys over at Stereophile Magazine gave it a higher rating, A minus instead of B plus.

I don't use their categories as a point of reference. I use my own experience.

What is usable? A turntable with lower wow, flutter, and rumble is usable improvement up to a point.

True. That point, however, is significantly higher than you will find with your Dual. I find larger differences in the tonearm - cartridge combination. As in ones that create a rock stable image with subterranean bass and clear, extended high frequencies.

How about amplifiers which put out a few miserable watts so that the user is restricted to about three percent of the loudspeakers on the market yet these amplifiers cost thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. Is that usable performance?

Since I am not a fan of horns, I have not heard any of the SET amps. Not my thing.

Or what about amplifiers that cost thousands that don't offer any benefit in terms of distortion, frequency response, bandwidth, or power output over amplifiers which only cost hundreds.

I'm not interested in those. I am, however, interested in those that typically do cost thousands of dollars that leave the "hundreds of dollars" category in the dust in terms of image specificity, timbral accuracy, and power.

How about a $3000 pair of loudspeakers consisting of one or two 8" woofers and a 1" tweeter in a pair of 200 pound cabinets which can't reproduce the bottom two octaves of audible sound and if you say Mr. manufacturer what about it, he tells you to spend another $1500 on a subwoofer and figure out yourself how to integrate it with the rest of the system. What kind of crap is that?

Good question. I'm not a fan of box speakers at that budget.

Funny thing is, you'd think if it was half as good as people claim it was, they wouldn't constantly be coming here to find out what kind of cables to buy because when you put it all together it sounds too bright or doesn't have enough of this or too much of that.

Or choice "B", like any high performance machine, one can reach higher levels of audible performance with matched components.

And not one control incorporated by the manufacturer of any of it to help the end user adjust for unknown variables it will confront in its installation. Not a tone control, not a tweeter or midrange level control.

Here again you are not citing the components I choose. My 'stats have a high frequency level control on the transformers. The best speakers I've heard, the Alon Grand Exoticas, offer level controls via the active crossover.

There are a number of high end components that don't match your rant.

rw