Audiophile Myths or Facts?

[E-Stat]

And for the really expensive stuff....isn't it that you buy it just because you can?

Still wondering...........................

Perhaps for some. I simply enjoy hearing spectacular systems - most of which are beyond my reach. Hearing one possessing truly high resolution, robust dynamic range, authority, and wall disappearing imaging can be seductive - is that ten times better than something else? What does that mean? Who knows?

rw

[Chas Underhay]

Yes and no when it comes to bad recordings sounding (relatively) worse on good equipment. I have quite few recordings that sounded atrocious on my old, bad equipment but sound more than acceptable on the good stuff.

In particular many "bright" recordings now sound pretty good without the old grain and hash, leaving a lot more genuine detail and transparency than I'd ever thought was there. None of this category has gone from hated to most loved, but many have gone from unlistenable to quite tolerable.

Point taken Feanor, I should have said "some" bad recordings not all.

I have a CD player and a CD recorder, both are fairly modest. I generally prefer the sound of the player; to me, sounds more accurate but I have found that some less good recordings can sound "nicer" (certianly not more accurate) when played in the CD recorder as it seems to slightly veil the imperfections.

Do you think there may also be some psychological factor involved in as much as if you are used to good quality reproduction of music; you find poor quality sound and poor quality recordings far more offensive to your ears than somebody who is only used to hearing music through something like a tansistor radio.

Cheers

Chas

[Feanor]

...

Do you think there may also be some psychological factor involved in as much as if you are used to good quality reproduction of music; you find poor quality sound and poor quality recordings far more offensive to your ears than somebody who is only used to hearing music through something like a tansistor radio.

Cheers

Chas

It's difficult to go back from relatively good sound to less good. I've felt that way and recent comments by others suggest it too where they describe thier dissatisfaction when they've had to subsitute an older one for a newer, better one that's gone to the shop for repair.

[musicoverall]

Perhaps for some. I simply enjoy hearing spectacular systems - most of which are beyond my reach. Hearing one possessing truly high resolution, robust dynamic range, authority, and wall disappearing imaging can be seductive - is that ten times better than something else? What does that mean? Who knows?

rw

A system that costs 10x more than mine does not need to sound 10x "better". I'd settle for a 50% improvement and some of the systems I've heard do even better than that. Incremental improvements are expensive, as I'm sure you're aware, but they're often worth it.

[Ajani]

A system that costs 10x more than mine does not need to sound 10x "better". I'd settle for a 50% improvement and some of the systems I've heard do even better than that. Incremental improvements are expensive, as I'm sure you're aware, but they're often worth it.

This is exactly why there is so much debate about concepts such as diminishing returns. For someone determined to get that absolute last grain of detail and refinement in sound quality, paying 10x as much for a 50% increase in sound quality seems fine.... but to the average person, it is a ridiculous waste of money and is more of an obsession than anything else...

EDIT: My view is that as you spend more, you tend to get marginal improvements in sound and so you generally have to spend a LOT more to get substanially better sound. So my approach is to figure out how much I can afford to spend on my stereo and then pick the best I can get for my money. There will always be better sound available If I'm willing to spend more, but I don't believe in being heavily in debt over it....