Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 76
  1. #26
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani View Post
    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.

  2. #27
    Audio casualty StevenSurprenant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    592
    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!

  3. #28
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    12
    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...

  4. #29
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA View Post
    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 ), 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
    Audio Technica ATPL120
    Bellari VP130
    Grant Fidelity TubeDAC-11
    Class-D Audio SDS-254
    Magnepan MMGs

    "... and engineers are now officially banned from all future philosophy conferences."

  5. #30
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    355
    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.

  6. #31
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by tube fan View Post
    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.

  7. #32
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by tube fan View Post
    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.

  8. #33
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by tube fan View Post
    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.

  9. #34
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    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...

  10. #35
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    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.

  11. #36
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani View Post
    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).

  12. #37
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani View Post
    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.
    Last edited by RGA; 12-23-2011 at 08:10 PM.

  13. #38
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani View Post
    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! ).

  14. #39
    Forum Regular swan24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    108

    objective?... maybe...

    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.)

  15. #40
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by texlle View Post
    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

  16. #41
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat View Post
    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).

  17. #42
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by tube fan View Post
    .... 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.
    Last edited by Feanor; 12-28-2011 at 06:02 AM.

  18. #43
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by tube fan View Post
    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".

  19. #44
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by tube fan View Post
    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.

  20. #45
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat View Post
    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.

  21. #46
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    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.

  22. #47
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    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.

  23. #48
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat View Post
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Feanor
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by Feanor; 12-29-2011 at 06:04 AM.

  24. #49
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326
    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

    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  25. #50
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    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.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •