SOtM Launches sMB-Q370 Motherboard

“Lab” tests, such as blind testing for audio, have the potential to demonstrate statistically significant differences between levels of independent variables; e.g., Amp A vs. Amp B. Such tests are “conservative”. If statistically significant differences are established, we are justified in having confidence in replicability. Of course this standard is necessary/a pre-requisite for medical treatments etc. The absence of such tests, or the absence of statistically significant effects when such tests are undertaken, does not mean that no differences between levels exist. Increasing the sensitivity of tests – whether formulation and specificity of the proposal, attendant design, adjustment of apparatus, rigour of procedure – may yet yield differences that might otherwise have been discarded with unwanted bath water. The call for DBTs is understandable – but failure to implement, conduct and report a “successful” DBT is never proof of the absence of an effect.

Only the ignorant deny that cognitive biases and dissonance are a partial explanation of what audiophiles experience subjectively. Yet how much more foolish and disagreeable the sceptic who insists that no SQ deltas bar those demonstrated in the lab are permissible to the audio hobbyist.

1 hour ago, Iving said:

“Lab” tests, such as blind testing for audio, have the potential to demonstrate statistically significant differences between levels of independent variables; e.g., Amp A vs. Amp B. Such tests are “conservative”. If statistically significant differences are established, we are justified in having confidence in replicability. Of course this standard is necessary/a pre-requisite for medical treatments etc. The absence of such tests, or the absence of statistically significant effects when such tests are undertaken, does not mean that no differences between levels exist. Increasing the sensitivity of tests – whether formulation and specificity of the proposal, attendant design, adjustment of apparatus, rigour of procedure – may yet yield differences that might otherwise have been discarded with unwanted bath water. The call for DBTs is understandable – but failure to implement, conduct and report a “successful” DBT is never proof of the absence of an effect.

 

 

 

Only the ignorant deny that cognitive biases and dissonance are a partial explanation of what audiophiles experience subjectively. Yet how much more foolish and disagreeable the sceptic who insists that no SQ deltas bar those demonstrated in the lab are permissible to the audio hobbyist.

 

There was a study, a DBL test, done by the Boston Audio Society in the 1970-80's time frame. They showed that people, in this study all audiophiles, COULD NOT tell the difference between amps.

Then there was a recent Archimago column that talked about how some audiophiles are more about the equipment than actual sound. This also colours the view.

People underestimate how much our emotions and memories affect what we hear. Hearing has been shown, in psychological studies, to be one of the senses that is affected the most by our emotions and memories.

12 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

There was a study, a DBL test, done by the Boston Audio Society in the 1970-80's time frame. They showed that people, in this study all audiophiles, COULD NOT tell the difference between amps.

 

Then there was a recent Archimago column that talked about how some audiophiles are more about the equipment than actual sound. This also colours the view.

 

People underestimate how much our emotions and memories affect what we hear. Hearing has been shown, in psychological studies, to be one of the senses that is affected the most by our emotions and memories.

Well - as argued, null results aren't proof of no difference - whatever that difference may be - should it exist at all.

Yep - familiar with the adage that audiophiles use music to listen to their equipment and not vv. I'm not one!

Yes - as already agreed, "Only the ignorant deny that cognitive biases and dissonance are a partial explanation of what audiophiles experience subjectively." I agree with you even more wholeheartedly. The realm of "brain" we barely touch upon in our conversations. Understandable for the most part. Nobody on the planet truly has much of an idea how to fathom the human brain and its capabilities.

Perhaps what's lurking here is not so much whether what audiophiles say is "legitimate" (and according to who) - but whether manufacturers should be obliged to back up all their assertions empirically. Not practicable for many reasons - expense being not the least. Nobody would agree with their Method anyway. We hobbyists can't even agree on the parameters of a valid blind test.

I can think of better ways to lure audiophools out of their delusions than attack, belittlement, insistence on "science" and blind tests.

Not referring to your good self of course. Just the general run of polarised debate.

57 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Well - as argued, null results aren't proof of no difference - whatever that difference may be - should it exist at all.

 

Yep - familiar with the adage that audiophiles use music to listen to their equipment and not vv. I'm not one!

 

Yes - as already agreed, "Only the ignorant deny that cognitive biases and dissonance are a partial explanation of what audiophiles experience subjectively." I agree with you even more wholeheartedly. The realm of "brain" we barely touch upon in our conversations. Understandable for the most part. Nobody on the planet truly has much of an idea how to fathom the human brain and its capabilities.

 

Perhaps what's lurking here is not so much whether what audiophiles say is "legitimate" (and according to who) - but whether manufacturers should be obliged to back up all their assertions empirically. Not practicable for many reasons - expense being not the least. Nobody would agree with their Method anyway. We hobbyists can't even agree on the parameters of a valid blind test.

 

I can think of better ways to lure audiophools out of their delusions than attack, belittlement, insistence on "science" and blind tests.

 

Not referring to your good self of course. Just the general run of polarised debate.

Agree - both have to be done.

ASR seems to be the flag carrier, but they also seem to have a blind reverence that is as bad as some subjectivists.

People have to learn to agree to disagree - that is the best way to continue civil discourse and prevents the 'armed camp' mentality,

47 minutes ago, botrytis said:

ASR seems to be the flag carrier, but they also seem to have a blind reverence that is as bad as some subjectivists.

So true

47 minutes ago, botrytis said:

People have to learn to agree to disagree - that is the best way to continue civil discourse and prevents the 'armed camp' mentality,

Amen to that

somewhere back around page three I pointed out that any "discussion" about double blind tests in audio or the topic of measurements vs. listening tests is endless and  fruitless. So much so that many forums ban them outright or only allow it in one room of the forum.

the endless, fruitless "debate"  going on here that is basically repeating what has been  stated many, many times in the past on many forums pretty much proves my point. 

so... has anybody bought one of these boards and tried it?

59 minutes ago, bbosler said:

somewhere back around page three I pointed out that any "discussion" about double blind tests in audio or the topic of measurements vs. listening tests is endless and  fruitless. So much so that many forums ban them outright or only allow it in one room of the forum.

 

the endless, fruitless "debate"  going on here that is basically repeating what has been  stated many, many times in the past on many forums pretty much proves my point. 

 

so... has anybody bought one of these boards and tried it?

sMB-Q370 (artiz.info)

It is $550.00 for the board alone and more if you want the external clocks. If you add the clocks the board goes up to 3K in price.

10 hours ago, extracampine said:

But not necessarily likely to lead to reliable audible differences, hence the need for a DBT to answer that question properly.

 

What do you want to 'prove'? That a mobo that happens to generate lots of extra electrical noise, as compared to one that is less prone, may cause audible changes for a particular combination of audio components? Or that the mobo that is the subject of this will cause a change for any audio rig? Or that this mobo may cause a change is some setups?

The first objective is silly - it will always be possible to find a really noisy motherboard, that will impact some really badly implemented components. The second objective is also silly - there will always be systems that are good enough, as is, to reject the noise interference. So, what's the point of the third? Okay, we do some subjective testing, find an audio combo which reacts, positively, to the presence of that mobo - and then test that, under DBT conditions against a group of listeners - if a positive outcome of that test meets the standards of being valid ... what have we accomplished?

To me, this is all in the realm of, say, buying a car that won't break down over a really bad bit of road - we go to great lengths, in a scientific study, to find a car that doesn't break down ... now, is that meaningful in the grand scheme of things?

10 hours ago, extracampine said:

No, like I said, in any field where it actually matters (take developing medications as an example) there is a need to prove it can happen. It's not bizarre at all. And if you're looking at parting with hundreds or thousands of $ for audio equipment then it's not bizarre either that we would want to know if something is better or not. 

It's the "something is better" angle that's everything here - does it have to be better for absolutely everyone who may possibly consider buying it, or does it only have to be better for a few individuals?

If a medication 'works' for only 50% of those who try it, is that a product a scam, because so many people have wasted their money?

10 hours ago, extracampine said:

 

 

No, of course not. Individuals are free to do what they like with their own systems. The point is that the fact that you think it sounds better could quite possibly be due to placebo/expectation bias/etc - so other people can not make any conclusions from it. This is fine for you in your own home if you're not bothered about that - but when we're talking about the consumer market and expensive purchases, then many will want reliable information to guide them. 

Reliable information? In the audio world? ... You've got me rolling on the floor with that one ...

10 hours ago, extracampine said:

 

 

I'm not entirely sure on your point; you had said that there had been attempts to do this sort of thing already (DBT) and that the backlash from certain groups (e.g. AES) has been strong. I had countered by saying so what if there is a backlash, it's all in the name of progress. You seem to be agreeing with me on this one.

Yes, progress will happen ... what irks me is that the pace of such is so slow - luckily, the manufacturers of the raw ingredients of audio systems have not been standing still, in the meantime; meaning, that very low cost setups are vastly better in key areas than they were say 30 years ago.

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

What do you want to 'prove'? That a mobo that happens to generate lots of extra electrical noise, as compared to one that is less prone, may cause audible changes for a particular combination of audio components? Or that the mobo that is the subject of this will cause a change for any audio rig? Or that this mobo may cause a change is some setups?

Prove is not the correct word, as you can never prove something 100% - instead you can show something to be highly likely, with good statistical power and small confidence intervals. What exactly you want to show would be up to the person who designs the study. You could aim to show any of those things that you suggest. In terms of our discussion, your first suggestion would fit best - whether the motherboard causes any audible changes for a particular combination of audio components. You raise a good point - ideally you would conduct this study with a few different combinations of audio components, in case there is any spurious result. 

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

The first objective is silly - it will always be possible to find a really noisy motherboard, that will impact some really badly implemented components.

Well, I wouldn't be so sure. The concept of electrical "noise" is often spoken about on audio forums, yet the evidence seems to suggest that this doesn't audibly affect the SQ. A DBT like we were discussing would answer this question. 

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

To me, this is all in the realm of, say, buying a car that won't break down over a really bad bit of road - we go to great lengths, in a scientific study, to find a car that doesn't break down ... now, is that meaningful in the grand scheme of things?

Yes, very. If a (valid) study is done to find a car that doesn't break down, that would be meaningful. The chances of that car breaking down when you are driving it would be significantly less - but never zero, which links in to my point above about the word "prove".

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

It's the "something is better" angle that's everything here - does it have to be better for absolutely everyone who may possibly consider buying it, or does it only have to be better for a few individuals?

Now you're talking about statistics and statistical power. This depends how certain you want to be on your results. The more people you include in the study, the more powerful it will be and the more valid the results will be. So, again similar to my point about the word "prove", it would highly unlikely be "better for absolutely everyone" - nothing ever is, that is an unrealistic goal. So for example, statistically it might be better for 95 out of 100 people, which is a vast majority when it comes to audio!

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

If a medication 'works' for only 50% of those who try it, is that a product a scam, because so many people have wasted their money?

Well, medications don't just work or not work; it's not as simple as that. They increase or reduce the risk of things from happening. So you could, for example, be taking a medication to reduce your risk of heart attack (e.g. if you were obese and a smoker) - and it might reduce your risk from 70% to 50% - and you could still have a heart attack. But that doesn't mean that the medication hasn't worked; it has still reduced your risk. The question is how certain can we be that it reduces the risk from 70% to 50%. To draw an analogy with audio, if we can be highly certain that a component increases the SQ from 60% to 70%, say (to use some arbitrary measure of SQ) then that information is useful. 

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

Reliable information? In the audio world? ... You've got me rolling on the floor with that one ...

Yes, isn't that the whole point of this discussion? We require more studies such as DBTs to obtain this reliable information!

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

Yes, progress will happen ... what irks me is that the pace of such is so slow - luckily, the manufacturers of the raw ingredients of audio systems have not been standing still, in the meantime; meaning, that very low cost setups are vastly better in key areas than they were say 30 years ago.

You may well be right, I've not really looked into that. You'd have to do a DBT... 😂

The other thing is this MB is for Gen 8-9 Intel CPU's not the 14th gen that just came out.

3 hours ago, botrytis said:

The other thing is this MB is for Gen 8-9 Intel CPU's not the 14th gen that just came out.

Is that a problem?

2 hours ago, Crwilli57 said:

Is that a problem?

It is to me since, the newest processors from Intel are fairly efficient and even new MB's for that CPU are not that much. Better data transfer, faster memory, etc.  I need to correct 12th Gen is the newest.

11 hours ago, extracampine said:

 

Prove is not the correct word, as you can never prove something 100% - instead you can show something to be highly likely, with good statistical power and small confidence intervals. What exactly you want to show would be up to the person who designs the study. You could aim to show any of those things that you suggest. In terms of our discussion, your first suggestion would fit best - whether the motherboard causes any audible changes for a particular combination of audio components. You raise a good point - ideally you would conduct this study with a few different combinations of audio components, in case there is any spurious result. 

 

Note, the first consideration is that a, as yet not specified, MB which is particularly noisy can impact some combination of audio components; this would be verified by comparing another MB, most likely this one, in that same audio setup.

11 hours ago, extracampine said:

Well, I wouldn't be so sure. The concept of electrical "noise" is often spoken about on audio forums, yet the evidence seems to suggest that this doesn't audibly affect the SQ. A DBT like we were discussing would answer this question. 

Well, if you want to really explore this, take several units of a well designed, say, amplifier; leave one alone, and in the others remove various levels of all the the electrical parts which serve no purpose other than to attenuate the impact of noise - and run a DBT as to whether the standard, and degraded units all sound identical, having made sure that there is a lot of electrical noise present externally. If not detectable, advise all manufacturers to forget about including this in the manufacture; it reduces the profit margin having unnecessary bits inside .

11 hours ago, extracampine said:

 

 

Yes, very. If a (valid) study is done to find a car that doesn't break down, that would be meaningful. The chances of that car breaking down when you are driving it would be significantly less - but never zero, which links in to my point above about the word "prove".

The point here is that no-one questions the concept that a car can break down on a bad road, because of engineering not up to the task; so, why should less than best engineering of the parts that make up an audio system not cause audible anomalies?

11 hours ago, extracampine said:

 

 

Now you're talking about statistics and statistical power. This depends how certain you want to be on your results. The more people you include in the study, the more powerful it will be and the more valid the results will be. So, again similar to my point about the word "prove", it would highly unlikely be "better for absolutely everyone" - nothing ever is, that is an unrealistic goal. So for example, statistically it might be better for 95 out of 100 people, which is a vast majority when it comes to audio!

My point would be, that if it's better for a certain proportion, even if that's just 5 out of 100 people, then its existence is justified. That the other 95 won't benefit is irrelevant - if curious, they can trial it; and return it, or sell it to someone else who is curious. Which of course is exactly how the audio community works ... .

11 hours ago, extracampine said:

 

 

Well, medications don't just work or not work; it's not as simple as that. They increase or reduce the risk of things from happening. So you could, for example, be taking a medication to reduce your risk of heart attack (e.g. if you were obese and a smoker) - and it might reduce your risk from 70% to 50% - and you could still have a heart attack. But that doesn't mean that the medication hasn't worked; it has still reduced your risk. The question is how certain can we be that it reduces the risk from 70% to 50%. To draw an analogy with audio, if we can be highly certain that a component increases the SQ from 60% to 70%, say (to use some arbitrary measure of SQ) then that information is useful. 

And most tweaks, like this MB, are aimed to "reduce the risk" of sub-optimal SQ. If at least someone, most likely the manufacturer, can verify that the spectrum of electrical noise is significantly less for this unit, then we do have useful information. But consumers, and manufacturers, learn this is not how it's done in the audio world - hype is the name of the game, if you want to sell product.

11 hours ago, extracampine said:

 

 

Yes, isn't that the whole point of this discussion? We require more studies such as DBTs to obtain this reliable information!

 

 

You may well be right, I've not really looked into that. You'd have to do a DBT... 😂

Personally, I was way past anything like DBTs decades ago - either a system sounds 'right', or it doesn't. What the latter means is that one becomes irritated while listening; there is something disturbing in the sound which prevents one from being "in tune" with the music. The excuse many use is, "It's a bad recording!!" - this is an easy out, meaning that one doesn't explore further, to determine if there are, say, noise interference factors ... when you accept that such is possible, then you stand an excellent chance of extracting more, from any rig .

31 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Note, the first consideration is that a, as yet not specified, MB which is particularly noisy can impact some combination of audio components; this would be verified by comparing another MB, most likely this one, in that same audio setup.

 

 

Well, if you want to really explore this, take several units of a well designed, say, amplifier; leave one alone, and in the others remove various levels of all the the electrical parts which serve no purpose other than to attenuate the impact of noise - and run a DBT as to whether the standard, and degraded units all sound identical, having made sure that there is a lot of electrical noise present externally. If not detectable, advise all manufacturers to forget about including this in the manufacture; it reduces the profit margin having unnecessary bits inside .

 

 

The point here is that no-one questions the concept that a car can break down on a bad road, because of engineering not up to the task; so, why should less than best engineering of the parts that make up an audio system not cause audible anomalies?

 

 

My point would be, that if it's better for a certain proportion, even if that's just 5 out of 100 people, then its existence is justified. That the other 95 won't benefit is irrelevant - if curious, they can trial it; and return it, or sell it to someone else who is curious. Which of course is exactly how the audio community works ... .

 

 

And most tweaks, like this MB, are aimed to "reduce the risk" of sub-optimal SQ. If at least someone, most likely the manufacturer, can verify that the spectrum of electrical noise is significantly less for this unit, then we do have useful information. But consumers, and manufacturers, learn this is not how it's done in the audio world - hype is the name of the game, if you want to sell product.

 

 

Personally, I was way past anything like DBTs decades ago - either a system sounds 'right', or it doesn't. What the latter means is that one becomes irritated while listening; there is something disturbing in the sound which prevents one from being "in tune" with the music. The excuse many use is, "It's a bad recording!!" - this is an easy out, meaning that one doesn't explore further, to determine if there are, say, noise interference factors ... when you accept that such is possible, then you stand an excellent chance of extracting more, from any rig .

Personally, I believe you never been in a properly DBT, as they are hard to do and setup.

The phrase 'garbage in, garbage out' comes to mind. There are bad recordings, it happens. That is the way they wanted them to sound.

I don't think you understand that digital data is just digital data, whether it be music (which is very simple, btw) or mass spec/NMR data. Both the latter are more susceptible to noise than music is. Audiophiles think music is some special case, it is not.

43 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Personally, I believe you never been in a properly DBT, as they are hard to do and setup.

True. I most likely would burn out doing it, since the ongoing repetition would cause me to lose interest, and end up giving any answer, just to get it over with. I have zero interest in having the enjoyment of listening to music reduced to a type of torture - so, I'll pass .

43 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

The phrase 'garbage in, garbage out' comes to mind. There are bad recordings, it happens. That is the way they wanted them to sound.

If someone recorded some music making with the intention of making it unpleasant to listen to, as I'm sure some have done - Amy Winehouse comes to mind, here ( that bloody song of hers came on the car radio, yesterday; I put up with it for about 30 seconds, and then I had to change stations ... ) - then, fair enough. So, I will filter it down, by excluding those very deliberately damaged ...

43 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

I don't think you understand that digital data is just digital data, whether it be music (which is very simple, btw) or mass spec/NMR data. Both the latter are more susceptible to noise than music is. Audiophiles think music is some special case, it is not.

 

And I don't think you appreciate that at some point on its journey to your ears that digitised music needs to become an analogue waveform - this is where the action is; throw a bit of noise into the converter, and/or any of the following stages - and dreary, lacklustre, plodding SQ emerges ... just ask any 'analogue' fan to explain what this is about, .

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

If someone recorded some music making with the intention of making it unpleasant to listen to, as I'm sure some have done - Amy Winehouse comes to mind, here ( that bloody song of hers came on the car radio, yesterday; I put up with it for about 30 seconds, and then I had to change stations ... ) - then, fair enough. So, I will filter it down, by excluding those very deliberately damaged ...

 

How are such recordings any different than bad recordings created through incompetence or subpar equipment?

3 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

How are such recordings any different than bad recordings created through incompetence or subpar equipment?

Yes, good question ... why it seems to be is that deliberately 'damaged' recordings are done in a manner that synchronises with the content; the manipulation is reacting to the input in a predictable way, to alter the quality - a classic example of this is a distortion pedal for an electric guitar. By contrast, incompetence or subpar equipment is more an 'accidental' thing.

Why this matters is that the listening brain is able to separate sounds which are incidental to the content, somewhat random in nature, asynchronous to the flow of the music to a large degree - it 'knows' that those sounds don't belong, and can discard it. But when the 'damage' is strongly linked to the ebb and flow, that separation is much harder.

A live example: someone plays a violin, and it starts raining heavily, on a metal roof. S/N is compromised, but the tone and sense of the piece still works. But, OTOH, if the player deliberately misses a note, going too flat or sharp, every now and again - this would be disturbing to listen to, because the anomaly is too strongly tied to the note production.

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

A live example: someone plays a violin, and it starts raining heavily, on a metal roof. S/N is compromised, but the tone and sense of the piece still works.

I could see this occurring in real life to some degree because the sounds would be coming from different places.

I think your opinion would change though if I recorded the violin and the sound of the rain hitting the metal roof separately and mixed these two down to a single recording.

5 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I could see this occurring in real life to some degree because the sounds would be coming from different places.

 

I think your opinion would change though if I recorded the violin and the sound of the rain hitting the metal roof separately and mixed these two down to a single recording.

This is precisely why it works for the listening brain, to have a playback working to the highest possible standard of accuracy. Yes, on a less than "good enough" rig those two sound elements would blur together; the sense of them occurring in "different spaces" would not be strong enough, because the clues are not clear enough. But play it on what I call a competent setup, and then it's trivially obvious that the violin and rain on the roof sounds are very distinct sound sources - this is where the Cocktail Party Effect kicks in; the listening mind is able to discard what it doesn't want to register.

Yes, it's coming from just two speakers - so why doesn't it mix? Well, consider a thought experiment; again in real life you listen to that violin, and rain on metal roof, but it only occurs in an adjacent room, with the sound of it coming to you via two separated, open doorways - would you be able to tell that the rain sounds are not connected to the violin, or not?

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

This is precisely why it works for the listening brain, to have a playback working to the highest possible standard of accuracy. Yes, on a less than "good enough" rig those two sound elements would blur together; the sense of them occurring in "different spaces" would not be strong enough, because the clues are not clear enough. But play it on what I call a competent setup, and then it's trivially obvious that the violin and rain on the roof sounds are very distinct sound sources - this is where the Cocktail Party Effect kicks in; the listening mind is able to discard what it doesn't want to register.

 

Yes, it's coming from just two speakers - so why doesn't it mix? Well, consider a thought experiment; again in real life you listen to that violin, and rain on metal roof, but it only occurs in an adjacent room, with the sound of it coming to you via two separated, open doorways - would you be able to tell that the rain sounds are not connected to the violin, or not?

I have zero evidence to suggest that my brain operates this way but I'm happy that yours does.

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

I have zero evidence to suggest that my brain operates this way but I'm happy that yours does.

Brains don't work that way, it is funny he thinks his does...

Our ears are more attuned to midrange than anything else.

http://umdberg.pbworks.com/w/page/131541489/Frequency response of the human ear

This is the best of human hearing and most of ours are degraded from there.

Most audiophiles who have evolved their systems through various standards of resolution are familiar with how this occurs - take a very busy recording, where there are multiple sound elements, which all contribute to the overall sense and 'picture' of what is being created. Starting from a low resolution setup, this all blends together, has an overall feel; but it's difficult to pinpoint what the individual instruments are doing at any particular moment. As the standard of the chain improves, the definition, the 'imaging' of each sound element is enhanced; you begin to 'see' each instrument operating within the soundscape, and can track what it's doing. At the top of the tree, the layering of what was recorded is completely exposed; it becomes effortless to focus on one specific sound - this is like the documentaries on how "famous recordings" were made, when someone associated with the production moves the volume sliders, to expose the contribution of a single track. Also, here, the acoustic of each sound element has its own identity, often unique compared to any others - contributing to the sense of layering of the sound.

A good recording of a stage production does this is a very dramatic, and impressive way - "The Phantom of the Opera" is an excellent example of this - this is so, vastly, vastly superior to listening to a live production, there's no comparison ... .

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

Most audiophiles who have evolved their systems through various standards of resolution are familiar with how this occurs - take a very busy recording, where there are multiple sound elements, which all contribute to the overall sense and 'picture' of what is being created. Starting from a low resolution setup, this all blends together, has an overall feel; but it's difficult to pinpoint what the individual instruments are doing at any particular moment. As the standard of the chain improves, the definition, the 'imaging' of each sound element is enhanced; you begin to 'see' each instrument operating within the soundscape, and can track what it's doing. At the top of the tree, the layering of what was recorded is completely exposed; it becomes effortless to focus on one specific sound - this is like the documentaries on how "famous recordings" were made, when someone associated with the production moves the volume sliders, to expose the contribution of a single track. Also, here, the acoustic of each sound element has its own identity, often unique compared to any others - contributing to the sense of layering of the sound.

 

A good recording of a stage production does this is a very dramatic, and impressive way - "The Phantom of the Opera" is an excellent example of this - this is so, vastly, vastly superior to listening to a live production, there's no comparison ... .

You take too many liberties to when you say, 'Most Audiophiles'. I don't think audiophiles think the way you do. If that were the case most of the high-end companies would have disappeared as we would be buying and modifying Edifier self-powered speakers like you have and claim it is nirvana (to you, they are - great - I am happy for you).

I think most audiophiles base it on experience and decide what they want form that - plain and simple,

10 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

 

You take too many liberties to when you say, 'Most Audiophiles'. I don't think audiophiles think the way you do. If that were the case most of the high-end companies would have disappeared as we would be buying and modifying Edifier self-powered speakers like you have and claim it is nirvana (to you, they are - great - I am happy for you).

 

I think most audiophiles base it on experience and decide what they want form that - plain and simple,

Audiophiles are chasing satisfying sound. Unless they are equipment obsessed. Both are attracted to high-end companies, for different reasons ... QED .

My path is hard, for most people. And it's very frustrating, for me, at times - hence, not so attractive. But when it falls into place, magic happens . In 30 plus years I've only heard a half dozen or so, expensive rigs done in the normal way deliver that intense, immersive hit that capable replay can offer - my interest is evolving understanding so what value for money systems can do this, straight out of the box ...