This I believe -

[Paul R]

This I believe - That computer audio is still in its infancy, and that curiosity is the most important aspect of this infancy. Curiosity begets discovery; discovery begets advancement.

I would never have believed, even a few years ago, that things like galvanic isolation, apps on a NAS, DLNA or Schumann resonance would have anything to do with me enjoying music as I do now. I am revisiting my entire large collection due to the above mentioned (and in some cases completely counter-intuitive) aspects of this hobby. Measurements are important verifiers, yes, but some things we yet do not know how to measure (and I believe some things we measure are likely not the right things). So yes, bits are bits...but there is so much more. It's exciting, really.

 

Very well said indeed. :)O

 

=+1!

[Paul R]

This I believe - The quality of the original recording/remastering is much more important than the sample rate or format.

 

Quod est bene dicta!

[gmgraves]

There are as many differing opinions about audio subjects as there as people who are interested in the subject. The points of view range all over the board, with pretty much an average of four popular opinions on each subject. Some less, some many more. But one of the wonderful things in our hobby is this - every opinion counts.

 

The current arguments raging around the Internet are often both polarizing and very rigid. That can make discussing them - unpleasant. So let's try a different approach in this topic. Here's the rules...

 

(1) Post a one paragraph message in reply to the topic starting with "This I believe - ".

It can be about any audio subject you want. Replies to your message can discuss what your subject, but think twice before you say anything in a reply/discussion to someone's post. Be sure your post addresses the subject and is not your opinion of the person who posted!

 

(2) You can post as many one paragraph "This I believe - " messages as you want, on as many different subjects as you want.

Please do not attack individuals or specific audio companies in your post, as that is totally not appropriate for this topic.

 

(3) You are absolutely allowed to change your mind about what you posted in a "This I believe - " message.

That is not an open invitation for people to evangelize you. It is permission to change your mind, for any reason you see fit.

 

There is an attached poll with some subjects you an vote on. The poll is anonymous and will allow multiple choices. If the subject you want to comment on is not there, and it probably will not be, please post a "This I believe - " post. I'll post a couple to give people examples of what I am thinking of.

 

Most of all - HAVE FUN with this. Personal attacks - from or to anyone - will be flagged as abuse.

 

-Paul

 

I believe that in this day and time, the definition of "high-end" has become very loose and unfocused making your question number 2 largely irrelevant.

 

It used to be axiomatic that components from the likes of Pioneer, Sony, Marantz (after Saul) et all were considered mid-fi. No ifs ands or buts about it. Equipment from Audio Research, Krell, Mark Levinson et al were high-end. Again, there was no ambiguity there. Now, some formerly "mid-fi" brands are now clearly high-end in both price and performance (but Hi-end brands are still high-end). I think these days the differentiation between mid-fi and high-end is more philosophical than either price points or place of origin. Mid-fi today describes equipment sold to a market buying appliances: A/V receivers, "rack systems", etc. and hi-end equipment is that equipment which is sold not so much on function but with the emphasis on sound quality.

[elcorso]

This I believe - That computer audio is still in its infancy, and that curiosity is the most important aspect of this infancy. Curiosity begets discovery; discovery begets advancement.

I would never have believed, even a few years ago, that things like galvanic isolation, apps on a NAS, DLNA or Schumann resonance would have anything to do with me enjoying music as I do now. I am revisiting my entire large collection due to the above mentioned (and in some cases completely counter-intuitive) aspects of this hobby. Measurements are important verifiers, yes, but some things we yet do not know how to measure (and I believe some things we measure are likely not the right things). So yes, bits are bits...but there is so much more. It's exciting, really.

 

+1

 

BTW, my new giant Schumann resonator just arrived. Tomorrow my full house will be under 7.83hZ, connected to the ground wire. If you don't know more about me I could be like Schumann: Buried...!

 

Ah, and there is no selfish from nobody. It's only to believe or not (like religion). Every one and every body is invited.

 

If some of you visited music audio forums discussing about different SQ from different electronic vacuum tubes could be fascinated, since nobody argue against the participating people taste in the tube of their choice.

 

Cheers!

 

Roch

[Foggie]

What I would give to shadow you for a week. Gosh.

 

No doubt.

[esldude]

+1

 

BTW, my new giant Schumann resonator just arrived. Tomorrow my full house will be under 7.83hZ, connected to the ground wire. If you don't know more about me I could be like Schumann: Buried...!

 

Ah, and there is no selfish from nobody. It's only to believe or not (like religion). Every one and every body is invited.

 

If some of you visited music audio forums discussing about different SQ from different electronic vacuum tubes could be fascinated, since nobody argue against the participating people taste in the tube of their choice.

 

Cheers!

 

Roch

 

Well the difference about those tubes is in some circuits they really do sound different. No arguing a preference. I have a tube preference myself. Isn't accurate, but I like it.

[audiventory]

Modern systems almost can reproduce full audible range in enought great quality.

 

But even greatest stereo, 5.1, ..., 24.2, ... systems can't re-create live concert hall.

 

It linked with restrictions of modern sound systems: speaker's radiation pattern, as example.

 

It will complex decission: recording and playing system that recreate concert hall in listening spot or in whole listening room (in 3D space).

 

Must we big coherence between:

 

1. system "recording hardware + recording room/hall"

 

2. system "playback hardware + playback room/hall"

 

We almost easy can achieve coherence batween both hardware. But room - never.

 

Thus need correction algorithm what automeasuring playback room. It's not only frequency response correction but "reconstruction sound field" correction.

 

Computers will sovle the problem. May be computers builtin to hardware.

[shum3s]

If what you happen to believe is true, then it is a self correcting situation, so no action is either required or desirable. Audio-Evolution in Action.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]16450[/ATTACH]

 

And if you are wrong, no grey hairs either.

 

"The Ichthus / Fish was chosen as an early secret Symbol indicating that the person who knew the meaning of the Ichthus was a Christian and safe to associate with. Being a Christian was extremely dangerous for hundreds of years following the life of Jesus due to the persecutions of the pagan Roman Emperors."

 

Paul I know you meet no harm, ( I am assuming you are very progressive with a high standard of tolerances ) but I do want to remind you that unlike audio that indeed evolves; what the early Christians believed over 2000 years ago has not evolved, all else being equal, it is as life changing then as it is now. Shalom!

[trithio]

This I believe: bits are bits and wires are wires.

 

This I believe: all amplifiers who use the same topology and measure the same, sound the same. Regardless of price.

 

This I believe: the hifi business is the third biggest con after financials and advertising. I am not including politics and religion because in theory those are not businesses.

[realhifi]

This I believe - Taj Mahal should be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

 

Oh, and I believe ones persons bliss is another's itch to scratch and no matter how much you itch, it won't change the others bliss.

[elcorso]

This I believe: bits are bits and wires are wires.

 

This I believe: all amplifiers who use the same topology and measure the same, sound the same. Regardless of price.

 

This I believe: the hifi business is the third biggest con after financials and advertising. I am not including politics and religion because in theory those are not businesses.

 

 

Bold is mine.

 

Could this be another case where the theory does not match reality? (Just and innocent question)

 

Roch

[trithio]

Bold is mine.

 

Could this be another case where the theory does not match reality? (Just and innocent question)

 

Roch

 

That is of course just a clueless theory.

[ted_b]

Well, we went quite a while, almost two pages, without the rudeness. Pretty good for a 100% opinionated thread.

[wanta911]

These things I believe:

 

One person's "smooth" is another person's "veiled"

One person's "clarity" is another person's "bright"

One person's "transparency" is another person's "harsh"

One person's "value for money" is another person's "extravagance"

One person's "night and day difference" is another person's "sorry - did you change something?"

One person's "audio nirvana" is another person's "work in progress"

 

Of course my perceptions on all of the above are always the "right" ones

[Jud]

This I believe: all amplifiers who use the same topology and measure the same, sound the same.

 

 

Wondered - when you say "topology," do you mean amplifier class (such as A, B, A/B, D) or something more specific (such as Circlotron or single-ended triode)?

[alfe]

This I believe: bits are bits and wires are wires.

 

This I believe: all amplifiers who use the same topology and measure the same, sound the same. Regardless of price.

 

This I believe: the hifi business is the third biggest con after financials and advertising. I am not including politics and religion because in theory those are not businesses.

 

Prot we missed you:)

[trithio]

Prot we missed you:)

 

Huh?! Am I again missing some common CA knowledge or what exactly is that?

[tranz]

Prot we missed you:)

 

That was funny. I was waiting for the 'prolly' though.

[Dr Tone]

I believe that a high percentage of what people report as differences in sound from questionable upgrades is related to expectation bias and hearing differences due to sleep, diet and other environmental changes that affect the human auditory system.

 

When making minor changes to a system, I believe no human has the auditory memory to truly remember exactly what their system sounded like 1 day ago never mind 6 months ago, especially with how environmental changes have such an affect on human hearing. If I'm going to compare how something sounds I need to be able to switch back and forth in less than a minute.

[Jud]

Huh?! Am I again missing some common CA knowledge or what exactly is that?

 

He's a former member who was banned. I have to say in my own estimation that you write a lot better than he did, and also mostly lack the self-aggrandizing posturing.

[Paul R]

"The Ichthus / Fish was chosen as an early secret Symbol indicating that the person who knew the meaning of the Ichthus was a Christian and safe to associate with. Being a Christian was extremely dangerous for hundreds of years following the life of Jesus due to the persecutions of the pagan Roman Emperors."

 

Paul I know you meet no harm, ( I am assuming you are very progressive with a high standard of tolerances ) but I do want to remind you that unlike audio that indeed evolves; what the early Christians believed over 2000 years ago has not evolved, all else being equal, it is as life changing then as it is now. Shalom!

 

I don't really argue evolution and faith, but in this case, a Darwin fish with earphones? ... (grin)

 

Apologies if I accidentally insulted anyone, I was just commenting on the idea of needing to correct audio misapprehensions.

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

This I believe: bits are bits and wires are wires.

 

This I believe: all amplifiers who use the same topology and measure the same, sound the same. Regardless of price.

 

This I believe: the hifi business is the third biggest con after financials and advertising. I am not including politics and religion because in theory those are not businesses.

 

Well, if that is really what you believe, OK. But what brings you to these audio shores then? Surely there must be some reason you are in this hobby?

 

-Paul

[Paul R]

These things I believe:

 

One person's "smooth" is another person's "veiled"

One person's "clarity" is another person's "bright"

One person's "transparency" is another person's "harsh"

One person's "value for money" is another person's "extravagance"

One person's "night and day difference" is another person's "sorry - did you change something?"

One person's "audio nirvana" is another person's "work in progress"

 

Of course my perceptions on all of the above are always the "right" ones

 

Interesting thoughts. So many of them all run together though.

 

Might be interesting if you wrote an essay on those lines and posted it on your blog or in a new topic. I'm not sure how I can see any of those being controversial.

 

-Paul

[trithio]

Oh come on guys. Did I land in the middle of a college party where everyone knows everyone and I am the traget of all clueless-new-guy jokes?

[Paul R]

Wondered - when you say "topology," do you mean amplifier class (such as A, B, A/B, D) or something more specific (such as Circlotron or single-ended triode)?

 

Yeah, that crossed my mind too. Class "A" amps don't all sound the same, as, at the very least, they have various power capabilities. Put them in the same system, and they tend to sound different to me at least. It is true that amplifiers to me do sound a lot alike if they are not straining and having problems servicing the load.

 

-Paul