IS EVERYTHING DEBATABLE, REALLY?

[beerandmusic]

Besides speakers and amp, I am almost at the point of believing that between the least expensive and most expensive gear there is less than a 10% improvement on SQ performance.

 

Some will debate that the Yggi is better than anything they have heard at any cost.

Some will debate the Gungnir sounds just as good, and some actually prefer it.

Some will debate that native DSD will sound better than any PCM on any DAC.

Some will debate that vinyl is still king.

Some will debate upsampling to 10x DSD will make everything sound better.

Some will debate playing in native resolution sounds best.

Some will debate DAC upsampling sounds best.

Some will debate software upsampling sounds best.

Some will debate network audio will sound better than USB.

Some will debate that there is no issues with USB with a quality dac.

Some will debate if you use USB you have to use a "usb toy"

 

This guy, who i actually trust as unbiased, suggests many believe there hasn't been any major improvements with audio until the SOTM ultra.

Perhaps this is the only real advancement (more than say 10% SQ improvement AT ANY PRICE?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCoFIdPLcUk

 

 

One thing that is for certain, is as much debate as there is, it REALLY is only subjective to one's opinion, as nothing seems to be proven or even passing of double blind tests.....

 

Even when someone does believe one setup may sound better, they have to listen VERY hard, and they will even admit they like some genre's better in one setup and different music with the other setup...ore even on the same track...I like cymbals better with this dac, but voice better with this dac....

 

Maybe we should just buy the latest Marantz AVR's that has gapless DSD ethernet streaming and not worry about the 10%, and a really good set of speakers....

That or maybe we should just wait until SOTM makes an all in one device that you can just plug into your amp....

 

....after all, it really is just subjective....

 

 

 

 

 

 

[trappy]

Is this one of those threads where we mock anyone who spends more than we do?

[fas42]

While people are hung up on magic words about the technology used in a particular case, then the "debating" will continue, ad infinitum ... ummm, It's the System, Stupid!

 

A bridge collapses, or doesn't, when a heavy load goes across it, not because a particular grade of steel was used, or the foundations were constructed by a certain company, or whether rope stays were used - it's the design, engineering  and construction of the whole that matters - and a seemingly trivial poor decision made about some aspect can be enough to completely undermine the integrity of what the bridge is supposed to handle.

 

Audio just happens to work the same way - everything that's part of it has to be "good enough!" for the reproduction to not be significantly degraded.

 

The good news is, that if the audio "bridge" is properly done then the subjective experience is, well, amazing - and never collapses ...

[mansr]

11 minutes ago, trappy said:

Is this one of those threads where we mock anyone who spends more than we do?

No, it's one of those threads where we mock anyone who is wrong.

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, trappy said:

Is this one of those threads where we mock anyone who spends more than we do?

 

Yeah. It's a bit like Penis size envy ?

[trappy]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

No, it's one of those threads where we mock anyone who is wrong.

I thought that was every thread ;-)

[Ralf11]

Valid listening tests solve the problem

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Valid listening tests solve the problem

Only if we can agree on what makes a valid test.

[beerandmusic]

16 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Valid listening tests solve the problem

 

hard to define a "valid listening test"...even double blind tests suggest that test B wins more often than test A even when nothing was changed (grin).

 

And it's difficult not to have any bias, even if it is just you doing the testing, as you will already lean one way or the other and it will usually take a dramatic difference for you to change your bias.

 

And even when someone can categorically convince themselves that one test always sounds better for all music and all tracks, it still doesn't solve the problem of how much one is willing to spend for x% of improvement.

 

Some people may be willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for even 1% improvement, where some will want a 20% improvement for $500, and that probably could be calculated with a formula using variables "obsession" and "wealth".

 

 

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

a formula using variables "obsession" and "wealth"

A fool and his money...

[beerandmusic]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

A fool and his money...

 

I think i have met my match with you.  I am an avid believer in getting the "best bang for your buck" on a fixed income, but you take it to the next level (grin).

 

But i do believe the day is upon us where we can get the 95% of the best source (excluding amp and speakers) for under $2K, and that my old ears or my wallet can't tell the difference between 95% and 100%.

 

My main agenda is not to spit on those that can afford more (i am quite happy for them), but my agenda is to being the squeeky wheel to the manufacturers to listen to the customer base, and deliver a solid one box solution (streamer/DSD dac) to replace the $500 SACD player with a digital media player. 

 

Whoever does it first, will be the winner.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

Besides speakers and amp, I am almost at the point of believing that between the least expensive and most expensive gear there is less than a 10% improvement on SQ performance.

 

Some will debate that the Yggi is better than anything they have heard at any cost.

Some will debate the Gungnir sounds just as good, and some actually prefer it.

Some will debate that native DSD will sound better than any PCM on any DAC.

Some will debate that vinyl is still king.

Some will debate upsampling to 10x DSD will make everything sound better.

Some will debate playing in native resolution sounds best.

Some will debate DAC upsampling sounds best.

Some will debate software upsampling sounds best.

Some will debate network audio will sound better than USB.

Some will debate that there is no issues with USB with a quality dac.

Some will debate if you use USB you have to use a "usb toy"

 

This guy, who i actually trust as unbiased, suggests many believe there hasn't been any major improvements with audio until the SOTM ultra.

Perhaps this is the only real advancement (more than say 10% SQ improvement AT ANY PRICE?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCoFIdPLcUk

 

 

One thing that is for certain, is as much debate as there is, it REALLY is only subjective to one's opinion, as nothing seems to be proven or even passing of double blind tests.....

 

Even when someone does believe one setup may sound better, they have to listen VERY hard, and they will even admit they like some genre's better in one setup and different music with the other setup...ore even on the same track...I like cymbals better with this dac, but voice better with this dac....

 

Maybe we should just buy the latest Marantz AVR's that has gapless DSD ethernet streaming and not worry about the 10%, and a really good set of speakers....

That or maybe we should just wait until SOTM makes an all in one device that you can just plug into your amp....

 

....after all, it really is just subjective....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the real answer. It's all subjective. In a technology where measurements mean less than audible impressions, and where it is understood that no system can possibly sound anywhere near as good as live acoustic instruments playing in a real space, there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip, and everyone is free to interpret each component's strengths and weaknesses as they see fit. 

 

What we really know is that many aspects of sound capture and playback have actually improved very little since the event of stereo. Certainly, recording has advanced only peripherally in spite of the huge technological advances since 1957. Proof of that is the fact that so-called Hi-Fi showcase albums from the early days of stereo from RCA Victor, Mercury Living Presence, and Everest (among others) are still showpiece albums! Part of it is, of course some of the legendary performers, but most of it is that they still sound good some 60 years on! Sure today's recordings are quieter, have a greater dynamic range, but have the microphones improved any? In fact, many recording outfits use the same microphones (or knockoffs of them) that were used back then. Neumann U-47s and U-87s are still prized by recording studios as are many Telefunken microphones which haven't been built in decades (the reconstituted Telefunken of America doesn't count).  If you have a German-built Telefunken ELA-M-270 Single-point stereo mike from the late 1950's, you have a mike that is worth it's weight in gold. Studios will pay up to $20K for a really good example! 

 

On the playback side, there are similar parallels. Vinyl, when done right, still impresses. The single-motor AR turntable from 1963 is still useful, and sought after (but the arm is certainly obsolete and needs changing). The Thorens TD124 and the Garrard  301 and 401 turntables are still great performers, and the parts to restore them are readily available. The original SME  M-series tonearm from the early sixties is not only still a fine arm but is still in production! Got an original McIntosh 275 power amp? Perhaps a pair of Dynaco Mark III mono-block power amps or perhaps a Marantz 8 or 9? They still sound very good. Speakers have improved the most, I don't think anyone would argue that point. On the other hand, I know an elderly guy who has a speaker system from the late 1950's that any audiophile would gladly give his mother-in-law to own; well at least the bass part, anyway. He has two large cabinets each containing FOUR Altec Lansing 15" woofers. Above about 500 Hz he has a pair of Altec treble horns which are atrocious, but I've never heard any other low frequency speaker system (including some very expensive and highly regard sub-woofers) load a room with real, bass like those two huge woofer enclosures. A 32-foot organ pipe will shake the entire house and hit any listener in the stomach and produce a room pressure that one can actually feel in their ears and sinuses! Those two bass speaker system coupled with a modern pair of Martin-Logan ESLs, or perhaps a pair of good small monitors from B&W, Dynaudio, Sonus Faber, et al, would make for a truly state-of-the-art  system. In the world of FM tuners, has anything really eclipsed a Marantz 10B or an HH Scott 4310 when it comes to either RF performance or sound quality? Of course, the day when FM provided great program material is long passed, and modern FM stations all pretty much sound like crap due to excessive signal processing and over modulation protection measures. 

 

Really, we haven't progressed all that much. Sure modern Solid State amps are light years ahead of those made in the 1960's and '70's, but then, they had so far to come. A late '60's Dynaco Stereo 120, or the Acoustec amplifier (which used to go into ultra-sonic oscillation and self-destruct if you looked at it wrong) or a Harman Kardon Citation B, sounded terrible and the worst were the early Dynaco S120 power amps which had an easily visible crossover notch which could be seen on an oscilloscope when passing any sine wave. Here we have come a long way. I won't mention digital here, because there's not much of a comparison to make, but the Schiit Yggdrasil IS the Best DAC available under $10K and the Gungnir Multibit is a very close second.

   

[trappy]

I’ll pit my Job Integrated amp/DAC against the Gumby with a $500 integrated amp any day. How’s that for value? Not dissing the Gumby in any way, though, btw.

[Ralf11]

No, not hard to design valid listening tests

 

it sounds like you don't understand them

[Ralf11]

Hey - aren't you being inconsistent!

 

 

beereymusic said:

 

"Would love a double blind test using same gear and swapping the exa with a teac nt503."

 

 

 

"

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

24 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

No, not hard to design valid listening tests

 

it sounds like you don't understand them

 

Enlighten us

[Ralf11]

start a new thread and I'll repeat what I've posted before

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

It didn't establish valid tests then, why would it now?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

 

 

That's the real answer. It's all subjective. In a technology where measurements mean less than audible impressions, and where it is understood that no system can possibly sound anywhere near as good as live acoustic instruments playing in a real space, there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip, and everyone is free to interpret each component's strengths and weaknesses as they see fit. 

 

 

Not quite. It is possible to get a playback system to fool someone, say, that a grand piano is playing - and the illusion works outside with the sound wafting from a window, inside at the other end of the house, at the doorway to the room of the speakers; and finally inside that room, with an acoustically transparent curtain hiding the source of the sound - without altering the volume at any time, for any of these positions.

 

That this is rarely achieved is just an indicator of how the audio industry has been dragging its feet, for decades ...

[fas42]

The only worthwhile listening test is one where one deliberately attempts to make the system playback misbehave - you "stress test" the chain to see if it shows up audible flaws when reproducing certain types of material.

 

When a setup is never caught out doing this, then the competence of the system is confirmed.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

....after all, it really is just subjective....

 

as far as the final assessment of what you experience I agree. I don't see it as a bad thing even though I'd prefer better evidence. value for money and such are very personal things and very much relative. Law of diminishing returns is not unique to Audio and that last "10%" is important to some. It is not a case of "a fool and his money" or "being fooled" if you are informed, hold an opinion at variance to another, and choose to buy what you want to buy.

 

On another level I believe we all find what we know, see what we look for and believe what we want to believe - I dont think that makes us fools though, just human.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 hours ago, trappy said:

4 hours ago, mansr said:

No, it's one of those threads where we mock anyone who is wrong.

I thought that was every thread ;-)

 

Yeh yeh I know HTFU - Mockery is acceptable but snowflakes are not.Is there a middle ground or just all "too subjective" , one man's mockery...

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

A fool and his money...

 

Are saved from being parted by the Objective mob here in C.A. ?

The only  fools here are those who think they know what's best for others, and incessantly ridicule everybody who doesn't agree with them.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 

The only  fools here are those who think they know what's best for others, and incessantly ridicule everybody who doesn't agree with them.

 

1+

[PeterSt]

9 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

Besides speakers and amp, I am almost at the point of believing that between the least expensive and most expensive gear there is less than a 10% improvement on SQ performance.

 

I don't think I will follow this thread and I already stopped reading after the first sentence, quotes above.

It is 100% wrong.

 

There's already 95% of difference in any same system because of software usage. No wait, operating system usage. Doesn't matter what hardware you use (as long as playback software is in order).