Relative importance of differences in stereo systems

[Kal Rubinson]

Agreed.  For many of us, speakers and acoustics are the most significant elements by far.  OTOH, some of these other elements are fascinating and, being less bulky, are fun to play with.

[Kal Rubinson]

2 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Summing up:  electronics differences include using older -- less well designed equipment can make a difference, and also boutique equipment with a certain coloring.  There are probably other aspects that might make the HW different -- using 30 gauge wire might make a difference on the speakers themselves, or maybe using high capacitance boutique wires of any kind anywhere can make a rather 'interesting' difference from perfection.

Yes, the element of play is important. 😊

[Kal Rubinson]

9 minutes ago, STC said:

To those with proper 5.1 setup knows that stereo sound can never  achieve the realism of the former and yet they steadfastly remain loyal to the stereo format. 

Of course but the resistance to this huge opportunity for improvement is "baked in" with audiophiles who have financial and personal investments that they want to conserve.

13 minutes ago, marioed said:

For many of us in this hobby our speakers often represent the single most expensive to replace component in the system. Unless you have one or more good audio stores close by I think for many folks the cost of shipping alone is going to limit the number of different speakers one can afford to try out. So once you find a speaker you really like you're probably not going to consider changing them too often.

Yes, the focus is determined by cost, bulk and convenience and not by a performance-related analysis.  Our acquisitions range from important determinants of the sound to gadgets of, at best, trivial value.  I like toys, too.

[Kal Rubinson]

17 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I don't think finance is an issue to most audiophiles. I believe it is some sort indoctrination over the years that real performance could be produced by two speakers stereo only.  

 

Not in my experience as a proselytizer for multichannel.  The biggest objections are that there isn't enough room for more amps/speakers and that spreading the available budget over 5.1 or more channels would mean that the cost per channel would decrease as would quality.  They offer this as an argument against MCH without realizing that its advantage over stereo trump any such concerns.

[Kal Rubinson]

6 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

The persistent audiophile is not limited by his/her hearing ability -- up to a point. :-)

Agreed but he is often limited by his vision.

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

For a many people, multi-channel is a non-starter because of the space and equipment requirements. While a well set up multi-channel system for music will outperform an equivalent stereo one, that seldom apples to the typical multi-channel home audio video system.

Now, where have I heard this before?

[Kal Rubinson]

19 minutes ago, STC said:

MO, It is not cost nor space but refusal to believe that a multichannel recording could easily outperform all their effort in perfecting stereo setup. 

That is why I call those issues excuses.   Their psychological investment is entirely wrapped up in stereo. 

[Kal Rubinson]

12 hours ago, Allan F said:

I am not saying that a multi-channel HT system cannot perform better that a stereo system. It most certainly can. But, in practice, most multi-channel HT systems are not set up to do so.

Agreed.  That is one reason why earlier predictions that the rise of HT would lead to the success of multichannel music listening were wrong.  (The other one is that most HT system owners are not very interested in music.)

[Kal Rubinson]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

It is for people who have large rooms with large sums of money spent on polishing up stereo when going to MCH would be quite an improvement.  In time many of those people spend significant money on very peripheral issues which at best make very marginal differences when the same money to add other channels to what they have would be significant improvements.  

I think you have defined the issue quite well.  There's nothing that one individual can do to ameliorate another's money and/or space constraints.  All we can do, as here, is to try to open their minds to the potential of multichannel.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

56 minutes ago, Teresa said:

I have never been to anyone's home which has a dedicated room for music. They either have a stereo or multichannel audio/video system in the living room or in their single room if they live in a studio apartment like me.

Same here.  I am fortunate to have 2 homes with a system in each but the systems are in multipurpose rooms.   It is bad enough that I am obsessed by my systems/music but using dedicated/isolated rooms would, over the years, have separated me from my family. 

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

And many of the few I've been in with multichannel systems have the rear speakers setting on top of the front speakers because they don't want wires running along the walls. If one rents an apartment they cannot put wires in the walls. I suppose one could get wireless speakers for the rear. Oh, well. 

There are solutions for those issues but they do not surmount lack of interest or attention.

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, bluesman said:

I'm more than a bit surprised at the lack of response to this statement. The term "audiophile" is often used pejoratively, e.g. as Ken Rockwell does:

• "Audiophiles are what's left after almost all of the knowledgeable music and engineering people left the audio scene back in the 1980s."
• "audiophiles don't have the experience or education to understand what matters"

Why is it necessary to respond to a position that is based on a different and, imho, unacceptable definition of a word?  I think his premise is wrong.  (I also have no idea who he is nor do I care.)

[Kal Rubinson]

7 minutes ago, bluesman said:

Sadly, many friends and people I meet over music, audio, art etc let this kind of thinking push them into doubting their own ears and judgment.  They spend far more than they need to (and, in many cases, can afford to) to avoid preachy, condescending and most often unfounded criticism.  So, with tongue only partly in cheek, I responded to support them. They're audiophiles in the true sense of the word, they don't need to buy anything to deserve the title, and there are a lot of them.

I am surprised.  Most of my aquaintances with whom I would discuss such issues are pretty firmly commited to their passions and pursue them as far as they are able and do not question their efforts.  As with any such pursuits, one should only question whether it is unhealthy rather than if it is wise or worth it.  This is what we live for, along with a few more obvious and practical endeavors.

 

Just as my wife is commited to the visual arts (as an artist and a devotee), I am commited to music and the ability to enjoy it live and at home.  That is consistent with being an audiophile.  There will always be those who see things differently and get their joys in other ways, perhaps.  They are not my concern.

[Kal Rubinson]

Posted 1 hour ago

  1 hour ago, STC said:

Like the Audioquest and Wadia DAC that you are using.  

 

1 hour ago, bluesman said:

 

My profound apologies, Kal.  As usual, you were 100% correct - it really isn’t my concern.  From now on, it’s omnis homo sibi!

????  

[Kal Rubinson]

OK.  I suppose the intricacies of multi-link quoting confused me.  

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

NR damage

And that means.............................

[Kal Rubinson]

47 minutes ago, Axial said:

NR damage, as in tape decks with A, B, C, S Dolby. ...Filters for the music, adding a veil to disguise the impurities, adding coloring to mask the rain falling down the sky (wow, flutter and jitter). 

Thanks.

[Kal Rubinson]

47 minutes ago, STC said:

For many, a speakers that measures somewhat inverse to a listener's FR can sound better than a perfectly measuring speakers, amplifiers or DAC. 

I do not agree.  How does a listener determine what sounds best, most accurate or like live sound?  (Pick any or all.)  Typically, we do this by comparison, either directiy or from memory, to the live event.  But, wait, one's personal, unique and irregular hearing FR is being applied to both the live and the reproduced sound.   Thus, only a flat/neutral reproduction system is capable of providing any chance of success. 

 

Taste preference is a confounding variable.

 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

4 minutes ago, STC said:

As you said " one's personal, unique and irregular hearing FR is being applied to both the live and the reproduced sound". Where is the reference? Does it sound perfect when you sit 1 meter away or 4 meters ? Can the FR at 1 meter be the same as at 4 meter? 

 

It helps when the FR of the recording and playback instrument is accurate but the preference or perceived accuracy is dependant on the listener frequency response which is inconsistent and varies according to the loudness level. 

This gets us into Floyd Toole's "Circle of Confusion" because there is no reference.  However, if the irregularities you refer to as well as the huge and variable influence of personal preference could be controlled, one's own auditory irregularities are still a constant feature of listening to both live and reproduced sound and, therefore, not a differentiating factor. 

[Kal Rubinson]

1 minute ago, STC said:

Just to illustrate this point, give a listener or a recording engineer to tweak the recording via eq and you will have infinity number of FR. I used to demo tracks EQ’ed to my preference and have three or four versions of the same including the orginal recordings. Different visitors prefer different tracks. 

Personal taste preference.

20 minutes ago, STC said:

IMO. In any case, a flat in FR never sounded good to most despite being accurate. 

"Sounding good" is an expression of preference and I am saying that an individual's hearing variability (as long as it is not pathological or completely disfunctional) has no impact his judgement of accuracy, not on personal taste preference.

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, Sal1950 said:

No matter how different one listeners hearing is from the next is, that's irrelevant.

What listener X hears live is his reference to what is a accurate reproduction.

Same for listener Y and Z

I flat playback by the system is equally important to all if he want's to hear what the engineer did.

Agreed.