Relative importance of differences in stereo systems

[Teresa]

24 minutes ago, Axial said:

How many channels in stereo music sound systems, two or three? 

 

Two.

[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.

[Axial]

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

 

Two.

Right On!

 

 

[STC]

4 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

For the poor and lower middle class audiophiles it is both cost and lack of space.

 

I live in a studio apartment and I have neither the space or the funds for multichannel. I have one audio/video/computer system with a total cost for everything including Mac Mini computer, Teac DSD DAC, HDTV, Blu-ray/SACD player, tubed preamp, solid state power amp, 2 floor standing speakers and cables with a total cost of everything of less than $3.5K. Some of my equipment is over 30 years old.

 

Slightly over half of my SACDs have a multichannel program. So if I ever become rich I will rent a larger apartment with a dedicated living room and expand my stereo audio/video system to multichannel and give it a try. I don't see me getting that rich in this lifetime. My only income is Social Security.

 

Not everyone is as rich as you make people out to be.

 

 

I agree and this is the same for the space in my studio apartment. Not everyone has large rooms to put lots of stuff in.

 

 

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.

 

I thought only very rich people had separate rooms for video and audio systems. For the rest of us a single system is used for both audio and video. 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. 

 

To be an audiophile you need to have high end equipment. This high performance equipment requires proper setup to bring out the best in them. 

 

The room acoustics is far more important than the speakers itself. I cannot emphasize the importance of room acoustics enough. 

 

 Perhaps, all aspiring audiophiles should sing in the bathroom, kitchen and in the various part of the house and ask why it sounds better in some places. Then ask if the sound could be better with a acousticslly better room. 

 

Hign end is all about bringing out the best from the recordings. It is hard to do that if we are constrained by space requirement. I have seen great setup in a 10 by 8 room. It can be done but we also need to aware of far more important things in family. 

 

Theresa, I agree with your point but I think it is hard to achieve the best sound without getting the other half correct. It also doesnt mean you need a dedicated room. It can be your living room but You must have the freedom to do the necessary with the living room to bring out the best from the speakers. It doesnt matter whether you listen to one, two or multi speakers. More than half of the sound you hear is not from yhe speakers. 

[Axial]

I should explain just in case: Stereo systems is the topic of this thread; the relative importance of their differences between various stereo setups in people's homes. 

 

That's why I asked how many channels, and I simply added 3 because stereo comes from solid, with a center channel solidly anchored in the middle (the Opera singer). But it didn't fly back then (financial I guess) so we ended up with only two channels, left and right and no center but from L/R imaging (cheaper that way).

 

I too love surround sound for both movies and music, but the topic is stereo. 

That's all. If there is another thread on multichannel sound systems and their relative importance in differences I shall visit one day ... 

 

Stereo can come from headphone systems, full range speakers, satellite speakers with a mono subwoofer or a pair of stereo subs, or limited range without a sub.

So it varies a lot and from each room's own acoustics. ...Plus analog rigs versus digital ones. 

 

And I like the Blues Brothers ...

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

 

 

[STC]

5 minutes ago, Axial said:

 

I too love surround sound for both movies and music, but the topic is stereo.

 

There are better ways to play the stereo recordings. 

[Axial]

With Auro-3D surround sound music mode?

 

[danadam]

Conclusions from the thread so far (with a big 😉) :

- rich audiophiles don't do MCH because they think stereo is better

- poor audiophiles don't do MCH because they are poor

 

I wonder, if poor audiophile became rich, would they actually invest in MCH or mysteriously changed their mind and stay with stereo? 😀

[Axial]

It's a journey for each person; the stars above our sky are the only limitations. 

Some we don't see yet; we don't have the telescopes for yet. 

We enjoy the ones we see, the ones we reach ...

[bluesman]

On 1/14/2019 at 6:53 PM, STC said:

To be an audiophile you need to have high end equipment

 

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"

But I think Rockwellians are a bit harsh in seeing pursuit of expensive audio equipment purely or primarily as ignorant and conspicuous consumption, despite their occasional confluence.  And if that were the context of the quoted post, I would have expected something like "To be an audiophile, you need to have fancy, costly, exotic, highly rated equipment".  Thankfully, it seems more like an innocently elitist term in the posted context - so I only have to take polite issue with it.  For me and multiple excellent dictionaries like Webster ("a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction") and Cambridge ("a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about equipment for playing recorded sound, and its quality"), being an audiophile requires only interest and enthusiasm.  I can find no hardware requirements.

 

Maybe I'm not a true audiophile.  Over the 60+ years I've been whatever it is that I am, I've generally spent 5% or less of the cost of contemporary "high end" systems on my own stuff.  Sadly, I had to settle for only about 90+% of the sound quality I could have gotten had I used my money for "better" audio equipment instead of education, guitars, cars, women, clothes, wine, travel, cameras, bicycles, motorcycles, family, house, and............music   And every once in a while, the audio gods allow the weaknesses in my system to cancel each other and grace me with an outstanding listening session, for which I am truly thankful (and aware that my approach to audiophilia does not merit such joy).

 

In retirement, I continue to struggle with the sonic & functional limitations imposed by less-than-high-end equipment.  Fortunately, I've been able to resist conscious depression, despite suffering from a 50 year old Thorens & SME, i3- and ARM-based computers, entry level Audioquest wires,  Emotiva and Wadia DACs,  powered JBLs, and Prima Luna amplification driving Focal 726s and Rogers LS3/5a  speakers, and similarly limiting stuff.  Even my piano is only a Yamaha.

 

Be aware that many others suffer the same pain in silence. But we soldier on, because we're -  - AUDIOPHILES!

[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.)

[bluesman]

26 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Why is it necessary to respond to a position that is based on a different and, imho, unacceptable definition of a word?

 

First, they came for the bagpipers, and I did not speak out - because I was not a bagpiper.  Then they came for the accordionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not an accordionist.  Then they came for the misguided, and I did not speak out - because I was not misguided.  Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.  [Yes, officer - my poetic license is in my wallet  ]

 

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.

 

To keep it on topic, I think that the marginal importance of differences in stereo systems approaches zero asymptotically above a cost threshold that's dropping like a rock.  Sound quality today is so good from very basic equipment that diminishing returns set in lower than ever before. It's an audiophile's paradise out there now, and I love it!

[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.

[bluesman]

18 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

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.

 

Your passion and equanimity are laudable, Kal - I'm also fortunate enough to possess a fair measure of each.  But you seem to have less contact with the many conflicted and unhappy souls out there than I do.  And as a physician, it absolutely is my concern if I can be of any help to any of them.  While many - OK, maybe most  - people see things differently from me, those who get their joys from belittling the tastes and pursuits of others are hurtful, and they abound.  Helping an AS newbie to be as positive as you are about his or her passions and efforts to engage them is a wonderful, worthwhile endeavor that demonstrates what it means to you and me to be an audiophile. We are very lucky to be us, my friend!

[Axial]

When I go to friends homes the food and the music taste different, but very good.

When they visit me they have the same exact impressions; my food and music taste different, but very good.

Everything else is not the same ...

[sdolezalek]

1 hour ago, Axial said:

When I go to friends homes the food and the music taste different, but very good.

When they visit me they have the same exact impressions; my food and music taste different, but very good.

 

I find that to be far less true, and even less so when I go to audio stores looking to hear something that will wow me.  I used think it might be that my system was just that good; now I realize it is that I'm just that used to how my system sounds.  

 

Inasmuch as I tried to build an "audiophile 7.1 system" I also used to think that good surround sound recordings on BluRay sounded better than stereo, but that was before I started optimizing my stereo sound in terms of room treatment, DSP to address room modes, upsampling through HQ Player, getting speaker distances and timing exactly right, etc.  Now the sound of my stereo is far far better (clear and with better soundstaging) than my 7.1 system.  But it is theoretically possible that if I did all of those tweaks on all 8 channels that surround might once again sound better -- but I doubt it. 

[The_K-Man]

24 minutes ago, sdolezalek said:

 

I find that to be far less true, and even less so when I go to audio stores looking to hear something that will wow me.  I used think it might be that my system was just that good; now I realize it is that I'm just that used to how my system sounds.  

 

Inasmuch as I tried to build an "audiophile 7.1 system" I also used to think that good surround sound recordings on BluRay sounded better than stereo, but that was before I started optimizing my stereo sound in terms of room treatment, DSP to address room modes, upsampling through HQ Player, getting speaker distances and timing exactly right, etc.  Now the sound of my stereo is far far better (clear and with better soundstaging) than my 7.1 system.  But it is theoretically possible that if I did all of those tweaks on all 8 channels that surround might once again sound better -- but I doubt it. 

 

In order of importance & actual audible benefit:

1. Speaker distances - 45%

2. Room treatment - 40%

3. DSP/room modes -10%

4. HQ Player upsampling - 5%

 

For the average melophile/music fan, successful accomplishment of the first two is more than sufficient.  Beyond that, we're in the realm of tick farts.

 

[Ralf11]

Room treatment should be 41%

[The_K-Man]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

Room treatment should be 41%

 

Then upsampling should be 4%.

[Ralf11]

no, Speaker distances - 44%

[Axial]

HQ player upsampling - 3%

Room treatment - 42%

DSP room modes - zero %

Speaker distances - 55%

[sdolezalek]

53 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

In order of importance & actual audible benefit:

1. Speaker distances - 45%

2. Room treatment - 40%

3. DSP/room modes -10%

4. HQ Player upsampling - 5%

 

For the average melophile/music fan, successful accomplishment of the first two is more than sufficient.  Beyond that, we're in the realm of tick farts.

 

 

With the big Magnepans I can't disagree with your percentages, but the 10% that came from DSP, with calibrated microphones and lots of testing in REW that got fed back into Roon and HQP and keeping adjustments below the 500hz level (adjustments above that seemed to lose the PRAT) made much of the difference in creating that last little bit that allows you to fool yourself thinking you are there in the venue... 

[STC]

5 hours 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"

But I think Rockwellians are a bit harsh in seeing pursuit of expensive audio equipment purely or primarily as ignorant and conspicuous consumption, despite their occasional confluence.  And if that were the context of the quoted post, I would have expected something like "To be an audiophile, you need to have fancy, costly, exotic, highly rated equipment".  Thankfully, it seems more like an innocently elitist term in the posted context - so I only have to take polite issue with it.  For me and multiple excellent dictionaries like Webster ("a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction") and Cambridge ("a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about equipment for playing recorded sound, and its quality"), being an audiophile requires only interest and enthusiasm.  I can find no hardware requirements.

 

Maybe I'm not a true audiophile.  Over the 60+ years I've been whatever it is that I am, I've generally spent 5% or less of the cost of contemporary "high end" systems on my own stuff.  Sadly, I had to settle for only about 90+% of the sound quality I could have gotten had I used my money for "better" audio equipment instead of education, guitars, cars, women, clothes, wine, travel, cameras, bicycles, motorcycles, family, house, and............music   And every once in a while, the audio gods allow the weaknesses in my system to cancel each other and grace me with an outstanding listening session, for which I am truly thankful (and aware that my approach to audiophilia does not merit such joy).

 

In retirement, I continue to struggle with the sonic & functional limitations imposed by less-than-high-end equipment.  Fortunately, I've been able to resist conscious depression, despite suffering from a 50 year old Thorens & SME, i3- and ARM-based computers, entry level Audioquest wires,  Emotiva and Wadia DACs,  powered JBLs, and Prima Luna amplification driving Focal 726s and Rogers LS3/5a  speakers, and similarly limiting stuff.  Even my piano is only a Yamaha.

 

Be aware that many others suffer the same pain in silence. But we soldier on, because we're -  - AUDIOPHILES!

 

 

Quote

For me and multiple excellent dictionaries like Webster ("a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction") and Cambridge ("a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about equipment for playing recorded sound, and its quality"), being an audiophile requires only interest and enthusiasm.  I can find no hardware requirements.

 

 

It was statement to emphazise the importance of room acoustics. Although, the term 'high end' often associated with expensive equipment, I meant it to be high(read good) quality equipment. Today, audiophile refers to lifestyle and branded equipment despite what they claim to be. Like the Audioquest and Wadia DAC that you are using.  

[The_K-Man]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

Today, audiophile refers to lifestyle and branded equipment despite what they claim to be.

 

In other words:  BLING