Understanding the Audiophiles community.

[STC]

9 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Ummm - yes.  In fact, you argued with me about it and challenged me. (shrug).

 

I am just wondering where you are coming from - and I hope you are not trying to sell us something, just having a good time talking about a subject you love.  

 

-Paul 

 

 

I know what i said. Do you remember what you said? You have now corrected yourself and pretending that I contradicted you. 

[STC]

3 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

Not sure why you're tryiing to guide me down a rabbit hole.  You allude that Ambiophonics has something to audibly offer.  If so, produce an example.  You don't have to "set the stage" so to speak.  Either Ambiophonics has something audibly to offer or it doesn't.

 

Besides, you said earlier, "Trust me, I can reveal more information than you would even thought exist in the recordings. This is not BS."

 

Well, I'm all ears.  Even if Ambiophonics' full benefits can't be heard over the internet, I should be able to get an excellent idea how much more info your playback system is revealing.  And this I'd like to hear.

 

Yes. That a sign of an audiophile who pretends to know a-lot about sound so that whatever you sell is marketable to the poor suckers. You won’t answer because you do not know. 

[Paul R]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I know what i said. Do you remember what you said? You have now corrected yourself and pretending that I contradicted you. 

 

Umm- no.  It is not important enough to me to correct you further, as your assertions were clearly in conflict with known and well accepted facts. 

 

Your failure to answer clearly a direct question about your intentions, and your constant maneuvering of the conversation to your advantage probably indicate you *are* trying to sell something. Oh bats... 

 

-Paul 

 

[shtf]

16 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Yes. That a sign of an audiophile who pretends to know a-lot about sound so that whatever you sell is marketable to the poor suckers. You won’t answer because you do not know. 

 

I won't answer because Ambiophonics should not have to be prefaced by your questions and my answers. 

 

You made some claims about revealing levels of music info I could only dream of and I'm anxious to hear this.  I don't know you and hence I have no interest in what you have to say about what you hear on your system.  That's meaningless.  I'd much rather hear it for myself.  That's meaningful.

 

So please, stop attacking my person and put your money where your mouth is.

[STC]

14 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Umm- no.  It is not important enough to me to correct you further, as your assertions were clearly in conflict with known and well accepted facts. 

 

Your failure to answer clearly a direct question about your intentions, and your constant maneuvering of the conversation to your advantage probably indicate you *are* trying to sell something. Oh bats... 

 

-Paul 

 

 

Stop diverting the issue. You the one cited a wrong paper without even knowing what the paper for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[STC]

5 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

I won't answer because Ambiophonics should not have to be prefaced by your questions and my answers. 

 

You made some claims about revealing levels of music info I could only dream of and I'm anxious to hear this.  I don't know you and hence I have no interest in what you have to say about what you hear on your system.  That's meaningless.  I'd much rather hear it for myself.  That's meaningful.

 

So please, stop attacking my person and put your money where your mouth is.

 

Still don’t know?  Seen a few like here who come with blazing gun saying a-lot of rubbish. But you need eat too. 

[shtf]

4 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Still don’t know?  Seen a few like here who come with blazing gun saying a-lot of rubbish. But you need eat too. 

 

Well, ok then.  You said your system can reveal music info I could only dream of or something like that.  Then you said, this is not BS.  So I asked you to put something out here for me to listen to and thus far, you've refused.

 

What am I to believe?

[STC]

Just now, shtf said:

 

Well, ok then.  You said your system can reveal music info I could only dream of or something like that.  Then you said, this is not BS.

 

What am I to believe?

 

I know people with an agenda and who are to learn and discuss. Start with the answer since you are in my thread. Answer so that I know you know more than engineering. I rather believe someone already established their name than you who obviously got it wrong about stereo. Answer and we shall continue or leave this thread and peddle whatever snake oil you do elsewhere. 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

And it is. Regardless of whatever made up expertise you believe you have that disputes it. (Shrug)  You being wrong is not my concern. 

 

So so what the eff are you trying to sell? That is apparently the issue you are seriously ducking. And this is a concern. 

 

 

???? Now I know how you get 20K posts. 

[Paul R]

1 minute ago, STC said:

 

 

???? Now I know how you get 20K posts. 

 

Yawn. What are you selling?

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Yawn. What are you selling?

 Himself ?

[STC]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Himself ?

 

Sorry am not for sale?  

[fas42]

4 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Probably, if you give details on exactly what it is and what you done done to the thing. Seriously, the generalities are starting to make my head spin.  

 

How about I took a Beeswax Model 40 and rewired the inside using JumbleUp wiring with Stickem2 solder, and the sound went from tinny to solid, with better treble and sound staging. Compared to my reference NAD Masters 892999 System, it....

 

Something like that, only with real stuff, not made up like I just did.  

 

-Paul 

 

You're still struggling with the concept - because you keep wanting magic buttons to be put in front of you. Okay, try this - a house you have just bought is a bit run down; give me a pithy, easily digestible list - no generalities - of the specifics necessary to restore its condition.

 

You see, it always, always going to be, a lot of "depends" ...

 

I have not the slightest interest in special name solutions for things - I'll rummage around in the bits and pieces box for something suitable, or buy something that's necessary from a local store - I'm looking for solutions, not to indulge in "Insert the Right Brand Item Here" games.

 

 

[STC]

3 hours ago, shtf said:

Please just pony up your best recording to substantiate your claims and we'll take it from there.  It's not rocket science you know. 

 

And this is how your system sounds?  Wasted so much time since this is live performance that you have been talking about.

 

 

 

[fas42]

4 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

If a recording has a near perfect reproduction of the the best seat in the house at a chamber music recital, that is what I want the system to provide. If it is a highly engineered totally artificial sound, such as Donna Summer, then *that* is what I want to hear. And there is just no way I have ever heard of to build a system that is optimized for both those kinds of music. You can build a system that sounds good with both, but it will almost certainly have a bias towards one kind of music or another. And that is before you consider the many other genres that are out there.  

 

 

Ummm, all that's needed is for the system to be sufficiently transparent - the closer you get to such, rather than a faux version of accuracy, 'tuned' to suit a type of music, the better off you will be.

 

You should be able to go from chamber, to hard rock to ambient to jazz to techno - one recording after the other. And all of them 'work' ... because the setup imposes zero character upon what you hear; it's the recording and only the recording that you hear.

[Summit]

14 hours ago, STC said:

 

This is entirely a different topic. In your post .  you said it is impossible for a system to play all the different genres equally well and then you cited a 5.1 system as opposed to standard s.0 system that audiophiles are familiar with. Besides @Kal Rubinson and myself, no other audiophiles in this forum agree that a multi channel system is far more realistic than a stereo.

 

Going back to your post, I disagree that those 5.1 multi channel couldn't reproduce the magic of vocal. ESL speakers are very good at reproducing vocals. It doesn't make sense to me as I too use ESL speakers. Nor for someone who uses all ESL speakers even for the ambiance to play simple vocal stereo.

 

Unfortunately, the message that no one system could reproduce all the different genres accurately will continue in the audiophile world due to many ill informed opinions. 

 

Well not much music I listen to is actually recorded in 5.1. Stereo, mono and multi-channel system all have their pros and cons. My experience is that many people have big troubles to properly set up a stereo system in their homes. Many sits to close to the back wall, has a lots of hard surfaces, speakers placed too close to corners and side wall, no bass traps, use inappropriate acoustic treatment for their room etc. A correctly setup mid-fi stereo system in a properly furnished room often beats a high end system that isn’t correctly setup IMO, no matter if it’s a stereo or 5.1. 

[Paul R]

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

You're still struggling with the concept - because you keep wanting magic buttons to be put in front of you. Okay, try this - a house you have just bought is a bit run down; give me a pithy, easily digestible list - no generalities - of the specifics necessary to restore its condition.

 

You see, it always, always going to be, a lot of "depends" ...

 

I have not the slightest interest in special name solutions for things - I'll rummage around in the bits and pieces box for something suitable, or buy something that's necessary from a local store - I'm looking for solutions, not to indulge in "Insert the Right Brand Item Here" games.

 

 

 

Maybe, but without a concrete example it is difficult to see if what you say is something I agree with or not. Why in heaven’s name is there so much slipping and sliding from you here? If all you are doing is throwing guesswork at something, then the chances you will actually make an improvement are exceedingly low. If you can take one of your improved devices and compare it against some kind of standard equipment, then you gain much credibility. Especially if you can document what you did. 

 

At at this point, this topic that started so well has devolved into a used car salesman convention. A lot of smoke and mirrors, with people trying to say “I know something you don’t” - which is ridiculous in the extreme.  

 

Audiophile”lore” -for want of a better word - is a very large set of empirical knowledge. A lot like a bunch of Edisons working in 10,000 labs. Where it conflicts with accepted theory is exactly the same places it gets most interesting. But hoodoo Is totally different. That’s just a caveat emptor sitting there screaming out loud that “this is BS.”

 

Hope you see why what you are promoting is descending into the Hoodoo range pretty quickly here. As are a few other subjects. 

 

@Summit just put it exactly right in his post - a well done modest system is far more likely to sound better than a poorly done very expensive system. That is true up and down the board. But junk is junk, and trying to make junk sound good is often a fool’s errand. Defining those limits and what works and what doesn’t is something audiophiles, in general, do very well. 

 

As flim flammers often find out to to their everlasting regret. 🤯

[Paul R]

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Ummm, all that's needed is for the system to be sufficiently transparent - the closer you get to such, rather than a faux version of accuracy, 'tuned' to suit a type of music, the better off you will be.

 

You should be able to go from chamber, to hard rock to ambient to jazz to techno - one recording after the other. And all of them 'work' ... because the setup imposes zero character upon what you hear; it's the recording and only the recording that you hear.

 

Umm - bull! 

 

(Grin) 

[Albrecht]

16 hours ago, STC said:

 

It is pretty rare not to find an audiophile who doesn't make extraordinary claims.

 

Some examples from this forum.

 

1) Resolder the joints and turn the Boombox set to be better than a proper high end stuff or at least as good as them.

 

2) Changing cables, can increase soundstage. I am still trying to find that.

 

 

 

Aaahhhh... yeah, - fair enough. As i hope that I qualified things adequately, - we all don't express ourselves as well as we could. With the first one, - I would be surprised if anyone REALLY said that, and meant it. As to the second, throwing in the word "can" makes all of the difference. Examining some of these things in context, may/does yield some better understanding. 

 

Big picture, - it is a rare case indeed where people mis-apply equipment: and especially, - not learn from their mistakes. Very few, or anyone, applies/uses $5000 speaker cable to $500 stand mount speakers. 

[kumakuma]

22 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

With the first one, - I would be surprised if anyone REALLY said that, and meant it.

 

@fas42 ad nauseum

[christopher3393]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

@fas42 ad nauseum

 C'mon now, we're way past ad nauseam. Rigor mortis.☠️

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Maybe, but without a concrete example it is difficult to see if what you say is something I agree with or not. Why in heaven’s name is there so much slipping and sliding from you here? If all you are doing is throwing guesswork at something, then the chances you will actually make an improvement are exceedingly low. If you can take one of your improved devices and compare it against some kind of standard equipment, then you gain much credibility. Especially if you can document what you did. 

 

Okay, we'll try another angle ... from my POV, every rig that doesn't produce my goal SQ is broken - irrespective of cost, and level of visual flim flam, it's a dud. Lift the bonnet of brand new Porsche, rip off a couple of cables and tubes, bend a few pieces of metal - that car is now broken, and the money you paid for it is quite irrelevant; it may still manage to start and go down the street - but ...

 

That's how I look at a rig, any rig. So, it's broken - how do you fix it? In the case of the car, the mechanic will follow a set of GENERALISED procedures; he will carefully examine everything, attempt to start the vehicle, do a whole range of tests, and listen, ... step by step, he will undo the damage, whatever it may be - until the Porsche performs as it should.

 

Guesswork? Experience, and learning to listen, really listen, to what happens when one tries things. Taking this out there and showing it off is hard, because the particular, electrical environment it's in is a huge factor - the SQ of audio rigs are very fragile, and I still don't know all the answers - Murphy's Law guarantees egg in the face ...

 

Quote

@Summit just put it exactly right in his post - a well done modest system is far more likely to sound better than a poorly done very expensive system. That is true up and down the board. But junk is junk, and trying to make junk sound good is often a fool’s errand. Defining those limits and what works and what doesn’t is something audiophiles, in general, do very well. 

 

As flim flammers often find out to to their everlasting regret. 🤯

 

Core circuitry, especially these days, gets the job well enough. And junk contains that same core parts as the priciest units - to repeat myself for the millionth time, the junkiness occurs because all the extra bits that parcel it up are below par. As I described in the earlier post, you can bypass all the junky switches, connections, adjustable parts, useless circuitry - and the junkiness evaporates, from the sound.

 

As a specific, the current NAD integrated had "junky" sound - worse than modern, mediocre midfi - when first I tried it out. Your recommendation? Throw it in the bin? Ummm, no - cheap auxiliary parts, switches, etc, were very tired - so, these were all eliminated. Finally, very sound sound emerged

 

My experiments have shown that one has to go extremely low to get to a stage where the gear can't be rescued - ultimately, it's a value for effort proposition. If there are intrinsic limitations which are too 'expensive' to resolve then it ain't worth it - it then just becomes a proving a point exercise.

[Ralf11]

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

Umm - bull! 

 

(Grin) 

 

I'm the one who is really smiling, because I can get to enjoy the sound from a rig that does that - put that in your pipe and smoke it ...

[fas42]

What stopped me getting caught in the idiocy of, say, only pricey speakers being "good enough" was achieving my first round of competent sound with cheap as chips, basic two ways ... I then went out and listened to all the "right", expensive stuff - and they were a disaster ... right, lesson learnt ...