Understanding the Audiophiles community.

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

I would say that, IMO, when buying people are primarily listening to the music to see how well its sound is reproduced by the gear. From that perspective, I don't really consider it to be listening to the gear. OTOH, when one is doing critical listening to directly compare two different system devices by concentrating on certain clues within familiar music, that is more akin to listening to the gear. When selling, apart from perhaps pointing out certain aspects, it is again the prospective buyer who is primarily listening to sound of the music produced by the gear.

 

IMO, anyone who is more interested in gear than in listening to music is not a true audiophile. Good music can be enjoyed on any gear. It is generally just that much more enjoyable when listening to the same music played back on better gear.

 

I would see that almost opposite, when buying is when I want to listen to the gear, most particularly to see if it is doing anything offensive to the music I won't like in the future. Which is why I audition with music I know very well, including some poor samples that tell me how the gear will behave with poor samples. 

 

I tend to agree with you about music vs gear, but that is because buying gear is work and listening to music is (usually) pure pleasure. If someone really just likes the gear and wants to be a gear head, I don't see where that makes them any less an audiophile, just a different kind of one. 

 

-Paul 

 

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

I would see that almost opposite, when buying is when I want to listen to the gear, most particularly to see if it is doing anything offensive to the music I won't like in the future. Which is why I audition with music I know very well, including some poor samples that tell me how the gear will behave with poor samples.

 

I would suggest that, when buying new equipment, most people are listening primarily to see if familiar music involves them emotionally. And, IMO, that simply doesn't happen when listening to the gear. I am far more interested in hearing the positive aspects that draw me in rather than what is offensive. Any hint of the latter and the listening session tends to be a very short one. What you describe serves to eliminate something from consideration, but doesn't tempt one to buy.

[STC]

28 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

I would suggest that, when buying new equipment, most people are listening primarily to see if familiar music involves them emotionally. And, IMO, that simply doesn't happen when listening to the gear.

 

Listening for information and listening for emotion are two different things.  

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

I would suggest that, when buying new equipment, most people are listening primarily to see if familiar music involves them emotionally. And, IMO, that simply doesn't happen when listening to the gear. I am far more interested in hearing the positive aspects that draw me in rather than what is offensive. Any hint of the latter and the listening session tends to be a very short one. What you describe serves to eliminate something from consideration, but doesn't tempt one to buy.

 

I think maybe we are saying the exact same thing in two different ways.

 

I can, for example, tell within seconds if I dislike a speaker. It takes much more time to decide if I like it. Even more time to decide if I like it at home. To me, listening to the gear is the same as listening to music, save I have a different purpose when doing so. Gear listening is much more intense and involves gauging my own reactions to the sound it produces. Listening to music (for pleasure) involves only enjoying my reactions. One is work, and one is not. 

 

 

 

 

[mav52]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

I think maybe we are saying the exact same thing in two different ways.

 

I can, for example, tell within seconds if I dislike a speaker. It takes much more time to decide if I like it. Even more time to decide if I like it at home. To me, listening to the gear is the same as listening to music, save I have a different purpose when doing so. Gear listening is much more intense and involves gauging my own reactions to the sound it produces. Listening to music (for pleasure) involves only enjoying my reactions. One is work, and one is not. 

 

 

 

 

I think Y'all are.  For me, when I go to a store and want to listen to an amp or amps, I'm listening to gear at that moment.   Now when I get home and add that amp to my system,  for a while I'm still listening to how that amp sounds with my other equipment.. Then once the amp has settled in, its all about the music.

[fas42]

The mindset I use these days when I'm going to listen to or evaluate some system that I've never heard before is that, This is going to be the best sound I have ever heard, and it will undermine everything I thought about what was important about getting good playback ... then I see how long I can maintain that stance, while listening - mere seconds, or minutes if I'm lucky ...

 

IOW, let the flaws in what you're listening to steadily do the damage of shattering the illusion, all by themselves - if this situation never arises, then you've got a goody!

[Axial]

I always look for a neutral voice ... the right "Q" 

 

 

I bring my own LPs to the audio stores ... Patricia Barber and John Coltrane. 

 

If humor didn't exist we would need to invent it. This ain't no audio science. 

[STC]

5 minutes ago, Axial said:

I bring my own LPs to the audio stores ... Patricia Barber and John Coltrane. 

 

I didn’t get to respond you regarding vocal in the other thread since it was OT. Anyway, here is a question to you. 

 

1) Using your recommended mic, record a person singing in the room. 

 

2) play the recording in your system and record them again. 

 

Will they sound identical?

[Axial]

No, but that's the goal. 

 

* As for the off topic in a thread titled " What's wrong with you?",  in my opinion it's a good thing. Anytime we go beyond the audio walls it's always good to expand the frontiers of knowledge, plus the balancing act between seriousness and humor. 

 

[STC]

6 minutes ago, Axial said:

 

No, but that's the goal.

 

 

Record again with mono mic and play through one speaker. 

 

The goal is to produce near perfect sound as what’s in the recording. That means when you record the sound of your system playing it should sound as close as listening to the recording itself. 

[Axial]

Yes, that is one trait of an audiophile, with style. 

[STC]

1 minute ago, Axial said:

Yes, that is one trait of an audiophile, with style. 

 

Which one?  Like not knowing the real reason why a re-recording of the playback cannot sound identical to the original recording of the live performance? Yes, that’s true too.  It is one of the reason why snake oil thrive in this industry by capitalizing on misinformation.  

 

if the sound is so close to what’s in the recording then the playback captured at the listening position should also be identical. In another word, if you record an alarm clock then the playback too must sound identical and when recorded from the same position it will be identical provided the speakers could reproduce them accurately .

 

Now audiophiles will blame the speakers.  

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

Which one?  Like not knowing the real reason why a re-recording of the playback cannot sound identical to the original recording of the live performance? Yes, that’s true too.  It is one of the reason why snake oil thrive in this industry by capitalizing on misinformation.  

 

if the sound is so close to what’s in the recording then the playback captured at the listening position should also be identical. In another word, if you record an alarm clock then the playback too must sound identical and when recorded from the same position it will be identical provided the speakers could reproduce them accurately .

 

Now audiophiles will blame the speakers.  

LOL! Here we go with the absolute sound thing again. 🙃

 

You can get get pretty darn close to what the mic heard, and somewhat close to what your ears heard, but it actually is mostly the speakers that fail to reproduce the exact same sound. Come close, yes. Very close indeed if you are in the stratospheric price range, and do not mind renegade Daleks taking over your living room. 

 

The electronics come come much closer to perfect replication than do the analog components like the mics and the speakers. 

 

Now that I gave you the perfect opening, feel free to point out where I missed the point.  There seems to be something I can learn here. (Being serious about that.)

[STC]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

LOL! Here we go with the absolute sound thing again. 🙃

 

You can get get pretty darn close to what the mic heard, and somewhat close to what your ears heard, but it actually is mostly the speakers that fail to reproduce the exact same sound. Come close, yes. Very close indeed if you are in the stratospheric price range, and do not mind renegade Daleks taking over your living room. 

 

The electronics come come much closer to perfect replication than do the analog components like the mics and the speakers. 

 

Now that I gave you the perfect opening, feel free to point out where I missed the point.  There seems to be something I can learn here. (Being serious about that.)

 

If what you say is correct, then how do explain setup with 40 years TT , Amp and speakers to sound so good even today in some setups?  

 

Now, audiophile will say you need the synergy.  

[Paul R]

29 minutes ago, STC said:

 

If what you say is correct, then how do explain setup with 40 years TT , Amp and speakers to sound so good even today in some setups?  

 

Now, audiophile will say you need the synergy.  

 

Nope, in that particular case I think it is just a learned preference. Some people like Chocolate, some Vanilla, and some like vintage sound. Remember how good that little Japanese AM transistor radio sounded when you were a kid? The one with a single earphone even? 

 

Modern equipment is measurably better and more accurate. But some people like that old stuff better. And then the justifications for price start, don’t they? I suspect that Frank is very right about some of his ideas. Hearing is a perceptual gestalt of many different things, including expectation bias and nostalgia. 

[STC]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

 

Nope, in that particular case I think it is just a learned preference. Some people like Chocolate, some Vanilla, and some like vintage sound. Remember how good that little Japanese AM transistor radio sounded when you were a kid? The one with a single earphone even? 

 

Modern equipment is measurably better and more accurate. But some people like that old stuff better. And then the justifications for price start, don’t they? I suspect that Frank is very right about some of his ideas. Hearing is a perceptual gestalt of many different things, including expectation bias and nostalgia. 

 

You have not visited a good system made of vintage stuff?  Going by your argument that anyone who is using DSD and Focal Utopia should have the best sound compared to someone who’s setup is made of TT and tube equipment. That’s not what it is. 

 

The sound from vinyl or DSD can be great depending very much with the setup even in the same room. 

 

This brings us back to how to reproduce the vocal accurately. 

[Paul R]

Ah, now “great sound” is subjective, and vintage gear can certainly sound “great”, but accurate? That is objectively measurable and most modern gear is far more accurate than vintage gear.  

 

So actually, both ways are true, depending upon how you want to define “best.” What I like the most, or what is most accurate? They are quite often not the same thing at all. 

 

Which one one are we talking about here? 

[STC]

4 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Ah, now “great sound” is subjective, and vintage gear can certainly sound “great”, but accurate? That is objectively measurable and most modern gear is far more accurate than vintage gear.  

 

So actually, both ways are true, depending upon how you want to define “best.” What I like the most, or what is most accurate? They are quite often not the same thing at all. 

 

Which one one are we talking about here? 

 

Let’s be specific and confine to tube amplifier and vinyl. Measurement wise are they superior to DSD and one of the best measuring amp. 

[Paul R]

Accuracy... no

Frequency Range... about equal,  effectively. Vinyl has information up to around 50khz.

Like the sound superior... subjective. Maybe yes, maybe no. 

 

Could go on on of course, but not trying to argue. Really wondering where you are going.  

 

What specific criteria are are you wanting to judge a determination of “superior” by? The answer changes based upon that. This is why audiophiles go round and round sometimes. Different criteria, not enough specificity. And yeah - I am an engineer at heart.

 

[STC]

The point is they can sound good when properly setup.  Subjectively and objectively. 

[Paul R]

42 minutes ago, STC said:

The point is they can sound good when properly setup.  Subjectively and objectively. 

Not trying to be pedantic here, but "sound good" is totally subjective. It can "sound good" to one person, "sound great" to another, and "sound horrible" to yet another person.  And that has little to do with how they are setup, to be honest. Much more to do with the perceptual "filters" the listener has than anything else. It's why an ancient turntable can sound absolutely sublime to one person, and leave another person dead cold. 

 

So which to say? The turntable output, which I love Is "better" because I love it? Or I love the turntable output because it is "better." 

 

The first statement is unquestionably true, the second - very much questionable!  So here is the above restated in several ways, all of which are at least closer to true. 

 

The turntable output is "better" because I like the sound it produces more than DSD, even though it is less accurate than DSD

The DSD output is "better"  because it is more accurate than the turntable, even though I often like the sound from the turntable just as much or better. 

Any digital output is better than a turntable (save for needle drops) because the digital sound has no surface noise or unintentional speed variations. (pops and clicks, rumble, wow an flutter, etc.) 

...

...

...

 

You can go on with any number of statements, including they both sound "good" based upon how well they are setup. Just so long as you separate the mostly subjective good from the more objective good, there is very little reason to challenge or dispute any such statement.  

 

Now, when you start saying that "this measures as more accurate, so it is always better, regardless of what one hears..." or "the measurements do not matter at all, only what I hear..." - then you have entered the Audiophile Twilight Zone (ATZ), and should expect to be challenged at every point and from every side. Even blindsides.

 

Hope that clarifies a little.  So the question is, what criteria are you using to judge, and what exactly are you asking?  It is impossible to give a reasonable answer to "is legacy gear just as good or better than modern gear" or "is a turntable better than DSD" without much more specificity as to the criteria.

 

Like I said, the answer changes depending upon that criteria. Still true, but different. 

 

(We control the VTF, we control the sample rate. Sit back and enjoy as you enter the ATZ... )
 

 

 

[STC]

43 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Not trying to be pedantic here, but "sound good" is totally subjective. It can "sound good" to one person, "sound great" to another, and "sound horrible" to yet another person.  And that has little to do with how they are setup, to be honest. Much more to do with the perceptual "filters" the listener has than anything else. It's why an ancient turntable can sound absolutely sublime to one person, and leave another person dead cold. 

 

So which to say? The turntable output, which I love Is "better" because I love it? Or I love the turntable output because it is "better." 

 

The first statement is unquestionably true, the second - very much questionable!  So here is the above restated in several ways, all of which are at least closer to true. 

 

The turntable output is "better" because I like the sound it produces more than DSD, even though it is less accurate than DSD

The DSD output is "better"  because it is more accurate than the turntable, even though I often like the sound from the turntable just as much or better. 

Any digital output is better than a turntable (save for needle drops) because the digital sound has no surface noise or unintentional speed variations. (pops and clicks, rumble, wow an flutter, etc.) 

...

...

...

 

You can go on with any number of statements, including they both sound "good" based upon how well they are setup. Just so long as you separate the mostly subjective good from the more objective good, there is very little reason to challenge or dispute any such statement.  

 

Now, when you start saying that "this measures as more accurate, so it is always better, regardless of what one hears..." or "the measurements do not matter at all, only what I hear..." - then you have entered the Audiophile Twilight Zone (ATZ), and should expect to be challenged at every point and from every side. Even blindsides.

 

Hope that clarifies a little.  So the question is, what criteria are you using to judge, and what exactly are you asking?  It is impossible to give a reasonable answer to "is legacy gear just as good or better than modern gear" or "is a turntable better than DSD" without much more specificity as to the criteria.

 

Like I said, the answer changes depending upon that criteria. Still true, but different. 

 

(We control the VTF, we control the sample rate. Sit back and enjoy as you enter the ATZ... )
 

 

 

 

In response to your first para, I am referring to an unbiased listener, like young students who take music lessons who are not already exposed to high end sound. Let them play their favourite track and get their feedback. I do use them regularly because Audiophiles will not allow themselves to be the test subjects nor  will  they prefer something that they were not previously exposed. 

 

I am not discussing about accuracy and preference of seasoned audiophiles. A good sound is universal. I do not know why this is getting so complicated where the simple point is good sound is just good sound and ot doesn't require any special skills to identify that. Preference will come after the sound reaches sufficient quality where than listener may like the highs or low bass.   

 

 

[Paul R]

Okay, then what exactly are you discussing?  I question that any listener can be "unbiased", even young music students.  

-Paul

 

[fas42]

6 hours ago, STC said:

 

I am not discussing about accuracy and preference of seasoned audiophiles. A good sound is universal. I do not know why this is getting so complicated where the simple point is good sound is just good sound and ot doesn't require any special skills to identify that. Preference will come after the sound reaches sufficient quality where than listener may like the highs or low bass.   

 

 

 

Yes. The only people who don't grok the sound I'm after are - wait for it - audiophiles ... . They come in, and strain their ears to hear this or that minutae ... their wives, OTOH, are just caught up in the groove; they're rockin' out, .

 

Men have an old bomb of a car that they obsess about squeezing the last ounce of HP out of ... Go for a drive, they say. Of course it's a disaster as a means of transport; uncomfortable as all getout in just about every area - but the bloke, well, he's in love with it, because it makes very exciting, brooom, brooom noises ... welcome to the world of audiophiles, .

[STC]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

They come in, and strain their ears to hear this or that minutae ... their wives, OTOH, are just caught up in the groove; they're rockin' out, 

 

How could I forget this?  This is the main one where they strain to listen for difference.