Value, lack there of, and "High End"

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, Paul R said:

I think in some ways what you are saying is true, but I do not think it is as simple as all that. There are other factors involved than just cost, making a multi-dimensional axis necessary to plot the value and quality of a system in. 

 

It's all well and good to make broad sweeping statements, but the devil is in the details.  More details please. 

 

 

Yes, the devil is in the details ...

 

Other factors are:

•  How aware the listener is to the fact that the reproduction is audibly flawed - if one thinks that "it must be more accurate, because the gear cost more!" then you will be fighting an uphill battle.
• How prepared one is to do something about those flaws, and whether one will use money, or DIY tweaking to improve the situation.
• How many compromises one is willing to accept, knowing that the end result is worth it. One compromise I accept is that cheaper gear generally requires more warm up time; I know that on cold switch on that the sound will be quite mediocre, and means a conditioning period has to be gone through, before I take the SQ seriously ... if I were to pay big money for a setup, I wouldn't tolerate more than say 5 minutes before close to optimum sound was being produced; otherwise, what the hell was I paying good money for!

[fas42]

36 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Although I hear and respect your point, - I think that it's a decent size generalization that I could give counter examples. Although, - you and I may mean something different by "monster rig." I do think that there is a certain truth to diminishing returns: that is also a moving target that varies from person to person. IMO, - there's more than a few $40,000 retail systems that sound incredible, fit into different size rooms, and perform significantly better than system's at half the cost, - and although said $40K system might not be quite as great ad some really great systems costing more than double that, - diminishing returns on those big systems make it not worth it, - at least as far as I hear them.....

 

Everybody has a different sense of what "systems that sound incredible" means - mine is that I can put on any recording that I happen to like, or happen to come across; and I'm taken to a special place, the event that was captured in the recording. Ambitious, in terms of size and cost, rigs often fail badly at doing this - and that's the core of my point.

[shtf]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Audiophiles, and the industry in general, don't get it ... remarkably low cost, unpretentious equipment, especially these days, can easily trounce very expensive rigs in nearly every area that gives long term listening pleasure. "Monster rigs" may do well at some showoff, gymnastic sound exercise - but sound pretty awful at everything else ... what they frequently lack is attention to detail at sorting all the "little things" out; and hence are nigh on impossible to take seriously ...

 

You got some good points there, Frank.  As an old friend once said:

 

1.  One has to spend a lot of money on this hobby to realize one doesn't have to spend a lot of money on this hobby.

 

2.  The best thing one can spend on their system is time.

 

Five years ago, I upgraded my source, amps, and speakers that combined retailed for $25k to replacements retailing for a total of $10k and in each case the improvements where quite a musical jump and the only thing I'm now lacking is any bling.  Later I replaced my $1200 copper ic's for a pair of $300 silver ic's and 2 years ago I replaced my $2400 copper speaker cables with $200 silver cables.  All cables are cryo-treated via the full-immersion method.  

 

In fact, with an ever improving superior foundation in place, my components have almost become somewhat of accessory status.  Meaning, so long as my system is built on a superior foundation, the components matter so much less than one might suspect.  In truth, it's what a superior foundation does for the performance of the components that makes all the difference.

 

Today, my foundation costs roughly 65% of my entire playback system's retail cost (roughly $25k) where just one of my 3 little but superior line conditioners (part of my foundation) retails for the same price of my most expensive component.  That's an unheard of ratio by any standards.  Yet, it's a complete paradigm shift in my strategy toward reaching the mark and it's taken me significantly further than the usual component upgrade path ever could.

 

But alas.  Without the bling of my $9k Esoteric CDP and my $8k BMC int. amp nobody seems to take me seriously anymore. 

 

 

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, shtf said:

In fact, with an ever improving superior foundation in place, my components have almost become somewhat of accessory status.  Meaning, so long as my system is built on a superior foundation, the components matter so much less than one might suspect.  In truth, it's what superior foundation does for the performance of the components that makes all the difference.

 

Today, my foundation costs roughly 65% of my entire playback system's retail cost (roughly $25k) where just one of my 3 little but superior line conditioners (part of my foundation) retails for the same price of my most expensive component.  It's a paradigm shift in my strategy toward reaching the mark and it's taken me significantly further than the usual component upgrade path ever could.

 

But of course without the bling of my $9k Esoteric CDP and my $8k BMC int. amp nobody seems to take me seriously anymore. 

 

 

 

I take you seriously, very seriously - you're going to down a similar road to me, but are doing it at a higher expenditure level. Coming from a technical, electrical background, I can push things by using el cheapo short cuts - my 'line conditioning' has used a huge variety of techniques and ideas over the years, none of which has cost much simply because I use what is most effective, that's lying around, or cheap to purchase from conventional stores - I'm always experimenting, so often go backwards as well as forwards.

 

My version of the laughably cheap component is the use of speakers on the bottom rungs - currently, simple Sharp boombox speakers, with drivers that have no trouble handling lots of power, give me all the feedback I need for working on the setup. The cabinets are far too flimsy for serious volumes, but depending on everything I will probably mass load them, etc, a bit down the track.

[lucretius]

10 hours ago, crenca said:

High Fidelity has this basis as an endeavour grounded in a real objectivity:  the "perfect" (or approaching perfection as much as possible) reproduction of the original performance and/or recording.  Given this, while granted we all have subjective preferences, the ultimate goal is subjective. 

 

In some cases, what the sound engineer artistically does to the track is the performance. It may be the only way to listen to some modern pop artists (without being disappointed).

[Summit]

On 5/23/2019 at 12:00 AM, fas42 said:

 

What boutique makers have always contributed is the attitude that taking extra care makes a real difference. And doing that costs money, meaning the consumer pays for it. Of course, a lot of the cost goes into having a super duper, bling exterior, which certainly helps the buyer feel he's getting value for money .

 

If one wants realistic, competent, convincing sound, then there are no discoveries to be made .. except, that attention to detail is critical. Many people in isolation over the years have tripped over this fact, myself included - but the industry as a whole is not interested; not an exciting enough concept ... .

 

So, for as long as the mainstream "never gets it" there will always be room for small crews to put together and deliver systems that achieve high standards in SQ - and charge as much as everyone is comfortable with.

 

It’s truly great that you are focusing on the right things while the majority of manufactures doesn’t 😁.  What would be even better IMO, is if you would share how to achieve super SQ on a shoestring to the rest of us. That attention to “detail” is critical, most can attest to, but it’s kind of vague and I would need more details on how to do it for it to be of any help.  

[Summit]

Value is like beauty very much in the eyes of the beholder. Value also depends on many many things*, though not all are based on rational premises.  

 

* Income, demands, preference, quality, QC, SQ, finish, colour, branding, operational, functions, company, land of manufacturing, components used, tech design, marketing, CSR, personal bias etc etc.  

[crenca]

"High Fidelity has this basis as an endeavour grounded in a real objectivity:  the "perfect" (or approaching perfection as much as possible) reproduction of the original performance and/or recording.  Given this, while granted we all have subjective preferences, the ultimate goal is objective."

 

Just an FYI - I meant to say "objective" and not "subjective" at the end of the above sentence

 

22 hours ago, Albrecht said:

...That doesn't mean that I can afford to buy a Meitner... but I'm not judging it's sound quality on whether or not I can afford it. Of course Meitner DACs measure well, and have very low jitter, - but so do a lot of other DACs that are both cheaper and more expensive: and don't perform nearly as well.

 

So, - just because a product is expensive, (and unaffordable to most of us), - doesn't mean that it sucks. There are two different types of judgements, - the affordability part of the equation is objective, - it's performance is not.

 

 

I think this is what I am trying to get at, that there is an "objective" quality to value to High Fidelity and price.  It avoids these two extremes:

 

1)  The radical subjective, where value is completely dependant upon the financial means and preferences of each individual.  

2)  The radical objective, where value can be reduced merely to measurements and an external "quality" that avoids the relativeness of value

 

So I think in some important way there is an objective aspect of performance (i.e. high fidelity), and while that is relative it is not radically relative in the sense that there is no consensus.  We are all human, so we all share the same make up (genetics, etc.), which means we are all much more alike than different (as important as those differences are).  In other words, there is a strong objective center to "high fidelity" and performance.  Hope I am making some sense...

 

By the way Albrecht, I heard that the long time founder/principle of Meitner (can't recall his name) sold off his share and is no longer part of the company

[crenca]

6 hours ago, Summit said:

Value is like beauty very much in the eyes of the beholder....

 

This is a good summation of what I call the "radical subjective".  

 

I maintain the opposite.  Value and beauty is not in the eye of the beholder - rather it has its own reality is that reality is compelling, it is its own truth.

 

 

[bluesman]

18 hours ago, lucretius said:

On 5/23/2019 at 12:00 PM, crenca said:

High Fidelity has this basis as an endeavour grounded in a real objectivity:  the "perfect" (or approaching perfection as much as possible) reproduction of the original performance and/or recording.  Given this, while granted we all have subjective preferences, the ultimate goal is subjective. 

 

In some cases, what the sound engineer artistically does to the track is the performance. It may be the only way to listen to some modern pop artists (without being disappointed).

 

Au contraire, mes amies!  The two of you are talking about different things.  At the technical level, hifi is and has always been about pushing an exact replica of the source waveform out of the speakers.  But the original program material was performed and captured in a milieu totally different from the one in which we listen to its reproduction, and many (most?) recordings are made with intentional alteration of technical parameters in an effort to make the users happy by making the product sound better to them through their own systems in their own homes.  Many of these "enhancements" are tailored to specific listening systems and environments in widespread use, e.g. portable players (née boomboxes) or mobile phones thru exercise earbuds.  And their effects on fidelity are perceived by most users of the target stuff as better. 

 

Most of us here do not think it sounds better.  The more accurate the system, the more like sonic Spam ( lunch meat, not junk email) sonic Spam sounds.  Some of us would rather have less bass than bloated or harmonically enhanced bass.  One audiophile's clarity is another's stridency.  Etc etc etc.

 

So there is indeed a technical pursuit of objective perfection in audio, manifested and measured as closeness of fit between the source waveform and the reproduced waveform.  But there is also a subjective pursuit of excellence, manifested and measured as listener satisfaction.  Technical perfection and listener satisfaction can be quite disparate - the only thing they have in common is that audio equipment is sought and sold on the basis of both, although each supports a different set of listeners.

[fas42]

13 hours ago, Summit said:

 

It’s truly great that you are focusing on the right things while the majority of manufactures doesn’t 😁.  What would be even better IMO, is if you would share how to achieve super SQ on a shoestring to the rest of us. That attention to “detail” is critical, most can attest to, but it’s kind of vague and I would need more details on how to do it for it to be of any help.  

 

It's only vague, because every situation is different. All the techniques I use have been used by plenty of other people, and written about; in fact, most of my tweaking methods are merely copying what others have done, and I discard the ones that don't work, for the particular setup.

 

The big difference about me is that I know exactly what the SQ is that's my goal; most people are stumbling about, and getting excited about something "sounding spectacular", and worrying about whether one configuration "is nicer" than another. To me this is akin to wanting a certain car because it has a great exhaust note, or a well done colour scheme for the interior - completely ignoring the fact that the ride is terrible, and it chews petrol at a ferocious rate.

 

As I have said numerous times, the number one skill is to be able to listen to a rig, and pick it to pieces - if you can't hear what it's doing wrong, then the chances of making the right moves to improve the performance will be almost random. Once you have identified a clear problem then try various, and the most likely, ideas for tweaking the setup.

 

An obvious one most have done is reduce outside interference; mains noise - experiment to find out how sensitive the SQ is to rubbish on the power coming in, by deliberately switching on 'noisy' appliances on a neighbouring socket. If the sound suffers major degradation, then there's obviously something to be worked on.

 

What I do is keep going round and round, to different areas of a system, and trying things to see if I get an audible improvement. I know from repeatedly experiencing it, that eventually convincing sound pops out - I just have to persist until this happens.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, bluesman said:

So there is indeed a technical pursuit of objective perfection in audio, manifested and measured as closeness of fit between the source waveform and the reproduced waveform.  But there is also a subjective pursuit of excellence, manifested and measured as listener satisfaction.  Technical perfection and listener satisfaction can be quite disparate - the only thing they have in common is that audio equipment is sought and sold on the basis of both, although each supports a different set of listeners.

 

This is wrong ... technical "perfection" and listener satisfaction go hand in hand - I have never yet come across a rig, or worked on a system where the satisfaction doesn't improve as the technical correctness is increased.

 

Why many people fail to understand this is because the tools for measuring "technical perfection" are so poor at, well, measuring. Yes, they do a brilliant job of pulling numbers out of the air, but, "those numbers are NOT the ones that matter!"

 

The ability of a setup to resolve low level detail well is absolutely crucial, yet no-one measures this, in any way that's useful. Which is why subjective listening is enormously effective for assessing performance, still.

[bluesman]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

This is wrong ... technical "perfection" and listener satisfaction go hand in hand - I have never yet come across a rig, or worked on a system where the satisfaction doesn't improve as the technical correctness is increased.

 

For some listeners that’s true - but the “great unwashed” clearly prefer at least a bit of enhancement in their sound. Why do you think there are so many named EQ settings in mass market players? My car’s optional OEM sound system lets me select among multiple EQs that include “feel”.......

 

Look at the huge market for earbuds with “enhanced bass”.  Do you really think this is an effort to achieve pure fidelity to the source?

[Daverz]

DeVore Fidelity Gibbon X loudspeaker frequency response from Stereophile:

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/devore-fidelity-gibbon-x-loudspeaker-measurements

 

I think plot speaks loudly as to their "value".

[fas42]

Just now, bluesman said:

 

For some listeners that’s true - but the “great unwashed” clearly prefer at least a bit of enhancement in their sound. Why do you think there are so many named EQ settings in mass market players? My car’s optional OEM sound system lets me select among multiple EQs that include “feel”.......

 

Look at the huge market for earbuds with “enhanced bass”.  Do you really think this is an effort to achieve pure fidelity to the source?

 

Enhancements work for audio systems that are below par; one attempts to 'balance' the sound so that it's more pleasant to the ears, the distortion that accompanies the playback is masked to some degree, after playing with EQ a bit.

 

A trivial example is a car radio; typically, the treble is pretty awful, and one tries to offset this by lowering the high end, and pumping up the lower frequencies. I certainly tend to jockey the HF in ours, trying to find a level where this area of the sound is not too obnoxious, without killing all sense of sparkle in the music.

[Paul R]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Enhancements work for audio systems that are below par; one attempts to 'balance' the sound so that it's more pleasant to the ears, the distortion that accompanies the playback is masked to some degree, after playing with EQ a bit.

 

A trivial example is a car radio; typically, the treble is pretty awful, and one tries to offset this by lowering the high end, and pumping up the lower frequencies. I certainly tend to jockey the HF in ours, trying to find a level where this area of the sound is not too obnoxious, without killing all sense of sparkle in the music.

 

Okay Frank - I do not think you can have it both ways. Either your titanic efforts can make a hunk of junk sing, or they cannot. Said it before, if all one has is an AIO box from Walmart, it can and will sound great to you. If you really want to hear the music. If you are a gearhead, it may be unendurable. A person who falls somewhere in between may be happy until they find something better. 

 

But a hunk of junk is never going to sound as good as a well-built system put together with even a modest amount of competence. And, as competence increases, so will the quality of the sound.  Value, however, is always completely relative. The value of that AIO box from Walmart may be much higher to its owner than a $50k system to its owner. And justly so! 

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Okay Frank - I do not think you can have it both ways. Either your titanic efforts can make a hunk of junk sing, or they cannot. Said it before, if all one has is an AIO box from Walmart, it can and will sound great to you. If you really want to hear the music. If you are a gearhead, it may be unendurable. A person who falls somewhere in between may be happy until they find something better. 

 

"Titanic" efforts will almost always make cheap stuff sound better; because the core circuitry, which is cheap as chips these days, performs 'technically' just as well as that used in much pricier items. But, one doesn't attempt to make a lowly car radio work better than its raw form, because there are far better things to do with one's time - the word is, motivation ... .

 

Quote

 

But a hunk of junk is never going to sound as good as a well-built system put together with even a modest amount of competence. And, as competence increases, so will the quality of the sound.  Value, however, is always completely relative. The value of that AIO box from Walmart may be much higher to its owner than a $50k system to its owner. And justly so! 

 

 

There will always be relative quality, for a variety of reasons; an obvious one is that it takes quite a bit of money to get very low distortion deep bass; the physics of air behaviour is against you here!

 

The value to the listener is dependent on their experiences; someone who say just wants lots of impressive bassy sounds served up can be very easily satisfied these days - but I would be very dissatisfied with a $50k rig with obvious audible deficiences; it would irritate me intensely, in the same way as a new BMW with a bad rattle inside the dash would disturb the owner. The higher the price, the higher the expectations - a modest rig, which ticks nearly every box, and never trips up in an obvious way, would represent excellent value, to me.

[Paul R]

Ah, but if you put together a $50k system with those “deficiencies” I think it would have to be all in you. Competence! 

 

If someone does that, well, that’s on them 🤪

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, Daverz said:

DeVore Fidelity Gibbon X loudspeaker frequency response from Stereophile:

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/devore-fidelity-gibbon-x-loudspeaker-measurements

 

I think plot speaks loudly as to their "value".

 

they have very high value for gibbons, not so much for homonids

[Summit]

14 hours ago, crenca said:

 

This is a good summation of what I call the "radical subjective".  

 

I maintain the opposite.  Value and beauty is not in the eye of the beholder - rather it has its own reality is that reality is compelling, it is its own truth.

 

 

 

“A market economy is an economic system in which the decisions regarding investment, production and distribution are guided by the price signals created by the forces of supply and demand.”

 

“Market economies rely upon a price system to signal market actors to adjust production and investment. Price formation relies on the interaction of supply and demand to reach or approximate an equilibrium where unit price for a particular good or service is at a point where the quantity demanded equals the quantity supplied.”

 

“Economic value can be described as a measure of the benefit from a good or service to an economic agent. It is typically measured in units of currency. Another interpretation is that economic value represents the maximum amount of money an agent is willing and able to pay for a good or service. The economic value should not be confused with market value, which is the minimum amount a consumer will pay for a good or service. Thus, economic value is often greater than the market value.”

 

“Although modern economists believe economic value is subjective, notable past economists, such as Karl Marx, believed that economic value was objective. Marx believed that the value of a good is determined by the value of labor used to make the good, not the amount that individuals are willing to pay for the finished product.”

 

Not all things people values are and can be prised on market though. For example someone might value free time high and wherefore work less hours or retire early. Someone else would like to work less, but can’t. Some like to live in a big city while others value the life on the countryside. The list of thing that we as individual value different is very long. Value is very much in the eyes of the beholder.

[Summit]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

What I do is keep going round and round

 

Yes you certainly do, but how about something concrete that you do but not the industry.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, Summit said:

 

Yes you certainly do, but how about something concrete that you do but not the industry.

 

I think, but am far from certain, that what he is saying is that it really does not matter what one does, one just keeps hacking at the system until it matches one's expectations. 

 

If so, it seems like a very inefficient and error-prone way to do things.  At least, to me.

 

But if it works, then more power to him!

 

-Paul

 

[fas42]

49 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

Yes you certainly do, but how about something concrete that you do but not the industry.

 

I need to keep repeating myself, because the message doesn't get through - I don't get excited when the system is "a little bit better"; rather, I have a very specific goal for the SQ, which I work towards ... it's sort of like trying to break a speed record: if I reach 100+% I've won; if I only make it to 99.9% - I've failed, so to speak.

 

Obviously the industry doesn't work this way - the main thrust is to add extra layers of bling, and 'bigness'; and promise the world - meaning, with a bit of luck your rig may do a better job.

 

In some industries the word is "integration" - you have people whose only job is to assemble various modules that form the whole; and then do whatever it takes to ensure that the end result performs to a certain standard. That's what I do, and something the audio industry is not at all interested in.

[fas42]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

 

I think, but am far from certain, that what he is saying is that it really does not matter what one does, one just keeps hacking at the system until it matches one's expectations. 

 

That's it!

 

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

 

If so, it seems like a very inefficient and error-prone way to do things.  At least, to me.

 

Constantly buying and selling bits of kit, in the hope that the rig gets better is not a "a very inefficient and error-prone way to do things" ?

 

All I'm doing is tweaking in a similar manner to many other people; but I have good understanding of what may be useful, from my electrical engineering background. And I know how to listen.

 

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

 

But if it works, then more power to him!

 

-Paul

 

 

The viewpoint is everything. If a rig is not up to par, then consider it faulty. You listen carefully, and home in on where there's a clear issue. And work towards solving that audible shortcoming. And then move on to the next weakness, which may now only be apparent - because the previous issue masked this more subtle anomaly.

[lucretius]

15 hours ago, bluesman said:

So there is indeed a technical pursuit of objective perfection in audio, manifested and measured as closeness of fit between the source waveform and the reproduced waveform.

 

I don't disagree with this*. However, this is a lot less important for lovers of pop music than it is for lovers of classical music or jazz. And sometimes these lovers of pop music would like enhancements to the "source waveform".  Does this disqualify them from being audiophiles?   

 

15 hours ago, bluesman said:

But there is also a subjective pursuit of excellence, manifested and measured as listener satisfaction.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

 

 

* Why were audiophiles buying equalizers and dbx units in the early eighties?