Jump to content

firedog

Members
  • Content Count

    9660
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About firedog

  • Rank
    Masters Level Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. First, I purposely didn't include speakers. Second, when people participate in non-sighted tests, more expensive components often don't "win".They almost always do in sighted tests. I purposely didn't say that more expensive components have no SQ value; I said that it is often a small improvement for big bucks, and sometimes, in cases like $2.5k DAC vs a $4k DAC the less expensive component may be as good or better. But expectation bias created in the audiophile world, and simple knowledge of the price, creates an assumption that the more expensive item is better. Most people simply assume that an item selling for less than $2.5-$5k "can't" sound as good as one selling for $10k.
  2. I pretty much agree with the article. I'm suggesting that there often isn't - that for electronics the diminishing returns curve is extreme after about $500 and pretty much falls off a cliff somewhere in the $2500 area, and that the differences above $2.5k are often non-existent (they only exist in sighted listening) - or are quite small. "The hi-end industry" is based on creating a need for more expensive components that probably give little SQ return on investment. Buying more expensive stuff is fine for all sorts of reasons - including making a decision to pay thousands for a tiny uptick in SQ - but SQ improvements at a certain point aren't large, yet are described as "life changing", "veil lifting", etc.: All so that the upgrade itch will continue to be scratched. I don't think anyone who can afford speding thousands on audio needs to be "protected"; but neither do I like seeing people subtly manipulated into being continually dissatisfied with their stuff. I think today one can buy what are essentially a state of the art DAC and amp for a total of $4-$5k. Spending above that may add some feature (s) you like, and may or may not add a small increase in SQ. Why should someone who has such a setup be coached into feeling their electronics are somehow inferior? If they want to spend money, then it should be on speakers they like and some sort of method of removing the room influence from heavily influencing the sound of their playback. That's where the bang for the buck is.
  3. I don't think the issue is $550k gear- you are setting up a straw man argument. The audiophile "market" is based on creating aing desire to upgrade or change equipment by always making it seem that that next piece, next add-on, or more expensive model will get you to that audio nirvana. The uber priced gear is part of this psychological warfare. Even if you don't consider it, it encourages consumers to think that the $4k piece will get them closer than the $2.5k piece, so they need to get the more expensive piece. And then after they have the $4k piece, to lust after the $10k piece, and so on.....When, in reality, there may be no difference, or very little difference in sound between the pieces.
  4. When I used the 192 DSD I converted everything to DSD as I thought music sounded better that way. With my present system I think PCM sounds better so I convert everything to PCM. Bottom line - I don't feel I'm losing anything by listening in 24.176; I think it depends on each person's ears and setup.
  5. Read full comments here: Bob likes digital, but talks about how sometimes an LP can sound better than the CD made from the same master, and even better than the master tape itself. In short, a form of euphonic distortion introduced by vinyl.
  6. Actually, lots of us here were early adopters who already had Tidal accounts when it first became available, and heard MQA even before this thread started or not long after. One of the repeated objections to it here is that many heard it and were unimpressed or negatively impressed with the SQ. And that being so, all the other potential negative aspects of it become much more objectionable. If it clearly offered something to audiophiles, they'd be more likely to accept it.
  7. Streaming something on Qobuz I haven't listened to in a few years (hi-rez) -and it sounds really good! The Doors - Strange Days
  8. https://community.roonlabs.com/t/i-know-roon-does-the-1st-unfold-but-is-it-good-enough/73891/20 Vaporware has a very long lifespan - maybe MQA is a zombie that can't be killed. See this exchange where perfectly sincere MQA lovers just can't get past the MQA marketing speak, and still tell me there is a "third unfold" of higher res data.
  9. There are $500 DACs which measure extremely well- basically state of the art - and $12000 DACs which measure slightly better, although marginally so. Some people will conclude that this means there is no reason to buy any DAC other than the $500 dollar one. Ohters will want to get that last bit of extreme performance. I'd bet for both camps the amount of disposable income plays a large part in that decision. I'm not convinced all DACs that measure above a certain threshold sound the same, but clearly there is a curve of diminishing returns in audio - and a steep one. But where along that curve of diminishing returns I want to get off the curve is a very different question.
  10. I think reviews can be helpful. I prefer reviews where they compare components and describe how they differ (or don't). But, many reviewers don't agree with making comparisons in reviews. If I have read the reviewer enough to know his/her taste, or if I know one of the components in question, the review can help me build a list of components I am or am not interested in. I also wouldn't buy stuff just on the basis of reviews - unless the cost is something I don't think is significant, or unless I'm looking more for a set of features and less about "perfect sound". Sometimes certain features mean more to me than some very small difference in SQ that I probably won't notice in everyday listening.
  11. Yes, would seem to be a very good solution for someone like you. Move, and take your system with you, without too much hassle.
  12. If the subject of a thread is something like "which cable should I buy" or "which cable do you prefer" - I don't see much reason to go there and tell the person the cables can't make a difference. It's highly likely the person is aware of the basic disagreement, and has already decided that he thinks cables do make a difference. A more constructive approach would be to help him set up a comparison that isn't sighted, so that maybe he will make a reasonably accurate decision about what he heard. Or point him to a manufacturer that makes good quality cables that don't cost an arm and a leg. In the end, almost none of us can do proper double blind testing at home, so we can just compare the best we can and live with the results. No one needs to be "saved from themselves" in audio. If, on the other hand, an OP asks a more open question about cables, no reason not to post an objectivist response that they can't make a difference. But even here, no reason to turn such a thread into another long debate about the issue.
  13. He has CD's he likes. But I think he always will say the vinyl version sounds better. Even if it is from a digital source.
  14. A bit unfair about MF. He has a great digital (SACD) setup. He doesn't dislike digital. He dislikes CD. He likes lots of hi-res and has even said there are hi-res versions of albums he prefers to the vinyl version, or at least thinks they are the equal.
×
×
  • Create New...