More 'Audiophile' bullsh*t
Discussion
These days even relatively child hardware is very good. Sadly nobody gives a stuff about recorded quality. An iPhone is apparently HiFi. Compression is the enemy. Play a CD from the birth. Compare to recent one. The difference is enormous. Despite technically being inferior the old one sounds vastly better. But nobody seems to care.
gizlaroc said:
But are we measuring everything when it comes to digital playback?
Or are we just measuring the equivalent of 0-60, bhp and torque? Leaving out other far more important things?
I am not saying that is the case, but like anything, it is not until we know what to measure, or how to measure those things, that we realise previous results were only half the story.
We've known what to measure in order to assess audio systems accurately for decades. Or are we just measuring the equivalent of 0-60, bhp and torque? Leaving out other far more important things?
I am not saying that is the case, but like anything, it is not until we know what to measure, or how to measure those things, that we realise previous results were only half the story.
What could we possibly need to measure that we can't already?
Now that the latest DACs produce entirely insignificant levels of timing errors even red book is transparent to the best analogue master tape because in every measurable way it is technically superior.
I think it is easier to to understand in displays rather than audio.
Take a Pioneer plasma vs a Sony LCD, the Sony measures better blacks, more accurate colours, better greyscale, less noise, better motion resolution etc. etc.
However, sit 50 people in a room showing an actual film and every single one says the Pioneer is better.
Yet we do that with audio and we are all told 'you're wrong, the measurements say you are wrong.' and we all start to believe it.
Take a Pioneer plasma vs a Sony LCD, the Sony measures better blacks, more accurate colours, better greyscale, less noise, better motion resolution etc. etc.
However, sit 50 people in a room showing an actual film and every single one says the Pioneer is better.
Yet we do that with audio and we are all told 'you're wrong, the measurements say you are wrong.' and we all start to believe it.
gizlaroc said:
I think it is easier to to understand in displays rather than audio.
Take a Pioneer plasma vs a Sony LCD the Sony measures better blacks, more accurate colours, better greyscale, less noise, better motion resolution etc. etc.
However, sit 50 people in a room showing an actual film and every single one says the Pioneer is better.
Yet we do that with audio and we are all told 'you're wrong, the measurements say you are wrong.' and we all start to believe it.
That comparison sounds dubious. Did such a test happen? Take a Pioneer plasma vs a Sony LCD the Sony measures better blacks, more accurate colours, better greyscale, less noise, better motion resolution etc. etc.
However, sit 50 people in a room showing an actual film and every single one says the Pioneer is better.
Yet we do that with audio and we are all told 'you're wrong, the measurements say you are wrong.' and we all start to believe it.
Anyway, I'm not saying people can't prefer technically inferior formats. I mean how can vinyl be so popular which is vastly inferior to Red Book in every measurable way. The interesting thing is understanding which inaccuracies actually enhance the subjective performance. For example does the poor channel separation on vinyl actually enhance the perceived "solidity" of the sound stage? Does the relatively high level of harmonic distortion actually enhance the subjective impression of transients and dynamic range?
Our eyes prefer distortions in photography, eg increased contrast, unsharp masking and colour saturation. So why shouldn't our ears prefer something that isn't accurate?
Rather like sepia or rose coloured glasses, soft focus on womens faces? These are not true representations of the real world. Digital is truer reproduction and analogue is " coloured". Old valve radios sounded warmer and softer whereas early transistor amps sounded brittle and hard. Valve distortion was fuzzy, transistor harsh. Our sight like our hearing is judgemental and biassed. That is why we like certain colours. Digital reproduction gives us the facts, vinyl distorts the facts even before we judge it ourselves. I remember hearing Pinball Wizard on an old juke box and it was really exciting. Listen to the remastered version now and it doesnt sound anywhere near as exciting. As Deep Purple did on Made in Rock, the old amps and speakers distorted the music
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I don't think we're disagreeing. My point is that we all hear things differently - not because the sound we are hearing is different but because our hearing is different. My ears will pick up fractionally different sounds to yours. In addition to this I might prefer different sounds to you.
As such there can't be a definitive "this piece of equipment is better/worse than that piece" simply because hearing is so subjective.
Countdown said:
My point is that we all hear things differently - not because the sound we are hearing is different but because our hearing is different. My ears will pick up fractionally different sounds to yours. In addition to this I might prefer different sounds to you.
As such there can't be a definitive "this piece of equipment is better/worse than that piece" simply because hearing is so subjective.
Get a dozen 20 year olds to listen to the same music, same environment but equipment at different levels. 12 views or a cluster?As such there can't be a definitive "this piece of equipment is better/worse than that piece" simply because hearing is so subjective.
Mermaid said:
Get a dozen 20 year olds to listen to the same music, same environment but equipment at different levels. 12 views or a cluster?
It depends on what the question is. Some answers are binary (yes/no) e.g. does the music sound louder with Speaker A or Speaker B? However if the question is qualitative it's much harder to answer. e.g. is Abba better than the Rolling Stones?Countdown said:
Mermaid said:
Get a dozen 20 year olds to listen to the same music, same environment but equipment at different levels. 12 views or a cluster?
It depends on what the question is. Some answers are binary (yes/no) e.g. does the music sound louder with Speaker A or Speaker B? However if the question is qualitative it's much harder to answer. e.g. is Abba better than the Rolling Stones?
You know the question?Which one sounds better?
mattcambs said:
That comparison sounds dubious. Did such a test happen?
Anyway, I'm not saying people can't prefer technically inferior formats. I mean how can vinyl be so popular which is vastly inferior to Red Book in every measurable way. The interesting thing is understanding which inaccuracies actually enhance the subjective performance. For example does the poor channel separation on vinyl actually enhance the perceived "solidity" of the sound stage? Does the relatively high level of harmonic distortion actually enhance the subjective impression of transients and dynamic range?
Our eyes prefer distortions in photography, eg increased contrast, unsharp masking and colour saturation. So why shouldn't our ears prefer something that isn't accurate?
Well yeah, all measurements have been taken and the Sony wins, on paper, but never heard anyone say it looks as realistic and natural as the Kuro. Anyway, I'm not saying people can't prefer technically inferior formats. I mean how can vinyl be so popular which is vastly inferior to Red Book in every measurable way. The interesting thing is understanding which inaccuracies actually enhance the subjective performance. For example does the poor channel separation on vinyl actually enhance the perceived "solidity" of the sound stage? Does the relatively high level of harmonic distortion actually enhance the subjective impression of transients and dynamic range?
Our eyes prefer distortions in photography, eg increased contrast, unsharp masking and colour saturation. So why shouldn't our ears prefer something that isn't accurate?
This was my point earlier regarding transports, we have gone passed just trying to get the 1's and 0's off the disc, we can now correct errors in how the digital files were encoded too, which does change the sound.
And that is why saying all digital transports sound the same is so wrong..
A digital file will always sound the same, but it can sound different if manipulated to do so.
I would think that there is an optimum price for the best sound from a cd player. probably around £1000. At this price all the components must be free from " built to a cost" limitations. I replaced the output ops amps and all the electrolytic capacitors with the best quality ones and the cost was around £300. Put into a decent transport, this means that you can have a really good system for less than £1000. Mine eventually cost about £500. I then got sucked into the world of Russ Andrews speaker cable coated with teflon, plaited mains leads, and fancy interconnects. One day I will try the suggestion of mains lead for speaker wires. What rating should I use for the mains lead ( 9KV ? ). At least with cd you can have a party and the idiot dancer won't make the stylus jump :>)
There are very thick mains cables that could hold my system off the ground, maybe that would be cool.
Boring I know, but Cyrus never replied to me after I returned my cd8se2 to them and told them I was so sick of it they could keep it...what a shower.
There are very thick mains cables that could hold my system off the ground, maybe that would be cool.
Boring I know, but Cyrus never replied to me after I returned my cd8se2 to them and told them I was so sick of it they could keep it...what a shower.
spikey123 said:
One day I will try the suggestion of mains lead for speaker wires. What rating should I use for the mains lead ( 9KV ? )
240V rated is more than enough.I tried solid core mains lead many years ago (cooker cable, good for 40A). It was rubbish
Edited by Matt172 on Monday 31st March 18:05
rotarymazda said:
spikey123 said:
One day I will try the suggestion of mains lead for speaker wires. What rating should I use for the mains lead ( 9KV ? )
240V rated is more than enough.I tried solid core mains lead many years ago (cooker cable, good for 40A). It was rubbish.
For me, it sounded as though somebody had inserted a graphic EQ into my system with the 1kHz slider pushed right to the top...
@spikey123 - re: 9KV - please insert the "not sure if serious" meme here.
qube_TA said:
Cake topping, who would have thunked it.spikey123 said:
The 9 KV was a reference to the gauge of wire needed for a 9KV shower mains cable. Are we saying that a common or garden 13 amp mains wire can do the biz with more expensive speaker cables?
Ah, you mean 9kW (9000W, 37.5A).That's seriously heavy stuff, and (in my experience at least) no good for speaker cable.
If you want to use mains stuff, get some 1.5mm 4 core cable.
ETA: Or some 2.5mm 4 core cable
You can bi-wire with it or simply double up the cores.
Edited by TonyRPH on Monday 31st March 18:04
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff