Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[firedog]

1 minute ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Bingo, so let's try this again.

How would your ears detect audible "DAC" soundwave changes to the soundfield, other than from the analog output of the DAC? Please specify the method of conduction if this is not the case.

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to ask. I think my posts were clear.

[AJ Soundfield]

5 minutes ago, firedog said:

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to ask. I think my posts were clear.

Yep, you have indeed confirmed why only the analog output (and measures) matters, not all the other hokum.

Thanks.

[firedog]

4 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Yep, you have indeed confirmed why only the analog output (and measures) matters, not all the other hokum.

Thanks.

That's what I asked Gordon to weigh in on, as he listed a series of ways that a USB device could could conduct/reduce "noise"  to a DAC The question in the end is not whether a USB device reduces "noise", but whether this reduction is actually relevant to the analog sound produced.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, Lebouwsky said:

Why does audio equipment need to be as accurate as possible?

 

And I like a little euphonic lush sound, there, I've said it.

 

There's no point in arguing about a personal preference. If you are willing to add components to your system that color all sound coming through it with 'lushness', that's completely your choice.

 

I approach it from a different perspective: I want the reproduced sound to be as close and as faithful as possible to what was recorded and produced. When I listen to a live piano recital performed on a Steinway, I don't ask them to swap in a Yamaha just because I like a livelier sound

 

If the sound recorded was harsh, that's what I want to hear. If it was lush, then that's what I want. This doesn't mean expensive components, all it means is that I need to be careful to only introduce components that can be objectively shown not to interfere with the sound of the recording. Interestingly, more often than not some of the less expensive components fall into this category.

[semente]

33 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, good test! The lushness of solo violin, and the soaring quality of a good string section can be fully realised in a competent rig - early in my exploration of what's possible in audio I went to live performances, and sometimes was disappointed by the "real thing", in comparison - I particularly remember a piano recital, where the quality of sound of the instrument really missed the grade.

 

The main reason why, of course, is because a recording is usually captured in the very best location, with everything optimised to secure a premium performance.

 

As far as I know, recorded violins will sound harsh/bright when close-mic'ed and/or if the frequency response of the mic is not flat and/or the electronics are not up to par.

[Lebouwsky]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

There's no point in arguing about a personal preference. If you are willing to add components to your system that color all sound coming through it with 'lushness', that's completely your choice.

 

 

 

Maybe this is exactly why I read some of these posts with argus eyes: a lot of arguing. To me the forum is about sharing and discussing.

[AJ Soundfield]

21 minutes ago, firedog said:

The question in the end is not whether a USB device reduces "noise", but whether this reduction is actually relevant to the analog sound produced.

Bingo. I think we are on the same page then

[beerandmusic]

2 hours ago, Teresa said:

===========================================================

On 6/20/2017 at 0:49 PM, beerandmusic said:

My guess is that a $1000 stereo system today will sound better than a $50K (or equivalent by today's terms) system 40 years ago.  I think it is about the law of diminishing returns....it may have been a big difference years ago, but when people argue today about a $2K dac sounding better than a $100K dac of yester-year.  Then you get the argument, do you prefer accurate or what sounds better.  And then the argument yes, they sound different, but not necessarily better.  It's almost to the point of technology where you can buy a $300 DAC that sounds as good as a $30K DAC.  And a $3K amp can arguably sound better than a $50K amp, and no one can prove differently.  If someone has deep pockets and media can convince them that a product is worth buying, great...e.g. $50K cables.  Someone that buys $50K cables, money is of little importance to them anyway, so might as well.  I have no problem with that..if they like the sound and aestetics better and money if of little value to those rich...great..happy for them. 

 

Buy a $4K amp and best speakers you can afford and be done with it, unless you have deep pockets, then go for whatever you desire. 

 

I have been to several audio shows, and heard the best, and the law of diminishing returns is the main reason i think people would knock audiophiles....i knock it myself.  Yes, i like good music, but overkill is overkill,  but if you have deep pockets, great.... I would never knock someone that is always trying to improve, but i certainly understand people that do knock it as well....I wouldn't say jealous...just overkill...if i had enough money to buy 200K stereo systems, i, myself would find something better i enjoy doing than chatting on these forums...i would travel mostly, and spend more money on family, and do other things if my pockets were that deep.

 

imho anything over

$4K amp

$2K dac

$40k speakers

is overkill and 10 times the system you could have had 30 years ago, and if i could afford more than that, i wouldn't be on these forums.

 

One exception...if this industry was your business....

===========================

Interesting post and I agree with much of it. However, I too have heard great sounding equipment at audio shows playing Telarc and other audiophile SACDs I brought with me. But I never got bitten by the audio nervosa bug, I guess because I'm thrifty (or a cheapskate) depending who you talk to. I know I don't have the finest audio equipment and I don't care. I enjoy my music played through it and I selected what sounded the most realistic and enjoyable that I could find on my budget. I am a poor audiophile.

 

More importantly I don't feel the need to try to disrespect people who own very high priced high-end equipment. If they can afford it that's great by me.

 

I generally keep audio equipment until it breaks or is too expensive to repair. My price limit per component is $1,000, but I try to find something I like for $500 or less, $200 is even better, so I listen a lot, buy on sale, clearance, demo and used. I bought my Infinity Reference Standard 7 Kappa's on clearance for half price, 25 years ago, instead of $1,400 for the pair, they were only $700 for the pair.

 

So the maximum for me (using your example) would be

$1K amp

$1K dac

$1k speakers

 

But I will try my best to find something I like for less than that.

=============

Doesn't sound like we disagree at much at all....i even had Kappas for a period and thought they were great.

If I had $3K, i would get a used $2K amp, $800 speakers and $200 DAC.   I am surprised that you would spend as much on a dac as speakers though...and it wasn't until I bought a better amp that i really appreciated bang for the buck.  I am curious what DAC you have that you think is worth spending $1K on when you aren't willing to spend more on speakers or amp.  I personally haven't found a DAC that is worth a premium over an IFI as compared to speakers or amp. 

 

 

[jabbr]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

That's what I asked Gordon to weigh in on, as he listed a series of ways that a USB device could could conduct/reduce "noise"  to a DAC The question in the end is not whether a USB device reduces "noise", but whether this reduction is actually relevant to the analog sound produced.

I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to speak for Gordon but we could discuss which measurements would be appropriate -- another topic -- but there really aren't any that are published by the manufacturers of the cables -- he said he didn't think they have the equipment

 

I have suggested that one measure would be the analogue output line width of a pure digital tone fed into the DAC.

[esldude]

4 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to speak for Gordon but we could discuss which measurements would be appropriate -- another topic -- but there really aren't any that are published by the manufacturers of the cables -- he said he didn't think they have the equipment

 

I have suggested that one measure would be the analogue output line width of a pure digital tone fed into the DAC.

Well there are no standard parameters for that test.  What would you suggest?

[Jud]

3 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

components that can be objectively shown not to interfere with the sound of the recording.

 

In some thread or other I mentioned comparing the sound of two different pairs of output *capacitors* (in the right and left channels, respectively, of a DAC), and several properties of capacitors (other than capacitance and voltage specs) were mentioned that might affect the sound.

 

So if you've gone to the extent of comparing all the relevant measurements of all the individual components of all the equipment in your signal chain that might affect the analog output, plus the circuit topology of each item of equipment, plus the resulting topology of your system as a whole, I salute you! 

 

But face it, none of us does that.  What we can do as a shortcut is credit the results of scientifically performed listening tests, which you have for all the equipment in your signal chain, and then your system as a whole, right?  Well, it's unlikely any of us has gone to that extent either.  (Though if you have, you crazy ol' objectivist, once again, you have my admiration.)

 

OK, so then where are the vast majority of us, realistically and practically speaking?  Making more or less informed judgments about what ought to affect the sound.  Some of us like to inform ourselves with specs and measurements and audio engineering or  audio engineering-related experience; others of us like to inform ourselves with our ears; still others of us like to do both.  I'm in the latter category, full well realizing the potential for my ears to lead me astray.  But I like music through my system, and I bought stuff used (amp, speakers) or just cheap (DAC) so I didn't spend a fortune.  Overall I'm happy, and maybe that's the measurement to be most concerned with. 

[jabbr]

46 minutes ago, esldude said:

Well there are no standard parameters for that test.  What would you suggest?

If I were ever in the business of selling USB cables I would provide measurements that supported the product I were selling. If pure USB conformance then impedance etc -- If I were claiming improvement in phase noise then phase error measurement and DAC output would be another. 

 

Theres actually a lot more hats been written about this over the last few decades (how to measure that is) more than a wide spectrum FFT

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

So if you've gone to the extent of comparing all the relevant measurements of all the individual components of all the equipment in your signal chain that might affect the analog output, plus the circuit topology of each item of equipment, plus the resulting topology of your system as a whole, I salute you! 

 

Yeah, ok, I'm crazy, but not that crazy  For me, an objective piece of evidence is also a blind test. I take with a grain of salt all the sighted reports on these forums. When someone says that XYZ 'lifted a veil' or 'reduced noise' or produced 'quieter background'. I tend to discount it. I don't know what that person actually heard or didn't, what veil was lifted, or what noise was reduced. I discount it even more if I don't understand how XYZ is supposed to accomplish what is claimed or if it seems to violate known laws of Physics. 

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to speak for Gordon but we could discuss which measurements would be appropriate -- another topic -- but there really aren't any that are published by the manufacturers of the cables -- he said he didn't think they have the equipment

 

I have suggested that one measure would be the analogue output line width of a pure digital tone fed into the DAC.

 

I'd like to see a new thread on this...

[christopher3393]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

OK, so then where are the vast majority of us, realistically and practically speaking?  Making more or less informed judgments about what ought to affect the sound.  Some of us like to inform ourselves with specs and measurements and audio engineering or  audio engineering-related experience; others of us like to inform ourselves with our ears; still others of us like to do both.  I'm in the latter category, full well realizing the potential for my ears to lead me astray.  But I like music through my system, and I bought stuff used (amp, speakers) or just cheap (DAC) so I didn't spend a fortune.  Overall I'm happy, and maybe that's the measurement to be most concerned with

 

So, how we inform ourselves regarding the sound quality of our audio systems is, realistically and practically, finally a matter of... taste?    That is interesting!

[fas42]

8 hours ago, semente said:

 

As far as I know, recorded violins will sound harsh/bright when close-mic'ed and/or if the frequency response of the mic is not flat and/or the electronics are not up to par.

 

A term I would prefer to use is "intense" - for me, that's the impression I get when standing right next to a violin, saxophone, drum kit being given a workout, bagpipes as soon as they fired up  - the sound is overwhelming, it "cuts right through you" - that's the impact I look for in an audio system; is it capable of delivering clean, high SPLs that your hearing can just "swim in"?

[fas42]

4 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

So, how we inform ourselves regarding the sound quality of our audio systems is, realistically and practically, finally a matter of... taste?    That is interesting!

 

For me, very simple process. Either the system is manifesting 100% invisible speakers, or it's not. If it is, relax for a bit, and enjoy ... otherwise, there's work to be done ...

[Jud]

4 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Yeah, ok, I'm crazy, but not that crazy  For me, an objective piece of evidence is also a blind test. I take with a grain of salt all the sighted reports on these forums. When someone says that XYZ 'lifted a veil' or 'reduced noise' or produced 'quieter background'. I tend to discount it. I don't know what that person actually heard or didn't, what veil was lifted, or what noise was reduced. I discount it even more if I don't understand how XYZ is supposed to accomplish what is claimed or if it seems to violate known laws of Physics. 

 

I may be even more of a skeptic than you - I also take with a grain of salt many reports of blind audio tests.

 

On the other hand, I think many specs (if conservative and reliable) and measurements are a great help, as is just a better understanding of the way various components work.

[Jud]

4 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

So, how we inform ourselves regarding the sound quality of our audio systems is, realistically and practically, finally a matter of... taste?    That is interesting!

 

Tempting, but not what I meant, and a little too facile.

 

I know of several people on the forum who did (and still do) blind tests and measurements of their equipment (often very good equipment, contrary to myth), which demonstrated to them that differences they heard in sighted listening weren’t real.  So their decisions about what to trust are based on their own experiences.

[mansr]

4 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

So, how we inform ourselves regarding the sound quality of our audio systems is, realistically and practically, finally a matter of... taste?    That is interesting!

I always lick the capacitors to make sure they're neither bitter nor too sweet. Slightly salty is how they should be for the best sound.

[wgscott]

They have to be fully charged for this to be a quantitatively accurate objective measurement.

[beerandmusic]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Tempting, but not what I meant, and a little too facile.

 

I know of several people on the forum who did (and still do) blind tests and measurements of their equipment (often very good equipment, contrary to myth), which demonstrated to them that differences they heard in sighted listening weren’t real.  So their decisions about what to trust are based on their own experiences.

or it could just be that system B is predominantly picked over system A in blind test, even in the case of no change of hardware....

 

I would love to see more blind tests where the hardware is not changed, but the listeners are not told that, and do not suspect that is an option...i would guess that most would not say they are the exact same hardware and thus none is better than the other.

[esldude]

11 hours ago, jabbr said:

If I were ever in the business of selling USB cables I would provide measurements that supported the product I were selling. If pure USB conformance then impedance etc -- If I were claiming improvement in phase noise then phase error measurement and DAC output would be another. 

 

Theres actually a lot more hats been written about this over the last few decades (how to measure that is) more than a wide spectrum FFT

Well instead we get claims of low jitter (which don't pan out that we can tell).  More often than that we get claims of superior USB cable reducing errors.  You always know it is snake oil then as the cheap cables don't have an error problem. I think it goes back to my response to Gordon Rankin.  These guys in these companies are good businessmen, and they know they don't need measures, no testing equipment etc.  It wouldn't enhance the bottom line. I bet they would put your USB cable outfit out of business. 

[Teresa]

17 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

...If you are willing to add components to your system that color all sound coming through it with 'lushness', that's completely your choice.

 

I personally feel Lebouwsky is on the right path and I don't believe lushness is a coloration but correct timbre accuracy, since live music in a good live performance space is very lush.

 

17 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

I want the reproduced sound to be as close and as faithful as possible to what was recorded and produced.

 

IMHO lush sounding sonically accurate audio equipment is the only chance we have to get close to the real thing. Once I got my system as close to lusciously accurate, with the limited money I had to spend, I discovered  that audiophile and other naturally made recordings were the only ones to reveal these important sonic qualities. Over 99% of recordings, mostly major label recordings, the majority of which are over-engineered and loaded with tons of electronic tricks don't sound like music to me on any system I have ever heard.

 

17 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

If the sound recorded was harsh, that's what I want to hear. If it was lush, then that's what I want.

 

If you get lushness correct in your audio system, it won't make harsh sounding recordings sound any better. I either sell or trade harsh sounding recordings in or if on my hard drive delete them. Nothing I know can cure harsh sounding recordings. However, if one's equipment is harsh with all recordings then IMHO it is not accurate. Lushness should sound lush. Harshness should sound harsh. 

[Superdad]

17 hours ago, firedog said:

 

You guys are doing just what the OP asked about, and being snarky about it, to boot.

Please stop putting words in my mouth that don't reflect my post, but do reflect your apparent desire just to "score ponts" for your POV.

 

Gordon wrote about effects digital cables can have on a system. The obvious implication is that they are audible effects, otherwise there wouldn't be any reason to be concerned with them.

 

Whenever a claim is made that a digital cable or a device like the USB Regen makes an improvement to SQ, there are retorts that "it can't be"; "that digital cables can't conduct noise/interference/disturbances (many names are used) to the DAC, they just conduct data"; or that, "sure digital cables can conduct interference etc., to the DAC, but it is irrelevant, since any "competently designed"  DAC is not effected by this in any way that changes the resulting analog signal produced.

The typical "subjectivist" response is then, "but I can hear the improvement in SQ this cable/device makes".

 

"Objectivist" comeback is then, "BS, what you are "hearing" is just a result of bias and expectations. Show me measurements that prove your device made a measureable improvement to the analog output of the DAC."

 

That's what I asked Gordon to respond to.

 

Indeed Danny.  And the pitchforks really come out for the entire class of USB products (of which my firm is now but one of many with) which improve signal integrity and clocking.  There is tremendous denialism with regards to many aspects of the digital audio chain, from the music server end, through to power supplies, data transmission, clocking, isolation, and signal integrity, and internal techniques in DACs.

 

It would appear that somehow products from the likes of Aurender, Auralic, Mutec, SOtM, iFi Audio, Sonore, PS Audio, Wyrd4Sound, Amarra, Audirvana, Phasure, UpTone, Lumin, Vinnie Rossi and many others are all cynically designed simply as money engines to dupe unsuspecting audiophools, because virtually none of them have published measurements to prove the audibility of what they sell.  It's all a mass delusion--or so we are to beleive.

 

Yet when thoughtful engineers attempt to humbly offer theories about the complex mechanisms involved, the skeptics just shout "but we still have winter, so global warming is a hoax", er, "where's the graph showing the differences?," while the sea levels keep rising and thousands of music lovers directly compare and enjoy better sound.

 

Jud mentioned capacitors and was quickly rewarded with snarky comments.  This year marks 29 years that I've been continuously producing and sellling MusiCap film-and-foil polypropylene caps to high-end loudspeaker and electronics OEMs around the world.  Despite my winding house having raised our costs fivefold in that time (which I pass along to our clients with just a bit less margin that in the past), relatively few firms have left me, or left whatever has been their chosen brand of film cap.  Most of them would very much prefer to spend an order of magnitude less on parts their customers never see and which they don't typically talk about what they are using (I have some major name speaker clients with whom I've signed an NDA promising not to reveal their use of MusiCaps). So why do they chose what they choose?  It certainly is not because of anything they can measure with their microphones or their Audio Precision analyzers.

 

Maybe someday all the parameters of what affects the subtleties of our perception of musical realism will be quantifiable on the test bench.  And then maybe the skeptics will be satisfied and can choose all their gear from a spreadsheet.  Until then, most audio engineers and manufacturers will utilize a combination of measurement and critical listening to develop their products.

 

Remember, there was a time (in the 1970s) when transistor amps sounded like crap but measured great with all available tests of the day.  Yet the music lovers held onto the best of their tube gear until understanding, measurement, and parts caught up.

 

I don't think too much of what I just wrote should be particularly controversial, but I am sure the responses will make one think I've committed some act of treason against audio science.  At least that is how this typically goes.  

 

So I, along with my fellow manufacturers, will just go back to selling our snake oil products with a money-back guarantee while basking in the delusional praise of thousands of unsuspecting, tin-eared, gullible plebeians (most of whom really are educated professionals who've been pursuing audio for decades--but of course that doesn't count).

 

--Alex C.