Are high price sources worth it? - Page 3

I didn't do it at the same time silly

I would keep one amp in and trial between the 4 front-ends, then I will cycle through with all amps until each combination had been met.

Anyhow, this is what I have heard, ymmv.

I understand, but how much memory can you keep through all that shuffling to pinpoint which combo sound like what ? People complained about the 'x' in abx yet you add 'pqrs' to the equation ...

I'm no 10 second switch up man. Since I own all the gear...I can make these judgements based over long periods of time, weeks month etc.

Once one gets familiar with a sound, it becomes quite apparent to switch something in and out and find "yep that was missing!"

or "wow that is new!"

or sadly "ah damn...that is new "

Sorry, can't resist ... you really don't sound like describing a "dramatically different" situation, but more like subtle ones.

Ok, ok, I will say no more. As you said, ymmv.

Hmm, not sure if I understand what you mean.

For example...I own a portable cd player, a dvd player, a mid-fi cd player and my high-end tubed cd player.

I put in the portable and listen for a week, then I swap in any of the other players and I could at length describe the similarities or differences in the sound. I could do this over a short period of time too and find dramatic differences between my top model and the low end, or less so between the middle of the road ones. Doing the same with amps now while maintaining one of the front-ends over time. Within a topology, there is less difference than between topologies, the within topology differences are less than the differences that I found within digital frontends, and when comparing my high end model player to any model I have tried against it, there are greater differences than even going from ss to tube or hybrid amps.

As for ABXing...well that is notoriously unreliable as pressure to discern differences may obscure true results as well as audio memory being quite short anyway. However, after a longer period of listening and becoming familiar with a system, it is easy when one item is changed and the sound is now different, to identify the culprit.

I never said that frontends were as dramatic as transducers, only that they were more dramatic than amps. Obviously the greatest changes are heard from speakes and headphones, then I argue frontends, then amps and then tubes, then cables.

You know what was the most drastic switch for me? Getting Alessandro MS-1s. Suddenly I heard music like i NEVER heard it before. Such a deadly hook.

After that it's not all downhill, but it's a slow uphill climb lol. This source, that amp, those pads - it's like a foothold here, a craggy outcropping there - sometimes even going lateral to go up...

So I'd say the sources, as they get pricier and pricier, do indeed get better and better (and your ears will get better trained to hear it, and think all inferior stuff sucks honky) - but that first flush of audiophilia won't hit you again. Unless you are going from a MS-1 to a R-10 hooked to a Stealth to your modded 3960 lol. That was a pretty big jump too. Hmm, and not an overall pounding to the head, but the Qualia to the Solo was a nice lil detailed revelation too. Hmm, that PS-1 to the modded melos to the SACD1000 was pretty cool. Well, maybe I was wrong then.

Interesting discussion. So, for all you people who don't think higher end digitial players make a difference, would you say then that the $4K Meridian G08 player doesn't sound much different from a less expensive digital player?

It seems to me that it would sound much different, particularly with the sound signature being reported as more analog. Yet it is a digital source.

It seems like it's all a big matter of degree, and the value placed on the differences is clearly a very subjective issue. In psychology, the area known as sensation and perception (psychophysics), some guys named Weber, Fechner and Thurstone (sorry, I have little memory of this subject) a loooong time ago created a scale that was referred to "just noticeable differences" to measure the relationship between stimulus and sensation (JND's; and man I'm going back 20 years to undergrad and grad school). Experimental psychologists had subjects listen to carefully calibrated stepped stimuli to accurately detect differences in auditory stimulation. This was really all about loudness though...

http://www.ipsych.com/vis/scaling/scaling_desc.html
http://pegasus.me.jhu.edu/~allisono/.../lecture14.pdf

I guess one of the key questions is just how much money/upgrades etc. to the source (vs. other parts of one's hi-fi system) does it take to create a JND, and how many JNDs does it take for one to say: "wow, now that is really much better sounding." And then, how much money does it come to those number of JNDs. For some, maybe just 1 or 2 JNDs are worth a lot of money, cos they have the money, it's a hobby, and they achieved a new height (kinda like an achievement akin to a sports competition). For others, it had better be many JNDs, cos that money is really scarce, and they really just kinda wanna make these upgrades once in a blue moon and then sit back and listen to the music (knowing that they have a really nice system) and then sorta fuhgetaboutit (the hobby).

Just some thoughts that basically say what has already been said about the subjectivity component (both in terms of auditory perception, which varies from individual to individual and in terms of perceived value, which also varies across indivduals).

I'm kinda in this soup right now as I am contemplating upgrading my source, which is 6-8 years old (depending on if you go by when it was built vs. how long I've had it), but pretty good (stereophile B; $1200 retail back in 1999). How much do I have to spend to get the "wow" factor? That is the question I ask myself and the retailers and modders to whom I have spoken.

- walkman666

Good point. However, I think the reality is more like what Mikey01 said:


|-| <-The ultimate sound which I want
|-|
|-|
|-|<-The sound of the performance
|-|<-The sound of a good recording
|-|<-The sound of $10,000 source
|-|<-The sound of a typical recording
|-|<-The sound of a $1000 source
|-|<-The sound of a $100 source
|-|
|-|<-The sound of a $10 source
|-|
|-|
|-|<-crackle

A revealing source will reveal all the tape hiss, overcompression, and microphone overloads that are present in most commercial recordings. Sure, there are lots of albums out there with great sound, but they are in the minority. If having high-end gear automatically renders problematic 60% of the available software, is that really what you want?

Honestly can't say, because I've never heard it before.

Some CDPs alter the sound a bit for it to sound more "alive" because CDs sound dead as they are. The result of this can be for the better or for the worse.

All I know is that a CDP upgrade means more detail. A TT upgrade is an upgrade in MANY areas, and an analogue sound can be enhanced, because it's analogue. CDs were invented for the average person, so that anybody, even 40 dollar portable CDPs, would play them to their fullest. Audiophile CDPs sound only slightly better than a 100 dollar CDP, I'm guessing - but the detail would be much better. Is it worth it?

No. It isn't. For people that actually care about how it all sounds, it's better just to get a turntable because it's more lively and more money put into them gives you much more for your value.

Personally I don't think I will be able to hear much difference, at least not before a long period of getting accustomed with the players. After which all I can attribute to them is one being 'somewhat nicer' or 'friendlier to ear'. Going back to strict a/b and I'm easily lost.

Do you think you can still hear much difference if compared with, say Denon 2900 ? I'm also curious what headfiers think about that 'high price source' $20k Linn player a while back ... do you guys think it's worth the money ?

I have a rule: my stereo will never cost more than my car.