[TheAttorney]

By Non-believers, I mean those who don't believe that cables and tweaks make any noticeable difference to sound quality. And that amplifiers, CDPs and DACs also don't make a difference as long as they are properly designed to have minimal distortion, have a flat frequency response and have the correct matching and headroom to handle the loudspeaker/headphone.

So I'm curious to know if such people are completely satisfied with the sound quality of these components and have therefore successfully controlled "upgradeitis". Do you fall into one of these camps:

1. I'm happy with the SQ of my system and can listen to the music, with nothing getting in the way to tell me that something must be improved.

2. I know that the SQ could be improved, but I don't believe that upgrading any of the said components will help because their distortion levels etc are already below what any normal ears can differentiate. Only loudspeakes and headphones can make a difference.

3. I know that the SQ could be improved and there MAY be some magic beyond traditional measurements, but I've tried to upgrade and simply could not notice any difference in the more expensive component.

Of course, there may be more views and combinations thereof.

If as a non-believer, you are still upgrading these components, then what is the improvement you are trying to achieve?

 

[ILikeMusic]

Once you get to reasonably high quality playback equipment the biggest determinant by far is the quality of the recording itself. When a recording is well-engineered then I am pretty close to #1, but if the recording is imperfect there is little one can do to the playback chain that will make it right.

 

[Bullseye]

I am pretty happy with my system. However I am going to end my upgraditis with a DAC (The behringer DEQ2496), and a external sound card (UCA-202) for when I listen to music from my laptop.

At the moment I am using a Cowon D2 as a source, and even if I am happy, having the EQ from above will give me a lot to play with.

I have built my own cables and as expected I have not heard any SQ difference. I have also ordered the Mullard m8100 tubes to try with my LD I+ amp to try an see if changing tubes does really make a difference or not.

Regarding headphones for the time being I am not looking for any other full sized headphone. I have the grado sr225 and they are amazing pair of phones for the price.
In the IEM department I have achieved what I was looking for with the Phonak PFE. I had bought before the shure se-210 and the latter are a great improvement.

I would fall in the #1, if it were more like "...and I can enjoy my music with "nothing" getting in the way" The nothing is referred to the recording. Some of them are bad and noticeable.

Oh and is this thread to put us all "non believers" in the same bag?

 

[Uncle Erik]

Yes, perfectly happy with the setup. There might be a very small improvement from using a bridged amp (as in balanced, but the benefit of balanced is mostly from having a bridged amp, not necessarily that the channels have separate grounds), so I'll build a couple of those for fun, but I don't think there's much else I could do. I am very happy with the setup.

There is, however, the possibility that I'd be happier if I was suffering from a delusion. Unfortunately, I have no plans to become deluded, anthropomorphize inanimate objects or make obscene profits from the gullible, suggestible and credulous.

 

[TheAttorney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Once you get to reasonably high quality playback equipment the biggest determinant by far is the quality of the recording itself. When a recording is well-engineered then I am pretty close to #1, but if the recording is imperfect there is little one can do to the playback chain that will make it right.

I agree with the importance of the recording. With a high quality recording, I've rarely been dissatisfied with earlier incarnations of my system, but with good to average recordings (most of my collection), I've found the SQ can be readily improved by upgrading - and that the improvement keeps growing with higher end equipment (value for money is a different matter).

But I'm trying to understand the other viewpoint. So when you say you have a "high quality" playback system, my impression is that for a non-believer that probably means something like a $200 CD player, a $500 amplifier and stock cables, as anything above that level of system does not have any parameters that can be measured to be better.

 

[TheAttorney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh and is this thread to put us all "non believers" in the same bag?

Possibly - I'm trying to find out. It was a complicated question which I probably haven't phrased in the clearest way. Another way of putting it:

Do all non believers end up with a similar level of sound system because they see no point in going higher? Nothing to do with affordability. If we took this thought to it's extreme conclusion, then everyone would have exactly the same system: the lowest price point at which the system is well constructed and reaches a minimum measured performance level. No doubt the answer will be more diverse and complicated than the question.

 

[Bullseye]

Well you seem not to understand that to get the "best" from a system you really don't need to spend thousands of bucks on music equipment.

First by forgetting about changing cables you are saving up a lot of money. You are not going to loose any detail nor anything. Some are afraid that if they don't spend xxxx$ on cables they are not going to achieve the maximum SQ reproduction. That is WRONG. However, once they have spent lets say 200$ on a 8 inch cable they "have to find" any difference to justify the price paid, where there is none.

Similar can happen with the source, DAC, even some amplifiers.

Using speakers the real changes come with the acoustics of the room. The source or even the amplifier are not such a critical thing as the acoustics.
If we get into DBT tests, there are some tests in the net that state that a portable CD player and a 200$ cd player sound the same. The differences are not audible. Same with DACs such as the Behringer DEQ2496 and the Benchmark DAC1...
Being that the case (which I believe it is and due to the methodology used it is more plausible than a subjective comparison done by any member from any community) spending hundreds on different pieces of equipment will lead to the same SQ level.

In conclusion, us who are called "skeptics, non believers..." can reach the same or even better SQ reproduction, wasting less money, simply by using our heads when analyzing equipment. This which also depends on the likes of each individual.

 

[Real Man of Genius]

I am content with my setup. I do believe I could achieve marginally better sound by upgrading headphones but the cost/benefit ratio is not favorable. I have reached the point of diminishing returns.

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real Man of Genius /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have reached the point of diminishing returns.

And that's a good point. Once you have gotten to the point that improvements are getting painfully difficult to discern (or so mystical that it's impossible to demonstrate them in an ABX test) then one has to begin to wonder what purpose there is in going further.

 

[TheAttorney]

It's interesting that some people constantly strive for a better sound (at almost any cost) and some are perfectly happy with what they have. I don't think it has anything to do with golden ears - it's more to do with expectations of what is possible. Every now and then I unexpectedly get a jaw dropping moment where my original perceptions fly out the window. This only happens SOMETIMES when I try something new with an open mind.

I'm happy with listening to a cheap transistor radio. But, for some strange compulsion, my main rig must be exceptional. I've often questioned if this is the right way (one reason why I started this thread). But then I go round to friends houses with "lesser" systems that they are seemingly satisfied with. And I can't stand it. I'd rather listen to the transistor radio than an underperforming hifi.

 

[Publius]

4. I understand the significant limitations to my current system but I am very comfortable with them and solving them is not an effective use of my money relative to the amount of benefit I would get out of it.

The mind is a very impetuous organ, and has the ability to affect its own perceptions and emotions, regardless of external events. I think that those who judge their equipment based on the emotional experiences while listening to it are vastly underestimating the complexity of their own minds - ie, that there is some kind of clear, predictable, understandable relationship between the quality of the system, and the quality of the emotions and the listening experience. Those who are desiring those OMG moments consistently from their equipment are trying to obtain what may be unobtainable, and the constant upgrade cycle is a natural and predictable result of that.

We all are in this hobby because of the enjoyment we get out of listening to music, but that does not mean enjoyment is a good metric for comparing equipment.

 

[vhbaske]

For me, believer or not, my pocket establishes a very STRONG difference.

 

[terriblepaulz]

Being happy with one's system and wanting to upgrade are not mutually exclusive conditions. I am very happy with my system and look forward to upgrading or expanding in the future. I just don't plan on spending significant money on speaker cables, interconnects, digital cables, or power cords.

 

[TheAttorney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius /img/forum/go_quote.gif 4. I understand the significant limitations to my current system but I am very comfortable with them and solving them is not an effective use of my money relative to the amount of benefit I would get out of it. The mind is a very impetuous organ, and has the ability to affect its own perceptions and emotions, regardless of external events. I think that those who judge their equipment based on the emotional experiences while listening to it are vastly underestimating the complexity of their own minds - ie, that there is some kind of clear, predictable, understandable relationship between the quality of the system, and the quality of the emotions and the listening experience. Those who are desiring those OMG moments consistently from their equipment are trying to obtain what may be unobtainable, and the constant upgrade cycle is a natural and predictable result of that. We all are in this hobby because of the enjoyment we get out of listening to music, but that does not mean enjoyment is a good metric for comparing equipment.

Publius, that's a well made comment. And I'll reply to it in the (my) morning.

 

[nycbone]

I'm done spending $ on this 'hobby'. 'Hobby' because (except for ardent DIYers), there is very little creativity involved in this hi-fi stuff. For the most part, it's throwing money at perceived problems. For many of us, it seems to be more about conspicuous consumption (well, perhaps virtual conspicuous consumption).

I joined head-fi after a number of years out of the loop to identify a handful of components to build a system to fit my tastes and budget. I've received some very good advice (both solicited and unsolicited) from members of this forum. On the other hand, many of claims about the ability to distinguish between this and that do not pass the laugh test.

I now have a reasonably-priced system that makes me happy and now it's time to move on. My 'extra' (hard-earned) cash and time are now reserved for listening to (live and recorded) music.

That's what it's all about.