[WhiteCrow]

Quote:

What's your opinion on tubes? The consensus seems to be that they sound "warmer" or more inviting. I however am yet to experience that. The only difference I was able to detect(not extremely extensive testing) between the CD-player headphone out and my little dot mk III was that the voice seemed to more to the left with the little dot, it seemed to echo less and sound more intimate. The difference however were very small if they were even there. Are these differences realistic or am I just another victim of placebos?

Well my Little Dot 2 sounds worlds apart from my friends 1+. His brings out the upper midrange and mine brings out the lower bass, his makes the sound stage sound...tube like? where as mine sounds more open, I dont know if its the tubes, the OP amp, or just the way they are made.
 
 

 

[djviciouscycle]

A true audiophile will never stop spending money on to get the perfect set-up because they will never be satisfied with
their gear. They spend more time worrying about their gear instead of enjoying the music.
 
That's what audiophile means in my book.
 
 

For me, nothing comes before the music. I think all my ex-girlfriends know that now.

 

[gregorio]

Like I said, is a Rolex "worth it"? A ferrari isn't as fast as a lot of cars out there but most car lovers "in the know" will tell you that a ferrari is the primo driving machine. Point is, specs aren't everything, we aren't machines, we have preferences that have to do with personal TASTE, not specifications, that is what makes us human, to each his own as the saying goes.

Ah, but there is a difference between a Rolex or Ferrari purchaser and an audiophile. The build quality of a Rolex is second to none and it has certain characteristics which make it mores suitable for certain applications than say a Timex. A Rolex will last a lifetime and can be used in extreme environments where virtually all other watches would break. Some cars are faster than a Ferrari in a straight line but the overall package of handling, power and response is second to none. The audiophile world though is not like this, it is full of marketing BS and gibberish. To use your analogy, in the audiophile world you could put a fancy strap on a Timex and then market it as better than a Rolex at double the price, or you could put gold plated radiator hoses and big chrome rims on a Volkswagen and then claim it's better than a Ferrari. The audiophile world goes way further than even this though, there are some audiophile products for which the analogy would be to make a watch with so little understanding of watch-making that it is incapable of indicating time with any accuracy but to market it as the ultimate timepiece and to imply that Timex and Rolex manufacturers and owners don't know how to tell the time properly!

I am an audiophile, in the true sense of the word but I cannot describe myself as an audiophile if I wish to be taken seriously as an audio professional. I am resentful of the fact that a section of the audiophile community (and some equipment sellers) have so perverted the meaning of the word "audiophile" that I cannot apply it to myself (in certain circles) without appearing to be an ignorant idiot. I am also resentful of the fact that innocent aspiring audiophiles (in the true sense) are deliberately corrupted and inducted into this fantasy cult of audiophile cables, fuses, magic rocks, NOS DACs, etc., for no better reason than financial gain or self-validation.

G

 

[khoi14021993]

Quote:

It's an idiotic article. Sure, audiophiles pay a lot for good sound, sure a lot of it is a waste, this can be applied to many areas and products. People pay obscene amounts of money for clothing that is neither very unique or good looking, such as $250 T-shirts with annoying patterns on them. People wear these things to look special to the other special people who know what to look for... nobody else knows or gives a flying screw about the patterns on the shirts signifying mucho wealth. Some will spend any amount on anything that is their passion, whether it is right, wrong, or a waste has nothing to do with it. I despise these sort of articles that portray the obvious as some kind of shocking realization. For instance, a T-shirt from Target works the same as a T-shirt from Sacks 5th Avenue, why is there a price difference? Why do people pay more for Nike's? Why do people pay more for Mercedes? Why do people pay more for a Rolex when a Timex is probably more accurate? WHY WHY WHY?!?!
 
On another note, I've heard cables change the character of the sound before. I've never heard a proper sounding cable sound better than another proper sounding cable. What I have heard is purposeful coloration induced by cabling at the low end of a cable manufacturer's product line...
 
It's easy to get carried away with high end audio and there is a lot of BS. But it's not all BS. You do get more the more you pay up to a point, of course, beyond that it's personal preference. I will say with authority that $500-$1000 will get you 90-99% of the way there with a headphone rig. Beyond that it's more personal taste, some will find a sonic signature they just love, good for them, is it "worth it", who knows. Like I said, is a Rolex "worth it"? A ferrari isn't as fast as a lot of cars out there but most car lovers "in the know" will tell you that a ferrari is the primo driving machine. Point is, specs aren't everything, we aren't machines, we have preferences that have to do with personal TASTE, not specifications, that is what makes us human, to each his own as the saying goes.
 
 
 

Comparing audio products and fashion is a bit off IMO. When you want to buy a pair of headphones, you listen to them. When you want to buy a $250 T-shirt, you ask "What brand is this?"
 

 

[Somebody007]

The problem with your logic is that in the examples that you provide the buyers know what they are buying. Let's take a Rolex for example. Those people know that it's still just a watch and might not keep time much better than say a high-end timex(don't claim a timex will probably keep time better, despite their prices Rolex do make outstanding products). The buyers know this and buy an overpriced consciously. And somewhere you still get value, seeing as long as a rolex keeps moving(most run on vibration) it will keep ticking..... for ever. However, in the article they blame "audiophools" for buying a product which is very expensive to make their audio system better whilst it doesn't change a thing. We are talking  about completely different things here. In the rolex instance someone like for instance a high quality watch and thus pays a lot of money to get it, whereas with the"audiophool" scenario the buyer buys something to improve sound, yet it doesn't improve sound. 

That being said some people do buy audio products for other reasons than sound. I myself only have gold plated cabling all very think and IMO very nice. Simply because I think it looks better.
 
Quote:

A T-shirt from Target works the same as a T-shirt from Sacks 5th Avenue, why is there a price difference? Why do people pay more for Nike's? Why do people pay more for Mercedes? Why do people pay more for a Rolex when a Timex is probably more accurate? WHY WHY WHY?!?!

 

 

[ilikepooters]

It's deffinately intriguing all this audio stuff.
 
So far i've learned that headphones can sound different, not dramatically so but some have more bass than others, mids may be recessed, and some may have fingers down the chalkboard treble, after a certain point though, you're just paying for ePeen.
 
I've had 3 amps/dacs so far and all 3 have pretty much sounded identical. apart from the EF2A and the slight distortion introduced by the tubes. Maverick D1 and FiiO E7/E9 are exactly the same, apart from the power of them.
 
Going from 120kbps MP3 to 16/44000 FLAC was a big difference, but i can't see going any higher being better than that.
 
So for me, FLAC > DAC > Amp is all pointless upgrading any further, only thing that will change the sound considerably will be a different pair of headphones.

 

[JadeEast]

While I agree with some of what's there, it's also pretty weak on supporting evidence. Overall, I'm pretty tired of the myth busting dogma and the tone that goes along with it. The "S---- or get off the pot" entry frames the position of a particular controversial incident in a way that is deceptive and biased. 
 
 
"Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one."
Friedrich Nietzsche
German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

 

[gregorio]

While I agree with some of what's there, it's also pretty weak on supporting evidence. Overall, I'm pretty tired of the myth busting dogma and the tone that goes along with it. The "S---- or get off the pot" entry frames the position of a particular controversial incident in a way that is deceptive and biased.

Want to explain why it's deceptive and where the supporting evidence is weak?

G

 

[JadeEast]

Sure, but first I would like to be clear; I am pro science and rationality. 
 
Where I felt the deception lay was in the section of "S**% or get off the pot" where the use of language framed the Randi cable challenge as if it were an open challenge that only a few had dared to challenge. That test was a proposal for a challenge of particular product and individual to be tested. The challenge went pear shaped due to a number of issues... and isn't a standing challenge. The claim that "No takers so far, a few pikers" Is a mischaracterization of the nature of the challenge and the events that took place.
 
Regarding where I saw a weakness in the evidence, it was in the amount of evidence provided for each case.  A prime example is in "magic cables" the footnote from 
 
Quote:

"Over-engineered and insanely expensive power cables are perhaps the easiest product to dismiss. The claim that 6 feet of $1,800 power cabling improves sound quality is ludicrous for the same reason that using such a cable won't make a DVD player display a sharper picture, although similar claims are made to that effect.^[17] "

leads to a review of a Monster Cable surge suppressor. (http://reviews.pricegrabber.com/surge-suppressors/m/430926/). It's the only link in the section and it's not even to do with cables or audio performance. There must be better evidence against "magic cables" claims than this. 
 

 

[Somebody007]

When I don't know what else to buy I might one day buy a nice cardas cable.

This however seems a little outrageous even if you have too much money. I mean what do you tell the starving africans? "Sorry guys I was in a dilemma between a 1m usb cable and feeding this entire village for 2 years, I went for the cable"

http://www.locus-design.com/index.php/cynosure-usb-cable

 

[Br777]

^ yeah.. its statements like this that just make me facepalm and shake my head -
 
"These layers are one of the reasons that the cable takes a while to "settle" back in after it has been moved, or unplugged."
 
really?  REALLY?
 
sorry guys, i may be a little late, i just turned off my rig, and i have to let my usb cable settle down a bit.
or
ok my rig is all set up.. i'll just give the usb cable a few minutes to settle in to its new location and we'll be all set..
 
 
i'm not sure what would be worse - if this guy was trying to rip people off, or if he actually believed this nonsense..
 
ok in all fairness i have never tried one of these, but come on!
 

 

[WhiteCrow]

this $55 block of wood improves sound right? https://www.ttvjaudio.com/store/comersus_viewItem.asp?idProduct=303
or this power conditioner, what ever the hell that is. https://www.ttvjaudio.com/store/comersus_viewItem.asp?idProduct=58

 

[Somebody007]

Quote:

^ yeah.. its statements like this that just make me facepalm and shake my head -
 
"These layers are one of the reasons that the cable takes a while to "settle" back in after it has been moved, or unplugged."
 
really?  REALLY?
 
sorry guys, i may be a little late, i just turned off my rig, and i have to let my usb cable settle down a bit.
or
ok my rig is all set up.. i'll just give the usb cable a few minutes to settle in to its new location and we'll be all set..
 
 
i'm not sure what would be worse - if this guy was trying to rip people off, or if he actually believed this nonsense..
 
ok in all fairness i have never tried one of these, but come on!
 

I should really start reading websites like that. I started to believe it at the end. Luckily I quickly realised: it's a bloody usb cable...

 

[koolkat]

Man,
 
if people really thought their thousand dollar cables were that great, why not gather around a couple of people with cheaper cables and DBT? 

 

[spronkey]

Law of diminishing returns.
 
 
Personally, I find:

1. Cables: Budget cables are crap. So long as the actual cable suits the purpose, was manufactured by a decent company, and is terminated with reasonable quality connectors and strain relief, it's fine. I'd never spend more than ~$50 for a pair of interconnects, and never more than ~$100 for speaker cables. Headphone cables IMO are even less important. I've auditioned plenty of cables and can't notice audible differences beyond Belden or Canare-level cables with good termination. Note: I can tell differences reasonably easily between things like HD600 vs HD580, so my ears are reasonably resolving.
2. Speakers (and Headphones): Basically set the tone for your system. Sony mid-fi gear with speaker A sounds closer to McIntosh gear with speaker A than any comparison between two different speakers on the same gear. Likewise with headphones. The difference between two pairs is far greater than the difference between modern sources of reasonable quality.
3. Amplification: Power is the most important part here. So long as your amplification has good power design and can deliver the current and voltage required to control your loudspeakers (and headphones), it's reasonably transparent. Quality of design can also be a factor - i.e. some amps can overheat and cause sound and reliability issues.
4. Source: Source is reasonably important, but largely it simply needs to be high quality and free from noise interference. Basically all modern audio with the exception of badly designed/manufactured onboard audio gives you quality far in excess of high end source components from the 80s and 90s. Which is actually a problem, because a lot of the recordings are crap and newer gear reveals this!
5. Tubes: For amplification are a myth. They look awesome, but that's about all. A good transistor setup can sound just as warm as any tube setup (just look at NAD gear), and conversely tubes can be analytical and cold-sounding!

 
In saying this, there is a massive contingent of consumer audio gear that is just utter crap. Integrated chip amplifiers with useless power delivery and insane distortion over 1-2 watts (speakers), badly implemented decoding circuitry, low quality solder joins etc.
 
I'll be the first to admit that I've spent money on gear just because I like it for nonmusical reasons (aesthetics, coolness, whatever factor). But realistically, any CD player from a reasonable circuit designer will sound great, and any amplifier with enough clout to drive what you're throwing at it will also sound great.
 
Differences definitely do exist in sound between entry level and the best hi-fi components. Likewise audible differences exist in cables etc. However, there are a lot of snake-oil equivalents. Isolation cones, for example , and ultra high end cabling.