[rowett]

The "Audio Woo" article was faintly amusing and made some good (if already well-trodden) points, but it would be easy for a non audio enthusiast to read that and come away with a load of ignorant prejudices. The degradation of the consumer audio soundscape (loudness wars, low bitrates, the changing frequency characteristics of popular music to accommodate mobile phone playback etc) is a real phenomenon with (imho) a political dimension in terms of our relationship to art and popular access to potentially transcendent experiences. So I take a dim view of any article, however well-meaning, that encourages people not to care about the quality of sound reproduction.
 
Quote:

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.

....Nailed it. Unfortunately the canonical "average" person (for whom music is primarily an inconsequential backdrop to other more pressing activities of production and consumption) sees the hilarious unprovable subjective claims and cynical commercial excesses of audiophilia and then concludes that all consideration of sound quality and hifi equipment must be bogus, when in fact things like decent transducers, amplification, well-matched components, audio encodings, etc etc etc obviously, demonstrably do make a world of difference to what you hear - if you're listening.
 
(It's not just about chasing sound quality, either - I don't blow money on expensive big brand interconnects, but I don't use cheap ones either, because I wouldn't trust cheap ones not to fall apart or crackle. Also....I like the look and feel of a well-made cable! And I think that's a valid reason to buy them. I use a guy on fleabay who makes up lovely OFC cables to order with gold plated connectors. I don't need Crimsons or whatever.)
 
 
 

 

[Br777]

1. 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!

 

 
but there are still good reasons to buy a tube amp over a SS amp
 
maybe i'm wrong but dont most people buy tube amps b/c they are purposely wanting to color the sound with a tube.
also they buy them for the convenience of being able to alter the sound very easily by simply switching the tubes.
then there are MANY of us who simply think tube amps are COOL!  regardless of anything else. 
finally there is the point some DIYers make - they can much more easily fix their tube amp if it breaks in 10 years, than their SS which they would essentially have to hope they can send back to the manufacturer if it still exists.
 
the other thing is, and i'm not disagreeing with you here, just saying, that i have never read a amp review where the reviewer said that a solid state amp truly captured a tube sound.  they will say it sounds a little warm and "kind of like a tube amp" but never completely.. now maybe that's b/c the amp makers simply choose not to create that sound, but i do wonder if a SS amp can REALLY reproduce a tube sound completely. 

 

[ilikepooters]

Quote:

 
but there are still good reasons to buy a tube amp over a SS amp
 
maybe i'm wrong but dont most people buy tube amps b/c they are purposely wanting to color the sound with a tube.
also they buy them for the convenience of being able to alter the sound very easily by simply switching the tubes.
then there are MANY of us who simply think tube amps are COOL!  regardless of anything else. 
finally there is the point some DIYers make - they can much more easily fix their tube amp if it breaks in 10 years, than their SS which they would essentially have to hope they can send back to the manufacturer if it still exists.
 
the other thing is, and i'm not disagreeing with you here, just saying, that i have never read a amp review where the reviewer said that a solid state amp truly captured a tube sound.  they will say it sounds a little warm and "kind of like a tube amp" but never completely.. now maybe that's b/c the amp makers simply choose not to create that sound, but i do wonder if a SS amp can REALLY reproduce a tube sound completely. 

Isn't the "Tube sound" just distortion? maybe if they make them out of crappyer components they would get a similar effect.
 
For example, my Maverick D1 THD is rated at less than 0.1% on the tube outputs and less than 0.001 on the solid state outputs.
So if they aimed for 0.1% on the solid state outputs would they more or less have the tube sound?

 

[rowett]

Quote:

 
dont most people buy tube amps b/c they are purposely wanting to color the sound with a tube.
also they buy them for the convenience of being able to alter the sound very easily by simply switching the tubes.
then there are MANY of us who simply think tube amps are COOL!  

yep, those are the three reasons i bought my Little Dot III!
 

 

[rowett]

Quote:

my Maverick D1 THD is rated at less than 0.1% on the tube outputs and less than 0.001 on the solid state outputs.
So if they aimed for 0.1% on the solid state outputs would they more or less have the tube sound?

*hand-wavey bit*
 
my understanding is no, because tube distortion acts on even-ordered harmonics...unlike solid state circuitry. so it would be a different/more musically dissonant type of distortion.
 
 

 

[wnmnkh]

This thread should go to Sound Science forum.

 

[Br777]

Quote:

Isn't the "Tube sound" just distortion? maybe if they make them out of crappyer components they would get a similar effect.  
For example, my Maverick D1 THD is rated at less than 0.1% on the tube outputs and less than 0.001 on the solid state outputs.
So if they aimed for 0.1% on the solid state outputs would they more or less have the tube sound?

even if that's the case, some people simply prefer that sound
 

 

[cheapskateaudio]

 
Quote:

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. 

Oh, I disagree with you completely about a Timex. A timex is known to "take a licking and keep on ticking". I know you *think* a Rolex is better because of it's "build quality", but I'm pretty sure a regular old Timex will last a lifetime too and that YOU are in fact a victim of Rolex's mystique and marketing. I bought a Timex watch when I was in High School that was powered by kinetic motion, and Timex also made watches that were powered by heat given off by your body. Let me tell you, stainless steel is plenty durable as far as build quality goes, you're not gaining anything with the Rolex but marketing BS. 
 
It's true that Audiophools may make idiotic purchases, but it's far from a foregone conclusion. One thing you forget is that audio is a hobby, and as such, part of the fun is trying out products and reviewing them, for better or worse.
 
 
 
 

 

[Somebody007]

Quote:

 
Oh, I disagree with you completely about a Timex. A timex is known to "take a licking and keep on ticking". I know you *think* a Rolex is better because of it's "build quality", but I'm pretty sure a regular old Timex will last a lifetime too and that YOU are in fact a victim of Rolex's mystique and marketing. I bought a Timex watch when I was in High School that was powered by kinetic motion, and Timex also made watches that were powered by heat given off by your body. Let me tell you, stainless steel is plenty durable as far as build quality goes, you're not gaining anything with the Rolex but marketing BS. 
 
It's true that Audiophools may make idiotic purchases, but it's far from a foregone conclusion. One thing you forget is that audio is a hobby, and as such, part of the fun is trying out products and reviewing them, for better or worse.
 
 
 
 

Watchmakers seem to disagree with you, I hear a lot of praise towards rolex from them:

http://www.chronometrie.com/rolex3135/rolex3135.html

 

[cheapskateaudio]

Are you trying to claim that a mechanical watch which will need to be repaired and maintained throughout it's lifetime is superior to a quartz watch which will need a battery every ten years or perhaps be powered by movement or thermal energy?
 
The goal is tracking the passing of time right? What advantage in the keeping of time, or in convenience, is there in owning a mechanical watch??  Absolutely none, it is INFERIOR. 
 
Make sure you keep a $10 quartz watch handy to set your fancy Rolex too every couple of weeks.
 

 

[deadlylover]

Quote:

 
The goal is tracking the passing of time right?

 
It isn't for the folks who are really into watches.
 
Same thing for audio, you'd think everyone would want to get the most accurate sound possible, but that's clearly not the case here.

 

[Gwarmi]

Quote:

The "Audio Woo" article was faintly amusing and made some good (if already well-trodden) points, but it would be easy for a non audio enthusiast to read that and come away with a load of ignorant prejudices. The degradation of the consumer audio soundscape (loudness wars, low bitrates, the changing frequency characteristics of popular music to accommodate mobile phone playback etc) is a real phenomenon with (imho) a political dimension in terms of our relationship to art and popular access to potentially transcendent experiences. So I take a dim view of any article, however well-meaning, that encourages people not to care about the quality of sound reproduction. 
 
 
 

 
Sadly, this is a large part of the future - precisely why I may be an old fuddy duddy before my time, but some records from pre-cassette days really do stand up when
teamed with a great system (headphone or hifi rig) - only a few indie bands and solo artists not signed to reputable labels have the opportunity to work with talented
mastering engineers who abhor this trend of diluting the master recording for the sake of making it friendly for many devices.
 
Not knocking the new sounds, but there is plenty to knock when you hear it on a good system. LOUD, harsh on a revealing system and lacking detail.
 
 

 

[WhiteCrow]

Quote:

 
Sadly, this is a large part of the future - precisely why I may be an old fuddy duddy before my time, but some records from pre-cassette days really do stand up when
teamed with a great system (headphone or hifi rig) - only a few indie bands and solo artists not signed to reputable labels have the opportunity to work with talented
mastering engineers who abhor this trend of diluting the master recording for the sake of making it friendly for many devices.
 
Not knocking the new sounds, but there is plenty to knock when you hear it on a good system. LOUD, harsh on a revealing system and lacking detail. 
 

I think people master music with I-buds in mind, I buds sound terrible and are about as revealing or detailed as listing to headphones with wooden blocks over your ears. To make music sound "right" through Ibuds the music must be mastered louder, and harsher to break the veil of terrible quality headphones.