[djbnh]

I do not necessarily feel high priced sources always equals better audio sound. One can take a look at some of the sources in my home audio gear, and see that while not exactly inexpensive, none of them is over $1,000. Please note I've also bought quality used gear, when available and to my taste, to stretch the $.

I feel system synergy, tweaking, power supply, acoustics, psychoacoustics, listening preferences, and other factors come into play in each person answering the question, "Does higher priced sources mean better sound?" I personally try to get as much bang for the buck with each audio purchase, and do support the notion there is a tall curve of diminishing returns once you get past a certain point. For some persons, having that last 0.5 - 1% of audio nirvana is absolutely necessary. I'm not one of those persons, nor is my wallet. I think some components match more optimally with some gear, for whatever reasons, and that should be taken into account as well.

Let's look at one source, for example my Rega P-25 turntable with RB-600 tonearm, and Denon DL-103R cartridge. While not asking one to say this is the best available turntable, tonearm, and cartridge combination, it is undoubtably musical and has myself and visitors tapping toes to its pretty faithful analog reproduction. Some of the vibration and isolation tweaks applied to this turntable were no-or-low cost, and brought noticeable improvement to the sound. I purchased the Rega used and saved $, some which I pocketed, some which I used for the cartridge and tweaks (for example, one of my tweaks involves using BluTak and lead fishing weights, total cost = $3.00. Another tweak involves using a 1.5" thick marble slab for isolation, cost = $0 as I found the marble in the dump heap of an in-town stone cutting business.). Yes, I could have purchased a $5,000 turntable and $2,500 cartridge, but the Rega/Denon combo works very nicely in my system, are thorougly enjoyable, and are easily maintained.

The same philosophy goes throughout my system. I note I have found after numerous speaker auditions and listening sessions that I still enjoy my old Polk SDA 1-C speakers over other, newer gear that I could afford. Friends share my sentiments, and would love to purchase the old Polks if I ever decided to upgrade my speakers. Yes, I've done some minor tweaking to them over the years, but nothing major.

Modest tweaking can do wonders to cost-effectively get that last iota of performance out of your system. I personally like the Chris VenHaus/VH Audio line of PCs, and feel they give great bang-for-the-buck performance. Speaking of tweaks, the best single tweak I have ever done to my system is use Walker SST to all my ICs, PCs, IECs, RCA plugs, cartridge plugs, speaker cables connectors, etc. Well worth the $65 I paid, truly an amazing product. I most highly recommend that before you consider getting new gear, try and apply this product throughout your system (carefully, per Lloyd Walker's directions; no unsteady hands, or alcohol or substance use while applying SST) and you should be amazed at the results. A tiny bit goes a looooooooooooong way, so if you've got nearby friends, it's easy enough to split the cost of the small jar and share it out. There's a newer, more $ version of SST, but I haven't tried it and am fine being blown away with what the regular SST does for my ears and gear. If anyone is near me in NH, drop a pm and we can see if we can get you a dab of the SST; I have barely used a smidgen of the amount that stuck to the underside of the jar lid!

Happy listening!

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow Their failing is that they are simply too crude to measure subleties so you can put no faith in a result which fails to find a difference between conditions.

Where (and how) are those subtleties shown to exist?

Do you oppose to DBTs in general or to DBTs made so far?


Regards,

L.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose You put too much faith into our scientific understanding of hearing!

I was being sarcastic. That was the reason for the

. I thought that was obvious, but I guess not.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow I really object to the double-blind testing issues being raised in these forums. They are a true waste of time and not what these forums were set up for and I vote to extend the dbt free ban to all the forums.

I second!!!

 

[TimSchirmer]

garbage in, garbage out

I'll bet a linn ikemi with a cmoy would sound better than a soundcard or sub-300$ cdp with a singlepower maestro.

 

[edstrelow]

"Where (and how) are those subtleties shown to exist?

Do you oppose to DBTs in general or to DBTs made so far?"

Leporello

Use your own ears to decide, or if you are uncertain, read as many reviews as you can about equipment and try to find some where the reviewer seems to be making sense.

I personally find that you can make a decent decision about things like "should I buy this item ?'by taking a familiar recording to a shop. To test out things like cdp's I have shown up at a store with my own recording, headphones and amp to listen. Some stores have also let me audition equipment in my home.

I don't oppose dbt testing in general. I did this type of work for a living for almost 15 years. It is seductive but misleading to think that an area such as audio sound quality could be reduced to scientific accuracy. However doing such studies well is very difficult. Most studies will simply lead to prolonged discussion of experimental methodology which, while appropriate in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, is not appropriate here.

 

[mulveling]

Are high priced sources worth it?
Well before today I would have said no: I liked my jolida jd100a, but I wasn't really sure it was worth the full price difference over a cheaper (but still decent) source. And I didn't really find the Bel Canto DAC2 worth its price at all. Yep, I'm taking the law of diminishing returns into account here.

However, today I heard a Meridian 588 for the first time - now THIS is a $$$$ source that's worth every penny. It really takes the 650s (or any good headphone for that matter) to the next level.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulveling Are high priced sources worth it? Well before today I would have said no: I liked my jolida jd100a, but I wasn't really sure it was worth the full price difference over a cheaper (but still decent) source. And I didn't really find the Bel Canto DAC2 worth its price at all. Yep, I'm taking the law of diminishing returns into account here. However, today I heard a Meridian 588 for the first time - now THIS is a $$$$ source that's worth every penny. It really takes the 650s (or any good headphone for that matter) to the next level.

Very interesting. I did a direct A/B comparison of the Meridian 588 to the Bel Canto DAC2 and much preferred the Bel Canto. This just proves how much these things are system dependent, and/or how people's preferences differ.

 

[Nak Man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow Do you oppose to DBTs in general or to DBTs made so far?" Leporello I don't oppose dbt testing in general. I did this type of work for a living for almost 15 years. It is seductive but misleading to think that an area such as audio sound quality could be reduced to scientific accuracy. However doing such studies well is very difficult. Most studies will simply lead to prolonged discussion of experimental methodology which, while appropriate in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, is not appropriate here.

I agree with said flaws on dbt methodology so far, also understand your suggestion on decent decision for certain equipment. But I'd really like to know your general opinion on how to compare or choose a better sounding equipment by the merit of it, without knowing their prices, looks and so on. Or do you really think this kind of comparison is not doable ?

 

[yfei]

I am amazed so many people in this thread started with the very same phrase like: 'today I tied xxxx for ....' then say it is good or it is bad. Or say 'i did a a/b test of xxxx, and .....'. where is your patient?

Have to say, this is not a good way to be evaluate high end equipments. The differences between them are so small and subtil that they could not be judged by just hours of listening. Only after weeks of audition one can begin to say something.

And even to compare with consumer products, still need to listen them for days, to change your ears or brain or what ever. consumer product produce 'wrong' sound, but might quite pleasing for certain types of music. One need to listen to high end for days to clean up the 'mind', then come back to find out how wrong the previous equipment is.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yfei One need to listen to high end for days to clean up the 'mind', then come back to find out how wrong the previous equipment is.

This is very important I think. Many times folks listen briefly, make a claim and then proclaim it ad nauseum. The thing is, there are many aspects of musical reproduction, incredible nuances that are only readily apparent once one listens to really top performing gear (not necessary $$$$ gear). Then, coming back to the older gear it is easy to pick out flaws or absences or or inclusions of aspects of the sound. Then one can properly make a judgement by stating:"In system X, there was A) no change B) some change B1) good changes, B2) bad changes C) major changes C1) good C2) bad etc."

It's something learned. When I began in music (not audio, but music), I went through ear training, which I'm sure most students go through and one of the things my teacher would make me do was listen between different performances of the same repertoire. For a while I could not hear any major differences, whereas my teacher would own multiples of the same piece because a certain artist was on the recording or a certain conductor was leading etc. After years I am able to do the same to a degree suitable for my tastes and I continue to improve. But it took time (at least for me) to really get a handle on major differences and sublte nuances that become major differences to a critical ear. I think the same can be said for any hobby, be it nascar performance, wine, beer, scotch, cycling, photography and yes audio.

Sometimes it is better to have an "unrefined" palette as it were. I'm pleased I can only differentiate properly between poor wine, mediocre wine, good wine and exceptional wine. I don't want to be able to go any deeper into it because I don't have a budget that can permit to only taste the really good stuff and then never be happy with my 15-30 dollar varieties. My wallet thanks me daily.

 

[edstrelow]

I agree with Zanth regarding the use of long term listening. As I noted above, use familiar materials to make judgment.

Also going back to old equipment can be a revealation. I have recently been forced to resurrect my old Denon 3000 and Musical Fidelity X-ACT DAC after my CEC TL 5100Z stopped running and while the older system is not junk, it is just not as sweet and clean as the CEC. I had gotten blase about the CEC and now am struggling to locate something as good, maybe better, and still pay the mortgage.

 

[Nak Man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yfei Or say 'i did a a/b test of xxxx, and .....'. where is your patient? Have to say, this is not a good way to be evaluate high end equipments.

You're right on spot if you want to find absolute performance, however, there's another aspect of equation to this thread = price. So I am interested to know if there's a way of learning which product sound good without the bias of their price appearance etc - provided the difference is large enough to warrant large amount of money. Maybe it's just me, but subtle differences = not worth high price, while maybe for you any slight improvement there is will be worth megabucks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth But it took time (at least for me) to really get a handle on major differences and sublte nuances that become major differences to a critical ear.

I agree with you, it takes time for me as well to digest such refinements. And if we can agree that high price sources produce subtle improvements, then all there's left to it is really how we value our money.

 

[Nak Man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow I agree with Zanth regarding the use of long term listening. As I noted above, use familiar materials to make judgment.

Edstrelow, correct me if I'm wrong, but did I get it right that you said any a/b comparison is flawed due to human perception issues ? Very interesting ... Would appreciate any good links / reading on that matter. Thanks much.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yfei I am amazed so many people in this thread started with the very same phrase like: 'today I tied xxxx for ....' then say it is good or it is bad. Or say 'i did a a/b test of xxxx, and .....'. where is your patient? Have to say, this is not a good way to be evaluate high end equipments. The differences between them are so small and subtil that they could not be judged by just hours of listening. Only after weeks of audition one can begin to say something. And even to compare with consumer products, still need to listen them for days, to change your ears or brain or what ever. consumer product produce 'wrong' sound, but might quite pleasing for certain types of music. One need to listen to high end for days to clean up the 'mind', then come back to find out how wrong the previous equipment is.

I agree for the most part, but long term listening is not always required to differentiate between components, etc. For example, I found that the addition of the Bel Canto DAC 2 to my Arcam CD player made an immediate and noticeable change. I also was readily able to distinguish between the Meridian 588 and the Bel Canto. On the other hand, the difference between my Arcam and the Meridian I was only able to discern on a longer term basis. Similarly, some cables I have found made an immediate and noticeable change in my system. Others took much longer to hear.

Thus, while I think it is to conclusory and dogmatic to say that there are no audible differences between cables, transports, high end sources, etc., I think it is also too conclusory and dogmatic to say that the differences are ALWAYS subtle or the differences can ONLY be heard one way. People have different experiences.