[wali]

It all boils down to economics and psychology. If one has the disposable cash, then why not!

Most of high-end gear thrives in one simple premise, faith. If you ‘believe’ that your $10,000 CDP is the best source you ever had, then it will sound to you like that – elementary psychology.

Sound quality is a subjective matter and there will never be a consensus on what sounds good. Since most of the so called audiophiles don't believe in scientific data of perceived sound quality, hence to even engage in a logical discussion about sound quality is a futile exercise. How on earth can you argue with an individual who 'believes” that he/she has exceptional hearing ability and can tell the difference between IC cables?

The problem with this sort of discussions is that it always boils down to 'haves-and-have-nots'. Those who have a steady income and a stable career can and will buy what they like to buy; others who are still not well-established have to wait for their own time.

The moment performance of a device is out of the scientific realm and into faith, price becomes irrelevant.

 

[Blitzula]

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnysize Well i did it, I spent a bunch of money on a source. I got the Primare D30.2 for $1200 used. It got excellent reviews on stereophile and hi-fi choice so i went for it. I have to say that it is incredible sounding and Im really happy with it. Now im looking forward to just listening to music and having my source be an after thought.

My audition of the Meridian G08 made me realize that a high end source (or as high end as you can afford\ and is necessary given your tastes and hearing) was the most critical link in the chain. I ended up buying a Naim CDX used for $1,650.

This is the first time I haven't felt compelled to upgrade my headphones or other components. I'll still look at different components and upgrade if I want to, but I feel like that is a luxury, not a necessity (in terms of my enjoyment) like before.

Source first for me. Anyone who disagrees without having heard higher end sources doesn't have a good arguement.

 

[Blitzula]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali The moment performance of a device is out of the scientific realm and into faith, price becomes irrelevant.

Unless science isn't able to objectively show the differences between different pieces of equipment, even if there is such a difference. Which is the case with certain components.

I've heard too many dogmatic science of music arguers, some of which went so far as to refuse to try to listen for a difference because science says there isn't one.

That's like seeing someone sail to the end of the world and not fall off but still maintaining the world is flat.

 

[wali]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula Unless science isn't able to objectively show the differences between different pieces of equipment, even if there is such a difference. Which is the case with certain components. I've heard too many dogmatic science of music arguers, some of which went so far as to refuse to try to listen for a difference because science says there isn't one. That's like seeing someone sail to the end of the world and not fall off but still maintaining the world is flat.

Considering the fact that the term 'high-end' audio won't even exist without the many decades of scientific research by those 'scientist guys' it is hard to suddenly ignore their existence and start 'believing' a range of equipment which have been made using 'sciences' and those scientist’s efforts.

Human beings with mental illness can hear sounds and noises, are those sounds really happening in the real world or in that persons brain? The same argument can be forwarded in the reliability of human hearing when it comes to supposed sound quality.

If the sound quality of an equipment is not measurable, or it's performance is not validated in a blind A/B test with a min sample size of 30 people then those who claim it sounds better compared to a different system 'believe' in what they say.

If we were discussing religion or philosophy 'faith' and 'believe' are part of the argument; however, when discussing audio equipment products – products of science research there is no place for 'faith' or 'believe'.

... but then again there is nothing wrong with those who have 'faith' in the quality of their audio equipment, I’m no different and that is quite acceptable as a subjectivism. On the other hand, those who try to propagate their 'faith' to others or worst sell snake oil like equipment have no right to do so.

 

[Blitzula]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali If the sound quality of an equipment is not measurable, or it's performance is not validated in a blind A/B test with a min sample size of 30 people then those who claim it sounds better compared to a different system 'believe' in what they say.

Rather than say if science can't prove something it's just a belief, I'd offer another possibilty...science can't explain why yet. Now this isn't true of everything. But I'll give you an example.

According to what I've been told from the hardcore science first guys, a Zu Cable sounds no different than a stock cable in an HD-650. Yet, I'm certain that is not true, based on my first hand experience.

The same is true of source...if someone tells me there isn't an audible difference betwen a Meridian G08 and a cheap digital player, I don't buy that at all, no matter how much science says it's so.

As in another thread where a discussion like this ensued, there are tons of things that science couldn't explain in the past, or had the wrong explanation for. I'm not saying not to rely on science, but I am saying to be careful of those who cite science in areas where it isn't perfect....such as audio. I agree to also be careful of the converse...self-serving salesman and biased consumers.

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wali Since most of the so called audiophiles don't believe in scientific data of perceived sound quality, hence to even engage in a logical discussion about sound quality is a futile exercise.

I'd be curious to hear what areas of scientific data you're referring to.

Two that come to mind are electrical/electronic engineering and psychoacoustics. The engineer seems more likely to say something like "electrical current doesn't work that way, so you can't be hearing that."

Psychacoustic research, on the other hand, shows that there are far more factors affecting perceived sound quality than the engineer in the example above is aware of (and equipment cost is probably one of them).

I'm sure we all have our reasons, scientific or not, for why we enjoy this hobby and pursue it to the lengths that we do. Debating sound quality on logical grounds makes about as much sense as debating music preference on logical grounds.

 

[Yikes]

Are high priced sources worth it?

The question is personal and requires a subjective value judgment. If you have a large disposable income you might be willing to spend much more money for a relatively small sonic difference.

Everyone needs to decide for them selves whether something (especially audio equipment) is “Worth it”

As always my advice is: Listen carefully and decide for yourself.

I agree that science has not fully worked out how and why we hear what we hear. Years ago the end all of speaker measurement was frequency domain measurements. Now measurements are done in the frequency and time domain, not to mention dispersion and diffraction measurements. The point is that we still don’t know everything that makes up a great speaker. Twenty years ago jitter was an unknown factor in CD playback. Now it is commonly accepted that jitter can have a major effect on the sonic performance of a digital system. Who’s to say that we won’t find other types of distortion in the future.

Over the years new measurement techniques have been developed that frequently confirm listeners empirical experiences. Perhaps someday engineers will be able to measure everything so exactly and have the knowledge to interpret the measurements so precisely that they will be able to accurately predict what we will hear. At this point the science isn’t quite there. The point is that just because science can’t prove something doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Empirical evidence clearly tells us that knowledge is not knowable, but how can we know this?

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yikes Empirical evidence clearly tells us that knowledge is not knowable, but how can we know this?

Interesting. My doctoral dissertation is very closely related to this phenomenon.

 

[edstrelow]

I have mixed feelings about this thread. I am generally in agreement about diminishing returns. I have heard several $20.00 cdp's with supplied headphones that seemed perfectly adequate hi-fi sources, certainly compared to what people listened to 30 years ago. So the law of diminishing returns may set in at this price level.

However, that said I am not turning in my $2k worth of equipment for the afroesaid $20.00 cdp/phones.

Two factors to consider in judging equipment are firstly does the equipment really make you want to use and listen to it. I have had several experiences with people who say "well I can't hear the difference betwen your set-up and my much cheaper system," but then I discover that I listen to mine a lot and they don't use theirs much at all. So I seem to be getting a pleasure component that they don't get from their equipment. This is something not always easy to appreciate in an A/B comparison but which requires that you live with the equipment for a while. I would say that this is type of experience is what drives people to purchase expensive equipment.

Secondly, some types of music just don't lend themselves to or need hi-fi. I would say most pop/rock music is such a synthetic product, because of the nature of the electronic instruments, and the artificial studio recording, tracks laid down days apart in little rooms with equalization and artificial reverberation etc., that it is hard to see how accurate, hi-fi reproduction is going to make it sound better than some cheapo system which has just the right vices to correct the problems in the recordings (what some have taken to calling synergy).

I didn't see a clear reference to what music was being listened to at the start of this thread. I think I saw a reference to "electronica." I don't know exactly what this is but most electronic synthesized recordings I have heard just need something to cut the treble, because it is too screechy, and a good bass boost to give it oomph and a sense of ambience. I.E. a boom box will give this type of music what it really needs to sound good, not a system on which you can distinguish a Stradivarius from a Guarneri violin.

Traditionally hi-fi was judged by the ability of equipment to make acoustic instruments and unamped voices sound as if you were listening to them live. Few people these days know what live acoustic sound is like since we mostly get our sound from electronic sources and most live concerts are amped. Again for people in this category, you probably don't need hi-fi. You will be happier with boombox type sound. To improve the sonic experience you would probably just need more power and better dynamics.

 

[Geise]

I agree actually. It is rather bland what a more "neutral" sound will do to electronica for instance (with headphones anyway). As for the "boombox sound", I agree, but some want a hi-fi boombox sound

(you can't imagine the difficulties in attaining such a sound with headphones)

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yikes I agree that science has not fully worked out how and why we hear what we hear. Years ago the end all of speaker measurement was frequency domain measurements. Now measurements are done in the frequency and time domain, not to mention dispersion and diffraction measurements. The point is that we still don’t know everything that makes up a great speaker. Twenty years ago jitter was an unknown factor in CD playback. Now it is commonly accepted that jitter can have a major effect on the sonic performance of a digital system. Who’s to say that we won’t find other types of distortion in the future. Over the years new measurement techniques have been developed that frequently confirm listeners empirical experiences. Perhaps someday engineers will be able to measure everything so exactly and have the knowledge to interpret the measurements so precisely that they will be able to accurately predict what we will hear. At this point the science isn’t quite there. The point is that just because science can’t prove something doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Well said.
Hey, it requires a lot of suiatble hardware to setup true double blind tests and lots of samples to get statistical significance. Not to mention there are lots of other difficulties such as listening fatigue, experience and familiarity factors. Who can really perform this kind of stuff unless audio is your profession?
Let's just admit our subjective listening at home and casual comparison of equipments are very rough and heavily influenced by psychological factors. We tend to dupe ourselves sometimes and also dupe others when we share what we think. But that's OK, since this is a hobby and its just for fun.
Let's not take ourselves too seriously. Want scientific evidence to back up most of the audio purchases you make? Not practical. Even in a top academic lab like my own work environment, people buy lots of stuff because they guess/think/hear it will work. Of course, in science, you only publish findings that have been proven beyond the reason of doubt and to the best of our abilities. As science advances, some things proof to be wrong, but some things remain valid. In private we share a lot of info that is not proven, but just subjective observations and conjectures. Word of mouth is an important way of how cutting-edge science resonates around. By the same token I think it is perfectly cool to share unscientific observations, feelings, opinions and conjectures in audio forums. Otherwise we will have to baiscally shut up. But I don't like seeing people billing their subjective opinions as some kinds of obvious facts and try to win people on their side using flashy language. Typical signs of flashy language include:
"I can so hear this and that......it is a day and night difference"
"You can't judge on this issue because you have not heard this and that stuff that I have heard"
"Are you telling me what I hear does not exist?"
"I think I have good hearing......, or I don't know if I have good hearing but so and so say I do"

 

[GoRedwings19]

Ferbose>You raise some very good points and worth thinking about. Let's use an example. I think the ML combo I have is totally the bomb. Now let's say you heard it and you said it's good but not spectacular. Who's right? the answer would be both. It depends on so many factors on what is generally to be accepted as good or bad. A lot of my recordings are poor. But on the really good ones it really shines. I have one real problem with the ML. When I listen to it and change a cable or anything it is very difficult for me to tell the difference. The player is so musical I can't listen to the equipment and focus on the music. It makes it harder for me to tell if a cable is better or worse in my system, I just bought some cheap interconnects. Now they are originally manufactured and then relabelled by other companies like Ecosse or whatever. Compared to my SPM reference it sounds like there is less detail by a certain amount. But it's really hard to focus on it.

I do believe this combo is worth it. I don't whether other people agree. I get a different type of musical presentation to my tri-vista or DCS. It is more like a high end vinyl rig rather than cd player, Natural sounding (laid back?), More Open. I don't think this player would suit most people. It is more of an acquired taste. It doesn't do upsampling, doesn't have digital filters, doesn't do SACD or DVD-A. So to most headfiers it is not worth it. But to me I believe it's priceless. Sure the DCS Verdi, purcell/elgar, meitner, burmester have outright detail compared to this combo but I don't know whether it has the musicality of this player. If I ever get the forementioned players then I will let you know

 

[jjcha]

I brought my Chord source gear into my bedroom rig for some listening through the Grace m902 + Sony MDR-SA5k's. Previously, I was listening through the Grace's internal DAC + iRiver iHP140 as a source, and honestly, didn't think there was that much of a difference from just an iPod lineout. But with the Chord gear, I have to say the SA5k's shine - it's just a smoother sound that makes it so much more pleasant to listen to. And I hear details, harmonies in the music that I didn't hear through the iRiver+Grace.

Dare I apply the cliche to the SA5k's? That they need a good source? I dunno, but I really really like this combination.

Actually, I'll go out on a limb here and say that the Sony MDR-SA5k's are clearly a full class ahead of the Senn HD650's+Zu in this rig. But that's something for another thread.

Was it really worth $10k? Most likely not - it doesn't surprise me at all that people think the Chord gear is overpriced, and I'm sure there are plenty of alternatives with better bang for the buck. But all I know is the Chord feeding the Grace and Sony's really is like audio-nirvana - as meaningful an improvement to me as adding the SR-71 to my portable rig, or upgrading from Sony EX71's to Shure E5c's to Sensa's. (not to say the improvement is the exact same level, just that it brings me that much more listening pleasure that I don't want to go back).

Now whether any of this is objective or just all in my head... I dunno, I'm sure it is largely psychological. But I guess I'm honest enough with myself to admit I can't really hear the difference between cables or in transports feeding my Chord DAC64 even when I really really try (and even then I'm not so sure.) But this difference isn't like that. It just kinda slapped me in the face.

Best regards,

-Jason

 

[theaudiohobby]

It has to be said that absolutely nobody is immune from sighted bias, however from a practical standpoint, we rarely use blind testing in day to day mundane affairs.

 

[walkman666]

I am curious about that dissertation, zanth. If you don't mind. I got my Ph.D. 15 years ago (old man here) in organizational psychology...yours must be in a social science of some kind to have that kinda topic, my guess being philosophy. Good luck in it!

- walkman666