[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilvg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Another example is wine versus very fine wine.

That isn't a good analogy. There are a million different flavors of wine and even a novice can tell that there's a difference between a Port and a Chablis- no need for double blind tests. Almost all good quality CD players sound just about the same, and as much as people wish they could discern a difference, it just isn't that easy to do in blind A/B comparisons.

If you can't hear a difference when you have two sounds switchable for direct comparison, you aren't going to hear a difference over time.

See ya
Steve

 

[sejarzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman /img/forum/go_quote.gif You forgot to mention the monitors. Rather a crucial point, don'tcha think?

Correct, and he uses both pro-audio and high-end consumer speakers in his mastering studio.

It just seems to me that in many cases, professional musicians who play and hear the real thing all of the time pooh-pooh the little differences that audiophiles hear (or claim to hear) in a lot of gear.

FWIW, I know a wind ensemble director that has won national acclaim over the past 30 years or so. His take on the "resurgence" of vinyl? "That's only for people who think music should include repetitive background noise, clicks, pops, whatever and have compressed dynamics. There is no way that any LP can convey the dynamics of a large ensemble accurately when compared to most CD systems."

It's not like this guy can't hear, you know?

 

[tbonner1]

quote-There is no way that any LP can convey the dynamics of a large ensemble accurately when compared to most CD systems.

Cd playback is better than LP in terms of imaging, bass and dynamic range.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif That isn't a good analogy. There are a million different flavors of wine and even a novice can tell that there's a difference between a Port and a Chablis- no need for double blind tests. Almost all good quality CD players sound just about the same, and as much as people wish they could discern a difference, it just isn't that easy to do in blind A/B comparisons. If you can't hear a difference when you have two sounds switchable for direct comparison, you aren't going to hear a difference over time. See ya Steve

The analogy of wines is a perfect example. Your breakdown between a Port and Chablis is like comparing beef jerky with fillet mignon. Both are classified as a meat product and anyone can tell the difference but they sure aren't comparable. A Port is a sweet tasting fortified wine and a Chablis a nice delicate dry white wine. Of course even an amateur could tell the difference. An amateur could also tell the difference between an AM radio broadcast out of a $4 radio and an SACD recording from a $500 000 system. What should have been the retort is that an amateur could tell the difference between a 100% Cabernet Sauvignon from the Bordeaux region and a Chateau Lafite which generally comprises 75-80% and is just north of the Bordeaux terroir.

Wanna bet most won't EVER be able to tell the difference? I'd take that bet in an instant and I'd be walking away a rich man.

So does that mean that with some skill and with repeated tastings a person wouldn't ever be able to tell the difference between a blend and a pure wine? Between one from Bordeaux and one from just north of there? Or from elsewhere in the world?

A/Bing is notoriously unreliable in examing gear. Think of those that listen to a pair of Koss KSC-35's, SR60's, RS-1's and PS-1's. I know of plenty who believe they all sound the same on a quick A/B. Spend some time with each and it becomes obvious the differences. To most here, the differences are obvious immediately. Now, take that to another level where differences between digital sources (or solid state amps) becomes the task at hand. Sure, it is more difficult and particularly during an A/B session, but live with one for a while, then change up and those differences, those last 5% become extremely important because it is indeed those last handful of % or more that make or break the gear. It means one piece stays, one goes or it means that one continues a search.

Living with gear is exactly what is needed to understand the subtleties of the piece and there is no doubt that those that love music, playing it, writing it, listening to it whatever, and who in turn come to a spot like this and start buying gear...they are after something that goes beyond the mere casual enjoyment, they want to merge two words, that of the aesthetic with that of the technological. There is no reason that one should not RACE after the best gear possible to reproduce music to its fullest if they feel there is anything that is lacking.

Far too many are quick to judge others on the basis of what they are after in life. I can't stand going to most live venues because they are absolutely butchered. This means that I get the vast majority of my listening pleasure from home and of course that means through audio gear. After going through quite a few auditions for various cd players, I found one that worked for me, then I started to modify it which brought me more joy because it brought me closer to the music.

At some point it becomes flavouring, exactly what Neil has mentioned time and time again. Some colour here, some colour there and one achieves something unique for that individual. Just because something is subtle doesn't mean it is not quantifiable and verifiable. It just means it is usually more elusive and takes greater skill to discern. Why stop with mediocrity when one can aspire to greatness?

 

[bigshot]

I'm afraid your post isn't concise enough or on-point enough for me to read past the first paragraph.

The analogy is not good because chablis vs port is not the same thing as one high end CD player vs another. You could compare one chablis to another chablis, but the differences would still be of a magnitude larger than the differences in sound between two good quality CD players.

See ya
Steve

 

[neilvg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif That isn't a good analogy. There are a million different flavors of wine and even a novice can tell that there's a difference between a Port and a Chablis- no need for double blind tests. Almost all good quality CD players sound just about the same, and as much as people wish they could discern a difference, it just isn't that easy to do in blind A/B comparisons. If you can't hear a difference when you have two sounds switchable for direct comparison, you aren't going to hear a difference over time. See ya Steve

My analogy was meant to elucidate the point that enjoyment of music and enjoyment of the particular gear used to reproduce the music are to a large degree exclusive. Obviously if the reproduction is sufficiently poor, it will impede our ability to even enjoy the music, but in most cases, and certainly at the level we are talking about here, this is not the case.

What I am trying to say, more clearly is that you have Wine and the associated Effect of the wine (the buzz, etc...). With music, we have the reproduction and we have the music itself.

Wine is to Music as the subsequent Buzz is to listening to the music itself.

Clearly this is somewhat of a stretch, but if you are listening to music you like, it will (hopefully) have an effect on you regardless of the reproduction *as long as* the reproduction is at least decent. This is easily accomplished with most gear these days. Similarly, if the wine is not totally horrible, which is also easily achieved these days, the subsequent buzz will be enjoyable, regardless of the enjoyment of the wine itself - and just like modern day digital audio, it can be done rather cheaply too. Of course in reality it can be more complex since a nice wine just like a nice reproduction will color your perception of the buzz and the impact of the music. But I am just pointing out relations here.

If you need some sort of really high end player to enjoy the music, you are suffering from some sort of mental illness. In a similar vein, as long as my bed is of decent quality, and my back isn't suffering from some sort of issue, I will enjoy a good nights rest. I do not need a designer bed, although a designer bed will be nice it will not necessarily give me better sleep, just a more comfortable sensory experience while I am sleeping.

A better DAC or CDP combo will do just that, provide a higher end experience with more subtlety and finesse. Something that often takes time to appreciate, and is definitely reliant on other components being up to the level as well.

For example - The NWO 2.5 is said to have a far greater ability to demonstrate imaging depth than the EMM Labs SE combo. True depth is something that is only experienced when the speakers are up to snuff and setup correctly along with the room. Of course ear training and the right music may also be necessary. If these factors are in place, dropping in another DAC may prove that those subtle yet potent differences in depth are in fact real.

Neil

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm afraid your post isn't concise enough or on-point enough for me to read past the first paragraph. The analogy is not good because chablis vs port is not the same thing as one high end CD player vs another. You could compare one chablis to another chablis, but the differences would still be of a magnitude larger than the differences in sound between two good quality CD players. See ya Steve

Heh, your arrogance is nearly mind numbing. The fact you categorically claim a person, if they can't hear something in an A/B session then they won't at home, then go on to claim that relating one chablis to another is somehow so much easier for folks to discern between but not cd players is just off the rocker mad.

But hey, the best part is that your post is a wonderfully subjective one which proves my point marvelously had you taken the time to read it.

 

[bangraman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sejarzo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Correct, and he uses both pro-audio and high-end consumer speakers in his mastering studio. It just seems to me that in many cases, professional musicians who play and hear the real thing all of the time pooh-pooh the little differences that audiophiles hear (or claim to hear) in a lot of gear. FWIW, I know a wind ensemble director that has won national acclaim over the past 30 years or so. His take on the "resurgence" of vinyl? "That's only for people who think music should include repetitive background noise, clicks, pops, whatever and have compressed dynamics. There is no way that any LP can convey the dynamics of a large ensemble accurately when compared to most CD systems." It's not like this guy can't hear, you know?

You're right in some respects, but the point is that all the fancy gear is pointless if you don't have the means to present it. All the dCS stuff, etc aside it's the speakers that rather obviously makes a difference. I can connect my Elgar Plus to an iPod Hi-Fi and it's going to sound virtually identical to the iPod being plugged in. The fact that you didn't see fit to include the key element in the mix is a telling factor, is all I'm saying.


Conversely and somewhat in agreement with your friend, even if you have very good speakers then there is a point at which throwing more money at it doesn't make a huge difference anymore - and that point is well below the Reimyo / dCS level. But if the speakers are capable of reproducing in a measurably way any improvements in the back-end, there's no reason preventing you from buying a top-dollar source if the money is not a problem.


I have to say in terms of disc spinners, things are pretty dead as far as I'm concerned. It certainly feels like more of an 'occasion' to drop a disc into the Verdi La Scala than cue up an album on my HTPC, but since I enjoy virtually the same quality out of each (since both setups go through the same DAC with the same clock) for regular CD's at least, the Verdi gets virtually zero use these days given the lack of convenience. I still have to play back my SACD's on it of course but for perhaps obvious reasons I'm not trying to expand my SACD collection too hard.


I would say these days it's probably better investing in a computer based system, although perhaps I'm an 'old head' but where I think things are lacking at this point in time for a computer-based setup, no matter how good a back-end you give it is the same level of 'occasion' experience as dropping in a disc into a top-end player. Listening to a top-end system isn't just about enjoying the sound, it's also about enjoying using it. I know it's possible to approach that kind of 'occasion' experience in terms of having a slick UI and good hardware controls, but I haven't seen such a system yet.


What many people who rain derision onto this area of the market seem to fail to realise in terms of high / ultra-high-end gear is that they not only focus on sound, the most successful ones also focus on a particular look and feel, and this is - whether known to the owner or not - an important part of the ownership experience.

 

[tbonner1]

quote-I still have to play back my SACD's on it of course but for perhaps obvious reasons I'm not trying to expand my SACD collection too hard.

Same for me, I am conflicted because I really have hope for SACD (and DVD-A) with my modded Sony SACD 333ES (nice built in headphone jack with Senn 650's by the way). The difference between CD and SACD is not subtle.

I tried a VisionDAW and it was better sounding than my Dell PC as a music server with the Presonus Central Station, but it should be for the money.

 

[sejarzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman /img/forum/go_quote.gif What many people who rain derision onto this area of the market seem to fail to realise in terms of high / ultra-high-end gear is that they not only focus on sound, the most successful ones also focus on a particular look and feel, and this is - whether known to the owner or not - an important part of the ownership experience.

I certainly understand that point of view.....it's what drives the market in that price level.

I'm an engineer, so I evaluate everything from a cost vs. benefit analysis. FWIW, the ultra-high end stuff just seems to be so much a waste of effort, given how poorly a lot of the material is tracked/mixed/mastered these days. Yes, there are some recordings that make it worth it, in a sense....but what if you like the music of an artist, who, as regrettable as it is, records for a label that doesn't care so much about that? Or.....I have some CD's of mid-60's jazz that are among my all-time faves, but I can listen to them only in the car, not at home! The road noise covers up the hiss and print-through from the old tapes. The discs sound so rotten at home that it just seems pointless--some things you can "hear through", but these are beyond that.

The market for boutique pieces is so small compared to other gear.....the relatively high costs for custom milled faces, small run mechanical parts, etc. that give it that look and feel that some audiophiles desire, IMHO, would be far better spent on improved audio technology.

I buy my gear for listening, definitely NOT for looking!

 

[Morph201]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sejarzo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I certainly understand that point of view.....it's what drives the market in that price level. I'm an engineer, so I evaluate everything from a cost vs. benefit analysis. FWIW, the ultra-high end stuff just seems to be so much a waste of effort, given how poorly a lot of the material is tracked/mixed/mastered these days. Yes, there are some recordings that make it worth it, in a sense....but what if you like the music of an artist, who, as regrettable as it is, records for a label that doesn't care so much about that? Or.....I have some CD's of mid-60's jazz that are among my all-time faves, but I can listen to them only in the car, not at home! The road noise covers up the hiss and print-through from the old tapes. The discs sound so rotten at home that it just seems pointless--some things you can "hear through", but these are beyond that. The market for boutique pieces is so small compared to other gear.....the relatively high costs for custom milled faces, small run mechanical parts, etc. that give it that look and feel that some audiophiles desire, IMHO, would be far better spent on improved audio technology. I buy my gear for listening, definitely NOT for looking!

I agree 10000%..... I also own a large collection of mid-60s Jazz, and as enticing as it may be, it's hard to justify "high to ultra high end" gear when so much is dependent on the type of recording process that was done. A lot of people fail to mention that when evaluating gear. I definitely don't want something that's going to distort the signal just to remove "recording hiss",etc... So taking into consideration that a majority of music isn't recorded with "audiophiles" in mind, how DO you justify high end purchases? Does this mean we have to purchase gear for specific recording mixes?? Or have we been sold a bag of goods! Meaning that this endeavor is somewhat pointless unless YOU are producing the artist's tracks (the real source)?

 

[sejarzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morph201 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree 10000%..... <<snip>> Does this mean we have to purchase gear for specific recording mixes?? Or have we been sold a bag of goods! Meaning that this endeavor is somewhat pointless unless YOU are producing the artist's tracks (the real source)?

Yes, a problem with no clear solution.......

There are definitely a couple of schools of thought in audiophilia, the prevalent one being that tone controls or equivalent devices are anathema, because use of tone controls prevents the listener from experiencing "exactly" what the artist and engineer have put on disc for the consumer to hear. How many high-end preamps do you see with any sort of tone controls?

How in the world is that concept supposed to fly? The biggest variable in reproduction is not the electronics, and not even the speakers, it's the room! Using mild corrections probably does not only make the material more listenable, it likely does allow a closer approach to what the artist/producer intended.

What if your listening room has a peak exactly where the mastering studio had a suck-out that the producer made sure was "corrected" so the final product sounded "right" in that room?

I bought my first CD player in 1984, the first Yamaha that sold for less than $500. Most of the pop CD's I have from that time, which seemed eminently listenable on that gear, now sound so excrutiatingly etchy/edgy/brittle that I don't listen to them on my speaker rig, but only via Foobar where I can EQ them to something resembling a realistic mix.

That has fueled my interest in classical music over the past five years. Acoustic music, recorded in real venues and with minimal post-processing is to me about the only material that "sounds good to me" any more. And some of it is wonderful........too much pop is mastered so it "sounds good" on an iPod with standard buds rather than a truly transparent system.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sejarzo /img/forum/go_quote.gif That has fueled my interest in classical music over the past five years. Acoustic music, recorded in real venues and with minimal post-processing is to me about the only material that "sounds good to me" any more. And some of it is wonderful........too much pop is mastered so it "sounds good" on an iPod with standard buds rather than a truly transparent system.

Have you discovered John Dowland's Lute Music ?, it is wonderful and about as minimal as you can get.

 

[itsborken]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sejarzo /img/forum/go_quote.gif The biggest variable in reproduction is not the electronics, and not even the speakers, it's the room!

Doesn't using headphones somewhat eliminate this variable?

 

[sejarzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsborken /img/forum/go_quote.gif Doesn't using headphones somewhat eliminate this variable?

It certainly does, but try and find many "boutique audiophiles"--the type to pay $30k for a CD player--who don't look down their noses at headphones. The majority of them don't think headphones offer the sort of experience they seek, which seems to be reproducing a concert hall in their living rooms (which, due to the physics of the situation, is a hopeless chase......even with digital room correction, which can only get 30 to 40% of the way there.)