[webbie64]

A mate and I have been journeying for many years in the area of HiFi, including HeadFi.

One comment he made to me a number of months ago continues to ring in my mind. I forget the exact words but the gist of it was that when we are hearing something 'better', 'clearer', 'more defined', 'more real', etc we are just finding (a) a better combo of the electronics that the signal is passing through, combined with (b) the right environment/mood/receptiveness for our ears/preferences. That it is not necessarilly a better, purer, true-er piece of equipment.

He uses the example of a number of years ago experiencing just a fantastic reproduction of familiar tracks out of a portable CD mini-stereo system that just amazed him (and he does have some very Hi-End audio gear at home that is very well set up - Linn, etc - so it's not like he hasn't heard a lot of good gear over the years).

In ways I can understand where he's coming from because in my (now extensive) exploration of portable audio (all of which I consider to be MidFi at best) I have found certain combos to work better than others and that the best combo with one headphone isn't necessarilly the best with others - that it really is about the synergy/combo of the various weakneses and strengths of the equipment being used.

But when I get to my most HiFi equipment I find this 'synergy/combo' requirement to be less so. The better the source, ICs, amp, etc leading up to the headphiones, regardless of the headphones, tends to improve the rendition provided by those headphones.

Nothing is 'perfect', admittedly, and all designs tend to have a designer's signature/preferences built into them to a degree, but is the concept of the audio purist really an anathema? Is it just a refusal to accept that EQing and other interventions are also part of tailoring the sound to one's individual preferences to gain the most 'real', 'pure', 'defined, 'that's an exact reproduction for me' experience?

I look forward to your thoughts.

 

[Uncle Erik]

There's a strange sense of equivalency among some audio enthusiasts. They assume that everything is, deep down, equal and just a "different flavor" from other gear.

In my experience, that's not how audio works.

Consider an amp that clips because it doesn't have the power to drive a speaker. That is a defect in the amp. Well, sort of. The amp's designer didn't know what speakers you were going to use with it, but still, a 2A3 SET isn't going to fare well with a pair of Apogee ribbons. You have to use the figures and stats to match your equipment. That's not synergy, that's science. You can work the formulas and see what will match up.

Second, not everything is electronic in audio. There's plenty of mechanical properties at work, too. Look at speakers. You have dynamic drivers, field coils, ESLs, ribbons, planars, even plasma. Those make sound mechanically. Same with a turntable. If your main bearing isn't up to snuff, you're going to get rumble and other noise goodies in your signal. In these cases, you're going to get a direct benefit from a bearing made to exacting tolerances. And there is absolutely no equivalency between a cone midrange and an electrostatic panel, either.

What you're in the mood for and personally enjoy is totally subjective. But there is a demonstrative scientific basis for why certain gear performs as it does.

 

[webbie64]

Thanks for the contribution, Uncle Erik.

More food for thought.

 

[aaron313]

^
Agreed!