Tomcat
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2001
- Posts
- 1,276
- Likes
- 20
Quote:
KR, if this was true, why is 95 percent of all this hifi and high-end gear sounding so annoying, strenuous and fatiguing? Why do most audiophiles unhesitatingly prefer the "analytic" component to the musical one, at what point in their audiophile career did they learn to go against their instincts? And how do you explain the results of the Ackermann experiment Sauer reports about?
I don't think it is insane to spend large amounts of money on audio equipment. But it is very much insane how easy it is to diminish your musical enjoyment in the process. The standard audiophile answer is: "It is the better and more accurate equipment that is just more "revealing", all you have to do is upgrade." Really? Think about it: the perfect component would not be perceivable at all, zero sonic character of its own. Doesn't this mean that you would just hear better what is to be heard there? The music as well as the distortions introduced by the less than perfect components higher up the chain? And through which miracle of psychoacoustics would I be forced to focus my perception on the imperfections of the reproduction instead of on the music, why would this only be happening when the perfectly accurate component was introduced into my chain? The way I have come to see it is this: Whenever a component is called revealing it is most likely to be revealing of its own flaws. It is its own imperfections we perceive, its inability to preserve the coherence of the complex musical signal, its inability to convey music. Whenever a new component makes your chain sound worse, it just might be sounding worse all by itself.
That is what people typically say in regard to The Sennheiser HD 600 for example: "These phones are so good, you just have to upgrade to enjoy them." Really? I think they are strictly about hifi. For starters, their tonal balance is just too bright (I think this is true for a very large number of headphones, the Sony MDR-CD3000 and probably most Grados as well). On this year's "High End" exhibit, I had a chance to listen to the Stax Omega II driven by the 007tube amp, for about 40 minutes. They are indeed highend at its worst. They are completely about artificial detail, emphasizing events in the treble in a manner that your only hope for squeezing any degree of musical enjoyment out of them is to pair them with the most musical front-end you can find.
I am not against accuracy, I am just questioning the prevailing criteria for judging it. If the most accurate equipment and the musically most enjoyable are not one and the same in an audiophile's mind, he is definitely headed down the wrong path.
I think that the idea of audiophiles caring more about his/her system than the music played on it, is for the most part a myth and nothing but a stereotype. |
KR, if this was true, why is 95 percent of all this hifi and high-end gear sounding so annoying, strenuous and fatiguing? Why do most audiophiles unhesitatingly prefer the "analytic" component to the musical one, at what point in their audiophile career did they learn to go against their instincts? And how do you explain the results of the Ackermann experiment Sauer reports about?
I don't think it is insane to spend large amounts of money on audio equipment. But it is very much insane how easy it is to diminish your musical enjoyment in the process. The standard audiophile answer is: "It is the better and more accurate equipment that is just more "revealing", all you have to do is upgrade." Really? Think about it: the perfect component would not be perceivable at all, zero sonic character of its own. Doesn't this mean that you would just hear better what is to be heard there? The music as well as the distortions introduced by the less than perfect components higher up the chain? And through which miracle of psychoacoustics would I be forced to focus my perception on the imperfections of the reproduction instead of on the music, why would this only be happening when the perfectly accurate component was introduced into my chain? The way I have come to see it is this: Whenever a component is called revealing it is most likely to be revealing of its own flaws. It is its own imperfections we perceive, its inability to preserve the coherence of the complex musical signal, its inability to convey music. Whenever a new component makes your chain sound worse, it just might be sounding worse all by itself.
That is what people typically say in regard to The Sennheiser HD 600 for example: "These phones are so good, you just have to upgrade to enjoy them." Really? I think they are strictly about hifi. For starters, their tonal balance is just too bright (I think this is true for a very large number of headphones, the Sony MDR-CD3000 and probably most Grados as well). On this year's "High End" exhibit, I had a chance to listen to the Stax Omega II driven by the 007tube amp, for about 40 minutes. They are indeed highend at its worst. They are completely about artificial detail, emphasizing events in the treble in a manner that your only hope for squeezing any degree of musical enjoyment out of them is to pair them with the most musical front-end you can find.
I am not against accuracy, I am just questioning the prevailing criteria for judging it. If the most accurate equipment and the musically most enjoyable are not one and the same in an audiophile's mind, he is definitely headed down the wrong path.