[FYFL]

Audible transparency is the point where human ears can’t hear any difference any more. The source signal is identical to the output. A wire with gain. Unless you’re putting together a sound system for your pet bat or dog, that’s all you’d ever need. It’s very easy to achieve that goal without spending a lot of money. That’s why it’s best to focus on transducers and music, not amps and DACs.

I'm with you on your last sentence. 100 percent.

 

[hakunamakaka]

He’s like a broken record

Or should that be: He likes a broken record?

G

Calm down kitten. This website just host many radio streams. It won’t work if you need to query for artists and albums

 

[old tech]

For example, I can go to my record racks and pull an original Capitol pressing of Abbey Road. You’ll be impressed at how good it sounds. Then I can play my MFSL half speed mastered copy of Abbey Road and you will be impressed at how much better it sounds than the Capitol. Then I can play you the CD and it will sound just like the half speed mastered LP, just without any surface noise. You’ll think they all sound good. But then I’ll log into my Apple Music account and I’ll stream Giles Martin’s multichannel mix in spatial audio on an Apple TV, and it will make you completely forget all the other versions.

Off topic, and I know it is subjective, but I've never warmed to to the MFSL Beatles box set apart from a couple early albums. I only keep the set for collection reasons. Altough the records are high quality vinyl, perfectly centred etc, to my ears most of them sound too smiley faced EQ wise. Give me the regular LPs anyday. IMO the regular Abbey Road LP or CD sound better than the MFSL release, particularly when played loud or for an extended period of time.

 

[old tech]

Practicality is a factor for sure. And if that's the criteria or determining factor in your music enjoyment then sure, nothing beats streaming. As to separates vs all-in-one solution.... That's another topic and there are pros and cons to both approaches. Like everything else in life.

I could never understand the audiophile obsession with mono block amps, particularly with those that mainly play LPs. Presumably the main advantage of mono blocks is stereo separation even though cross talk is by order of magnitude higher with LP (or analogue tape) playback than an integrated stereo amp.

 

[FYFL]

I could never understand the audiophile obsession with mono block amps, particularly with those that mainly play LPs. Presumably the main advantage of mono blocks is stereo separation even though cross talk is by order of magnitude higher with LP (or analogue tape) playback than an integrated stereo amp.

I don't know if I would go as far as to call it obsession. Perhaps there are people obsessing about such things. Perhaps they have good reasons to go that route. I really don't know and frankly I don't think that I care how they spend their money. Both of my amps are monoblock designs. I didn't get them because of it but because I liked how they sounded with many of my high sensitivity speakers and, the deal was to good to pass on it. Lol

 

[FYFL]

... and yes, you're right. People claim lower noise floor, better separation, shorter signal path between speakers and their mono amps etc. We all have heard those arguments and perhaps there's some validity to it given all things being equal. Personally, I would exclude myself from those arguments, simply because I'm at the point of my life that watching professional boxers beating on their fans because they don't agree with them isn't that much fun anymore.

 

[bigshot]

I think people pay too much for home audio because they don't have the energy to do much research on what they're buying. They just assume that if it costs more, it must sound better. That's true of a lot of luxury items. The whole audiophile market is based on upselling based on theoretical improvements. The fact is, that is rarely the case because even inexpensive home audio electronics sounds great.

The funny thing is, people probably spend more time researching the purchase of a refrigerator or lawnmower than they do a $10k stereo system.

 

[gregorio]

Recording will always be as good as the weakest link. Often it comes down to lazy or mediocre post production and mastering.

No, if we’re talking about commercial music releases, it relatively rarely comes down to lazy or mediocre post production and mastering.

[1] And in my opinion, thriving for "perfection" and [2] those meaningless references such as "as artist intended" are nothing more than fool's gold. [3] Just enjoy the music the way that makes most sense to you

1. No one I know of here “thrives for perfection”, we thrive for systems that are as good as we can get. However, certain components of a system can effectively be perfect and for very little cost.

2. That doesn’t make any sense and is self contradictory! The artists’ intention is for certain notes, played in a certain order, on certain instruments and in a certain way. Different notes, in a different order, played on different instruments in a different way, is a completely different piece of music and not necessarily even the same genre! And, if for example a love song has no artistic intention of conveying anything connected to love, how is it a love song? Completely opposite to your assertion, I can’t think of anything more meaningful than the artists’ intentions!

3. What music? Without artistic intentions it’s just random notes, in a random order, performed in random styles!

However, people don't go to concerts, live events to get their dose of "audiophile" transparency fix but for the "experience". And in the essence that's what music is all about.

But the “experience” in very large part is created by the artists’ intentions. The notes they play, the way they play them, the specific songs they choose, their order, etc. That is in essence “what music is all about” but that’s the exact opposite of your assertion above, that it’s “meaningless”.

G

 

[FYFL]

No, if we’re talking about commercial music releases, it relatively rarely comes down to lazy or mediocre post production and mastering.

1. No one I know of here “thrives for perfection”, we thrive for systems that are as good as we can get. However, certain components of a system can effectively be perfect and for very little cost.

2. That doesn’t make any sense and is self contradictory! The artists’ intention is for certain notes, played in a certain order, on certain instruments and in a certain way. Different notes, in a different order, played on different instruments in a different way, is a completely different piece of music and not necessarily even the same genre! And, if for example a love song has no artistic intention of conveying anything connected to love, how is it a love song? Completely opposite to your assertion, I can’t think of anything more meaningful than the artists’ intentions!

3. What music? Without artistic intentions it’s just random notes, in a random order, performed in random styles!


But the “experience” in very large part is created by the artists’ intentions. The notes they play, the way they play them, the specific songs they choose, their order, etc. That is in essence “what music is all about” but that’s the exact opposite of your assertion above, that it’s “meaningless”.

G

Not even sure how to respond to that? But I appreciate the effort.

 

[bigshot]

The problem is that commercial albums don't generally come with information on the technical work done on them. In general, professional sound mixers do a very good job, and they consider where and how a track is going to be played to optimize it for that purpose. But there are a lot of people with home studios taking a DIY approach, and the experience and quality there vary widely. Consumers don't really have any idea of what goes on behind the scenes, but that doesn't stop some audiophools from making generalizations that don't have any basis in fact. I guess it's easier for them to believe what they do because they're free from the burden of having to know what they're talking about.

 

[The Jester]

I could never understand the audiophile obsession with mono block amps, particularly with those that mainly play LPs. Presumably the main advantage of mono blocks is stereo separation even though cross talk is by order of magnitude higher with LP (or analogue tape) playback than an integrated stereo amp.

Probably overused for the look but for those that choose notoriously “hard to drive” speakers that have lower than average impedance there are some advantages, take a speaker that is lower than average efficiency and drops below 4 ohms in the lower frequencies, not unusual with bigger speakers with multiple bass drivers, with say a 100w pc amp it would need to supply 200w into 4 ohms and 400w into 2 ohms, for a conventional Class.A, A/B amp that would require quite a large power supply in a stereo amp with associated EMI issues, going with 2 x mono amps a smaller transformer and power supply would be adequate, if the speakers used never drop below 4 ohms or more then the need for a high current amp is reduced, then mono amps could be regarded as “more show than go”.
And no, I currently use a stereo power amp ..