[castleofargh]

isn't that what's all the audiophiles do? thinking that if they prefer something, then it's the real sound.

 

[StanD]

   
1. As I mentioned, no one has really come up with a musical genre/style which even takes full advantage of/relies on 5.1 yet. So a format which extends the capabilities of 5.1 even further is even more superfluous. No doubt we'll see the odd experimental album/track in Atoms at some stage but I can't see it becoming any sort of standard for music. The Object Oriented nature of Dolby Atmos is great for film, where we have a lot of moving sound sources (most of which are established/supported visually) but that's not the case with music, where all the sound sources are expected to be stationary and obviously with a music recording there are no visuals to support any illusion we may wish to create contrary to this stationary expectation. The fundamental problem though is economics. It costs more to build a good 5.1 mixing environment (and more still for a Dolby Atmos mix room/stage) and it takes more time to record/create the additional music/sound to put in those additional channels, considerably more time because with music there are no conventions to inform the arrangement/mixing. So, that's a lot more time, at a higher cost per hour, with a greater risk of failure and all during a time of decreasing revenues from music sales.
 
2. I agree that's what "some audiophiles seem to prefer", I'm not disputing they have that preference, what I'm saying is that what they appear to prefer is a fallacy which doesn't exist. Orchestral recordings are designed from the perspective of some distance from the orchestra. Actually sitting in the middle of an orchestra sounds completely different to just massively widening the stereo image of a distant orchestra. Just as recording a car in stereo from some distance and then massively widening that stereo image does not result in playback which sounds anything like actually sitting in that car. Maybe those audiophiles just have no idea what sitting in the middle of an orchestra sounds like or maybe they just don't care because they're into the sound of their equipment rather than the music. Either way, it makes a bit of a nonsense of their demands for higher SQ.
 
 
There's one of the big problems with audiophilia. What some of the more extreme audiophiles "like" doesn't necessarily have any direct correlation with SQ, however, because they are typically unable to make any distinction between what they like and SQ, we end up with all kinds of ridiculous claims and then ludicrous explanations to justify/rationalise those claims. Fortunately, you now seem to be making that distinction but unfortunately it doesn't really matter because what you want/would like: 1. Isn't really possible and even if it were, 2. There isn't enough of a demand for it.
 
 
I've never really understood what audiophiles mean by "soundstage", I'm presuming a combination of what we in the pro audio world call stereo image and depth/presence or audio perspective? To create depth/presence actually requires a change in frequency response and therefore the opposite of what you're saying is actually true. What you're really saying is that you want the FR of the instruments to change in line with how the brain expects the FR to change with distance/position, so that the change appears natural and therefore the brain's illusion of timbre is maintained. Unfortunately that's not really possible, it's like trying to change the ingredients in a cake after it's already been baked. With stereo we've effectively got two elements rather than just a single whole cake, which presents opportunities to unpick and rearrange the mix but, we can only unpick it to a limited extent and even what is unpicked can only be rearranged to a limited extent. Mostly this is accomplished by changing phase relationships, which as KeithEmo stated produces fairly unpredictable FR interactions rather than the FR interactions and other transfer functions actually appropriate to the instruments' new spatial positions. The results are surprisingly good, on a superficial level but fall apart on closer inspection. What's interesting about the "Indoor" tool I posted a video to (post #6525) is that it heralds a new generation of pro audio tools which automatically takes care of all the FR, phase, early reflection and reverb interactions (within a 360deg space) from different audio perspectives. In other words, it is now possible to automatically create a convincing transfer function appropriate to different/new spatial positions. However, it requires individually processing each element of the mix and therefore only solves half of this particular problem, as we can't yet un-mix a stereo mix and get at all those individual elements.
 
G

I never expected to be pleased as the mix is made and done with. I've noticed that many times as an instrument changes pitch as a melody is played, it's spatial position changes or seems fractured. I find that dissatisfying and for obvious reasons I don't expect that to be conquered. Once the novelty wears off (quickly) I find the results unpleasant and switch it off.

 

[Eric Devonshire]

i am in my 88th year 7 ihave been a music lover since early 60,s .ihave tried many cables over the years from basic 79 strand to several Nordosts. i still use what i did 40 years ago 1.5 mm solid core mains. i & my grand children could no appreciable difference in any of them.

 

[GuyUnder]

My sighted expectation bias appears to be on the fritz.

Yesterday I received my Anticables 6.2 ABSOLUTE Signature RCA interconnects which cost $600 after cryo treatment and 3-day burn in option. Right away I noticed the sound was cold and lacking in depth and detail. Sure enough, my no-name 15-year-old interconnects I found laying around the basement which was around $20 and made from pro cable stock as I recall, was not only much warmer but more detailed as well.

Anticables included an information sheet with the cables that warned that they need at least 100 hours of burn in before the start sounding as they should, and furthmore may improve with up to 500 hours. 3 days is more than a day short of the minimum 100 hours, so I let them run for another day. The result was that the Anticables lost much of coldness and resolution more-or-less caught up. My no-names from the basement are still warmer and fuller, while now sounding a bit more veiled in comparison. As of today the $600 cables are at best a side-grade.

If my bias doesn't improve the Anticables' sound significantly soon I will be making use of the 30 day return policy.

 

[sonitus mirus]

My sighted expectation bias appears to be on the fritz.

Yesterday I received my Anticables 6.2 ABSOLUTE Signature RCA interconnects which cost $600 after cryo treatment and 3-day burn in option. Right away I noticed the sound was cold and lacking in depth and detail. Sure enough, my no-name 15-year-old interconnects I found laying around the basement which was around $20 and made from pro cable stock as I recall, was not only much warmer but more detailed as well.

Anticables included an information sheet with the cables that warned that they need at least 100 hours of burn in before the start sounding as they should, and furthmore may improve with up to 500 hours. 3 days is more than a day short of the minimum 100 hours, so I let them run for another day. The result was that the Anticables lost much of coldness and resolution more-or-less caught up. My no-names from the basement are still warmer and fuller, while now sounding a bit more veiled in comparison. As of today the $600 cables are at best a side-grade.

If my bias doesn't improve the Anticables' sound significantly soon I will be making use of the 30 day return policy.

 
Interesting that you use the adjective "cold" to describe the sound from the cryo-treated cable.  Does it smell like cow manure?

 

[roadcykler]

A more accurate warning would be, "Anticables (and any other cable/speaker/amp, etc that recommends burn-in) need at least 100 hours for your hearing to become accustomed to the sound that you think has changed in order for them to sound their best". But that wouldn't sell many cables, now would it?

 

[GuyUnder]

Interesting that you use the adjective "cold" to describe the sound from the cryo-treated cable.  Does it smell like cow manure?

You're not helping my bias improve my $600 purchase sound quality.

 

[StanD]

You're not helping my bias improve my $600 purchase sound quality.

That money would be best spent at the bottle shop. That would dull your expectation bias and everything would sound the same.

 

[NoMythsAudio]

I know this thread is old but I have to say thank you for the efforts put into this post with all the references (link). I have been lurking around this forum reading reviews and posts but never contributed. This post actually inspired me to register and contribute which I hope to continue doing.
 
As for the results in this post, for me, I believe it all boils down to common sense and people with a lot of disposable income (sadly some simply lives on credit). At what point do you perceive a discernible and credible difference between a $500 amplifier or $3000 one? To me it's more psychological and self-importance on the part of some so called audiophiles. The one I've never understood is paying $1800 for a headphone and then spending another $600 on cable upgrade!!! What kind of jobs are these people into? I'm a professional and makes me wonder if I'm doing something wrong with my life because while I will spend that much on a headphone, it just boggles my mind to even contemplate upgrading the cable. If a headphone cost that much and comes with a silly cable, why would I even consider it.
 
Having said all these, some of the cost of these audio equipment has to do with the quality of the item not just the sonic difference. Call me shallow but I care a lot about aesthetics as much as sonic output. So if two products have no conclusive advantage over each, I will readily pay good money (of course not in thousands) for the build quality in deciding which to choose.
 
Once again, thank you for this post and let's hope some of these self-important audiophiles exercise more common sense. I also believe the audiophile community have failed to hold these companies accountable, if anything, they have encourage these companies in fleecing the public by shunning out unjustifiably expensive rigs with outlandish claims.

 

[KeithEmo]

I'm inclined to agree with you.
 
However, I believe we all need to maintain perspective. Lots of people will spend $100k on a car that won't really get them to work any faster or more reliably than a $20k car. And I've also known people who spent more than $500 on a single concert ticket - which they only get to use for a few hours. And people spend an awful lot of money on a big screen TV or on other equipment. So, if someone spends more hours of their day listening to their headphones than they spend in their car, or watching TV, then who are we to say it's foolish to spend a few thousand dollars on them?
 
I would agree, however, that people spend way too much on cables. For one thing, I've never experienced major audible differences between cables (except for really poor quality ones that didn't work right). And, while there may indeed be small measurable differences, they more often amount to slight electrical differences rather than qualitative differences. (Just because two wires may be slightly different electrically, and may even sound a tiny bit different, that doesn't mean that one or the other is better. I personally prefer certain brands of wine, and may enjoy one $20 bottle a lot more than another one from a different brand, but that won't convince me to pay $500 for the $20 bottle that I happen to like slightly better... I'll find one I like equally well somewhere else for $20. So, while some cables may in fact sound different, I'm not at all convinced they sound significantly better.)
 
I'm also inclined to carry your philosophy to the aesthetics of cables. I've definitely paid a few dollars extra for cables that looked nicer, or that were less prone to tangling, or, especially for headphones, that were flexible and soft and avoided making mechanical noises in the ear-cup when you move them around.
 
I will say, though, that headphones do sound very different from one another, so the fact that someone may subjectively prefer one rather strongly over another doesn't seem especially surprising to me.
 
However, one thing that I find surprising and annoying is that the headphone cable industry exists at all. I personally feel that, at that price point, the headphone manufacturer should include an appropriate cable to begin with. (I purchased a pair of relatively expensive headphones several years ago, and they came with a pair of rather stiff cables, with solid conductors with teflon sleeving, braided together. They were most certainly "audiophile approved", but in practical terms they were awful; every time you moved they would mechanically rub together, making noises that were annoyingly audible in the ear cups. I ended up replacing them with a "cheap" pair of cables that didn't have that problem. Yes, sometimes things get downright silly.)
 
Quote:

  I know this thread is old but I have to say thank you for the efforts put into this post with all the references (link). I have been lurking around this forum reading reviews and posts but never contributed. This post actually inspired me to register and contribute which I hope to continue doing.
 
As for the results in this post, for me, I believe it all boils down to common sense and people with a lot of disposable income (sadly some simply lives on credit). At what point do you perceive a discernible and credible difference between a $500 amplifier or $3000 one? To me it's more psychological and self-importance on the part of some so called audiophiles. The one I've never understood is paying $1800 for a headphone and then spending another $600 on cable upgrade!!! What kind of jobs are these people into? I'm a professional and makes me wonder if I'm doing something wrong with my life because while I will spend that much on a headphone, it just boggles my mind to even contemplate upgrading the cable. If a headphone cost that much and comes with a silly cable, why would I even consider it.
 
Having said all these, some of the cost of these audio equipment has to do with the quality of the item not just the sonic difference. Call me shallow but I care a lot about aesthetics as much as sonic output. So if two products have no conclusive advantage over each, I will readily pay good money (of course not in thousands) for the build quality in deciding which to choose.
 
Once again, thank you for this post and let's hope some of these self-important audiophiles exercise more common sense. I also believe the audiophile community have failed to hold these companies accountable, if anything, they have encourage these companies in fleecing the public by shunning out unjustifiably expensive rigs with outlandish claims.

 

[watchnerd]

  Call me shallow but I care a lot about aesthetics as much as sonic output. So if two products have no conclusive advantage over each, I will readily pay good money (of course not in thousands) for the build quality in deciding which to choose.
 

 
There is nothing wrong with paying more to get something that is better built, looks cool to you, feels nice, gives you pride of ownership, measures better, and/or is massively over-engineered.  
 
It's when people conflate these attributes with audibly better sound quality that things become problematic.
 
I like to use mechanical watch collecting as an analogy, because that's one of my other hobbies.  Watch collectors buy mechanical watches for many different reasons (history, provenance, craftsmanship, looks, status symbol, etc.).  But Patek Phillipe does not claim that their watches are more accurate than a cheap Casio G-shock or the clock in your cell phone.

 

[watchnerd]

 

 
I would go a step further:
 
The headphone designer voiced the headphone with the supplied cable.
 
If cables *don't* make an audible difference, swapping cables is moot for sound quality reasons.
 
If cables *do* make an audible difference, then you're deviating from the intended voicing and design.
 
Seems like a paradox to me.  Better off just not playing the game.

 

[watchnerd]

  Once again, thank you for this post and let's hope some of these self-important audiophiles exercise more common sense. 

 
One egregious example I've seen lately:
 
Several high-end DACs with asynchronous inputs have very good built-in internal clock generation / clock management systems, with amazingly low jitter specs in stock form (well below audible). That's part of what you're paying for with that high price.
 
And yet...
 
I've seen multiple times when owners of $2000+ DACs with internal clock generation spend another $300+ to add an external re-clocker into the chain.  Totally superfluous, just as likely to do harm (via extra noise) as be neutral, and certainly doesn't make the internal jitter of DACs with good internal clock generation any better.
 
If questioned about it, I've heard the equivalents of "I don't care what the engineering / science says, I know it sounds better."  It's just willful ignorance.

 

[castleofargh]

 the actual value of things isn't a simple objective equation. if you want to see an object instantly losing all value, just come at one of my birthdays when someone gives me a present. in his hand it's worth what he paid for it, in mine it's rubbish I might not even bother to forget in the attic(give money to the ones you love not BS presents because you feel you have to!).
 
also how much I own, totally changes the scale of what I deem affordable. this can't really be rationalized. the guy with thousands of $ each months will get no benefit from spending consciously and dying rich.
 
let people buy what they want, but do not let them convince you that it's the best thing since sliced bread if it's not.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

Premium cars is not significantly faster than cheaper ones for me