[atx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoRedwings19 If a headfier wants to use a blue hawaii and he90 with their DAP or PDCP then you and I or any one else for that matter has the no right to criticise them

Well... I'm just stating my opinion as to the topic of this thread: why would one spend an extra $400 from an hd600 to an hd650 and if the difference is really worth it (granted the actual difference isn't $400, but I took it to be a generic question of why people spend a lot of money upgrading audio gear).

I don't think I was criticizing. But there's a thin line between stating an opinion and criticizing others, and since this line is mostly subjective (maybe my description fits you too accurately so you feel it was a criticism), I don't see how I can avoid it other than not saying anything to begin with-- in which case, I don't feel I should refrain from stating an opinion in fear of offending someone.


Quote:

You feel there is no music artist that is worth the $$$$ setups. I find that ironic as you may not be the music lover you like to paint. Some headfiers can subjectively say that they are worth $$$$ for their music.

I'm not trying to paint myself as anything, neither was I implying that spending $$$$ setups makes you a music lover-- if anything, it was the opposite. I feel a music lover would enjoy music no matter what equipment it's played on, whether a $10k setup or a $100 one.

The difference between a music lover who spends $10k and one who spends $100 is that the former hears music through headphones, while the latter hears music in his head even without headphones. For the former, music is entertainment. For the latter, music is a state of mind. IMO, of course!

 

[GoRedwings19]

atx>your opinion does not bother me. And if it fits me then I am not bothered in the slightest. You have the right to your opinion about me.

I can see we will just have to agree to disagree on this topic as you and I see things differently.

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by atx IMO, there are people who love electronic toys and there are those who love music. I see two categories of people here:

I won't bother to quote the rest of it because you lost me right there. If you really see the world in such a black and white terms, then either you've got a whole lot to learn about the grey areas where much of life lies, or you've chosen to ignore that which is right in front of your nose.

The reason Mike was annoyed with your opinion is that it is a terribly misinformed one.

 

[bigshot]

I suppose making a fetish of equipment and worrying about what other people think of the model numbers you own is fun in its own way... but for me, I just want to listen to music. I look for equipment that presents the music well. I'd much rather spend a grand on records than a CD player. The equipment is just the means to the end.

There's definitely a sweet spot in the cost/performance ratio, and it isn't different for everyone. The only thing that varies from person to person is the tolerance for paying too much. A lot of audiophiles blow tons of money on sound they can't even hear and performance specs that have no impact on the music they listen to.

It's interesting that serious record collectors, musicologists and professional musicians rarely are audiophiles. They want good equipment and are demanding, but they don't generally buy the real expensive stuff. And I've met plenty of audiophiles with abysmal taste in music. (MFSL released Tea For The Tillerman and Hot August Night for someone after all!)

I'm actually shocked sometimes at the lack of knowledge about music among audiophiles. We have 100 years of recorded music to sample. It's stupid to arbitrarily restrict yourself to just digital recordings, or just stereo recordings, or just hifi recordings, or just electrical recordings. The format isn't what counts... the music does. You miss out on a lot that way.

See ya
Steve

 

[boodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellowjacket Not much, just the usual day to day struggles. I'm embarrased to say but I don't recall who you are

my comment was referred to your joining date (2002/4)
and to the fact that hd650 vs hd600 has been one top of the topic from a time now
just hit the search and you'll find some tons of posts on the matter

 

[boodi]

true that head-fi is also about the sinful joy of vicious repeating threads so ...
enjoy your stay here

 

[White Fox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by atx The main difference about these two is that people in #1 get lost in their equipment instead of their music. They spend thousands of dollars on headphones and amps and end up listening to a 40 year old recordings from the 60s and 70s. For these people, the goal is to obtain the highest possible sound quality in an absolute fashion without respect to the music they listen to.

Yeah, Miles Davis, KC & The Sunshine Band, tape hiss, what's the difference?

How could you possibly lump everything from the 60s & 70s into one group? Some of the greatest music, EVER, was made during this time, and I would say we really haven't advanced much since (based on my listening), and there is good deal of music from then that is very relevant to today. It might be a rewarding period to further investigate.

Also, did you ever consider that a reason alot of music now uses synthesized sounds is because computers are so much a part of our lives? Maybe not just because we have the technology to make synthesized beats? They do amazing things to improve our lives - like you said, figuring out a way to cure cancer. To deny them their place in today's music would be living in a time warp. I'm not sure what you exactly mean by 'backtrack,' but if we're just talking about the drum beat or bassline, I would say alot of music I hear is very rhythmically mechanical, but this also goes back to before synthesizer or drum machines exsisted! Personally, I much prefer bass and drum players who can improvise, at least to some extent, on the set tempo(s), but I think the use of synthesizers to add color or accompany soloists is great, and something I would incorporate to some extent in music I would make, even though I'm very much an acoustic-centric person.

If someone was truly only interested 'in obtaining the highest possible sound quality in an absolute fashion without respect to the music they listen to,' why would they listen to old recordings (if you're only considering non-classical - which seems to be your musical reference)? Even if you wanted the 'best' old-school audio (recordings that use tape, few channels, lack of electronic enhancements, etc.), you would be better off IMO sticking to a current label like Mapleshade recordings (which has made some musically worthy stuff, too). Maybe you're only referring to popular music today, which has the reputation to compress the hell out of everything. Counter to what you may believe, there are labels that don't screw up the sound too much, even though they may use digital recording, and could represent audio of the highest possible sound quality, depending on your sound preferences.

I'm not an expert on audio or music (or much of anything), but you're making generalizations without carefully considering the complexities on which you speak IMO. Expanding your reference to way beyond top-40 might help.

 

[mdude85]

I am not a hi-fi expert, but I do have another hobby, and that is photography. I think the analogy between a photographer and an audiophile fits quite well. I've invested quite a bit of money in a digital SLR camera and a bunch of interchangeable lenses, and all the time I see people spending twice as much money as I do for their photography gear. Does this gear take pictures that are twice as sharp? The answer is no. But people simply want the "latest and greatest" gear to be satisfied. It's a phenomenon that can't be explained. I think audiophiles are the same. They figure, if they can afford it (at least on credit), that they should get the best equipment they can so they don't ever have to worry about "what could have been." Some of these people are more "collectors" than anything else.

 

[atx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus I won't bother to quote the rest of it because you lost me right there. If you really see the world in such a black and white terms, then either you've got a whole lot to learn about the grey areas where much of life lies, or you've chosen to ignore that which is right in front of your nose.

The world IS black and white. The only people who think it's grey are those who don't know what to think of it, and have no definite conclusions one way or the other. Murder? black and white. Gay rights? grey. Aliens? grey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox Yeah, Miles Davis, KC & The Sunshine Band, tape hiss, what's the difference? How could you possibly lump everything from the 60s & 70s into one group? Some of the greatest music, EVER, was made during this time

I wasn't saying that music from the 60s and 70s are bad music... I was saying that the sound quality of the recordings of that time are inferior to today's technology--- i.e. I would not spend tons of money on today's technology in order to enjoy recordings from the 60s and 70s.

E.g. I would never buy a DAC1 to listen to the beatles! But I'm sure some people do, whom I'm not criticizing since if it makes them happy, then good for them.


Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox Also, did you ever consider that a reason alot of music now uses synthesized sounds is because computers are so much a part of our lives? Maybe not just because we have the technology to make synthesized beats?

This is a matter of preference. I don't like listening to synthesized sounds because they're not real. Their notes don't decay like regular instruments where you touch with your hands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox If someone was truly only interested 'in obtaining the highest possible sound quality in an absolute fashion without respect to the music they listen to,' why would they listen to old recordings (if you're only considering non-classical - which seems to be your musical reference)?

Like I said before, they listen to old recordings because that's what they like. They are interested in obtaining the highest possible sound quality only with respect to their gear--- i.e. they want their gear to be the best, but end up listening to the beatles. A $10k system to end up listening to mono recordings. In other words, people who get caught up in their gear instead of their music.

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox Maybe you're only referring to popular music today, which has the reputation to compress the hell out of everything.

I was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox I'm not an expert on audio or music (or much of anything), but you're making generalizations without carefully considering the complexities on which you speak IMO. Expanding your reference to way beyond top-40 might help

What generalizations? What complexities? Your argument is primarily "music from the 60s and 70s are some of the best music ever" and "not all record labels screw up music by compressing the hell out of everything," both of which had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. In fact, I agree with those 2 points you made.

 

[PhilS]

I think the music is what matters, but I can't agree that if you love music you should be satisified with the sound that comes out of your car radio. I buy better equipment not because of what it looks like or what anyone else thinks, but because of what it makes the music sound like. It sounds better (generally) from better equipment.

Of course, it's obvious that there are cost/performance issues involved, just as it is undeniable that these are different for everyone. Each person has to make up their own mind on whether the extra expense of improving their system is worth it. And certainly there are a few who spend money on equipment that really provides no tangible benefit in terms of improved sound, but most people don't wish to throw money down the drain and so they spend their money where they think they can get the most value.

It's really all a matter of personal preference, despite the fact that some would believe that they can tell everybody else what's best for them. I mean, if someone wants to spend $10,000 to climb Mount Everest, how can I say that's a ridiculous choice? I wouldn't do it if someone paid me $10,000, but I am not going to be so presumptuous as to say their choice is wrong.

 

[boodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS I think the music is what matters, but I can't agree that if you love music you should be satisified with the sound that comes out of your car radio.

I agree
take me for exemple , I don't have a car radio

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by atx I wasn't saying that music from the 60s and 70s are bad music... I was saying that the sound quality of the recordings of that time are inferior to today's technology

You're assuming that... but it isn't true.

Analogue is not inferior to digital. The quality of sound even as far back as the early days of stereo (around 1956) is as good as anything we have today. You use Beatles records as an example of inferior sound... have you ever listened to any of them? I don't mean the overdubbed ones like Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour... I mean Revolver and Rubber Soul. You can hook these albums up to test equipment, and you'll find that they have a broad frequency response that would challenge any high end system. And take one of the Capitol Sinatra albums... You'll find dynamic range and power that you'd be hard pressed to find in today's heavily compressed and hot mastered pop records. And if you ask the engineers who record your favorite current albums, you'll find they are using the same mikes Sinatra's engineers used at Capitol.

The belief that technology has improved sound is a myth. Sound reproduction hasn't significantly improved since stereo was introduced in the mid-50s. Technology has made music more portable and compact. It's made mixing and engineering much more flexible. It's eliminated generation loss. But it hasn't really improved the basics of frequency response, dynamics and distortion.

See ya
Steve

 

[Andrea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by atx The difference between a music lover who spends $10k and one who spends $100 is that the former hears music through headphones, while the latter hears music in his head even without headphones. For the former, music is entertainment. For the latter, music is a state of mind. IMO, of course!

I loved this statement. I find it enlightened!

 

[ken36]

So, how come I'm spending more time doing this foolishness than I am listening, really listening to my music?

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS Of course, it's obvious that there are cost/performance issues involved, just as it is undeniable that these are different for everyone. Each person has to make up their own mind on whether the extra expense of improving their system is worth it.

That's quite true, but the fact that a 5,000 stereo can sound just about as good as one that costs five times as much isn't something each person needs to make up their own mind about. When you get above a certain point, you aren't buying sound any more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS And certainly there are a few who spend money on equipment that really provides no tangible benefit in terms of improved sound, but most people don't wish to throw money down the drain and so they spend their money where they think they can get the most value.

You're not considering the main reasons people spend money on high end items... status. If you don't believe that, just look at the kind of person who drives an obscenely expensive car or drinks high end wine... Or just look at the sig files in this forum where people list equipment in their rigs. Why are they listed there? No one else really cares whether you or I get tangible benefit in sound from our RXZL-112233A... But those model numbers and laundry lists of mods impress people and that's why they're there.

See ya
Steve