[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Thursday, November 28, 2013 7:27:37 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:35:32 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:51:01 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:
=20
=20
=20
On Monday, November 25, 2013 4:38:37 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
=20
=20
But we part company when you start comparing iPod and iPod-like dev=
ices and ear-buds favorably with a good stereo system.=20

But you've said here before that your unique ear makes a std earbud a=
non-option for you. Perhaps you should try one of those custom forming =
buds before declaring them "unsatisfying" and implying your personal ina=
bility extends to so many.

Sorry, I guess I have yet to discipline myself that with argumentative =
types one has to be super
diligent and hyper precise in what one posts. You mentioned ear-buds in=
your OP. I was answering
that and that only at the time. While you are right, I cannot use the s=
o called "ear-buds" because I
have nothing in my outer ear to hang them on (good memory, BTW). I cert=
ainly can use the kind of
ear-wear that fits into my ear canal. They generally have better bass t=
han "buds" anyway. But what I
was really referring to was headphones in general. I find even the bes=
t of them unsatisfying. I call
'em a necessary evil and of course, I use them. But I do not find them=
anywhere even in the same
ball-park as a good stereo system with speakers. I also have never hea=
rd an iPod or iPod-like
device (such as Sansa models) that I though had a clean enough amplifi=
er to make even the best
headphones even sound their best.=20
=20
I find that interesting in that the technical challenges of driving a set=
of earbuds is so many orders of magnitudes less demanding than a classic=
power amp required for speakers it's hard to compare. The load and signa=
l amplitude (both in power and voltage) required are so miniscule in compar=
ison that a distortion free signal capable of driving the load is really =
quite simple in comparison.

Yet every iPod-like device I try is seriously colored.=20
=20
Entire stages of power amplification and massively filtered AC/DC power c=
onverters are no longer=20
required.
=20
Think of all the battery powered low output MC preamps on the market and =
why.
=20
Same principles apply.=20

Yes, as far as it goes, you're right. But portable devices are hardly made =
to the standards of a good, battery-powered phono preamp, They rely on LSIs=
and "library" audio amplifier stages for the most part.=20

=20
Maybe such a playback is satisfying to you, but I know many audiophi=
les including myself, that=20
would not find these portable devices anything more than a convenie=
nt way to carry their=20
music with them when they need to do so.

Perhaps that is where "audiophiles" have become less about sound and =
more about something=20
else. Reality is earbuds or headphones are audibly far more capable i=
n every measure except
soundstage at a fraction of the cost.

There is another area where earphones (any of them) are less capable, a=
nd that's comfort.

Which is where custom or varied size inserts help.

Also, I didn't know that cost was a part of this discussion. But you a=
re right you can get a pair of=20
earbuds for as little as five dollars, or you can spend five THOUSAND d=
ollars for a pair of Stax
phones with driver amp/power supply. So yeah, earphones can be had at =
a fraction of the cost of
speakers, just not really GOOD phones.=20

Ah yes...the price =3D quality argument. I find it without merit in almo=
st all audio gear but especially in the personal music market.

It is without merit sometimes. Not in this case, however. Stax are the stan=
dard by which all earphones are measured and for good reason. They sound gr=
eat.=20
=20
FWIW, I am extremely happy with a pair of $60 Sony buds. I have tried to =
find something I thought=20
was better...but in every case they were just different and usually due t=
o some variance in FR. Some=20
may find that preferable, but it cannot be argued as technically better.

I'm not going to argue taste with someone about this stuff. It's an empty p=
rocedure. Suffice to say that I don't find portable audio satisfying in any=
way except convenience. If you do, great. Let's agree to disagree.=20

As Scott said, it is the golden age of hi-fi. It's just not the era of bi=
g $$ hi-fi. Convincing young people they need to spend big $$ on =
audio gear is going to take an ad campaign equal to the one the gov't i=
s waging to convince them to buy overpriced health insurance.
=20
But the average joe has NEVER been into hi-fi.=20

No...the average younger joe has grownup with hi-fi to the point they tak=
e it for granted. Big $$ systems aren't going to give them any appreciable=
value.
=20
When I was a teen and just getting into the hobby, I knew only one guy,=
a tech-rep friend of my
dads who was into Hi-Fi and had a decent system.

I knew a number of people who loved music, including my high-school mus=
ic teacher. They all had,
what we called in those days, "brown-goods" hi-fis and stereos. These w=
ere consoles or luggage
finished portables that had flea-Watt, single-ended amplifiers, tiny ou=
tput transformers and cheap,
stamped-basket speakers with one-ounce magnets. They sounded terrible, =
but that's what most=20
people bought.=20
The only difference between today and then, is those same types of peop=
le now buy iPods instead
of brown-goods.
=20
=20
=20
Are you seriously going to try to equate the sound from an ipod to a clas=
sic console with BSR/ceramic cart groove grinder? =20

No, I'm equating yesterday's buyers with today's buyers. Neither care or ca=
red about sound quality, and both bought what was popular at the time=20
=20
It's really hard to argue with such a fallacy.
I think you really mean that it's hard to argue with such a truism.

Reality is people every where are listening to great sounding audio and t=
he gap between the absolute best and consumer grade "brown-goods" ipods h=
as shrunk to near nothing.

That's certainly one opinion, but it is an opinion and not fact.=20

It's no wonder that people aren't impressed with expensive massive audio =
systems when the only=20
thing they do that their personal music players don't is change perspecti=
ve of the soundstage.

Oh, they do much more. A good stereo system can sound like music. I've yet =
to hear a portable system that can do that - especially when the average me=
mber of the iPod generation uses lossy (and often lousy sounding) MP3 to sq=
ueeze more songs onto their portable devices. I have friends with teens and=
young adult children. They are interested in quantity, not quality. I'm no=
t complaining, mind you. They have a right to listen to what they please, a=
nd as long as I can still get the good stuff, it's no skin off my nose that=
what they want to listen to for music sounds like crap. =20

It might be worth it to you having never become accustomed to their persp=
ective, but I know most aren't going to really care and certainly aren't wi=
lling to pay big $$ to get equivalent (or more likely worse with room inter=
action to deal with) with a normal perspective.

Nobody is asking them to. I certainly don't care. I'll go back to my origin=
al point. The average person has never cared for quality sound - ever. I se=
e no reason to expect that they should start now.=20

ScottW