Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

After being told that audiophiles don't use FFTs and measurement mics to
enhance their listening rooms, I sit here amused by the non-response to my
list of recent home audio products from 4 different major manufacturers,
that do exactly that, assisted by their own microprocessor controllers.
FWIW, a number of so-called professional audio products function in a
similar fashion. The major differences are packaging.

I think its time for some old-time audiophiles (of all ages) to realize that
home audio isn't their daddy's Oldsmobile, not even the Cutlass that they
used to drive.

Case in point is an interesting thread over at the Hydrogen Audio Forum
(HA), which is simply one of the proliferating HTML newsgoups that has drawn
a lot of participants from the segment of audiophilia that used to post on
RAHE.

An audiophile on HA complained that he obtained a bad-sounding download from
a major source. Within 24 hours, two 30 second segments of the CD and
downloaded versions of the work had been prepared and uploaded, including
precise time-synching and level-matching. Someone then dowloaded the files
and posted the results of their ABX test, which showed an audible difference
at the 98% confidence level.

BTW, the recording in question (DGG, natch!) shows obvious signs of slipshod
production.

I'm sure that certain RAHE participants would characterize what I saw on HA
as being the activities of audio professionals. In fact not even the
professional audio forums that I participate in (HTML, Usenet, and Mailing
List) achieve this level of technical sophistication. It's just a bunch of
modern consumers using common modern audio tools in their search for truth
about audio.

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

Arny Krueger wrote:
After being told that audiophiles don't use FFTs and measurement mics to
enhance their listening rooms, I sit here amused by the non-response to my
list of recent home audio products from 4 different major manufacturers,
that do exactly that, assisted by their own microprocessor controllers.


Oh, Arny, you know Harman, Denon, et al. aren't HIGH-END. *Real* audiophiles
wouldn't dream of using digital EQ...

unless it looked like this and cost this much:

http://www.trinnov-audio.com/optimizer.php

http://www.audyssey.com/soundequalizer/index.html


An audiophile on HA complained that he obtained a bad-sounding download from
a major source. Within 24 hours, two 30 second segments of the CD and
downloaded versions of the work had been prepared and uploaded, including
precise time-synching and level-matching. Someone then dowloaded the files
and posted the results of their ABX test, which showed an audible difference
at the 98% confidence level.


HA.org is quite simply one of the best web resources around, for those truly interested in
audio.


--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Serge Auckland[_2_] Serge Auckland[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
After being told that audiophiles don't use FFTs and measurement mics to
enhance their listening rooms, I sit here amused by the non-response to
my
list of recent home audio products from 4 different major manufacturers,
that do exactly that, assisted by their own microprocessor controllers.


Oh, Arny, you know Harman, Denon, et al. aren't HIGH-END. *Real*
audiophiles
wouldn't dream of using digital EQ...

unless it looked like this and cost this much:

http://www.trinnov-audio.com/optimizer.php

http://www.audyssey.com/soundequalizer/index.html


An audiophile on HA complained that he obtained a bad-sounding download
from
a major source. Within 24 hours, two 30 second segments of the CD and
downloaded versions of the work had been prepared and uploaded, including
precise time-synching and level-matching. Someone then dowloaded the
files
and posted the results of their ABX test, which showed an audible
difference
at the 98% confidence level.


HA.org is quite simply one of the best web resources around, for those
truly interested in
audio.


--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would
oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and
which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

In a way, we're returning to the "flat-earth" days when, in the UK at least,
if you didn't have a Linn Sondek and Naim amplifiers, you were beyond the
pale. Now, it's having to have mega expensive items with measurably poor
audio performance in order to qualify as high-end. I cannot believe that
anyone, short of a charlatan, would manufacture a SET amplifier that costs
huge amounts for appalling performance. Or loudspeakers with horribly spiky
frequency responses and high distortion also costing huge amounts. Or cables
costing hundreds and thousands when $£? 4.99 is all you need to spend to get
the same sound.

What ever happened to Hi-Fi meaning Hi-Fidelity, i.e. low distortion (of all
sorts), and some sensible engineering.

It seems to me that as the major manufacturers now (have been for 30+ years)
make products that are audibly transparent i.e. will pass a straight-wire
bypass test, selling for a few hundred £$?, the "High-End" have to respond
by mega expensive items with audibly flawed performance that will sound
different (hence better!) in a dealers demo.

Why is it that I can assemble a system from 1970 & 80s components that will
be the equal of anything produced now, with the possible exception of
loudness? Where is the progress?

S.



--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com


  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:23:32 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

After being told that audiophiles don't use FFTs and measurement mics to
enhance their listening rooms, I sit here amused by the non-response to my
list of recent home audio products from 4 different major manufacturers,
that do exactly that, assisted by their own microprocessor controllers.
FWIW, a number of so-called professional audio products function in a
similar fashion. The major differences are packaging.


Perhaps its because many of us don't care about that aspect of the hobby.

I think its time for some old-time audiophiles (of all ages) to realize that
home audio isn't their daddy's Oldsmobile, not even the Cutlass that they
used to drive.


Home audio is many different things to many different people. I know
dedicated audiophiles who spend countless hours upgrading early 60's vintage
Tube gear from Dynaco and the like. Not my cup of tea and neither are A/V
receivers (except in my video system (Harmon-Kardon AVR-7000) which is
separate from my music system) with or without DSP FFT analysis.

Case in point is an interesting thread over at the Hydrogen Audio Forum
(HA), which is simply one of the proliferating HTML newsgoups that has drawn
a lot of participants from the segment of audiophilia that used to post on
RAHE.

An audiophile on HA complained that he obtained a bad-sounding download from
a major source. Within 24 hours, two 30 second segments of the CD and
downloaded versions of the work had been prepared and uploaded, including
precise time-synching and level-matching. Someone then dowloaded the files
and posted the results of their ABX test, which showed an audible difference
at the 98% confidence level.

BTW, the recording in question (DGG, natch!) shows obvious signs of slipshod
production.

I'm sure that certain RAHE participants would characterize what I saw on HA
as being the activities of audio professionals. In fact not even the
professional audio forums that I participate in (HTML, Usenet, and Mailing
List) achieve this level of technical sophistication. It's just a bunch of
modern consumers using common modern audio tools in their search for truth
about audio.


If that's what blows their collective skirts up, more power to them. But the
fact that you can find such nuts-and-bolts audiophiles does, in no way,
diminish the rest of us. Just because we adhere to what you might think of as
old fashioned audiophile values, doesn't mean that we enjoy the hobby any
less.

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On Nov 13, 3:31*pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:

Why is it that I can assemble a system from 1970 & 80s components that will
be the equal of anything produced now, with the possible exception of
loudness? Where is the progress?


Actually, including the loudness. Klipsch speakers have been around
since the 40s.

Apart from all that, does anyone here remember the "New" Avery Fisher
Hall at Lincoln Center (NYC)? Back in the day, it was an early
exercise in "Room Tuning" with individually moveable (in three plains)
ceiling panels, echo management, 'acousitic wells' and so forth. It
was a dismal failure. Essentially what was discovered that *either*
they made a series of specific and individal 'sweet spots' - rendering
the rest of the Hall mud, or they set everything to 'neutral'
whereupon all the other compromises made everything a bit less muddy
but no sweet-spots at all. The Sweet Spots were - naturally -
approximately where the measuring instruments were. Funny thing about
that.

Cutting to the chase: "Tuning a room" to a specific sweet-spot as
seems to be popular these days is an act of selfishness, further a
denial of the very nature of listening to music. I agree that nasty
rooms with nasty conditions need to be dealt with - but that can be
done with very low-tech solutions including reasonably careful speaker
placement, furniture placement, perhaps something on the wall here-or-
there, something to break up actual (and quite rare despite rumors to
the contrary) standing waves... NOTHING SPECIAL in other words.

And, it seems that when setting up a room, end-users are far to
willing to act on "received wisdom" vs. actually trying various things
out for themselves. And somehow they feel that they must sit in a
specific chair at a specific spot facing in a specific direction with
their ears at a specific height - and all their equipment must be
place according to specific parameters - OK, I exaggerate. But only
slightly. Very slightly.

From this follows much of everything else. If a user can be
brainwashed as described above, then anything is possible limited only
by the depth of the wallet or credit-card involved.

As to SET amps - Consider the crushed-velvet leisure-suit in Royal
Purple.

http://party-costumes.candyapplecost...s/Pimp%20Suits

Make it, someone will buy it. Ethics are not at issue, nor should they
be considered in the Retail Industry. As long as there is no gun to
the head of the buyer, that is. H.L. Menken captured this best: Nobody
ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American
public.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
C. Leeds C. Leeds is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

Arny Krueger wrote in :

After being told that audiophiles don't use FFTs and measurement mics to
enhance their listening rooms....


I don't think you were told that, Arny. I think you were told that most
audiophiles just aren't interested in such things, just as they don't
much care to engage in home ABX trials.

I sit here amused by the non-response to my
list of recent home audio products from 4 different major manufacturers,
that do exactly that, assisted by their own microprocessor controllers.


Many of us already knew about such products, Arny. You posted old news,
and it was greeted with a yawn.

FWIW, a number of so-called professional audio products function in a
similar fashion. The major differences are packaging.


Again, old news - and that's the point. Many audiophiles would rather
listen to music than engage in measurementalist rituals.

I think its time for some old-time audiophiles (of all ages) to realize that
home audio isn't their daddy's Oldsmobile, not even the Cutlass that they
used to drive.


There's no assurance that those who buy products with these capabilities
ever bother to use them. For example, many PCs are sold with software
such as Excel and Access, but many users never bother to use them. Many
of the features on consumer electronics are the same way.

Case in point is an interesting thread over at the Hydrogen Audio Forum...
An audiophile on HA complained that he obtained a bad-sounding download from
a major source. Within 24 hours, two 30 second segments of the CD and
downloaded versions of the work had been prepared and uploaded... Someone then dowloaded the files
and posted the results of their ABX test, which showed an audible difference
at the 98% confidence level...
I'm sure that certain RAHE participants would characterize what I saw on HA
as being the activities of audio professionals...It's just a bunch of
modern consumers using common modern audio tools in their search for truth
about audio.


Certainly, some audiophiles are interested in such things, no doubt.
Many aren't. It's just that simple. I still think it's great that this
technology is so accessible. Unlike you, I don't think it's de rigeur.
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:31:17 -0800, Serge Auckland wrote
(in article ):

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
After being told that audiophiles don't use FFTs and measurement mics to
enhance their listening rooms, I sit here amused by the non-response to
my
list of recent home audio products from 4 different major manufacturers,
that do exactly that, assisted by their own microprocessor controllers.


Oh, Arny, you know Harman, Denon, et al. aren't HIGH-END. *Real*
audiophiles
wouldn't dream of using digital EQ...

unless it looked like this and cost this much:

http://www.trinnov-audio.com/optimizer.php

http://www.audyssey.com/soundequalizer/index.html


An audiophile on HA complained that he obtained a bad-sounding download
from
a major source. Within 24 hours, two 30 second segments of the CD and
downloaded versions of the work had been prepared and uploaded, including
precise time-synching and level-matching. Someone then dowloaded the
files
and posted the results of their ABX test, which showed an audible
difference
at the 98% confidence level.


HA.org is quite simply one of the best web resources around, for those
truly interested in
audio.


--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would
oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and
which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

In a way, we're returning to the "flat-earth" days when, in the UK at least,
if you didn't have a Linn Sondek and Naim amplifiers, you were beyond the
pale. Now, it's having to have mega expensive items with measurably poor
audio performance in order to qualify as high-end. I cannot believe that
anyone, short of a charlatan, would manufacture a SET amplifier that costs
huge amounts for appalling performance. Or loudspeakers with horribly spiky
frequency responses and high distortion also costing huge amounts. Or cables
costing hundreds and thousands when $£? 4.99 is all you need to spend to get
the same sound.


I agree with you there.

What ever happened to Hi-Fi meaning Hi-Fidelity, i.e. low distortion (of all
sorts), and some sensible engineering.


We are dealing with a heretofore largely non-existent entity, a product of
the greedy '80's and '90's, The vulgarly, gauchely and indecently rich. These
are people who think nothing of paying $20 million for a rare motorcar, hang
out in Monte Carlo in 500 foot yachts, have their own Gulfstar private jets,
and buy everything on price. The more expensive, the better. This is a guy
who will invite a fellow rich asshole over to his 60,000 square-foot mansion
to show him his music room, and then commence to point out the price of
EVERYTHING. See those amplifiers? They are hand-made in Japan by a little old
samurai, they are 12 watts /channel and cost $180,000 EACH. See those 1-meter
long interconnects going to the pre-amp? $4000 a pair......

This attitude (these billionaire jerks rarely if ever pick this stuff out
themselves. They hire an "A/V consultant" to put these systems together for
them. They don't really care about sound, and often have only a handful of
CDs and records to play on them. They care about cost and bragging rights,
that's all.

This has two effects on the audio industry, it allows companies who's
interest is in making better products to be able to afford to play with
"statement" level products, sure in the knowledge that whatever they end up
costing to produce, there will be people willing and able to buy them. The
new Martin-Logan CLX is an example of this kind company and product. truly a
groundbreaking achievement, and while expensive ($25,000/pair, not
outrageously so when compared to more mundane speaker systems costing 3 and
four times the price and given their incredible performance.

The other side of the coin are niche products which MIGHT cost a lot to make,
using rare materials and expensive manufacturing techniques which end up
being very expensive without actually bringing any new levels of performance
to the party. A couple of cases in point would be the Ongaku "Audio Note" SET
amplifiers and Nordost Valhalla interconnects. The Ongaku amps use NOS
Western Electric 300B triodes for output tubes, hand-wound output
transformers employing 99% pure SILVER wire and hand-made oil filled
capacitors. They produce SEVEN Watts each and were, last time that I saw a
pair, $80,000 each. They sounded mediocre at best, and awful when played
loudly. The Nordost Valhalla interconnects, are, I'm sure very costly to
build. I've seen cutaways of the cable used and it sure looks expensive and
in the amounts that Nordost undoubtably buys every year (couple of thousand
feet at most?), is, I'm sure, hundreds of dollars a foot. The problem, of
course, is that as fancy as these cables are, they are, ultimately, just wire
carrying low frequency audio signals. All of the technical gibberish used to
promote cables like these, things such as the different layers of cabling
with different strand diameters and different twists and the exotic materials
used as dielectrics and insulators can't alter the fact that these cables, at
best, sound just like a $3 pair of Radio Shack molded cables in a
double-blind test, and at worst screw with the high-frequencies to make them
sound "different" from other cables (although, believe me, most don't).

It seems to me that as the major manufacturers now (have been for 30+ years)
make products that are audibly transparent i.e. will pass a straight-wire
bypass test, selling for a few hundred £$?, the "High-End" have to respond
by mega expensive items with audibly flawed performance that will sound
different (hence better!) in a dealers demo.


No. The mainstream manufacturers are making good products, but the use very
expensive manufacturing processes and premium parts to do so. They do prey on
the average audiophile's paranoid need to "upgrade", though. A Mark Levinson
#53 monobloc power amp might really need to cost $24,000 each given it's
build quality and materials used, but the question is, does it sound any
different from another 500 Watt/Channel amplifier costing 1/10th or even
1/100th as much? The answer here is probably not. Speakers are, of course, a
different kettle of fish. There continue to be strides in this technology and
the great speakers are justifiably expensive.

Why is it that I can assemble a system from 1970 & 80s components that will
be the equal of anything produced now, with the possible exception of
loudness? Where is the progress?


There really isn't much except in speakers and possibly CD and LP
reproduction. But I will say this it is possible to buy mainstream Japanese
and Chinese receivers that outperform the very finest separates from the 70's
and 80's at a fraction of those separates' costs.

  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

C. Leeds wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote in :


After being told that audiophiles don't use FFTs and measurement mics to
enhance their listening rooms....


I don't think you were told that, Arny. I think you were told that most
audiophiles just aren't interested in such things, just as they don't
much care to engage in home ABX trials.


It's just a matter of time, Mr. Leeds. Eventually only the luddite
contingent will abstain from using digital EQ.

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 13, 3:31*pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:


Why is it that I can assemble a system from 1970 & 80s components that will
be the equal of anything produced now, with the possible exception of
loudness? Where is the progress?


Actually, including the loudness. Klipsch speakers have been around
since the 40s.


Apart from all that, does anyone here remember the "New" Avery Fisher
Hall at Lincoln Center (NYC)? Back in the day, it was an early
exercise in "Room Tuning" with individually moveable (in three plains)
ceiling panels, echo management, 'acousitic wells' and so forth. It
was a dismal failure. Essentially what was discovered that *either*
they made a series of specific and individal 'sweet spots' - rendering
the rest of the Hall mud, or they set everything to 'neutral'
whereupon all the other compromises made everything a bit less muddy
but no sweet-spots at all. The Sweet Spots were - naturally -
approximately where the measuring instruments were. Funny thing about
that.


Cutting to the chase: "Tuning a room" to a specific sweet-spot as
seems to be popular these days is an act of selfishness, further a
denial of the very nature of listening to music. I agree that nasty
rooms with nasty conditions need to be dealt with - but that can be
done with very low-tech solutions including reasonably careful speaker
placement, furniture placement, perhaps something on the wall here-or-
there, something to break up actual (and quite rare despite rumors to
the contrary) standing waves... NOTHING SPECIAL in other words.



Except, nowadays rooms ('home theaters') are routinely 'corrected' across more than one
spot... even the consumer-grade Audyssey MultiXT involves sampling sound at 8 listening
positions.

You can also store multiple correction profiles in most modern gear. That means, you can of
course tune your personal 'sweet spot' for private listening, and have other profiles for when
there are guests listening.



--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy


  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Kalman Rubinson[_3_] Kalman Rubinson[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On 14 Nov 2008 02:57:07 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

It's just a matter of time, Mr. Leeds. Eventually only the luddite
contingent will abstain from using digital EQ.


That seems to be what is happening. You can go from forum to forum
and from site to site and each exists at some point in the range from
obstinate resistance to understanding.

Kal




  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
bob bob is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 670
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On Nov 13, 7:18*pm, "C. Leeds" wrote:

There's no assurance that those who buy products with these capabilities
ever bother to use them.


True, but those people aren't audiophiles. What's shocking is how many
people you would consider audiophiles actively turn up their noses at
these technologies. It's one thing to decide, as a hobby, to try to
get the best sound possible out of legacy technology. It's another
thing to claim in public that the legacy technology is superior to
what really is SOTA.

bob
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
C. Leeds C. Leeds is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

Arny Krueger wrote in :

After being told that audiophiles don't use FFTs and measurement mics to
enhance their listening rooms....


I answered:

I don't think you were told that, Arny. I think you were told that most
audiophiles just aren't interested in such things, just as they don't
much care to engage in home ABX trials.


In
Steven Sullivan answers:

It's just a matter of time, Mr. Leeds. Eventually only the luddite
contingent will abstain from using digital EQ.


Of course. And in the future, we will all drive cars that can fly; our
homes will each have a fusion energy generator the size of laptop; and
we won't need loudspeakers because sound will be delivered directly to
our brains by chips implanted in our skulls. Naturally, digital EQ will
be incorporated into those chips.

Or, perhaps your ability to predict the future is no better than anyone
else's.

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Serge Auckland[_2_] Serge Auckland[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

Sergeauckland wrote
It seems to me that as the major manufacturers now (have been for 30+
years)
make products that are audibly transparent i.e. will pass a straight-wire
bypass test, selling for a few hundred £$?, the "High-End" have to
respond
by mega expensive items with audibly flawed performance that will sound
different (hence better!) in a dealers demo.



sonnova replied

No. The mainstream manufacturers are making good products, but the use
very
expensive manufacturing processes and premium parts to do so. They do prey
on
the average audiophile's paranoid need to "upgrade", though. A Mark
Levinson
#53 monobloc power amp might really need to cost $24,000 each given it's
build quality and materials used, but the question is, does it sound any
different from another 500 Watt/Channel amplifier costing 1/10th or even
1/100th as much? The answer here is probably not. Speakers are, of course,
a
different kettle of fish. There continue to be strides in this technology
and
the great speakers are justifiably expensive.



I'm not sure I understand what you're saying he- My comment was that
mainstream manufacturers now and for the past 30 years have been making
equipment that's sonically transparent, and it's the High-End people that
have been using the exotic materials and producing audibly flawed products
in an attempt to make them stand out in dealers demos (and, as has been
commented, to give the buyers bragging points)

As to loudspeakers, there ARE some very good modern designs, but many of the
"High-End" and very expensive designs have spiky responses, and a far poorer
sound than some of the classis loudspeakers of the 70s and 80s. If it was
possible to have a relatively uncoloured 'speaker in 1978, I can't see any
justification for a highly coloured one in 2008.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com


  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


On Nov 13, 3:31 pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:


Why is it that I can assemble a system from 1970 & 80s
components that will be the equal of anything produced
now, with the possible exception of loudness?


Because you can't.

Where is the progress?


Then there is the massive progress in cost-effectiveness.

Actually, including the loudness. Klipsch speakers have
been around since the 40s.


Klipsch was a smart man, and he worked hard.

But...

Compared to modern drivers of a similar kind, Klipsch had nothing but junk
to work with.

Compared to modern crossovers, Klipsch had nothing but junk to work with.

Apart from all that, does anyone here remember the "New"
Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center (NYC)? Back in the
day, it was an early exercise in "Room Tuning" with
individually moveable (in three plains) ceiling panels,
echo management, 'acoustic wells' and so forth. It was a
dismal failure.


Resolved, nothing has been learned about room acoustics since then.

Seriously?

I don't think so.

Avery Fisher was failed technology, and it was fixed by technology.

Avery Fisher is a cautionary tale, not representative of modern technology.


Cutting to the chase: "Tuning a room" to a specific
sweet-spot as seems to be popular these days is an act of
selfishness, further a denial of the very nature of
listening to music. I agree that nasty rooms with nasty
conditions need to be dealt with - but that can be done
with very low-tech solutions including reasonably careful
speaker placement, furniture placement, perhaps something
on the wall here-or- there, something to break up actual
(and quite rare despite rumors to the contrary) standing
waves... NOTHING SPECIAL in other words.


What do we say about an attempt to define truth in the present by only
looking at the failures of the now-distant past?

At the very best it is pessimism.

It's also not how you find the best truth for now.




  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
C. Leeds C. Leeds is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

I wrote, referring to products that include FFT and measurement mics to
enhance listening rooms:

There's no assurance that those who buy products with these capabilities
ever bother to use them.


in
nabob answers:

True, but those people aren't audiophiles.


If you reserve the right to redefine common terms to suit your own
prejudices, you can win any argument.

What's shocking is how many
people you would consider audiophiles actively turn up their noses at
these technologies.


Really? This actually shocks you? It shocks you that people decide for
themselves which technologies to adopt? Perhaps that is truly shocking
to those who must have every latest gee-whiz gee-gaw.


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

"bob" wrote in message

On Nov 13, 7:18 pm, "C. Leeds"
wrote:

There's no assurance that those who buy products with
these capabilities ever bother to use them.


True, but those people aren't audiophiles.


More to the point, it is very bad logic to deny the value of technology on
the grounds that some people buy into it and then fail to fully exploit it.

What's
shocking is how many people you would consider
audiophiles actively turn up their noses at these
technologies.


Long term example: digital audio. Note that we've just seen days of what
someone thinks are convincing arguments for the truth in the "empty spaces"
myth. No surprise, the perpetuator of this myth is a long-time vinyl
advocate.

It's one thing to decide, as a hobby, to
try to get the best sound possible out of legacy
technology.


Agreed, which is why

http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/

show the best measurements of the performance of a vinyl system on the web.

It's another thing to claim in public that
the legacy technology is superior to what really is SOTA.


It seems to be ritual that some people who love their LPs have to put
themselves through.

  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On Nov 14, 9:12*am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Really? This actually shocks you? It shocks you that people decide for
themselves which technologies to adopt? Perhaps that is truly shocking
to those who must have every latest gee-whiz gee-gaw.


Mpffffffff... Of necessity, the term "audiophile" is self-defined.
Given that there are thousands of options at any of several levels
rendering multiples-of-thousands of combinations and permutations,
there is no single result nor, therefore a single definition of the
term. About the best definition I can come up with is an Audiophile
strives to reach a sound that *he* or *she* enjoys thoroughly. Nor
would I attempt, nor am I so arrogant as to believe that I could,
define that sound for anyone else but for me.

As to technology - it has its place. And it has its dangers. Not
written as a Luddite, but there are diminishing returns with
technology - it remains to the individual to determine where that
point might be.

For me, this is a hobby. I enjoy it. Because I have some small
troubleshooting skills and some small amounts of tooling and
instrumentation, I can do things at a remarkably low cost as compared
to unskilled individuals. This both adds to the pleasure and adds to
the challenge. I am permitted to laugh at the Audiophool segment of
the hobby - as I define it - and they are most certainly permitted to
laugh at me by whatever standards they choose.

What I do find particularly odious is that there is at least one
individual here who makes a distinct and deliberate effort to be a
killjoy - based on a one-note principle. These sorts of individuals
should not be permitted to affect either one's choices or one's
enjoyment of them.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On Nov 14, 9:12 am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
I wrote, referring to products that include FFT and measurement mics to
enhance listening rooms:

There's no assurance that those who buy products with these capabilities
ever bother to use them.


in
nabob answers:

True, but those people aren't audiophiles.


If you reserve the right to redefine common terms to suit your own
prejudices, you can win any argument.


As you have demonstrated with your invention of terms like
"measurementalist rituals" and other examples.

Anyone can redefined terms to suit their own personal
prejudices biases and agendas, as I might you have
demonstrated in the past. The proof comes in the
common acceptance of those terms. The lack of
that acceptance and agreement does not lack of
wisdom or foresight on the part of those not accepting
it: it may as much demonstrate that lack on the part
of the originator of the definition.

"Audiophile" is hardly a term that has ANY intrinsic
definition other than its decomposition of "one who
likes sound." Beyond that, it is mainly a matter of
self definition on the part of the person accepting
the moniker. Assigning some "proper" definition to
the term is, well, stupidly arrogant in this person's
view. It is akin to accepting Harry Pearson's
definition of "high-end" as some universal TRVTH
(tm) because he invented the term (he didn't, by the
way, as there were stores that refereed to themselves
as "high-end audio" stores well before the appearance
of his rag).

You may be correct in one sense: HIS definition
of "audiohile" may be wrong, but that same sword
is just as sharp at slicing your definition to equally
thin ribbons.

Why is Curtis Leeds definition of 'audiophile" ladened
with Curtis Leeds biases and agendas and bigotries
any superior to Nabob's definition, ladened with nabob's
biases and agendas and bigotries or Pearson's
definition ladened with Pearson's agenda and biases
and bigotries or Dick Pierce's definition ladened with
Dick Pierce's agenda's and biases and bigotries?

  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Serge Auckland[_2_] Serge Auckland[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


On Nov 13, 3:31 pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:


Why is it that I can assemble a system from 1970 & 80s
components that will be the equal of anything produced
now, with the possible exception of loudness?


Because you can't.

Where is the progress?


Then there is the massive progress in cost-effectiveness.


Of course modern equipment is relatively much cheaper, but what I was
referring to was that electronics was transparent then (it would pass a
straight-wire bypass test) and consequently any modern equipment won't sound
better, except that power amps now have more power and loudspeakers can take
more power.

As an example of such a system, take a Meridian CD player, say the MCDPro of
1985, Quad or Audiolab amplification of the mid 70s onwards, and a pair of
IMF TLS50II, Quad ESL63s, Spendor BCIII, KEF 104.2 etc etc and you won't get
a better sounding system now. Different certainly, louder possibly, but
better?

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:06:45 -0800, Serge Auckland wrote
(in article ):

Sergeauckland wrote
It seems to me that as the major manufacturers now (have been for 30+
years)
make products that are audibly transparent i.e. will pass a straight-wire
bypass test, selling for a few hundred £$?, the "High-End" have to
respond
by mega expensive items with audibly flawed performance that will sound
different (hence better!) in a dealers demo.



sonnova replied

No. The mainstream manufacturers are making good products, but the use
very
expensive manufacturing processes and premium parts to do so. They do prey
on
the average audiophile's paranoid need to "upgrade", though. A Mark
Levinson
#53 monobloc power amp might really need to cost $24,000 each given it's
build quality and materials used, but the question is, does it sound any
different from another 500 Watt/Channel amplifier costing 1/10th or even
1/100th as much? The answer here is probably not. Speakers are, of course,
a
different kettle of fish. There continue to be strides in this technology
and
the great speakers are justifiably expensive.



I'm not sure I understand what you're saying he- My comment was that
mainstream manufacturers now and for the past 30 years have been making
equipment that's sonically transparent, and it's the High-End people that
have been using the exotic materials and producing audibly flawed products
in an attempt to make them stand out in dealers demos (and, as has been
commented, to give the buyers bragging points)


I'm saying that these products aren't at all flawed. They sound as
transparent as modern technology and techniques will allow, its just that
they all sound that way and the only difference is power output of power amps
and general build quality of everything. IOW, a $6000 Wadia CD player for
instance, will have an all metal transport while a $160 Oppo will have a
plastic one. The Wadia will weigh 15 pounds, and have a thick, brushed
aluminum fascia. It will use discrete transistors in it's analog system while
the Oppo will use op-amps. The Wadia will justify its price with separate
power supplies for the optical, the digital, and the analog sections of the
player while the Oppo will have a single minimalist power supply for the
whole shebang. The Wadia will exude beauty, sophistication, and class. But it
will likely sound exactly like the $160 Oppo in an ABX test. OTOH, the Wadia
will likely last longer because it's better made.

As to loudspeakers, there ARE some very good modern designs, but many of the
"High-End" and very expensive designs have spiky responses, and a far poorer
sound than some of the classis loudspeakers of the 70s and 80s. If it was
possible to have a relatively uncoloured 'speaker in 1978, I can't see any
justification for a highly coloured one in 2008.


I don't know of any highly colored modern speakers, except for some of the
highly efficient horn models designed to be used with SET amps and they're
not really mainstream high-end, anyway. OTOH, the seventies was the decade of
the Bose 901s and JBLs. More colored loudspeakers, I cannot imagine.



  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:17:54 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 14, 9:12 am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
I wrote, referring to products that include FFT and measurement mics to
enhance listening rooms:

There's no assurance that those who buy products with these capabilities
ever bother to use them.


in
nabob answers:

True, but those people aren't audiophiles.


If you reserve the right to redefine common terms to suit your own
prejudices, you can win any argument.


As you have demonstrated with your invention of terms like
"measurementalist rituals" and other examples.

Anyone can redefined terms to suit their own personal
prejudices biases and agendas, as I might you have
demonstrated in the past. The proof comes in the
common acceptance of those terms. The lack of
that acceptance and agreement does not lack of
wisdom or foresight on the part of those not accepting
it: it may as much demonstrate that lack on the part
of the originator of the definition.

"Audiophile" is hardly a term that has ANY intrinsic
definition other than its decomposition of "one who
likes sound." Beyond that, it is mainly a matter of
self definition on the part of the person accepting
the moniker. Assigning some "proper" definition to
the term is, well, stupidly arrogant in this person's
view. It is akin to accepting Harry Pearson's
definition of "high-end" as some universal TRVTH
(tm) because he invented the term (he didn't, by the
way, as there were stores that refereed to themselves
as "high-end audio" stores well before the appearance
of his rag).


Actually, Pearson attributes the term to J.G. Holt, who did, indeed, predate
the appearance of "The Absolute Sound".
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:22:04 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message

On Nov 13, 7:18 pm, "C. Leeds"
wrote:

There's no assurance that those who buy products with
these capabilities ever bother to use them.


True, but those people aren't audiophiles.


More to the point, it is very bad logic to deny the value of technology on
the grounds that some people buy into it and then fail to fully exploit it.

What's
shocking is how many people you would consider
audiophiles actively turn up their noses at these
technologies.


Long term example: digital audio. Note that we've just seen days of what
someone thinks are convincing arguments for the truth in the "empty spaces"
myth. No surprise, the perpetuator of this myth is a long-time vinyl
advocate.

It's one thing to decide, as a hobby, to
try to get the best sound possible out of legacy
technology.


Agreed, which is why

http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/

show the best measurements of the performance of a vinyl system on the web.

It's another thing to claim in public that
the legacy technology is superior to what really is SOTA.


It seems to be ritual that some people who love their LPs have to put
themselves through.


I love my LPs because 1) Many great performance aren't available on CD and
might never be. 2) some LPs do sound much more like real music than do the
CDs made from the same source materials. Otherwise, I'm fairly happy with
modern digital technology and when points one and two are no longer true,
I'll put my turntable and my LPs away forever.
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Alan Hoyle Alan Hoyle is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:21:17, Steven Sullivan wrote:

HA.org is quite simply one of the best web resources around, for
those truly interested in audio.


Methinks you mean "hydrogenaudio.org" as "ha.org" brings up a page
saying "Help Africa."

-alan

--
Alan Hoyle - - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 14, 9:12?am, "C. Leeds" wrote:


Really? This actually shocks you? It shocks you that people decide for
themselves which technologies to adopt? Perhaps that is truly shocking
to those who must have every latest gee-whiz gee-gaw.


Mpffffffff... Of necessity, the term "audiophile" is self-defined.
Given that there are thousands of options at any of several levels
rendering multiples-of-thousands of combinations and permutations,
there is no single result nor, therefore a single definition of the
term. About the best definition I can come up with is an Audiophile
strives to reach a sound that *he* or *she* enjoys thoroughly. Nor
would I attempt, nor am I so arrogant as to believe that I could,
define that sound for anyone else but for me.


As to technology - it has its place. And it has its dangers. Not
written as a Luddite, but there are diminishing returns with
technology - it remains to the individual to determine where that
point might be.


Room acoustics is commonly the weakest link even in an
'audiophile' playback chain. The 'returns' from technology that
compensates for that weakness are potentially immense.

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,243
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 14, 9:12?am, "C. Leeds" wrote:


Really? This actually shocks you? It shocks you that people decide for
themselves which technologies to adopt? Perhaps that is truly shocking
to those who must have every latest gee-whiz gee-gaw.


Mpffffffff... Of necessity, the term "audiophile" is self-defined.
Given that there are thousands of options at any of several levels
rendering multiples-of-thousands of combinations and permutations,
there is no single result nor, therefore a single definition of the
term. About the best definition I can come up with is an Audiophile
strives to reach a sound that *he* or *she* enjoys thoroughly. Nor
would I attempt, nor am I so arrogant as to believe that I could,
define that sound for anyone else but for me.


As to technology - it has its place. And it has its dangers. Not
written as a Luddite, but there are diminishing returns with
technology - it remains to the individual to determine where that
point might be.


Room acoustics is commonly the weakest link even in an
'audiophile' playback chain. The 'returns' from technology that
compensates for that weakness are potentially immense.


As are the "negative returns" of pushing the analog signal through a digital
strainer in order to get the equallization. I have yet to hear a single
piece of audio gear (in my system) where the bypassed pure-analog signal
doesn't sound better than the digitally processed one.



  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 14, 9:12?am, "C. Leeds" wrote:


Really? This actually shocks you? It shocks you that people decide for
themselves which technologies to adopt? Perhaps that is truly shocking
to those who must have every latest gee-whiz gee-gaw.


Mpffffffff... Of necessity, the term "audiophile" is self-defined.
Given that there are thousands of options at any of several levels
rendering multiples-of-thousands of combinations and permutations,
there is no single result nor, therefore a single definition of the
term. About the best definition I can come up with is an Audiophile
strives to reach a sound that *he* or *she* enjoys thoroughly. Nor
would I attempt, nor am I so arrogant as to believe that I could,
define that sound for anyone else but for me.


As to technology - it has its place. And it has its dangers. Not
written as a Luddite, but there are diminishing returns with
technology - it remains to the individual to determine where that
point might be.


Room acoustics is commonly the weakest link even in an
'audiophile' playback chain. The 'returns' from technology that
compensates for that weakness are potentially immense.


As are the "negative returns" of pushing the analog signal through a digital
strainer in order to get the equallization.


Wrong. The digitization itself if no impediment. The qualityh of implementation of
room correction DSP could well be.

I have yet to hear a single
piece of audio gear (in my system) where the bypassed pure-analog signal
doesn't sound better than the digitally processed one.


Harry, 'digital processing' encompasses a wide variety of outputs.
You are claiming that not one of them ever sounds better than raw...
not even speaker level or delay adjustment.

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Rob Tweed Rob Tweed is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On 14 Nov 2008 23:45:21 GMT, Sonnova
wrote:

I'm saying that these products aren't at all flawed. They sound as
transparent as modern technology and techniques will allow, its just that
they all sound that way and the only difference is power output of power amps
and general build quality of everything. IOW, a $6000 Wadia CD player for
instance, will have an all metal transport while a $160 Oppo will have a
plastic one. The Wadia will weigh 15 pounds, and have a thick, brushed
aluminum fascia. It will use discrete transistors in it's analog system while
the Oppo will use op-amps. The Wadia will justify its price with separate
power supplies for the optical, the digital, and the analog sections of the
player while the Oppo will have a single minimalist power supply for the
whole shebang. The Wadia will exude beauty, sophistication, and class. But it
will likely sound exactly like the $160 Oppo in an ABX test. OTOH, the Wadia
will likely last longer because it's better made.


,,,but of course you'll be able to bin 37 broken Oppos before you
spend the same money as a Wadia, all without any difference in sound.

Come on now, let's admit it. Wadia will actually justify its price to
dimwits with more money than sense, who want to flaunt their wealth
and who assume that if it costs that much money, includes that much
apparently important technology and looks that good, then it *must* be
better: people who don't realise that you don't even *need* a CD
player these days if you just rip your CDs into ITunes or whatever on
a PC-based music system or streaming media system, so they won't need
to clutter up their opulent designer furniture with 15lbs of thick
brushed aluminium with loads of nasty cables poking out of it.

There's always one born yesterday, eh.

Errrr.....hands up any readers with a Wadia? No offence meant :-)

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

"Serge Auckland" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


On Nov 13, 3:31 pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:


Why is it that I can assemble a system from 1970 & 80s
components that will be the equal of anything produced
now, with the possible exception of loudness?


Because you can't.


Where is the progress?


Then there is the massive progress in cost-effectiveness.


Of course modern equipment is relatively much cheaper,
but what I was referring to was that electronics was
transparent then (it would pass a straight-wire bypass
test) and consequently any modern equipment won't sound
better, except that power amps now have more power and
loudspeakers can take more power.


As an example of such a system, take a Meridian CD player,


Always an overpriced piece of audio jewelry.

say the MCDPro of 1985,


ditto

Quad or Audiolab amplification of the mid 70s onwards,


More overpriced audio jewelry.

and a pair of IMF TLS50II,


Colored.

Quad ESL63s,


Limited bandwidth and dynamic range, to the point of having questionable
utility.

Spendor BCIII, KEF 104.2 etc etc
and you won't get a better sounding system now.


I would hope that we could do better now on all grounds including costs.

Different certainly, louder possibly, but better?


Yes. There has been tremendous progress in loudspeaker drivers. Some of the
speakers you've mentioned couldn't get close to concert volumes, even in a
small room, and had very limited response on the bottom end.

  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Kalman Rubinson Kalman Rubinson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 312
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On 15 Nov 2008 05:57:45 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

As are the "negative returns" of pushing the analog signal through a digital
strainer in order to get the equallization. I have yet to hear a single
piece of audio gear (in my system) where the bypassed pure-analog signal
doesn't sound better than the digitally processed one.


I will not argue that (although I disagree) but I will point out the
the vast majority of music is already digital and the issue you raise
is, therefore, not significant.

Kal
  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


As are the "negative returns" of pushing the analog
signal through a digital strainer in order to get the
equalization.


"Digital strainer". has the urban legend of "empty spaces" been unleashed
once again?

I have yet to hear a single piece of
audio gear (in my system) where the bypassed pure-analog
signal doesn't sound better than the digitally processed one.


Absence of unbiased testing noted. All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital on grounds that lack scientific relevance.
Hey, if it has to be analog to please because of people's biases, no
problem. But there is no such thing as a "digital strainer", and there never
has been with properly implemented digital, which virtually all mainstream
examples have been.




  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

Alan Hoyle wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:21:17, Steven Sullivan wrote:


HA.org is quite simply one of the best web resources around, for
those truly interested in audio.


Methinks you mean "hydrogenaudio.org" as "ha.org" brings up a page
saying "Help Africa."


well, yes, I do. HA is an abbreviation.


--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
C. Leeds C. Leeds is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

in
Rob Tweed wrote:

Come on now, let's admit it. Wadia will actually justify its price to
dimwits with more money than sense...


I don't know if that's true or not. Some audiophiles just don't like
cheapie audio equipment, and they have the money to afford gear that's
better built. That their values (and perhaps bank accounts) aren't the
same as yours doesn't necessarily make either of you "dimwits" or
lacking in common sense.

...who want to flaunt their wealth...


I don't know how putting an expensive audio component in a listening
room equates with "flaunting wealth." Not many people are ever likely to
see it.

and who assume that if it costs that much money, includes that much
apparently important technology and looks that good, then it *must* be
better...


You're just guessing, aren't you? You don't really know that this is
what Wadia purchasers think.

...people who don't realise that you don't even *need* a CD
player these days if you just rip your CDs into ITunes or whatever on
a PC-based music system or streaming media system....


It's quite likely that Wadia purchasers are aware of these technologies.

....so they won't need
to clutter up their opulent designer furniture with 15lbs of thick
brushed aluminium with loads of nasty cables poking out of it.


You are starting to sound very bitter. Sour grapes, perhaps?

Errrr.....hands up any readers with a Wadia?


Not me.

  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,243
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


As are the "negative returns" of pushing the analog
signal through a digital strainer in order to get the
equalization.


"Digital strainer". has the urban legend of "empty spaces" been unleashed
once again?

I have yet to hear a single piece of
audio gear (in my system) where the bypassed pure-analog
signal doesn't sound better than the digitally processed one.


Absence of unbiased testing noted. All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital on grounds that lack scientific
relevance.
Hey, if it has to be analog to please because of people's biases, no
problem. But there is no such thing as a "digital strainer", and there
never
has been with properly implemented digital, which virtually all
mainstream
examples have been.


See my response to Steven. I am simply reporting what I have heard.

  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,243
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 14, 9:12?am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

Really? This actually shocks you? It shocks you that people decide
for
themselves which technologies to adopt? Perhaps that is truly
shocking
to those who must have every latest gee-whiz gee-gaw.

Mpffffffff... Of necessity, the term "audiophile" is self-defined.
Given that there are thousands of options at any of several levels
rendering multiples-of-thousands of combinations and permutations,
there is no single result nor, therefore a single definition of the
term. About the best definition I can come up with is an Audiophile
strives to reach a sound that *he* or *she* enjoys thoroughly. Nor
would I attempt, nor am I so arrogant as to believe that I could,
define that sound for anyone else but for me.

As to technology - it has its place. And it has its dangers. Not
written as a Luddite, but there are diminishing returns with
technology - it remains to the individual to determine where that
point might be.

Room acoustics is commonly the weakest link even in an
'audiophile' playback chain. The 'returns' from technology that
compensates for that weakness are potentially immense.


As are the "negative returns" of pushing the analog signal through a
digital
strainer in order to get the equallization.


Wrong. The digitization itself if no impediment. The qualityh of
implementation of
room correction DSP could well be.

I have yet to hear a single
piece of audio gear (in my system) where the bypassed pure-analog signal
doesn't sound better than the digitally processed one.


Harry, 'digital processing' encompasses a wide variety of outputs.
You are claiming that not one of them ever sounds better than raw...
not even speaker level or delay adjustment.


I am saying that they all destroy ambience retrieval to one degree or
another through my all Thiel surround system.




  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


See my response to Steven. I am simply reporting what I
have heard.


In 1488, the queen of Spain stood on the western shore of Spain and said:

"The world is flat, I am simply reporting what I have seen"

What digiphobes hear is sound, produced by loudspeakers. There are not
little voices saying "empty spaces, empty spaces" or "digital harshness,
digital harshness".

The reason why the sound is perceived as it is, would be the consequence of
both sensation and integration with memories and knowledge.

It is possible to have the perception of sound without actual sensation, so
it would seem to be that the memories and knowledge can be of far greater
importance than mere sensation.


  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

"C. Leeds" wrote in message


in
Rob Tweed wrote:


Come on now, let's admit it. Wadia will actually justify
its price to dimwits with more money than sense...


I don't know if that's true or not.


If you read Wadia's claims, you find that their relationship to truth is
err, interesting:

http://www.wadia.com/company/comp_main.htm

First company to introduce a Digital-to-Analog converter
First company to develop audio optimized Up-sampling
First company to apply glass fiber-optics to home audio
First company to recognize clock-jitter as distortion
First company to apply mechanical de-tuning to the
development of audio component chassis design
First company to offer CD perfect digital volume control
First company to offer a High-End CD player that competes with expensive
separates
First company to develop a Direct to Digital Amplifier - PowerDAC
First company to offer bit perfect digital output from an iPod

Some audiophiles just
don't like cheapie audio equipment,


Excluded-middle argument, noted.

and they have the
money to afford gear that's better built.


Given that we have all these high end digital players that encapsulate
mid-fi digital players, that would be a highly questionable claim, as well.

That their values (and perhaps bank accounts) aren't the same as
yours


I assert the difference is not a matter of values, but rather my ability to
separate the chaff from the grain due to my greater familiarity with things
technical.

doesn't necessarily make either of you "dimwits" or
lacking in common sense.


A lot of the high end is basically fraud, and our society does not always
use the nicest words to describe people who are easily defrauded.

...who want to flaunt their wealth...


I don't know how putting an expensive audio component in
a listening room equates with "flaunting wealth."


If they use it in complete privacy, then claims that they are flaunting
their wealth are in doubt. However, when we see so many who make a big
point out of their ownership of certain trinkets on public forums and in
their neighborhoods, then most of us can figure out what's going on.

Besides, the wealth it takes to impress oneself with one's high end audio
trinkets is fairly minor compared to the sort of trinkets that people in my
neighborhood use to flaunt their wealth - houses, boats, sports cars, etc.

Not many people are ever likely to see it.


We hear about it all the time on Usenet.

and who assume that if it costs that much money,
includes that much apparently important technology and
looks that good, then it *must* be better...


You're just guessing, aren't you? You don't really know
that this is what Wadia purchasers think.


The web site shows that they don't appeal to people who have a good
technical understanding of digital audio.

...people who don't realise that you don't even *need* a
CD
player these days if you just rip your CDs into ITunes
or whatever on a PC-based music system or streaming
media system....


It's quite likely that Wadia purchasers are aware of
these technologies.


Whether they as a rule have hands-on experience with these technologies is
doubtful.

....so they won't need
to clutter up their opulent designer furniture with
15lbs of thick brushed aluminium with loads of nasty
cables poking out of it.


You are starting to sound very bitter. Sour grapes,
perhaps?


In my case, close association with people who are deca- and centa-
millionaires. No billionaires, as far as I know. ;-)

Errrr.....hands up any readers with a Wadia?


Not me.


Not many, given that Wadia encountered severe financial difficulties a few
years back and re-organized it on a far smaller scale.

  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Stephen McElroy Stephen McElroy is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

In article ,
"C. Leeds" wrote:

...people who don't realise that you don't even *need* a CD
player these days if you just rip your CDs into ITunes or whatever on
a PC-based music system or streaming media system....


It's quite likely that Wadia purchasers are aware of these technologies.


Indeed. A Wadia customer may have the Wadia Digital 170iTransport dock
(accesses the iPod pre-DAC), or a Wadia cd player with a digital input
to accommodate a server.

Stephen

  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...


Harry, 'digital processing' encompasses a wide variety
of outputs. You are claiming that not one of them ever
sounds better than raw... not even speaker level or
delay adjustment.


I am saying that they all destroy ambience retrieval to
one degree or another through my all Thiel surround
system.


Given that you eschew the personal application of bias-controlled listening
techniques Harry, how do we know that your perceptions are due to the
technology, as compared to your biases?

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Klipschorns in the 21st Century? Karl Uppiano Tech 149 December 26th 06 08:15 PM
21st Century E-Business Money Making Formula NeoTycoon Vacuum Tubes 0 January 18th 05 09:08 PM
21st Century E-Business Money Making Formula NeoOne Audio Opinions 0 January 10th 05 07:28 AM
21st Century E-Commerce Money Making Formula NeoOne Audio Opinions 0 January 4th 05 01:39 AM
21st Century E-Commerce Money Making Formula NeoOne Pro Audio 0 January 4th 05 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:51 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"