No!
Are audiophile products designed to initially impress then fatigue to make you upgrade?
If not why are many hardly using the systems they assembled, why are so many upgrading fairly new gear that’s fully working? Seems to me many are designed to impress reviewers, show-goers, short-term listeners, and on the sales floor but once in a home system, in the long run, they fatigue users fail to engage and make you feel something is missing so back you go with piles of cash.
145 responses Add your response
I believe so. My ears hurt always listening to other audio systems. I can switch my ears between natural and unnatural sound modes, but switching back to the natural sound mode is very fatiguing and gives me a bad feeling to my brain and whole body.
The Wavetouch sound guide on a speaker is the key. Alex/Wavetouch |
@mihorn
Interesting observation. maybe that is why people think audiophiles are nuts. They’ve never entered the world of "unnatural sounds".
I can hear the improvement.How do you do this?
Lately, I have been wondering if a single omni-directional point source is the best method for sound reproduction of certain genres of music. Not for orchestra where soundstaging is vital. But for rock music / wall of sound. Also trying to figure out why some musics sounds better on my 2" single driver computer speakers than my hi-fi system.Volume and full-range sound notwithstanding. I switch back and forth with the same song. Sure, this is personal taste, but seems the "harsh" metal driver actually sounds better when it is coming from a small point source. Due to its small size, as it expands, the harshness is dissipated and what fills the larger space is a more clear, coherent sound. |
@jayctoy +1 also as your hearing changes you will try to compensate (with equipment) for diminished hearing ability across the hearing range. |
The bicycle analogy is pretty good. I am an avid bike rider… with a long distance / touring slant. I have four custom made bikes of my stable of eight. Each is carefully crafted, with every detail thought out to the highest level. There is a real difference with true top end bike frames and equipment and great high fi gear and true audiophile gear. For those of use really dedicated: that ride thousands of miles a year and listen hundreds of hours… there is no substitute for uncompromising designs, meticulously purpose built equipment. It outperforms in every way just very well done stuff… and sets it apart. |
I have friends who ride Doug Fattic frames. Ti for road and gravel here. Back to audio, I believe many of the products from manufacturers that frequently release new stuff (i.e., the opposite of Lamm) are “designed to initially impress” but not necessarily “then fatigue.” I believe their primary focus is on new sales by one-upping whatever came before, whether by actual performance or by advertising hype. |
We have something in common. I raced bikes as a Cat 2-3 for twenty plus years. For racing, I rode bikes that my local bike shop sponsor supplied that I liked but did not love. They were carbon fiber and lighter than my other bikes, but basically junk. They had all the latest fake innovations-nobody loves a squeaky press-fit bottom bracket in a carbon frame. The bikes I love are custom steel. They will never go out of style to my mind. A Landshark, JP Weigle, Doug Fattic, Rob English, and Vanilla/Speedvagen. All with Campy. I don't ride with manufactured wheelsets, all of mine were handbuilt from scratch, mostly with ENVE rims, Sapim spokes, and either DT or Chris King hubs. This dovetails into approaches to audio. My two sets of loudspeakers feature enclosures that were built in-house with attention to detail and to my taste, sound signatures that are subtle and suit the long haul. Spendor 7.1's and DeVore O/93's. After going through multiple turntables, I ended up with two enduring classics that will last virtually forever-a Thorens TD124 and Garrard 301 on huge artisanally built custom plinths and with Reed 3P arms. My phono stage is a Manley Steelhead-the Brooks Brothers suit of phono stages. I am fairly certain I will never tire of my DAC, an SW1X DAC III Balanced. If you buy compromised gear, you are doomed to own it for a relative short time. Back to the OP topic, c'mon! The larger manufacturers are not calculating in THAT fashion. Like car makers, they calculate for curb appeal and profitability. They have to or they can not survive. The artisan producers struggle. The exact same applies to mass produced bike manufacturers vs. custom builders. Let's take PrimaLuna owned by Kevin Deal. The guy is brilliant and rich. You come up with a design that is fairly solid and you send it out for mass production in a highly efficient factory overseas. To use one of over a dozen easy bicycle examples, there is Specialized who draws up a supposedly cutting edge frame design and then sends it out to the "Red Zone" of Taiwan where 98% of the world's better carbon fiber frames are cranked out. They are very high quality in terms of sheer performance. But the failure rate with extended use is very high in relative terms and they are designed with flavor-of-the-month esthetics and features that will not endure. |
People who listen orchestra music hear the same ear adjustment problem. There are natural sounds (human voice, dog barking, baby crying, water flowing, etc.) and unnatural sounds. Human can’t hear a natural and unnatural sounds together simultaneously. If they are presented at the same time, the human ears must choose one of them. Audiophiles can switch back and forth (extremely fast) between natural and unnatural sounds due to years of practice with their audio systems. However, most people (non-audiophiles) ears are almost in natural sound mode. Piano (Natural vs. Unnatural sound) Orchestra (Natural vs. Un-natural sound) Vocal - Coffee (Natural vs. Un-natural sound) Alex/Wavetouch |
That has a lot to do with it, plus if you're a gear-head (nothing wrong with that), you're always going to be looking for the next big thing. It's like guys with customized cars. There is no end point, only a continuous series of upgrades to make things better/faster/louder. |
There exists terrific equipment at every pricepoint. The Ongaku example was meant to disprove the one size fits all obsolesence conspiracy being implied. Yes, great sound can be aquired at $150,000 (retailish of the Ongaku), $100,000, $50,000, $5,000, $500…but no matter how much we might like it to be different there will always be something better and there will always be something more expensive or that we can’t/won’t spend for. Go listen to the best stuff out there and then decide where you want to compromise. We all compromise. But make no mistake, if you ever hear a properly setup system anchored by an Ongaku you will never forget it. You might think the price is out of line with your value set (it is out of line with my value set) but it (and others of the ilk) are cost no object, moonshot attempts by manufacturers. The trickledown from which we all benefit.
In fact, there has never been a better time to be in the market for hi fidelity gear. The key is to shop and stay within our comfort zones financially while achieving our sound reproduction goals. |
If only manufacturers had the capital to build products that impress and then create a tiredness and then loathing enough to dump perfectly good equipment.... Most of these companies are so tiny and sales so low, they won't even be around in 5 years. And even if they could pull off this diabolical plot, why would someone come back and buy from the same company that they now believe is tiresome to listen to? @boxcarman likely has the best answer.
|
I must agree with the OP partly -- though not necessarily with the fatiguing part. There is a relationship between price and quality --but only up to a point. @ghasley for example makes an argument using Audio Note Ongaku. But the price of the unit ? -- $100,000 !!!! A 100K piece of equipment !!!! Is the sound going to improve so much that I cannot get it at $5000 or even $3000. What is this game? Is listening to music only meant for the uber-rich? Where does one draw the line? I would think that after a price point enough money has gone into getting the sound right, which by now all manufactures who are worth their salt should already have eliminated things like noise, harshness, etc. etc. that are some of the basics of "good" sound. Indeed, on these basic factors after a price point all manufacturers should be converging in the quality of audio they produce. They may differ in the extra features offered. Equipment that requires you to spend $5000 on just ONE component just does not make sense any more given the supposed technical advances made. Is the basics of audio quality still not understood despite of technical advances? I would think at $3000 price point I expect the manufacturer has figured out how to get a good sound out of the equipment. $3000 is a lot of money for most people. The market seems to be only for people who can afford a McIntosh in their bathrooms as well as bedrooms! Where is the technological advance that I as a middle class consumer cannot get a good sounding unit I can keep for along time? It is no wonder that at around $3000 price point it is very, very difficult to choose equipment based on sound quality ALONE. And I think $3000 is too much to pay to achieve this equality. Finally, most commercial review sites are BS. Their views are so biased and driven by sucking up to manufacturer's that I never trusted their reviews.
|
+ 1 Alex/Wavetouch |
I am a cognitive psychologist and worked most of my professional career conducting research to measure consumers'/users' perceptions of products. Designers and engineers are fascinated with novel product design features because they attract attention and differentiate their products from others. I had to constantly caution them to avoid seeking novelty alone because "different" is not necessarily "better". When the novelty rush wears off (and it always does) what remains might be revealed to be less pleasing. |
Going to the store and finding something you don’t already have at home. +1, if you already have a "stereo" don’t keep buying/upgrading MORE stereo. Supplement (not replace) with an immersive audio layout. BTW, anyone who decides to simply get better two channels, fine. Don’t max out your credit card, just get a pair of all in one, active speakers and you are done. For example: Dynaudio Focus 50- Best Product 2022
|
We should ask this question from another perspective:
This is the product manager’s dilemma in a nutshell in audio. In the HT space there’s a ton of must-have features/brands that get associated with a purchase:
but in audio, sounding different is actually key to a quick sale. Going to the store and finding something you don’t already have at home. Ragged frequency responses which accentuate some bands and not others are an easy win. |
To answer your questions NO. It's funny how we in the audio industry has change so much from the 60s 80s to now. We went from tone controls to without and now tone controls are coming back. We went from ten inch to 15 inch woofers then to 6 inch to eight inch woofers. The sub woofer even came into play. Different cabinet design shape and sizes. Book shelf speakers. Hell it's a new speaker coming out and the cabinet has a layer of alligator skin on it. I am not knocking none of this I am just trying to say there is a lot of audio equipment out there you have to know what type of music you mostly listen to and what speaker perform the best to your ears and a long or short period of time. That could be a fun and interesting journey. There is plenty types of speaker designs to choose from. Horn design dome tweeter paper cone tweeter amt the list goes on and on. I have personally have five different types of speakers set in my home because they all have there areas where they shine. Just remember what sounds darn good to YOUR ears.. |
Stereo relies on an equilateral triangle to maintain the "phantom center". You need very high quality amplification to create a soundstage that goes beyond the speakers location. You need to pressurize the room if you want a true concert like experience and that requires speakers that are big enough for your room to get it done. All of this is painstaking to dial in for the ONE MLP in the room and if you move anything start over and good luck with that. Granted, do all of the above, sit in the right spot and as long as you don’t move it sounds good as long as the material you are listening to is typically presented in FRONT of the listener like acoustic trios, piano, female vocals. All the stuff they dish out at audio shows (for a very good reason). This is not a scheme, it is just what you are forced to do because the recording engineer was forced to compress x number of instruments, voices, and room reverb into ONLY two channels. Ask any engineer if they want a bigger palate than two and see what they say (duh). Now once you drop in a center channel no more "phantom" and you can move around the room and vocals still come from the center, what a concept. Atmos is object based, the engineer can place objects specifically in the mix. Atmos "sees" you speakers layout and will try and recreate that object at the same location. More speakers=more freedom for the preciseness the engineer employed. Less speakers (or headphones) it still works. A SOA two channel preamp (like the AudioNote M10) is $100K+. A SOA immersive preamp (like the Trinnov) is between $20K and $30 depending on how you configure it. As for speakers a pair of of SOA speakers can easily cost more than $25K, add the amps and that can easily be another $10K. This is not a ripoff, its simply necessary to have two speakers fill a room with a high quality believable soundstage (uhhh IF you are in the sweetspot). When you employ 5 or 7 or 9 bed channels and 2 or 4 or 6 height channels you don’t NEED all of that power. Think of the driver coverage in just two speakers with 8 inch woofers for example (16 inches total). Now think of the total driver coverage of 9 speakers (5 beds and 4 heights) with 6 inch woofers (54 inches total). You can get a completely immersive soundstage as "objects" appear in the mix where the engineer placed them in the mix or at least close if you have fewer speakers. Now, stereo needs and equilateral triangle. Immersive audio need the layout of the specs of whatever format you want to use (dolby or auro 3d are a bit different). Now with stereo you get what you get. With an atmos setup I can still listen to a two channel mix in stereo. But I got options to upmix whatever I want to as many speakers as I want AND every seat is a "sweet spot" as the "phantom" center is now an "actual" center, just like if someone was singing or talking from that same spot in the room, it will always sound like its coming from the center, wherever you sit.
|
Good luck with your new problem, haha. Can you explain more? Agreed, I have been coming to the same conclusion and decided stereo is inherently unnatural. I'm don't walk around all day complaining about sounds I hear but I often dislike the way my stereo sounds. I'm not talking about the "audiophile" stuff we talk about here. I'm saying when I turn on the stereo, my brain has to adjust from natural sounds of real life to this odd noise coming from boxes. Maybe people who listen to orchestra music do not have this adjustment problem..
|
So who is really to blame? The two channel format sucks. This is why six figure speakers and components exist, to try and repair the damage. This is why there is a "sweet spot", because all the other spots in the room are horrible. Go immersive like I did, problem solved. You get a new problem though, you like listening so much the sessions get longer than planned.👌 |
I think we've all been set up😉
@nonoise
+1 So who is really to blame? I would suggest the consumer is just as guilty as the mfg'r. We go into an audition listening in critical mode and that's what we get. To make a gross generalization, delta sigma dac to impress for critical / short term listening and NOS dac for musical enjoyment / long term listening. To put things in perspective, McIntosh 275 amp got an "A" in Stereophile some 40+ years later. So how far have we really come?
@ghdprentice
Some good points made in your posts. But I would like to suggest it IS possible to get musical, non fatiguing sound for a low price if you know what to look for and can accept some compromises.
|
This is audio conspiracy theory to the max. The thought that well known audio manufactures' business model is to fool their customers so that they will buy a product they won't like and have to trade up sooner is borderline paranoia. THE PROBLEM: is that a vast number of audio buyers, even high end buyers, don't know how to listen or know what to listen for or just don't know their audio tastes so they end up making mistakes. That's not the manufacturers fault. |
@kennyc + 1 |
@johnk I have noticed that the DIY crowd is the same, they just do it cheaper because they are building it themselves. The DIY forums are filled with I built this because it's better than my last build. |
Is this question a cynical joke? Or just being asked by a thoroughly uniformed listener without much in the way of logic or understanding of humans , music or the quest for our personal audio nirvana? Probably just a miserable soul with thoughts of conspiracies in every aspect of life. Am I getting warm? |
You are mistaken. It's not planned obsolescence (top down thinking), rather it's cost/benefit - how much time and resources does one have to invest and what are the future expected cash flows. Companies must operate at at least break even or they're quickly out of business, this means enough profit to cover costs. Even cost-no-object components have to be profitable remain in business. Companies commonly choose the price point within a market in which to compete, then a cost ceiling to target a specific profit margin. Under this cost ceiling, compromises must be made in choosing materials, the construction methods, R&D both initial and ongoing during the life cycle of the product, etc to target creating/manufacturing the best product they can make to compete within a specific market cost segment. Motivation is increased profitability and/or increased satisfaction in expressing knowledge/creativity/ingenuity/engineering, all accomplished through increased sales. Increasing quality/longevity sounds like a good thing, but with it comes costs and maybe more importantly alternatives. The benefit of MAY result in goodwill enough to create FUTURE repeat sales enough to offset the time, effort, and resources one spends now VS using the time, effort, and resources investing in R&D, infrastructure, etc. Most companies choose the later as the most creative and profitable path which is the same path as remaining competitive in the market. If people will pay for the increased cost of longevity, manufacturers will create it. True, manufacturers choose what and when to release new technologies often to maximize income streams, but that's not the same as creating a product then purposely build in timed obsolescence in hope of repeat sales. It's simply supply and demand, and the seeking for higher profits and/or increased recognition for their creativity. Cost/benefit.
|
Is that what we blame it on. (Fatigued). That is why I have about 6 to 10 different sets of audio systems. I do not have deep pockets but in 25 years or more I was able to aquire my share of equipment. Every system I own it has its own distinctive sound performance. Will I ever buy a new power amplifier or preamp I wouldn't say never but the last 4 years I spent my money of custom subs for some of my systems. Trying to tweak by adding a single 18 inch sub to one system and a isobaric dual 18 inch subs to another system. My speakers hf drivers consist of paper cone- titanium dome- amt and berellium drivers. As far as the manufacturers and stereo salesman they will never stop making or selling audio equipment. |
@steakster Talk about a cynical response. I'm truly not sure where you're coming from there. My impression is that he's not getting what he's after with his system. It's interesting how this hobby we've all chosen tends to tie other aspects of our lives together ... or maybe it would be fair to say that it can reflect other things we've learned about life? I don't really know how to say it. I'm sure a lot of you know people who seem to never be content with the things they've either acquired or achieved. Being content with what we have in life is the one that applies here. But I guess that's the way money works in general, right? It will definitely not make you happy ... and for the of you that think it does I personally feel sorry for you. And if you're not already happy by the time you get it, or don't know how to make yourself happy, that is ... the money is (insert the words: your system) will either make you a bigger j**k off than you were before you got it ... or it's gonna allow you to be able to enjoy your life more.
|
imo ... what @ghdprentice talks about in his initial response! to the thread about noise floor and high frequency hash is particularly relevant. I've learned from paying attention to guys like him, who have culled end all be all systems, aka: to die for, Ha ha ha ... that if those traits are what you really want your (read: my) system to reflect then there are certain steps. The personal secret, for my particular system, was or shall I say has been that once I acquired the necessary components ... and what @ghdprentice says about how, in this world that we live in, you pretty much get what you pay for ... truth. But once I had the right combination of components, which I consider to be Step 1, then ... the best cables you can afford OR justify spending way the f**k too much money on, ha ha ha, but also very true. The final step is clean power ... whatever that means, given your own personal deficit, there. In my case, I live on the top floor of a high rise in an urban environment so you can imagine how trashy my signal is, coming out of the wall. When I added my PS Audio P15, which is definitely not cheep but at the exact same time worth every single penny ... and mine came to me brand freakin new which carried a pretty price tag with it. Literally worth every single penny. I'm not even exaggerating ... it quite literally brought everything into focus. My system, obviously, already sounded really good ... but when I added the P15 it was like it peeled away layer upon layer and refined everything in a way that was very extremely subtle but also totally striking in effect. The reason I know I have good synergy in my particular system is because I learned quite recently that I'm able to hook up the exact same components to my other pair of super amazing bookshelf speakers and be completely blown away by how the reveal the exact same qualities in damn near all of my favorite recordings of various types of music. That's kind of like a double blind study, right? : ) I tend to kind of look at my system like a woman, Lol ... I'm sure a lot of you other guys've learned to enjoy your favorite toys kind of in the same vein. Tell me true, what woman will please you the way your system pleases you over and over and over again, literally every single day and never give you any kind of grief? In my experience, Italian motorcycles are the same way. : ) But seriously, once you have the synergy of your kick ass components in place the signal needs to be able to be transmitted accurately as possible so that it can truly reveal (the effect) your components are capable of conveying ... and you can listen to the naysayers about the clean power thing if you want to, but you're always gonna be chasing the dream if it's a low noise floor and nada high frequency hash. Have been listening to Van Morrison, Into the Music while I write this. Chills me right out. That's the effect I'm after, personally. |
| Post removed |
I have no such issues I DIY most all my gear or I buy from very well-respected knowledgeable builders. But I do see you types living what I posted constant gear changes many complaints of not using systems or of listening fatigue. Many loudspeakers today are voiced to have an extended response in the upper ranges but are overly small and weak in mid-bass and bass. These require large power to produce a sense that there's a lower frequency which leads to thermal compression and listening fatigue maybe you recall the BBC would put a bump around 100hz to give the impression of bass. These types of loudspeakers will sound bright and clear at the shop thus attracting buyers. Many modern amps are also fairly bright and hard sounding toss this in with the over-bright extended upper range weak thin mid-bass and bass with a bump to make you think you have bass but once in a home, you will be left wondering why you don't make time to use such a system. Manufacturers know they need to grab the attention of reviewers show-goers and at demos. Why I posted what I did. |
Good effort to get things back on track. I would agree your answer may be one reason for the OP's observation. Could another reason be that the constant barrage of review press, forum threads by enthusiastic owners, manufacturer marketing releases, new tweaks, and "breakthrough" innovations has conditioned many audio enthusiasts to continually look for the next best thing and to continually question whether their system sounds as good as it should thereby putting them on a never-ending quest for the holy grail of audio systems? All the factors I mentioned may make it hard for some audio enthusiasts to simply sit back and enjoy the music. |
Yeah, I would say this thread has gotten kind of off topic. I know it's easy for it to devolve into a discussion about certain pieces of equipment or whatever, because after all that's part of the fun ... right? But, I thought the OP's question that he posed when he started the thread was: why is it, that whenever I add a new (whatever) piece of equipment to my system, does it eventually leave me feeling un-engaged by my system ... and why does it leave me with a sense of fatigue after listening for long periods? I would believe the answer is b/c the system you've put together is leaving you feeling those things. Isn't that the nature of this discussion? |
I wonder if this question doesn’t reflect technology in general. I have an iPhone so old I don’t dare upgrade the os because it will stop working. My brother had to get a new Apple TV box because the latest apps wouldn’t work on it. It used to be we had to upgrade software but now they make us rebuy hardware. So how this relates to audiophiles is maybe on the margins of newer equipment. My not very high end system is antique components and so I haven’t cycled through changing things besides my amps. Those do seem to just stop working. well, sorry if I’m off topic, but it seems to me there is a lot of this bait and switch happening with sometimes very expensive pieces of equipment we use every day. |
That could well be right. I've gotten several preamplifier's and power amplifiers over the years, both tubed and solid state, yet here I am again, using my non remote, non surround Sumo Athena preamplifier in passive mode, including its built in phono stage, more than 30 years after buying it second hand. And after many turntables and cartridges, I didn't go back to the Sony Biotracer I had near the beginning, but to my pl 518's relative, the old S Tonearmed PL 560 and a Denon DL 103, although I still have a half dozen near vintage and modern cartridges. Sometimes when it's right for my own tastes, I wish there was a light on the system indicating I arrived. It would have saved a lot of trades, upgrades I abandoned, and tweaking.
|
Great speakers and yes, the wave guide that trickled down from the JBL M-2 has the most stable center image imaginable. I own the JBL Studio 2 series which was the first consumer speaker that used that trickle down tech from the M-2. On the desktop the 230 monitors are incredible, the way they lock the center image in is amazing. I now have them setup in the man cave as a 5.1.4 atmos setup. With the matching center channel it just gives you more of that great imaging but yes, they sound fantastic in stereo, agreed. |
@larryi +1 Well said! Mike |
The notion that manufacturers secretly deliberately design their products to degrade, but only just enough to not cross a very fine threshold of degradation to avoid becoming obvious poor quality - is simply not realistic. Often the question of whether one’s system ‘sounds best’ comes down to what might not exist within the soundstage. In other words, when there is nothing obvious that offends the ear, the question becomes whether the speakers or a given piece of equipment might not be transmitting some or all of the source material as completely as can be done. The question of what might not be there is nowhere near as straightforward as a poor soundstage no matter what you do, or a hum that shouldn’t be there. For instance, my amplifier sounds really fine, but I have come to wonder if there exists more clarity and openness in the high range, so I’ll eventually try another. And specifically, I wonder this because I’ve run different speakers on this system and studied their sound, I’ve got my set-up correct including cables, source devices are excellent, and I’ve done a lot of reading that suggests to me that there is better sound to be had. Logically, it could be the preamp or the amp, but the amp is older, so I’ll start there. |