Steve Guttenberg recently posted on his audiophiliac channel what might be an iconoclastic video.
Steve attempts to crystallise the somewhat nebulous feeling that climbing the ladder to the high-end might be a counter productive endeavour.
This will be seen in many high- end quarters as heretical talk, possibly even blasphemous. Steve might even risk bring excommunicated. However, there can be no denying that the vast quantity of popular music that we listen to is not particularly well recorded.
Steve's point, and it's one I've seen mentioned many times previously at shows and demos, is that better more revealing systems will often only serve to make most recordings sound worse.
There is no doubt that this does happen, but the exact point will depend upon the listeners preference. Let's say for example that it might happen a lot earlier for fans of punk, rap, techno and pop.
Does this call into question almost everything we are trying to ultimately attain?
Could this be audio's equivalent of Martin Luther's 1517 posting of The Ninety-Five theses at Wittenberg?
I enjoy Steve's reviews and for the most part, his personal take on things regarding audio. I pretty much agree with him on this.
When it comes down to it, we as audiophiles/audio enthusiasts are not all in the same box. While some aspire to a system that will fill a large room with the scope and volume of a live, large scale orchestral or rock performance, some may only want a system that will do justice to a small scale, live acoustic performance or have a considerably smaller space to fill. In any case, it sometimes takes years of investigation, trial and error to put together a system that all works together and does what we personally want it to do. Then, when we think we have it all dialed in and figured out and are most happy with what we have - circumstances, likes or opportunities change and here we go again :-) Jim
'Perhaps this is a bit like Frances Fukuyama claiming history ended when the Cold War ended, ensuring liberal democracy a long history devoid of any alternate system of governance.'
Yes it does look as if there's a convergence of a science based opinion of what constitutes a good sound lead by the likes of Harman Kardon, Audioholics and Audio Science Review.
Maverick designs such as the Ohm Walsh's and Tekton Moab's do seem to be getting thin on the ground.
The question of when to stop upgrading must therefore be an individual one dictated to by the majority of one's own listening material.
[The alternative would be let your choice of music be driven by your system, but that can't ultimately lead anywhere good other than visions of individuals with $$$$$ systems playing the same 5/6 fantastically recorded discs over and over again...]
If you've already passed that unfortunate point of too much resolution (you'll know by the range of your listening material and level of satisfaction) you might have to consider downgrading to something more suitable.
Many already have to their satisfaction.
Another option might be to push for an increase in industry recording standards. Unfortunately according to Steve Guttenberg and others with experience, the industry does not see audiophiles, who constitute less than 1% of their business, with any type of interest.
They know we'll buy the music anyway, so they're far more likely to focus on those sectors that don't.
For those remaining audiophiles who still seek the maximum sonic pleasure from their music there is the additional, albeit time consuming option of searching for the best reissues/ remasterings/ pressings etc.
Sites like Steve Hoffman's Music Corner have been devoted to doing exactly this for quite some time now.
If you’ve already passed that unfortunate point of too much resolution
There is never too much resolution, except if the different pieces of gear are badly paired, if not, there is a problem in the 3 embeddings particularly the electrical and acoustical one....
"Resolution" and details must be also musically presented and "revealed". If not they hurt the ears and some says this is too resolving...But it is a bad use of word...
The recording is resolved by the system+room, but the system +room reveal his own inner working in resolving the source...
Then there is a difference and a balance between "resolving" and "revealing"....Resolving refer to the original acoustic of the recorded initial musical event, revealing refer to his recreation by the system+room...
The ears/brain distinguished the 2 acoustical spaces, and all audio acoustical science is the art of educating the ears to use these 2 acoustical dimensions in the same moment...
Then "passing this point of too much resolution" is only an indication of a problem in the pairing of the gear or in the embeddings or in the 2... There is no objective point of too much resolution at some high price level on the Hi-Fi equipment scale...
1- The better your system sounds, the more enjoyable the musical experience and the better ALL songs sound, no matter the recording quality. In fact, at least in my case, bad recordings sounded easier to listen as my system sound quality improved. Of course, the recording's flaws are more evident, but the overall presentation becomes FAR more enhoyable.
2- When you get more resolution, my experience tells me that you just don't get more detail, you also should get better tone, dynamics, holographic 3D sound, etc. In two words, more realism and fun, not just details in a clinical way. Otherwise, something it's wrong.
3- Most audiophiles (I put my self in the first place) must learn to relax and not do upgrades too often. Otherwise, we end up listening the same tracks over and over to judge every upgrade and not to other tracks that also move us. I know, it's VERY rewarding and exciting everytime we get better sound, but IMHO it's not sane to do it constantly. Not to mention the high cost of doing it often. My system sometimes moves me deeply with music, but that happens when I'm not judging the sound of my last upgrade and sometimes, when I'm cooking, or doing something else on the house, and my mp3 is playing, I find my self dancing, singing and enjoying music more! IMHO, getting this audio nervosa on high-end is a dangerous game and we must be aware of it. It shouldn't overcome our passion for music.
4- I've heard some multithosand systems (+100k) on dealers and my relatively modest system (about 25k) sounded MUCH MUCH better. We don't have to spend three figures to have great sound. Voicing, positioning and tweaking system and room is crucial!
Yes, excellent post. 4 good points. I think most of us have experienced examples of point 4.
But what about Steve's experience with the Magnepans and mine with the Quads? [and is it also the same for ATC? I've often read that they do not suffer poor recordings well].
Could it be, just maybe - without offending anyone, maybe those particular designs, although extremely high resolution ones no doubt, are not particularly well balanced for all genres of music?
Or even particularly good with poor recordings, emphasizing weaknesses more than strengths to the point where certain tracks might start to fall apart.
'2- When you get more resolution, my experience tells me that you just don't get more detail, you also should get better tone, dynamics, holographic 3D sound, etc. In two words, more realism and fun, not just details in a clinical way. Otherwise, something it's wrong.'
Could that 'something' then be down to a question of balance? Resolution across the board instead of only in particular frequency bands? A little like those headphones which deliberately feature a slightly elevated frequency response in the mids enabling engineers to listen deeper into the mix.
Or maybe even resolution at the expense of timing, tone and dynamics? If such a thing is even possible?
'3- Most audiophiles (I put my self in the first place) must learn to relax and not do upgrades too often. Otherwise, we end up listening the same tracks over and over to judge every upgrade and not to other tracks that also move us.'
Yes, since many of us like to use 'test discs' to evaluate new equipment it makes sense to use a good variety of recordings for evaluation both in genre and recording quality - rather than just a few familiar well recorded ones.
Instead of too much resolution, maybe we're really considering a question of not enough balance? Or maybe they're the same thing.
Thank you cd318 and mahgister for your kind coments.
I have listened to a pair of Magnepans (I believe 1.7) only once and they didnt convince me much. They sounded a litlle bit harsh even that they were driven by a tube amp (Primaluna integrated EL34 don't remember the model) and in a pretty well treated room. Maybe it was the source (digital directly from the CD player with out any DAC or digital interface whatsoever), but I can perfectly imagine they must be hard on bad recordings. If I recall it correctly, the soundstage was wide (maybe bigger than it should), but not much deep and with out good layering.
I agree, it must be resolution with balance, but if your speakers and electronics are good, tweaking and voicing properly should do more good than bad to the reproduction of music, any song considered.
All you need is a $1000 Bose Acoustic Wave Music system two or even a very cheap vintage system to make you happy BUT you can spend a lot more if you just want to brag about it !.....
Any speakers will sound marvellous in a rightfully treated acoustical room and sound atrocious otherwise.... Be it my Tannoy dual gold or the magnepan... I know these 2 in bad acoustical room....This is fact...
Then chose what you want, magnepan are different from Tannoy dual gold, but the 2 are marvellous in a controlled and treated room....Especially if the three embeddings are controlled and not only the acoustical one which is the most impactful tough...
’Maybe, just maybe, Magnepans, Quads and the like for all their high reputation, are not well balanced, but tweaked to achieve a certain end.’
I suspect this could be the case. On the right material they are said to be almost peerless. If I listened mainly to string quartets and vocals, they’d be at top of my audition list.
The theoretical advantage of an extremely lightweight driver must give them a distinct advantage over certain frequencies no doubt. It’s often stated that the bass end is where their problems lie, hence the lack of balance.
Excellent mids and highs, but not so excellent bass.
Hence the likes of Martin Logan with their hybrids attempting to seamlessly integrate the dispersion patterns of those differing technologies.
Until we begin to approach perfection it looks like it will always be a question of finding a balance. Some might prefer to tailor their system to their own particular musical tastes (which might well be narrow) whilst others might seek to assemble a system that covers all genres and all levels of recording quality.
There was an interesting post, perhaps relevant here by @donato here on AG back in 2005.
Electrostatic-vs-Planar strength, weakness
"I concur with what most are saying here. I had a complete Martin Logan surround setup with Prodigys up front. The detail/resolution and holographic presentation of vocals were jaw dropping. Sweet spot was small. Hybrid bass was fine by me, although others have felt it was problematic integrating.
In the end, I found the sound too analytical for my equipment, room, tastes. I replaced everything with a Magnepan surround setup. To my ears, in my system, in my room the Magnepans are more musical, natural, and forgiving. I definitely felt like I lost some detail, but I have no complaints with the Maggies in this regard."
And, by corollary, a system which does sound good with good and bad recordings is similarly not balanced properly.
All corollaries are not equal.... :)
My system makes sound better, that is to say more listenable, except for sure a few rare atrocious one, the good and the bad files or cd alike...More than that, surprizingly, many cd or files i tought bad one sudddenly reveal itself good one....It takes a balanced system to rightly evaluate good from bad indeed,,,,
My system CANNOT transform a really bad files or cd in a good one....But really very bad files are rare amongst my near 10,000 cd or files....
But all is more listenable.... In this sense only, all files are improved, even the bad one....But more listenable or simply listenable is not synonymus with good recording....
In a word a balanced audio system, or in my words, a rightfully embedded one, makes ALL files more listenable...He does not miraculously transform bad apples in good one....But makes less fresh one taste more good yes....
I have a Krell Digital Vanguard Integrated, Yamaha A-S2100 SACD player, a BluOS Vault and JBL 4429’s. I’ve owned 6 figure systems that did not offer me the level of enjoyment I receive from this humble system.Clear, dynamic and colorful with no compression. Huge soundstage and a glorious midrange!
“If you’re running a $5-10K rig, then do not expect such music to sound great.”
When reading it i was speechless...
Ignorance? Snobbery? Delusion of new riches? Certainly not informed audio management installation.... What i call the triple embedding....
My system value is 500 dollars, i dont pretend that it will beat costly system, i pretend they will eat their spoon with surprize to make so much with so little on their point of view for sure...
I know better now, and i had learn that audio is the art of engineering when you create a design, but the art of embedding when you have bought it....
Only non reflexive mind or conditioned consumers thinks that audio products are ready to go to their best out of the box....
And now, let’s take a look at my comment in context, shall we? Here it is:
ALL genres of music sound superior on a superb system. As a reviewer I use many genres of music, some which I do not care to hear regularly. These are valuable to assess the outer limits of performance. Without fail, the better the audio system, the better all genres of music sound on it.
The fact of the matter is that the bulk of audiophiles’ systems are not that good. Contemporary music sounds bad on these systems because they simply cannot handle it, while superior systems can. It’s foolish to blame the genre of music when the system is poor. If you’re running a $5-10K rig, then do not expect such music to sound great. Conversely, anyone can delude themselves into thinking their system is all that when it sounds good playing simpler, less challenging music. The fact is that if the modern music sounds poor on your system, then it’s not that great of a system, and/or you didn’t set it up well.
Fact: in the spectrum of performance $5-10K systems are not great. Does that mean a person cannot enjoy the experience of listening to their system in that price range? Not at all, and that should have been evident by my discussion of such systems not handling demanding music. Instead, those with lower end rigs use that out of context to assault me as though disdaining less expensive rigs.
Whether you like it or not, a cheaper system is not all that. It cannot, will not, will never be as good as a much higher end rig. Take offense at that if you wish- it’s your issue. I wanted better, so I put a lot of money and effort (continuing) into it. If you don’t want to put the money and effort into it, great, but let’s not play a game of saying the cheap stereo is as good as the higher end one, or that you’re really getting somewhere by "embedding" it.
Have I ever mocked someone’s low cost rig? Never. I do debate people who insist that lower end rigs give essentially the same experience as upper end rigs. They do not. Only if you want to defend your budget, and say, "The both play music," can you defend that kind of conclusion. Once you discuss the quality of the experience - and as I was pointing out, the ability of a system to play exceptionally difficult recordings - then there is little comparison between a $5K rig and a $50K rig, at least if the person setting it up knows what they are doing. A rig that is $5-10K will almost universally have serious shortcomings in sound quality, as assessed from the entire spectrum of performance. Does this mean someone can't thoroughly enjoy it? No, but the topic here was problematic performance, and I assert that it's not so much the genre of music, but the inability of lower end systems to play it well. No amount of disdain directed toward me for that conclusion will change my opinion. It's not a matter of respect, but of performance, which is not a respecter of persons.
Fact: The performance spectrum is far greater than most budget audiophiles are willing to accept. Moving to a system that is MSRP multiples higher will usually assure that you will be in an entirely different class of listening experience, not the least because of the difference In speakers used.
I was a budget audiophile for many years, attempting to convince myself that these things were not so. I hold zero disdain of budget audio. I hold disdain for those who attempt to mock, ridicule, or marginalize higher end audio as though it is a rip-off or "diminishing returns".
The fact of the matter is that the bulk of audiophiles’ systems are not that good. Contemporary music sounds bad on these systems because they simply cannot handle it, while superior systems can. It’s foolish to blame the genre of music when the system is poor. If you’re running a $5-10K rig, then do not expect such music to sound great.
First i apologize for being a little rude with you...
Reading your posts i think that you are in a perfect good faith about your sayings and experience...
Second, we misunderstood each other.... I never say that anyone can reach the same level of quality with a system like mine and for example mike lavigne system...
But i said and by my own experience and 2 years listening experiments, that a modest system rightfully embedded outpace itself completely, and can reach another level totally , near high-end, under it but not light years behind sorry, if rightfully embedded...
Words are very important because ,not being clear put people at the end of an illusory and costly process of upgrading before embedding their system, never mind the price....
AT ANY PRICE, even 100,000 dollars system will outpace themselves rightfully embedded, then a modest system cannot reach their level even rifghtfully embedded...But will not be so much far from it than most people think....That is my point....
Is it clear?
But when we listen music, with all S.Q. on all counts very good, even if we are not on the same level that top high -end, we can enjoy ANY files or cd rightfully played....
Name a cd a modest system would not be able to render in an acceptable way?
I want to try it....Please i will wait for your suggestion of a cd that is difficult to listen to on a modest system....Thanks in advance and gives me in a few words why it is difficult to listen to it on a modest system....
Remember that what i call embeddings is not a bunch of costly tweaks please....It is a method of listening experiments that make anybody able to identify the lacks in his system and remedy them by cleaning, and controlling mechanical, and electrical grid, and mainly the very important acoustical setting of a small room...
The impact is so powerful than any upgrade even of speakers upgrade, in most cases, will be less impactful, except if the first speakers are already totally mediocre for sure to begins with...Choice of good components is mandatory, even if not costly one....
No one is attacking you. Matter of fact, I had a lot of respect for you. That’s why I said that I didn’t expect that from you. You should have known better. What makes your comments incorrect is the generalization. Not all 40k systems sound better than all 5k ones. Decades ago, I had a 5k system that sounded great and I decided to upgrade it. I spent thousands of dollars and ended up with a much worse system. It took me a while to recapture the magic and finally surpassed it. So I learned my lesson. What you should have said is, everything else being equal, more money should give you better sound. We all know that. Unless you reach a limit, you can always get better hardware. Whether it’s Mahgister getting more stones or me doubling my interconnects, we all can use more dough, but knowledge and experience count for something. The best amp is not necessarily the costliest. And then you add the variables that are out of our control and things can get complicated. That’s what makes this hobby fascinating. It’s not a sport for rich guys only.
On the question of “diminishing returns,” I do believe after a certain point, the improvements in a system become so minimal as to not justify tons of money being poured into it. (Unless money is no object to you.) I’m not speaking about a $5000 system compared to a $50,000 (or even a $25,000) system, but a $50,000 system compared to a $200,000+ system. Assuming musicality is the object, how much more MUSICAL enjoyment is there? After a certain point, it becomes not musical but technical improvement.
more heat than light here in this latest tussle around doug schroeder’s words
a poor choice of words, no doubt, that has elicited negative responses, folks feeling talked down to - even if doug’s intent is hardly to have that effect
reality is more expensive systems, done right, money well spent, will sound better than more modest ones ... no doubt about it, better is better...
... but the dimensions of ’betterness’ comes are many -- fill a big room? image like a real performance? produce natural timbers of real instruments and voices? resolve microdynamics to the n-th degree? sound pure and full at low volumes?
it is all in the relative prioritization - hard to have it all in an affordable system for the ’average hifi nerd’ wanting real good sound
to me it is what this board is all about -- learning about yourself, your tastes, your priorities, learning about equipment, its advances, SQ available at various price points, how different pieces dance well together and what doesn’t -- then you find your ideal spot on the value curve and build your system
... but the dimensions of ’betterness’ comes are many -- fill a big room? image like a real performance? produce natural timbers of real instruments and voices? resolve microdynamics to the n-th degree? sound pure and full at low volumes?
my 500 dollars used audio system with well chosen branded known quality name give me that to a relatively high degree, the days i have finish to embed it rightfully....
BUT a costly system will beat it, if it is also rightfully embedded, no doubt but to what degree? Not world apart sorry.... It comes a time where music is there....Better yes, world apart no....
It is here that diminushing returns money reality enter the stage...
All my rant was about how to embed a system, before upgrading anything if it is not necessary..... Embedding is the way to audiophile experience NOT upgrading, and this is valid for ANY systeM at any price....
Hello , im new in this forum. I need your help guys. Few days ago i bought swedish speakers. I cant find any information about this model. This is link to post from 2012 but its not many information there.
https://www.carlssonplanet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5479
Maybe somenoe know something abot this speakers. I need some specification and maybe price. Thanks for your help
Apologies given, apologies accepted. I get a bit gruff on the topic at times. That's usually an indicator for me to step away from the forum for a while.
I don’t have tons of experience, but I believe that a properly setted up and voiced system, with carefully selected gear (with great price to perfomance ratio and good synergy) can easily outperform another system costing many times more, but with all of those variables incorrect.
A very very good sounding system is very expensive as there are so many variables/parts to take care of (AC conditioning, source quality, amplification, speakers, subwoofers, acoustics, cabling, vibrations, etc). All of them are important and all of them are costly and time consuming. Not to mention the cost and time of the mistakes during the journey to this audio nirvana!
I agree that it is difficult to assemble a great sounding $5K system using new components, especially if analog is included. HOWEVER, my second system which is CD player based is outstanding using used equipment which cost me about $6.5K ($2K GroverHuffman Pharoah cabling, $1K modified Dynaco ST70 with $150 SR blue fuse/, $1K custom pre-amp, $300 modified Pioneer DVD DV5, <$2K Legacy Signature IIIs).
Another great sounding system is a Yamaha CR620 receiver ($300), Legacy Focus speakers ($2.5K), EAR Acute CD player ($2K) and GroverHuffman cabling (Pharoah $1.5K speaker/power cable). That's $6.3K, or substitute Legacy Signature IIIs (<$2K).
I've heard $500K to $1.5m systems which all sound inferior to my main system with an estimated cost of $75K (although the custom room was twice that cost).
Everything recorded has a defined audience, a place it is intended to sell and be heard. If the intended market is car FM radio or earbuds, you as th4e engineer and producer make it to sound as good as you can on those playback methods. The effort to target specific markets or groups of people and the systems they most often use is usually the reason it does NOT sound good on your expensive stereo system.
Contrary to modern belief, music is NOT created to hit some universal sound quality standard. There are no scientists running around checking things or somewhere you have to send your record for approval.
Katy Perry "Teenage Dream" (2012) was meant for kids listening on earbuds or the car, and it does sound great there. On your 150K stereo system at home not so much. You are now hearing what was done to make it sound good on $10 earbuds and FM radio. They have to boost the bass, boost the treble, compress the crap out of it so its louder than other songs, all which sounds positively awful at high resolution. This is a bit of over simplification, but you get the idea. An audiophile might say that Katy Perry record is awful, but Id say it did exactly what it was supposed to do- got enormous airplay and sold like hotcakes to kids on their ipods. An Audiophile would never have been the buyer of that record even IF it sounded amazing.
So I think blanket statements like "modern recordings are awful" is a complete myth. Recording is better now than it has ever been and the analog and digital technology applied is WAY ahead of where we were in the 80s or 90s. While it might be true there are some bad recordings, the recordings intended for listeners like me- how about Hiromi "Firefly"- are amazing records! That record was not possible 20 years ago. I think this "awful recording" comment points out that that recording was intended for someone other than you.
’You are now hearing what was done to make it sound good on $10 earbuds and FM radio. They have to boost the bass, boost the treble, compress the crap out of it so its louder than other songs, all which sounds positively awful at high resolution.’
’I think this "awful recording" comment points out that that recording was intended for someone other than you.’
Great post, spelling it out as clearly as anyone could ask for.
There’s been some talk here about a recent Rolling Stones reissue being hopelessly compressed, and that’s just another example of what you’re saying.
The fact is the vast majority of major recording stars don’t overly care about sound quality. Mick Jagger’s interest is primarily in revenue from sales, and he’s far from being alone.
As with the Katy Perry example, greater resolution will only let you hear better whatever was done to the track to make it sound like that. Like most Pop music, that’s a far cry from how it was intended to be listened to.
I’m guessing that nowadays commuters are now the major part of their market, and compression works well with all but the very best closed back or in-ear headphones.
Audiophiles are not their intended market or their target. To think otherwise is to seriously misunderstand what the music industry is all about.
Actually it’s difficult to name many major artists that have shown any interest at all in recording quality.
Maybe Dire Straits, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Steely Dan, Pink Floyd, Kate Bush and err... is that it?
they produce music carefully, with defined objectives targeting their intended audiences to drive sales
the issue or challenge for us who have our very high end gear is that much of that music is really not made to sound best played on our systems - we are simply not their target audience
Any audiophile who claims they can explain “the problem” for other audiophiles and tell you how to do it is being a goofball.
He is projecting his own experience, not diagnosing.
All this “you shouldn’t use coloured speakers because...” and “you shouldn’t use systems that are too resolving/accurate” and “X speaker is no good for Y music...”
It’s personal taste talking, not necessarily the reality for others.
Take any type of speaker, from the esl 57s to horns to dynamics, omnies, dipoles, bookshelf, full range, subs/no subs, coloured to accurate and you will find people happily living with those speakers for the majority of their audiophile life.
Some people change speakers or other gear a lot as is their want, others settle down for a long time with all sorts of different gear. The speaker or component that got “you” off the merrygoround likely isn’t the one for many other people and visa versa.
I have some gear that I know certain others used briefly in their system that I’ve loved in mine for 22 years. I’ve listened to speakers that others have settled down with very happily that I couldn’t live with for a day. And so it goes.
As much as some of us like to flatter ourselves as Super Experienced, the wisdom we have built over the years tends to be most relevant to ourselves and our tastes (and perhaps for those that share that taste). It’s not discovering The Secret Key Of Satisfaction for others.
As much as some of us like to flatter ourselves as Super Experienced, the wisdom we have built over the years tends to be most relevant to ourselves and our tastes (and perhaps for those that share that taste). It’s not discovering The Secret Key Of Satisfaction for others.
You are right speaking of taste and choices of gear....
But there exist simple practical facts which can tranform the experience with any gear....
How to embed a piece of electronic equipment in a relatively controlled mechanical, electrical and acoustical dimensions ?
This is all i learn along my way.... Others will suggest better ways to me that those one i created for myself, but these 3 embeddings are key and NOT secondary problems ....
For any choice of gear you are right....
Nevermind the gear, or forget upgrading before embedding anything right....
This is what i learn and say.... Very few really know this transformative truth and experience and experiments on all forums....They all speak of their last or future upgrades....Without knowing.....
Well, lets see. Mahgister acknowledged your point of different people having different preferences. He goes on to say this can be achieved with tweaks (embeddings) that are mechanical, electrical, and acoustic. His thesis is that these are key and not secondary problems.
Then, to be clear, he reiterates that for any one component you are right, and people choose by preference. But then says never mind the gear, embeddings matter more, do them first.
When he says few know this transformative truth, he's talking about me, who knows it. You, it seems, do not. Well he did say there are few of us.
@prof You need to have experienced true enlightenment first (bodhi or satori, in all seven factors) before you can hope to begin to understand the three embeddings. And as we all know, the absolutely most important things come in groups of three.
Except embeddings are necessary dimensions linked to the 3 fields where the gear is interconnected : vibration /resonance, general noise floor, and acoustic.....
These necessary dimensions are not " tweaks".....
A bunch of tweaks is not and never will be a method of listenings experiments to improve the controls over these 3 dimensions where any gear is immersed or embedded....
"tweaks" is a word for ready made brand costly device that are sold like secondary means to help the audio system....
It is not necessary to buy any tweaks.... It is necessary to listen and use ours ears....
Indeed, all we who are at the bottom of the mountain of enlightenment can do is look up with envy to those atop the mountain. To us, their enlightenment sounds like riddles...:-)
mahgister,
Ok, through your obscure method of writing, I can infer you were talking about tweaks. (Yes, all that resonance noise floor acoustic stuff are tweaks).
That's fine of course. If you re-read my post you'll see that it isn't a rant against tweaking or sharing experience. Far from it. I'm in audio forums because I do very much think we can share our experiences. I may share the taste of someone else, so what I like may work for someone else. And some "tweak" or (real) information about how to alter an audio system can certainly be useful information.
I was referencing the broader stance one often sees, which is a sort of know-it-all, or self-derived "wisdom" that makes assumptions about other audiophiles, like "audiophiles are continually upgrading because of X and I've diagnosed why and what the cure is." And "X speakers will not satisfy on Y music" etc.
Do you see the difference I mean to make between imperious pronouncements of that sort, vs sharing our experience and knowledge with our system building?
So an example might be:
I tried X tweak and it expanded the soundstage in my system.
Cool. I might want to try that too. Or not.
Vs
"I've used X tweaks and found benefits, so it's my position "audiophiles OUGHT to use those tweaks" or "audiophiles are really missing out if they haven't tweaked out their system in these methods" or "audiophiles are going to keep chasing their tails unless they do what I'm doing. The equipment and tweaks I use solve audiophile problems."
Any instance of that kind of stuff is poo-ppo, IMO. :-)
My rant is not about "tweaks" but about the necessity to put attention about the embeddings and how to embed the gear before replacing it or upgrade it....
Calling "embeddings controls" : "tweaks", reduce my concept from a listenings and experiments method to buying secondary artifacts ready made branded costly partial solutions....
I am more in the homemade low cost solutions ..... :)
mahgister, you seem teetering on the type of declarations I was talking about.
You’ve just told of the "necessity" for audiophiles to put attention to "embedding controls" (yeesh!).
Says who?
What "embeddings" must I employ?
There’s a lot of nutty ideas among audiophiles in regards to "vibration control" and "resonances" and "lowering noise floor," so I have no idea what you are advocating. Do I need to start trying cable risers, weights on components? Any in the long list of you-know-who’s system?No thanks. I really don’t need to pay attention to a bunch of that stuff.
Do you see the difference I mean to make between imperious pronouncements of that sort, vs sharing our experience and knowledge with our system building?
So an example might be:
I tried X tweak and it expanded the soundstage in my system.
Cool. I might want to try that too. Or not.
Vs
"I've used X tweaks and found benefits, so it's my position "audiophiles OUGHT to use those tweaks" or "audiophiles are really missing out if they haven't tweaked out their system in these methods" or "audiophiles are going to keep chasing their tails unless they do what I'm doing. The equipment and tweaks I use solve audiophile problems."
"the issue or challenge for us who have our very high end gear is that much of that music is really not made to sound best played on our systems - we are simply not their target audience
mass market vs niche..."
Unfortunately music production is a business driven by the wish to make money and not by any inherent aesthetic wish to produce the best sound quality possible.
If and when we do get exemplary recordings they are likely to be accidental in nature and not by design, nor are they usually to be found in the mainstream.
I have yet to hear any Rolling Stones record used in any show for demonstration purposes. Plenty of jazz, (it’s very often something jazzy), and plenty of well recorded but mostly obscure artists.
So perhaps the level of resolution each of us may find optimal is going to be largely down to our individual musical tastes and the choice of music we like to listen to.
Maybe show systems aren’t for pop.
Audiophiles who are into well recorded piano recitals might benefit from more resolution than those who are fans of the pop music charts.
It’s going to be a question of personal preference, but maybe the next time I go to a show I could take along a copy of Now That’s What I Call Music 105! and demand it be played back on the best systems at the show.
I’m sure that Justin Bieber, Rita Ora and Lady Gaga etc will all elicit a standing ovation from a room full of audiophiles.
Or get me thrown out.
As @prof said,
"As much as some of us like to flatter ourselves as Super Experienced, the wisdom we have built over the years tends to be most relevant to ourselves and our tastes (and perhaps for those that share that taste). It’s not discovering The Secret Key Of Satisfaction for others."
Perhaps that explains why I have currently stuck with my dual concentric Tannoy Berkeley speakers for so long.
Perhaps they might be the near optimal loudspeakers for standard pop music, especially that recorded in the UK between 1960 and 1980.
As for those ultra high resolution systems that can somehow still remain forgiving with poor recordings, well, I’m still looking.
@douglas_schroeder , I spent 45k on my TADs not too long ago and i’ve heard every kind of speaker in every price range. I know there is a speaker called the Tekton Moab which retails for 4.5k (1/10th the cost of my speakers) that beats the sht out of speakers that are priced around a 100k.
I know the Elac Adante floorstander that i bought on sale for 3k/pair beats the sht out of so many speakers that cost 10 to 20 times more....
You sound like a complete simpleton.
Get the following in your head.
"You can have a cranially challenged creature spend loads and loads of money on R&D for a very long time. He will still come up with a piece of sht. But, you can give a genius like Andrew Jones or Eric Alexander very little money and he will come up with a genius grade speaker"
Now, repeat after me...."you can..... repeat those statements 10 times.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
