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?
Mahgister, I’m not reading a book every time you reply lol, tl;dr.
Not sure which part of my post was confusing. I’ve been super up front on this board that when it comes to DAC’s, I consider the units with very high SINAD measurements to be technically superior to whatever flavor of the month tech AudioGoners are obsessing over. FOTM right now is old technology (R2R Ladder), which people seem to be choosing because the nature of that technology means that building an r2r ladder network that can resolve greater than 19-21bits of information becomes very cost prohibitive, and so when most models encounter bitrates higher than that, the additional info is truncated. From peoples reviews, that truncation can be graceful and sound pleasing, which is why manufacturers are even bothering to make new DACs with this design.
I’m not interested in using a tech like that for the same reason that I don’t want a tube power amp or preamp. It’s like adding a distortion pedal for a guitar amp, you’re purposefully adding noise.
because I want that piece of the chain to be brutally accurate. If I decide that I want to soften some hard edges after the fact, I’d rather do that with speakers or room treatments.
I am not sure to understand your point about the dac brutal accuracy measurements...
But the dac was for me the most difficult thing to buy....It is easy to buy very good used vintage amplifier and speakers for peanuts with some patience.... I had....But dacs are relatively contemporary device with great variable qualities and relatively not as well known like other piece of gear....And the scale of price is stunning for a good one....I was lucky to spot one with a total minimalistic design, a NOS one, tda 1543, Starting Point systems, with an internal battery, powered externally with an Ifipower... I paid it peanuts luckily new on Ebay...I would not and could not pay anyway for the engineering continuous research linked to 10,000 dollars dac.....
Many dac has a sound of their own....Generally their sound is dry or harsh for my ears, or clean and accurate for some.... But i prefer a dac that gives to each instrument his tonal timbre, not details, but his natural color....A cello is a cello....I dont want to hear details of cello first, but tonal accuracy of the timbre of the cello first.... For sure details and tonal accuracy are linked but it is not the same thing at all....When details are flowing in waving unity it is tonal accuracy no more details....
I own this S.P.S. dac and his characteristic is that he goes on with any changes in my system without revealing any limitations to me at all....It seems my dac does not exist at all...
The best characteristic for a dac is not existing by itself....i will never upgrade it....Why? i never lack details on any recording at all each times my audio system noise level is decreased, if my audio system is not too much vibrating and resonant, each times my increasing controls of the room gives to my audio system the space where details can be listen to, my dac goes on without showing ANY limitations....My room is not tweaked to compensate for my dac at all like you seems to want to....The many controls in my room are not use to correct my dac...They are use to reveal the potential of my audio system ....
( By the way the first time i listened to this dac i think he was good but lacking in details. But truly it was my audio system eclectrical and acoustical embeddings that was hiding the details....) :)
Then my dac really does not exist, i dont sense it at all by all means.... :)
I forget it totally....
However he must exist because i hear music.....
It is the best ever for me....
You dont want and you cannot upgrade something that is no more there..... :)
I think we’re all in agreement in here.. Resolution just for resolutions sake isn’t always the ultimate goal. That concept is actually built into my system, it’s why I personally go by the numbers/measurements for DACs, because I want that piece of the chain to be brutally accurate. If I decide that I want to soften some hard edges after the fact, I’d rather do that with speakers or room treatments.
I must admit that all my files ,the worst like the good(classical or jazz or acoustic) sound better than they sounded when played on my past not so good audio systems...
But there is difference between a bad recordings with a microphone for example and a bad mixings....
You mamas and papas it is more a bad mixing and then your point is right, a bad mixing is particularly unlistenable on a too good system...
A bad recording of a Scriabin sonata is another matter, and more listenable on a good audio system....
’But you seems to say that the more we improve the system less cd or files you have to listen to because they are too bad sounding...’
Not quite.
I’m merely saying, as Steve also said in his video, that beyond a certain point, an increase in resolution can often serve to make certain recordings sound worse.
Not unlistenable. Far from it. Just not as good as you might be used to hearing them on ’lesser’ systems.
Or maybe more appropriate systems?
In fact as I’m listening to my Mamas & the Papas CD I can very well hear the severe limitations of the recording. I still love the songs though.
If I was to use even more resolving loudspeakers than my Tannoy Berkeley’s I would only hear those bandwidth/resolution defects (caused by excessive Phil Spector-style bouncing down) even more clearly.
That’s the point. Certain recordings might sound better on less ambitious systems.
No way I’m giving up on listening to the Sex Pistols or Motorhead just because my system is too revealing for music that was never particularly designed to be played back on it.
Recordings are the unfortunate bottleneck after a certain performance point, not the equipment, and climbing the sonic ladder further will only serve to make that more obvious.
An audio system cannot be evaluated without a source recording, vinyl, cd or files playing.... There is many good one and many bad one....
But you seems to say that the more we improve the system less cd or files you have to listen to because they are too bad sounding...
I get your point...
But it is illogical to say that the best audio system in the world is charaterized by his " resolving" power, and on it at the end no cd or no files sound good...
You catch the absurdity?
The reason is that the best audio system in the world cannot be and is not charcterized by his "resolving" power like a microscope, but by his musical flexibility....
This musical rendering flexibility is reach not by the virtue of money cost invested in but first and foremost by a rightfull embedding of the mechanical, electrical, and acoustical dimensions where it seat...
In my audio system there is bad recordings and good one, but all sound better than ever....All is more musical.... I dont listen to recorded engineering sources only, i listen through my system house electrical grid and room acoustic the more musical rendition of some " bad recordings" by virtue of a system which is not only resolving but mainly musical because rightfully embed....
'My response was always the same, to take the focus wheel on the projector and back it off perfect focus just enough to blur the lines between each pixel, but not enough to make the picture look fuzzy overall. Customers were always satisfied, and with good reason, 35mm film in theaters doesn’t look like modern 4k video production. It stands to reason that poorly recorded or produced music may be more enjoyable on systems with less resolving power.'
Yes, it's very similar to the same approach to soft filtering as used by film makers and photographers for decades now.
Most of us do not want to see high resolution images of less than perfect looking actors and models in harsh light without make-up?
Instead most people tend to prefer to see only perfect looking, highly made up, well lit images in the highest resolution.
In audio we want our music recorded in the best way possible, but when it's not (99.9% of the time) a little soft filtering may help a little. That was Steve's point.
Some manufacturers like Harbeth have even openly said they don't want their domestic products to be as ruthlessly revealing as the ones they make for professional use.
Those so-called monitors tend to be the unforgiving 'warts and all' types. In fact it's their very ruthlessness that's often cited as the main reason to not to use pro audio products in a domestic setting, isn't it?
Too much resolution.
For audio playback to move forwards it's very hard to avoid the conclusion that we need better recordings.
Recordings are the unfortunate bottleneck after a certain performance point, not the equipment, and climbing the sonic ladder further will only serve to make that more obvious.
It stands to reason that poorly recorded or produced music may be more enjoyable on systems with less resolving power.
it is the reverse, if you like this bad recording very much... You want to "extract" all his wine juice with the bad vinegar.... A very good system will give you the 2....But you will always think Alas! it is a bad recording of a so beautiful music....
But it is more relaxing in a bad system....But who want a more relaxing but bad audio system sound no questions asked? It is like saying i like prostitutes, no love, no real emotions, only thing done.... :)
Myself i prefer to be in love with a way less beautiful girl than with the beautiful prostitute....His heart is my sound audio system....
In my car like with a prostitute i dont give a dam yes.... Then you are right on this count.... :)
You say " it stands to reason" but the world experience dont stand to reason at all..... :)
His analysis, and this thread, remind me of selling LCD projectors 15-20 years ago and having clients comment on the “screen door” effect that was apparent if the projector was perfectly focused. The person being Demo’d would inevitably be like “that’s annoying, can anything be done about it?!”
My response was always the same, to take the focus wheel on the projector and back it off perfect focus just enough to blur the lines between each pixel, but not enough to make the picture look fuzzy overall. Customers were always satisfied, and with good reason, 35mm film in theaters doesn’t look like modern 4k video production. It stands to reason that poorly recorded or produced music may be more enjoyable on systems with less resolving power.
If you believe all "new" music sounds bad it's your system that is at fault. "New" music demands a lot from your system that the "old" doesn't. In my opinion the average quality of recordings never been better than today. Guttenberg? Who listens to him? What does he play?
On a rightfully embed system everything sound better, badly recorded or not...
Resolving power is only one attribute of a good audio system and by itself in no way define Superior S.Q.
The idea that we must pay 100, 000 dollars or even 10,000, to enjoy hi-fi is a myth at best and a lie at worst...Especially if we buy used or vintage mythical good components and takes controls of their embeddings dimensions......
For most audio system between, 1000 bucks and 10,000 dollars the quality controls of the triple embeddings of the system define his working capability to deliver a musical great experience....It is even true for high priced one but less evident.... Upgrading an element before embedding rightfully the audio system is the way to the money pit linked to the without end upgrading pit by endless frustration....
When you cannot change without listening it till it ends most of your cd because they are so beautiful and musical now, you are there...
There will be no end to audio, because the good vinyl, or files or cd are there already, and many people will want to listen to them at their optimal S. Q. without the same gear than today but who gives a dam about the gear if the music is sublime ?
If you find that your system, as you increase its quality, makes that kind of music sound worse to you, then the idea that increased resolution of the system is responsible for that is seemingly the only logical conclusion. I get it. I don't doubt for a minute what you say you're hearing.
But, what I'm saying is that if you keep going on your journey toward a better and better system, then what you will find is that this sort of problem will in fact begin to go away - not get worse. If it always got worse, then there would be no such thing as the high end...Everyone would be complaining about it All the time. And they're not - capiche??
Not trying to dog you, just saying that this is not a permanent problem. Don't let your current findings restrict your willingness to experiment.
Either the Magnepans mentioned by Steve or the Quads that I heard are either not even good enough to play back mediocre recordings on - or they might just be too good, too revealing in showing up studio trickery that perhaps the monitors originally used in production didn't show up so ruthlessly.
On the Morrissey tracks I heard, various weird mixing desk / phasing effects could be heard that didn't seem to stand out with all the other speakers I have used.
For me, it's an important issue because 95% of my listening includes popular music recorded between 1940 and 1990.
At what point in the hi-fi resolution chain does the music of the Beatles, the Kinks, Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, Bruce Springsteen, Louis Armstrong, Elvis Presley, the Incredible String Band, the Doors, the Velvet Underground, the Sex Pistols, the Smiths, the Pogues, U2, the Who, Nat King Cole, Frank Sinatra, Doris Day, Peggy Lee, Judy Garland, the Mamas and the Pappas, Leonard Cohen, Cat Stevens, Buddy Holly, Paul Simon etc (not to mention the entire UK charts from roughly the same period) all start to sound worse?
Then there's the additional question of why do audio shows so heavily favour well recorded jazz and the like?
Why do they shy away from the stuff that 99% of the world's population actually listen to?
He's also into increasing his Youtube subscriber base, and the majority of his listeners are probably in the $5k-$20K range, so his topics may be tailored to gather the most listeners on the bell curve. He wants you to relate to his site--I like him.
The Quads were novel cutting edge, in their day. Old Quads now are horribly compromised, utterly incapable of handling today's music, as are most HiFi speakers. When you hear the "hash" of it, you know the system is not that good, and/or was poorly set up. Superior systems play all music superbly.
'Perfect reproduction' will purportedly occur when the signal can be routed directly into your cortex of your brain.,,,
...and I suspect will just engender a whole new level of arguements over what methods and means to do so and what one experiences....
Any given subject and the way it's experienced will always be a source of 'discussion'.....human nature will be what it is for the forseeable future...
"The example of pop music on Magnepans is a classic example of wrong speaker for a particular kind of recording."
I've had no luck with electrostatics after unsuccessfully first owning a restored pair of Quad ESL57s and then getting to hear the Quad 989s playing back a Morrissey CD and making a right hash of it.
'You are the Quarry' just sounded plain wrong. I cannot believe Jerry Finn (producer) or Morrissey himself intended it to sound the way it did on the Quads.
Yet I know the Quads are good loudspeakers, virtually everyone says so, but could it be they're just too revealing for most pop?
As you say, maybe they're also a 'classic example of wrong speaker for a particular kind of recording.'
This is a hobby centered around an art form. A form of personal entertainment and inspiration, not just the musical product of the hobby, but the mechanics and theories too. It engages the mind on many levels - the intellectual, the emotional, sensual, spiritual and physical planes. It is a soulful experience intended to produce FUN, not vanquish, not competition, not judgement. Takes anything too seriously and it becomes an odious obsession distorting both mind and soul.
After all, the reproduction of music is the inducement an intentional hallucination, an illusion for there is no band inside the box in front of you, only some parts the wiggle appropriately.
Please remember that the word music (mousike (Greek); "art of the Muses") come from the nine daughters of Zeus and Memory, the sources of human inspiration. Music is an art form that uses physics as a tool to spread its healing and rejuvenating powers.
Good luck fellow travelers, don't let the bed bugs bite as they say.
Then you're not doing it right. Don't blame the recordings. My system is so revealing no two recordings sound the same. The differences between them all is clear and easy to hear. They are all enjoyable.
Sure, lower your standards enough and everything sounds just peachy.
funny (and maybe) a little sad when folks on the forum tell others what and how to enjoy - we shouldn’t be so heavy handed, best to maintain some modesty - the beauty and journey of this pursuit is to learn and acquire what sounds good for each of us!
a system can certainly be high resolution and also enjoyable to listen to... all things equal, higher res is better than lower res, but often higher res comes at the expense of some other tonal tradeoff, especially in more budget oriented systems
the difficulty is that different recordings are mixed and mastered hot/cool, with/without spatial cues, overdubbed to death vs simple honest mic-ing
kinda makes the case for old school tone controls, loudness button for low level listening etc etc
you can enjoy it all, played all the same on the same system... just a function of what an individual learns to enjoy (or call ’enjoyable’)
his other points aside, i feel guttenberg certainly calls it right that high res systems that have super revealing treble can often become grating when playing modern (or even 90’s) super hot mixed pop albums... i guess those are still enjoyable if you turn down the volume enough LOL
I’ve already posted a link to this article elsewhere, but- it seems relevant here, as well (Again: notwithstanding opinions on Robert Harley, Martin-Logan, Constellation, TAS, the term, "Hi-Fi, etc): http://www.enjoythemusic.com/tas/261/editorial.htm It simply reflects my understanding and definition (since 1964) of, "resolution".
My system is most certainly revealing, call it high-resolution if you will. There is a ton of music I own that is certainly not the best quality in recording and/or production (mixing, mastering, plating, pressing, vinyl quality). However, I really enjoy that music so I just keep the volume a little lower and it sounds pretty good, just not great. But again, the music is great and I still enjoy the listening session, even on a high-resolution system. Last night I played a number of records (hey, it was Saturday night so of course I had a nice long listening session!) and was all over the place in the type of music and the sound quality. This is but one example; Yes, 'The Yes Album' is not the best in sound quality but is still pretty good so I played it at an appreciable volume but not terribly loud. What a wonderful album that is and I thoroughly enjoyed every minute. On a couple of songs I found it to be a little brash so, even though at a moderate volume level, I went back a couple of clicks and it smoothed out a bit more. Up next, Jennifer Warnes, 'Famous Blue Raincoat' (numbered limited edition, reissue by Impex, from Jennifer's private analogue tape). Turn up the volume on that one. Holy crap, is that a fine production quality and definitely of excellent music, to boot. Holographic, deep, about as good as it gets in every respect. The bottom line is that I like to enjoy it all and most definitely prefer a higher-end and very revealing audio system. I simply treat the volume control with a little regard when playing those not-so-great recordings and let 'er rip on those fabulous sounding recordings. Great music is a way of life, and for me, so too is a great audio system.
Listening further into bad recordings is not enjoyable IME — the warts just get easier to hear. Yes, there aresomegood pop recordings, but sadly not many. When I want to listen to poorly-recorded music I like, I just fire up my Bluetooth speaker or earbuds as I can more easily just enjoy it for what it’s worth without feeling like I’m chewing on tinfoil. Anyway, that’s how I deal with it.
Then you're not doing it right. Don't blame the recordings. My system is so revealing no two recordings sound the same. The differences between them all is clear and easy to hear. They are all enjoyable.
When Michael was here he had me play Fleetwood Mac Rumours on the 45 reissue. He said, "That's gonna be hard to beat." Then I put on my White Hot Stamper. He said night and day.
That's what its like when you're doing it right. When you really are revealing, and not whatever non-revealing crap audiophiles like to call revealing. That's one way you know your system is genuinely truly revealing: everything sounds really good- and the really good ones even more so.
Listening further into bad recordings is not enjoyable IME — the warts just get easier to hear. Yes, there are some good pop recordings, but sadly not many. When I want to listen to poorly-recorded music I like, I just fire up my Bluetooth speaker or earbuds as I can more easily just enjoy it for what it’s worth without feeling like I’m chewing on tinfoil. Anyway, that’s how I deal with it.
Huh? Some of my favorite music is on crappy recordings. A good system just allows you to hear further into the recording be it bad or good. Contrary to some opinion here, there are some excellently recorded popular records. Many of them are trying to give you a different experience than being at a live recording. It is part of the art form. Amused to Death (Roger Waters) is an example. It is really a mater of priorities and how much you are willing to spend. You can build a system for about $120,000 that is very close if not SOTA. Spending more than that will not get you much farther. You might call that the point of diminishing returns. As a young audiophile you start with what you can afford and over time you evolve your system until you get where you are happy. That point does exist. If you wind up with piles of money and want to buy $145,000 amplifiers, well why not? Are they worth that much? Hell no, but if they make you happy why not? Most of us can't go that far but trust me on this, you don't have to. It is much harder to build a SOTA system on short money and I have heard some very expensive not so hot sounding systems. Does the quality of an individual recording mean anything? Not if you like the music. There are loads of audiophile "candy." Super recordings of bad music. You can buy those if you want your system to sound good. Right now I am listening to a half speed mastered version of The Captain and Me. The best of both worlds:)
Interesting Steve worked at SBS. Did not know that. He reviewed Ohm Walsh speakers recently and was very impressed. The time I went to Sound By Singer and mentioned I owned Ohm Walsh speakers the guy there totally dissed them. I do not think it was him but not sure.
I watched the video and practically, I think he nailed it pretty well. The example of pop music on Magnepans is a classic example of wrong speaker for a particular kind of recording. Been there, done that. But that is not strictly a case of too high performance for the genre. The issue is also lack of performance regarding large scale dynamics with planars. You will hear the music but probably seldom feel it.
@jjss49 I think I might buy all that. However nicely presented or laid out at corporate level it looks, by the time you get down to street level it's generally more of ceaseless knife fight, everybody looking for their advantage. But, that's capitalism.
...and I know I would hate to have to wait in line for my daily allotment of 'art' from the state. ;)
pretty much everybody has an angle, a schtick to play the angle
youtubers want views, so they put up click bait and say stimulating/controversial things
high end audio salespeople seek big fish, won’t waste time with tire kickers and peons
even if folks have good intentions (or no mal-intentions), the profit move overrides and the behavior, actions and attitudes follow suit (not to mention other biases towards sloth, self aggrandisement, etc etc)
way of the world folks... capitalist society... human nature... need to eat, so need to hunt and kill - some get angry, disillusioned, jaded in the process, life is hard for most
some other folks are lucky, plenty of money gotten somehow, so kick back, enjoy, observe, try to be neutral, without agenda -- but even some in this position are out for themselves (...more is better, greed is good, keep score on money in bank... etc etc)
but most aren’t in that position - especially in ’passion driven’ industries like fashion, cars, music, watches, movies, tv - these are populated mostly by hungry folks trying to scrape by to the next week, much less build a nest egg
My remedy for hearing a crappy recording in high def is to put the Andrew Sisters on the Victrola (yes, original 1917) and listen to "Take the A Train".
When that's finished I put Manhattan Transfer "Take the A Train" on the main rig and it never fails to kick my butt down the block.
@roberjerman I too have been to Sound by Singer several times in that same time-frame. First time saw the man himself, Andy Singer, and he let me wander a tiny bit, then asked what I was going to buy. I replied that I don't see any system playing, store was dead quiet. That was the end of that visit. Went back another time and there happened to be several "real" customers in there and music playing in different rooms. Walked into a room and the customer greeted me! So I sat down and listened, it was the best system I had heard up until then. I'm assuming the sales person didn't want to act like a turd and tell me to get lost in front of the customer. Subsequent visits ended same as the first. Can't blame Steve for the attitude, it all flows down from the top, and that was their shtick.
Just because one cannot afford something does not mean it is overpriced.
Sound by Singer experience might have been different at different times, I guess depending on who the salesperson there was at the moment. I stepped in a number of times and was allowed to browse and listen with no intention to buy. When I came to buy something, the man told me to look at it through the window on the door of the listening room.
We will never have Charlie Parker (born 100 years ago this month) recorded in stereo. But listening to him in mono on my modest (compared to today's big-buck systems) vintage gear is certainly satisfying!
To spenav - "Our current gears will be collectors’ items and we all will be old men reminiscing about the past on some forum". You just summed up my current experience, reminiscing on Audiokarma.
Well mixed and mastered music on a competent system sounds better than poorly recorded music on a summit-fi system. But the root problem is not equipment that is too good, it is recordings that are too poor. Trying to make poorly recorded music sound good by "improving" your equipment is futile. Nonetheless, my answer is not to dumb down my system but to use more discretion in what recordings I purchase and spend my time with. Luckily, lossless streaming services are good for deciding what music I want to buy and what music I want to pass on. I find that some artists know and consistently demand good recordings while others are just pushing crap out to the unlearned masses. A true artist is particular about how their material is presented.
No, he was dressed casually, as was I. Wish I could have had at least a brief listen to the Sound Lab RS-1's! Maybe if I walked in wearing a Brioni suit ...
That's the attitude here at Definitive. Their extra sensory abilities alert them to Goolag, Microserf and Amoralzoners, and if you're not readily identifiable as someone susceptible to authoritative techno jargon with a Street of Dreams McMansion to fill with overpriced Wilson, AT and D'Agostino good luck getting their attention.
I wonder, was Steve into goofy shirts and glasses at Singer? Or was that something he cooked up for the YT?
Steve Guttenberg worked at Sound By Singer in NYC, touting four and five-figure components. I only visited that store once back in the '80s to buy the latest copy of The Absolute Sound. Since I only wanted the magazine he treated me like a peon. I was the only customer at that moment. I saw and commented on a nice pair of Sound Lab RS-1 ESLs - but no invitation to stay and listen to them!
Coming to expect (pursue) "high resolution" first above other considerations, only to discover that it reveals other flaws in the system has nothing to do with the high end and, in and of itself, can only represent intermediate levels of system building experience or accomplishment. Sooner or later, the rest of the high-end traits will have to be attained if high resolution is not to have its obvious drawbacks.
Was it the way "high resolution", as an industry buzzword, was originally marketed to people just getting started that caused the problem, or were the uninitiated, unconsciously desperate to save money, all-too-willing to delude themselves into thinking it to be the holy-grail shortcut from the start??
His videos always leave me disappointed, and wondering if he really believes his own BS or is he just okay with selling his audience short. Because every time he gets the chance to tell people the truth he instead panders to their vanity, fear and ignorance.
Revealing is nothing like what he is talking about, which is bias, hype and coloration. He's saying its actually good to make your system sound bad, just as long as it sounds good to you with certain music.
This is exactly the crap you'd feed someone if you want to sell them stuff, but its terrible advice if you're truly intent on helping someone build a satisfying system.
There's no such thing as a satisfying system that works the way he describes. Anything like this is colored, plain and simple. And so whatever it sounds good with is at the expense of making other stuff sound bad. That's literally his advice.
So what happens is you buy something like that and you're so happy for a while, but only a while, because systems like that are boring, uninteresting, and you inevitably tire of what you once found exciting, and eventually so sick of it you just have to get something, anything else.
This site is chock full of posts every week of people asking that very question, they want to get some speaker, amp or whatever and always it "I listen to this" or "I listen to that" or sometimes even "I listen to this, that and the other thing" but always as if that matters. When what really matters is finding what makes everything sound equally good.
Which he says cannot be done. Which is strange, since I just bought Moabs and practically the first thing I say is everything sounds good on them. Not just good, but fabulous. When everything fabulous is to be had for under $5k by what stretch of the imagination is it impossible?
One thing he got right, sort of, is that with entry level and mid-fi gear, and even to a certain extent high end, when push comes to shove its better to err on the side of smooth vs detailed. But not by much, and its a total judgment call. Which is why he only sort of got it right, because he just said smooth.
Oh well. I'm sure he knows his audience better than I do.
Could it be possible that the future of high end audio be totally different in a decade or so? Maybe some day soon, nobody will be spinning discs anymore . All of your music will be either in the cloud or on some hard drive. Your cell phone will have a great DAC built in and your speakers will be hung on your wall, where DSP technology will make it sound great. Our current gears will be collectors’ items and we all will be old men reminiscing about the past on some forum or telling our grand children how our amplifiers could heat up our listening room during the winter. Who knows?
I gave up years ago trying to ever improve. It got to the point where I was listening to equipment and not the music. I could tell you the pieces and parts of a song but not the melody. It was totally less than satisfying. I sold all my stuff and went much simpler. I probably dropped back to 80%, but the enjoyment factor shot to 100+! I just turn my kit on and listen, it’s really made a big difference for me.
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.
