Most of us here cannot afford six figure prices for each component (assuming that will bring the best sound.) So how far do we want to go to improve our systems? There are always bigger fish. When does it stop? It stops when we say it stops, when our gear brings us satisfaction. To constantly strive for better sound is an endless quest, not necessarily based on the quality of our set but on our personality.
My answer will be because we refuse or do not understand why we must learn minimal basic acoustics concepts and how experimenting with them ...
Thank you!
The only problem I see with your argument is that there are people who are never done with their acoustic treatments, too.
Put another way -- I think you’re right that too many people ignore acoustics and focus on gear. But there are people who cannot stop treating their room and that amounts to exactly the same endless chase. So, it's not wrong but it's not sufficient for the more general malady.
Good enough is live music. If you don’t want that then this is not your hobby. Just be happy find something else. It takes huge investment to get close to that. But as an audio file, it’s even better than that, because we also listen for pleasure so things are not shaped accurately. They are shaped more for listening pleasure.
if I put you in a race car, you’re not gonna like driving it! if I put you in a Bentley you’re going to like it a lot more, but that’s what it equates to, in terms of costs.
The Music Direct catalog that comes every year has replaced the Sears catalog of my youth. There is always something in there that piques my interest. And then I dream....
Not at all , it is the learning process which is interesting...
But some think that buying 40 amplifiers to test them is the basic learning; some others as me look for a good enough amplifier and begin to learn how to embed it electrically, mechanically and acoustically ...
The journey has a beginning and an end : music listenings ...Not consumerism and the fun of buying the new kid on the block...
Some drive a car they contributed to design and some others collect 50 cars in a garage ...It is not the same hobby ...Some buy a new car each year...
dean_palmer: The problem with having and experiencing the nicer things in life is that everything else starts to become boring, obsolete, and pleasureless, and yes, sometimes it doesn’t add anything to your life but takes away from some of the simple pleasures we once enjoyed, and thus the endless quest for more.
The only problem I see with your argument is that there are people who are never done with their acoustic treatments, too.
You cannot put consumerism obsession to buy the last top audio design on the same footing than acoustics..
😊
There is an end in acoustic because acoustic unlike a piece of gear is not a new panel, it is a room designing process made for a specific speakers/room relation ...The end of this process is programmed by acoustic principle application in some order and is finite ..
Many audiophiles buy new pieces of gear one after the other for decades but where is the audio thread where an audiophile says it treated his room and put some controls on it for decades and decades and is never satisfied ?😁 indicate me one?
Asking the question is realizing the absurdity to compare consumerism and basic applied acoustics controls...
At worst with no money , a nut head as me can do it for a year full time yes to learn about acoustic and make impractical experiments as i did with a grid of 100 tuned resonators, but even this crackpot learning process ended after a year.. And now after loosing my acoustic room in a new house, it takes me a few months to finalize my acoustic smaller room...
Acoustics is an applied art and craft based on science , buying pieces of gear to reach acoustic satisfaction is as you described it better than me a work of an obsessed mind who had not discovered yet how to liberate himself and satisfy himself : he ignore acoustics basic keys about hearing ,then he focus on price tag gear collecting ..
Now as an example :
Listen to this astonishing video about the greek audiophile society...
How many of these very creative audiophiles so crafty they were, not passive consumers, even if they are obsessed by good sound, how many are focussing on the acoustics instead of the mechanical, electrical aspect of the gear pieces they all designed completely or in part ?
My point is unlike gear design perfectionism craftmanship in the best case, or unlike gear design collection obsession in the worst case , acoustics controls has an end and is the more important key , not the stability of a turntable , or the source of the electrical alimentation , not the tube amplifiers design , so important they could be , and they are indeed ; but acoustic in my experience outclass anything else in basic and even in ultimate improvement ... The only exception is poor gear component with no synergy for sure ... but designing a room for audio obey a finite set of simple rules and it has a end because it serves specific ears and specific gear choices...The system must has been chosen BEFORE room acoustics choices for best result ...Here some of these audiophiles are obssesed and bought 50 amplifiers in one year never thinking about room acoustic ..😊
If the queston is not based on reality and acoustics parameters and acoustic satisfaction ..
Then the question is a question about psychology...
Easy to answer...
There are normal people happy with what they have so imperfect it is and they listen music ..
There is people obsessed by sound who are never satisfied because they never look at the right place to be satisfied: acoustics basic .. Instead their pleasure is to buy without end the gear ...
There is a few like me completely happy to listen music in a mechanically , electrically and acoustically well embedded basically good modest system /room who has reached the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold or very costly well embedded system/room as Mike Lavigne who had reach the maximal acoustical satisfaction threshold ...Because we learned how to do it ...
Three groups ...No more ...
The question is not based on an objective reality, but how good enough it is for YOU
Doesn’t it essentially depend on both how much music reproduction means to us in conjunction w/ the number of 0’s in our bank account?
I’d argue it also depends up now much MUSIC means to us, as opposed to its reproduction. Some guys seem to only be capable of enjoying music unless it’s presented optimally. There’s been an exhibit of Van Gogh works in Sacramento, which involves projecting them on museum walls much larger than life, so attendees feel they’re "inside" the paintings. This suggests a widespread dulling of aesthetic sensitivity. Nothing reaches people unless they experience the "IMax’ version. If you are wealthy, this is not necessarily an issue. But if you’re not, I’d suggest it’s advantageous to have/cultivate a capacity for appreciating art, first and foremost, which has nothing to do with gear. Then, you appreciate a more refined presentation as a luxury rather than a requirement.
My 'good enuf' was when I had to accept the fact (OCD or not) that I had probably optimized the only room I had which would accomodate my audio habits. Since I designed my house I felt I was stuck with it, and I am. But I'm happy. :-)
I just reached mine yesterday adding a second sub to my stand mounted integrated amp driven CD player. I started when I was 20 now 75.
Now I gotta focus on increasing my hearing range, which begs the question what is listening thru hearing aids like?
"More than 40% of people over 70 have difficulty hearing, compared to around 5% of people under 40. On average, the hearing threshold worsens by one decibel every year after the age of 50."
I'm confronted with this question often; but my answer is hopefully never. When that day comes, I'm no longer interested in audio. But that doesn't mean I run out and buy more or different stuff. I tweak my room, move my speakers, reconfigure my racks, reorganize my records and CDs, check that my stuff has the latest firmware, and on and on.
To me the fun is in engaging with the environment and the equipment. May I never be fully satisfied.
Some people here double down as if it was a game and ask and even thanks for never being satisfied ,😁 is it not incredible ?
It is like in front of a rational task to do and asking to do the same mistakes without end ...
Myself i asked few years ago BEFORE my audio journey to reach the shore of acoustical satisfaction ... i did it as said my motto : minimal acoustical satisfaction at low cost ...
You know why ?
You cannot own thousand and thousand of albums and own a 100,000 bucks system at the same time and thousand of books if you are not "Dr." Bill Gates
I listen music with my gear not the reverse ...
And what is fun in this journey is not buying 50 amplifiers etc but to learn acoustic and learn the way to embed any system .. When the basic is done your audio journey is over ... Repeating the same mistakes without understanding anything is madness ... Or you are a billionnaire collecting high cost gear instead of music and books ...
Anybody with big money anyway know that room acoustic done by a pro acoustican designer cost more than a high end system .. Learn basic and do it yourself, even imperfectly done it will be amazing for S. Q. and as learnings ... And you will reach the shore of the minimal acoustic satisfaction which is bliss with music not a stop gap as obsessive collectors will point out ...
I have stopped thinking of things as good and bad. I just try to enjoy. All the speakers are good. All the amps sound good. Just different flavors of good. Now it is just trying different things and enjoying the sound of a different amp or looking for details in the music, or finding new tracks.
For me, "good enough" is when a system covers at least most of the full frequency range, with realistic soundstaging, imaging, dynamics and transparency and no obvious sonic flaws. When I close my eyes it captures 90% or more of the live-music experience.
At a certain point the quality of the recordings that we enjoy is more of a limitation than our gear or maybe even our listening rooms. I think a lot of pro recording gear, especially in times past, isn't of as high quality as audiophile gear.
I consider my current system good enough. It's mainly reading forums like this one that even makes me consider upgrading.
Many human species are spoiled by civilization and have buried the natural sense of enough. Even successful bank robbers get busted, because they don't turn on that quality sense.
Good enough for what? Good enough to end my curiosity about what else might be possible - never. Good enough to bring me a lot of listening pleasure in my den - I can pick up everything I need for under $1000 at BestBuy. Good enough that I’d rather have it than not have anything? A pair of headphones for under $20 and my phone.
Curiosity is mostly what keeps me going. I haven’t found a lot of satisfaction in just upping the quality to stratospheric levels on various components. I’ve found more from trying unorthodox listening arrangements and speaker configurations. This kind of experimenting can get expensive, and the creations that don’t work well can’t be taken back, and don’t have much used market value. I consider myself lucky if I can give the stuff away. Fortunately I’ve found that is always the case, so nothing so far has been so bad as to end up at the dump - except for components that I've inadvertently damaged beyond repair.
“that criteria can be settled in advance, with examples marching in afterwards to be judged like contestants in a beauty contest”
The question is not based on an objective reality, but how good enough it is for YOU?
It's not a question of objective (read: intersubjective) reality or how good it is for you. The obstacle to which I'm referring applies equally to the individual. It's about the process of deciding questions of taste, and when criteria are settled in advance the problems manifest -- for groups but also for individuals. Objectivity has nothing to do with the objection.
There is an end in acoustic because acoustic unlike a piece of gear is not a new panel, it is a room designing process made for a specific speakers/room relation ...The end of this process is programmed by acoustic principle application in some order and is finite
I guess I have come across audiophiles who are not obsessed with gear but with adjusting the acoustics - designing and then re-designing the room. Unlike you, they don’t see an "end point" as you describe it because they hear differences in how they arrange the diffusers, absorbers, etc.
They do not believe that there is a principled, objective, finite end to acoustic treatment. It is not consumerism. The measurements do not end the question for them. (They remind me that mathematicians argue, too.)
Acoustic treatment -- endless quest.
Gear -- endless question.
For these people, your consumerism argument about gear is very convincing. But it does not end their quest for perfect and ultimate acoustics.
The misunderstanding about my point on the small number of steps in room acoustic control of the ears/speakers/room relation comes in your post because you conflate an idealized infinite asymptotic progression toward non existing perfection ( save in audiophile neurosis) with an OPTIMAL finite process in applied physical acoustics ...
And you cannot confuse the goal of theoretical acoustics with audiophile room acoustics application ... It is not because we dont understand hearing completely that we cannot design an optimal acceptable acoustic speakers/room for ourselves ...Save in neurosis obsession case ...
It is so true that actually it is very simple to have an OPTIMAL acoustic experience :
--First we pick the right speakers for our needs and room dimensions ...
--Second we optimize the speakers/room relation...
--Third we buy the BACCH filters of Dr. Choueiri ..
None of this three steps is an indefinite Sisyphean walk ...
And giving as an example the anecdote concerning people moving panels, rugs, and devices in a room without end in a search for perfection is as you know describing a mental disease at worst or at best ignorance of acoustic, then with no sane thinking relation with applied acoustics .. Save in a new Borges Novelette about someone obsessed in his small room with the infinitude of sound and the captivity of human in a small finite tonal jail and who deseperately trying to escape madness enter into madness by the act of fleeing and moving the reflecting and absorbing waves by displacing all the objects of his room without end ...Thinking about it , this pastiche of Borges could be interesting to write ...😊
«Sometimes the best way to escape madness is not fleeing madness but simply facing it without doing anything -- Anonymus mad asylum runaway patient 🤡
I guess I have come across audiophiles who are not obsessed with gear but with adjusting the acoustics - designing and then re-designing the room. Unlike you, they don’t see an "end point" as you describe it because they hear differences in how they arrange the diffusers, absorbers, etc.
They do not believe that there is a principled, objective, finite end to acoustic treatment. It is not consumerism. The measurements do not end the question for them. (They remind me that mathematicians argue, too.)
Acoustic treatment -- endless quest.
Gear -- endless question.
For these people, your consumerism argument about gear is very convincing. But it does not end their quest for perfect and ultimate acoustics.
Good enough is when you are emotionally involved with the music.
^^^ This. @markalarsenI actually am looking to downgrade. I'm sure there are speakers out there that costs half the price SabrinaX and still sound as good or even better. The hunt is on.
OP-can’t you ask this same question for most things in life? How about a house? Is $300k for a house good enough or is the $800k house better? How about cars/trucks? Do you like a cheap Sentra or want to move up the chain to a Porsche? Both will get you to work, but there is a definite difference in quality.
Same can be said about audio. You can buy a cheap system and think it’s the best thing out there. But we all know that spending more money (it can be a few thousand to tens of thousands) on the finer things in life will get you something better than going cheap.
For sure in a general way of speaking you are right ...
The problem with this analogy though is that an audio system is not a car or a watch ...It is not ready to go working right out of the box...
The audio system exist and work optimally or not at all in an acoustic environment , nevermind the high quality of his design and very high price ...
If you control the acoustic relation of the system and the room you will reach a very interesting level of acoustic experience and satisfaction ... if not it will be mediocre compared to the real potential of the gear you just bought ...
Suppose the system is a car F1, without a specialized road( room acoustics) you will never be able to drive the F1 to his real potential in a non paved road or even on an usually bumping ordinary road...
Acoustic matter at least as much as the gear design ,and because we are not billionnaire, acoustic knowledge matter more than the gear especially for low cost gear, because it is preposterous to buy a 100,000 bucks speakers for a living room , a non dedicated room ... ...
But no designer of dac , or amplifier or speakers will dare to spoke this truth because they want to sell at all cost ...
Suppose you just bought 20,000 bucks for speakers or dac or amplifier and ask the seller if these piece of gear will work optimally in your living room right out of the box , guess what the sellers will tell you ? Yes for sure ...😊
Do you think he will said to you the truth about dedicated acoustic room andmechanical vibrations control and resonance and the necessary control of the noise floor level of the electrical grid of the house/room/gear ?
Any dude who need to sell a F1 will conveniently forget to say to a teen with money that no normal road are adapted to this car and it will be unpractical to use it on average road ...
It is the same with any very costly piece of gear ...We must learn basic acoustics...
«You are an idiot but it is not my business»-- Groucho Marx seller 🤓
Same can be said about audio. You can buy a cheap system and think it’s the best thing out there. But we all know that spending more money (it can be a few thousand to tens of thousands) on the finer things in life will get you something better than going cheap.
Last year, I audited a dude’s 600k-ish priced rig. He was playing some of the typical, "safe" crappy audiophile tracks to show off his rig, as one might expect. The minute my playlist intervened, his rig started to sink and reveal that it was lierally another lousy rig filled with audio jewelry fluff (looks good, of course). I have a few different rigs at different price tags but, even one of my rigs that cost 20 times less beats it sonically.
So, if you audit different cost no object or very competently setup rigs and realize that a) your rig can keep up or b) give other rigs the beatdown, you know it is "good enough". On the same note....only knowledge (and some cash, of course) can save you from being robbed constantly, set you free.
If you don’t have a endless wallet, only buy gear made by very very smart dudes. Never buy gear made by dumb dudes. Only smart dude can give you things even at affordable prices that a dumb dude can never achieve at endless cost.
Dumb people value price tags over knowledge ... Well said...
I did not distinguish now between system on the basis of price tags because i experimented heavily with acoustics for one year full time ...( i am retired for sure) ...
I distinguish for very lost cost well embedded system ( optimal balance between all acoustic perceived factors at play) minimal acoustical balance and satisfaction threshold, and for very high cost system the maximal acoustical balance and satisfaction threshold... But minimal as maximal threshold are, the two of them, so different they can be, they are satisfying in their own way ...
Nevermind the price , acoustic , electrical and mechanical working controls and synergy between pieces matter the most ...
My own 1000 bucks well embedded system made me smile at " better one" certainly at astronomical higher price but at the condition that they are well embedded to begin with ...
Acoustics principles rules the gear not the reverse...
I wish you a merry christmas for you and your familiy ...🎄
Last year, I audited a dude’s 600k-ish priced rig. He was playing some of the typical, "safe" crappy audiophile tracks to show off his rig, as one might expect. The minute my playlist intervened, his rig started to sink and reveal that it was lierally another lousy rig filled with audio jewelry fluff (looks good, of course). I have a few different rigs at different price tags but, even one of my rigs that cost 20 times less beats it sonically.
So, if you audit different cost no object or very competently setup rigs and realize that a) your rig can keep up or b) give other rigs the beatdown, you know it is "good enough". On the same note....only knowledge (and some cash, of course) can save you from being robbed constantly, set you free.
If you don’t have a endless wallet, only buy gear made by very very smart dudes. Never buy gear from dumb dudes. Only smart dude can give you things even at affordable prices that a dumb dude can never achieve at endless cost.
its "good enough" when I can simply sit, listen to music, and enjoy it.
When I was in the gear-hunt phase, over a few decades and more, I think my objective then was more about trying and comparing different components. And I realize today - this phase was less involved in listening to music, and more more about new learning around how different level of qualities of gear can sound.
Kinda depends on what headspace you are in at the moment too. Eventually got burned out and learned to enjoy more than a few components that sound "good enough". After this point, any new change just became "different" and not necessarily better. Had to kinda stop there. Back to listening to music now :)
I think "good enough" has to have some connection with gear quality and also with gear prices. While there's a good reason to be somewhat skeptical over price tags, I believe there is a correlation between price and performance. Everything matters -- parts, design, etc. Gear matters -- gear creates sound and so the notion that it's somehow opposed to acoustics creates a false dichotomy. The fact that there are some who are into very expensive gear or into audio jewelry does not prevent the simultaneous acknowledgement that better gear sounds better if also accompanied by appropriate room acoustics, etc.
Here is a true story from the web. A guy has two systems, one cost a million dollars.(the speakers being the most expensive pieces).and the other is a modest system. Groups of people heard both and most everyone liked the sound of the modest system suggesting the million-dollar system was more analytical, and not as musical.
No need for blind test (with youtube) except for statistical confirmation of this simple fact you can experience eyes opened easily in many case of unbalanced costlier system in a bad room ...😊
it is precisely a thread of this audiophiles pursuit of all the best amplifiers and speakers coupling of high end products that convince me many years ago here , that i must awake from my own system frustration and learn basic acoustics by playing fun in my room instead of passively being angry because i could not afford a 50,000 amplifier coupled to 70,000 speakers which by the way did not appear to me so astounding but mostly only more detailed ...
I did not like so much the sound timbre impression of this apparently "lucky" man playing with very costly products in a non dedicated acoustic room ( he added panels some days) then i decided to had fun my own way learning the basic with some Helmholtz discoveries among other things in my room ...This informed me really about sound in a concrete way ...I even modified my headphones and my speakers with small or greater success every time... ( you dont modify costlier products😊 if you dont like them, you sell them and "upgrade" as audiophiles says.)
Even if you cannot judge positively spatial qualities and immersiveness levels as such without being there, we can judge through some negative timbre impressions, some lacks in body and fluidity etc with youtube in some case of well recorded video and guess enough about the negatives aspects of timbre as we perceive them if our system is minimally relatively well balanced in his frequencies response already to begin with ...
Some youtube very costly system sound not very good and gives to me no urge at all to buy a costly system at a fortune cost only to hear more details in my face with a not so good natural timbre , probably others acoustic problems we can only guess if our system is balanced ...
Timbre is basic , spatial qualities comes after to be solved if we are already near to this balance threshold which imply the gear pieces synergy, vibrations/resonance problems under controls and clean electrical alimentation ... Immersiveness may result from balanced natural timbre and spatial qualities of sound well done through the recordings trade-off for sure but with a dedicated room or at least a well done acoustic treatment ... All that dont occur by luck or only by digital EQ...
The only absolutely necessary DSP is the BACCH filters once room acoustic is well done, because with it you have HRTF measured and inner ears measures and compensation filters for undesired crosstalk and stereo system negative effects ...
Here is a true story from the web. A guy has two systems, one cost a million dollars.(the speakers being the most expensive pieces).and the other is a modest system. Groups of people heard both and most everyone liked the sound of the modest system suggesting the million-dollar system was more analytical, and not as musical.
To me an audio system becomes "good enough" once one has acquired the experience to determine what most pleases, and puts together a system that best delivers on that, at a budget that doesn't derail other important aspects of one's life.
It’s a hobby. If I’m done then what do I do with myself? However, it’s not about more expensive stuff. It’s just taking what I have and occasionally stirring the pot a little.
Gear is just fun. I’m just lucky that two separate passions…tinkering with gear and exploring music, happen to be adjacent!
@mahgister, You do know that Choueiri himself has been a big spatial/object based audio/multichannel music connesieur in real life, right? as are many other known names in industry (A Jones, J Stoddard, Levinson, etc). The truth is...he can’t get anywhere near it because of all the patents held by Sony, Yamaha, Dolby, Auro, etc.
He has to make a living as well and so he’s tailoring/marketing something to the 2 channel orthodoxy. You are getting stuck with his marketing lingo, as if it is a miracle like none other. It is fine for what it is (and that’s about it).
You downgrade a real idea about the acoustic way to deliver all spatial qualities without timbre degradation , which is Choueri idea, to a not so real innovative idea and an old idea because you picked as choice multi-channels various dsp over his BACCH...
One solution to solve the stereo problems is multichannels and the other recreating binaural effects (Choueiri )
The first add many new speakers to compensate for the lost of spatial qualities and unrealistic timbre (phantom image) the others compute a new mathematical set of filters to do this overcoming stereo crosstalk and phantom image problem ...
I will not enter in the debate to know what is better , but i will only say that your tentative to discredit Choueiri genius with his solution to the lost of spatial qualities in stereo without degrading timbre in favor of your biased choice , be it right or wrong , about multichannels to solve the same problems, your tentative is only at best uninformed subjective position and at worst a slander of a physicist in plasma laboratory as main work who dont need money anyway as most other greedy business man did need money ... Choueiri is a pure scientist not a vulgar businessman or an engineer dreaming about the money ...Choueiri being a physicist has made and make already a living without his side acoustic hobby because music was his passion and hobby ...
Then argue with ARGUMENTS in acoustics not with slandering arguments about business and people intention ...
To be able to recreate without degrading timbre the spatial qualities of a soundfield in simple stereo system is not a gadget, it is an acoustic revolution in the making for music lover who dont need nor dont want 5 or 7 speakers etc to listen to movie as i am ...( by the way Choueiri go on with improvement because it is all about mathematical acoustic not about a mere toy )
Creating a multichannels system ideal for movies is not the same problem than creating a system able to translate the necessary optimal 60 degree lateral reflected waves from an ideal recording hall with his shoe geometry for example through a simple stereo system in a dedicated acoustic room ...
@mahgister, You do know that Choueiri himself has been a big spatial/object based audio/multichannel music connesieur in real life, right? as are many other known names in industry (A Jones, J Stoddard, Levinson, etc). The truth is...he can’t get anywhere near it because of all the patents held by Sony, Yamaha, Dolby, Auro, etc.
He has to make a living as well and so he’s tailoring/marketing something to the 2 channel orthodoxy. You are getting stuck with his marketing lingo, as if it is a miracle like none other. It is fine for what it is (and that’s about it).
@mahgister, it is a gross misunderstanding if you think object based audio degrades timbre?! The only requirement they impose is that the drivers, crossovers, etc are identical (identical speakers are required, same as it is for stereo!) and the same ethos for stereo gets extended w.r.t setup.
A true stereo purist may go for something like the Polk L800 speaker if he were to remain true to his purist orthodoxy, which does cross talk cancellation really well, when set up right...Pretty sure, Polk has a patent there and hence one would be stuck with the quality of drivers, etc Polk can produce (which ain’t all that great). Creative tinkered with it starting in the 90s for PC Audio. This is not some revelation.
Never said Choueiri is a dummy or "downgraded" him... I am from the same engineering discipline as he is, or at least prior to his audio ventures. I have met him in conferences (long before Bacch, before anyone knew who he was). I have read some of his publications, am sure he has read some of mine. He has successfully navigated the patent boobytraps all over the place and brought something to market (commendable). I am not all that a fan of vulture grade MSB he has decided to partner with, however. If you fly down south to the USA, I can give all kinds comparisons to Bacch and whatever else. Theorycrafting (like you’ve done) can often be quite different from observation of its real life execution.
@mahgister, it is a gross misunderstanding if you think object based audio degrades timbre?!
I never said that multichannels degrade timbre more than stereo....I said that the road taken by Choueiri was taken by others before him playing with this crosstalk problem , but he succeed the first with a mathematical solution not degrading timbre ...
All stereo problems are solved by multichannels or BACCH filters in their own way... As i said above answering you , i will not enter in the debate what is better ... I only wanted to respond to what appeared to me a slander with no argument about Choueiri the man ...
Never said Choueiri is a dummy or "downgraded" him... I am from the same engineering discipline as he is, or at least prior to his audio ventures. I have met him in conferences (long before Bacch, before anyone knew who he was). I have read some of his publications, am sure he has read some of mine. He has successfully navigated the patent boobytraps all over the place and brought something to market (commendable). I am not all that a fan of vulture grade MSB he has decided to partner with, however. If you fly down south to the USA, I can give all kinds comparisons to Bacch and whatever else. Theorycrafting (like you’ve done) can often be quite different from observation of its real life execution.
Defending Choueiri i perhaps misread your intention...I apologize if it is the case...
I will only say that his solution is not perfect nothing is but it is not a gadget improvised between other patented solutions... It is a bit more interesting ...
And comparing the BACCH filters with other solutions ask for dedicated optimal acoustic room to serve it not a living room or a home theater...
I did not theorized about what is better : multichannels done masterfuly or BACCH filters in a dedicated optimal acoustic room ... The two are too different beasts able to serve different goals ...
And because they are 2 different beasts, and because most people own already just two speakers HERE, i advocated for BACCH filters...
I did not do "theorycrafting" as you said ...And i dont need to listen to it to have an idea about what this will do even if the effect will change a lot between room and speakers choices or headphones and various recordings qualities choices even if my inner ears and HRTF measures are done ...Just doing simple mechanical imperfect experiment with crosstalk as i did is enough to have an idea about his importance ...
Anyway i apologize if i over exagerated some aspects of your post or interpreted them the wrong way...I am a passionnate dude and sometimes i reacted too much ...😊 To be precise i must write that often i reacted too much... 😊
And just a last precision, Choueiri is not an engineer but a physicist by formation ...
I will add that because you are very knowledgeable we are lucky that you participate in this forum... Then thank you for your patience with me ...
I wish you the best and a very merry christmas...🎄
“You do know that Choueiri himself has been a big spatial/object based audio/multichannel music connesieur in real life, right? as are many other known names in industry (A Jones, J Stoddard, Levinson, etc). The truth is...he can’t get anywhere near it because of all the patents held by Sony, Yamaha, Dolby, Auro, etc.”
I know for a fact that he considers multichannel to be as it is to be wrought with problems and plainly inferior. If there are going to be any arguments based on what Edgar believes let’s keep it real. I know this fact because I was standing right next to him when he said it. If you doubt me you can easily ask him for yourself through the Theoretica website.
“He has to make a living as well and so he’s tailoring/marketing something to the 2 channel orthodoxy. You are getting stuck with his marketing lingo, as if it is a miracle like none other. It is fine for what it is (and that’s about it).”
He makes an excellent living as the head of the advanced propulsion department of Princeton University. BACCH is home s passion project. Your mischaracterization of him, his motives and his beliefs are pretty disgusting.
“I will only say that his solution is not perfect nothing is but it is not a gadget improvised between other patented solutions... It is a bit more interesting ...”
You won’t say it but I will, the BACCH SP offers a near perfect rendering of spatial cues. The limiting factor is the source material. It’s easy to demonstrate. You can literally record a voice or musical instrument anywhere in the listening space with the BACCH in ear microphones -and compare the spatial accuracy that recording to the original source in it’s actual position anywhere in the room. The positioning is the n distinguishable if the system and room are good enough. What more could anyone ask than near perfect spatial reproduction?
Thanks scottwheel for saying what i know because i read and understood what Choueiri was speaking about ...
But i cannot say it the way you describe it because i never hear it and never own the BACCH system ...
Anybody with minimal acoustic knowledge know it if he read about it seriously ... It is the reason why i advocated for this "revolution" and not a gadget and why i ask to you to spoke about it to people here who confuse it with a toy for movie effect ...
In truth it is a revolution who rival the transition from mono to stereo ...
“I will only say that his solution is not perfect nothing is but it is not a gadget improvised between other patented solutions... It is a bit more interesting ...”
You won’t say it but I will, the BACCH SP offers a near perfect rendering of spatial cues. The limiting factor is the source material. It’s easy to demonstrate. You can literally record a voice or musical instrument anywhere in the listening space with the BACCH in ear microphones -and compare the spatial accuracy that recording to the original source in it’s actual position anywhere in the room. The positioning is the n distinguishable if the system and room are good enough. What more could anyone ask than near perfect spatial reproduction
He makes an excellent living as the head of the advanced propulsion department of Princeton University. BACCH is home s passion project. Your mischaracterization of him, his motives and his beliefs are pretty disgusting.
- I was having a conversation with another decent guy on this thread, not you (because i think this whole forum understands by now... what kind of vile/disgusting most of your comments are)
- But, keeping it real, we all know what measly sum a university professor with his PhD and the Ackers distinguished or whatever makes in this country. We would also know how much his PhD students got paid for all the hard work. You wouldn’t know, would you now, DeVry? You could paint houses 3 days a week and beat that paygrade real easy (keepin it real, livin the American dream, Merica!)
- But, if it is a passion charity project and Chouieri’s doing charity, that would be a tad false, lol. Bacch’s pricing structure is pretty obvious. He wouldn’t have partnered with MSB (vultures) as a charity event now, would he? I am happy for the good professor and his PhD students making some cash because its always the dumass (keepin it real) making money in this country. It’s a good change that the good professor is making some money instead..
Go get yourself a MSB reference now Scotty, keep it real.
Your mischaracterization of him, his motives and his beliefs are pretty disgusting.
If you’re actually disgusted by what you read on this forum, you must have a huge emotional investment in these matters. Or perhaps you use the term "disgusting" as an argumentative tool.
If you’re sincere, you can alert the moderators by flagging the post, because I’m pretty sure that "disgusting" content isn’t permitted here.
It's been good enough for 40 + years. That is not the question. The question is when will you stop trying to make it better? Since the room won't change, I'm pretty much just making my records better by getting better pressings/remasters. Replacing styli or the cartridge is all I worry about now after treating for vibrations.
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.
