PBB agrees with Pcc, for whatever that's worth. There is one constant in Audiogoninsane and the written press in general: bigger bucks always equate with better sound. How insecure are audiophiles anyway? Can you really hear a significant difference between a pair of Bryston 7B-STs (MSRP $5,260/pair) and, let's say, a pair of Accuphase M-2000 monoblocks (MSRP $33,000/pair) , unless you strain your ears or your imagination or both? If, at least, people were honest enough to say that pride of ownership is the one aspect that makes one chose one amp over the other, but no, the true audiophile will swear up and down that he hears a significant difference and that he actually is getting value by spending six and half times the money. Hearing an irrationally priced piece of equipment is tantamount to going to the Gypsy woman to get your fortune read, even if you don't believe in it, it plays on your mind. And to many the only way out of temptation is to succumb. The $7,300 cable has to sound better than the $73 cable right? Well, just in case, let me have it, where do I sign the loan document? Maybe too preachy, but right nonetheless. How is Albertporter these days anyway. Which cable is now the one to buy this month? And what about cooking one's cables. Sorry, I have to go and sharpen those spikes, damn the high frequencies are bad when the spikes get a bit dull... |
Gregm, I have three words for you, which will forever and a day relegate me to the level of the great unwashed tin-eared mid-fi legions: "double blind testing". I'm sorry, I am a sceptic. My point is that the power of suggestion is such that we, as humans, are apt to believe that something, anything in fact, that is very expensive has to be better. We may quibble and say that brand x is better than brand y, notwithstanding the fact that brand x is costlier, so long as brand y is also so expensive as to make it attainable only to a few. My question to you, in closing, is the following: do you actually know what goes into making those recordings? Put another way, do you honestly think that you can get mo' better music coming out of your lp or cd than is actually put there in the first place by the process of amplifying the signal? Isn't the whole notion of high end audio, at the listening end of the chain predicated on the belief that the recording process is so far ahead of what we have to play the recording with that we can still wring out improvements by heroic means on the listening end? I know, for some, everything in the chain is a signal processor, has a sound signature, from caps, to copper, to cables, to the chassis in which all of this stuff is put. If every minute detail was perceptible and as important as strato-high-end audiophiles say and want them to be, we are indeed the zenith of God's creatures. It has gotten to a level where some audiophiles can actually hear the sound of sub-atomic particles. Give me a break! I am, and shall remain, a sceptic. There is a difference between a good system and a not so good system. The rest is the trivial pursuit of keeping up with the Jones' of this audiophile world and the daily feeding of neurotic anxieties. More emphasis should be placed on listening to the music, understanding it in a technical, musicological and aesthetic way. Luckily, people are free to choose how they want to use their time and what they want to believe in. I simply have no time to spend on being duped. Making of minute differences in sound, that are barely, if that, perceptible is, to my mind at least, trivial. If you have to strain to hear a difference (a.k.a "improvement") when a component is changed in a good quality system, it probably just isn't there. The small, tiny, incremental improvements can add up to something of significance, I agree, but again, on close inspection, you realise that the sum of all of these is not the revolution that the audio press and ad people for high end manufacturers announce every month. |
Gregm, and, oh, by the way, what are those HUGE differences you heard between the two components used as an example and how were those two (should I say four?)amplifiers auditioned? Where? When, concurrently, at one sitting, or on separate occasions? For how long a period? With what associated equipment? Using what source material? Were the levels equalized? Were you alone at the time? If not, who was with you? Another audiophile or a consultant, perhaps? Did you exchange any observations on the sound heard as you were auditioning? did you take notes? Did you buy either of these components? Sorry if this looks like the Great Inquisition, and you probably will never reply, but I do feel that my questions are valid. Does anyone else out there think that these questions are valid? I am not asking whether I have any right to ask them and certainly not whether Gregm (or any one else for that matter) has any obligation to reply to my questions. I am just interested in ascertaining what, if any, are the parameters of a valid audition. What the person has to say is not at issue. You can like or love a component or the opposite, but, like people, do you really know much about them until you have lived with them?
Regards. |
Great! I've been invited out of the analog forum, now I can't even mention trying to set decent standards in judging a component's performance through the use of human hearing. Damn you audiophiles are difficult. I just don't have the time to go through all the submissions on Audiogon to see where the prevailing winds blow. I must have touched a nerve or something or maybe my lack of political correctness in the audiophile milieu is costing me. I have the greatest respect for the inherent right of all audiophiles to opine free of any constraints which methodology would impose. There I said it. Geez, I'm going to make sure I don't talk about science and measurements and other passé stuff that takes all the fun out of audio equipment. I'm not aging gracefully, I guess. Maybe I should set up a chapter of frustrated ex-Audio readers anonymous. |
Cornfedboy, Heck they're listening to electrical wall outlets there to. What's wrong with this world? You know what, the sound of the bloody computer is distracting when the music is playing, so I'll just turn it off and listen to the music and forget tho whole sorry Adiogoninsane thing, well for now at least. I think that's the best and cheapest tweak. And oh yes, I think I'll subscribe to Fanfare. Bye for now and keep up the good work. I didn't know how exclusive a club this is and to think I'm at the computer without a suit and tie! Have fun my friend. |
Gregm, seems something has gotten lost here in going from the general to the specific. My second post to you was made on the belief that you had said that you heard huge differences between the two sets of mono blocks I had taken has an example. As it turns out your statement was, from what I get in your reply to my various questions, of a more general nature. Seems the tone and content of my intervention here displeased a number of people. My contention is not that there are no differences. My belief is that most of these differences are a question of degree, certainly not of kind, and usually very few degrees at that. What I had in mind was more on the topic of power amps and not on differences between one complete system at a given price level with another at an entirely and much greater price level. I still believe that some components are easier to design and build than others, that with some parts in the audio chain a plateau has been reached and that further developments are less likely than in other areas. Power amps, to me are the prime example of components that may have reached a plateau (I don't know if digital amps will change my idea on this), whereas speakers are the prime example of an area where research and development would yield the greatest benefits. I am more apt to believe in considerable differences between two speaker systems than between two power amps. The other source for my questions is twofold. Firstly, I keep hearing comments on equipment that is not run of the mill and always wonder where on God's green earth did the person actually listen to such equipment. I, maybe unfortunately, jump to the conclusion that it was either in a store or at a show. From experience, I can tell you that I always feel under some degree of pressure in a shop and that I don't trust my judgment is that kind of an environment. Insofar as shows are concerned, I feel, maybe wrongly, that they are even worst in that your not dealing with one retailer, but with a whole bunch of manufacturers and distributors. Talk about for the frying pan to the fire. Secondly, the other aspect which opened up on the "dreaded subject", is my belief that we are imminently subject to the power of suggestion and that it should be avoided in the making of a decision which is just a notch below the purchase of an automobile. I may have imposed a standard of conduct that should only be required of persons making their living reviewing equipment, I don't know. In closing let me say that I feel entirely justified in encouraging audiophiles to use a greater degree of rigour and method in appraising equipment. This is echoed, I think, in a thread that I seem to have seen were someone was asking what type of music should be used to evaluate equipment or, I may be mistaken, speakers. Some say any music the person knows and likes. I can't disagree with that. No one should be forced to listen to music he/she doesn't like. But, on the other hand, I think that this is not a very useful or valid answer. I think one should have a variety of recordings, calling upon different qualities of any given system (including some poorly recorded stuff to see if the system may not be even too revealing in some instances), and that once chosen, a person should stick to these and play the same tracks to avoid confusion and to be able to form some kind of valid judgment. If this is too strict a procedure, I do believe that we have very little to gain in sharing our opinions. I believe well reasoned and enlightened opinions are the only ones worth sharing and considering, and, no, I don't profess to hold a patent on this. I trust that my esteemed (or is that steamed) colleague, disciple of Themis, will agree. Regards. |
Gallaine, I did what? I don't even own a gauntlet. I have not waived math since high school, and have never waived it as a sceptre. Nothing so aristocratic for me. I like the expression "arts & sciences" though and I think it applies to audio equipment quite well. I won't trouble you with a dissertation on trees falling in the forest with nobody there to listen. I have no intention of talking about paradigms or the lack thereof. I will not even mention that a bad theory is better than none at all. There are many ways of getting at the truth. When it comes to understanding the physical phenomena that surround us, I doubt anything has rivalled science thus far. Magic thought certainly hasn't. I would merely suggest that audiophiles should show some method to their own madness and have some sort of basic procedure when evaluating equipment so that the fewest variables are introduced. Maybe this standard should only apply to professional reviewers, I don't know. It seems to me unfortunate that comments, good or bad, can be made about equipment heard on the fly or in less than good conditions (unknown room, unfamiliar music, changing the music used every time and the list could go on). By the way, I do not own, nor I have I ever owned, an oscilloscope, spectrum analyzer, calibrated microphone, SPL meter, fast Fourier analysis computer or other such piece of equipment or an ABX box for that matter. I would certainly appreciate it though if the manufacturer of the equipment I buy does and uses them, and interprets the results properly. If the manufacturer stops there we may not have the sound we want, we do appreciate that the component be evaluated by actual humans, listening to music and that suitable tweaking be done to have it perform at its best. I simply doubt the manufacturer could get to the tweaking stage without benefit of the hard data to start with. |
Oh but to be so sure of one's self! I don't put this out as some kind of procedure to follow under pain of banishment or anything like that. Just a few thoughts. For sake of discussion let's divide this into three phases: prior to, during and after auditioning. Prior to, I would recommend not reading any review of the piece(s) of equipment you are interested in. Not easy. Cuts down on the reading on the loo. I would recommend not talking about it to audiophile friends and acquaintances or non-audiophile friends and acquaintances. The former will surely have a ready made opinion and the seed will be planted. The latter will look at you in stunned disbelief and mention that you have a sound system, what you need is a giant projection HDTV compatible what's it. Never talk about your project to your wife/girlfriend, the money will become an issue and you will go for the cheaper model every time. Have some idea of what you are going to audition prior to going. Tear out the reviews and articles from the mags if you must, and only read the advertising, at least you know where they're coming from (dolus bonus, in Latin, I guess). Impractical? Maybe. But what the hell. À la guerre comme à la guerre. During the audition: Make sure you are in familiar surroundings. You should go to the audio shops so regularly that you are on a first name basis with the people there. Double back to see if they abruptly stop talking to each other when you re-enter their premises. The frequency of your visits, especially without ever buying anything, should be such that the audio shop personnel have learnt to detest you. Make it a home trial if you can. Better on everyone's nerves. Listen in your sound room, you should be familiar with the acoustics of the place, and at your normal listening position and volume level. Listen to a variety of recordings (including some poorly recorded material, mono, multi-miked or just plain bad, you would be surprised what they can reveal). Have a set play list of cuts that put different demands on the system. Play them in the same sequence. Play them through. Make sure you have something from all the audio food groups. Make sure you have spoken word, that's what we are all more familiar with. Make sure you have plain sounds of things that don't or barely qualify as musical instruments: hand claps, wood block, something along those lines. If you listen only to heavy metal or techno or whatever comes solely out of machines or amplifiers, you may discontinue the process as soon as you have ascertained that the whole thing plays loud. You need the voice of a male and a female singer, signing. On the topic of what constitutes "singing", tune in later. You need solo instrument recordings of piano, of guitar and something close to the range of the human voice, let's not quibble, say a clarinet. You need a well recorded small group, such as a small jazz ensemble or a chamber music group. You have to include one very dynamic excerpt of a symphonic work, well recorded. You need some kind of big band. You must have a violin, well played and well recorded. You need one monster organ recording of a real organ, in a real space, recorded by a real pro. You should have a dab of bass, both acoustic and electric. You need a very small sliver of rock and let's say a handful of blues, well played and well recorded. You need to believe that 95% of the time, three microphones are enough for a decent recording. If you listen to both analog and cd, you have to double your pleasure, double your fun, (sorry, no gum chewing while you listen) although I am not sure you need exact duplicates of these recordings in both formats. Why not, makes it more of an even match, just kidding. You are to avoid the demon rum and the demon weed and anything which may affect the usual chemical reaction in your brain. You should never do any of this if you have a migraine, cold, sinusitis, tinnitus or deafness. You may drink black coffee, but don't put the cup on top of the speaker enclosures. Do not cook on power amps while listening, wait until later. Preferably, you have to be alone. If you must, ask the other ears not to talk. Throw in that you don't want any obvious body language either. At this stage you will wind up alone, which is how it should be to start with. Warm up your trusty sound system. Acquaint yourself with the hardware you are going to audition. Only make one change at a time in, as we say in French, your hi-fi chain. Listen a second time to the cuts that have incited some overly negative or overly positive reaction on first hearing. Take notes. Get the lingo you want to use in these notes straight in your mind before you commit to paper. Never decide on buying the equipment on the spot. Negative reactions are very hard to get rid of. Positive reactions may not survive the light of day. After auditioning: make a note of your play list, place all your little records back on the shelf, ask yourself if you have actually heard a significant improvement in the overall sound quality with the new component in the chain. Remove the said component from the chain and go back to what you had before. Do you miss something the new component brought? If yes, you may be on to something. If no, stand pat. If you are unsure, don't push it. They ain't no hi-fi police gonna bust ya, unless someone on Audiogon reports you to the authorities. If you remain unconvinced, take the money you were going to spend on that upgrade, in whole or in part, up to the greater of $1,500 or whatever you fell like blowing, and go to the record shop, store, supermarket, and buy records with it. Yes, blow a wad on cds or lps, get the little plastic basket and fill it up with what you consider good music (I always think the people doing that have just settled that claim for the break-in with their insurers). You get to keep the records, you know. It's about the music in the first place, you know. Don't be a smart ass. Promise yourself no to do any of this for a considerable period. Six to twelve months, depending on the severity of your addiction. Hope there is something of some use to someone in here. The use of the actual "dreaded subject" is just the punishment for telling all those little white lies to others and, especially, to yourselves on the good, better, best vector. Regards. |
Sorry to have to table an addendum so soon. Two points to be added: one, wait until all the evidence is in before deciding; two: burden of proving that the component should be adopted by you, lies on the equipment being evaluated and is not the same depending on type, in the case of sources (analog or digital), preamplifiers and speakers, should be on a balance of probabilities- in the case of power amplifiers, should also on a balance of probabilities, but assume it's all circumstantial evidence, (this is based on fuzzy logic, so don't get too technical with me here), in the case of interconnects, speaker cables and items, charitably described as "accessories" or "tweaks", beyond a reasonable doubt. As they sometime say in translation matters: "when in doubt, leave it out" or you may ascribe to the chicken soup theory, "it can't hoyt", this largely depends on the price to be paid. I leave it up to you to decide whether items in these last three categories should be treated as though adopting one and finding out, on sober second thought, that it was just not worth the bother is a capital offence or not. Sorry for the awkward analogies. |
Gallaine, your approach to my blurbs on this site is way too Jesuit for me. I have contradicted myself in the past, and certainly will in the future. In this case, though, I think I have been pretty consistent. What I have a hard time with is what appears, to me at least, as a free for all. Any thing that is exaggerated becomes insignificant. I don't wish to bore anyone with discourse on defining what the word "HUGE" means in the context of audio systems. In my book that should be reserved for something like the difference between a Pioneer 35w receiver of '70s vintage feeding a pair of Dynaco A-25 speakers and, just for sake of argument, a Musical Fidelity amp driving Pro Acs. That two similarly rated, high power, high current amplifiers, of recent design could exhibit "HUGE" differences is beyond my comprehension. That they have some kind of signature that can be heard on some passages, of some music, while driving a certain pair of speakers, I agree; more than that leaves me somewhat perplexed. Now how much someone is willing to pay for any such subtle improvement, I am not prepared to say. I know how much I am willing to pay. I also know that I won't pine for that last little bit of improvement, real or imagined, that I may be missing by not having the flavour of the week component. There's another thread asking whether audiophiles lie to themselves at times. I think it is more prevalent than we care to admit. Let's not take a very incremental improvement as a revolution and, worse yet, any change between one component and another, as an improvement. If someone can't provide me with a somewhat logical explanation as to why is stuff sounds better, I simply lose interest. Isn't my fault, I'm Cartesian, I guess. Does not mean it doesn't exist, just means my ear/brain processor don't get it. Call it my loss, your gain and let's leave it at that. Goodnight. |
