No offense taken and I truly hope I haven't given offense. I have nothing but admiration for your dedication to this hobby, but at the same time that doesn't mean I won't vehemently disagree with you.
As audiophiles we seem to place increasing importance on extremely small sonic changes. For some people that is the hobby. For others, those increasingly small sonic changes are of little or no musical importance. Each is a valid position. You could of course argue that the sonic changes are in fact not small, but quite large. But I would argue that if you could tell it was an oboe and not a bassoon, that it's Ella and not Sarah, that Paul is playing a Rickenbacker and not the Hofner, etc. before the upgrade, then by definition any sonic improvements resulting from any upgrade to that specific system are small and subtle. If the change in sound was really dramatic then even untrained people could spot them in blind listening tests. If we can accept that some people are happy with $150,000 systems and others are equally happy with $30,000 systems, then logic would dictate that there must be some people out there who are equally happy with their boomboxes. And depending upon how they got there, to the boombox level, they could even be considered audiophiles. Not everyone is walking down the same path. |
Jade, my observation was not an attempt to rate you, your logic or choices. But given your predilection for a numerical methodology to come to grips with your pursuit I can see why you might see it that way. You're a pioneer of sorts and I applaud your efforts.
My point is that beauty is not quantifiable and exists wholly in the listener's imagination and nowhere else. If some people need more help than others to free their imagination, or are simply just plain restless, their persistance to fill that void is admirable. |
Ah, but you are forgetting the Audiophile Paradox: the more you improve upon the system, the closer you get to the actual ideal - the cumulative losses of the recording chain. |
"The mystery man came over
and he said "I'm outta sight!"
he said for a nominal service charge,
I could reach nirvana tonight.
If I was ready, willing and able
to pay him his regular fee,
he would drop all the rest of
his pressing affairs and devote
his attention to me.
But I said "Look here brother-who you
jiving with that cosmik debris?"
Happy Listening! |
I've thought about this, too, and agree that many things in life are perceived logarithmically, and that this is likely one of them.
However, I think it's more complicated than that. I believe that most audiophiles actually respond more to the change in the perceived sound, rather than the absolute perceived sound. They may also respond to the rate of change of the system's sound (the audiophile equivalent to velocity or perhaps even acceleration). But with the rate of change theory, you don't necessarily have to be increasing on your "Richter scale" to perceive benefits; you could also just keep making lateral moves.
Jadem6, you have a very well thought-out post that I largely agree with. It's good to hear other people thinking similarly.
Michael |
You can't fix a lie .....with another lie. You are knee deep in hi-fi lies. You actually believe that some guys don't belong here on the gon.You are right of course ,but for the wrong reasons.Take a look in the mirror and ask yourself....Why can't get the sound i wan't ???? Even if I get you a million dollar budget,you will fail .Do you know why.....you don't get it. Hi-fi ,or the lies you are tangled in.
Nsgarch ...he hit it on the nail. Quality and quantity. Different universes that need to be in harmony to work. You are living in the quantity alone. I've owned 100k system so ........Money cannot solve one single problem in life...not even one.
|
Of course I fully understand some people are completely satisfied with a ten year old Aiwa clock radio or a simple low budget system, and to that persons ears, they are satisfied. Clearly this thread was not addressing those people. In fact I’m always taken back by people who make these comments. Why are you even here at Audiogon? I also understand some people who are offended by others spending more money to get more out of their systems. I even understand there are people who just don’t like me; I’m fine with that too. I always wonder why these people chose to read these threads and what they are looking for at Audiogon. If it’s a low budget sound system fine, but why the need to respond to threads that are clearly not your interest? Onhwy61, you and I have always gotten along well I thought. I’m sorry if my generalizations offended you, I guess I made an assumption that an audiophile website might have audiophiles at it. I guess I didn’t expect too many boomboxers hung out here, sorry I meant nothing against you.
I feel as if somehow I need to explain to these people that I enjoy this hobby, and it has nothing to do with how much I do or do not spend, it’s what I discover is possible. I also feel judged that my expenditure is wasteful or wrong in their eyes. Well to them, until you live in my shoes, please you have no right. When I hear some of the comments it just puzzles me, are these comments for learning or just to make controversy? Some of what I read makes me think these people somehow think I’m lying or have something to gain by expressing my experiences. I just don’t get it, why even comment?
OK, back to the topic at hand. First I fully applaud the comments made by Bigkidx. Your recognition of the room is so big, and so important to the overall experience. I often forget about the countless hours I spend working on improving my rooms reaction to my system. I am very lucky in that my music room is not used for any other activity than music or reading. The full wall of books is not only my library, but it’s a huge piece of the overall room’s performance. I have base traps, corner acoustic triangles, panels on some reflection points, heavy wool rugs, strategic placement of furniture, strategic location of brass pucks, wood “things” that add a pleasant acoustic to the room. I have spent many hours working on deadening lively nodes as well as livening up dead nodes. My bookshelf is designed to break up standing waves…
These features all affect the room’s response to my speakers. Some things have hurt the sound; some have helped create a more realistic sound. Most things do nothing, but the process of trying things never stops. I am always “playing” with something. See the difference between me and those who do not understand my constant striving for better is I enjoy it. Yes I’m certifiably crazy, I accept that, but I’m happy.
So yes the room improves the system in a very, very significant fashion. Once my room is “right” I discover a different tweak suddenly has a far bigger impact than it had before. This is obvious in my endless isolation experimenting. Then once I get a new tweak to increase the performance, I now hear a room effect that I could not hear earlier because the tweak had not been made. The system and room build simultaneously and in harmony with each other. This is the fun for me, and I enjoy sharing these experiences with others who enjoy the hobby.
Bgrazman, I love the question, and the concept of grading actual venues could be useful for us to understand what people are hearing. Again if I’m suggesting my system is now a 7.9 to my ears in my experiences I would say Patricia Barber heard from a center fourth row table in a local jazz night club rated 7.1. Hearing Crosby Stills, Nash and Young a couple years ago in a arena was 6.6. I’ve seen a number of people in a 3000 seat auditorium that was 7.4. A local outdoor 500 seat amp theater was 7.6. Minnesota Orchestra in Orchestra hall is 7.7. And Michael Hedges in the world renowned Guthrie Theater was 8.0. So in my personal experience Reference Recordings disks of Minnesota Orchestra sound better on my system than live. IN MY OPINION, of course. So if all music could be performed in Guthrie Theater in front of 2500 people I would probably not need such a system. My reality is most live music is in woefully inadequate venues and/or the people I enjoy are dead, or not touring 2500 seat theaters, or no long playing or never tour. If these comments are not true, then the venues they play are substandard to my personal tastes.
So what I’m saying is Minnesota Orchestra on my system is two or three times the experience of live in Orchestra Hall. Now the disclaimer is, I have not had the opportunity to be born into a family that owns third row center seats. I expect that would be an experience of 8.5 or more. |
Boy, with such a mind blowing system, how did you find any time to post? :) |
I'm trying to figure out if (maybe in a different way) this has already been said, but all the other remarks notwithstanding, there is a qualitative issue that affects the (subjective) percentage gain one experiences from the addition of new hardware, at different levels of system development. This has to do with whether, or how much, of the improved performance latent in that new cable or component, the system is ALREADY capable of making audible.
This most often happens with cables, both IC and PC. Someone with a modest (but respectable) system adds (for instance) some Purist Dominus or Siltech ICs. They hear an improvement over their old Maestros or budget Audioquests, but "no big whoop." Conclusion? The megabuck cables are hyped up, overpriced snake oil!! When the guy with a 99% system says those same expensive cables made a HUGE difference in his system, the first guy thinks he's deluded, ignorant, has money to burn, or worse!
Who's right, when you take their respective systems into account? Answer: Both
So adding new improved stuff to any system is a bit like remodeling a house -- you don't want to "overbuild" for the neighborhood! |
Some people need to spend large sums of money to "get closer to the music" and others can get that same feeling when listening to a boom box. If you think constantly spending and upgrading is a worthwhile endeavor, then more power to you and I'm glad that you're glad. What you shouldn't do is make the mistake of generalizing your experiences and applying them to others. That last 5% just isn't valued by every experienced audiophile. It may be that they are perfectly capable of hearing the sonic changes caused by upgrades, but they just don't describe them as dramatic, huge, earth shattering, unbelievable, etc. To each his own. |
I too read with interest and agree about the richter scale.
In some ways I guess it justifies spending the thousands as you get so many more tons of TNT!
Seriously though, I agree with bigkidz that the most important variable is the room. It could be argued that the best dealers know how to set up the best room. Not only to sell their kit, but also top then help you enjoy what you have bought. This may not always be the case as they may not want to, or you may not want to pay them too.
It might help if there was a sign at the door of audiogon to help those new to the hobby that this is potentially the most important factor! |
As Ziggy Stardust pours from my 10 year old $12 Aiwa FM clock radio on top of the refrigerator my only comment is 100% of what - a feeling of comfort with your system? Analytical nirvana? The Mona Lisa doesn't need to be in the Louvre to be appreciated.
The only reliable explanation of audio upgraditus that makes sense is that the human ear/brain enjoys adjusting to change. Perhaps this is what it does best. The eureka effect, registering at one or fifty percent, always wears off. |
Its all about realities....
If i strap the tnt to your chest....Would it make a difference...1 lb or 2...a ton or 1 million...
|
I really think you are onto something and I believe that there are a number of logarathmic functions like this around...
For example, loudness is measured this way (dB). I did some work on consumer impressions of consumer proudcts and found many times where the customers response to a stimulus was related to the log of a physical characteristic.
What are your thoughts about where you would put "live music in an excellent venue"?
thanks,
bgrazman |
Jadem6, your a man of many, well thought words, I'm a man of few and hopefully, well thought out words too. What your struggling to put into words are categories/increments of change/improvement revolves around the differences between quantitative changes vs. qualitative shifts towards the real world reference of live music. So, its not just getting greater and greater improvement(quantitative improvement- same sonic variables with better resolution) for more money, but at times experiencing a qualitative shift(a new/different variable that was not in the sonics of the system)that brings you to a completely new "experience" when you listen to your system. So, its not on the same scale, its on a different level/plateau then before. I just recently had that experience when I auditioned the Stealth Varidig Sextet digital cable in my system. When I went to write my review for the Gon regarding this cable, I stated that it was not just an improvement in all the areas that audiophiles talk about, but some how the Sextet was either removing/adding something that let the music become more real/natural then ever in my system. This would be a classic example of a qualititive shift, not just an improvement of already existing factors, but on a different scale or level. So, its not going from 95% to 100%, but adding something totally new/different on a different level or scale to bring the the total sonics of a system to a different, not just better place. |
I read your post with great interest. Personally, I have been going in a completely different direction lately. The additional spending in my system did not yield the overall sonic gains that I was anticipating. Maybe my goals were set to high. There are several boutique cable designers that allowed my system to get to where I wanted to go for much less then I expected, to the point where I did not feel the extra % was worth the price. With so many boutique cable makers advertising, it did take some time to really sort out which ones really knew what they were doing. In addition, I have also come to realize how much my room impacts my system's sound and that maybe I will never accomplish my sonic goal because of my current environment. To me, the room characteristics and AC noise reduction where the two biggest impacts on my system's overall sonic signature.
I have often thought to myself exactly what your words in this post describe, especially as I listen to other systems and especially dealer systems. One can really sort through the dealerships and find a few truly experienced establishments.
I hope that your thoughts here, are well received. I enjoyed them.
Happy Listening. |
