- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 11,098
- Likes
- 14,755
I like both.
Digital is my hi fi system.
Analog is my audiophile system.
Bi-phonic
I like both.
Digital is my hi fi system.
Analog is my audiophile system.
Bi-phonic
I think it is up to the consumer (audiophile, audiophool, purist or 'don't care') what direction they want to take buying their gear.
I just think there's an undisputable line between objectives and measurable performances and subjectives and pleasurable to hearing equipments.
Bi-phonic
@Inner Space Not necessarily. I'm talking about audiophile marketing that rely on hearing. That is obviously not objective. They can find nice balance between sound pleasure and fidelity of reproduction. But you ain't get for sure a technical and measurable state of the art equipment regarding best fidelity of reproduction. It can please you but you can't prentend you have both. An honest balance maybe between objective and subjective choice. Just not both at the same time.
When I say it rely on hearing I exactly mean what you say as a consequence. Hearing is mostly driven by emotions. If you are a trained listener it get better. But still it's not completely objective.I dont think audiophile marketing relies on hearing. I think it relies on suggestion. Psychology. not audiology.
What about a recording never in a studio. Though rare something like Wilson audio recordings. Set mike's. Recorded with no compression, eq or other processing. Then edited only start and stop points. No studio version to copy the gear. We know stereo cannot replicate reality. All you can do is playback with transparent gear.
But you ain't get for sure a technical and measurable state of the art equipment regarding best fidelity of reproduction. It can please you but you can't prentend you have both.
I have never said that a great fidelity reproduction equipments can't please you. I personally think that is mostly probable in my opinion. To be honest I think that you could be pleased by another equipment with great measurements like yours.Why not? Take me as a data point. My current system measures superbly - objectively, I doubt any could measure better - and it's in the best room I ever had. If Amir and Floyd Toole came over, they'd be thrilled. And believe me, it pleases me. It's off the scale in enjoyment and euphoria. Conclusion: you can have both. Extra possible conclusion: you can't have one without the other.
Three's a crowdWell, tri, really, given I have both LP and reel to reel.
For example Mola Mola Tambaqui is audiophile but also have great measurements. There are obviously other equipments like that. But they are measurable. That's my point. The difference between measurable equipments and listening created equipments. As long as they are measurable they can be fine. When they can't be measured and rely on hearing only they are not an objective choice but an emotional choice. Two different path. That said I put Tambaqui in measurable equipments and not in the emotinal chosen equipments.Why not? Take me as a data point. My current system measures superbly - objectively, I doubt any could measure better - and it's in the best room I ever had. If Amir and Floyd Toole came over, they'd be thrilled. And believe me, it pleases me. It's off the scale in enjoyment and euphoria. Conclusion: you can have both. Extra possible conclusion: you can't have one without the other.
Three's a crowd
get another system, just don't leave it at threeSo what should get kicked to the curb?
For example Mola Mola Tambaqui is audiophile but also have great measurements. .
get another system, just don't leave it at three
measurable