Feeling bad about spending too much on audio

[Kal Rubinson]

I think it is quite telling that a hi-fi magazine reviewer can say that accuracy doesn't matter and is still clearly considered by his readers to be a credible reviewer.

I do not know to whom you are referring but I do not care. The truth is that "his readers" (my emphasis added) consider him credible while you and other readers will not.

 

[617]

I do not know to whom you are referring but I do not care. The truth is that "his readers" (my emphasis added) consider him credible while you and other readers will not.

Kal, this raises an interesting question for me. Stereophile has been one of the premier sources for information about cool audio stuff for many years now, and although there are differences between reviewers with respect to their tastes, review ethic, expertise, perceived audience and so on, they do publish under a single banner, which is printed in bigger letters than any of their names. How does Stereophile relate to individual reviewers who could, through their own biases, potentially damage the credibility of the publication, at least in the eyes of some readers?

It seems that the interests of manufacturers making not-accurate but good sounding stuff, manufacturers making cutting edge accurate stuff, readers wanting cool looking good sounding stuff, and readers wanting cheap super accurate stuff are all pretty prickly groups with interests at odds with each other. How do you deal with that?

 

[Ron Texas]

It's easy to spend too much because there is so much expensive gear out there which doesn't work better than stuff which is not expensive.

 

[Ron Texas]

Define accurate. Define good sounding. If accuracy is making the music sound like the engineer, producer and musicians intended, what if their target market was ear pods and it sounds like crap on good speakers?

 

[Midwest Blade]

Over the years that I have practiced this art, I have spent money I regret, sold or traded stuff that I wish I still had, but in the end have become very content with what I am currently listening with. Not chasing the latest and greatest over the past years has brought some contentment and helped me to focus efforts on sourcing content worthwhile to listen to.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

How does Stereophile relate to individual reviewers who could, through their own biases, potentially damage the credibility of the publication, at least in the eyes of some readers?

I do not know how to address the issue of how Stereophile (the magazine) relates to individual reviewer except by noting that "some readers" are not all readers. Stereophile offers the opinions of reviewers whose perspectives are as varied as those of their readers.

It seems that the interests of manufacturers making not-accurate but good sounding stuff, manufacturers making cutting edge accurate stuff, readers wanting cool looking good sounding stuff, and readers wanting cheap super accurate stuff are all pretty prickly groups with interests at odds with each other. How do you deal with that?

Apparently, Stereophile does it by encompassing the readers' different interests within the ranks of different reviewers.

 

[Ron Texas]

Unlike many audio publications, Stereophile does objective testing. Besdes I can get to read @Kal Rubinson 's reviews.

 

[pozz]

I plan on doing that for my next system - active studio monitors (Yamaha or Genelec) in additional to an inexpensive but high performing DAC if necessary - for whenever I decide to purchase another.

Consider HEDD Audio as well. If I knew about them at the time I would have taken the Type 20 over my current monitors.

 

[pozz]

The truth is that "his readers" (my emphasis added) consider him credible while you and other readers will not.

This is a really important point. For it emphasizes a certain beginning rather than an end.

The fact that those divisions exist translates into economic considerations—i.e., those divisions mark the equivalent of demographics (for either sales or marketing). So there is moneyed interest and all sorts of pressure which keeps them, and the attendant opinions and reasoning, intact.

What I find really interesting are the guiding questions/assumptions of reviews and, particularly, debates between reviewers, since for any good debate you have to force yourself into another's position and perspective to really argue effectively.

I realize that this doesn't really fit the word as people use it, but for me a good example of a "subjectivist" is David Griesinger, whose psychoacoustical studies force you to pay attention to the minutia of what you perceive (almost like a good debate with yourself). Psychoacoustics isn't only about the limits of perception.

 

[RayDunzl]

Stereophile Media Kit

http://www.avtechmediausa.com/mediakit.stph.pdf

Excerpt:

disclosure: I've subscribed since 1996

 

[BillG]

Consider HEDD Audio as well. If I knew about them at the time I would have taken the Type 20 over my current monitors.

Nah.

 

[LTig]

Indeed. Miss those days....

I don't. Nowadays we have very good audio equipment available with very good price/quality ratio. Just don't go into hifi shops. Buy where the pros buy. A cheap mixer can even act as analog preamp, if it has USB also for digital sources. Active monitors offer a lot of SQ for the money as well.

 

[LTig]

Consider HEDD Audio as well. If I knew about them at the time I would have taken the Type 20 over my current monitors.

And don't forget Neumann.

 

[JJB70]

I don't. Nowadays we have very good audio equipment available with very good price/quality ratio. Just don't go into hifi shops. Buy where the pros buy. A cheap mixer can even act as analog preamp, if it has USB also for digital sources. Active monitors offer a lot of SQ for the money as well.

True that. Good quality sound has been commoditised and is now pretty much universally accessible without spending much. The source as a distinct component has effectively been removed from the system with the switch to computer based audio.

 

[pozz]

I don't. Nowadays we have very good audio equipment available with very good price/quality ratio. Just don't go into hifi shops. Buy where the pros buy. A cheap mixer can even act as analog preamp, if it has USB also for digital sources. Active monitors offer a lot of SQ for the money as well.

Just a word of caution. I'd add that pros are just as prone to the audiophile bug as, well , audiophiles, and that pro shops have a whole range of products of varying quality for different types of customers.

With ADCs/DACs, Lavry is the center of attention for pros, similar to how Chord is treated. Check out these threads on Gearslutz:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/920776-lavry-gold-ad122mkiii-vs-prism-dream-ad-2-a.html
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/1138980-lavry-gold-still-gold-standard.html
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/1133584-lavry-gold-ad-worth-price.html

 

[LTig]

Just a word of caution. I'd add that pros are just as prone to the audiophile bug as, well , audiophiles, and that pro shops have a whole range of products of varying quality for different types of customers.

With ADCs/DACs, Lavry is the center of attention for pros, similar to how Chord is treated. Check out these threads on Gearslutz:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/920776-lavry-gold-ad122mkiii-vs-prism-dream-ad-2-a.html
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/1138980-lavry-gold-still-gold-standard.html
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/1133584-lavry-gold-ad-worth-price.html

You are correct regarding ADCs (or microphone preamps). Many of them are in fact sound processors to get a specific sound, like e.g. the Neve preamps.

SInce my RME ADI-2 PRO has only a line level input I searched for a 2 channel preamp with high Z option (for measurements) and did not find one. The local pro dealer also had nothing on stack and confirmed that all preamps on stock were sound processors and not suitable to my needs. Transparent preamps usually come in multichannel (4, 8 or more) only, see for example RME, and therefor outside of the price range I'm willing to invest.

 

[AndrovichIV]

Define accurate. Define good sounding. If accuracy is making the music sound like the engineer, producer and musicians intended, what if their target market was ear pods and it sounds like crap on good speakers?

Then you equalize

 

[Ron Texas]

Then you equalize

If you can, but dynamic compression is a different story.

 

[Hugo9000]

Define accurate. Define good sounding. If accuracy is making the music sound like the engineer, producer and musicians intended, what if their target market was ear pods and it sounds like crap on good speakers?

Please respect that artist's intentions and listen with ear pods.

 

[pozz]

Please respect that artist's intentions and listen with ear pods.

Not far off the mark. Andrew Scheps has mastered some material on built-in laptop speakers. We're talking famous names.