Finding 'good enough'

[Sokel]

Good enough of what?

Of something to listen to music casually?
Of something to listen to music wanting to cut through the performance?
Of something to recreate life-like SPL and dymanic range while staying decent at the other aspects?

And at what conditions? What room? What music?
All the above for music, only. What if it's a hobby as well, like any other hobby in the planet?

 

[scrubb]

 

[Jim Creek]

As long as my speakers image well they’re good enough.

 

[respice finem]

I thought I've seen it all, but Peltors at an air pistol competition

 

[TankTop]

Is this significantly better than Old Forester 1920 for $65? Wait, don't answer. I don't want to know and derail my own thread!

Dang, close call. Old Forester 1920 is an all time great and is definitely an all time great. Hirsch is “newer” profile. It’s like sucking on a butterscotch, a flaming butterscotch but after the first sip, you forget that it’s cask strength. I’ve compared it with friends to other very fine bourbons, always let them break theirs out first and after a sip of Hirsch their floored. It’s dangerously good.

 

[djb]

Please say more, max flavour on a budget is my type of thing. Reply in the spirits thread if you prefer.

Sorry, been gone. These are very easy to find and better than Buffalo Trace and the like....Wild Turkey 101, Old Forester 100, Evan Williams bottle in bond.

Enjoy.

 

[Soniclife]

Sorry, been gone. These are very easy to find and better than Buffalo Trace and the like....Wild Turkey 101, Old Forester 100, Evan Williams bottle in bond.

Enjoy.

I'll check those out, thanks.

 

[Hammeredklavier]

I've spent pretty much my whole life in finding the 'Good Enough' point in everything I buy, whether cars, HiFi, cameras etc etc.

In terms of Hifi, it's audible transparency. When distortion is less than 0.1%. noise less than 80dB, frequency response flat to +-3dB 20-20kHz, I'm happy. No need ever to chase any more dBs or kHz. I'm done.

Consequently, as just about everything for the last 50 years has been transparent, unless deliberately designed not to be, so to 'stand out', I've bought everything on facilities alone. If it meets my operational requirement, it's Good Enough.

This thread reminded me that 20-25 years ago, not long before I retired, BBC and other tenders we were responding to for broadcast equipment only mentioned operational spec. Audio specs, as in dBs and kHz and % were taken as read, as they couldn't envisage anything not meeting transparency specs.

Also, many years ago DIN codified the meaning of HiFi in the DIN spec 45500. It now looks hopelessly bad, but if you think about what it actually means, it's pretty much what one needs for transparency, so anything more than that is unnecessary, and therefore only of interest as a marketing spec.


S.

I think a lot of people would do well to read and understand that post. After a recent exchange with the faithful on the Pink Fish forum, I can only conclude that a lot of people spending huge amounts of money on audio gear don't even know what transparent means!

 

[alankila]

I think that for transparency, it would be necessary to fail a double blind test between a perfect reproduction system with no errors, and then system with errors allowed by the transparency standard such as DIN 45500, so that they are indistinguishable to human senses. I think errors allowed by DIN 45500 are severe enough that ABX'ing it should be possible, e.g. if you applied a 1 dB treble shelf to a sound reproduction system, you can probably tell a difference when it's turned on and off, and yet this sort of thing would be considered transparent under DIN 45500 provided the overall error in frequency response error remains within +/- 1.5 dB. Perhaps I'm not interpreting the standard correctly, but that seems overly lenient. The DIN 45500 might be "good enough for 70s hifi", but is that really the last word given 50 years of advance in state of art?

 

[Mart68]

I think a lot of people would do well to read and understand that post. After a recent exchange with the faithful on the Pink Fish forum, I can only conclude that a lot of people spending huge amounts of money on audio gear don't even know what transparent means!

The price tag is a spec and that spec contains things like micro dynamics, micro details and tonal shading.

The BBC and the DIN standards committee don't know about those!

 

[Hammeredklavier]

I think that for transparency, it would be necessary to fail a double blind test between a perfect reproduction system with no errors, and then system with errors allowed by the transparency standard such as DIN 45500, so that they are indistinguishable to human senses. I think errors allowed by DIN 45500 are severe enough that ABX'ing it should be possible, e.g. if you applied a 1 dB treble shelf to a sound reproduction system, you can probably tell a difference when it's turned on and off, and yet this sort of thing would be considered transparent under DIN 45500 provided the overall error in frequency response error remains within +/- 1.5 dB. Perhaps I'm not interpreting the standard correctly, but that seems overly lenient. The DIN 45500 might be "good enough for 70s hifi", but is that really the last word given 50 years of advance in state of art?

Beyond a certain level I think it's necessary to separate detectable from significant. If I can ABX it, but only if I squint at it in a soundproof room and concentrate till I break out in a sweat, then I take the view I'd be worrying about something I shouldn't!

If it's that hard to tell the difference then does it really matter? Although I'm still not convinced people can actually hear the things they claim they can.

 

[alankila]

I agree that if it takes lots of effort but something like 1 dB broad-band change in frequency response is pretty easy to hear in my experience, so I would not be willing to call it transparent nor do I think that you'd sweat ABX'ing that. I guess I am just looking for a more stringent standard. I remember that there's others, like ITU-R BS.1116-3 which specifies stuff about directivity index, distortion, decay times, frequency response accuracy, and so forth for broadcasting audio systems.

 

[Mart68]

Although I'm still not convinced people can actually hear the things they claim they can.

They are convinced though. Anytime we compare devices without controls there's a good chance we'll perceive differences that don't exist. Same for everyone since what we perceive is made up from both sensory and non-sensory input.

Not bothering with comparisons between devices we know cannot be different is the only way around that. You're not going to hear cable or DAC differences if you no longer bother with comparing cables or DACs.

The measurements show transparency - that's it. We forget about it and move on with our lives.

 

[Hammeredklavier]

They are convinced though.

So I gather. People are still convinced DACs all sound different even though you can do several passes through an AD/DA loop transparently!

It must be me...

 

[antcollinet]

If it's that hard to tell the difference then does it really matter?

This.

Although I'm still not convinced people can actually hear the things they claim they can.

If they are ascribing differences to electronics, cables etc, then in almost all cases, they can't.


Speakers, EQ etc are a different matter.

 

[Mart68]

So I gather. People are still convinced DACs all sound different even though you can do several passes through an AD/DA loop transparently!

It must be me...

If someone doesn't have a grasp of at least the technical basics then they're not going to understand that.

Like with my 85 year old mother's cable TV. It comes over the internet now, and she doesn't understand why if she turns off a box in one room (the router) then the TV in another room stops working.

She has no understanding of what the internet is, so I can't explain to her in any way she'll understand. One of my brothers stuck a post it note on the router that says 'Do not turn this off'. That's all we can do.

 

[Hammeredklavier]

If someone doesn't have a grasp of at least the technical basics then they're not going to understand that.

I think that's it. If someone doesn't know what transparent means then we're going nowhere fast.

I really don't see where even the barmiest audiophile can go from there. If bitstream ==> DAC ==> Amp sounds the same as bitstream ==> DAC ==> ADC ==> DAC ==> Amp then that's the end of it. You can't hear the DAC.

Next!

 

[Mart68]

I think that's it. If someone doesn't know what transparent means then we're going nowhere fast.

I really don't see where even the barmiest audiophile can go from there. If bitstream ==> DAC ==> Amp sounds the same as bitstream ==> DAC ==> ADC ==> DAC ==> Amp then that's the end of it. You can't hear the DAC.

Next!

Because for some people personal experience always trumps knowledge, reason, rationality.

I did not read all the thread you're referring to since it's longer than the Iliad, but I'm guessing at some point someone said 'Don't tell me what I'm hearing or not hearing' or words to that effect.

One possible cause of this is a generally poor standard of education for which the individual can't really be blamed. Otherwise it's the province of psychologists.

 

[Hammeredklavier]

Because for some people personal experience always trumps knowledge, reason, rationality.

I did not read all the thread you're referring to since it's longer than the Iliad, but I'm guessing at some point someone said 'Don't tell me what I'm hearing or not hearing' or words to that effect.

One possible cause of this is a generally poor standard of education for which the individual can't really be blamed. Otherwise it's the province of psychologists.

Oh God don't read it!

To be fair the audiophile community seems to have been reduced to a small rump of very old men with more money than sense. Once that last handful have lost what remains of their hearing or gone to the big vacuum tube in the sky, £50k DACs are going to be awfully hard to sell.

I don't sign in to the forums from one year to the next these days so things change. People who still believe this stuff are obviously wealthy, old, and few in number; I suppose they've got to spend it on something.

 

[Thighsofsteel]

I think a lot of people would do well to read and understand that post. After a recent exchange with the faithful on the Pink Fish forum, I can only conclude that a lot of people spending huge amounts of money on audio gear don't even know what transparent means!

I have read that exchange from the sidelines as I try not to post there these days. Its the usual acolytes of various vendors on that platform who have an enormous financial stake in believing the nonsense some come out with. Especially around DACs and Networks switches. As the saying goes, 'you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink'