Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[Dialectic]

Since joining ASR last year, I bought 3 DAC and one amp......

Did you get carried away with SINAD numbers?

 

[Inner Space]

Yup, the price of being in a relationship.

I have exactly what I want, as far as equipment goes, no constraints, price no object - yet the most expensive electronic thing in the house is the refrigerator she chose.

 

[Pdxwayne]

Did you get carried away with SINAD numbers?

It is one of the reasons but not the only one. First, I got KTB and found out it is not very convenient. On and off would have loud pops, if I don't turn off amp first. I wanted something with a remote.

I then got Gustard x16 for its xlr outputs and remote capability, but then it got delayed.

When E30 went on sales, around Thanksgiving, I thought I should take advantage of it so I can have better on and off control with a remote, in case Gustard x16 failed to shipped.....Well, now I am getting the x16 next week. ; )

 

[Old Grey Punk]

A never ending discussion, repeated over multiple channels, pretty much ever since music reproduction devices became widely available. And the actual (relative) truth is pretty straightforward. If the end goal is just to enjoy listening to music then that IS achieved with a relatively modest outlay i.e. a couple of hundred £££s/$$$s at the most. Anything beyond that is because of other motivations. I'm quite happy to admit that the not inconsiderable sums of money I've spent on audio kit over the years is actually because I enjoy buying new audio stuff. If I think back to the enjoyment I got 40 years ago listening to what was by any standards very modest equipment it was certainly no less than the musical enjoyment I get listening now.

So, I don't think anyone who is being honest wouldn't in truth admit that much of the time, for some reason, they feel the need to justify the money they've spent by making claims about 'dramatic improvements', 'huge upgrades in quality of sound', 'massive upgrade in xyz', when in fact any differences may be by a tiny fraction 'better' (but probably in fact are just very slightly different). Sure, sometimes things wear out or break down, and it can be fun replacing them with something different, but the sound differences are never 'night and day' (to quote an oft used phrase). As an example, and as I posted earlier in this thread, objective comparison of cartrdiges (e.g. a vinyl rip where all equipment is identical except the cartridge) shows that any differences even between such supposedly chalk and cheese cartridges as a Dynavector DV20x2 and an Audio Technica AT120e are tiny. The differences may be detectable if very careful critical listening is undertaken, but in terms of playback just to enjoy the music, any differences are utterly immaterial.

I'd go so far as to say that anyone who says they can't enjoy listening to music anymore because the 'sound is horrible', where the kit being used has achieved all the basic requirements of decent playback (which as I say can be achieved relatively very modestly), has lost the ability to just listen to and enjoy music, but is in fact indeed listening to the equipment, and hearing huge differences which just do not exist, or at least don't exist in terms of being genuinely unlistenable from a musical perspective.

 

[steve59]

When someone uses asr or dr toole’s work to attempt to impose their will and mock those of us that decide for ourselves how to spend our own money it comes off...________.

 

[Sukie]

When someone uses asr or dr toole’s work to attempt to impose their will and mock those of us that decide for ourselves how to spend our own money it comes off...________.

You can spend your money in any way that you like. If you want to post about how you spend your money then you are opening yourself up to comment.

 

[Judas]

Hello friend. Hey, listen...we know how it is. Believe me, most of us have been there too. You've spent years toiling in the muck of audiophilia. You read ALL the reviews. You watched ALL the youtube videos. You visited ALL the other forums where everything always makes a difference. You bought the cables and the little bridge thingies for them to sit upon and the benefits were magical. You bought the $1000 IEMs that only truly sang after 250 hours of burn-in. Not 200 hours...or 225 hours, but 250 hours! It must be that for the magic to appear! You converted your entire music library to super high res and enjoyed the blissful new details that never were revealed by the awful, cludgy mess that was 16/44 cd. Never have your ears been assaulted by the likes of bluetooth audio or lossy mp3! You searched endlessly for the perfect dac...the dac that truly brought the magic! You bought one after another, each more expensive than the last, searching for the one, true dac that sounded better than all the rest...

And then you arrived here...and posted about your dac discovery, and were told that a dac shouldn't sound like anything at all! Suddenly your audio reality came crashing down around you. How can this be? Why shouldn't a dac sound great?? Why would expensive dacs even exist if they all sound the same??? Wounded, you lash out angrily! It's idiocy! It's retarded! These people have dead ears! It hurts. We understand. It's been a long time and you've spent a lot of money, all for naught. But once the pain diminishes and you've had time to deal with your emotions just give it some thought. Do some reading here and once your ban is lifted, maybe ask a few questions. Instead of locking your eyes shut against the bright light of objectivity...just open them up a little. Just a squint! Let a bit of that light in and bask in a warm, tubey glow that actually means something! Perhaps, as with many of us, a weight will begin to lift off your shoulders. Perhaps there is freedom in this new reality! You might discover that there is a different way...a way that wields real magic. A way that actually answers questions and reveals truth while at the same time leaving your wallet fat and happy! Welcome my friend. Welcome to ASR where the truth shall set you free!

Wow!
I find the term "Golden Ears" offensive. I have never claimed to be able to hear anything a personal of normal hearing could not. But then maybe you are not talking about me
I am new here. But I am not new to your arguments.
It is quite presumptuous to assume I and people like me are virgins to so called objective measurements. Most of us were born in the cradle of Stereo Review, High Fidelity, Audio ,et al . Indeed it was that same everything sounds the same mentality that audiophiles found wanting. And led them to alternatives.
I am unable to account for the excess or hyperbole that exist in highend audio. In any field there are the corrupt and incompetent. Speculators who out to make a quick buck. But that exist on both sides. You cannot generalize form the specific. The exception does not make the rule.
There is a difference to be heard. If there is not, what is the purpose of this forum? We can all just pick the one being advertised by the the blonde with big breast. Or take whatever is on the shelf at Best Buy.
I promise to keep my eyes open. (I never had them closed.) I ask you to do me a favor. Keep your ears open. Because good reproduced music is the only goal that makes any of this worth while. You can only experience that with your ears.

 

[Sukie]

Keep your ears open. Because good reproduced music is the only goal that makes any of this worth while. You can only experience that with your ears.

Nobody is denying the subjective experience. This thread is all about understanding the various sources of that experience.

To be clear, we don't experience music with our ears. We experience music with our brains. The ears are an integral part of the process, but the brain does the experiencing. In my opinion this is vitally important for understanding this thread and this site.

At any one time the brain is processing a large amount of information, including the signals that it receives form our ears. That's why we don't always trust our ears when it comes to making pronouncements about equipment. In other words, are the differences we hear attributable to a piece of hardware or the circumstances in which we experience the music? Only controlled double blind testing (and measurements) can give you the answer.

None of this takes away from the validity of the subjective experience that you have whilst listening to music.

 

[MattHooper]

My message to any golden-eared audiophile contemplating buying needlessly expensive audio equipment that measures horribly would be (sorry, non-US readers, if this does not make a lot of sense):
Repeat to yourself a dozen times a day: "I'm NOT going to pay a lot for this music muffler! Even though my ears have been touched by Midas."

I'm not fond of telling other people what to buy or not buy.

I wouldn't in a million years pay what some of my friends pay for a watch. But I wouldn't tell them not to pay big bucks for those underperforming watches (relative to my $15 digital watch), because they get a kick out of it where I don't.

I'd rather say: Buy what you want. But it's a good idea to be clear-eyed and somewhat educated about what you are paying for, recognizing that there's a lot of b.s. claims in audio, so you don't get scammed.

 

[Judas]

Nobody is denying the subjective experience. This thread is all about understanding the various sources of that experience.
Au contraire mon ami.
To be clear, we don't experience music with our ears. We experience music with our brains. The ears are an integral part of the process, but the brain does the experiencing. In my opinion this is vitally important for understanding this thread and this site.
A distinction without a difference.
At any one time the brain is processing a large amount of information, including the signals that it receives form our ears. That's why we don't always trust our ears when it comes to making pronouncements about equipment. In other words, are the differences we hear attributable to a piece of hardware or the circumstances in which we experience the music? Only controlled double blind testing (and measurements) can give you the answer.
I always trust my ears.
None of this takes away from the validity of the subjective experience that you have whilst listening to music.

It certainly attempts to. In a rude and condescending manner.

 

[Sukie]

It certainly attempts to. In a rude and condescending manner.

Before I bother answering I need to know if you're genuinely interested in engaging, or if you're going to continue with single line slogans?

It looks to me like you're trolling, but I'm happy to be corrected.

 

[Thomas savage]

When someone uses asr or dr toole’s work to attempt to impose their will and mock those of us that decide for ourselves how to spend our own money it comes off...________.

They become everything they claim to loath.. but are too dumb to realise .

 

[JustAnandaDourEyedDude]

I'm not fond of telling other people what to buy or not buy.

I wouldn't in a million years pay what some of my friends pay for a watch. But I wouldn't tell them not to pay big bucks for those underperforming watches (relative to my $15 digital watch), because they get a kick out of it where I don't.

I'd rather say: Buy what you want. But it's a good idea to be clear-eyed and somewhat educated about what you are paying for, recognizing that there's a lot of b.s. claims in audio, so you don't get scammed.

I am on board with your approach to advising folks. I do not actually advise anyone about anything unless they specifically ask for my opinion, a rare happening . (That is why my post said that my message "would be", i.e., if someone asked me.) My preceding post in this thread was more about the jokey reference to the Midas car exhaust muffler ad that used to play endlessly on TV, and it was not specifically addressed to anyone. If I were so rude as to advise anyone how to spend their money without being asked, I am sure I would get an earful. I have made lots of bad spending decisions that have kept me poor, so I am in no position to point fingers at anyone else . I like Amir's approach to educating consumers: lay bare the facts about music reproduction equipment in the context of audio science, and let people read and decide for themselves.

 

[Thomas savage]

Music has to be live , the best thing about live music is anything can happen , in the toilet or behind the bins ..

The music is the mixer of communication and ultimately connection.

Anyone who doesn't understand that is lost and has no hope .

One could argue listening to music at home, in the stereo vice is anti music and selling ones self short and missing the whole point.

One could argue ..

 

[Robin L]

Music has to be live , the best thing about live music is anything can happen , in the toilet or behind the bins ..

The music is the mixer of communication and ultimately connection.

Anyone who doesn't understand that is lost and has no hope .

One could argue listening to music at home, in the stereo vice is anti music and selling ones self short and missing the whole point.

One could argue ..

To get into the potential quantum weirdness of it all, music is [among other things] a demarcation of time. All recordings occurred in the past, recorded music enables one to live in the past. My experience of music in the present tense is radically different from listening to a recording, particularly when I pick up my guitar. When playing with others one requires a heightened quality of attention, and that quality of attention is contagious to an audience. Artur Schnabel, the first pianist to record all of Beethoven's piano sonatas, did not have good things to say about the process or the result, noting how the quality of attention would be missing from listening to a recording, setting in amber an idea of a piece of music which, in performance, always has the potential to change. Even if the music is 200 years old.

 

[MattHooper]

I am on board with your approach to advising folks. I do not actually advise anyone about anything unless they specifically ask for my opinion, a rare happening . (That is why my post said that my message "would be", i.e., if someone asked me.) My preceding post in this thread was more about the jokey reference to the Midas car exhaust muffler ad that used to play endlessly on TV, and it was not specifically addressed to anyone. If I were so rude as to advise anyone how to spend their money without being asked, I am sure I would get an earful. I have made lots of bad spending decisions that have kept me poor, so I am in no position to point fingers at anyone else . I like Amir's approach to educating consumers: lay bare the facts about music reproduction equipment in the context of audio science, and let people read and decide for themselves.

Understood.

As for people asking an opinion on what to buy: I'm known among my friends as working in sound, and being heavily in to home theater and highend audio so, of course, people seem to think I'm the go-to guy for advice "We are thinking of getting a new TV...what do you recommend?"

The problem here is that:

1. The very fact I'm an enthusiast deep in to this stuff means I'm willing to pay more than the average sane person for "the best I can get." Unfortunately this means I'm most knowledgeable in the narrow price bracket in which I buy my own gear. I don't really necessarily know what the latest, best bang-for-the-buck TV or projector or speakers may be.

Nonetheless, if asked I will do some research for them in their price bracket, at least knowing what to look for or avoid, but then:

2. Whatever I recommend never ends up mattering. People never really care about better performance. They care about what they can get easy and without too much money. So after I give my recommendation inevitably upon follow up they just walked in to Best Buy and bought whatever the salesman guided to them as on sale.

I don't bother doing this any more for the most part. And every enthusiast I know has had the same experience with friend's asking for advice.
And, of course, when I ask my other friends advice in their area of enthusiasm, I can fall in to the same pattern too.

 

[MattHooper]

To get into the potential quantum weirdness of it all, music is [among other things] a demarcation of time. All recordings occurred in the past, recorded music enables one to live in the past. My experience of music in the present tense is radically different from listening to a recording, particularly when I pick up my guitar. When playing with others one requires a heightened quality of attention, and that quality of attention is contagious to an audience. Artur Schnabel, the first pianist to record all of Beethoven's piano sonatas, did not have good things to say about the process or the result, noting how the quality of attention would be missing from listening to a recording, setting in amber an idea of a piece of music which, in performance, always has the potential to change. Even if the music is 200 years old.

That's very interesting Robin!

Your reference to time and psychology as it relates to listening to music makes me think of how I have often related to listening to the radio.

Especially before digital/streaming took over.

When listening to the radio, say driving, when a song I knew came on, especially if it was a song that was just becoming popular - that second or third time you hear it and it sinks in as a great tune - there was something more special about it. You had no control over what you were going to hear on the radio. And it was broadcast "live" to the public as you were listening. There was a sort of connectedness to the buzz of new popular music. Even if I was driving alone in the car hearing it, I was part of a large audience hearing it at the same time. Sort of like live TV.

So when a song came on that I liked there was a "yay, I LOVE this song" bit of surprise while also being part of a larger audience all listening right then to the same song. It just changes the texture of the listening experience for me, almost a bit more buzz, more live, than just, say, putting a CD on in the car, or from the ipod, or later from an iphone or streaming where you are totally in control and the only one listening to the song.

I know that some other people may not have felt the same, and relish their absolute control given by the digital universe. Some of this divide, if there is one, may also be seen between those of us who love going to The Movies to watch a film with a live audience (me!) vs those who are grateful to finally be able to watch movies at home, without the "bother" of other people impeding the experience.

 

[AdamG]

They become everything they claim to loath.. but are too dumb to realise .

Wisdom this...BZ.

 

[JustAnandaDourEyedDude]

To get into the potential quantum weirdness of it all, music is [among other things] a demarcation of time. All recordings occurred in the past, recorded music enables one to live in the past. My experience of music in the present tense is radically different from listening to a recording, particularly when I pick up my guitar. When playing with others one requires a heightened quality of attention, and that quality of attention is contagious to an audience. Artur Schnabel, the first pianist to record all of Beethoven's piano sonatas, did not have good things to say about the process or the result, noting how the quality of attention would be missing from listening to a recording, setting in amber an idea of a piece of music which, in performance, always has the potential to change. Even if the music is 200 years old.

Excellent point. The same distinction between live and recorded can be made about sex. And the techniques here are older than 200 years, methinks.

 

[Judas]

Before I bother answering I need to know if you're genuinely interested in engaging, or if you're going to continue with single line slogans?

It looks to me like you're trolling, but I'm happy to be corrected.

Now I'm a troll? Any more insults?