Yes, it beat me physically! Even the sound of a an actor saying the word, "Preponderance" knocked the breath out of me. But it was nonstop death battering even when the movie was doing nothing.
Audiophools abound
- Thread starter Flint
- Start date
Yes, it beat me physically! Even the sound of a an actor saying the word, "Preponderance" knocked the breath out of me. But it was nonstop death battering even when the movie was doing nothing.
Truth: The playback medium is reproducing the master recordings, and if the master recordings sound terrible, the playback cannot sound any better (this applies to all mediums including LP, CD, streaming, or reel-to-reel).
False Claim: If the original recordings are digital, they are inherently bad sounding even if the playback medium is LP.
This presupposition that all digital recordings are going to sound bad simply because they are digital is one of the most horrific failures of the audiophile community, press, and manufacturers. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the same recording, mixing, mastering, and reproduction principles and techniques from the best artists of the 1970s were used to make a modern recording with all digital technology, the result would be inherently BETTER because all of the analog formats past and present are more flawed than digital formats. All analog formats introduce more audible noise, they create more audible distortions, they experience losses in transfer, and they are simply inferior. Modern recordings tend to sound bad because of the choices the labels, recording teams, and artists make while creating a new recording - it isn't due to the format being used.
This is the most confusing answers to a simple issue. He dances all around the facts, like he is scared to death to state the truth.
The truth....
Every audio source worthy of being called Audiophile is VASTLY better than even the best speakers in every possible way. In other words, it is true the speakers can only reproduce whatever they are fed, but what they are fed in most like to be an order of magnitude higher quality than the speaker can handle.
Just look at the typical performance characteristics of two common sources versus typical speakers playing at reference levels in an average room:
THD
Vinyl = 1.0 - 0.1% (depending on cartridge, frequency, and outer versus inner grooves)
CD < 0.001%
Speakers >1.0%
IMD
Vinyl = (audible, but far too much variance to summarize)
CD = Near or below audibility
Speakers = Audible in most cases
In-Room Frequency Response
Vinyl = 30 - 18,000 Hz +/- 3dB (effective)
CD = 5 - 20,000 Hz +/- 0.5dB
Speakers = 30 -20,000 Hz +/- 6dB
Effective Dynamic Range (assuming room noise floor of 45dB A-Weighted SPL)
Vinyl = 40 - 60dB (dependent on frequency, cartridge, and outer versus inner groove region)
CD = 96dB
Speakers < 60dB
Frequency Dependent Phase Shift
Vinyl = Measurable but minimal in the audible range
CD = Inaudible
Speakers > 480 degrees (typical two way system with cone/dome drivers)
Channel Inbalance
Vinyl < Approximately +/- 0.5dB depending on setup and outer versus inner groove region
CD = 0dB
Speakers = From 0.5dB to well over 6dB depending on speaker design, placement, room acoustics, and seating position
Added Resonance, Ringing, or Decay
Vinyl = Inaudible, if at all present
CD = None
Speakers = Massive! Speaker resonances and ringing, early reflections & room echo, and room reverb add significant resonance to the signal source
I could go on, but the point is pretty much made in these aspects of sound which obviously make music sound better or worse.
So, even an affordably average turntable setup is likely to be significantly higher fidelity than even the most high end speakers. Does improving the sources make a difference? Of course! But what makes more of an appreciable and enjoyable difference - slightly and audibly changing the clarity and dynamics by upgrading a turntable, or finding the perfect set of speakers for your tastes, room, and desired listening levels?
This guy is incredibly annoying to watch and listen to, but he makes a very good point. Loudness is incredibly important to how we perceive quality. That's why when we used to discuss doing listening tests between components or speakers in the past I would write long lectures on the importance of perfectly matching the gain of the two devices being compared.
He "discovered" what nearly all audio engineers have known all along - CD audio is pretty much as good as we can hear and any attempt to exceed it to get better sound is generally a waste of time.
He "discovered" what nearly all audio engineers have known all along - CD audio is pretty much as good as we can hear and any attempt to exceed it to get better sound is generally a waste of time.
Chord Company’s ChordOhmic fluid promises improved cable signal transfer
Essentially by creating a greater contact area on the connection
Chord Company’s ChordOhmic fluid promises improved cable signal transfer
$260 bucks for a 10 ml bottle!!Chord Company’s ChordOhmic fluid promises improved cable signal transfer
Essentially by creating a greater contact area on the connectionwww.whathifi.com
Chord Company’s ChordOhmic fluid promises improved cable signal transfer
Met a local audiophile today. His system consisted of Anthem preamp with Krell and Accuphase sources and amps paired with entry level - as in Best Buy level - B&W speakers. I mean, he was using 4 of the 600-series bookshelf speakers all around, some random mis-matched center channel, and the entry level towers (603, I think) for the front two channels (and the home builder's in ceiling speakers for Atmos). With tens of thousands invested in electronics and about $3,500 invested in his Atmos surround system, it sounded, well, as good as those speakers in that room could sound. Add to that the room wasn't symmetrical and had no acoustic treatment whatsoever, and you get a terrible overall experience.
Sure, the gear worked well (though I could clearly make out an audible hum/hiss when the system switched on, which for me is the first absolutely unacceptable aspect of any "high end" system). But this poor guy will never know what great sound is if he continues down this path.
He asked my advice on acoustic treatments, and I started with what I thought would be the most effective and least imposing (a total of four simple 2x4 absorbers around the room to cut down on the extreme echo in the room - it was splashy and slappy like in a locker room) and he immediately looked shocked. Like, he couldn't believe the panels had to be so "huge", as he later referred to them. He was hoping a few small, artistic skyline style diffusors like he'd seen on the audiophile Facebook groups would do the job and he'd be done.
Poor bastard.
Sure, the gear worked well (though I could clearly make out an audible hum/hiss when the system switched on, which for me is the first absolutely unacceptable aspect of any "high end" system). But this poor guy will never know what great sound is if he continues down this path.
He asked my advice on acoustic treatments, and I started with what I thought would be the most effective and least imposing (a total of four simple 2x4 absorbers around the room to cut down on the extreme echo in the room - it was splashy and slappy like in a locker room) and he immediately looked shocked. Like, he couldn't believe the panels had to be so "huge", as he later referred to them. He was hoping a few small, artistic skyline style diffusors like he'd seen on the audiophile Facebook groups would do the job and he'd be done.
Poor bastard.
Wardsweb
Renaissance man
Audio is truly an endeavor where ignorance is bliss. If you have never heard better, you can be happy with less. Education also pays a big part of knowing there is better, what constitutes better and how to go about getting there. Still each person must decide for themselves, how good is good enough. The audio rabbit hole runs very deep.
That's true!
This fellow is disappointed by the sound of his system. He called me over specifically to discuss improvements so he could get the sound he's heard in other systems. But, he is so set in his perceptions of how to accomplish good sound that he is blind to what is wrong.
People are dumb. I bought a nice amp when I was in high school, figuring that I would need it to drive nice speakers. Unfortunately, my financial situation changed and I was stuck with a nice amp and shit speakers for five years. I would have been much smarter to buy better speakers and live with a shitty amp.
That is NOTHING like this though. What is the point of having super high-end electronics and entry-level speakers?
That is NOTHING like this though. What is the point of having super high-end electronics and entry-level speakers?
I politely conversed and steered the conversation to understand his philosophy which is, in a nutshell:
Crap in / Crap out - or, if the signal isn't perfect the best speakers in the world will sound like shit. He is completely ignorant as to the near perfection of the signal in even the lowest end electronics and assumes that a $10,000 amplifier is genuinely ten times better sounding than a $1,000 amp. However, speakers, to him, just sound the way they do and as long as you get speakers which sound good to you, they are good enough.
I asked if he was considering upgrading his speakers and he said he was more interested in even better cables before he thinks about speakers. He also said that if he replaced the stereo speakers with significantly better models, the entire system would be unbalanced and not sound good at all for movies.
He needs to hear your speakers and see what you are using for electronics.
I think that would fail. I've learned over the years that people who have developed a strong, albeit false, knowledge of how things work don't believe the truth when presented with evidence. Like my buddy who took over 5 visits with at least hour long listening sessions to realize that my rig made plain ol' CDs sound vastly superior to his multi-thousand dollar turntable setup when he's spent well over 30 years perfecting.