[werd]

Did you even read the definition?

"a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument"

As to specifically who you are referring to as "audio frauds" and so on, perhaps you should say, since those are your words.

It is hardly a fallacy when the actual ad hominen is a fact. I refered to it in a sort a, third party, as to avoid a direct contact.
   

[JohnR]

I think we got that - people that don't agree with you are frauds.

[werd]

No, the ones that have no system profile and go out of their way to inject their negative opinion is what i mean. There are tons of people who hold a different perspective than me. I certainly would not call Elizabeth a fraud. No way, and she has been the one voicing her views. But they are civilized and I respect them.

What you just did, is what i did last night. I stereo-typed EEs and you stereo-typed any opposing view of mine.

[macrojack]

I think we got that - people that don't agree with you are frauds.

That seems a fair, succinct and accurate synopsis.

His position reads like it is his infallible interpretive wisdom against the myopic and clandestine folly of everyone else who ever ran speaker wire. Werd sounds like your basic, run-of-the-mill science denier who gets his proof from AM radio. Those friggin engineers think a piece of paper and some book learnin' is all it takes to make good sound. Everybody knows trial and error is how you get things done.

In order to be consistent he should unplug his computer and write us letters.

[Armaegis]

Ok, how does an inheritantly crappy component (by default) make it the most important piece? By the way you assign importance. Would it not be the least crappy component (by default, using your logic) that is the most important?

I'm just saying I would rather have $1k speakers powered by a cheap Lepai amp and my laptop as source, rather than a $1k dac playing through $20 computer speakers.

[werd]

Within our lifetimes, the idea that bandwidth limitations would prevent streaming audio at whatever sample rate or resolution you like from whatever device you want will become laughable.

Progress.

It is for me right now. I am on Sasktel's Mach 2 fibre optic. 250mb dl and 30 Up. I can stream Tidal, and game while on Netflix.... smooothly. With phones in there too.   

[werd]

That seems a fair, succinct and accurate synopsis.

His position reads like it is his infallible interpretive wisdom against the myopic and clandestine folly of everyone else who ever ran speaker wire. Werd sounds like your basic, run-of-the-mill science denier who gets his proof from AM radio. Those friggin engineers think a piece of paper and some book learnin' is all it takes to make good sound. Everybody knows trial and error is how you get things done.

In order to be consistent he should unplug his computer and write us letters.

Except for one naggin thing Macro. You hold that same opinion and it is continually getting voiced on threads for it to be meaningful. Oh look, no system profile. Go figure.

You could change your handle from Macrojack to Macro negative-attack Jack.

[werd]

I'm just saying I would rather have $1k speakers powered by a cheap Lepai amp and my laptop as source, rather than a $1k dac playing through $20 computer speakers.

I wouldn't encourage that  Not to mention it would look out of place too.

[werd]

Elizabeth, I would recommend getting a decent digital front. I am particularly biased towards Bryston dacs. Since, imo, i think they are the king of Prat. I have heard lots of dacs. Including the Top of the line Naim Stuff.

A $250K system that featured their Statement amps. In the sweet spot in demo at the dealer.
Absolutely best example of an amp tracking the dac in amplitude. Of course i would rather have that but the Bryston BDA2 was more toe tapping somehow.

If you lived near me i would lend you mine. Also, imo, the BDP1 holds some of the best value for used gear. The bugs are worked out and it streams using xlr or coax/BNC with a toroidal power supply that is overkill for a streamer. I have seen them for $800  .

[AJinFLA]

I am particularly biased towards Bryston dacs. Since, imo, i think they are the king of Prat.

Another clueless EE designed product like your NOLAs and stereophonic sound.
Fascinating.

[werd]

Another clueless EE designed product like your NOLAs and stereophonic sound.
Fascinating.

You think i don't know EEs design audio gear?

[werd]

I know not all are like this. There are two (negative style)EE camps that are particularily annoying. They both set up road blocks.

 The first camp are the audio designers who are local and small business. They tend to rally their gear at the expense of other manufactures ,on the premise, that (they know best) since they are an EE.

The other camp are the ones that dismiss all subjectivity, with the idea that measurements are the only indicator of electronics and what they can sound like.

Those two camps are the problem since EE school didn't teach them how to STFU on subjective claims.

 There, so now you know what i am referring to.

[AJinFLA]

You think i don't know EEs design audio gear?

Electrical engineers couldn't make a system sound great good if their lives depended on it. Only because, system building and what sounds good has NOTHING to do with electrical engineering.

So obviously your DAC, loudspeaker maker and stereophonic sound inventor had no clue they were selling you gear and creating a transduction method that sounds great to you in your system, aka "great sound".
Do you think the Bryston folks and Carl Marchisotto et al, are even slightly aware of how non-great their assembled systems sound? I wonder how Carl "EE" Marchisotto listening tests his loudspeakers?

[werd]

This is what i meant. I am assuming i wrote that last night. I was into the pints and i was feeling a little juicy   .


What sounds good is not an EE topic. It is human hearing. All the EE can do is construct gear to a design. Then claim their design sounds good. Hoping that people will conclude that it does because they equate their electronic measurements with what sounds good.

That is not true by defeault sonically. (Although functional and safely yes.)That is only marketing.

[macrojack]

I know not all are like this. There are two (negative style)EE camps that are particularily annoying. They both set up road blocks.

 The first camp are the audio designers who are local and small business. They tend to rally their gear at the expense of other manufactures ,on the premise, that (they know best) since they are an EE.

The other camp are the ones that dismiss all subjectivity, with the idea that measurements are the only indicator of electronics and what they can sound like.

Those two camps are the problem since EE school didn't teach them how to STFU on subjective claims.

 There, so now you know what i am referring to.

Subjectivity, in this context, means opinion. It refers to one person's preference. In all likelihood, a charismatic, clever presenter can enlist quite a few who will share his expressed opinion. Let's say everyone agrees -- then we have a consensus (of opinion). Still, we are dealing with nothing more than opinion. It is only when we become objective, that we can move beyond mere opinion and establish measured & proven superiority.
I know, I know, I'm an opinionated jackass trying to pass off verified opinion shared by many as fake news. Clearly I have an agenda. And no system profile listed under my name defiles any shred of credibility I might embrace, no matter the accuracy of my comments or the merit of my methods.
Thanks for your patience, werd. It must be grueling for you having to contradict the uninformed majority at every turn. You are the kind of person I detest because you insist on rewording everything said to you. You take my words and ignore my meaning (no matter how well expressed) and respond to your interpretation (opinion) instead. Do you think you understand my intention, my meaning, better than me?
Soooo ---- here it is: Nothing can be accomplished subjectively designing because you won't know where to stop. You will forever be designing to suit your mood at the moment. You will be doomed to circular progress (spinning your wheels) because you cannot establish a goal or confirm your arrival there without data. Opinions are not data. And circular logic never moves forward.
Good god, boy, You have no way out. You are wrong. If you can't be a man and admit your mistake, then just slink off and call us names (ad hominem) To comfort yourself. Maybe you know a sympathetic bartender. Find some relief somehow. Just stop digging.

[FullRangeMan]

Please lets avoid posting personal assertions.

[zoom25]

I'll post a bit of my experience and how my strategy has shifted over the years.

I've done headphones (cheap Bose and Sony headphones to HD 598, D2000 to HE-500, LCD-2.2, LCD-3 and HD 800), speakers (from cheap Logitech desktop and M-Audio AV30 to mid range Mackies to stuff like Amphions and experience on big active ATCs - 150), DACs (Fiio E10, E11, cheap CD players to mid range Marantz CD players to Bryston / Naim/ NAD / Arcam/ Luxman,Dangerous Music converters)...All in all, total systems, whether headphones or speakers, in the range from everything included going as low as $200 to $10-30k+.

When I started out, my preference was always to get the best headphones or speakers I could find and then worry about the rest of the system over time. To a point, that still remains true. However, as I went and acquired top headphones and speakers I quickly realized that my low end and mid-range front-end components were seriously getting in the way on enjoying my speakers and headphones. This was a lot more noticeable and problematic when it came to headphones. With speakers, I can get used to it, but unavoidable with headphones.

So what does that mean? For me I would get fatigued and felt that the system didn't come alive and didn't have that drive. No matter what material I played, I didn't find the satisfaction no matter how much I turned it up. It didn't click right. The transients were veiled, music felt disjointed, couldn't find rhythm, a sense of artificialness. A lot of other subjective ways I can describe it in, but it doesn't matter, as at the end of the day it was resulting in me using my system less and less as time went on.

That's when I decided to get rid of a lot of my gear. I had tried decent transducers with low-end and mid-fi front end that everyone had suggested. It sounds the right thing to do in theory, but it didn't work out for me in practice.

This time I started with a good front end (BDP-1) and DACs. The transport (BDP-1) definitely helps in the long term listening enjoyability. I used high end front components at the start with mid-fi transducers and I was already getting better results with more musicality, less fatigue, and more enjoyability than before.

Having a good front end also lets you hear your potential speakers at their best with BOTH their strengths and weaknesses in full light. I would take my front end to audition with different headphones and speakers. I find the source stuff to make a difference in low-mid speakers as well. The lack of fatigue and veil is always appreciated.

With top speakers and monitors, as the resolution continues to increase, the front end becomes more and more noticeable. It eventually gets to a point where you cannot help but not notice it and avoid. Choice of DAC, transports, cables, pre-amp all make an audible difference that you become aware of either right away or down the road.

BOTTOM LINE: If your end goal is to have the top transducers and room, the more important the front end becomes and you should probably invest in that first before jumping to top transducers, or you may end up severely dissatisfied. With mid-fi and borderline mid-fi/high end speakers, it's a more pleasing experience regardless of the components used, provided the speaker is voiced well on the whole. For example, the KEF Q series with just about any amp. A Marantz PM and Q series on the cheap is an excellent match and experience, although any amps used will give you great pleasure if you like the speakers.

But for top end speakers, it becomes a lot more trickier and EVERYTHING MATTERS. It can be frustrating getting it right. This is not theory but speaking from experience. It might be paradoxical to some people's opinion.

I guarantee there are ZERO disadvantages starting out with the best front end you can get in the long run, or saying it interfered with finding the right speakers. I cannot say the same thing when things are reversed.

A lot of dealers in GTA and experienced mastering people I know feel the same. They echo my sentiments as they have gone through this cyclical experience and painfully realized it over time. I've also found that the most experienced also don't want to comment publicly and would rather PM me. This holds true on audiophile and professional forums. They don't want to deal with the headache of pissing people off.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that this is the truth and the only definitive way. However, if you are someone who isn't happy with their system or periodically feel the magic isn't there, you may want to reconsider your thinking. Audition for yourself. Some dealers allow for long in home auditions if you have a standing with them.

Regardless of where one currently stands, you should try to keep an oped mind. I've changed my opinions on many things over the past decade on a lot things that I previously considered the hard truth. My experience definitely improved as a result of being willing to try and experiment, preferably without investing money. Cheers!

[AJinFLA]

What sounds good is not an EE topic. It is human hearing.

Ok, tell us how you got to be the definer of "sounds good"? Can you quantify it for the rest of us?
Btw, acoustics (sound) is a branch of engineering.
Dr Floyd Toole is an EE (PhD), but his tests were almost exclusively "sound good" to ears tests, not measurements. The idea is to correlate those measurements with "sound good".
It seems that the folks who are ignorant of/unable to correlate measurements to "good sound" might be projecting their own inadequacies onto others, like "EE"s.

All the EE can do is construct gear to a design. Then claim their design sounds good.

So neither Bryston or NOLA are capable of listening, nor can they cobble together a "great sound" system. They must have just got really lucky with those measurements! 

Hoping that people will conclude that it does because they equate their electronic measurements with what sounds good.

I am particularly biased towards Bryston dacs. Since, imo, i think they are the king of Prat 

More projection? You are the one claiming "sounds good" here.

[Russell Dawkins]

Front ends are all about screwing up Prat.  . Does one like Prat more than resolution? Front end gear is prat and speakers are resolution. Which is it?

This made me smile. Thanks, Werd, for bringing some levity to this serious topic. 

....thinks....

You were joking, weren't you??

[G Georgopoulos]

say, a vinyl source with good speakers can sound amazing
and a good digital source with average speakers can sound amazing

cheers