[DVV]

Before this site is lost in too much meaningless gabble about infinitesimal differences between product A and B, let's ask some real questions:

Why do we have audio, to listen to music, or to listen to components?

Do we buy audio to impress people, or to enjoy it?

Do we buy hardware and limit our enjoyment to ever searching for better components, or do we use it as a means to get to the music?

Do we need top flight systems to enjoy the music? Can music not be enjoyed with lesser systems as well?

Why is it automatically assumed that bigger price means better audio?

Why are demos very often limited to inherently quieter types of music, like light jazz, some soul, a bit of chamber music? Where is the adrenaline packed stuff? Why isn't that demoed - perhaps because very low power magical audio simply dies with anything with a dynamic range exceeding 7-8 dB?

Please, PLEASE, feel free to add your own questions.

Cheers,
DVV

[audiojerry]

These questions from DVV were prompted from Nathan's earlier post on switchboxes. Nathan, I hope you don't mind, but I copied it here, because I think it is very provocative and worthy of lots of healthy discussion.

Sure I believe it. These guys know their electronics very well. But what I don't believe is that an infinitesimal improvement in electrical performance, that you have to sit around and concentrate on to hear means jack squat in the larger scheme. Nor do I believe that a 5% improvement is worth an ungodly large price markup, as is the case with most of these $300+ cables. A lot of folks are laughing all the way to the bank I am sure.

Sooo....the physics of electronics pertain ONLY when listening to lite jazz? If you put on a rock CD magically these factors of capacitance, inductance and resistance etc. just fly right out the window? Hmmm, well that is VERY interesting! Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy is it not? You can only hear minute differences in music you LIKE? Boy, could that possibly mean that it's the MUSIC that matters, not the equipment?  Put on a Limp Bizkit record in the most expensive, technically perfect system ever built and I will still hate it. Jerry didn't like the Cathedral track I played him because he doesn't like the music, so why should he even care about looking for differences? Who could blame him? Likewise I could not much care if a guy going "tzz" sounded like he was 4 feet or 3 feet to the left of me.

If you claim to be able to hear differences in cables then it is fair to assume that you will also be able to hear if said cable is connected to a switchbox or not, right? Or that cable A still sounds different than cable B when you factor in the tone of the switchbox. Likewise I would imagine that you would be able to hear the difference if a single resistor or capacitor was swapped out in the component. If a two foot stretch of copper is auidbly different than another two foot stretch of copper, then you're asking me to believe you could hear any number of vanishingly small changes in the entire playback chain.

But I cannot deny with any certainty what anyone claims they can or cannot hear, I just find it a bit silly to say you CAN hear a difference between A and B but just by themselves, but NOT if factor C is involved. If a switchbox is going to be so awfully corrupting to the sound then wouldn't each inch of wire also make a difference? Could you hear the difference between an 8 foot and a 16 foot cable? There's probably enough metal in the 16 footer to account for what's in the switchbox.

Sitting around and listening to "differences" wether real or imagined, is largely a waste of time in my opinion. If you don't like what you're listening to in the first place then all the rest is pointless. If a person is only playing a certain CD to hear special effects or to analyze how each little sound byte is rendered by their system, that to me sounds about as much fun as watching paint dry. I think disillusionment with a particular album's music over time gives rise to this analytical nonsense. Obviously the song is no longer moving your emotions if you're listening for the half a millisecond attack of the guitar string or whatever.

Jerry's setup always sounded great each time I heard it because of macro differences; it's all good gear. I couldn't really care less wether ACME or Furshlugginer Brand cables were used. It would still sound good. I heard bigger differences when we changed speakers, but I couldn't hear any meaningful improvement with cables. And I would never pay more for a cable than I did for speakers!

I'm not trying to ream anyone a new asshole here, (just giving audiojerry a hard time, mostly! ) I just think it's too easy to get carried away with this stuff. It's kinda like walking around with microscopes taped to your eyeballs. What we really SHOULD be doing is bitching at the record labels about making more natural-sounding recordings with less close-miking techniques. Don't gate out every background noise. Use less compression. Don't EQ the drums so much. The recordings are what really matter, less so what we're using to play them on. Not surprisingly, the records I always thought had a good recording back when I had compartively crappy equipment have still shown themselves to be good now that I have comparatively better gear. You can get the notion of recording quality even through a cheap boombox. Great music is more powerful than any bit of electronic gadgets you can come up with - it will bore through cheap equipment like a blind mole and still move you. Obviously it's even better if the playback chain sounds great! But after while you've gotta ask yourself, what's the point in listening with an "ear loupe"?

I'd like to comment on a few points that Nathan made:

Likewise I could not much care if a guy going "tzz" sounded like he was 4 feet or 3 feet to the left of me.

Taken out of context, it does seem a bit ridiculous to care about such a silly detail in a recording, but I believe getting this type of detail right is demonstrative of the playback ability of your system. Taken in context, these types of minute details are needed to capture the nuance of the the musical event. Nathan, you said it yourself that much music is ruined by close miking and other bad recording techniques. But when a recording is done right, there is so much more that can be experienced if your system allows you to do it. Take someone who loves poetry. A poetry lover can read the same passage dozens of times, and extract new meaning and new pleasure every time he reads it. Music can be appreciated in a similar way, and my love of music drives me to want to hear each musician's technique and the subtle things he is doing, and how he is commincating with the other musicians, and how they are playing together to create an intricate tapestry that can be enjoyed even more deeply when your system allows you to examine that tapestry in all its detail and glory. So, I admit to pursuing gear, but not for the gear itself, but for how it helps me connect more closely to my music.          

Jerry's setup always sounded great each time I heard it because of macro differences; it's all good gear. I couldn't really care less wether ACME or Furshlugginer Brand cables were used. It would still sound good. I heard bigger differences when we changed speakers, but I couldn't hear any meaningful improvement with cables.

Thank you for the compliment, but I believe my system sounds the way it does because every component plays a role, some bigger than others, including my power cords, my Shakti stones, and my Aurios Isolation Bearings - even something as seemingly insignificant as my connectors. Ask Wayne and others about the Bullet Plugs. You can't build a great sounding system without being analytical at times and paying attention to the details. I believe Nathan is becoming guilty of this himself.  All the little subtle differences add up to the macro differences that you can hear from one system to the next.  

I've got lots more to say, but not enough time to say it right now, but thank you Nate and DVV for stirring the pot.  

[audioengr]

The answer is "it depends" on the listener IME.  Some cultures, such as Japanese and some Asian countries appreciate discipline and restraint, so they tend to listen to quieter more detailed music.  Others, such as the brits, who invented the Beatles and the Stones love loud boistrous music as well as refined classical.

One thing that is clear is that the beat (tempo) of whatever type of music is in our genetics.  A recent study by (I believe) Harvard Medical School showed that improvements in concentration and IQ resulted when two groups were subjected to a variety of music.  The first group was children with learning disabilities and the second group was "normal" children.  Both groups scored higher than similar control groups.

As for music appreciation, speaking for myself:  listening to music through a resolving, accurate system is superior in several ways:
1) I can listen for longer periods without stress
2) I can listen at higher levels without stress
3) The emotional impact is stronger

[Night Wolf]

*all my personal opinons*


"Why do we have audio, to listen to music, or to listen to components?"

well, of course it is to listen to the music, but the trade-off being better system=better music

Do we buy audio to impress people, or to enjoy it?

I would have to say both, I love vintage gear, I woulnd't think twice over choosing a vintage unit and a modern unit (considering they are in the same league) and all my gear I really enjoy, both visual and sonicaly, but my gear also has the guts to back it up, becuase over the internet you can't just walk over to someones house and listen to their system in their room how they have it setup, so you tend to go by specs and what kinda of things it uses (be it caps in amps or drivers in spekaers)

"Do we buy hardware and limit our enjoyment to ever searching for better components, or do we use it as a means to get to the music?"

?

"Do we need top flight systems to enjoy the music? Can music not be enjoyed with lesser systems as well?"

you can enjoy music if it's on a $20 boom box or a $100,000 rig, becuase it goes back to listening to the music for what it is. BUT there is no such thing as the best system, becuase here's how I see it, let's say you are listening to the best sound system ever made, call it system X, so your playing your favorite music on system X, wow it's great and all, but then you say you want better bass, so you get better bass, but now it's not system X anymore, it's system XB (B for bass) but now you want even better bass, so now that system is XBB (BB for better bass) so your listening, and like wow this is great, but I want a wider sound stage, so now our system is XBBS (S for sound) get the point? it will just keep on expanding and expanding

"Why is it automatically assumed that bigger price means better audio?"

that goes for anything. more expensive car=faster, more expensive computer=faster/do more things, more expensive camera=better pictures, more expensive plane= move people more efficently etc...

"Why are demos very often limited to inherently quieter types of music, like light jazz, some soul, a bit of chamber music? Where is the adrenaline packed stuff? Why isn't that demoed - perhaps because very low power magical audio simply dies with anything with a dynamic range exceeding 7-8 dB? "

because Jazz and other music like that can make any speaker, even cheap spekaers sound good, it's a sales technique that sales people use, and the consumer hardly realizes it, just one of the many actualy.

[hairofthedawg]

Not intended toward anyone in particular, but I am going to listen to the New Radicals CD Maybe Youve been Brainwashed too on my overly expensive Symphonic Line system.  I do not listen for them, but the details are there if I choose too.  It is nice when I catch them and when they surprise me.   I like to listen loud and to music that people say has little dynamic range but I like it.  What dynamic range there is, I hear.  Closer to the Heart by Rush has never sounded better.  Nor has Nightswimming by REM.  I will not apologize for succumbing to  some of the hype and purchasing SL.  It  sounds fantastic to me.  Cables?  I have noticed differences, but you are right, you have to listen closely to notice.  I usually do not listen that closely unless I am trying to improve my soundstage which will always be a work in progress.  I am having fun discovering ways to improve my sound and do not mind a couple of mistakes along the way.   Anyway, to each their own, as long as you tap your foot, you are doing fine...I do

cheers,

Dick

[DVV]

These questions from DVV were prompted from Nathan's earlier post on switchboxes. Nathan, I hope you don't mind, but I copied it here, because I think it is very provocative and worthy of lots of healthy discussion.

Well, yes and no. Nate did trigger it this time, but Jerry, old buddy, I've been asking them questions for two decades now. I always get brushed off because I see too many people wanting to discuss gear, not music.

Snip, snip, snip, ...

Taken out of context, it does seem a bit ridiculous to care about such a silly detail in a recording, but I believe getting this type of detail right is demonstrative of the playback ability of your system. Taken in context, these types of minute details are needed to capture the nuance of the the musical event. Nathan, you said it yourself that much music is ruined by close miking and other bad recording techniques. But when a recording is done right, there is so much more that can be experienced if your system allows you to do it. Take someone who loves poetry. A poetry lover can read the same passage dozens of times, and extract new meaning and new pleasure every time he reads it. Music can be appreciated in a similar way, and my love of music drives me to want to hear each musician's technique and the subtle things he is doing, and how he is commincating with the other musicians, and how they are playing together to create an intricate tapestry that can be enjoyed even more deeply when your system allows you to examine that tapestry in all its detail and glory. So, I admit to pursuing gear, but not for the gear itself, but for how it helps me connect more closely to my music.  

I am in the middle here. I partly agree with both of you. I do think too much is being put into what's not worth it, but I agree that some nuances can be, well, tantalizing, even seductive in drawing you more into the music. Hard to define in black and white terms, too much depends on many things.
       

Thank you for the compliment, but I believe my system sounds the way it does because every component plays a role, some bigger than others, including my power cords, my Shakti stones, and my Aurios Isolation Bearings - even something as seemingly insignificant as my connectors. Ask Wayne and others about the Bullet Plugs. You can't build a great sounding system without being analytical at times and paying attention to the details. I believe Nathan is becoming guilty of this himself.  All the little subtle differences add up to the macro differences that you can hear from one system to the next.  

All that is good and fine, Herry, and I certainly appreciate the effort and obvious love of the art you have invested in that. It's perfectly clear to me you are not into one night stands, you take your time to do it and do it well - not complementing, just stating it as I see and feel it.

But you are NOT typical Jerry, not by a long shot. I have proof of that - remember what you said when we discussed Hevia and his music? The point is, while taking the time, trouble and yes, the wherewithall to put together a great system, you did it not for the system, but for the music. This is the difference, you are into music and take the system as a way of getting to the music, noit as an end unto itself.

I've got lots more to say, but not enough time to say it right now, but thank you Nate and DVV for stirring the pot.  

Well, ol' Nate an' me, we de artsy types. I bought into Nate with brother Theodore - will you believe me when I tell you I spent like two hours just gazing at that picture Nate downloaded on me, and never felt the time slip by? I look at brother Theodore today and he never ever fails to draw a smile. Why? Because I think I glimpse what Nate put into him, and even if I'm wrong, and Nate flasly swears he didn't wnat to put anything into him, and hands me this s**t about wrong perspectives, Nate is HAPPY with that picture, and it shows.

With you, I discussed music. With Dan and Hugh, amplifier design. With Jay and Guan, line filtering problems. With Francisco (Psychicanimal) just about everything ove rthe last year.

You tell me - in an environment like that, why should be hard to start asking loudly questions I almost gave up on?

Ciao,
DVV

[Raj]

You may or may not like my comments, if you don't, I don't care!
A very interesting topic this, with far more underlying implications rather than just equipment.  The biggest part played here is the ability to convey emotion. The stimulation of emotion leads to one pointedness of mind, when this is achieved even for a short time a feeling of euphoria is experienced. Much of how music is percieved depends on our state of mind when we listen to it. Certainly looking for details after performing an 'upgrade', leads to a higher level of concentration with regards to the listener, and this could explain many a percieved 'new sound' or nuance in a track or piece of music. That said some upgrades can make a staggering difference! There are times when we are receptive opon sitting down to listen to music, this receptivatey is due to the fact that we have managed to clear our minds of the outside world and focus our attention, music is far more enjoyable when you can do this, and even lesser components can be enjoyed in this manner. Trouble is, and I speak from experience here, that we get wrapped up in making our systems sounding better and better, and you do tend to get very analytical rather than listening to the meaning of the song or music being played. I have found, just like the comments made earlier that a good quality system really does have the ability to carry you off to that 'distant place'. Is'n't that what we're really looking for? An escape from the 'hub-bub' of the world and our minds?

Thanks
Raj

[DVV]

"Do we buy hardware and limit our enjoyment to ever searching for better components, or do we use it as a means to get to the music?"

?

Well, you must have seen the types. They go out buy the biggest, baddest most expensive audio they can lay their hands on, take it home, duly impress their friends, and in 6 months, presto! they have an all new, all kick ass system of that moment 6 months later. And so it goes over years. In the meanwhile, their music collections is still below 12 CDs.

The other kind are people who are always complaining how their system is limited by something, and keep changing components trying to make it click together with their grand collection of 3 CDs.

you can enjoy music if it's on a $20 boom box or a $100,000 rig, becuase it goes back to listening to the music for what it is. BUT there is no such thing as the best system, becuase here's how I see it, let's say you are listening to the best sound system ever made, call it system X, so your playing your favorite music on system X, wow it's great and all, but then you say you want better bass, so you get better bass, but now it's not system X anymore, it's system XB (B for bass) but now you want even better bass, so now that system is XBB (BB for better bass) so your listening, and like wow this is great, but I want a wider sound stage, so now our system is XBBS (S for sound) get the point? it will just keep on expanding and expanding

No, Wolf, most of us unfortunately do not even remember it's about music. I agree with you, a great piece I'll enjoy over a $20 boombox, not as much as over my system, but I'll still enjoy it. Most people however don't really listen to the music at all, they listen to noise they can't understand or make sense of, or to their system, or to some detail they managed to discern in the whole do, but very, very few people listen and try to get the hang of the music's feeling, the motion which moved somebody to write that music.

"Why is it automatically assumed that bigger price means better audio?"

that goes for anything. more expensive car=faster, more expensive computer=faster/do more things, more expensive camera=better pictures, more expensive plane= move people more efficently etc...

I agree - but why? Just because it's more expensive? Is therefore the price of anything its real measure?

[/quote]
because Jazz and other music like that can make any speaker, even cheap spekaers sound good, it's a sales technique that sales people use, and the consumer hardly realizes it, just one of the many actualy.[/quote]

You got that right, Wolf, and then some. That's exactly the point.

Cheers,
DVV

[JohnR]

Why do we have audio, to listen to music, or to listen to components?

What's wrong with doing both?

[DVV]

Why do we have audio, to listen to music, or to listen to components?

What's wrong with doing both?

Nothing at all John, as long long as you don't forget about the music, or start treating music as a way of telling differences among components.

Cheers,
DVV

[JohnR]

Well, I wouldn't even agree with that. It's a hobby, if you ask me people are entitled to get out of it whatever they want! If that means buying stuff purely for the purpose of impressing the chicks... well it's not my gig but good luck to them is what I say

If you ask me, audio is like any other pursuit that involves blending technology and skill (or art, if you insist). Take something else... say, people who like building cars. Perhaps we should tell those guys that it's fine for them to build nice-looking motors, as long as they don't forget that their hobby it's all about getting from A to B as fast as possible. Uh... right.

So what's up Dejan? You seem unhappy about something. Are these questions really bothering you? To me it seems like the technology and the music and the whole bit is all part of the hobby. In fact, the equipment *is* what makes this hobby, as opposed to, say, oo, going to concerts a lot? Nothing wrong with going to lots of concerts, of course, but *that* doesn't make you an audiophile, does it? Nope... well hm, I guess it seems that liking music is OK, as long as you don't forget about the equipment.

So, "can music not be enjoyed with lesser systems as well." I think so, in fact I think that it can be even more enjoyable, AS LONG AS you don't forget that it's the equipment that is making the music play for you! For example, take a challenge. Assemble a highly enjoyable system for a thousand dollars. DIY is OK (of course ) so you've got a year to do it. I bet this would turn out to be more fun for many people than constantly "upgrading."



JohnR

[Tyson]

Most of the time I don't give a shit how my "system" sounds, I'm grooving to tunes, many times laying on my couch, out of the sweetspot, just feeling the music.

Listening critically and doing comparisons are 'tools' that let you get the best sound/performance from your system.  Once that goal of optimization is complete, put the tool down and enjoy the fruits of your labor.  It's like making a nice chair yourself.  Lots of measuring, work, analytical thinking, and optimization for the parameters that are most important to you.  But once the chair is built, put the tools a way and just sit in the damn thing, relax and enjoy the comfort/pleasure it gives you.

When you get tired of the chair, or just want something different, pick up your tools again, and building on your previous experience, build an even better chair.  Same holds true for audio.

The danger is, of course, that the process becomes the goal, and you end up a "gearhead".  For those of you that are already gearheads, my advice is to get a good set of headphones and forget about your system for a while, just re-connect to the music. . .

[Brad]

my advice is to get a good set of headphones

Which headphones?
Tube or SS headphone amp?
Which cables?

     I know - I'm missing the point.....

[BobM]

Recent audio club meeting: The club member substituted an inexpensive system for his main rig. Hung a sheet in front so we couldn't see it. Here's the difference.

Normal system cost @ $10,000. Maggies, SET's for top and solid state amp for bottom, ART DI/O DAC, SACD,etc. Sounds good with emphasis on the imaging.

Cheap substitute: AR 215PS (@$50/pair), 20 year old NAD integrated, lamp cord speaker cables, cheapo interconnects, Pioneer DVD player (@100). Total system cost <$400.

Fooled a lot of us. Actually sounded better than his main system in many areas. Of course he tailored the demo music to fool us and didn't overdrive the speakers.

I actually went out and bought 2 pairs of these babies for the start of my home theater system. Sounds damn good and far better than they have any right to.

Enjoy,
Bob

[RJ]

You buy a  Ford Taurus to get around.......You buy a Ferrari to get around. The Ferrrari may bring additional enjoyment and satisfaction to it's driver.  No one is being forced to buy anything. Get what YOU want.

Drive a Chevy, listen to a Kenwood. Drive a BMW, listen to an Odyssey.

As long as you are enjoying yourself and not hurting anyone what's the problem?

[audiojerry]

What's wrong with doing both?
It's a hobby, if you ask me people are entitled to get out of it whatever they want! If that means buying stuff purely for the purpose of impressing the chicks... well it's not my gig but good luck to them is what I say

Well, thanks for that perspective, JohnR. With such simple, elegant logic, you have managed to cleanse me of any guilt I may have felt for pursuing this hobby. I hope others can see the light and realize how profound your comments are.

Nathan, I think cool looking equipment does impress the chicks. My wife ain't a chick, but she really likes exotic looking gear - especially the stuff from Italy. So there is no basis for criticizing your motives.

JohnR, I think it's great that you always seem to be building something new, and never seem to be satisfied. I would like to someday put together an entirely diy system and try to make it compete with my reference system.   So there is no basis for criticizing your motives.

Psychicanimal seems to be fanatical about achieving the best power and line conditioning. When you apply JohnR's simple logic, there is no basis for criticizing him.

So maybe even if a guy owns 1 cd, but spends 20k per year constantly changing equipment, how can he be criticized? This hobby allows him to do that, and if it makes him happy, so what? Also, there are no rules that say you can't change your motives midstream from being a gearhead to becoming a music lover.

[nathanm]

What's wrong with doing both?
It's a hobby, if you ask me people are entitled to get out of it whatever they want! If that means buying stuff purely for the purpose of impressing the chicks... well it's not my gig but good luck to them is what I say

Actually that was a joke.  Audio gear never impressed any female I ever knew.  But then, I don't exactly show it to any of them either.  Blanket statement: Women just want it to disappear, to not have to look at it at all.  Now, I sure hope this doesn't apply to ALL women everywhere.  They just like the end, the means is inconsequential.  That's been my limited observation.

Both Dejan and JohnR make great points.  On one hand it's perfectly fine to make the equipment the hobby unto itself, even if you want to listen to listen to the same test CD over and over again while swapping various components and writing your impressions down in a notebook. On the other hand it seems ridiculous to spend so much money on something designed to play music and yet spend so little time actually listening to music for the enjoyment.  I guess there's room for both approaches.  (One of them might make your friends and family look at you funny, or maybe even laugh at you, that's all!) For me it's a linear thing.  I don't actually enjoy the swapping of components for it's own sake; I have a sound in my head for what I want to hear, and all the gear tryouts are just a means to get to that end.  Once I do I hope that I stop buying stuff altogether.  I just haven't got there yet.  I also enjoy it for the industrial art aspect quite a bit.  I would never buy anything based on sound alone. Form and function have to be intertwined.  There are some extremely talented designers out there; it makes me feel like craftsmanship has not been totally abandoned in this world.  

The danger is, of course, that the process becomes the goal, and you end up a "gearhead". For those of you that are already gearheads, my advice is to get a good set of headphones and forget about your system for a while, just re-connect to the music. . .

This is also very true!  I know I've become a gearhead to an extent because I know for certain that I used to be much more into music than I am now with all these pricey gadgets.  I know it sounds stupid, but ignorance is bliss!  It seems the more you know about how things work the less you enjoy their output.  It's really a mixed blessing! Part of it is also just getting older and having all the bands you used to enjoy so much either break up or start putting out weak crap.

[JoshK]

About women and hi-fi equipment....my plasma impressed my wife FAR more then my audio rig did, but she said, "it sounds nice."

[Dan Banquer]

The major reason I started to do audio electronics was I was absolutely disgusted with what I heard at just about any price. Fellow readers I am a cursed human being. I have been formally educated in music and electronics. My father is a classical musician. I did a fair amount of growing up in his studio. As I started to analyze why I was so disgusted I came rapidly to a few conclusions. The first is that noise is a major problem, and most gear out there is not really designed to reproduce all the information that's on a CD. The second realization is that loudspeakers have not progressed much over the past 10 years. Drivers are getting better, but that's about it. Fried and Dunlavy are out of business, and I see no one on the horizon who is going to take their place. The third realization is that all I can do realistically on the playback end is attempt to reproduce recorded music. Note the word recorded. I am presently happy with my present system. I could use a better room.
After doing Audio electronics for the past 10 years or so I have come to the following conclusion. Loudspeakers are so far behind that they need to catch up. This is not about to happen because many good engineers that I know will either not get into this business or have left it with no intention of coming back. We realize that this business has next to nothing to do with real performance, and everything to do with Marketing. As for myself; I expect in 3 to 5 years that high end will be as good as dead.
I will keep my part time business and wait. What goes around, comes around.

[Night Wolf]

You buy a  Ford Taurus to get around.......You buy a Ferrari to get around. The Ferrrari may bring additional enjoyment and satisfaction to it's driver.  No one is being forced to buy anything. Get what YOU want.

Drive a Chevy, listen to a Kenwood. Drive a BMW, listen to an Odyssey.

As long as you are enjoying yourself and not hurting anyone what's the problem?

what if the Taurus is a '94 SHO with the Yamaha-built V6 ?