Archimago wrote: > I was originally going to respond to the 24/192 discussion with this but > thought it more apt to start a new topic instead of tangential hijacking > :-) > > I wonder if we've had a good / serious discussion here around the > question of what as "audiophiles" we're trying to accomplish with our > gear. No need for ridicule, but just a frank discussion of our thoughts > around why (some of us) spend so much time on this "obsession" :-) > > As one more in the objectivist camp, I'm personally striving for > "accuracy" with reasonable specs which exceed my hearing capacity so I'm > pretty sure I'm "not missing anything" through the electronics. Once I > think this is achieved, I'm not really interested in owning the next > "upgrade" unless I'm pretty sure it brings something beneficial to the > table. Sure I'm interested in what's new and would happily join friends > in auditioning gear (even have thoughts of visiting RMAF this year), but > unless I really think it makes a difference, there's really no need to > own it. Likewise, intellectually if it really makes little sense, I am > by nature skeptical. On the software side, I like to obtain the best > mastering so enjoy picking up some MoFi, Audio Fidelity, old DCC's, > maybe the "first pressing" before remasters killed dynamics. As a point > of reference, I don't necessarily consider the "live music" as something > I strive to replicate (I listen to live music almost every week). I > expect the best I can do is replicate the "mic feed" as best I can in my > home which one cannot reasonably expect would sound exactly like the > live event (and that's assuming a 'direct-to-disk' recording without > fancy EQ and other studio effects). In fact, what I hear at home often > is better than my seat at the live event already. Before the widely used > term "audiophile", it was "high fidelity" which I think might be a > better term for what I'm striving for in playback. > > On the other hand, I know many audiophiles want a euphonic sound. Tube > gear and vinyl lovers I think must follow this philosophy. I'm not sure > I understand that philosophy fully and what "point of reference" being > used in that situation. > > Note that I'm not saying anything about one viewpoint being "superior"; > rather just wanting to hear the viewpoints.
Given that not one of us has - identical systems, setup in the same room, with the same music being played - any subjective comparison on what any us can or can't hear lacks a true reference and is nothing more than an exercise in futility as it is nothing more than a un-winnable "I hear this, you hear that" battle. In the absence of such reference many people use science, or maths, or measurements as a reference point since it's the only way to bring into the fold some element of objectivity which can be referenced by everyone. As for me. It boils down to this: If I can hear it, and measurements suggest I shouldnt be able to hear it, then I believe that what I hear may be real or imaginary but I side with imaginary and wonder if I should go see my shrink. If I can hear it, and measurements agree that I should be able to hear it, then I believe that what I hear is real and I grab another drink. If I can't hear it, and measurements suggest I should be able to hear it, then I change up my system. If I can't hear it, and measurements suggest I shouldnt be able to hear it, then I grab another drink. Main: Acer Aspire One netbook --> Squeezebox Transporter (slave mode) --> Lessloss 2004 mkII Pre/DAC (master mode) --> Sanders Magtech stereo/Innersound ESL800 mono power amps --> Sanders 10c active speakers ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pneumonic's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10091 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98057
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
