doctor_big wrote: > No buts, Arch. Of course, what you've stated is a given, and backs up > Ralphy-boy's explanation as to why he still owns the Simaudio stuff. > Fair is fair. However, your gang is forever harping about how > audiophile stuff specifically, totally doesn't at all sound any better > than low-brow pawn-shop gear. That's your thing right? Right? The > audiophile stuff is a blatant rip-off because it DOESN'T SOUND ANY > BETTER than gear missing one or even two zeros off the end.
A few points I need to make. First, there is no "gang". Although a number of "objectivists" are gathered here, as far as I am aware, it's not like we chat behind the scenes about the postings and somehow have a common view about everything! Well, if there is some kind of weekly -Objectivists Anonymous- meeting, I guess I have not been invited :-). Second. If you read my blog, what stuff do you consider "low-brow pawn-shop gear" that I'm recommending? Of course if you consider the Squeezebox Touch in this category, I guess you're way off course in terms of a forum to chat about such things! My history with audio gear has been one of my toys getting more expensive but I do try to be reasonable because I am not after the Burmester gold fascia... Just to give you a snapshot of my journey in this hobby, I started with my dad's old hand-me-down Sony receiver, JVC CD player, Sansui speakers from the early 80's. Then went with Tannoy bookshelves + sub in the late 90's when I started getting a pay cheque. Then in the early 2000's, a good sounding Denon 3802 receiver with Paradigm Studio 80v3 full height speakers. Into 2010, I played with my dad's Onix Melody SP3 tube amp (which I bought for him a few years earlier mentioned in the "Questions on equipment" thread), along with some vintage Quad amps. Along the way I've had the Sony SCD-1 SACD player, 555ES, a H/K HDCD player. Once I stumbled on the SB3, the road ended with me and expensive disk spinners (actually I still have an inexpensive Sony CE775 CD/SACD for backup - sounds great and handles multichannel SACDs). Generations of home-assembled computer music servers have come and gone. The Transporter came in 2008. Sennheiser HD800 headphones in 2011. And in 2013, the Emotiva XSP-1 preamp, XPA-1L dual monoblocks, TEAC UD-501 DAC, Paradigm Signature S8v3 speakers + SUB 1, DRC playback and other stuff you see on my blog today... Not the most expensive but I think my system can take on many other more expensive stuff I've heard. I've been very clear with my philosophy on audio gear. I want gear capable of -accuracy-. Euphonic distortion is not my thing (tubes can sound great but even you have identified potential rolled off highs and lows, power limitations). I enjoy LPs as collector items. I don't want equipment that imparts "musicality" at the expense of precision and accuracy. As a result, I focus on a combination of objective performance (for verification of accuracy) and of course subjective evaluation to make sure I personally like the sound, or at least am not hearing anything objectionable. This is how I tend to write about the gear - objective performance first, then subjective; obviously the opposite of magazines like -Stereophile -where the primacy is on subjective descriptions. So long as the level of performance is there, if it costs less, so be it! There are always places for money to go into such as the mortgage, vacation, or kids' education! What do I care if there's an extra 0 or 00 tagged to the end if the objective of transparency is achieved? > And my thing -- what I believe is the nut of the audiophile mistrust of > ABX testing -- is that switching back and forth in real time MASKS the > types of differences that distinguish high-end gear. That's why those > audiophiles were so wamboozled by that Stereo Review test way back when > and couldn't distinguish between (I forget the exact gear) Mark Levinson > monos, tube OTL amps, and a mass-market receiver. By all accounts, they > SHOULD have been able to do so - especially given that there were those > nasty, distorting tube amps in the mix. I say they couldn't because a) > ABX masks the type of differences that this gear makes and b) ABX is > really, really hard to get the hang of, and the only people who care to > master it are those with an agenda, who will then happily generate null > results in tests (ok, that's a slanderous assumption on my part, but I'm > not above the occasional cheap shot) > Let's split this discussion into DIGITAL and ANALOGUE. -I believe that the abilities of the human ear/mind is inferior to the quality of reasonably priced DIGITAL gear these days.- Good digital equipment irrespective of the number of 0's at the end of the price tag can "transparently" reproduce what's in the data. While I don't know anything about Stereo Review - perhaps before my time so I would love to read about these tests if anyone has a link, it's not difficult to test the quality of DACs and players these days and demonstrate the level of resolution even inexpensive chi-fi eBay DAC provides these days (not that I necessarily endorse any specific equipment). This is what happens with technological advancement. In the early 2000's, it might have cost $1000 for a DAC that can accurately reproduce the LSB of a 16-bit PCM stream. Now it's easily within the grasp of $200 gear. As per my philosophy of accuracy, this means that what I desire as a threshold of "good enough quality" is actually deflating in cost as time goes on. This is congruent with technology in general - cells phones do more for cheaper, computers faster for less, etc... No reason therefore in my mind arguing for stratospheric priced digital audio gear unless one is after those "non-utilitarian functions" I spoke of (which I have no issue with!). And IMO definitely no reason to spend good money chasing after ridiculously expensive cables; especially the "digital" variety. As for the ANALOGUE side, especially for speakers, this is where I feel ABX really is essential. Notice I rarely get into the debates on ABX and listening test design... It's Arny's baby :-). Like testing medications, eventually it needs to be tested on humans. The problem is that it is difficult and rarely possible to perform a good ABX in one's home without an ABX switch device and essentially impossible to ABX speakers due to placement issues. I'll leave that to the experts like Floyd Toole (see other thread) and the results they achieve. As per Toole's lecture, objective methods do correlate nicely with subjective preferences - even with speakers and all their complexity. > So here's a chance for Ralphy-baby to put his money where his mouth is > and turn the tables. Listen to a cheap receiver for a month or so, > sighted, and then come back and report if after the month is over, > whether he's just as happy with the cheaper component. Realistically, > in your worldview, he should be just as happy. Shouldn't he? > > Jason No. If this "offer" were asked of me, the above concept would -not be true in my world view-. Even if I think the sound is the same, I am a much richer man than I was 10 or 20 years ago. I can afford more and would happily "prefer" to keep something more expensive because I would like it in other subjective ways; not the least of which that it's a cool statement piece when friends come over. No different than perhaps if I have a nice car, or fancy watch, or nice suit. -Objectivity is not the same as asceticism.- Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103950 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
