Archimago wrote: > 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 since 2003. 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... Clearly not terrifyingly expensive in this > hobby 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, clearly measurable harmonic distortion, etc.). > 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? > > > > 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 excellent > level of resolution even with inexpensive chi-fi eBay DACs (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 - cell 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. > > > > No. -Automatic happiness because of something sounding good would not be > my world view.- If it were me, even if I feel the sound is the same > after a month, I am a richer man than I was 10 or 20 years ago. I can > afford more and would happily "prefer" to keep something more expensive > because of subjective non-utilitarian reasons; not the least of which > being that it's a cool statement piece when friends visit. I absolutely > allow factors such as this to determine my happiness. No different than > perhaps if I have a nice car, or fancy watch, or nice suit. -Objectivity > is not the same as asceticism.-
Arch, Thanks for a well-thought-out, reasoned, sensible response. I agree with almost all of what you've written. However, I do think there is in fact an Objectivist's Guild, I'm sure you all wear the same garnet ring, and you meet monthly in Arny's wood-paneled basement. There probably aren't candles or sacrifices, but I bet you solder stuff... Digital - I'm a systems programmer by trade, and I figure that skews my concepts of digital far, far toward your viewpoint. Bits are bits. Full stop. The SB is as good as anything out there - better, really as it communicates via TCP/IP which is as rugged a protocol as they come. If TCP/IP is accurate enough for 128bit encryption, it's probably sufficient for audio. DACs - I still feel that there's some differences lurking in the DAC portion of things. My Transporter sounds better than my Touch. Did I ABX? No. But I listened to them both in an informal blind test, and I could pick out the Transporter every time. The analogue circuitry is most likely the cause, I guess. But to your point, cheap digital is really, really good nowadays. The Audioquest Dragonfly, for example, is exceptionally good for very little money. Amp/preamp - here we differ. They sound different to me. Cables - I like to play with them. I don't think they have much, if any, impact on sound. But since I don't trust ABX as a tool with which to investigate this avenue, I can't prove it either way, and don't much care. Accuracy - I can appreciate it and I commend your pursuit of it. However, musical enjoyment comes first for me, and I find that a truly flat system is a touch too bright for me to listen to for extended periods. Perhaps that's why I favour tubes over solid state - they make speakers with flat frequency response and even off-axis performance easier to listen to. Different strokes, and all that. If we all liked the same things the world would be a very boring place and we'd all be driving Volvos. Expensive gear - I suspect we come at this from the same angle. I love high-end gear, just as I do automatic watches and expensive pocket knives. It's fun to have for its own sake. And I don't care what anyone says, having mono amps, one beside each speaker, is an audio home run. It looks cool as hell, and that increases musical enjoyment. Ralphy and happiness - I think maybe you misconstrued what I was saying. When I said -would he be as happy- I meant would it sound as good. This goes back to my concept that short-burst ABX testing masks differences that are revealed over longer listening sessions. Again, thanks for the reasoned discourse. It's rare around here. Jason ------------------------------------------------------------------------ doctor_big's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15196 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103950 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
