doctor_big wrote: > 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...
Yes, I do solder stuff... But nope. No garnet ring for me. Let's just say my background is closer to RonM. > 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. Cool. Then we're on the same page for the vast majority of this stuff. > 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. Yes. There are differences of course. But I think if you ABX the Transporter vs. Touch compensating for the volume, you'll find that it would be tough! Likewise, the 'Dragonfly 1.2 measures reasonably well' (http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/08/measurements-audioquest-dragonfly-v12.html), but I can say that for the money I did somewhat prefer the AudioEngine D3. Again, it's really hard to do ABX without special equipment. This again is why I like the measurements side of things. It exposes differences like the high Dragonfly crosstalk relative to other good gear and also a bit more channel level imbalance (in this sample) before actual listening, allowing me to focus on this aspect to make sure it's not too objectionable. > > Amp/preamp - here we differ. They sound different to me. > Yes, amps differ. Tube amps measure differently. But again, can we actually perform a good enough ABX/blind evaluation to prove to ourselves that it's not expectation bias? If not, that I think we must express our -beliefs in terms of opinion rather than strongly assert it as facts- as some people do! > > 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. > Then appeal to the fact that measurements have never shown a change in the analogue output quality of the gear with reasonable and inexpensive cables connected. I encourage people playing and experimenting but when it's clearly "nuts" the kind of difference they supposedly hear wrapped in flowery prose (just look at those Synergistic infomercials on AudioStream), I cannot help but be struck by the delusional nature of these articles. > > 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. And I can appreciate this as well. Choice is good. I have no problem with using EQ and room correction curves to tailor the sound to one's preference for example. The B&K curve for room response is preferable to a flat one for many and that's great. However, I believe it is good for the equipment to measure as accurately as possible first so these tweaks can be implemented by the user rather than "baked in". Better that the equipment is built to an "ideal" standard IMO. > > 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. Yes. Dual mono amps are cool :-). Likewise, glowing tubes are cool. But that's of course different from the sound itself. > > 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 Well, I always have my Onkyo TX-NR1009 receiver connected to my computer. It uses the HDMI port and can play stereo easily to my pre-amp. I know through measurements that it doesn't perform as well as my TEAC DAC including in areas like jitter, noise floor, etc. Now I have not tried only listening to it for a month but I suspect that it would be enjoyable but probably not "happy" knowing I have an objectively better DAC sitting right there unused! Suppose my settings got messed up and when I thought I was listening to the TEAC, I'm actually listening to the Onkyo, would I be just as "happy"? I don't know... I can only know if I tried this experiment like that; only then when the expectations have been either removed or made the same can I really know as a human with subjective inner life. I think this is the value of tests like ABX and objective measurements. It tells us what is true so we can gauge comments and weed out those unable or unwilling to differentiate the threshold of what is "good enough" and what is hype. Knowledge sets us free to choose with confidence. 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
