What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[Harry]

Epistle on the Audibility of Excellence: A Reflection on Professional Audio Equipment-this will be my final view of how I hear things, and it will also end my involvement in this thread!

In the world of high-fidelity audio, the question lingers like a ghost in the parlour: Does professional-grade equipment truly sound better, or are we all simply deluding ourselves? One man's science is another's snake oil, and too often the dialogue between the camps devolves into mutual suspicion — objectivists waving graphs and null tests, while subjectivists clasp their ears and speak of air, colour, and soul. But perhaps, between these poles, there lies a more balanced truth.

Let us begin with what is undeniable. Professional audio equipment — whether in the realm of recording studios or high-end domestic systems — is built to stricter tolerances, with superior components, noise rejection, thermal stability, and often with an ear to sonic neutrality and musical integrity. These are not marketing slogans but engineering facts. And yet, the naysayers persist: "If it measures the same, it must sound the same."

But to those of us who live with music — not as background filler but as a spiritual sustenance — such assertions ring hollow. The act of listening is not merely data collection. It is a gestalt of body, brain, and heart. The human ear is capable of extraordinary resolution when trained and focused. It may not measure in microvolts per meter, but it registers the subtle cues of life: the sigh of a violin string, the ghost of a harpsichord's dampers, the momentary expansion of orchestral space when the conductor breathes between phrases.

Science, if it is honest, must account for all observable phenomena — including the observable fact that many listeners do hear differences between components that measure similarly. Some of these differences are minute and fleeting; others are profound and persistent. Burn-in, jitter, clock accuracy, microphonics, the noise floor shaped by power supplies — these all contribute to the final sound and are sometimes too subtle or context-dependent for conventional measurement tools to reveal fully. Yet we hear them, and consistently.

Moreover, professional equipment is not made in pursuit of placebo. Recording engineers, mastering technicians, and classical producers rely on gear that delivers reliable, repeatable excellence — not audiophile voodoo. When studios choose Bricasti DACs, Weiss converters, or Lavry clocks, it is because these tools help reveal more truth in the signal, not less. And if truth is the ideal, then surely we, the devoted listener, are justified in seeking the same.

A system tuned with professional care is not a display of status but a gateway to insight. It allows the nuances of interpretation, of phrasing and hall acoustics, to emerge as naturally as breath. The goal is not to impress, but to dissolve the boundaries between reproduction and reality. When such a system is in harmony — source, amplification, and transducers alike — the music does not play; it becomes.

Let us not scorn science, but let us also not imagine that science ends with a sine wave and a spectrum plot. Psychoacoustics is still young, and music — that most complex and emotional of signals — is not easily caged by logic alone. Listening is an art, and like all art, it touches something in us that exists beyond quantification.

So no, it is not humbug. It is not snake oil. It is attention, discipline, and devotion — to music, to the craft of sound, and to the idea that the human spirit deserves beauty, not just adequacy.

And if we are fools for caring, then let us be wise fools — ears open, hearts stirred — listening not just to the notes, but to the life between them.

[drogulus]

    Do we admit that at least some quality assessments are purely subjective or must all of them be real differences?

    It seems to me that the removal of objective considerations in favor of sonic impressionism means it's just as valid for someone to claim the cheapest amp from Best Buy is superior to the $10,000 Titanosaurus X999. One simply inverts the common pricetaggery and replace it with its antithesis. Since no reference to objective criteria is relevant in the first case, the same would be true in the second.

[Fëanor]

What a peculiar and rather amusing comment, if I may say so. I couldn't care less what others may have heard, or what the physics textbook has to say. I'm not in the habit of seeking external validation. My entirely subjective opinion is the only thing that concerns me. And just for you, I shall repeat it slowly: on my rather advanced audio setup, the difference was perfectly audible, and that, I assure you, is all the honesty I require.

Perhaps it would healthy for each of us if we had some realm in which we could totally indulge our whimsy.

[71 dB]

Ditch the formulas. Listen with your own ears. Forget what others told you to think. Trust what you've discovered yourself - you have every right to live your own life. The world will shine with colours no textbook ever dared to mention. Fear is the last cage. Break it .

My own ears tell me the problems with sound quality are in the recordings. It is how the music has been recorded (mic positions/configurations etc.), mixed and mastered. Audiophile fuses or cables don't fix those problems. They don't even help with getting rid of too much money because I don't have too much money.

[Florestan]

My own ears tell me the problems with sound quality are in the recordings. It is how the music has been recorded (mic positions/configurations etc.), mixed and mastered. Audiophile fuses or cables don't fix those problems. They don't even help with getting rid of too much money because I don't have too much money.

Agreed and there's more to the whole matter. Claiming that expensive audiophile equipment somehow makes music a more natural, intense and spiritual experience than other equipment is equivalent to claiming audiophiles have a more natural, intense and spiritual experience than the contemporaries of Haydn or Mozart or Beethoven or Chopin or Liszt or Tchaikovsky or you name any composer active before the advent of recording technology. But --- leaving aside the fact that recorded music is by definition not natural, we know from multiple written, irrefutable testimonies that they experienced back then levels of intensity and rapture which I doubt are easily replicated today in whoever may listen, audiophile or not. Nobody will ever convince me that the thrill and excitement of Eroica's premiere, of a Liszt or Paganini recital or of hearing Chopin playing were less than those offered by listening to the same music on record, be it on the most SOTA and expensive audiophile equipment. Moreover, I'm quite sure that if hardcore audiophiles traveled back in time they would find the acoustics of those venues deeply wanting as compared to that of their listening room, and that is leaving aside the fact that the absolute silence in which they listen today was completely unknown back then. And yet those music lovers were perfectly able to be enraptured and entertained by what they heard in environments and conditions which compared to the audiophile ones were appalling. Evidence that music's power over and effect on listeners is not dependent on acoustics in general, much less on audiophile acoustics in particular.

All that is to say that while audiophilia in itself is legitimate and harmless (except to the purse), the claim that only an audiophile can truly experience music as it should be experienced is blatantly false.

[Henk]

...

Listening is an art, and like all art, it touches something in us that exists beyond quantification.

So no, it is not humbug. It is not snake oil. It is attention, discipline, and devotion — to music, to the craft of sound, and to the idea that the human spirit deserves beauty, not just adequacy.

And if we are fools for caring, then let us be wise fools — ears open, hearts stirred — listening not just to the notes, but to the life between them.

Good to hear this from you, Harry. It speaks to me.

I want to listen more to music and indeed approach it as an art. Concentration on the music is rewarding while listening only halfly the experience can get boring.

It's a philosophy and a way of living. In these times it's not easy to stay living in a decent way that makes sense. I want to break free from modernity, from all the suffering, from an ugly world, from idealism, from Nothing and from God.

Only concrete things count. Cleaning counts, talking a walk counts, seeing the innocent beautiful, concrete things count. Listening to music, a concrete thing dealing with concrete sounds composed in a beautiful way counts.

[AnotherSpin]

My own ears tell me the problems with sound quality are in the recordings. It is how the music has been recorded (mic positions/configurations etc.), mixed and mastered. Audiophile fuses or cables don't fix those problems. They don't even help with getting rid of too much money because I don't have too much money.

It is not a matter of fixing anything. There is no problem to begin with.

Consider the following analogy. One can take pleasure in the paintings of great masters through reproduction books, images on the internet, or even black-and-white photographs. These means will, of course, provide a certain idea. Yet one might also choose to make the effort, to devote time and money to travel and entrance fees, in order to see the works in person. Those who have done so will know precisely what I mean.

Naturally, no audio system, however advanced, can ever be an exact replica of live musical performance. Nevertheless, it is possible to come remarkably close. What harm is there in such a pursuit, particularly for those who are not lazy?

I would add one further thought. One of the unexpected rewards of assembling a high-quality audio setup, at least in my experience, has been that many archival recordings, previously difficult to listen to on basic systems or modest gadgets, suddenly revealed themselves. A whole world opened up, one which, in this case, is no longer accessible in person. You cannot hear it live any more.

To listen to a live recording of Knappertsbusch and the great voices, made at Bayreuth in the 1950s, and to feel, if only for a moment, that you have been magically transported there, that it is all unfolding here and now... I trust you know what I mean.

[AnotherSpin]

Good to hear this from you, Harry. It speaks to me.

I want to listen more to music and indeed approach it as an art. Concentration on the music is rewarding while listening only halfly the experience can get boring.

It's a philosophy and a way of living. In these times it's not easy to stay living in a decent way that makes sense. I want to break free from modernity, from all the suffering, from an ugly world, from idealism, from Nothing and from God.

Only concrete things count. Cleaning counts, talking a walk counts, seeing the innocent beautiful, concrete things count. Listening to music, a concrete thing dealing with concrete sounds composed in a beautiful way counts.

Good to see you here again. For me, the most concrete and, in fact the only concrete, is my self. Every thing else is permanently shifting .

[71 dB]

Agreed and there's more to the whole matter. Claiming that expensive audiophile equipment somehow makes music a more natural, intense and spiritual experience than other equipment is equivalent to claiming audiophiles have a more natural, intense and spiritual experience than the contemporaries of Haydn or Mozart or Beethoven or Chopin or Liszt or Tchaikovsky or you name any composer active before the advent of recording technology. But --- leaving aside the fact that recorded music is by definition not natural, we know from multiple written, irrefutable testimonies that they experienced back then levels of intensity and rapture which I doubt are easily replicated today in whoever may listen, audiophile or not. Nobody will ever convince me that the thrill and excitement of Eroica's premiere, of a Liszt or Paganini recital or of hearing Chopin playing were less than those offered by listening to the same music on record, be it on the most SOTA and expensive audiophile equipment. Moreover, I'm quite sure that if hardcore audiophiles traveled back in time they would find the acoustics of those venues deeply wanting as compared to that of their listening room, and that is leaving aside the fact that the absolute silence in which they listen today was completely unknown back then. And yet those music lovers were perfectly able to be enraptured and entertained by what they heard in environments and conditions which compared to the audiophile ones were appalling. Evidence that music's power over and effect on listeners is not dependent on acoustics in general, much less on audiophile acoustics in particular.

All that is to say that while audiophilia in itself is legitimate and harmless (except to the purse), the claim that only an audiophile can truly experience music as it should be experienced is blatantly false.

I didn't mean "natural" but rather pleasant and balanced.

[Florestan]

I didn't mean "natural" but rather pleasant and balanced.

I wasn't referring to you.

[71 dB]

What harm is there in such a pursuit, particularly for those who are not lazy?

Investing money on things that count in audio can provide orders of magnitude bigger improvement.

[AnotherSpin]

Investing money on things that count in audio can provide orders of magnitude bigger improvement.

I never said I invested in esoteric fuses and that I'm listening to some cheapo little gadget, did I ?

Fuses are just a small part of it. I'll also point out that it's not the individual components themselves that matter, but the overall balance between parts of the system. That's the hardest part, and the most fascinating one.

[Harry]

I never said I invested in esoteric fuses and that I'm listening to some cheapo little gadget, did I ?

Fuses are just a small part of it. I'll also point out that it's not the individual components themselves that matter, but the overall balance between parts of the system. That's the hardest part, and the most fascinating one.

You are better armed for this dispute as I am, soldiering on.......................

[71 dB]

I never said I invested in esoteric fuses and that I'm listening to some cheapo little gadget, did I ?

No you didn't, but what I said was about general principles, not about what YOU have done.

Fuses are just a small part of it. I'll also point out that it's not the individual components themselves that matter, but the overall balance between parts of the system. That's the hardest part, and the most fascinating one.

Components should be as neutral as possible. That way there is much less need to "balance between parts of the system."

[AnotherSpin]

You are better armed for this dispute as I am, soldiering on.......................

Well, I'm not really fighting. I'm just distracting myself so I don't have to think about more serious things.
 
Our opponents are afraid to break away from their physics textbooks, like a lame man afraid to throw away his crutches. Except the lame man isn't really lame at all, he's actually perfectly fine...

[71 dB]

Our opponents are afraid to break away from their physics textbooks, 

I simply don't have unlimited amount of money to throw at silver wire fuses and snake-oil cables. I want bang for my buck and physics textbooks are useful for knowing how to achieve that.

[AnotherSpin]

I simply don't have unlimited amount of money to throw at silver wire fuses and snake-oil cables. I want bang for my buck and physics textbooks are useful for knowing how to achieve that.

I don't know how it is in Finland, but in Ukraine, high-end equipment and components could be taken home for free for several weeks or even a month for listening, comparison, and so on. At least that was the case before the war. Now the selection has shrunk, which is quite natural.

[Fëanor]

I simply don't have unlimited amount of money to throw at silver wire fuses and snake-oil cables. I want bang for my buck and physics textbooks are useful for knowing how to achieve that.

Exactly the point I made a while ago, above.  I've always had limited value and have be constrained to seek VALUE in my hi-fi equipment.

Years ago I spent a little money on fancy fuse, cables, and the like.  In some instance I believed I heard differences but but even then they were extremely tiny.  More recently I've concluded they really just my imagination.

Also, in the last decade or so I've discovered that components with superb measurements, regardless of price, are the closest match to my sound preferences.

[71 dB]

I don't know how it is in Finland, but in Ukraine, high-end equipment and components could be taken home for free for several weeks or even a month for listening, comparison, and so on. At least that was the case before the war. Now the selection has shrunk, which is quite natural.

Can be done in Finland as far as I know, but I'm not into that myself. I listen to music, not fuses and cables. Well, at hi-fi expositions I have listened to cables (I didn't hear any difference).

[drogulus]

    If I had a big house with a media room I might get a 50 wpc integrated amp and a mini-PC to play my music files with a monitor for the menus. The PC would feed a DAC/amp for PCM and DSD.

    Speakers would be the Walsh Tall 1000 omnis from Ohm. I'm ultra aware of what omnis do as a former owner of Ohm Fs. The F is exceedingly power hungry, while the current Ohms are normal.