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

[Henk]

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 .

I read a bit in a book by a neurobiologist. He says each braincell is independent. This confuses me, because I want to see the reality as interdependent. Relations are primary.

I know our views are different and somewhat opposed though. I like to hear your view though.

[AnotherSpin]

I read a bit in a book by a neurobiologist. He says each braincell is independent. This confuses me, because I want to see the reality as interdependent. Relations are primary.

I know our views are different and somewhat opposed though. I like to hear your view though.

To be honest, I'm not concerned with brain cells as such. They might depend on one another or, conversely, be entirely independent, but either way I don't know them directly. They exist purely as a concept of the mind, in other words, their reality is more than a little conditional. Therefore, I couldn't care less. Let those who make their living chewing over such matters occupy themselves - and the unwary reader - with it. I only hope they earn enough to buy themselves a decent audio system and at last hear some music instead of some noise from cheapo gadgets .

[AnotherSpin]

I read a bit in a book by a neurobiologist. He says each braincell is independent. This confuses me, because I want to see the reality as interdependent. Relations are primary.

I know our views are different and somewhat opposed though. I like to hear your view though.

I can recommend reading Douglas Harding. He shows that, in reality, we have no head. So really, what's the point of thinking about the brain and what it's made of...

[Henk]

To be honest, I'm not concerned with brain cells as such. They might depend on one another or, conversely, be entirely independent, but either way I don't know them directly. They exist purely as a concept of the mind, in other words, their reality is more than a little conditional. Therefore, I couldn't care less. Let those who make their living chewing over such matters occupy themselves - and the unwary reader - with it. I only hope they earn enough to buy themselves a decent audio system and at last hear some music instead of some noise from cheapo gadgets .

Fun post 😄

[StudioGuy]

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.

There is no such thing as "one man's science", that's pretty much the whole point of science in the first place and by definition, it cannot be snake oil. Additionally, objectivists do not only "wave graphs and null tests", they also use "their ears and speak of air, colour and soul" and are therefore already "between these poles". A subjectivist who ignores or is ignorant of the proven facts/science does not represent any kind of truth, let alone 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."

You're contradicting yourself here. If there is a "stricter tolerance" then by definition it must measure differently, engineering tolerance is defined by measurements and, we can measure noise rejection, thermal stability, fidelity, etc. If these things measure the same then they must produce the same sound. This is indeed a scientific/engineering fact.

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.

Science does account for all observable phenomena when reproducing recordings because science invented those phenomena. Not only that but science also accounts for people perceiving phenomena that are not observable or don't even exist!

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. Yet we hear them, and consistently.

This is unfortunately also false, for three reasons: Firstly, jitter and clock accuracy for example are defined by measurements and, they cannot contribute to sound because they are too low in level to even exist as sound. Secondly, if there is something we cannot measure, then we cannot record it and you obviously can't reproduce it. Lastly, almost all humans perceive the stereo effect and do so consistently for the entirety of their lives. There's not much in audio reproduction that's more consistent, does that mean it cannot be an illusion, that there must actually be magic, invisible speakers between the left and right speakers?

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.

Exactly but you're arguing against yourself here. With the exception of a tiny handful of studios who may endorse (get for free) some audiophile cable/product, commercial studios do not use audiophile (analogue or digital) cables or audiophile fuses, amps, DACs, etc.

Psychoacoustics is still young, and music — that most complex and emotional of signals — is not easily caged by logic alone.

Firstly, do you honestly think ~2,500 years is young? Even modern psychoacoustics is around 170 years old, hardly young. Secondly, a signal (analogue, digital or acoustic) cannot have any emotion and Lastly, signals of any complexity can indeed be easily caged by logic alone. This fact was proven in the 1940's and is the basis for the entire digital age (not just digital audio). So are you the first person in history to disprove Shannon's proof and therefore the existence of the internet and all digital devices, or have you simply made-up this false assertion?

Unfortunately, I've only picked a few of the numerous falsehoods, your "Epistle" reads like a handbook of almost wall to wall false audiophile myths/marketing. This isn't meant as a personal insult however, the audiophile community has been driven by marketing and incentivised reviews for half a century or more, so it's awfully difficult within that community to avoid all the myths and falsehoods.

[AnotherSpin]

There is no such thing as "one man's science", that's pretty much the whole point of science in the first place and by definition, it cannot be snake oil. Additionally, objectivists do not only "wave graphs and null tests", they also use "their ears and speak of air, colour and soul" and are therefore already "between these poles". A subjectivist who ignores or is ignorant of the proven facts/science does not represent any kind of truth, let alone a "more balanced truth".You're contradicting yourself here. If there is a "stricter tolerance" then by definition it must measure differently, engineering tolerance is defined by measurements and, we can measure noise rejection, thermal stability, fidelity, etc. If these things measure the same then they must produce the same sound. This is indeed a scientific/engineering fact.Science does account for all observable phenomena when reproducing recordings because science invented those phenomena. Not only that but science also accounts for people perceiving phenomena that are not observable or don't even exist! This is unfortunately also false, for three reasons: Firstly, jitter and clock accuracy for example are defined by measurements and, they cannot contribute to sound because they are too low in level to even exist as sound. Secondly, if there is something we cannot measure, then we cannot record it and you obviously can't reproduce it. Lastly, almost all humans perceive the stereo effect and do so consistently for the entirety of their lives. There's not much in audio reproduction that's more consistent, does that mean it cannot be an illusion, that there must actually be magic, invisible speakers between the left and right speakers?
Exactly but you're arguing against yourself here. With the exception of a tiny handful of studios who may endorse (get for free) some audiophile cable/product, commercial studios do not use audiophile (analogue or digital) cables or audiophile fuses, amps, DACs, etc.
Firstly, do you honestly think ~2,500 years is young? Even modern psychoacoustics is around 170 years old, hardly young. Secondly, a signal (analogue, digital or acoustic) cannot have any emotion and Lastly, signals of any complexity can indeed be easily caged by logic alone. This fact was proven in the 1940's and is the basis for the entire digital age (not just digital audio). So are you the first person in history to disprove Shannon's proof and therefore the existence of the internet and all digital devices, or have you simply made-up this false assertion?

Unfortunately, I've only picked a few of the numerous falsehoods, your "Epistle" reads like a handbook of almost wall to wall false audiophile myths/marketing. This isn't meant as a personal insult however, the audiophile community has been driven by marketing and incentivised reviews for half a century or more, so it's awfully difficult within that community to avoid all the myths and falsehoods.

Harry won't bother replying, but I find myself with a couple of spare minutes and a mild curiosity. So here goes: you appear to confuse science with the comforting fantasy that everything worth knowing has already been measured and explained. That is not science, it is simply dogma dressed for the laboratory.

Your "if it measures the same, it sounds the same" refrain is an adorably simplistic view, one that neatly sidesteps the inconvenient reality that human beings do the listening, not oscilloscopes.

The manner in which you parade your "facts" suggests you have secured the door against anything that might disturb your carefully curated certainties. If you consider this a debate, it is one in which you are both the sole participant and the inevitable victor.

Do carry on believing you have the final word. Just try not to look too startled when others recognise it for what it truly is: a cartoon sermon preached to an entirely imaginary congregation.

[StudioGuy]

So here goes: you appear to confuse science with the comforting fantasy that everything worth knowing has already been measured and explained. That is not science, it is simply dogma dressed for the laboratory.

You seem to be admitting that don't know/understand the facts I've stated and so are just making-up your own false version/appearance. Can you quote where I stated or even implied "everything worth knowing has already been measured and explained"? Obviously you can't because you made-up that falsehood! Science obviously hasn't explained and measured everything but then we're not discussing everything, we're discussing the performance of audio equipment that was invented by science. Your argument here is a fallacy, just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean it doesn't know anything. Mathematics doesn't know everything, does that mean that 1+1≠2. Finally, even if there were something science doesn't know about and can't measure (and there's no reliable evidence hinting there might be) it still makes no difference because we can only record and reproduce what we do know exists and can measure. Again, digital audio is itself a series of measurements.

Your "if it measures the same, it sounds the same" refrain is an adorably simplistic view, one that neatly sidesteps the inconvenient reality that human beings do the listening, not oscilloscopes.

You're joking right? When we measure the performance of say a DAC or cable, then we're measuring the performance of that DAC or cable, we're not measuring a human being or their listening skills. Or maybe you think DACs and Ethernet cables are human or have little humans inside them? Talk about an adorably simplistic (nonsense) view! Pot, kettle and black spring to mind. 

The manner in which you parade your "facts" suggests you have secured the door against anything that might disturb your carefully curated certainties.

They're not "my facts", they're "The facts", you don't seem to know what proven science means. And yes, I have "secured the door" against all sorts of nonsense that is contradicted by the proven science/carefully curated certainties, for example that the earth is flat, that 1+1=3, etc. Haven't you, are you open to the Earth being flat, proven mathematics being wrong and any old marketing BS?

[Florestan]

Science obviously hasn't explained and measured everything but then we're not discussing everything, we're discussing the performance of audio equipment that was invented by science.

When we measure the performance of say a DAC or cable, then we're measuring the performance of that DAC or cable, we're not measuring a human being or their listening skills.

Two particularly cogent points.

[71 dB]

Physical sound is rapid variations in static air pressure. Perceived subjective sound is how the brain of the listener interprets the physical sound and what kind of meaning, feel and emotion is associated with it. Science doesn't lack in ability to measure physical sound. If anything, it lacks the understanding of how the brain works. Science knows a lot about psychoacoustics, but we don't have comprehensive theory of consciousness.

Perceived differences tend to disappear in proper blind listening tests strongly suggesting the differences are mostly a product of placebo effect and expectation/confirmation bias. As a rule of thumb I recommend everybody to assume 90 % of all differences experienced between audio gear isn't real but imagined. That leaves some room (10 %) for real audible differences which do exist in audio, especially when it comes to speakers and headphones.

[Florestan]

Physical sound is rapid variations in static air pressure. Perceived subjective sound is how the brain of the listener interprets the physical sound and what kind of meaning, feel and emotion is associated with it. Science doesn't lack in ability to measure physical sound. If anything, it lacks the understanding of how the brain works. Science knows a lot about psychoacoustics, but we don't have comprehensive theory of consciousness.

Perceived differences tend to disappear in proper blind listening tests strongly suggesting the differences are mostly a product of placebo effect and expectation/confirmation bias. As a rule of thumb I recommend everybody to assume 90 % of all differences experienced between audio gear isn't real but imagined. That leaves some room (10 %) for real audible differences which do exist in audio, especially when it comes to speakers and headphones.

Hear, hear! (pun)

[71 dB]

...and any old marketing BS?

It is fascinating how audiophiles can deny that there is a lot of BS in audio marketing as if marketing based on mental images and psychological tricks were not a thing... 

[AnotherSpin]

You seem to be admitting that don't know/understand the facts I've stated and so are just making-up your own false version/appearance. Can you quote where I stated or even implied "everything worth knowing has already been measured and explained"? Obviously you can't because you made-up that falsehood! Science obviously hasn't explained and measured everything but then we're not discussing everything, we're discussing the performance of audio equipment that was invented by science. Your argument here is a fallacy, just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean it doesn't know anything. Mathematics doesn't know everything, does that mean that 1+1≠2. Finally, even if there were something science doesn't know about and can't measure (and there's no reliable evidence hinting there might be) it still makes no difference because we can only record and reproduce what we do know exists and can measure. Again, digital audio is itself a series of measurements.
You're joking right? When we measure the performance of say a DAC or cable, then we're measuring the performance of that DAC or cable, we're not measuring a human being or their listening skills. Or maybe you think DACs and Ethernet cables are human or have little humans inside them? Talk about an adorably simplistic (nonsense) view! Pot, kettle and black spring to mind. 
They're not "my facts", they're "The facts", you don't seem to know what proven science means. And yes, I have "secured the door" against all sorts of nonsense that is contradicted by the proven science/carefully curated certainties, for example that the earth is flat, that 1+1=3, etc. Haven't you, are you open to the Earth being flat, proven mathematics being wrong and any old marketing BS?

Ah yes, the fortress of "Proven Science," impregnable except to facts that have been carefully pre approved by its gatekeeper you. Of course, DACs and cables could not possibly be influenced by anything outside the current measurement toolkit because clearly the universe stops at the edge of your oscilloscope. And as for the little humans inside Ethernet cables, do not be absurd, they have all been unionised and laid off years ago. If you do not mind, I will stop here. I really do not see the point in continuing .

[AnotherSpin]

Physical sound is rapid variations in static air pressure. Perceived subjective sound is how the brain of the listener interprets the physical sound and what kind of meaning, feel and emotion is associated with it. Science doesn't lack in ability to measure physical sound. If anything, it lacks the understanding of how the brain works. Science knows a lot about psychoacoustics, but we don't have comprehensive theory of consciousness.

Perceived differences tend to disappear in proper blind listening tests strongly suggesting the differences are mostly a product of placebo effect and expectation/confirmation bias. As a rule of thumb I recommend everybody to assume 90 % of all differences experienced between audio gear isn't real but imagined. That leaves some room (10 %) for real audible differences which do exist in audio, especially when it comes to speakers and headphones.

Here we needn't stop at just blind tests. Why not throw in some deaf ones as well? Earplugs or just muting the volume entirely. No doubt it'll be abundantly clear that all cables sound exactly the same .

[ritter]

Let's all please try to keep this discussion civil. Thanks!

[71 dB]

Here we needn't stop at just blind tests. Why not throw in some deaf ones as well? Earplugs or just muting the volume entirely. No doubt it'll be abundantly clear that all cables sound exactly the same .

The listener isn't "blind" in a blind listening test. Blind here simply means the listener doesn't know what cable he/she is listening to. That way the effect of placebo/confirmation/expectation bias are removed. When comparing cable A to cable B, the listener doesn't even know if they are different cables and if the are, which one of them is the one the listener assumes having better sound. If there are "night and day" differences in cables, those should be easy to point out correctly in these tests, but that's not the case. Typically "night and day" differences become hard to hear and tiny differences vanish completely! Placebo/comfimation/expectation bias causes differences to arise out of nothing or very tiny differences to become "night and day" in size.

[AnotherSpin]

The listener isn't "blind" in a blind listening test. Blind here simply means the listener doesn't know what cable he/she is listening to. That way the effect of placebo/confirmation/expectation bias are removed. When comparing cable A to cable B, the listener doesn't even know if they are different cables and if the are, which one of them is the one the listener assumes having better sound. If there are "night and day" differences in cables, those should be easy to point out correctly in these tests, but that's not the case. Typically "night and day" differences become hard to hear and tiny differences vanish completely! Placebo/comfimation/expectation bias causes differences to arise out of nothing or very tiny differences to become "night and day" in size.

Few remarks on blind resting:

1. Insufficient sensitivity: subtle differences might go unnoticed in short or unsuitable test conditions, or when the audio equipment is basic.
2. Subjective perception: sound differences can be real but perceived individually and not captured by a simple yes/no measure.
3. Ignoring long-term listening: brief tests don't account for effects of adaptation and ear acclimatisation.
4. Psychological factors: stress, fatigue, and participant motivation can influence results despite the blind setup.
5. False dichotomy: differences aren't always 'night and day' or 'non-existent' - they can be subtle yet meaningful.

[StudioGuy]

Ah yes, the fortress of "Proven Science," impregnable except to facts that have been carefully pre approved by its gatekeeper you.

Of course, Ohm's Law, Maxwell's Laws, Shannon's digital theorems and all the other proven science upon which audio recording and reproduction are based were not laws or proven until I "carefully pre-approved" them, even though they were laws/proven decades before I was even born. Did I also "carefully pre-approve" Wikipedia, all the text books and university courses on the subject too? Your arguments appear to be getting ever more ridiculous and desperate.

Of course, DACs and cables could not possibly be influenced by anything outside the current measurement toolkit because clearly the universe stops at the edge of your oscilloscope.

You don't seem to understand that oscilloscopes do not measure the universe, they measure electrical signals. Again, the discussion is not about the universe it's about audio recording and reproduction equipment which was invented by scientists/engineers. Additionally, either your "anything outside" affects the analogue signal (or digital data), in which case we can measure it and record and reproduce it, or your "anything outside" does not affect the analogue signal or digital data, cannot be measured, recorded or reproduced and therefore obviously does not exist when you're reproducing a recording. I don't see why this basic/obvious fact is apparently so difficult to understand.

If you do not mind, I will stop here. I really do not see the point in continuing .

At last, something we can agree on, as I too can't see any point in you continuing to invent ever more ridiculous arguments.

[ritter]

I repeat: let's all keep this discussion respectful. And that means that insults —even mild ones— directed towards other members must be avoided. OK? Thanks.

[AnotherSpin]

I hope this will be my final post in this thread. If anyone has any pressing questions or comments now or in the future, please feel free to message me privately.

Many years ago, I listened to music from a cheap plastic box with a single channel, a relay point radio, or from the most basic black-and-white television set. I did not care about sound quality; I simply wanted to hear music.

Later, I acquired my first "real" tape recorder, complete with valves and a wooden case. I listened to recordings copied from other reels borrowed from friends. At some point, I realised that music could not only sound, but sound either better or worse. Gradually, I came to understand that the quality of reproduction directly affects perception. The more natural and realistic the sound, the deeper I could immerse myself in the music.

This discovery set in motion my long search for the "holy audio grail". Over the years, I tried and owned expensive loudspeakers, both valve and solid-state amplifiers, cables with esoteric price tags, vibration control systems, acoustic treatment solutions, and so on. The digital era made things more complicated, as there were more points to manage, yet it also offered new possibilities for improvement.

Did I achieve my goal? I believe I did. Both my home and portable systems are now balanced and well thought out, with no part of the chain left unattended. They also cost considerably less than the equipment I used twenty years ago. I have also dispensed with some very costly solutions that proved unnecessary, such as in-ear headphones from a brand well known within a small circle of connoisseurs, priced at a couple of thousand, and the fascinating yet troublesome pursuit of valve swapping.

What remains? I have no doubt that every part of a system contributes to the final sonic picture, whether it is a cable, a stand, or space treatment. Today, 99 per cent of the music I listen to sounds natural and close to a live performance. Even archival recordings raise no complaints; any differences lie in the realm of interpretation rather than technical quality.

In this subject, there are always two opposing positions. The first claims that sound can and should be improved, because more accurate and realistic reproduction reveals music more deeply. Human perception is extremely sensitive to the smallest nuances of timbre, dynamics and spatial image. These micro-details and the accurate conveyance of live acoustics can heighten the emotional effect, create a sense of presence, and increase involvement. The second position insists that all components with the same basic measurements sound identical and that a simple playback chain is sufficient to convey the music to the listener. These views are irreconcilable, and it is probably pointless to seek compromise.

Everyone follows their own path, guided by their priorities and experience. So let it be so.

[71 dB]

Few remarks on blind resting:

1. Insufficient sensitivity: subtle differences might go unnoticed in short or unsuitable test conditions, or when the audio equipment is basic.
2. Subjective perception: sound differences can be real but perceived individually and not captured by a simple yes/no measure.
3. Ignoring long-term listening: brief tests don't account for effects of adaptation and ear acclimatisation.
4. Psychological factors: stress, fatigue, and participant motivation can influence results despite the blind setup.
5. False dichotomy: differences aren't always 'night and day' or 'non-existent' - they can be subtle yet meaningful.

No doubt it is a challenge to conduct good listening tests (When I arranged listening a test in my own research about 2 decades ago, it led to me experiencing burn out. Writing the code for the test was that hard for me). However, proper blind listening tests are very important, because without them we don't really know how people really hear differences due to placebo etc.