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

[Todd]

Sorry for you, Todd. Surrounded by liars, aren't you. But don't give up. Keep exposing them, again and again

More conflation.

[71 dB]

Surely you wouldn't insist that two cars from different manufacturers are identical simply because both are red and both can manage 184 km/h? Or, to put it another way, if one red car tops out at 184 km/h and the other at 194 km/h, is that really enough to conclude, with solemn authority, that the latter is the better machine?

It probably doesn't matter whether the top speed is 184 or 194 km/h. Maybe it is enough to know the stop speed is more than 160 km/h (100 mph).

Of course, the big studios own racks of equipment of various kind. But if, alongside the very latest toys, they still wheel out something like the Neumann M 49, however sparingly, that ought to tell us something, don't you think?

Yes, it tells us the studio wants to achieve the sound signature the Neumann M 49 gives every now and then. Maybe they also want to be known as a "sophisticated" studio that uses all these vintage mics so people like you can appreciate them more?

Some of the smaller companies, TACET for example, make a point of parading their affection for Neumann microphones on their website. Here's what they say:

In our constant search for new ways of optimal presentation, we had the idea to try it with pure tube technology, using the 'historical' microphones and equipment that were used in studios at the time of the invention of the LP. The result was called 'Tube Only' and was praised equally by experts and customers. Listeners describe the sound as warmer without losing brilliance. Others call it 'more homogeneous,' whatever that means. Everyone should listen to the Tube-Only recordings and experience something special. But even the pure joy of this slightly nostalgic top-notch technology can be reason enough to love such productions [...] The term 'Tube Only' is used when the entire recording apparatus is completely based on tube technology, entirely without transistors. For "Tube Only" LPs, even the transfer to lacquer is done with historical tube equipment. For 'Tube Only' CDs, the A/D converters are exempt from this, as there is no tube A/D converter.

And let's not forget, TACET isn't just some modest little shop. It's a studio responsible for some truly fine recordings, such as the Haydn string quartet cycle by the Auryn Quartet, which has more than a few admirers here on the forum.

That's marketing...

[AnotherSpin]

That's marketing...

Do you suppose they're lying? I rather like that line of reasoning

[Todd]

It is clear that at least one person here easily succumbs to marketing.  There are obvious reasons why the global marketing industry generates around a trillion dollars in revenue.  It works.

[71 dB]

Do you suppose they're lying? I rather like that line of reasoning

Let's say they bend/decorate the truth to trigger mental images in the customers. That's basically what all marketing is.

[AnotherSpin]

Let's say they bend/decorate the truth to trigger mental images in the customers. That's basically what all marketing is.

So, they write one thing but actually do another? Typical of the Germans...

[Todd]

Belief is powerful.  Flim-flam men take full advantage of it.

[Brian]

The inability or unwillingness  to understand the fundamental fact that audio performance and the human response to it are two entirely different things is staggering.

Well - I think that is the heart of the matter, that some users are saying "sounds better" when they mean "sounds better to me". Mercifully, a brief correction to make.

[AnotherSpin]

Well - I think that is the heart of the matter, that some users are saying "sounds better" when they mean "sounds better to me". Mercifully, a brief correction to make.

I cannot speak for "some users," but as for myself the matter is perfectly clear: when I say something sounds better, it can only ever mean better to my own ears. I know what I hear. What I cannot possibly know, and would not dream of pretending to know, is what anyone else does.

And just as well, I shall not pretend that I possess any sort of objective hearing or that my perception is universal. It would be silly, really.

[Harry]

I cannot speak for "some users," but as for myself the matter is perfectly clear: when I say something sounds better, it can only ever mean better to my own ears. I know what I hear. What I cannot possibly know, and would not dream of pretending to know, is what anyone else does.

And just as well, I shall not pretend that I possess any sort of objective hearing or that my perception is universal. It would be silly, really.

Amen to that!

[StudioGuy]

Of course, the big studios own racks of equipment of various kind. But if, alongside the very latest toys, they still wheel out something like the Neumann M 49, however sparingly, that ought to tell us something, don't you think?

Of course, it tells us what we've known for over 60 years, that the particular frequency response and polar pattern of certain 1950's mics still have a place in the armoury of tools at the disposal of recording engineers. It tells us that distortion from certain vintage analogue gear can be euphonic but again, we've known this since the 1950's and almost ubiquitously employ it today.

[StudioGuy]

Well - I think that is the heart of the matter, that some users are saying "sounds better" when they mean "sounds better to me". Mercifully, a brief correction to make.

Actually, it's even more fundamental than that. The word "sound" has two meanings/uses: "In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid" - Wikipedia. Specifically in our case, pressure variations/vibrations in air. However: "A distinct use of the term sound from its use in physics is that in physiology and psychology, where the term refers to the subject of perception by the brain. The field of psychoacoustics is dedicated to such studies." - Wikipedia. So, "better sound"/"sounds better" in physics means less noise or distortion, EG. Higher fidelity, and is purely objective/measurable. While in psychoacoustics/human perception it just means someone likes it more.

This then is fundamentally the issue: Sound itself (acoustic sound waves), microphones and ALL the other audio equipment we use to record, store, manipulate, distribute and reproduce sound deals ONLY with the physics meaning of "sound", because obviously none of this equipment has a human brain or any human perception. Unfortunately, due to half a century or more of false audiophile marketing, many audiophiles are simply not even aware this distinction exists, let alone have any understanding of it, everything is only in terms of their perception. And here's a perfect demonstration of this point:

I cannot speak for "some users," but as for myself the matter is perfectly clear: when I say something sounds better, it can only ever mean better to my own ears.

A 5 minute read of say the Wikipedia page on Sound proves your claim that "the matter is perfectly clear" is false. There are two meanings (as cited above) and has been for a couple of centuries or so, hence the old "If a tree falls in the forest ..." thought experiment. Therefore, "it can only ever mean better to my own ears" is also false because it could mean "objectively better sound"/higher fidelity, which has nothing to do with anyone's ears, fidelity is the correspondence of the output signal to the input signal.

[Brian]

Therefore, "it can only ever mean better to my own ears" is also false because it could mean "objectively better sound"/higher fidelity,

But AS was agreeing with you. You said:

So I'm absolutely not dismissing the subjective aspect of sound/music, on the contrary my livelihood has always depended on it, on the human response to my subjective decisions.

I think AS' "perfectly clear" point WAS perfectly clear, that he was talking about that subjective aspect. "Better to my own ears" is just another way of saying "subjectively better for me personally." No need to disagree.

[Todd]

As per usual with audiophile "discussions", subjectivists end up making claims that are patently false.  For instance, there is and can be no audible difference between USB cables.  To claim otherwise is to spread disinformation exactly analogous to claiming that space aliens visit earth.  Audiophiles will tend to make all manner of questionable assertions with no possible basis in physical reality, and then retreat to "according to my own ears".  When audiophiles make such claims, it is reasonable to point out the falsehoods. 

Perhaps my favorite obviously false claim ever had to do with an audiophile battery charger from years ago.  For real.  I trust no one on this forum would claim that battery chargers can make an audible difference.

[AnotherSpin]

But AS was agreeing with you. You said:

I think AS' "perfectly clear" point WAS perfectly clear, that he was talking about that subjective aspect. "Better to my own ears" is just another way of saying "subjectively better for me personally." No need to disagree.

Unless, of course, the sole purpose here is to pounce on anything I happen to write in this thread. In which case, one must suppose, that's the need

[AnotherSpin]

As per usual with audiophile "discussions", subjectivists end up making claims that are patently false.  For instance, there is and can be no audible difference between USB cables.  To claim otherwise is to spread disinformation exactly analogous to claiming that space aliens visit earth.  Audiophiles will tend to make all manner of questionable assertions with no possible basis in physical reality, and then retreat to "according to my own ears".  When audiophiles make such claims, it is reasonable to point out the falsehoods. 

Perhaps my favorite obviously false claim ever had to do with an audiophile battery charger from years ago.  For real.  I trust no one on this forum would claim that battery chargers can make an audible difference.

While you were away, the matter of cables, USB included, was discussed here in some detail. Which is why I've no intention of repeating myself; you can do your own homework. I will merely add that the fact you cannot hear the effect different USB cables have on the overall sound of an audio system does not, by any means, imply that others cannot.

[AnotherSpin]

In debates here between the audio 'subjectivists' and 'objectivists,' the latter seem oddly obsessed with the word falsehood. Curious choice, isn't it? If you think the other side is wrong, why not just say so, without pompous labels? It usually means one of two things: either you've run out of proper arguments, or you're dodging the point altogether by attacking the person instead of the substance .

[Florestan]

Perhaps my favorite obviously false claim ever had to do with an audiophile battery charger from years ago.  For real.  I trust no one on this forum would claim that battery chargers can make an audible difference.

i can hardly wait for audiophile power stations and audiophile power grids.

[71 dB]

i can hardly wait for audiophile power stations and audiophile power grids.

I believe some people have modified the electrical system of their house to be more "audiophile friendly."   

[71 dB]

In debates here between the audio 'subjectivists' and 'objectivists,' the latter seem oddly obsessed with the word falsehood.

I have both sides in me: The subjectivists and the objectivist. I just know which one to listen to when stating facts online.

I don't think I have used that world even once. Perhaps only some of us 'objectivists' are "oddly obsessed with the word"?

Curious choice, isn't it? If you think the other side is wrong, why not just say so, without pompous labels? It usually means one of two things: either you've run out of proper arguments, or you're dodging the point altogether by attacking the person instead of the substance .

I can't speak for others, but I don't run out of proper arguments. I only run out of energy to debate with people who have zero interest in learning anything.