The Audiophile Debate

[Fëanor]

I want the quality to be on the recording. It it the job of music producers, mixers and masters to come up with recordings that sound good on audio gear that measures well. It doesn't make sense to have crappy recordings and spend $100.000 on exotic gear that shapes the sound into something pleasant. At least it doesn't make sense to me, because only a small portion of people can afford spending that much money on audio gear. Science and engineering should help improving people's lives and finding ways to offer good sound for people for less money is one way to do that.

I think I've said it before but will again, (for emphasis):  given the listener's system is any much better than a table radio the quality of the recording is the main determinant of sound quality.

At best one's system may mask certain recording defects, but if does that it will only degrade the sound of excellent recordings.

[Todd]

I think I've said it before but will again, (for emphasis):  given the listener's system is any much better than a table radio the quality of the recording is the main determinant of sound quality.

This is wrong.  One can have a small desktop system, with DAC, pre, and active monitor speakers with small drivers, and such a system would likely sound better than a tabletop radio - a nice Sangean model, say.  But a nice, big pair of three-way floorstanders driven by an appropriate amplifier would almost certainly sound better than either - and such a system would likely measure better as well. 

[AnotherSpin]

Where do ears receive training for this type of thing?

Time is a great teacher.

[Todd]

Time is a great teacher.

So, no training then.

[AnotherSpin]

So, no training then.

If you mean formal training, then no, it is not required. As is the case with the development of other types of perception. All it takes is experience and time for natural growth.

[Todd]

All it takes is experience and time for natural growth.

Hearing degrades with age.

[AnotherSpin]

Hearing degrades with age.

It's very possible. Some physical parameters degrade, like the ability to hear high frequencies. But the perception of music does not degrade at all. Because music is not about frequencies at all.

[Todd]

It's very possible.

It is more than possible; it happens to everyone.

[Irons]

Seems utterly impossible to move on the narrative of this thread. 

[Todd]

Seems utterly impossible to move on the narrative of this thread.

What is the narrative - that some people believe in magic and rational people point out that magic is fake?

[AnotherSpin]

What is the narrative - that some people believe in magic and rational people point out that magic is fake?

If you don't mind, I'd put it another way. Some people believe what they hear, others are afraid to believe what they hear.

[Spotted Horses]

Seems utterly impossible to move on the narrative of this thread.

The purpose of this thread is to create a sandbox where this pointless activity can continue and not infiltrate discussions on the board.

[Todd]

The purpose of this thread is to create a sandbox where this pointless activity can continue and not infiltrate discussions on the board.

This.  People will be free to post about their expensive digital cables and non-linear gear and how the gear does things it actually can't in the "What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?".  That is now a safe space. 

[AnotherSpin]

This.  People will be free to post about their expensive digital cables and non-linear gear and how the gear does things it actually can't in the "What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?".  That is now a safe space. 

Never heard about non-linear gear. However, I have several not expensive Linear Power Supply Unites, they were made to order locally. Big improvement in the sound. In general, anything to do with electrical power lines is not the first thing that those who want to optimise the sound of audio think about, unfortunately. It is in these lines that all sorts of noises and interfereces happen to affect the sound quality most negatively.

[71 dB]

I think I've said it before but will again, (for emphasis):  given the listener's system is any much better than a table radio the quality of the recording is the main determinant of sound quality.

At best one's system may mask certain recording defects, but if it does that it will only degrade the sound of excellent recordings.

Let me phrase that in this way: The transition from poor sound quality to good sound quality in audio systems happens when the quality of the recording becomes the main determinant of sound quality. 

[Irons]

Let me phrase that in this way: The transition from poor sound quality to good sound quality in audio systems happens when the quality of the recording becomes the main determinant of sound quality. 

There is some truth in that but a tad oversimplification.

[Fëanor]

Let me phrase that in this way: The transition from poor sound quality to good sound quality in audio systems happens when the quality of the recording becomes the main determinant of sound quality. 

Yes, that happened for me several decades ago.  Still, equipment changes have made a further improvements nevertheless.

[AnotherSpin]

Yes, that happened for me several decades ago.  Still, equipment changes have made a further improvements nevertheless.

I had the same. Each successive improvement in the sound system has been tangible. It is also interesting that some archive recordings, for example from the 30s of the last century, which were impossible to listen to on ordinary hi-fi equipment, suddenly started to sound more than convincing when played back on equipment belonging to the high end class. Even though hi-fi "improves" the sound, while high end not.

[Todd]

suddenly started to sound more than convincing when played back on equipment belonging to the high end class

What does "convincing" mean?

[AnotherSpin]

What does "convincing" mean?

Nothing measurable, pure objectivists need no worry.