The Audiophile Debate

[Todd]

Nothing measurable, pure objectivists need no worry.

I'm asking for a definition of the word that is clearly being misused in this context.  It appears to be roughly of the same evaluative quality as "air", which audiophiles also misuse. 

[AnotherSpin]

I'm asking for a definition of the word that is clearly being misused in this context.  It appears to be roughly of the same evaluative quality as "air", which audiophiles also misuse.

Words are just words. They can only roughly describe the reality. Some great masters were silent almost entirely. Ramana Maharshi hardly spoke for about 20 years and then spoke only about insignificant things. Meher Baba was silent for most of his life.

I can say otherwise, some archival recordings that were impossible to listen to on conventional equipment could be quite listenable on high end equipment. I don't know if that helps.

[Todd]

Words are just words. They can only roughly describe the reality. Some great masters were silent almost entirely. Ramana Maharshi hardly spoke for about 20 years and then spoke only about insignificant things. Meher Baba was silent for most of his life.

Starts with a tautology and then moves to irrelevancies.

The takeaway is that audiophiles struggle with science and with language.  An internet double whammy.

[AnotherSpin]

Starts with a tautology and then moves to irrelevancies.

The takeaway is that audiophiles struggle with science and with language.  An internet double whammy.

I guess reducing reality to limited measurable numbers and some stale definitions is not only easy, but convenient for those who are unable or afraid to see what is.

[Todd]

I guess reducing reality to limited measurable numbers and some stale definitions is not only easy, but convenient for those who are unable or afraid to see what is.

[AnotherSpin]

I don't have funny pictures at hand. You win!

[Todd]

I don't have funny pictures at hand. You win!

Add struggling with the internet itself to the list.

[AnotherSpin]

Add struggling with the internet itself to the list.

I have nothing to struggle with

[Spotted Horses]

I guess reducing reality to limited measurable numbers and some stale definitions is not only easy, but convenient for those who are unable or afraid to see what is.

Being able to appreciate the meaning of measurements does not imply that a person has "reduced" anything to measurable numbers. Measurements are a description of audio performance which is more precise than subjective descriptions.

(And yes, I understand the pointlessness of pointing this out.)

[AnotherSpin]

Being able to appreciate the meaning of measurements does not imply that a person has "reduced" anything to measurable numbers. Measurements are a description of audio performance which is more precise than subjective descriptions.

(And yes, I understand the pointlessness of pointing this out.)

Any particular measurements are only concerned with certain parameter, for instance distortion. Or noise. Or something else. But there are no measurements that cover audio playback as a whole. So any measurement is selective, thus reduced. Humans can percept audio as a whole.

[Fëanor]

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.

I didn't mean that you should take the "table radio" part seriously.

[Todd]

I didn't mean that you should take the "table radio" part seriously.

Uh-huh.

[AnotherSpin]

I didn't mean that you should take the "table radio" part seriously.

A table radio can provide an unforgettable musical experience. After all, what device the music comes from is of secondary importance, and even less important is the technical parameters of that device. No measurement can assess audio quality or point to a level of musical enjoyment.

[71 dB]

really worth the money,...

This is of course subjective. Most people simply don't need (nor could afford*) something this pricy and for crazy high-ender NAD may not be "good enough" and are willing to pay even more.

* It is not that people don't have that kind of money to spent. Most people just rather choose to travel, renovate their homes, buy stocks etc.

[Harry]

This is of course subjective. Most people simply don't need (nor could afford*) something this pricy and for crazy high-ender NAD may not be "good enough" and are willing to pay even more.

* It is not that people don't have that kind of money to spent. Most people just rather choose to travel, renovate their homes, buy stocks etc.

Everything is subjective, and therefore it is no argument. Please do not start again a pointless and endless discussion about high end gear. And for the record, this NAD is a good piece of equipment, and I think this will serve  well with most, subjective or objective.

[71 dB]

Not all speakers are good.

Correct, but that's sound quality problem, not a technical problem what is what I was preferring to.

The same with cables.

Normal speaker cable is all you need given the gauge and length are good enough for the speaker impedance. Too thin or long cables cause problems for two reasons:

1) Electric damping provided by amp is reduced meaning less accurate sound
2) Frequency response changes due to speakers not having constant impedance over all frequencies

Note that electric damping doesn't have to be infinite or even "huge." It has to be strong enough. Very sensitive speakers with large low frequency woofers need more electric damping. As for the frequency response, having the frequency response error under 0.5 dB is considered adequate.

[AnotherSpin]

Correct, but that's sound quality problem, not a technical problem what is what I was preferring to.

Normal speaker cable is all you need given the gauge and length are good enough for the speaker impedance. Too thin or long cables cause problems for two reasons:

1) Electric damping provided by amp is reduced meaning less accurate sound
2) Frequency response changes due to speakers not having constant impedance over all frequencies

Note that electric damping doesn't have to be infinite or even "huge." It has to be strong enough. Very sensitive speakers with large low frequency woofers need more electric damping. As for the frequency response, having the frequency response error under 0.5 dB is considered adequate.

Cables are more complex things that you think. But I have no problem if you see it your way.

[Harry]

Cables are more complex things that you think. But I have no problem if you see it your way.

And so it is, after almost 50 years or so listening experience, I am aware of this, and acted accordingly.

[71 dB]

Cables are more complex things that you think. But I have no problem if you see it your way.

Yeah, it is a bit more complex than that, but I simplified things for a reason. What I said is the stuff that counts.

[drogulus]

For some people, they don't listen to some music that intently (for whatever reasons and that's o.k.).  For me, normally, I listen differently when I am auditioning components (or cables or other things) than when I am listening to music as I just want to enjoy the music once I get home.   

PD

     There is a difference between people who listen critically and those who don't. Thing is, all of the objectivists are as critical in their listening as the subjectivists. Their ears are golden, too. There's no skill advantage for subjectivists, either.