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

[71 dB]

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.

Everyone starts low. When I started to listen to music actively and not only passively I had SHARP WQ-T238 boombox. I recorded music from FM radio on C-cassettes. Then I bought my first CD player, JVC XL-101. I connected the CD player to my boombox which had RCA inputs. I few years later I bought my first hifi-speakers, a pair of Hifi 6/2 (Finnish DIY speakers designed by Pekka Tuomela). I bought the parts and the boxes and assembled the speakers. At first I used my boombox as the amplifier (by modifying it so that it had speaker outputs), but soon I bought my first hifi amplifier, NAD 302. I also extended the bass response from 50 Hz down to 25 Hz of my speakers by buying Hifi 55/2 passive subwoofer (also DIY designed by Tuomela). At this point I was enjoying very good sound quality (this was in 1994).

[Valentino]

I'm hunting a pair of used KEF LS50 or LS50 Meta for our TV setup.

[Florestan]

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.

This is a strawman. That some systems sound better than others, or that good sound is preferable to bad sound, has never been in dispute. What triggered the discussion in the last few pages was the claim that different digital cables result in different sound, all other things being equal. This is not even disputable, it's plainly false. Digital cables either work (ie, have correct data transmission), or they don't (ie, have faulty data transmission). Other than that they have zero influence on the sound. Claiming otherwise is like claiming that, say, a Power Point presentation transmitted through a $1000 digital cable contains more information than the same document transmitted through a $10 digital cable.

[ritter]

[Roasted Swan]

Its not dead its only sleeping.........

[Harry]

Since it is not safe for me to post in this thread, I have no objections to explain my travail in PM's but only to friendly minded members, so no audio skepticals, but those who understand the worth of good audio.

[StudioGuy]

Since it is not safe for me to post in this thread, I have no objections to explain my travail in PM's but only to friendly minded members, so no audio skepticals, but those who understand the worth of good audio.

Why is it not "safe" for you to post in this thread, has someone threatened you or been abusive? Or do you mean that you feel you should be able to post falsehoods/misinformation without fear of being contradicted with the actual facts?

Secondly, who in the last several pages does not "understand the worth of good audio"? I haven't seen any posts where anyone questions the worth of good audio, the only thing I've seen is posters (including myself) questioning the worth of audiophile Ethernet cables and fuses that do not affect audio.

[Brian]

Why is it not "safe" for you to post in this thread, has someone threatened you or been abusive?

Secondly, who in the last several pages does not "understand the worth of good audio"?

This thread has a long history of flamewars and personal attacks, which you would not know as a newcomer. They almost all take the same form: arguments and name-calling between people who believe their ears can detect differences that measurements cannot, and people who believe that is not true. It is a bit like having a debate between religious people and skeptics, who want to convert each other but cannot.

For my part, as a person who does not participate and reads this because I'm a moderator, that means the answers to your two questions are 1. Yes, in the past, and it is something to be mindful of (along with the real purpose of this thread!); 2. Nobody, that was a straw man.

[Brian]

I'm not convinced that your mentioning of religious people and skeptics is entirely apt. Perhaps framing it as religion versus science would come a bit closer, though even that requires significant caveats.

I had a more detailed comparison there, but the forum software was giving me the Forbidden error so I removed almost all of it. However, the basic question is similar: whether to believe in things that cannot be verified or measured. Call it personal experience vs. data.

[drogulus]

    In my hypothetical music room I'd probably go total Lenbrook (NAD,PSB) with a 316BEE and Alpha P5s. Total is $1k. My sub is fine. If I want to spend more (who says I can't?  ) I'd get the Walsh omnis. That would take me up to $2.5k or thereabouts.

Obviously, Einstein and Heisenberg believed in things that cannot be verified or measured. Who am I to argue with them ?

    The term "believe in" is a tell. It's always about something you don't believe.

    As I've made clear on occasion, I hate the Big Bang, or to put it more precisely I hate the way it's portrayed as the beginning of Everything. Now that the edifice is crumbling by the day I'll be forced to find something else to not "believe in". 

[drogulus]

Agreed, believe is not the best word. The problem is that words are no more suited to describing reality than formulas are suited to describing phenomena. One could replace believe with know, but it would be better to dispense with all words (and formulas) altogether.

    We need to express confidence in the success of our actions. Knowledge is navigational and behavioral before it's propositional. It's also approximate and probabilistic. One can agree with James and say knowledge is what works or with me and say what works is knowledge. 

[71 dB]

Since it is not safe for me to post in this thread, I have no objections to explain my travail in PM's but only to friendly minded members, so no audio skepticals, but those who understand the worth of good audio.

If by "safe" you mean nobody will disagree with you then yes, it is not "safe" for you here or online in general, because no matter what you believe and think, there will always be people who disagree with you.

My audio skepticism covers snake-oily products/marketing because I am not a naive child who believes in unicorns and I have higher technical/scientific education/critical thinking skills. If you ask me, I understand the worth of good audio.

[Valentino]

This thread about audio equipment certainly has its own peculiar ways.

[Brian]

This thread about audio equipment certainly has its own peculiar ways.

Agreed, and off-topic conversation removed to its own thread.

[Elgarian Redux]

Agreed, and off-topic conversation removed to its own thread.

I've been idly wondering for a while just what the topic is that we shouldn't stray from. Despite the thread title,'The topic' is as hard to grasp as a bar of soap in the bath.

Does it still have anything to do with audio systems?
But then ....

Addendum
Oh Crikey! It's gone! All that stuff about finding a formula for unicorns and everything!

Oh now I see. I missed the significance of post #3475. Brian whisked the Heisenberg unicorns away to a new thread using methods hitherto unknown to science! Cheers, Brian!

[StudioGuy]

The problem is that words are no more suited to describing reality than formulas are suited to describing phenomena. One could replace believe with know, but it would be better to dispense with all words (and formulas) altogether.

Unfortunately, this assertion is untrue, baring in mind we're talking about audio systems. Formulas do not describe phenomena, they define them in order that we can record and reproduce them. If we "dispense with all formulas" there could not be any audio or any equipment to record or reproduce it. From microphones to speakers and everything in between, including mixing and mastering along with all audio formats and equipment such as DACs, Ethernet cables, etc., relies on and only exists because of formulas. Are you really suggesting in a thread about audio systems that there should be no audio recordings or audio systems?

[StudioGuy]

Reducing to absurdity (Latin reductio ad absurdum) is a neat little demagogic trick.

Agreed, so why are you doing that? Why are you "reducing to absurdity" the basic fact that all audio and audio equipment only works because of formulas and advocating that they should be dispensed with?

[StudioGuy]

You may carry on quibbling over what I've written, or you may take your leave, I couldn't care less either way. A mere background hum, like a mosquito, yet in your case, I shan't even lift a hand.

It's you who posted the untruths, then quibbled about what you'd written when I pointed out the absurdity of your assertions and then posted a fallacy that actually applied to you. So it's you who should take your leave or post something related to the thread title that's actually true/correct.

[Brian]

Are we expecting something interesting to come of this discussion any time soon?

[AnotherSpin]

Are we expecting something interesting to come of this discussion any time soon?

I don't think there's much point in expecting anything here anymore. The people who were genuinely interested in audio gear have already abandoned this thread, driven out by the formula-worshippers and their claque with cheap plastic gadgets for playing what they imagine to be "music". I'm probably the last one still around, though even I've been nudged into another thread. Was that you, by any chance?