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

[AnotherSpin]

I am pretty much done with this off topic discussion. Here is my last (?) reply. I feel like I have said more or less what there is to say. Hopefully the thread gets back on track and the two anti-engineers won't derail it again.

[...]

There's really no problem. Neither Harry nor I bother the measurements enthusiasts. We don't go after anyone personally. We just share what we find interesting, and in return we get accused of spreading falsehoods and the like by two or three people, including one rather dodgy bloke who signed up here purely to post long-winded digs at every comment of mine in this thread and not much else. And if someone takes a swipe at me, I honestly don't give a toss, as I've said more than once. I'm replying to you because I genuinely like you, and you don't strike me as a lost cause.

[Fëanor]

Reproducing recordings as accurately as possible would necessitate the use of professional audio equipment.  Audiophile equipment distorts sound.  Pro gear lacks the non-audio traits that audiophile gear offers - fancy finishes, arty cabinet designs, exotic components, and, of course, fictional claims about the impact of those design elements.

{emphasis added}

Pretty much, but one shouldn't overstate the case.  Some home audio equipment is available that will match studio equipment in terms of distortion and other technical parameters.  That's especially true for electronics if less so speakers. But again there smaller "pro" speakers such as Genelec and Neumann that are relatively affordable.

One can be an audiophile and also choose low distortion equipment.

Of course in this sense "profession" ought to be restricted to recording studio-type equipment.  Auditorium sound reinforcement equipment is another matter.

[AnotherSpin]

I simply fail to see the point of all this fuss over professional equipment that promises most accurate recording when so many popular releases are ultimately mastered with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, with merciless loudness boosts, dynamics flattened like a pancake, and digital grit that scrubs away any trace of nuance or emotional shading. The end result is lush soundscapes reduced to dreary, ear-fatiguing walls of noise, all in a desperate bid to impress the undiscerning listener with their bargain-bin earbuds plugged into some miserable little player, naturally boasting splendid specifications, all made in China of course .

[Todd]

That's especially true for electronics if less so speakers.

Audiophile speakers are designed very differently than studio speakers.  Typically, audiophiles describe studio speakers as "bright" or "mid-forward" because audiophiles are used to the boom-tizz design of almost all consumer speakers with inadequate and inaccurate midrange presentations.  To full range pro audio manufacturers, playback is about controlling performance parameters, typically via DSP.  Audiophile playback is one small category to them, and an easily achieved one.  When I attended a new product demo at a local pro audio company, I chatted with the CEO and he explained the products and markets, and he said he would love to sell "audiophile" gear because of the juicy markups, but the board didn't want to enter the market because volume was too low to justify the changes to production given long term plans.  During the demo, engineers flipped back and forth between different playback settings, including "audiophile", which they accomplished using drop down menus and presets. 

Incidentally, installed commercial sound (eg, corporate, government, church, etc) is the largest market for professional speakers.  These systems usually focus on vocal intelligibility above all else.  Most audiophiles seem blissfully unaware of what speakers are, how they are made, how they work, and they believe in magic.

[StudioGuy]

It is clear the positions here are unreconcilable. Some members consider their ears and subjective appreciations to be absolute law, and will not yield to any objectivist and scientific arguments.

Yes, it's quite bizarre isn't it. It's like going backstage after watching a performance by say Harry Houdini or James Randi and arguing with them that they're not highly trained and skilled illusionists, that they were performing actual real magic, because "eyes and subjective appreciations are absolute law" and therefore cannot be fooled. This actually occurred a few times, Randi was accused more than once of lying, that his tricks were not illusions but real magic! lol

Furthermore, they have stated that they are not interested in those arguments, which they're perfectly entitled to ignore.

Unfortunately, they don't just ignore the facts/science though, they actively contradict them and put forth their own arguments/assertions but never provide any reliable evidence to support them, a basic requirement of truth/honesty. Of course, "they're perfectly entitled to ignore" the established facts/science, to make up nonsense alternative explanations, re-write history and to employ fallacious arguments or even outright lies. For example, "flat earthers" are perfectly entitled to their opinion and to express it but then surely aren't we also perfectly entitled (and arguably obligated!) to point out that alternative explanation is nonsense, the arguments are fallacious, what the actual history is, the lies and that their opinion is wrong?

[1] Do you think every second of every minute, twenty-four hours a day? Of course not. When you are not thinking, do you stop existing? Of course not.
[2] Formulas = measurements.
[3] I never said that science is a lie. [4] Science, like the mind, is a useful tool for practical purposes. [5] It also evolves, and often it does so by rejecting what it was once based on. [6] You know the examples, I'm sure. [7] But science cannot explain many of the most important things.

1. Huh? Yes of course "you stop existing", any mental event/process can described as thought/thinking and in fact, a lack of mental processes/thoughts is the very definition of death (brain death)/stopping existing.

2. As an even modestly educated adult, is it really possible to not know the difference between formulas and measurements? Or even worse, is it not possible to look up "formula" or "measurements" in an Encyclopedia?

3. Correct, you didn't expressly state "science is a lie", you only strongly implied it and gave no rational alternative other than that interpretation.

4. So you don't know what science is, really? Science is humanity's organised testable, verified knowledge and is NOT only "for practical purposes". "Applied Science" is the discipline which uses scientific knowledge "for practical purposes" but is only one of several branches of science.

5. Science does indeed sometimes evolve by rejecting what it was once based on, but relatively rarely and NOT in the case we're discussing; sound and audio recording and reproduction. For example, sound as acoustic waves, similar to waves in water but in 3 dimensions was first described by Vitruvius in 20 BCE, over 2,000 years later and that has still NOT been rejected, in fact it's only been further confirmed! Certainly the science of sound has evolved, Galileo, Helmholtz, Fourier and many others contributed, culminating in Lord Rayleigh's monumental "The Theory of Sound" in 1877. None of this work has been rejected and it's science of the nature of sound has not evolved (although the technology to affect sound obviously has), this is demonstrated by the fact that it is still today a working textbook on the subject in universities, rather than just a historical curiosity. It is a similar story with the science of electromagnetic signals (inc. Analogue audio signals), laid out a few years earlier (1865) by James Clarke Maxwell, "Maxwell's Laws". None of it has been rejected and while it can be said to have evolved to include quantum effects ("Quantum Electrodynamics" in the late 1940's), quantum effects do not affect analogue audio signals, so the classical physics of Maxwell's Laws (and Heaviside's Equations derived from them) still entirely define analogue audio signals today.

6. Baring in mind we're talking about sound and audio signals, then "NO" I don't know of even a single example of the science of sound and audio signals "rejecting what it was once based on". Can you give one?

7. We've already covered the fallacious argument of science not being able to explain everything and here you are just rewording that fallacy as "science cannot explain many of the most important things"! This assertion is a "red herring" fallacy, it's completely irrelevant because we are not discussing "everything" or even "the most important things", we're specifically discussing sound and audio signals and science absolutely can explain these things and in fact, actually invented the latter.

[Fëanor]

I simply fail to see the point of all this fuss over professional equipment that promises most accurate recording when so many popular releases are ultimately mastered with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, with merciless loudness boosts, dynamics flattened like a pancake, and digital grit that scrubs away any trace of nuance or emotional shading. The end result is lush soundscapes reduced to dreary, ear-fatiguing walls of noise, all in a desperate bid to impress the undiscerning listener with their bargain-bin earbuds plugged into some miserable little player, naturally boasting splendid specifications, all made in China of course .

I think I can agree that most recordings are mediocre to poor -- with exceptions of course.

On the other hand most listeners, including audiophiles I dare say, don't want to listen at concert hall levels at home.  I think this justifies some level of compression of dynamics.

[StudioGuy]

I hope subjectivists and objectivists are both willing to agree that recordings vary in quality technically as well as esthetically.

As both a subjectivist and objectivist then I'd agree, although with the caveat that "quality" is a very vague term.

Reproduction components may alter the sound more or less subtly, but with given components the resulting alteration will always be the same.  Thus a system that alters the sound may improve the experience of one recording but degrade it for another.

Mmm, I'm not so sure of that, it depends what you mean by "components" and which components you're talking about. Some components, say components of components, like fuses for example, do not affect the sound at all, quite a few DACs and amps do not affect the sound either (apart from output level of course). With the vast majority of modestly priced DACs and amps the sound maybe altered fractionally in certain cases but inaudibly. There are only a tiny handful of DACs and amps that alter the sound audibly (apart from level and if used appropriately) and therefore could improve the experience of one recording but degrade it for another. This fact is in stark contrast to the claims in the audiophile community though, many of whom believe (through false marketing) all components audibly alter the sound. The only consistently true exception to this rule of thumb is transducers (speakers/headphones) and of course room acoustics in the case of speakers. However, your use of "experience" complicates or even invalidates this rule of thumb, because the listening "experience" can be improved by the visual aesthetics of the components and a multitude of other non-audio factors. Hence why the only scientifically acceptable listening tests are the controlled Double Blind Testing methodologies.

Reproducing recordings as accurately as possible would necessitate the use of professional audio equipment.  Audiophile equipment distorts sound.  Pro gear lacks the non-audio traits that audiophile gear offers - fancy finishes, arty cabinet designs, exotic components, and, of course, fictional claims about the impact of those design elements.

Not so sure of this one either. The vast majority of DACs for example, even the audiophile ones, either do not distort the sound or do so only at inaudible levels. The same is true of amps, cables and various other audiophile equipment. The only exceptions are a handful of filterless NOS DACs and a few of the tube amps but even then, only sometimes and only under certain conditions. This again excludes transducers though. Certainly, there are fancy finishes and arty cabinet designs in pro-audio gear as well but they are marketed more honestly, that they are just visually desirable rather than directly impact the sound quality.

So IMO, it isn't necessary to use pro audio gear in order to reproduce recordings as accurately as possible, most audiophile gear is equally as audibly accurate but there are a handful of exceptions, pieces of audiophile kit so poorly designed they are not audibly transparent. Pro-audio gear is often a wise choice when it comes to speakers however, pro-audio speakers (monitors) typically provide better accuracy at a lower price than audiophile offerings. Once you get beyond a few hundred bucks though, then room acoustics play an increasingly important role, far more than the speakers themselves. I've heard systems in well treated studios which cost just a few thousand that massively outperformed home audiophile systems costing many tens and even hundreds of thousands.

I think I can agree that most recordings are mediocre to poor -- with exceptions of course.
On the other hand most listeners, including audiophiles I dare say, don't want to listen at concert hall levels at home.  I think this justifies some level of compression of dynamics.

This is a tricky one. I would say most commercial recordings are very good considering the circumstances, although market requirements often aren't to my personal taste. Those circumstances being that consumers have voted with their wallets to drastically reduce production values, the amount of time and money invested in creating commercial music recordings. In addition, there are a growing number of recordings made by amateurs/semi-pros, especially in certain popular genres, that never see the inside of a commercial studio or the expert engineers working in them, or only see them for such a short period of time it's just an exercise in "polishing a turd", a far more commonly heard epithet than previously.  It's a complicated situation, that really requires a far longer response.

[Todd]

Pro-audio gear is often a wise choice when it comes to speakers however, pro-audio speakers (monitors) typically provide better accuracy at a lower price than audiophile offerings.

I was referring to speakers for the most part.  Audiophile speakers are not designed for maximum accuracy, with very few exceptions.  Professional monitors generally are.  That's the main reason why audiophile speaker claims are gibberish.  DACs, solid-state preamps, and solid-state power amps are mostly interchangeable in almost all domestic settings.  It's also quite common for audiophile electronics to cost as much or more than some pro gear, with no benefit.  Best case.

[71 dB]

I'm replying to you because I genuinely like you, and you don't strike me as a lost cause.

I don't have problems with you either. This is about opinions, not people. 

[Fëanor]

I hope subjectivists and objectivists are both willing to agree that recordings vary in quality technically as well as esthetically.

As both a subjectivist and objectivist then I'd agree, although with the caveat that "quality" is a very vague term.

Sure, "quality" is a vague term but in on the technical side there may be a lurking consensus.  We could refer, e.g., to Grammy Award for Best Engineered Album, Classical.  I own a number of these recordings and agree that they are sonically excellent.  Recent winners in particular have great detail, "transparency", and remarkably deep, articulate bass.

Reproduction components may alter the sound more or less subtly, but with given components the resulting alteration will always be the same.  Thus a system that alters the sound may improve the experience of one recording but degrade it for another.

Mmm, I'm not so sure of that, it depends what you mean by "components" and which components you're talking about. Some components, say components of components, like fuses for example, do not affect the sound at all, quite a few DACs and amps do not affect the sound either (apart from output level of course). With the vast majority of modestly priced DACs and amps the sound maybe altered fractionally in certain cases but inaudibly. ...

Well I certainly wasn't talking about fuses, cables, or even so much about DACs.  Implicitly I meant speakers obviously, but also amplifiers.  Tube amps can alter the sound quite distinctly. This is the effect of the particular distortions they produce.  To repeat earlier comments of mine, these are 2nd & 3rd order harmonics the are pleasing in themselves and, IMO, also mask higher order harmonics and possibly noise.

[StudioGuy]

Sure, "quality" is a vague term but in on the technical side there may be a lurking consensus.  We could refer, e.g., to Grammy Award for Best Engineered Album, Classical.  I own a number of these recordings and agree that they are sonically excellent.  Recent winners in particular have great detail, "transparency", and remarkably deep, articulate bass.

It's still somewhat tricky. Classical music recording, mixing and mastering is quite different from virtually all other genres with the possible exception of some jazz and fundamentally hasn't changed much since the 1950's/60's. The Decca Tree is still quite widely used, even including the use of original Neumann M50's mics. Classical music was the first adopter of digital recording, so we got rid of analogue tape recording and it's colourations, distortion and noise many years ago, in addition modern mics also give us the option of lower noise and distortion. Surround and now Dolby Atmos recordings require somewhat different mic setups (additional mics) but it's really not much different than it used to be, with the exception of being able to record and adjust each mic separately after recording.

The recording, mixing and mastering of the popular genres has changed quite radically though, and indeed the genres themselves have. Because of the complexity of mixing popular genres it stayed in the analogue domain far longer than most realise (partly due to the misleading SPARS code) and it wasn't really until the mid and late 1990's that digital technology advanced enough to start making digital mixing a viable alternative, along with a slew of new genres/sub genres that evolved in response to it. The modern loudness war (which is a whole topic on it's own) is mainly a consequence of those newer genres/sub genres, plus we have a great deal more advanced sampling these days and objective technical quality started to take a back seat to subjective quality even as far back as the mid/late 1960's. So objective technical quality is somewhat of a meaningless term, or rather, should generally not be separated from subjective quality with popular genres.

Well I certainly wasn't talking about fuses, cables, or even so much about DACs.  Implicitly I meant speakers obviously, but also amplifiers.  Tube amps can alter the sound quite distinctly. This is the effect of the particular distortions they produce.  To repeat earlier comments of mine, these are 2nd & 3rd order harmonics the are pleasing in themselves and, IMO, also mask higher order harmonics and possibly noise.

That is also somewhat tricky IMHO. While I agree that tube amps add harmonic distortion and even harmonics in particular can be euphonic, there were certainly consumer tube amps even in the early/mid 1960's where those harmonic distortions were below audibility and so were audibly transparent (if not overdriven). Today, there are clearly one or two available tube amps that have audible harmonic distortion but the measurements I've seen seem to imply/indicate that the vast majority probably only produce inaudible harmonic distortion. Are the common audiophile reports of audible warmth/distortion from tube amps just another example of perceptual effects/bias/placebo or are they real? I'd wager that in many and probably most (but not all) cases it's not, but only some proper, controlled ABX tests would reveal the truth.

[Fëanor]

That is also somewhat tricky IMHO {that tube amps can audibly change the sound}. While I agree that tube amps add harmonic distortion and even harmonics in particular can be euphonic, there were certainly consumer tube amps even in the early/mid 1960's where those harmonic distortions were below audibility and so were audibly transparent (if not overdriven). Today, there are clearly one or two available tube amps that have audible harmonic distortion but the measurements I've seen seem to imply/indicate that the vast majority probably only produce inaudible harmonic distortion. Are the common audiophile reports of audible warmth/distortion from tube amps just another example of perceptual effects/bias/placebo or are they real? I'd wager that in many and probably most (but not all) cases it's not, but only some proper, controlled ABX tests would reveal the truth.

My experience with tube preamplifiers is that they can modify the sound.  I haven't been privilege to do much listening to high-end tube equipment such as McIntosh, Audio Research, or Atma-Sphere, though my old Sonic Frontier tube preamplifier might fit in that category.

I hate to sound like a subjectivist, but I believe I hear a differences with the few tube preamps I've owned. HOWEVER admittedly I haven't gone through the hoops necessary to do rigorous blind comparisons.

Hardcore objectivists, IMHO, tend to be dismissive of the possibility of subtle sound differences without definitively proving their case that those difference are inaudible to all people under all circumstances.

[AnotherSpin]

My experience with tube preamplifiers is that they can modify the sound.  I haven't been privilege to do much listening to high-end tube equipment such as McIntosh, Audio Research, or Atma-Sphere, though my old Sonic Frontier tube preamplifier might fit in that category.

I hate to sound like a subjectivist, but I believe I hear a differences with the few tube preamps I've owned. HOWEVER admittedly I haven't gone through the hoops necessary to do rigorous blind comparisons.

Hardcore objectivists, IMHO, tend to be dismissive of the possibility of subtle sound differences without definitively proving their case that those difference are inaudible to all people under all circumstances.

In other words, a staunch objectivist is not hopeless if given time, opportunity, and a bit of willingness to think outside the box.

[Florestan]

Hardcore objectivists, IMHO, tend to be dismissive of the possibility of subtle sound differences without definitively proving their case that those difference are inaudible to all people under all circumstances.

There's a difference between physiologically audible and psychologically audible. Objectivists acknowledge this difference, subjectivists do not. Double-blind tests conclusively prove the former are right.

[Fëanor]

There's a difference between physiologically audible and psychologically audible. Objectivists acknowledge this difference, subjectivists do not. Double-blind tests conclusively prove the former are right.

I for one don't dispute the importance of imagination in the audiophile ethos ... but then I personally am at the nexus of objectivity and subjectivity.

[AnotherSpin]

I for one don't dispute the importance of imagination in the audiophile ethos ... but then I personally am at the nexus of objectivity and subjectivity.

Funny thing is, objectivists end up insisting on blind tests, in plain terms just listening with your ears. Yes, ears not gadgets. To me that sounds like admitting measurements are useless for judging audio.

[Spotted Horses]

Funny thing is, objectivists end up insisting on blind tests, in plain terms just listening with your ears. Yes, ears not gadgets. To me that sounds like admitting measurements are useless for judging audio.

I continues to surprise me how fixed you are on making fun of people who understand the role of measurements and analysis in music reproduction. Listening experience is the ultimate goal, but measurements make it possible to attain the desired listening experience.

[Florestan]

I continues to surprise me how fixed you are on making fun of people who understand the role of measurements and analysis in music reproduction. Listening experience is the ultimate goal, but measurements make it possible to attain the desired listening experience.

Absolutely. "Ears, not gadgets" --- as if the sound that enters the ears didn't come from "gadgets" which were invented by scientists and engineers and manufactured according to calculations and measurements.

[AnotherSpin]

I continues to surprise me how fixed you are on making fun of people who understand the role of measurements and analysis in music reproduction. Listening experience is the ultimate goal, but measurements make it possible to attain the desired listening experience.

It continues to surprise me how fixed objectivists are on blind tests for the final verdict. Why not use some kind of device instead of ears, one that would precisely, reliably, and in full accordance with the latest scientific discoveries demonstrate exactly how or what we hear?)))

[Fëanor]

It continues to surprise me how fixed objectivists are on blind tests for the final verdict. Why not use some kind of device instead of ears, one that would precisely, reliably, and in full accordance with the latest scientific discoveries demonstrate exactly how or what we hear?)))

I assume you're joking. 

Up-to-date test equipment can evaluate device based on many parameters, and can detect noise and various forms of distortion that is far below audibility.  Take for example THIS review of the Hypex NCx500 'DIY' amplifier.