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

[Harry]

Harry, be honest, you haven't got a degree in listening skills, have you?? So how on earth do you dare listen to music??? You're probably doing it all wrong anyway. Tell me, have you got a diploma in proper digestion??? How can you eat??? Ever taken a course on how to drink water skillfully?

I could keep going, but I'd hate to back you into a corner and have you lose sleep over it.

Actually, hang on, have you even studied how to sleep properly???

To be honest my dear fellow, I honestly think I did not studied a single day of my life, and if I think of it, the thinking did not go well too, because I never studied it. Thank you for the enlightenment.      

[71 dB]

Seriously, is there something wrong with you?

That's a good question. He used to be a cool dude. Friendly and respectful. I respected him for maybe 15 year here. A few years ago something strange happened and he has been like this since. Maybe it was Covid-19. I don't know... ...but the Harry I know from the old days is gone. Now he spreads crazy claims/opinions and gets very defensive and presumptuous when people point them out. 

[AnotherSpin]

Curiously enough, moderation in this thread appears to function in just one direction, conveniently in favour of the objectivists.

And when they, having exhausted their not exactly profound, though rather monotonous arguments, begin discussing the participants instead, something the rules explicitly forbid, the moderators suddenly discover the virtue of silence.

Apparently they prefer ver sólo una cara de la moneda...

[AnotherSpin]

To be honest my dear fellow, I honestly think I did not studied a single day of my life, and if I think of it, the thinking did not go well too, because I never studied it. Thank you for the enlightenment.      

Harry, we can only offer our compassion. The accumulation of facts, and the endless citations thereof, is too often mistaken for insight. The louder the parade of science, the fainter the music becomes. There is a peculiar blindness that comes with the piling up of discrete units of knowledge, a scholar's fog that dims the simple pleasure of listening. In such company, truth is less discovered than dissected. And joy? Buried beneath measurements...

[71 dB]

Curiously enough, moderation in this thread appears to function in just one direction, conveniently in favour of the objectivists.

Could it be about what the objectivist write compared to the subjectivists? The advantage of being an objectivist is that the truth tend to be with you. What is there to moderate about 2+2=4? Also, objectivist don't need to resort to personal attacks, because the facts are on their side. In fact when an objectivist like me do resort to personal attacks, it is laziness and frustration* rather than lack of argumentative possibilities.

* Subjectivists tend to be stubborn and show lack of awareness of the fact they are the ones lacking knowledge/understanding of the topic under discussion. Typically subjectivists resort to personal attacks first and then we objectivist follow, because we are only human beings and we post before calming down. 

And when they, having exhausted their not exactly profound, though rather monotonous arguments, begin discussing the participants instead, something the rules explicitly forbid, the moderators suddenly discover the virtue of silence.

Facts tend to be monotone. What can you do? 2+2=4 and that's it. However, subjectivist calling the arguments of objectivists "not exactly profound" is rich and demonstrates the lack of self-awareness. I can go quite technical and mathematical (literally profound) in my arguments, but since everybody here doesn't have that kind of background and this is a thread about audio systems, I keep things simple.

Apparently they prefer ver sólo una cara de la moneda...

This is about which side of the coin represents objective truth. Do USB cables have burn-in period which affects sound quality? The answer is no they don't. That's the side of the coin that matters. What parts of an audio system affects the sound quality most? The answer is room acoustics, speaker/listener position, speakers and headphones/headphone spatializers. Analog sound sources such as turntables also have significant effect on the sound. Digital sound sources have hardly any effect and the same if true for most amplifiers, DACs and cables, but speaker cables can alter the sound audibly, if they are too long and/or thin. Audiophile power cables and USB cables have zero effect on the sound as long as they are functioning. That's the side of the coin that matters. Do hi-rez audio formats offer better sound? The answer is only if the master of hi-rez versions offered is better on purpose. There is no audible difference if it is the same master. In consumer audio 44.1 kHz sampling rate and about 13 bits of dynamic range are enough to offer audibly transparent sound in any reasonable listening scenario. This means "CD quality" is already overkill and enough. In fact, even high bitrate lossy formats such as AAC at 256 kbps or mp3 at 320 kbps are almost transparent and have audible issues only with certain special music samples ("Japanese killer tracks"  ). This is the side of the coin that matters.

[71 dB]

The accumulation of facts, and the endless citations thereof, is too often mistaken for insight. The louder the parade of science, the fainter the music becomes. There is a peculiar blindness that comes with the piling up of discrete units of knowledge, a scholar's fog that dims the simple pleasure of listening. In such company, truth is less discovered than dissected. And joy? Buried beneath measurements...

I don't do "endless citation of facts." Since the dominant cognitive function of my brain is introverted intuition, I need to have insight to learn. That's how I learn. If I lack insight, I don't learn, or it takes me ages to "memorise" it. I find facts alone without insight/logic boring. Insight, logic and patterns brings the interest for me. There are tons of topics out there I lack insight for, but I tend to keep my mouth shut about them, because if I made bold statements about them, I would only make a fool of myself. That's why I don't write about wines or fishing. I lack any insight of those things. I don't drink alcohol and I don fish. I would be a complete fool to go to a wine discussion board and call people over there objectivists with monotone claims about vintage wines and then be amazed when they tell me to f**k off. 

Thanks to science we have audio technology and music can be listened to even when there isn't live music. I don't think about scientific facts/knowledge when I listen to music. I enjoy the music! I benefitted from science/knowledge/insight when I set up my audio gear. What kind of components to buy? How to position the speakers? How much to spend? Stuff like that. I did that work and now I can just concentrate on music without the distraction of all kind of snake oil and placebo slavery.

To my experience it is audiophile subjectivists who listen to music the least. They listen to the gear instead. Instead of just listening to Mozart, they keep testing if the change of audiophile fuses makes the sound more "acoustic" or if the sound becomes more "silvery" after 100 hours because of burn-in of new cables. How do I know? Because I have been to many audio exhibitions and I have seen what these audiophiles do and how they think/operate. For them, music is test signal to evaluate changes made to audio gear by ear. Sure, they do concentrate on the music sometimes, off course. However, subjectivist claiming we objectivist bury our enjoyment of music under measurements is rich. It is like saying someone who bought a 10 W LED especially for reading in the bed thinks only about the 10 W power rating and can't concentrate on the book itself.

[AnotherSpin]

Could it be about what the objectivist write compared to the subjectivists? The advantage of being an objectivist is that the truth tend to be with you. What is there to moderate about 2+2=4? Also, objectivist don't need to resort to personal attacks, because the facts are on their side. In fact when an objectivist like me do resort to personal attacks, it is laziness and frustration* rather than lack of argumentative possibilities.

* Subjectivists tend to be stubborn and show lack of awareness of the fact they are the ones lacking knowledge/understanding of the topic under discussion. Typically subjectivists resort to personal attacks first and then we objectivist follow, because we are only human beings and we post before calming down. 

Facts tend to be monotone. What can you do? 2+2=4 and that's it. However, subjectivist calling the arguments of objectivists "not exactly profound" is rich and demonstrates the lack of self-awareness. I can go quite technical and mathematical (literally profound) in my arguments, but since everybody here doesn't have that kind of background and this is a thread about audio systems, I keep things simple.

This is about which side of the coin represents objective truth. Do USB cables have burn-in period which affects sound quality? The answer is no they don't. That's the side of the coin that matters. What parts of an audio system affects the sound quality most? The answer is room acoustics, speaker/listener position, speakers and headphones/headphone spatializers. Analog sound sources such as turntables also have significant effect on the sound. Digital sound sources have hardly any effect and the same if true for most amplifiers, DACs and cables, but speaker cables can alter the sound audibly, if they are too long and/or thin. Audiophile power cables and USB cables have zero effect on the sound as long as they are functioning. That's the side of the coin that matters. Do hi-rez audio formats offer better sound? The answer is only if the master of hi-rez versions offered is better on purpose. There is no audible difference if it is the same master. In consumer audio 44.1 kHz sampling rate and about 13 bits of dynamic range are enough to offer audibly transparent sound in any reasonable listening scenario. This means "CD quality" is already overkill and enough. In fact, even high bitrate lossy formats such as AAC at 256 kbps or mp3 at 320 kbps are almost transparent and have audible issues only with certain special music samples ("Japanese killer tracks"  ). This is the side of the coin that matters.

I was talking about personal attacks and the endless, in-every-post accusations that the opponent spreads falsehoods and lies. Is it normal for civilized discussion, what do you think? Tell me.

I, for one, don't say that anyone who claims all DACs sound the same is a brazen liar and a scoundrel, do I? And I won't say that, because I think objectivists are simply too trusting and not independent enough in their own judgments, clinging to formulas like to crutches. Although in fact they're not crippled at all, on the contrary, they're potentially quite normal people, capable of independent thinking.

[AnotherSpin]

I don't do "endless citation of facts." Since the dominant cognitive function of my brain is introverted intuition, I need to have insight to learn. That's how I learn. If I lack insight, I don't learn, or it takes me ages to "memorise" it. I find facts alone without insight/logic boring. Insight, logic and patterns brings the interest for me. There are tons of topics out there I lack insight for, but I tend to keep my mouth shut about them, because if I made bold statements about them, I would only make a fool of myself. That's why I don't write about wines or fishing. I lack any insight of those things. I don't drink alcohol and I don fish. I would be a complete fool to go to a wine discussion board and call people over there objectivists with monotone claims about vintage wines and then be amazed when they tell me to f**k off. 

Thanks to science we have audio technology and music can be listened to even when there isn't live music. I don't think about scientific facts/knowledge when I listen to music. I enjoy the music! I benefitted from science/knowledge/insight when I set up my audio gear. What kind of components to buy? How to position the speakers? How much to spend? Stuff like that. I did that work and now I can just concentrate on music without the distraction of all kind of snake oil and placebo slavery.

To my experience it is audiophile subjectivists who listen to music the least. They listen to the gear instead. Instead of just listening to Mozart, they keep testing if the change of audiophile fuses makes the sound more "acoustic" or if the sound becomes more "silvery" after 100 hours because of burn-in of new cables. How do I know? Because I have been to many audio exhibitions and I have seen what these audiophiles do and how they think/operate. For them, music is test signal to evaluate changes made to audio gear by ear. Sure, they do concentrate on the music sometimes, off course. However, subjectivist claiming we objectivist bury our enjoyment of music under measurements is rich. It is like saying someone who bought a 10 W LED especially for reading in the bed thinks only about the 10 W power rating and can't concentrate on the book itself.

You're fond of that lamp and book analogy, the idea that no one thinks about wattage when they're reading. But that's a bit of sleight of hand, isn't it? You're swapping an aesthetic experience for a utilitarian metaphor. Reading isn't just decoding text; it's a full-bodied cognitive affair. The font matters. The texture of the paper matters. The binding, the way the light falls across the page, all of it shapes how deeply we engage with what's written. Talking about those things isn't subjectivism, it's caring about the quality of perception.

Same goes for music. When someone says a particular cable makes the sound feel more alive, they're not measuring, they're describing a shift in emotional timbre, in how the music reaches them. It's not only subjectivism, it's tuning the medium to enhance meaning, not muffle it. Like a lamp that doesn't just illuminate but creates the sort of ambience that makes you want to read in the first place.

Anyway, forgive me if I don't respond to every point, I'm off to cook. Today it's pilaf with a decent bottle of wine. Sure, I could nuke a ready meal and claim it's nutritionally equivalent, maybe even comparable in satiety. I'm sure someone could measure calories and give me the numbers. But I don't own a microwave, I'm far too subjective when it comes to food. It's not just about the outcome, it's about the process: the flavour, the texture, the aroma, the ritual.

[StudioGuy]

I was talking about personal attacks and the endless, in-every-post accusations that the opponent spreads falsehoods and lies. Is it normal for civilized discussion, what do you think? Tell me.

Just so we're clear, you think it's "normal for civilised discussion" for you to post falsehoods and fallacies "in-every-post" but it's not "civilised" for anyone else to point out and refute those falsehoods and fallacies? If you don't want/like your falsehoods and fallacies pointed out and refuted "in-every-post" the solution is blatantly obvious, don't post falsehoods and fallacies "in-every-post" in the first place! And why do you need someone to "tell me [you]" that, I've already told you, the mod has stated it's acceptable to refute false/fallacious assertions and it should be self-evident anyway. For example:

I, for one, don't say that anyone who claims all DACs sound the same is a brazen liar and a scoundrel, do I?

And who has claimed that all DACs sound the same? I have not claimed that and the only people I've seen claim that are audiophiles presenting it as a strawman fallacy. Despite this and numerous other falsehoods and fallacies, I don't call you "a brazen liar or scoundrel" do I? Regardless of whether I think such insults maybe justified in this case.

Harry, be honest, you haven't got a degree in listening skills, have you?? So how on earth do you dare listen to music???

So I state and prove formal "listening skills" modules within degrees in music and sound engineering but you falsely misrepresent that as "a degree in listening skills". Neither did I state or even vaguely imply anyone must have formal listening skills training to listen to music. You seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that I only mentioned my formal listening skills training to refute your previous false assertion that us objectivists are not "interested in listening"!

Pilling falsehoods on top of false assertions to mock someone for refuting that false assertion is "normal for civilised discussion" is it?

[Florestan]

Reading isn't just decoding text; it's a full-bodied cognitive affair. The font matters. The texture of the paper matters. The binding, the way the light falls across the page, all of it shapes how deeply we engage with what's written.

Absolutely. If the font is inelegant, if the texture of the page is rough, if the binding is loose, if the light falls from the wrong angle --- then one engages with, say, Schopenhauer's ideas a lot less than they would if the font were elegant, the texture of the page were smooth, the binding were tight and the light fell from the right angle. Not to mention that reading Schopenhauer online or as e-book is a complete waste of time, one would understand nothing.

[Spotted Horses]

Same goes for music. When someone says a particular cable makes the sound feel more alive, they're not measuring, they're describing a shift in emotional timbre, in how the music reaches them. It's not only subjectivism, it's tuning the medium to enhance meaning, not muffle it. Like a lamp that doesn't just illuminate but creates the sort of ambience that makes you want to read in the first place.

A DAC does not experience emotions. It is a machine that receives a sequence of numbers and produces a sequence of potential differences (voltages). It is not synchronous. It stores the numbers in its memory buffer and clocks them into the converter with its own internal timing circuitry. If it receives the same numbers it produces the same audio output. It is literally impossible for two non-defective digital cables to sound different.

You cannot say it is literally impossible for an analog signal cable to affect sound, but you certainly define the physical parameters required for the cable to transmit the signal with distortion below the limits of detection (i.e., smaller than thermal noise or quantum noise). And obviously an analog cable or electrical component can sound 'better' by distorting the signal (as tube amps do) to suit the taste of the lister.

[drogulus]

    The truth is I'm not really planning to get new audio trinkets. I do like to window shop,though.

    If I had a room just for music I'd get a mini-PC to serve files with a dongle DAC feeding an integrated amp and Canadian speakers. Maybe all Lenbrook (NAD, PSB) would do. My apartment is too small so I'll stick with headphones.

[AnotherSpin]

I'm a bit puzzled, to be honest. One objectivist refuses to admit that all DACs sound the same, while another insists that DACs don't have emotions (was anyone suggesting they did?) and that they produces the same audio output. Perhaps you should have a chat among yourselves, sort it out, and come back once you've reached a consensus.

Now, digital cables. In theory, they all carry the same data, ones and zeroes, so there shouldn't be any difference. That's the theoretical model: if the bits arrive intact, the job is done.

In practice, though, cables are built differently: different materials, different shielding, different resistance to interference, varying quality of connectors. They all carry the same information, but with differing degrees of reliability and stability.

They transmit at the same speeds; that's set by the protocol. But the journey can be smooth or a bit rough. It's like sending a parcel: the contents are identical, yet one goes first class and the other gets kicked around in the back of a van. Both arrive, but perhaps not in quite the same condition.

I can already hear someone saying that, no matter how transmission conditions change, the data itself remains the same. Quite right, it does. Let's say we listen to the same recording of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. Once, played from a compressed MP3 file on an ancient Nokia phone. Another time, in a lossless format on a top-tier audio system with speakers like Harry's. Is it the same recording? Of course it is. The same music, the same orchestra, the same tempo and duration. In a theoretical sense, identical. And yet the listening experience will be different, qualitatively different.

For the objectivist, it's all the same; for the subjectivist, nothing is.

[drogulus]

For the objectivist, it's all the same; for the subjectivist, nothing is.

     There's an objective difference between mp3 and 16/44.1. It might be audible in a blind test, too, though a high bit rate mp3 might be hard to distinguish from the 16/44.1 source.

     Just for laffs I encoded mp3s above 320 kbps using the LAME encoder. it was pointless but fun.

[AnotherSpin]

There's an objective difference between mp3 and 16/44.1. It might be audible in a blind test, too, though a high bit rate mp3 might be hard to distinguish from the 16/44.1 source.

     Just for laffs I encoded mp3s above 320 kbps using the LAME encoder. it was pointless but fun.

There's never any lack of people eager to insist that MP3 is perfectly identical to FLAC, proudly declaring they can't hear or prefer not to hear any difference. Naturally, they'll cite the sacred blind tests.

Meanwhile, they enjoy their classical music through tiny little boxes and bargain-bin earbuds, happily assuring everyone it all sounds marvelous. And for them it does, thank heavens for that. Suum cuique, as they say.

[drogulus]

    I don't think anyone is claiming that objective differences like tiny boxes and cheapo earbuds can't have audible effects. Blind test aren't needed in such blatant cases. They are used to see if audiophile claims hold up in cases where there are good reasons to doubt claims that are purely subjective. In such cases they are ruthlessly revealing.

    I've made it my business to reencode tracks from high rez sources to standard rez or below to test exactly the claims made here. In addition I've found when I accidentally play back a DSD file in 16/44.1 because FooBar2000 is misconfigured and then I see the light on my DAC is the wrong color what am I to make of that?. I wasn't trying to prove a point, I simply messed up!

[StudioGuy]

I'm a bit puzzled, to be honest. One objectivist refuses to admit that all DACs sound the same, while another insists that DACs don't have emotions (was anyone suggesting they did?) and that they produces the same audio output. Perhaps you should have a chat among yourselves, sort it out, and come back once you've reached a consensus.

You're puzzled? Not as much as the rest of us, because that "was anyone suggesting they did" was if fact you! You stated: "When someone says a particular cable makes the sound feel more alive, they're not measuring, they're describing a shift in emotional timbre, in how the music reaches them." - In order to produce "a shift in emotional timbre" a DAC would obviously have to be capable of emotion and be able to shift them. Spotted Horses correctly pointed out that a DAC will produce the same output given the same data. And if that's not bad enough, the only person in this conversation who has posted the assertion "that all DACs sound the same" is also you. So according to your own words: Perhaps you should have a chat with yourself and sort yourself out!

Now, digital cables. In theory, they all carry the same data, ones and zeroes, so there shouldn't be any difference. That's the theoretical model: if the bits arrive intact, the job is done.

In practice, though, cables are built differently: different materials, different shielding, different resistance to interference, varying quality of connectors. They all carry the same information, but with differing degrees of reliability and stability.

They transmit at the same speeds; that's set by the protocol. But the journey can be smooth or a bit rough. It's like sending a parcel: the contents are identical, yet one goes first class and the other gets kicked around in the back of a van. Both arrive, but perhaps not in quite the same condition.

I can already hear someone saying that, no matter how transmission conditions change, the data itself remains the same. Quite right, it does.

Again, you seem to be arguing with yourself here. You state "That's the theoretical model" but omit that it's both the proven theoretical model and the proven practical implementation. You assert that cables are all different with differing reliability and stability but that's not true either. Cables for a particular digital protocol have specifications and tolerances which if met will result in the same reliability and stability. You make assertions about data arriving in "not quite the same condition" but then assert that the "data itself remains the same", contradicting the importance/relevance of the previously quoted assertions! And you followed that with a complete non-sequitur (fallacy):

Let's say we listen to the same recording of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. Once, played from a compressed MP3 file on an ancient Nokia phone. Another time, in a lossless format on a top-tier audio system with speakers like Harry's. Is it the same recording? Of course it is. The same music, the same orchestra, the same tempo and duration. In a theoretical sense, identical. And yet the listening experience will be different, qualitatively different.

For the objectivist, it's all the same; for the subjectivist, nothing is.

Do you think there an objective difference between a Nokia phone and an audio system with large speakers, and between MP3 and lossless? If so, then by definition of "objectivist", an objective difference cannot be the same. You seem to be confusing subjectivists with objectivists, it's subjectivists who frequently dismiss objective facts/science/measurements!

There's never any lack of people eager to insist that MP3 is perfectly identical to FLAC, proudly declaring they can't hear or prefer not to hear any difference. Naturally, they'll cite the sacred blind tests.
Meanwhile, they enjoy their classical music through tiny little boxes and bargain-bin earbuds, happily assuring everyone it all sounds marvelous.

What people "insist MP3 is perfectly identical to FLAC", is this the same people you falsely assert state that "all DACs sound the same", IE. Yet another strawman fallacy? An MP3 is ALWAYS very significantly different to a FLAC but whether they're audibly different is a whole other question. And, blind tests are not sacred, in fact they can sometimes be even more misleading than sighted testing, controlled double blind tests are an entirely different kettle of fish though, the gold standard scientific/perceptual testing. Lastly, I'm an objectivist and I enjoy classical music on a system that is pretty much guaranteed to be significantly better than yours and I have never asserted to anyone that "bargain-bin earbuds ... sounds marvellous", again disproving your false assertions.

You complain about being accused of posting falsehoods and fallacies "in-every-post" but just continue posting falsehoods and fallacies "in-every-post" anyway?!

[AnotherSpin]

Well, isn't that charming, my replies are vanishing now. Quite the fair play, what? A proper one-way match. I think I'll bow out gracefully; cheers everyone, it's been a delight. I'm out of this thread.

[Brian]

Meanwhile, they enjoy their classical music through tiny little boxes and bargain-bin earbuds, happily assuring everyone it all sounds marvelous.

This obvious straw man argument offers us a good chance to get back on topic!

Q. Does anyone here use "bargain-bin earbuds" to listen to classical music? Or any earbuds at all?

[Brian]

Well, isn't that charming, my replies are vanishing now. Quite the fair play, what? A proper one-way match. I think I'll bow out gracefully; cheers everyone, it's been a delight. I'm out of this thread.

Yes, we deleted a post that was entirely devoted to personal attacks.