Debatable. 🙂 My take on how things changed is quite simple, audiophile still means lover of audio but used to refer to high fidelity when that was still an aspiration, now it doesn't relate to Hi-Fi at all but something altogether superior and undefinable except by the use of flowery words and high prices. Someone was accused of being arrogant on another thread for saying he quietly laughed at people who spent $12,000 on a turntable 😉
In creating a category to mock people who are blissfully unaware of your mockery, you have to wonder who the bigger fool is. Might as well stick to windmills.
Let's say - you were given a choice of 16 tracks @ 44.1kHz, or two @ 384kHz. With the two, you get what you get. With the 16, you can modify an initially provided level mix however you want - and EQ, dynamic range expansion (w/o any intermodulation from adjacent tracks being part of an expansion envelope), reverb - etc.
The "selling point" of the runaway sampling rate / resolution competition is that it sounds better. I - intuitively - think you could make a whole bunch of independent tracks at the 'ol 16/44.1 sound better than just 2 at 32/384. I'd bet there are some others who'd agree.
So what if your foobar player now looks like a studio mixing console. Do nothing and it's sounding just like the original mastering engineer intended, as a meta file is read that adjusts all the studio settings initially. It's just the same bandwidth, storage and CPU horsepower being put to use in a bit-different way, which there's plenty of these days.
The "selling point" of the runaway sampling rate / resolution competition is that it sounds better. I - intuitively - think you could make a whole bunch of independent tracks at the 'ol 16/44.1 sound better than just 2 at 32/384. I'd bet there are some others who'd agree.
So what if your foobar player now looks like a studio mixing console. Do nothing and it's sounding just like the original mastering engineer intended, as a meta file is read that adjusts all the studio settings initially. It's just the same bandwidth, storage and CPU horsepower being put to use in a bit-different way, which there's plenty of these days.
True, ignorance is bliss, everyone's a winner, the audiophool and the snakeoil salesman
Off topic:
That is interesting view but, there is a but...
Most of the points made about having access to multitracks to the end user for him/her to make his own mix forget one point:
The 2 tracks ( or 5.1 or...) the end user is given to listen, is the results of esthetic choice made by the artist.
Engineers are always blamed for their choices but most of you don't realise that the technicians are just technicians within a chain of actors on which ultimately the artist ( or the group of person which finance his work) have the ultimate choice!
Their is same well known stories anout that one of them being one of the latest Metallica's album which the master was so heavily compressed it distorted. The mastef engineer got to publicly explain he works to the wish of his clients ( and when you know that J.Hetfield HAS to HAVE something playing over 80dbspl for him to be able to fall asleep ( to cover tinitus) you get the picture...
I would ask you another question too: would you use Photoshop to redo 'La Joconde' because Leonardo Da Vinci didn't use as vivid colours as you liked them to be?
Here we are... ni understand most would like to have access to multitrack and as i worked in some facility were i had access to this thing from large selling artist of 80's ( yes those wad 2" tape) i know this is interesting but not in the way most of you think!
First when played back with fader at zero you have the sound of the track. No processing, nothing: just the band playing gives 90% of the sound.
Second the choice made by the tracking engineer /band /artist give the way the track will sound like in the end...
IOW you don't have such room to change the esthetic choice made at recording atnmixing or mastering stage. This is known by engineers not really by others.
Last thing you have to be aware of technical limitations you'll encounter once the mix leave your space and i fear most of you don't have this knowledge or the will to learn it.
Don't get me wrong, i'm sure most of you if they had time and will would likely gain that knowledge and probably be better than some professionals but at that time you'll be that too.
But in the end i think this resume to the first point i gave: do you think the artist will let you modify what he spent many month working on to your wish?
On topic:
Jonboccani this is brave to tell such things. Thank you.
What i find nice in your view is that you just didn't gave up even after being desillusioned but keep on it.
That is interesting view but, there is a but...
Most of the points made about having access to multitracks to the end user for him/her to make his own mix forget one point:
The 2 tracks ( or 5.1 or...) the end user is given to listen, is the results of esthetic choice made by the artist.
Engineers are always blamed for their choices but most of you don't realise that the technicians are just technicians within a chain of actors on which ultimately the artist ( or the group of person which finance his work) have the ultimate choice!
Their is same well known stories anout that one of them being one of the latest Metallica's album which the master was so heavily compressed it distorted. The mastef engineer got to publicly explain he works to the wish of his clients ( and when you know that J.Hetfield HAS to HAVE something playing over 80dbspl for him to be able to fall asleep ( to cover tinitus) you get the picture...
I would ask you another question too: would you use Photoshop to redo 'La Joconde' because Leonardo Da Vinci didn't use as vivid colours as you liked them to be?
Here we are... ni understand most would like to have access to multitrack and as i worked in some facility were i had access to this thing from large selling artist of 80's ( yes those wad 2" tape) i know this is interesting but not in the way most of you think!
First when played back with fader at zero you have the sound of the track. No processing, nothing: just the band playing gives 90% of the sound.
Second the choice made by the tracking engineer /band /artist give the way the track will sound like in the end...
IOW you don't have such room to change the esthetic choice made at recording atnmixing or mastering stage. This is known by engineers not really by others.
Last thing you have to be aware of technical limitations you'll encounter once the mix leave your space and i fear most of you don't have this knowledge or the will to learn it.
Don't get me wrong, i'm sure most of you if they had time and will would likely gain that knowledge and probably be better than some professionals but at that time you'll be that too.
But in the end i think this resume to the first point i gave: do you think the artist will let you modify what he spent many month working on to your wish?
On topic:
Jonboccani this is brave to tell such things. Thank you.
What i find nice in your view is that you just didn't gave up even after being desillusioned but keep on it.
Last edited:
Well, YES, exactly, Jan. 😎
The capacities of the ears are completely isolated in a blind test and it is their intrinsic limits that stand out.
Different mic positioning; 1-2m distance + left & right + from listening position, to build an average that is subjectively satisfying.
Mix of sweeps and pink noise.
Careful attention to the pink noise weighting: I strongly believe the ''best'' would be custom weighting (adjusted to the listener's audiogram)
and also proper tool, I'm using right now a Earthworks M50.
In the past, I thought of myself as an audiophile. But now a new group has claimed that title. It's a group that doesn't believe in ears only quality assessment. They have also redefined the word 'subjective' to mean whatever they say is correct.
Pretty much agree with the initial post. Except I still think speakers and rooms still make a difference. I called myself an audiophile untill I saw my first $500 power cord, than I was embarrassed. Thats when phile became phool for me. I think that people new to hi end audio are inandated by the medias lies ( audio reviewers ( Dr Toole has data on 6 of these and there hearing scores are among the worst). Must be very confusing when "respected reviewers" and science dont agree, and intimidating when they make you feel inadequate because you dont have $1000 speaker cable on rare wood cable lifters. This is what will kill consumer hi end audio.
I have had very audible amplifiers, My first was a single rail "30+30W" kit and had a pathetically inadequate power supply, which lead to very obvious bass pumping effects.
I then had a competent Crimson Electrik, which eventually started to sound harsh and with strange bass distortion - the supply capacitors were bulging. Both would have measured badly.
Speakers are another matter. You cannot equalize driver distortion, which can be several percent
I then had a competent Crimson Electrik, which eventually started to sound harsh and with strange bass distortion - the supply capacitors were bulging. Both would have measured badly.
Speakers are another matter. You cannot equalize driver distortion, which can be several percent
Not that brave because I kind of gave up.
The DACs blindtest hurt me a lot, as an audiophile but the Midranges blindtest killed me.
I love building speakers, and in just a few hours, even minutes, my whole reality as a speaker builder broke into pieces.
''really now...? That compression driver sounds the same as this 3'' cone? or that 8'' woofer? ''
I still remember being on the chair, the darkened glasses on the head, the head that swung left and right to try to identify the drivers by differences in directionality. I was unable to know which of the drivers was playing. I remember giving up, after a little while. I had 50% chance to get it right, each of the rounds. Maybe I would be lucky? But I quickly understood after a few rounds that it was yet again another flip-a-coin kind of thing. Like the previous blindtests; cables, amplifiers, MP3 / HD, DAC ... again, the same pattern. Again, the human limits.
But this time I was downright angry: It was the drivers. ''MY'' cherished, untouchable, components that I use to build the speakers, for so many years. All of the sudden, the Voxativ or the Radian-Beryllium CD were not special anymore to my eyes. And all of the sudden, I suspected the tweeters could also lose their aura, given a tweeter's blindtest would be made. All of the sudden, all was left was the frequency response of the drivers and their output capabilities. That's it.
Thank-you for the thoughtful reply. I think so, if a multichannel release with initial mixdown settings meta file becomes a fashionable thing - and makes the artist a little more money if they're willing to do so.
I'm going to assume that any such consumer availability would be guarded. That is, access to individual track data would be protected by the playback system - that is, you can do stuff to each, but only within the garden walls of the player - you dont get to pull individual track data and use as a "sample" for example.
I was at a dance some years ago which featured a Gabriel & Dresden remix; afterward I bought the artists album, which wasnt quite the same as what these guys did with it. I dont know where they get their source tracks, nor did I have any idea there's a "Best Remixed Recording Grammy Award"...
While my suggestion isnt quite to fully enable the public consumer to do what these guys do, I think some latitude would be appreciated by many - who just might take the time to learn the system and then operate on their favorite recordings.
What a beautiful revelation - thanks for the courage it must have taken to share it here! As a fellow human being, your written feelings on what happened are palpable...
The absolute dream Hi-Fi system would be able to do so.
A trumpet
A piano
A drum
A voice
A car passing by
...
I really believe the weakest part, the very bottleneck of 99.9% of sound systems out there, is the tonal balance. The frequency response. The vast majority are just unable to deliver a proper 8 octaves (say 40hz-10khz) that is flat, in-room, within +/-1db.
Let alone the full 10 octaves...
But another weakness of most sound system, is the output capacity. Even though your tonal balance is good, does it hold it beyond 90db? 100db? 110db?
And if yes, at 90db, 100db or 110db, do you still have headroom? Is the distortion started to kick in? Is there any audible compression? Is the drivers are near their electrical or mechanical limits?
Even a simple trumpet, near the stage, on-axis, can be very loud. It can go from subtle and quiet to surprisingly eye-blinking-loud.
A drum? That's probably the most eye-opening (ear-opening?) experience an audiophile can have.
A live drum, is basically impossible to ''encapsulate'' in audio. From the challenge of the sound take (mic) to the amplifiers and especially speakers to reproduce it, you're losing a massive amount of the energy felt LIVE. It's basically the opposite of ''High-fidelity'', it's very low in fidelity...
But maybe, MAYBE, a sound system that is strictly designed to fool people's ears could be made. But I think it would work only on specific instruments or even specific sounds.
Would that solve the puzzle? Would that quench the thirst we have for high-fidelity?
Probably not.
Blame the speakers and room acoustics. The rest of components prior to speaker terminals can do full audio octaves with flying color.
Yes absolutely, of course.
Components prior to the speaker terminals are clearly not the bottleneck. In fact ''we'' are spending too much time, energy and money on that, for little or no difference to our ears...