The OP clearly has had his 'Damascus Road' experience - but such experiences don't necessarily have to be associated with formal religion. But I would agree, caution is well advised.
abraxalito, to be more specific, audio-wise:
As an audiophile (despite everything, I still enjoy music on a good system) when I build a system now I mainly focus on these things:
1. Frequency response. Some say ''FR is king'' and I tend to agree with that. Without a proper frequency response, it's very hard to achieve anything that can be called ''High-Fidelity''. I still can spend several hours to adjust a FR.
2. SPL output. Even if I listen at moderate levels most of the time, say 85-95db, I think designing a system that can reach high SPL (105-110 and up, on the whole bandwith), mostly using high efficiency drivers, is the key to get the dynamic feeling so sought after. It might be me again, tricked into some audio hallucination, and I didn't blind test anything to back that up, but I do believe that a well-designed system should not work near his physical or electrical limits.
3. Acoustics. That's pretty obvious, but a well designed system is a system that is designed with the room in mind. Speakers and electronics is one thing, but the room's acoustic is very important.
As an audiophile (despite everything, I still enjoy music on a good system) when I build a system now I mainly focus on these things:
1. Frequency response. Some say ''FR is king'' and I tend to agree with that. Without a proper frequency response, it's very hard to achieve anything that can be called ''High-Fidelity''. I still can spend several hours to adjust a FR.
2. SPL output. Even if I listen at moderate levels most of the time, say 85-95db, I think designing a system that can reach high SPL (105-110 and up, on the whole bandwith), mostly using high efficiency drivers, is the key to get the dynamic feeling so sought after. It might be me again, tricked into some audio hallucination, and I didn't blind test anything to back that up, but I do believe that a well-designed system should not work near his physical or electrical limits.
3. Acoustics. That's pretty obvious, but a well designed system is a system that is designed with the room in mind. Speakers and electronics is one thing, but the room's acoustic is very important.
Still no answer to my original question as to whether you're allowing the possibility in your future of other 'conversion experiences' like the one that led you out of the Maya that is audiophilia.
As audiophiles, as hobbyists.
What I meant is simply that if you like to do DIY amplifiers or converters, just do it. Do it for fun, do it because you like it. I sure won't push anyone to ''discover the truth'', I merely share my experience here.
For me, amplifiers is a lost of time in regards of sound quality. Once I get something stable at 2 ohms, something powerful, quiet and reliable, I'm happy.
But that wouldn't stop me to start a DIY amplifier project. And I see no contradiction in that.
I just sold my entire sound lab, so I don't think so.
But more importantly, I lost interest. I see no commercial future in audiophilia (young potential buyers are rare or when interested it's in the headphones) and the whole hifi industry basically committed a slow suicide since the 90's.
What remains, at least to my eyes, is the DIY.
Thank you, so sounds like you've 'found the truth'. No further questions 🙂
There was an interesting interview with a guy from Dutch & Dutch I read a couple of days back - here's the link.
Going Dutch (& Dutch): a Conversation with Martijn Mensink | Stereophile.com
At the end (what was most significant to me) is he says :
We don't think there needs to be this schism between audiophiles and normal people . . . we hope to bring them together.
I wholeheartedly agree but think that when you bring them together the prices do need to be 'normal people' prices, not audiophile ones.
Amen to that brother.
My conclusions, on the commercial side of the subject, is the vast majority of ''normal people'' won't spend more on the sound system than on their TV.
And TVs are pretty cheap, nowadays. Do the math.
Since the actual technology makes it impossible to get 110db in-room, flat from 20hz to 20khz, with proper acoustics, under 500$... Audiophilia is pretty much doomed. On a strict mass market point of view.
But you're not a normal guy, normal guys don't think in terms of numbers. That's just for numbers guys, another kind of abnormal guy 😛
I've got a pair of these small KLH fullrange speakers, and other than the lack of bass they sound at least as good as anything else I've owned (admittedly no Real High-End stuff). I imagine with some support below 100-200Hz they'd be very nice and be all one would need up to moderate volumes. I think I've got a taste of what people in the fullrange forum are so excited about. (linking to this video to show what they look like, NOT what they sound like)
YouTube
I've downloaded some multitrack files many years ago that a recording engineer made (from some unknown local band, and available with their permission), and even the multitrack files of many famous pop recordings seem to be floating around, so this is "possible" now. There's a few caveats here, one that comes to mind is that usually vocals and many instruments go through channels with EQ and compression already turned on, to make for less work during mixdown. So you don't always get an unmodified version of what was "heard" by the microphone. Especially with pre-digital recordings, if a compressor is used in tracking a vocal, then it is freed up to be used on another channel during mixdown. At the cost of "standard" equipment back then, they couldn't afford dozens of the best high-end compressors in order to use one for each track. Now with Pro Tools you can cascade several plug-ins on every track. And yes, it's legitimate to ask whether this is an improvement.
There's free and inexpensive DAW programs around, along with lots of free plug-in effects available. It may take a bit of learning, but you can do it now.
This discussion about audiophilia brings up associations to a parallel universe: Players of the electric guitar and their endless search for "the ultimate sound". I can see many similarities to the discussions here, being familiar with both worlds. I may call me a guitar addict for a lifetime being amazed by the sound of my heroes like Jimi Hendrix, Jeff Beck or Carlos Santana, just to name a few and in the early 70ies I participated in an experiment that changed my point of view for the rest of my life. Investigating "the best equipment" me and 3 local guitar players once met in a rehearsal room to check out numerous guitars and amps directly. Only one player was allowed to play at a time and so most of the time everybody was listening while one was playing the instruments. We had Fenders, Gibsons and a lot of more or less expensive amps at hand. This took over the hole afternoon. I eagerly listened - seeking the stuff with "most sustain". And at the end of the day I could tell who was playing - one guy let the guitar sing - the other produced no sustain at all. And the equipment used - did not make the difference!
So my lesson was that "sustain" mostly is done by the hand of the player. And this holds true for the entire sound characterics one perceives. There are lots of tiny details that distinguish good from bad guitar sound, everybody can hear this - but the difference is the musician - not the instrument. For me a good guitar and a good amp is like a tool - I like good tools, and once I have found them, I stick to them - no need for further improvements - job done.
My personal conclusion is not to waste too much time for the technical aspects but invest more in practicing my instrument - this is the direct way to improve sound.
So my lesson was that "sustain" mostly is done by the hand of the player. And this holds true for the entire sound characterics one perceives. There are lots of tiny details that distinguish good from bad guitar sound, everybody can hear this - but the difference is the musician - not the instrument. For me a good guitar and a good amp is like a tool - I like good tools, and once I have found them, I stick to them - no need for further improvements - job done.
My personal conclusion is not to waste too much time for the technical aspects but invest more in practicing my instrument - this is the direct way to improve sound.
Last edited:
So the conclusion is that when you thought you relied on your ears (only), that was not the case. When you did blind testing, you relied correctly on ears only.
And that can be sobering ;-)
BTW I mostly agree with your observations and reasoning, thanks for bringing it up.
Jan
i would pay $50 per unmastered/uncompressed album if I could buy them. This is VERY appealing to me.
Some old vinyl is less compressed than modern digital remasters of the same material. Unfortunately, for me at least, the clicks and pops pull me out of the "zone" while listening. I want more dynamic digital tracks of the music I love!
Last edited:
This is an interesting discussion. I like to use the term "blameless". Once a piece of equipment reaches a certain technical level, and it is easily achieved with simple but quality engineering, a substitution with another blameless item of like function won't be audible.
Many audiophiles way over estimate their ears ability.
Many audiophiles way over estimate their ears ability.
Last edited:
Oh, I appreciate that the technology is already here (I have a copy of Pro Tools First on the laptop I'm using right now) but the material is not. Definitely not standard practice to make unprocessed tracks or unmastered stems / stereo mixes available. There are some floating around, I understand. As per CowanAudio above, I would happily pay extra!
Obviously you're correct that individual sources are even now quite commonly processed / recorded through 'colored' hardware before they even hit the 'tape'. Anyway, I think asking listeners to replicate the entire mixdown is probably a bit much in terms of effort (and would result in suboptimal experience), but being given the parameters selected by the mastering engineer as a starting point and then tweak from there would be very interesting. At the very least you could opt out of the loudness war.
Reply for Post No 1:
Thank you so much for writing it as bluntly as it actually is. I am sometimes embarrassed by the persistent claims that cannot be proven emperically. To insult even the most stupid among morons, many spend lots of money because of these belief systems! Geez, they have reduced a DIYAudio site to a vodoo site preaching claims fit for worshippers of Greek Gods of ancient Greece. Before joining this forum, I never in my life imagined so many opinions based on vodoo. This add to the noise-to-signal ratio of this forum. Yes, noise-to-signal ratio as the signal is often imperceptible.
Thank you so much for writing it as bluntly as it actually is. I am sometimes embarrassed by the persistent claims that cannot be proven emperically. To insult even the most stupid among morons, many spend lots of money because of these belief systems! Geez, they have reduced a DIYAudio site to a vodoo site preaching claims fit for worshippers of Greek Gods of ancient Greece. Before joining this forum, I never in my life imagined so many opinions based on vodoo. This add to the noise-to-signal ratio of this forum. Yes, noise-to-signal ratio as the signal is often imperceptible.
Last edited:
Because audio is not ears only, that is the point of this thread as I see it, where is the argument?
Audio itself is ears only, but audiophile preferences and claims are far from that.
The second "ti" in practitioner is definitely audible in ABX testing. 🙂
Last edited: