being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

[SirNickity]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

so what you are saying it does not matter if an instrument is reproduced with any kind of accuracy as long as you like it, it is good. wow, it just hit me, we will all just go to the Sir Nickity standard and there will be no more need to make speakers.

OK now you're just throwing a tantrum.

Does an instrument have to be produced accurately to be enjoyable? No. It normally isn't anyway. I'm beginning to think this is a pointless exercise, but what the heck.. here's why:

- A blues guitar will go through all manner of mangledness before it exits the 12" driver in an old skool Fender amp. I find that sound enjoyable.

- Very few recorded tracks (and I mean, tracks within a multitrack recording session -- not tracks as in songs like on a CD) will be a perfect facsimile of what went into the mic. It will almost certainly be compressed, EQd, and otherwise tweaked to some degree. Ever tried mixing five mic'd instruments with no signal processing? I do NOT find that enjoyable. Much better with processing.

- Even if we didn't process individual mic feeds, I remember reading in a magazine once that someone experimented with trying to accurately recreate the attack of a snare drum. And failed, gloriously. Now, it might have been that they weren't using the right interconnects. Or it could've had more to do with the fact that a transient like that is at or probably beyond the extremes of what a mic capsule can capture linearly. Even if it weren't, it was quoted to take a couple thousand watts to reproduce the same SPL with average efficiency speakers. (I wish I had the reference for this, but I don't. Sorry.)

Nonetheless, when Neil Peart is doing his thing, man is that enjoyable...

So, does this mean we can stop making speakers? Hmm... you probably could. I think we're getting close to the point of diminishing returns. My old Karmann Ghia has a crappy radio built in 1969, and I have to say, it's not that enjoyable to listen to. Sticking my head between the little 4" 2-ways I built is a pretty rewarding experience, though -- if not shy on bass. Adding the matching sub goes pretty far to rectify that. It's not perfect though, so I think at least I should carry on building. Maybe after I put together a set of Statements, I'll be done for good. Probably not though.

why do you have a right to point out any thing ? who appointed you supreme overseer. little on the arrogant side isn't it.

Are you pointing that arrogance out to me? ;) Anyway, Supreme Overseer... hmm... sure, that sounds good. I'll take it! How much does it pay?

[Pete Schumacher]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

A guitar player using a Fender amp isn't what was being talked about as accurate sounding. Getting a banjo to sound like a banjo instead of a mandolin is a lot easier to define and use as a standard for getting an accurate speaker. And when it sounds accurate reproducing instruments that don't require amplification to generate sound, like guitars, synthesizers, keyboards, then it will also likely be very enjoyable replaying the other myriad sounds of music.

It is a worthy pursuit to achieve as accurate a reproduction as possible.

But before I'd put a dime towards a cable, I'd take a good look at the room since that's probably the most significant contributor to the sound of your system after the speakers.

OK now you're just throwing a tantrum.

Does an instrument have to be produced accurately to be enjoyable? No. It normally isn't anyway. I'm beginning to think this is a pointless exercise, but what the heck.. here's why:

- A blues guitar will go through all manner of mangledness before it exits the 12" driver in an old skool Fender amp. I find that sound enjoyable.

- Very few recorded tracks (and I mean, tracks within a multitrack recording session -- not tracks as in songs like on a CD) will be a perfect facsimile of what went into the mic. It will almost certainly be compressed, EQd, and otherwise tweaked to some degree. Ever tried mixing five mic'd instruments with no signal processing? I do NOT find that enjoyable. Much better with processing.

- Even if we didn't process individual mic feeds, I remember reading in a magazine once that someone experimented with trying to accurately recreate the attack of a snare drum. And failed, gloriously. Now, it might have been that they weren't using the right interconnects. Or it could've had more to do with the fact that a transient like that is at or probably beyond the extremes of what a mic capsule can capture linearly. Even if it weren't, it was quoted to take a couple thousand watts to reproduce the same SPL with average efficiency speakers. (I wish I had the reference for this, but I don't. Sorry.)

Nonetheless, when Neil Peart is doing his thing, man is that enjoyable...

So, does this mean we can stop making speakers? Hmm... you probably could. I think we're getting close to the point of diminishing returns. My old Karmann Ghia has a crappy radio built in 1969, and I have to say, it's not that enjoyable to listen to. Sticking my head between the little 4" 2-ways I built is a pretty rewarding experience, though -- if not shy on bass. Adding the matching sub goes pretty far to rectify that. It's not perfect though, so I think at least I should carry on building. Maybe after I put together a set of Statements, I'll be done for good. Probably not though.


Are you pointing that arrogance out to me? ;) Anyway, Supreme Overseer... hmm... sure, that sounds good. I'll take it! How much does it pay?

[lorenmjones]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

Pete, that's a fair enough point about the banjo and the mandolin. I think the point is that the speaker shouldn't be trying to recreate the sound of the instrument played in whatever room it was played in for the recording. The speaker should be flawless at recreating the signal presented to it. All of the rest of this stuff we have been discussing is way upstream from us speaker builders. Even on simple recordings of acoustic music that might have a banjo and mandolin(Allison Kraus etc, or Diana Krall or Norah Jones style here) all of the decisions about how it sounds are made by recording engineers and mix engineers and producers and mastering engineers. It is all recorded with a mixture of close mics plus distant mics for ambience, processed with huge amounts (relative to our quest for a linear on and off axis FR as much as possible) of EQ and comp/gate/limit. A possible limited exception is some classical recordings.

Anyway, I guess my point is that in my mind the goal of a good and proper sounding speaker can mostly be defined by objective measurements. Wide bandwidth with linear and (mostly flat) on and off frequency response, low distortion of all types, adequate output capability to avoid compressing dynamics etc, dispersion characteristics. I would say that a pair of speakers that were equal in measured FR, efficiency and maximum output capability, polars, and distortion measurements would sound remarkably similar. There would be some differences but they would be small. Even so, some of us choose huge 3 way speakers and some choose a nice little standmount. Both can be enjoyable if well done. But you know all of this anyway, better than I do.

A guitar player using a Fender amp isn't what was being talked about as accurate sounding. Getting a banjo to sound like a banjo instead of a mandolin is a lot easier to define and use as a standard for getting an accurate speaker. And when it sounds accurate reproducing instruments that don't require amplification to generate sound, like guitars, synthesizers, keyboards, then it will also likely be very enjoyable replaying the other myriad sounds of music.

It is a worthy pursuit to achieve as accurate a reproduction as possible.

But before I'd put a dime towards a cable, I'd take a good look at the room since that's probably the most significant contributor to the sound of your system after the speakers.

[billfitzmaurice]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

This, courtesy of Sean Adams, covers every oddiophool argument. Copy it and use it whenever appropriate:

You claim that an
(x) audible
( ) measurable
(x) hypothetical

improvement in sound quality can be attained by:
( ) upsampling
( ) non-oversampling
( ) increasing word size
( ) vibration dampening
( ) bi-wiring
(x) litz wire
( ) replacing the external power supply
( ) using a different lossless format
( ) decompressing on the server
( ) removing bits of metal from skull
( ) using ethernet instead of wireless
( ) inverting phase
( ) reversing “polarity” of resistors
( ) ultra fast recovery rectifiers
( ) installing bigger connectors
( ) installing Black Gate caps
( ) installing ByBee filters
( ) installing hospital-grade AC jacks
( ) defragmenting the hard disk
( ) running older firmware
( ) using exotic materials in cabinet
( ) bronze heatsinks
( ) violin lacquer
( ) $500 power cords

Your idea will not work. Specifically, it fails to account for:
(x) the placebo effect
(x) your ears honestly aren't that good
( ) your idea has already been thoroughly disproved
( ) modern DACs upsample anyway
( ) those products are pure snake oil
( ) lossless formats, by definition, are lossless
( ) those measurements are bogus
( ) sound travels much slower than you think
(x) electric signals travel much faster than you think
( ) that's not how binary arithmetic works
( ) that's not how TCP/IP works
( ) the Nyquist theorem
( ) the can't polish a turd theorem
( ) bits are bits

You will try to defend you idea by:
(x) claiming that your ears are “trained”
(x) claiming immunity to psychological/physiological factors that affect everyone else
(x) name-calling
( ) criticizing spelling/grammar

Your subsequent arguments will probably appeal in desperation to such esoterica as:
( ) jitter
( ) EMI
( ) thermal noise
(x) quantum mechanical effects
(x) resonance
( ) existentialism
(x) nihilism
( ) communism
( ) cosmic rays

And you will then change the subject to:
( ) theories are not the same as facts
( ) measurements don't tell everything
( ) not everyone is subject to the placebo effect
(x) blind testing is dumb
(x) you can't prove what I can't hear
(x) science isn't everything

Rather than engage in this tired discussion, I suggest exploring the following factors which are more likely to improve sound quality in your situation:
(x) room acoustics
( ) source material
( ) type of speakers
(x) speaker placement
( ) crossover points
( ) equalization
(x) Q-tips
( ) psychoanalysis
(x) trepanation

[carlspeak]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

"Rather than engage in this tired discussion, I suggest exploring the following factors which are more likely to improve sound quality in your situation:
(x) room acoustics
( ) source material
( ) type of speakers
(x) speaker placement
( ) crossover points
( ) equalization
(x) Q-tips
( ) psychoanalysis
(x) trepanation"

I second that motion!

[Deward Hastings]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

(x) trepanation

In general, already accomplished. It may be what leads to audiophoolery in the first place . . .

[Deward Hastings]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

But before I'd put a dime towards a cable, I'd take a good look at the room since that's probably the most significant contributor to the sound of your system after the speakers.

+1 on that. Speakers work in two boxes . . . the one behind the drivers, and the one in front (dipoles forego the former, likely increasing the importance of the latter). Everything you hear is influenced by the box you listen in, and yet it often gets the least attention. And then, of course, there's the recording . . .

Audiophoolery is all about imagining "problems" that don't exist and then spending inordinate amounts of time and money "solving" them . . . all the while ignoring what matters most . . . the music itself. Meanwhile, it has become almost easy to assemble a "home system" that is NOT the weakest link in the reproduction chain . . . and without spending a whole lot of money on it, either.

[kenny_k]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

Does anyone know what percentage of the population can hear the difference?

[maynardg]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

No, but it would depend on magnitude, frequency, duration, etc.

Does anyone know what percentage of the population can hear the difference?

[davepellegrene]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42493[/ATTACH]

After reading this entire thread I think I'm going to give this a try. Might take two or three attempts though to get it right.

Dave

[Pete Schumacher]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

Does anyone know what percentage of the population can hear the difference?

Depends on what you're referring to.

Every single time I show a new set of speakers to the uninitiated, their mouths are open and express that they didn't know music in the home could sound like that.

Most consumers of audio are completely ignorant of the world of high fidelity. They get sold the HTIB with the 6" boom box that has one note bass, tiny speakers that turn to mush as soon as they crest 95dB, and rooms that make a high school gymnasium sound like Carnegie Hall.

In other words, most people certainly can hear the difference, but most simply don't care.

[dustinbagby]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

117 posts in 2 days....

So, what's worse, obsessing over cables and power cords and their super obvious impact on sound quality, or obsessing over how senseless it is to obsess over cables and power cords and their super obvious impact on sound quality?

[lorenmjones]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

I think you should try headfirst orientation. The impact and slam will be better.

After reading this entire thread I think I'm going to give this a try. Might take two or three attempts though to get it right.

Dave

[cjd]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

I think you should try headfirst orientation. The impact and slam will be better.

I'd be worried about ringing and general loss of clarity though...

[scid714]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

I would rather spend $2600 on $600 worth of drivers and $2000 on Brazilian hookers then power cords, but as I said - to each their own. He has a pretty nice system, though.

Johnnyrichards I like your thinking.But i would take a few hundred buck off the hooker budget and add a 25+ year bottle of single malt scotch. LOL.