Great Explanation of Hi-Res Digital benefits, Brickwalling, Compression, etc.

Unfortunately 44.1 kHz sampling requires a brickwall filter. So you'll need high res too to avoid that brickwall.

 

I think a BS-meter is a good thing in these cases, mildly resolving.

 

It's called experience. You have never spent time with an audio system capable of presenting tonal accuracy, for example. When you hear a system which can do it right, then you will not have even a moment a doubt. Literally, zero hesitaton. Your friends did not have hi-end gear. Again, you have no experience.

The real question is why you continue to wonder these things out loud on every other thread yet you never do anything about it. Your wife (congrats!) is welcome to come along with you and she can explain it to you after merely 5 minutes of listening from the sweet spot.

 

Sorry, just a thread-crap from a drunk.

 

Right. So can you confirm that it is your experience that component audio systems generally sound the same?

 

No, that is not my belief or experience at all. All types of systems have various degrees of distortion, phase anomalies and frequency response. Some systems we like better than others, depending on many reasons.

 

If it's from the original source than a re-master is not necessarily more a step away from the original sound than the original master was. And it's not like all artists approved all original released masters or anything. Personally, I just want the best mastering, whether it is "original" or "re-" master. There are re-masters which are the best available of a given recording, and there are ones that are not.

 

You can't say that some are better because the components are designed with less compromise and therefore cost more and more as fewer compromises are made?

 

The pursuit of extreme fidelity, inner detail, precise soundstage imaging, and whatever highly resolving means to you is a personal choice. So is a less rigorous, more promiscuous inclination to range across a wide variety of gear, sources, software, and so on from mid-fi to high end. The two aren't even mutually exclusive. I try to keep a foot in both worldviews.

Can't we all just get along?

 

Sorry I did not contextualize that: "Brickwall LIMITING".

That better, Hamster?

 

There are many reasons why we like a certain system better than another. It´s not automatically so that what one person likes is the same as what another likes, obviously. Consensus in audio is normally rare, hopefully we have the right to like anything is.

 

I agree that there is no consensus on a singular "perfect sound" for an audio system. With that said, there are common attributes which an attentive listener will hear as a component audio system is upgraded. An example of that is tone quality ("timbre"). One MUST experience incremental improvements in timbre in order to fully appreciate what it takes to deliver it. The attributes which comprise excellent timbre alone (much less all other aspects of great resolution) do not come cheaply and easily. A member who's never heard great timbre (relatively speaking) will not be able to imagine it or even fully appreciate it without a comparison to a less capable system. I can't imagine an actual would be audiophile would rather type away at a keyboard dismissing the notion that exceptional sound quality actually does exist (over and over and over again) rather than taking the opportunity to hear pretty darn compelling timbre. There will be no mistaking the real deal.

Sadly, we don't get encouragement for beginners from the forum's top audiophiles as I suppose they've learned the lesson that most just aren't interested.

 

Couldn't get it to play so I gave up.

 

Oh, I don't know about that. I suppose it depends whether they are considering people new to the forum and sticking around (who must by definition have some interest) or the general casual music-listening public that we all encounter in the "real world." Not that we shouldn't also be inviting people in for a taste whenever we can. Good for business.

 

Well all is a degradation from the original acoustic event, which in the case of records, we mostly know little about anyway. I feel this is a much better way to see it.
And the degradation is normally very large IME.
If You are talking about amplified music, I can´t really see it matters that much what we think, how can it be especially important how it sounds, within a reasonable quality span.

For most it´s about liking listening to music with the system they have and like. There is little help and benefit pointing out that what we are listening to is not good enough. I´m not saying that everything sounds the same, far from it, it´s just that it doesn´t matter that much when we like what we have and feel it´s good enough.

Why on earth should we think that only the best systems are worth listening to, we have normally no idea what these are anyway as the consensus is really absent in audio.

Most choose the system depending on how it looks anyway IME.

 

I've always netted the best results/most improvement via the least changes: Speaker placement, wire gauge, and recently, gain staging my existing equipment.

There is little need for the home listener to spend $thousands£ on esoteric brands and exotic connecters when all that is needed is a knowledge of basic electricity as it relates to sound.

Also, the fewer boxes the sound has to pass through, the more accurate it should sound.

 

I very seldom nowadays buy new components. The reason is it´s just too much work for me. The ones I have sound fine to me. And as I am all performance guy I don´t want to pay a lot for things that are not related to performance.

 

I don't fully agree with that. There's some good sounding stuff that looks ugly, and sometimes looks cheaply made. Particularly kit and diy gear, but also some commercial gear. On the other hand, if you're buying retail gear that is priced in the $2K+ bracket you kinda want it to look good and look like it is worth the price. A certain amount of bling, style and attention to careful build is expected at the higher price points.

 

I didn´t say that all are choosing depending on looks. But without any doubt when I´m reading posts here, most are choosing depending on looks. I´m not saying anything about this, I have no opinion about how someone is choosing what to buy. It´s just that when people are saying components are bought for sound quality, I say they are not.

 

One of my best LP ever is David Benoit's This Side Up that was recorded there and the sound is what I use to show friends how good LPs can sound. This would be a great album to be reissued.

 

I genuinely believe that you and anyone reading this quote understands that you are relying on a straw man argument. I've never read here or anywhere else that only the "best systems" are worth listening to. That's ridiculous. What I would suggest is that it is a true shame that you and some others seem to accept the fact that those clearly lacking in experience with high performance gear should remain so stubbornly attached to their ill-informed views. The difference in the experience presented to the informed, passionate listener from hi-end versus lo-fi is grand canyon in size. There is no way around this truth. We can go down the line of every single aspect which comprises sound quality and each and every one will be appreciably better as delivered by a hi-end system by a very significant margin. Now then, those not interested in such things will have little clue as to what's going on and will, of course, not care at all. With this audience, however, I'd expect an entirely different perspective.

 

When the sound quality is good enough for me, I like it and it suits me, I don´t worry about what others have for type of sound. And I would expect the same view on the matter by others. Anyway I couldn´t care less how others think my e.g. Technics 1200II performs, because it doesn´t matter, it´s good enough for me, and nobody knows it anyway.

 

So why would you or those others who feel the same way bother to share experiences here? I wouldn't expect anyone to "worry", but I'd hope for some open-mindedness, curiosity, and passion for the hobby.

 

It can be so that the knowledge I have today has called for a lot of open-mindedness, curiosity and passion. Also an education that makes it possible to understand both mechanics and electronics, hopefully to an extent that it matters.
But of course as soon as we write something it´s automatically scrutinized, which can be both good or bad depending on the subject, and the experiences we are describing.
I mean that some experiences that is described are much more valid than some, that is how it is.