I agree. One more thing associated with this that often puzzles me is how easily we often attach performance improvements in percentage to our systems and then talk about "a few percent" we get after we get to quite expensive level. What I've observed is that it doedn't really work in such an easy, straightforward, linear or even quantifiable way. Sometimes a change in system, for example, that produces more lively and present sound, without really changing freq. balance, resolution or anything else, doesn't seem like much. You might attach a low percentage of improvement to it if you were thinking in that way and were trying to quantify it. But if you approach it more carefully, you see that because of this improvement, everything, the whole has become much better...and this simple low percentage is quite misleading. This is just an example. I hope I managed to put into words what I mean.
I recently upgraded my phono cartridge from a $5650 Dynavector to a $13K Lyra. Someone called me out on it asking why I would do that since it can't possibly be more than twice as good. I agree with that, it isn't twice as good. It's a complete game changer and one of the most radical improvements I've experienced in a long time. Merely twice as good doesn't begin to describe it. Can I put a number on the improvement? No. But if forced to I'll say it's easily 5-10x better, because that's more reflective of how much more enjoyment I get out of the music on my LPs. I'm hearing some very astonishing things musically I never heard before, and now find myself reaching into parts of my collection that have gone unplayed for a very long time (I have some 4000+ LPs).
Word up. I get some of the same complaints about my system. We only have one life to live, and sometimes it isn’t worth our time to listen to something that isn’t as good. Everyone makes their own judgment of cost/benefit.
I have two passions. Cycling and listening to music. I have worked hard in my career to support them, and am glad to have great gear on both fronts. My wife participates in the hifi stuff, and has even contributed her own discretionary funds to help build up the system. We enjoy weekend music nights together. Our rescue Rottie – Brahms – digs it too. I don't regret spending even a penny on it.
I'd love to be watching them especially on a time and somewhere I have nothing going on with my life.... ....
What the hell is he talking about? There is no bs-ing going on. I doubt anyone, no matter at what level of audio one has in their homes, believes they are reproducing the 'real thing' in their listening rooms. The best we can do, is have system that 'opens a window'* on the original acoustic event. But we always know we are looking through a 'window'. The better the gear gets, the larger, clearer, lower distorting that 'window' becomes, but we know we are still looking through a window. And yes, we have all have had those 'glimpses' of reality, as Steve mentions, while listening the Beatles song he mentions. But the thing he doesn't mention is, that the better the gear, the more often, and the longer lasting, those 'glimpses' become. As I have mentioned on numerous occasions, I am a member of the LA/OC Audio Society (the largest audiophile club in the world), and there are plenty of members that have extreme high end systems, that I have had the pleasure of hearing. And not one of them thinks they are hearing the real thing. And he is also wrong about audiophile recordings being the main source of recordings that try to reproduce an actual acoustic event. Even an average classical recording does this extremely well. Hell, even classical recordings on the budget Nonesuch label, does a great job at reproducing a reasonable facsimile of an acoustic space. And finally, the fact that most musicians don't care about audio quality the way we do, is a total non-sequitur. All I know is, I just listened to a recording of contemporary chamber classical music, recorded just a few years ago. And I could hear every instrument coming from various depths of the soundstage, and spread from left to right, beyond the outer edges of my speakers. The violins, violas, cello and piano did not fool me into thinking I was hearing the real thing, but I had a pretty big, clear, low-distorting view of the original event**. * I know, it's a bad metaphor, but that is all I got at the moment. **I see a lot of classical music live. I know what real instruments sound like.
Yeah, I like many of the reissues of recent years but a lot of my favorite recordings to listen to are jazz and classical records I have from the 60s/70s/80s. Earlier I this evening I played a bit of classical from the early 70s, and now I'm playing a German ECM from the same period. A lot of these sound no worse than newer and more expensive remaster/reissues. I like the latter too. The Tone Poet series, for example, is some of my favorite stuff. No one should discount what's in the old used classical bins. I have some real gems from there.
Interesting opinion. Overly simplified I think. I don’t think I’ll get to perfection, but since having taken a huge quality jump this year, I’m as close as I’ll ever be. And loving it!
We live in an unamplified world. There's not a person on earth who doesn't know what "live" sounds like just by living every day.
What's missing from this debate is the fact that whatever way you look at it, "modern" source material is compromised in some way (ignoring historical recordings before stereo which are what they are). From the late 50's to the intro of CD's we were mixing records to squeeze into vinyl grooves which involved comprises esp in relation to bass (too much bass, tracking goes out the window as does total playback time) When CD's came in we had less than stellar ADC's then when we finally get that sorted we start loudness wars and crush DR (yeah there is probably some sweet spot after ADC's become better and before DR crushing but that might be 5 odd years). Mixing ability was also comprised in the early years and the early solid state desks had sonic issues as well. Then we move to computer based mixing/production with protools and others, which again had comprised sound in the early iterations then we get stuff like autotune and other plugins which further corrupts the production chain. So historically we havent had any period where the music production chain has been optimal***. Yes of course, despite all this we have tons of great recordings but the above prevents us from having "a concert in our living rooms". Its foolish to have that goal... just maximize your system to get the best out of what source material you have. And of course, the "live event" that earlier recordings documented largely disappeared. Record X one day, overlay Y the next... so there is no live event to reproduce. Peter *** upon reflection, the digital chain we have today is optimal its just that it is typically abused (levels that clip, DR crushing, autotune etc)
Maria Callas voice sounds pretty damn live to me on Keith Hardwick’s 1987 transfers of the 1954 mono Tosca on EMI.
He is pretty much spot on with this and he listens to some of the most expensive audio equipment money can buy. It's a lot like digital photography in that no matter how fancy the equipment, nothing yet has reproduced the look or sound of the real thing. Music that originates from amplifiers and speakers can come closest because it comes from amps and speakers with everything being mic'd or direct through a sound system. Acoustical music with the sound coming omni directionally from a collection of instruments placed on a stage etc. is another thing and I've never heard any recorded music that reaches the level of refinement that this type of live music has. This doesn't mean that you can't enjoy recorded music or that there is anything wrong with the pursuit of excellence in audio. And, it can be a lot of fun putting together the best audio system your money can afford. Just don't expect it to sound like the real thing. (jmho)
Cant comment, not an artist I have in my collection. I do have a few historical recordings but I personally find mono to be blah but "tolerate" it cause we need to embrace history to understand the present. What does always astound me is when I play Robert Johnson's recordings. Recorded in what was a temp studio in a hotel room, the fidelity is great. Not "you are there" but its an eerie feeling that the sound is so good from such a primitive 1930's recording platform and nothing seems to be out of place, sonically. Peter
Steve's a funny guy, one minute he says this component is definately better than another, the next he says it's all down to the flavour of sound one prefers.
If you want to print BIG at 300 dpi, you'll quickly see the need for a $50,000 Phase One. For most people, an iPhone is fine, and if the print is small you might not notice a difference. It doesn't mean there isn't one, or that Phase One is BS.
Steve built a straw man and slayed it. The straw man being the audiophile chasing the absolute sound. The absolute sound being the illusion of "the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space" recreated in your listening room. That's a fool's errand. I've never gone searching for that absolute sound with my system. It ain't gonna happen. Recordings can't capture what would be necessary to do that. If the recordings can't capture that then it's a fool's errand to try to get a system to play it back. I don't even try with my system. Never tried. Never has been the goal. I just want recordings to sound good. To sound involving. To sound dimensional. To sound emotional. When I'm listening to a recording I'm always aware that it is a recording and playing back a reproduced event. I expect to be listening to a recording and being able to hear the qualities of the production of that recording. And that's what I want. Because good playback should allow you to hear the details of the production choices and microphone choices and microphone placement and room and all of that. And that's what I'm after. And better gear helps all that happen. When I go searching for new gear and gear upgrades I am searching for gear that allows those things to happen better. Plus I listen on headphones. The real absolute sound ain't happening on headphones. Even with binaural recordings. Ain't happening. For my headphone system I'm generally chasing a style of headphone sound that is able to put my ears where the microphones are. To put my head and ears in the recording space. To put me there. That requires certain styles of audiophile recording for that to have a chance of happening. But with those recordings that is what I want to happen. That's what I chase when I get the urge for better gear. It's neat when you can seem to stick your head in the recording space where the microphones are. And that's a very different thing and more achievable thing than chasing the absolute sound.
I got to 45 seconds. I'm not buying it. Audiophiles are not driven by the impossible dream that he describes. Audiophiles want music that sounds good, and they want to upgrade their equipment so that it sounds even better. That's it. No mystery. No unattainable nirvana experience. It's the pursuit of improvement. Audiophiles buy more equipment and music in various formats and editions because they want to hear music that sounds good. Sometimes they achieve the goal and sometimes they are frustrated, and sometimes various companies and labels sell them things that aren't that good. That's just reality. "Not everyone agrees on what's good, therefore there is no good", is a child's philosophy.
He's a bit all over - comparing recordings and what is heard live by ringing a bell 1 foot from his head. I just attended the Hong Kong Symphony Orchestra - happy to be back out after the mask mandate was finally lifted (the last place on earth to end it or something). It was a tribute to John Williams - they played many of his big pieces - Star Wars, Superman, Schidler's List, ET etc. I got home and put on my well-recorded version of Superman and man my system did it astonishingly well - other than lateral size in every other way it was just as "real" and the lateral size is only limited because I live in a flat. But no it won't be "just as good" every time because some music is just poorly recorded. And that's where I think the "chasing" begins because if your favourite music is some badly recorded CCR album then you're kind of stuck - no matter what you spend the limitations of the particular album are going to show up. I am sure most of you have seen those posts from newbies (or even veterans) where they will say something along the lines that they liked 9/10 albums but the 10th one bothered them so they want something else. In other words, they somehow want their system to sound great no matter what on everything - where the goal should probably be just to make the bad recordings playable. If it can make the great stuff sound great the good stuff sound good and make the bad stuff sound "passable" instead of "bad" then it's a miracle-working system. I am actually quite grateful to the audio Gods that I found something I really liked with all my music 20 years ago and mostly stuck with it. When I ventured away - I usually regretted it and worse lost the money when having to sell it.
Steve has stated repeatedly that he doesn’t do video reviews of gear he doesn’t like, thus the impression that he likes everything. I’ve seen lots of live performances over the decades and very few “sound great”, though many were great shows. Since I first put together a fine sounding system what I’ve noticed is that music generally sounds better on the system than it does in the concert hall.
That’s a fairly common cop-out, oft-repeated by ‘reviewers’ who are willing to go along with the ‘reviews’-are-just-advertising-by-other-means model. He seems like a really likable guy, but I’d never ever rely solely or mainly on one of his reviews for any purchase, even a small one. Ditto any site or mag that takes ad money from companies’ whose products they review (and this extends beyond just audio). The conflict of interest is always in the way, no matter how hard they try to rationalize it away. Sucks, but it’s how business works… if I give you significant ad revenue, you just ain’t givin’ my product a negative review, 99.999% of the time. Frankly, I trust the opinions of many ppl here more than I do any professional ‘reviewer’… even the likable ones. YMMV. .
I guess it's a sliding scale of tolerance going by SHF threads that ask members to post a video of their favorite "Live" performance of any said artist when after giving a listen I cringe in horror and literally yank the headphones off my head in disgust with the terrible sound quality. I mean it should be asked how crappy does the sound have to be before you're no longer an audiophile. Who wants to listen to crappy sounding music? I don't.
