The Audiophile Thread

[rcarlberg]

No, methinks he doesn't care about these things...only about the end result.

Exactly right.

There's a breed of spec-junkie -- I hesitate to call them "audiophiles" -- who care only about ancillary design concerns and imaginary engineering. They put aside the end result and concentrate only on things that DO NOT MATTER. That is why you can get outrageously expensive rigs that sound like utter shite.

These are, not coincidentally, the same gullible buffoons who fall for stuff like "passive preamps" and "high frequency transducers" that you attach to the wall with stickum

[BobM]

You may not care at all about the things that can make an average player into a great one. But if you took that average player and tweaked it to improve the power filtration and capacitance, then beefed up the analogue output section beyond the cheap crap that is likely in the stock player, then treated the clock and chips for vibration control, and replaced the nickle RCA jacks with higher quality ones, you would have much better sound than before. All those things cost money.

Cheap enough to do yourself if you have any DIY in you, though it may turn your $300 expenditure into a $600 expenditure. Expensive to purchase if the manufacturer already includes them in the stock unit.

Just saying, if you want better sound there are ways to get that better sound without having to say "it's good enough", which is what I continually hear you say. This thread is about "audiophile", not "good enough".

[Guitarplyrjvb]

I guess my continuing question is "are some DAC's better than others"? Will an older DVD player be able to deliver the same quality output as an Oppo, for example?

I guess an ancillary question is, would most people be able to tell the difference in the quality of DAC's?

[BobM]

I guess an ancillary question is, would most people be able to tell the difference in the quality of DAC's?

With a sufficiently revealing system - yes, absolutely. But the differences are likely to be in the nuances of air and space and the ability to portray the "stage" and deliver micro dynamics. Tonality and frequency response is pretty much a given these days with almost any player.

New players have much better DAC chips in them than anything 3 years or older. That doesn't mean that you personally won't like the sound of an older player better. A 5 year old $3000 retail player (bought at a steep discount today) will likely sound better than a new $300 player because of those implementation details that I mentioned in previous posts.

[Staun]

Exactly right.

There's a breed of spec-junkie -- I hesitate to call them "audiophiles" -- who care only about ancillary design concerns and imaginary engineering. They put aside the end result and concentrate only on things that DO NOT MATTER. That is why you can get outrageously expensive rigs that sound like utter shite.

These are, not coincidentally, the same gullible buffoons who fall for stuff like "passive preamps" and "high frequency transducers" that you attach to the wall with stickum

It's like, I can't hear the specs but I sure payed alot of money for them. I should be happy with my setup.

[strawberrybrick]

Just in....
$10,000 Ethernet Cable Claims Earth-Shattering Advancement In Audio Fidelity, If You’re Stupid Enough To Buy It
Read more at http://hothardware.com/news/10000-et...ZChTYVXM70k.99


http://hothardware.com/news/10000-et...ough-to-buy-it

[Firth]

With a sufficiently revealing system - yes, absolutely. But the differences are likely to be in the nuances of air and space and the ability to portray the "stage" and deliver micro dynamics. Tonality and frequency response is pretty much a given these days with almost any player.

New players have much better DAC chips in them than anything 3 years or older. That doesn't mean that you personally won't like the sound of an older player better. A 5 year old $3000 retail player (bought at a steep discount today) will likely sound better than a new $300 player because of those implementation details that I mentioned in previous posts.

Where people have spent alot on DACs is in the driving of good headphones. Headphones have ideal acoustics for hearing the differences.

[BobM]

Just in....
$10,000 Ethernet Cable Claims Earth-Shattering Advancement In Audio Fidelity, If You’re Stupid Enough To Buy It
Read more at http://hothardware.com/news/10000-et...ZChTYVXM70k.99


http://hothardware.com/news/10000-et...ough-to-buy-it

Read the comments at the end of the article. I love this one ...

"I've always found binary value 100101111010111110100001000111 is less reliably transmitted through ordinary Ethernet cable. You lose the tips of the 1's. It's more reliably transmitted if coded first using Courier New though."

[rcarlberg]

then treated the clock and chips for vibration control.

Please explain how digital binary data is influenced by "vibration." Bear in mind, the Space Shuttle was computer-controlled!

[simon moon]

Read the comments at the end of the article. I love this one ...

"I've always found binary value 100101111010111110100001000111 is less reliably transmitted through ordinary Ethernet cable. You lose the tips of the 1's. It's more reliably transmitted if coded first using Courier New though."

Well, in all honesty, binary numbers are not transmitted on Ethernet cables. Only falling and rising voltages are.

The transmitter takes logical 1's and 0's and converts them to rising and falling voltages, the receiver interprets the edge of the falling and/or rising voltages as a 1 or a 0.

So, I guess there might be an argument to be made that a better Ethernet cable could more accurately transmit an Ethernet signal on the wire (falling and rising voltages). I don't believe it for a second. Especially considering the FCS field in an Ethernet frame should detect erros.

[rcarlberg]

The perceived differences between the Vodka, Diamond, Cinnamon, and Cat. 5 cable are plainly apparent and easy to hear. I'd sum up these differences as more. You get an increasingly large sound picture as you move up the line, greater differentiation between sonic elements, and a greater sense of clarity. I would classify these changes as being better in each case.

Sounds like science to me!

[BobM]

Please explain how digital binary data is influenced by "vibration." Bear in mind, the Space Shuttle was computer-controlled!

One word ... "jitter". The biggest problem with digital audio. Read up on it.

[Dave (in MA)]

Read the comments at the end of the article. I love this one ...

"I've always found binary value 100101111010111110100001000111 is less reliably transmitted through ordinary Ethernet cable. You lose the tips of the 1's. It's more reliably transmitted if coded first using Courier New though."

I just listened to a CD and it definitely sounded more like
100101111010111110100001000111
than 100101111010111110100001000111.

[Dave (in MA)]

Sounds like science to me!

With enough Vodka, I can hear the difference.

[glawster2002]

Jitter is caused by the variation in clock speed between the sending and receiving devices, not vibration, and is massively overstated in audio technology. At such low bit rates it is easily overcome with buffering and re-clocking on the receive side.

[rcarlberg]

Unless you're talking about too much vodka.

[Firth]

Jitter is caused by the variation in clock speed between the sending and receiving devices, not vibration, and is massively overstated in audio technology. At such low bit rates it is easily overcome with buffering and re-clocking on the receive side.

Apparently, we don't have any engineers that understand delta sigma D/A conversion. Delta Sigma converts an amplitude to a pulse. This pulse has a width proportional to signal amplitude. The signal amplitudes are over sampled and there are pulses which occur at a periodic rate, for each of these amplitudes. So the signal which was represented by amplitudes are now represented in the time domain. The accuracy at which the edges of the pulses are conveyed now significantly impact what we hear as amplitudes at the ear. These pulses are passed thru an averaging filter which computes the analog signal representing the signal. A longer pulse averages to a larger signal amplitude. Sony and Phillips first produced a CD player with this single bit converter. SACD and DSD are based on single bit representation. Sony was the first to brag about circuit improvement to improve the clocking accuracy of a Delta Sigma convertor. The clocking is important in Sigma Delta A/D conversion to a single bit signal. Most 24 bit 96 kHz A/Ds actually start with single bit data and integrate to produce 24 bit words.

[rcarlberg]

Yeah, so? What's that mean in English?

[Firth]

Yeah, so? What's that mean in English?

Stick to what you know, sound.

[rcarlberg]

Stick to what you know, sound.

Well BobM says good sound isn't the same thing as "audiophile."

Just saying, if you want better sound there are ways to get that better sound without having to say "it's good enough", which is what I continually hear you say. This thread is about "audiophile", not "good enough."

[jkelman]

Just saying, if you want better sound there are ways to get that better sound without having to say "it's good enough", which is what I continually hear you say. This thread is about "audiophile", not "good enough".

Not sure why the two have to be mutually exclusive. I'm plenty happy enough with my Oppo BDP-105D, Leema Tucana II integrated amp and the top half of my Tetra 333 listening instruments.i spent beaucoup bucks on the whole rig....so why shouldn't it be good enough? Why must there always be better? I am satisfied beyond my wildest imaginings with this rig...and I don't even have the 111 subs yet.

I may not be an audiophile then, and am happy not to be. But I absolutely have an audiophile-level rig - one I'd challenge anyone to hear and not be blown away by - and one that will, barring the player, hopefully be the last one I ever buy. Ever.

I don't see why auiophile must be synonymous with an endless search for something better. At some point your ears can't hear the difference and so you're simply relying on specs; I prefer to rely on my ears as, in the final analysis, that's what counts. And my ears are still plenty good, as the new rig has revealed plenty more detail. But do I need to look fir setting better, when I'm not even sure something better exists (especially that I could afford; the Tetea 606s are amazing, but are both too expensive and, more importantly, too big for my room. I can't see anything else making a significant improvement on what I've got)?

I honestly don't think so. I think I'd rather focus on more music to play on the rig instead.....

[BobM]

Not sure why the two have to be mutually exclusive. I am satisfied beyond my wildest imaginings with this rig...

I think I'd rather focus on more music to play on the rig instead.....

And there is absolutely nothing contradictory with what you said to being an audiophile. You are happy with your purchases. You are loving the sound you are getting. You are enjoying music. That's perfect and wonderful.

I take exception to the naysayers who don't think that there can be improvements, and the fact that those improvements will cost more money makes them unneeded and unnecessary. This is a both hobby and a professional occupation for some. Pushing the limits can only make things better in the long run, and how can that be wrong?

Ferrari's cost a lot of money too, as do Mercedes and other high end cars. Without the research and innovations made there there would be no trickle down to the more common cars we all drive today. How is high priced audiophile equipment any different? There is tons of research that needs to be done, much of it trial and error because technical equipment and measurement techniques do not adequately explain the things that can be heard. Just because you don't see parts costs adding up to the retail price being charged does not mean that there are tons of intangibles that have to be paid for.

Of course a $50,000 amp sounds ridiculous compared to a car, or in some locations a house. And of course there is some price gouging going on to pay for the "brand name" of the designer/engineer. Nobody is saying you have to pay that price. But that Saudi prince who has a garage full of sports cars may have no issue paying for it, and may be totally happy with it because of its "brand name" and not because if its sound. But there are other designers and engineers who will recognize the technology in it and strive to match that in their own more reasonably priced equipment. Pushing the envelope costs, but that push is what moves the industry forward and makes you happy that your $500 CD player/DAC sounds as good as it does and makes beautiful music.

Audiophile does not mean paying too much for equipment, or constantly buying new equipment, or never satisfied with the sound you are getting, though those people do exist (in any hobby, I would add). It should mean being aware that better sound can be achieved with some degree of knowledge on what makes better sound, and care in buying and matching equipment, and knowledge on how to set it up in a room to optimize what you are hearing. But mostly it should be about love for the music and enjoyment in its presentation, regardless of what was spent, or in what your neighbor spent to meet his/her goals and budget.

It is certainly a hobby open to all who care to take it up. Even engineering types who deride others for over spending on what they consider frivolous.

.

[Brian Griffin]

Ferrari's cost a lot of money too, as do Mercedes and other high end cars. Without the research and innovations made there there would be no trickle down to the more common cars we all drive today.

Perfect analogy, and based on that my Infinti would be mid-fi, just like my home theaters

The thing for me is hasn't everyone noticed how their eyesight has changed from our 30's to our 40's to our 50's?

Are you assuming your hearing hasn't experienced something similar?

: )

BG

[Staun]

And there is absolutely nothing contradictory with what you said to being an audiophile. You are happy with your purchases. You are loving the sound you are getting. You are enjoying music. That's perfect and wonderful.

I take exception to the naysayers who don't think that there can be improvements, and the fact that those improvements will cost more money makes them unneeded and unnecessary. This is a both hobby and a professional occupation for some. Pushing the limits can only make things better in the long run, and how can that be wrong?

Ferrari's cost a lot of money too, as do Mercedes and other high end cars. Without the research and innovations made there there would be no trickle down to the more common cars we all drive today. How is high priced audiophile equipment any different? There is tons of research that needs to be done, much of it trial and error because technical equipment and measurement techniques do not adequately explain the things that can be heard. Just because you don't see parts costs adding up to the retail price being charged does not mean that there are tons of intangibles that have to be paid for.

Of course a $50,000 amp sounds ridiculous compared to a car, or in some locations a house. And of course there is some price gouging going on to pay for the "brand name" of the designer/engineer. Nobody is saying you have to pay that price. But that Saudi prince who has a garage full of sports cars may have no issue paying for it, and may be totally happy with it because of its "brand name" and not because if its sound. But there are other designers and engineers who will recognize the technology in it and strive to match that in their own more reasonably priced equipment. Pushing the envelope costs, but that push is what moves the industry forward and makes you happy that your $500 CD player/DAC sounds as good as it does and makes beautiful music.

Audiophile does not mean paying too much for equipment, or constantly buying new equipment, or never satisfied with the sound you are getting, though those people do exist (in any hobby, I would add). It should mean being aware that better sound can be achieved with some degree of knowledge on what makes better sound, and care in buying and matching equipment, and knowledge on how to set it up in a room to optimize what you are hearing. But mostly it should be about love for the music and enjoyment in its presentation, regardless of what was spent, or in what your neighbor spent to meet his/her goals and budget.

It is certainly a hobby open to all who care to take it up. Even engineering types who deride others for over spending on what they consider frivolous.

.

Agreed, especially when it comes to matching. Some people don't know that's the problem if they arn't happy with what they are hearing. Others just don't want to admit after some time, that they made bad choices in componants and just live with it. Trial and error is a costly prospect. It seems that everything I've read in this thread is based on personal experience thus, personal conviction and assertion. The word "audiophile", has always painted a picture of equipment, software and sound that only a few can attain because of price points. Theory tries to explain why things are and the way things might be. But with the worlds best DAC's, cables, componants and all this theory, it all falls prey to the final judge. Your ears. What sounds good to you. I understand those who are used to hearing half million dollar systems and those who are used to hearing fifteen hundred dollar systems. Logic says the half million system should sound better. Logic does not say it will sound better. With all the stats on our side, how can we tell the fifteen hundred dollar listener that the sound he is hearing is inferior to the half mil system if he says it's not. If he says he's heard all kinds of systems in all price ranges and still insists his is the best he's ever heard. Someone else will have to disagree with him besides me. This is a finite subject not garnered by price paid. With respect to audiophiles everywhere.

[Firth]

Audiophile does not mean paying too much for equipment, or constantly buying new equipment, or never satisfied with the sound you are getting, though those people do exist (in any hobby, I would add).
.

Actually you are referring to the Golden-Earred Audiophile