The Audiophile Thread

[Firth]

OK, so expensive high end systems are "fussy", but if you spend that kind of cash don't you want to be precise with what you bought? Isn't it worth going the extra mile to dial it in perfectly? It's OK for supercars to be fussy. it's OK for yachts to be fussy, even needing a crew you have to pay to run it. Watches and other fine jewelry, flying model airplanes or toy powerboats, buying art... these are just a few expensive hobbies most of us don;t get into because they are costly and require special knowledge. Maintenance on expensive homes and cars and other toys is a real thing, and it is costly. So why is expensive audio thought of differently?

A car enthusiast will change out a drive shaft to get an extra 5 horsepower, but an audio guy is looked at as stupid if he buys a cable to get extra horsepower in his system. Sure, a 420 Seiko or Casio watch tells time, but a Patek is something anyone would love to own but most can't afford. I just don't get all the blubber against anyone who spends money on audio. Let them do as they will and enjoy your Casio watch.

The difference between mods to a car to improve performance and mods to an audio system, comes down to objective and measurable difference. For autos there has been a continual process to obtain improvement in multiple measurable performances, including horsepower, efficiency and weight. Audiophiles arguments that only subjective performance matters paradoxically kills and encourages cable development, simultaneously.

[Zeuhlmate]

The car is basicly a vehicle that moves you and your stuff from A to B.
The happiness some people have by driving an expensive car, is just as subjective as the happiness you can experience on a good stereo.

Off course I envy those who has Wilson Alexa fed by McIntosh, Krell or whatever, but its even worse when they only listen to audiophile crappy pop or test records. Like buying a Ferrari to drive your kids to kindergarden.

Well, if you can afford it... it's your money.

[Firth]

The car is basicly a vehicle that moves you and your stuff from A to B.
The happiness some people have by driving an expensive car, is just as subjective as the happiness you can experience on a good stereo.

Off course I envy those who has Wilson Alexa fed by McIntosh, Krell or whatever, but its even worse when they only listen to audiophile crappy pop or test records. Like buying a Ferrari to drive your kids to kindergarden.

Well, if you can afford it... it's your money.

Certainly if you take it to a systems level, but the discussion started about components and car horsepower performance.

[rcarlberg]

Having your dad drive you to school in a Ferrari would make you cool.

Having a dad with Wilson Alexas and McIntosh would make you a dork.

[3LockBox]

The difference between mods to a car to improve performance and mods to an audio system, comes down to objective and measurable difference. For autos there has been a continual process to obtain improvement in multiple measurable performances, including horsepower, efficiency and weight. Audiophiles arguments that only subjective performance matters paradoxically kills and encourages cable development, simultaneously.

well said

While I also look sideways at guys who'll spend thousands of dollars on 'tweaks' to squeeze out an extra 20 horsepower out of an already expensive car (that you can only legally drive so fast anyway), horsepower is at least measurable. The analogy of the automotive hobby to audio is irrelevant unless the there is a contingency of automotive enthusiasts who insist that certain colors are faster than others. Ultra expensive, esoteric audio is as subjective and scientific as pranic healing or reiki.

[Zeuhlmate]

Having your dad drive you to school in a Ferrari would make you cool.

Having a dad with Wilson Alexas and McIntosh would make you a dork.

Now you are comparing a kids experience (not the dads choice of car), to a grown up who has bought ugly hifi.

[rcarlberg]

Now you are comparing a kids experience (not the dads choice of car), to a grown up who has bought ugly hifi.

No, actually I was making a joke.

Hence the smiley.

[Firth]

Having your dad drive you to school in a Ferrari would make you cool.

Having a dad with Wilson Alexas and McIntosh would make you a dork.

[strawberrybrick]

Anyone doing room correction with software?

[Zeuhlmate]

Anyone doing room correction with software?

Its built-in, in som of Lyngdorfs amps - https://lyngdorf.com/roomperfect/
Haven't heard it though.

[rcarlberg]

OK, so expensive high end systems are "fussy", but if you spend that kind of cash don't you want to be precise with what you bought? Isn't it worth going the extra mile to dial it in perfectly? It's OK for supercars to be fussy. it's OK for yachts to be fussy, even needing a crew you have to pay to run it.

With some people it seems "being fussy" is a point of pride. Cars that rarely run and are difficult to drive. Yachts that can't get into most harbors. Stereos where you can only listen to one CD while sitting in one precise position at one precise time of day.

Maybe it's the difference between being "nouveau riche" -- when you're all about being ostentatious -- and the truly rich, when you value quality and reliability. Needless to say, I'm neither

[Dave (in MA)]

Wilson Alexa

Looks like a trash can.

[rcarlberg]

Looks like a trash can.

Friend of mine has a pair. They sound considerably better than trash cans.

[Firth]

Friend of mine has a pair. They sound considerably better than trash cans.

Hopefully they don’t listen and talk back

[rcarlberg]

Anyone doing room correction with software?

I would imagine the effect would be limited. With active-feedback they've been able to make tiny speakers sound like medium-sized speakers, but they'll never be able to make computer speakers sound like Alexias. Similarly, if you place any kind of speaker in a crap room, no matter what frequency-correction you do, you're still going to have crap acoustics.

It's like people who do this:

[Dave (in MA)]

Friend of mine has a pair. They sound considerably better than trash cans.

I'll bet they sound way better than the ones the Astros and Red Sox were using.

[Dave (in MA)]

if you place any kind of speaker in a crap room, no matter what frequency-correction you do, you're still going to have crap acoustics.

I just use an OONTZ speaker in my crap room.

[Firth]

I would imagine the effect would be limited. With active-feedback they've been able to make tiny speakers sound like medium-sized speakers, but they'll never be able to make computer speakers sound like Alexias. Similarly, if you place any kind of speaker in a crap room, no matter what frequency-correction you do, you're still going to have crap acoustics.

It's like people who do this:

I have used MCACC calibration since I got my first Pioneer elite receiver. Note this receiver is very high resolution in its processing and does an incredible job on my 5.2 config. Both for stereo sources and 5.1. I can say that my nearly full range Polk LSi speakers (bass in tower subwoofers) did not disappear until MCACC was done. It’s not just room correction, but also time and frequency EQ. Those speakers had a soft treble which was corrected. The key thing for speakers is that the spatial response stay consistent versus azimuth, however great planars have a sweet spot with degradation off axis. My speakers can be calibrated on axis and the calibration holds vs az. Polk developed SDA tech which cancels the effect that 2 channels of sound have because of intraspeaker distortion (sound waves from 2 speakers interfere between each other in space). However these speakers are not SDA, and when I use the extended stereo processing mode, L+R goes to the high quality center channel and L-R goes to L, R, FL, and FR, in a predetermined time-aligned and EQ manner. Anyway the result is anything but fake or weird. Before using MCACC, it sound was good but didn’t image the way it does now.

[progmatist]

It's like people who do this:

I saw something very similar not too long ago. It was one of those 80s Camaros with the boxy, angular body, and those huge rims with those shallow tires. Extremely stupid looking to say the least.

Speaking of that type of person, I've always found it comical when a car drives by with the booming bass. To me, it sounds like a cartoon character bouncing on a trampoline. Kind of a boing-------boing--------boing

[3LockBox]

I saw something very similar not too long ago. It was one of those 80s Camaros with the boxy, angular body, and those huge rims with those shallow tires. Extremely stupid looking to say the least.

Speaking of that type of person, I've always found it comical when a car drives by with the booming bass. To me, it sounds like a cartoon character bouncing on a trampoline. Kind of a boing-------boing--------boing

Attention whores come in all shapes and sizes

[chalkpie]

Screw the naysayers, if I had 75k extra laying around it would all go into a dream system. Its probably not worth half that but who cares? Can't take it with you...

[rcarlberg]

Screw the naysayers, if I had 75k extra laying around it would all go into a dream system. Its probably not worth half that but who cares? Can't take it with you...

If you sunk $75k into it you'd want the $150k version

[BobM]

Probably one of the only things I agree with you on Carlberg. ������

[strawberrybrick]

Its built-in, in som of Lyngdorfs amps - https://lyngdorf.com/roomperfect/
Haven't heard it though.

I'm thinking about using REW (Room EQ Wizard), measuring the room, and then applying the results via Roon.

[rcarlberg]

Report back how well it works.