What is your personal philosophy as an "audiophile"?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Archimago
    Senior Member
    • Nov 2005
    • 1111

    #61
    Originally posted by heisenberg
    I was very saddened when I discovered that I can't reliably tell whether the music playing is from a 320 kbps mp3 or from a lossless source. Hence, I'm not into chasing after 24/192 -- like you've said, a complete overkill.
    Like Mnyb said, do not be saddened by this. I have yet to find a single person who I can verify as passing an ABX between 320kbps and lossless WAV/FLAC when the music is encoded with a good encoder like a newer version of LAME (I've tested about 10 "audiophiles" using combination of headphones or speakers)... Looking at the audiophile sites, one gets the impression as if this is some common feat! When I did the online MP3 test on my blog earlier this year, I know that some very outspoken members of other forums got the result wrong so I know for a fact that they're unjustifiably confident and just plain wrong about their self assessment.

    Of course this is not to say nobody can tell a difference, just that I think it's extremely rare. Knowing this "fact" for oneself is a sign of honesty and integrity IMO.

    I agree, no need to chase after overkill. As I've expressed in the past, I'm happy to have 24/96 as the limit of what I would bother to download (even if I buy 24/192, it's almost always converted down to 24/96). At 24/96, there's really ZERO possible audio information missing for human ears assuming one is even concerned about "brickwall" issues with 44kHz sampling. As for DSD, I see it as an interesting "toy". I've written about it including PCM --> DSD128 upsampling and I find it sounds different, but the effect is like any DSP that can add some euphonia / body to the sound IMO. Still can't get myself to honestly believe there's anything special with DSD that cannot be captured with good PCM.

    I'm still unhappy about the DSD file format - useless old DSF & DFF - poor tagging and compression capabilities; what a waste of storage.
    Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

    Comment

    • Julf
      Senior Member
      • Dec 2010
      • 2567

      #62
      Originally posted by heisenberg
      I guess I was talking about the care engineers take when digitizing the master tapes. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and different teams will digitize the same master tape differently. That's what I refer to as different 'pressings'.
      Thanks, that was a good clarification. Yes, different conversions from analog master tape to digital will often sound different, as there are lots of paremeters to play around with. Personally I can't really justify using anything beyond 16/48 on material from an analog source. If recording in digital, it makes sense to use higher resolutions at least for the recording and processing stage.
      "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953

      Comment

      • jimbobvfr400
        Senior Member
        • Aug 2012
        • 629

        #63
        Originally posted by Archimago
        lots of good stuff
        100% agree with everything you said there.

        I did however have some older MP3 files (that I've since replaced with FLAC) where I could tell an immediate difference, or at least I think I could?

        I really do think Lame has been improved quite a bit in the later versions, either that or I was an idiot and couldn't use it properly.

        I do think that the source and mastering or mixing techniques are way, way more important to the final results than whatever format or bit rate has been used, providing the format is "good enough"

        Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

        Comment

        • jimbobvfr400
          Senior Member
          • Aug 2012
          • 629

          #64
          Originally posted by heisenberg
          I was very saddened when I discovered that I can't reliably tell whether the music playing is from a 320 kbps mp3 or from a lossless source. Hence, I'm not into chasing after 24/192 -- like you've said, a complete overkill.
          I wasn't saddened, I was impressed that the boffins behind the concepts used in mp3 and other formats are so clever :-)

          Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

          Comment

          • Archimago
            Senior Member
            • Nov 2005
            • 1111

            #65
            Originally posted by jimbobvfr400
            I did however have some older MP3 files (that I've since replaced with FLAC) where I could tell an immediate difference, or at least I think I could?

            I really do think Lame has been improved quite a bit in the later versions, either that or I was an idiot and couldn't use it properly.
            Exactly. I had some old stuff back in the day encoded with Xing MP3 in 320/256 and clearly the quality was inadequate. I suspect that many "old timers" in audio may have built their impression based on these old encoders or just listened to 128kbps and from then declared to everyone just how inferior MP3 is.

            The above would be a more diplomatic view. I suspect what's more sinister is that of expectation bias that "tossing away bits *must* result in bad sound!" and most people do not really test it out for themselves. Even worse are folks like Neil Young who make ridiculous statements about how MP3 "throws out" 80% of the data and other such "objective" drivel apparently believing that his ears are somehow golden. Maybe he can hear it, who knows... I wish I could place bets against him doing it though
            Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

            Comment

            • Pneumonic
              Senior Member
              • Feb 2007
              • 137

              #66
              Originally posted by Archimago
              I was originally going to respond to the 24/192 discussion with this but thought it more apt to start a new topic instead of tangential hijacking :-)

              I wonder if we've had a good / serious discussion here around the question of what as "audiophiles" we're trying to accomplish with our gear. No need for ridicule, but just a frank discussion of our thoughts around why (some of us) spend so much time on this "obsession" :-)

              As one more in the objectivist camp, I'm personally striving for "accuracy" with reasonable specs which exceed my hearing capacity so I'm pretty sure I'm "not missing anything" through the electronics. Once I think this is achieved, I'm not really interested in owning the next "upgrade" unless I'm pretty sure it brings something beneficial to the table. Sure I'm interested in what's new and would happily join friends in auditioning gear (even have thoughts of visiting RMAF this year), but unless I really think it makes a difference, there's really no need to own it. Likewise, intellectually if it really makes little sense, I am by nature skeptical. On the software side, I like to obtain the best mastering so enjoy picking up some MoFi, Audio Fidelity, old DCC's, maybe the "first pressing" before remasters killed dynamics. As a point of reference, I don't necessarily consider the "live music" as something I strive to replicate (I listen to live music almost every week). I expect the best I can do is replicate the "mic feed" as best I can in my home which one cannot reasonably expect would sound exactly like the live event (and that's assuming a 'direct-to-disk' recording without fancy EQ and other studio effects). In fact, what I hear at home often is better than my seat at the live event already. Before the widely used term "audiophile", it was "high fidelity" which I think might be a better term for what I'm striving for in playback.

              On the other hand, I know many audiophiles want a euphonic sound. Tube gear and vinyl lovers I think must follow this philosophy. I'm not sure I understand that philosophy fully and what "point of reference" being used in that situation.

              Note that I'm not saying anything about one viewpoint being "superior"; rather just wanting to hear the viewpoints.
              Given that not one of us has - identical systems, setup in the same room, with the same music being played - any subjective comparison on what any us can or can't hear lacks a true reference and is nothing more than an exercise in futility as it is nothing more than a un-winnable "I hear this, you hear that" battle.

              In the absence of such reference many people use science, or maths, or measurements as a reference point since it's the only way to bring into the fold some element of objectivity which can be referenced by everyone.

              As for me. It boils down to this:

              • If I can hear it, and measurements suggest I shouldn’t be able to hear it, then I believe that what I hear may be real or imaginary but I side with imaginary and wonder if I should go see my shrink.
              • If I can hear it, and measurements agree that I should be able to hear it, then I believe that what I hear is real and I grab another drink.
              • If I can't hear it, and measurements suggest I should be able to hear it, then I change up my system.
              • If I can't hear it, and measurements suggest I shouldn’t be able to hear it, then I grab another drink.
              Main: Acer Aspire One netbook --> Squeezebox Transporter (slave mode) --> Lessloss 2004 mkII Pre/DAC (master mode) --> Sanders Magtech stereo/Innersound ESL800 mono power amps --> Sanders 10c active speakers

              Comment

              • Archimago
                Senior Member
                • Nov 2005
                • 1111

                #67
                Originally posted by Pneumonic
                Given that not one of us has - identical systems, setup in the same room, with the same music being played - any subjective comparison on what any us can or can't hear lacks a true reference and is nothing more than an exercise in futility as it is nothing more than a un-winnable "I hear this, you hear that" battle.

                In the absence of such reference many people use science, or maths, or measurements as a reference point since it's the only way to bring into the fold some element of objectivity which can be referenced by everyone.

                As for me. It boils down to this:

                • If I can hear it, and measurements suggest I shouldn’t be able to hear it, then I believe that what I hear may be real or imaginary but I side with imaginary and wonder if I should go see my shrink.
                • If I can hear it, and measurements agree that I should be able to hear it, then I believe that what I hear is real and I grab another drink.
                • If I can't hear it, and measurements suggest I should be able to hear it, then I change up my system.
                • If I can't hear it, and measurements suggest I shouldn’t be able to hear it, then I grab another drink.
                What the hell... Grab a drink anyways!
                Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

                Comment

                • TheOctavist
                  Senior Member
                  • Dec 2011
                  • 366

                  #68
                  I have various ideas.

                  in my own playback , with digital system(s)...I strive for accuracy. that is achieved, and has been possible for a long time. I Believe that the room is the single most important factor in system performance. to that end, my room is highly tuned, and has been to a large extent been taken out of the equation.

                  now..when I fire up my analog gear(reel to reel, vinyl), I have(and do) always enjoy playing with tube gear, "euphonic" speakers, etc. I am of the mind that with vinyl, there is no hope for fidelity..so I have fun with it.

                  when mixing, I have to tailor the final product to suit the client's sensibilities. sometimes against my better judgement!
                  Vortexbox>SBT(stock)>>Forssell MDAC-2>>>Klein and Hummell 0300D

                  Sota Sapphire/Lyra Kleos>>Bespoke Valve Phono Stage>>Mastersound Due Venti>>Link Audio K100

                  Comment

                  • Archimago
                    Senior Member
                    • Nov 2005
                    • 1111

                    #69
                    Hey guys... Just thought I'd share what I'm "rocking" these days. Still lots to do in the sound room - very bare walls and the rug's taking its sweet time in arriving!

                    Nonetheless, lots of fun putting the pieces together and loving what's coming out of my good 'ol Transporter.

                    Have a wonderful Holiday Season everyone...

                    A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.
                    Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

                    Comment

                    • ralphpnj
                      Senior Member
                      • Mar 2007
                      • 2675

                      #70
                      Originally posted by Archimago
                      Hey guys... Just thought I'd share what I'm "rocking" these days. Still lots to do in the sound room - very bare walls and the rug's taking its sweet time in arriving!

                      Nonetheless, lots of fun putting the pieces together and loving what's coming out of my good 'ol Transporter.

                      Have a wonderful Holiday Season everyone...

                      http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/12...ound-room.html
                      Very nice blog post. Looks like your listening/viewing room, aka man cave, is shaping up very nicely. Best of luck with your new home. And of course Holiday wishes to you and yours as well.
                      Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub
                      Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub
                      Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub
                      Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0
                      Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar
                      Garage: SB3-JVC compact system
                      Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso
                      Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos
                      Last.fm

                      Comment

                      • banned for life
                        Senior Member
                        • May 2012
                        • 241

                        #71
                        Random musings

                        1. Massive wattage with unbridled amperage. (My LR speakers can dip below 1 Ohm on the woofer side of the biamp.)
                        2. You cannot pay too much for a good tweeter.
                        3. Never underestimate a paper woofer. (SS 18W/8531G springs to mind.) As a corollary: bass response is no longer pinned to driver size-- see #5, though.
                        4. There are those who refuse to see (hear) reason when the speakers really do need to be at least 3 feet from the rear wall. (For some reason these people are often soft and curvy.)
                        5. There is no free lunch: There is a definite requirement for cabinet volume.
                        6. Sub-woofers are for cars and apartments and may be OK in some bedrooms.
                        7. Tube amps are great for making toast.
                        8. People who like/love Bose tend to be delusional in other aspects of their lives.
                        9. Above a certain quality point (note I did not say price,) a LARGE proportion of sound quality is room and placement. That said, the rest of sound quality is between your ears.
                        10. Face it: a lot of source material is REALLY crappy.

                        Comment

                        • ralphpnj
                          Senior Member
                          • Mar 2007
                          • 2675

                          #72
                          Originally posted by banned for life
                          10. Face it: a lot of source material is REALLY crappy.
                          First Corollary: All source material associated with anyone or anything from American Idol is absolutely 100% crap.

                          Second Corollary: 99% of source material from any of TAS founder HP so called "Super Disc Lists" may sound good but musically it is absolutely 100% crap.
                          Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub
                          Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub
                          Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub
                          Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0
                          Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar
                          Garage: SB3-JVC compact system
                          Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso
                          Server: LMS 7.9 on dedicated windows 10 computer w/2 Drobos
                          Last.fm

                          Comment

                          • Mnyb
                            Senior Member
                            • Feb 2006
                            • 16538

                            #73
                            About 3 cone area*linear travel is physics you don't get away from that ! so reasonable cone area ( can absolutely be more than one driver , that could be even better , more motors ) is worth something . Of course in the boxes that the acoustics of the system require not what's fashionable .

                            visible large cone movement produces distortion in any speaker regardless of price ime .

                            I have subwoofer in apartment ,but with a low crossover freq and steep filter and digital room acoustic compensation or it would not work very well .

                            I know no way to get -0.5dB @ 20Hz at listening position without sub , there are not many reasonable full range system that does 20-20k and fits in my room , heck there are not many reasonable such system in any case .
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Main hifi: Rasbery PI digi+ MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub.
                            Bedroom/Office: Boom
                            Loggia: Raspi hifiberry dac + Adams
                            Bathroom : Radio (with battery)
                            iPad with iPengHD & SqueezePad
                            (spares Touch, SB3, reciever ,controller )
                            server Intel NUC Esxi VM Linux mint 18 LMS 7.9.2

                            http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

                            Comment

                            • darrenyeats
                              Senior Member
                              • Mar 2007
                              • 1306

                              #74
                              I've been critical of modern recordings on many occasions but I've come to believe that most post 50s music should be listenable on a well-sorted system.

                              I've made a couple of improvements recently (first, bypassing attenuators/pot in my DAC, second, improving mains quality) and these have been genuine, deep improvements. One tell tale sign is that everything sounds better, from classical to jazz to modern compressed pop! And it seems to me I've condemned some recordings wrongly using them as an excuse. Almost every recording has something good about it!
                              Last edited by darrenyeats; 2013-12-23, 14:27.
                              Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

                              SB Touch

                              Comment

                              Working...