Is High End Audio Gear Worth the Money?

[Amir]

What does this even mean? (even after correcting the typo on "rich"). How does a system "favor detail"? Over what?

I am going to guess that what you have in mind are systems that strive for "accuracy" on some measureable criteria - the most obvious would be frequency response - there are others. In some cases, this probably does come at the expense of resolution. What systems have you heard? Your previous Magico speakers, a few others at Kramelli's? Do you think the world of audio is limited to these?

Resolution is also obviously a form of "accuracy", but it is impossible to measure, as every single piece of equipment (speaker drivers, cabinets, crossovers, cables - even K.Sumner.s - amps, turntables...) introduce distortions (inaccuracies). Does your system offer good "resolution"? Who knows... We will just have to trust you when you say that it comes close to the sound of instruments. I can find a dozen examples of people who claim exactly the same thing listening to completly different systems...

The problem is that no system reproduces sound "naturally". You just decide what you think sounds good to your ears, and put aside limitations that you personally find less important (as we all do).

Peter likes “Natural Sound” . Peter and David introduced me some examples of “Natural Sound” so I can imagine what “Natural Sound” means.

I think David and Peter’s idea can help us to think again about this typical industry modern sound.
Actually I like what David said about the sound.

I agree you no sound is perfect in all respects so it is not possible to say which sound is more close to live music but we can say which sound is more expressive in context of music.

I believe “Natural Sound” is more expressive than modern sound. Modern sound to me means better objective measurements not better musical expression. For example most modern low efficiency dynamic driver speakers are not dynamic and live.

 

[Argonaut]

I believe “Natural Sound” is more expressive than modern sound. Modern sound to me means better objective measurements not better musical expression. For example most modern low efficiency dynamic driver speakers are not dynamic and live.

Can you explain the physics , the mechanism behind Your / Peter / Karmeli ‘s claims ? With specific examples .

 

[microstrip]

I agree with this. A chain of electronic components cannot produce sound “naturally.“ A stereo system is a man-made contraption. Good stereo systems, however, can present the information on a good recording to the listener in a way that sounds natural to him. If you don’t like the word “natural”, you can use “realistic”, or “convincing”.

No single word can convey such type of information. It is why high-end reviewers and many audio writers have standardized as much as possible in an high-end glossary - to avoid writing five complete lines again and again every time they address a specific aspect of sound quality.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Modern sound to me means better objective measurements not better musical expression.

Well, it looks you stopped in the 70's ...
These are long gone waters!

It is fascinating that in current high-end we can have both - good measurements and great sound.

 

[PeterA]

No single word can convey such type of information. It is why high-end reviewers and many audio writers have standardized as much as possible in an high-end glossary - to avoid writing five complete lines again and again every time they address a specific aspect of sound quality.

I agree. I suggested three words, but you could add “believable” and “lifelike” for five. I think people generally understand the meanings of those words If something sounds dynamic, I think the listener should simply say the one word dynamic.

Communication should strive for clarity.

 

[exupgh12]

A humorous yet introspective exploration from DARKO (Darko Audio) about a psychological phenomenon he humorously calls "cope," reflecting how individuals rationalize their inability to afford luxury items.

 

[Ron Resnick]

highly detailed

lacked body warmth, richness, and weight

had little soundstage information.

Seems "skeletal" to me.

 

[PeterA]

Seems "skeletal" to me.

Skeletal to me implies lacking something completely. The systems did not lack anything completely, they simply favored detail over everything else. A skeleton has no organs, flesh, or skin. That was not the case. The balance was just tipped heavily in one direction.

You can refer to it as skeletal, but that’s not how I describe the sound of what I heard. Language is very difficult in this hobby especially when one person experienced something, and the other person was not even there.

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

to me it´s either "credible" or not
does it sound like something real
do I forget critical listening and analyzing

 

[Ron Resnick]

Skeletal to me implies lacking something completely. The systems did not lack anything completely, they simply favored detail over everything else. A skeleton has no organs, flesh, or skin. That was not the case. The balance was just tipped heavily in one direction.

I understand the difference in description.

one person experienced something, and the other person was not even there.

I have heard Spectral on Martin-Logan; obviously not at your friend's place. But from what he used to post I assume I would find the sound of his system even more skeletal than typical Spectral on Martin-Logan.

 

[Rensselaer]

I agree. I suggested three words, but you could add “believable” and “lifelike” for five. I think people generally understand the meanings of those words If something sounds dynamic, I think the listener should simply say the one word dynamic.

Communication should strive for clarity.

When I audition a piece of equipment in my system, I am usually disappointed because only rarely does something bring the entire experience closer to live musicians in the room. I say “closer” because I have never heard a hi fi system sound like real acoustic instruments playing live in the room with me. Not at shows, not at dealerships and not around friend’s homes. Some get closer to the goal of a “suspension of disbelief” (I will use that phrase, despite previously voiced issues with it, as we know what is meant) than others, but none have reached it in my experience.

I have thought about those items that have taken my own system closer to that ideal, what exactly changed that was better/more real (natural), not just different, and find it difficult to put into words because I tend to reach for terms that have already been used by reviewers over the years and there are those within this body of well informed experts who have a well thought-out rebuttal for any of those terms I should happen to utter (as you have no-doubt discovered with your “natural sound” thread Peter).

What would be nice, even helpful, is if you (not Peter alone, but the entire body of well informed experts on this forum) would consider what exactly caused you to last part with serious money on your system? What change in SQ (or show factor for those lovers of bling out there) was it that you couldn’t say no to? What was it about the device/performance thereof that would make you spend it again and swear that the high-end is worth it?

 

[bonzo75]

What would be nice, even helpful, is if you (not Peter alone, but the entire body of well informed experts on this forum) would consider what exactly caused you to last part with serious money on your system? What change in SQ (or show factor for those lovers of bling out there) was it that you couldn’t say no to? What was it about the device/performance thereof that would make you swear that the high-end is worth it?

Please look up the thread on cognitive dissonance which is answer to how people will provide the reason

 

[Rensselaer]

Please look up the thread on cognitive dissonance which is answer to how people will provide the reason

The agonising paradox of disjointed experience to beliefs?

I was looking for a more personal and individual response from many members rather than one overreaching concept, if that is what this is. If not at all, then please provide a link to those pages.

 

[bonzo75]

I was looking for a more personal and individual response from many members rather than one overreaching concept, if that is what this is. If not at all, then please provide a link to those pages.

Thread 'Cognitive dissonance'
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/cognitive-dissonance.31008/

 

[Rensselaer]

Thread 'Cognitive dissonance'
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/cognitive-dissonance.31008/

Read it, thanks. I think it may explain why some members never answer the question I posed, perhaps why they won’t even think about it, but some may be honest brokers who keep an open mind and reflect upon their choices with honesty.

 

[Elliot G.]

You can refer to it as skeletal, but that’s not how I describe the sound of what I heard. Language is very difficult in this hobby especially when one person experienced something, and the other person was not even there.

The variety of individual meanings of words in Audio and the erosion of language makes most of these reports and debates very frustrating. If the meanings of these descriptive terms is different for most or all then communication becomes a semantics free for all and the end result lands us nowhere. It seems obvious to me that the audio community can't agree of the meanings of its terms so the rest happens as expected. IMO
Your second point is also something very strange and seems to be a huge part of the internet. How people comment with such authority about things they have no experienced is beyond me. Would "you" comment about the quality of food in a restaurant you've never eaten at? This seems to very common however in audio. Why? that I can't answer. Maybe someone here can.

 

[microstrip]

The variety of individual meanings of words in Audio and the erosion of language makes most of these reports and debates very frustrating.

Well I don't find audio WBF debates anyway frustrating, on the contrary.

If the meanings of these descriptive terms is different for most or all then communication becomes a semantics free for all and the end result lands us nowhere. It seems obvious to me that the audio community can't agree of the meanings of its terms so the rest happens as expected. IMO

Many times, yes. But I think it is worth for the many other times we can get new information. IMO it is responsibility of readers to get the relevant messages to their interests.

Your second point is also something very strange and seems to be a huge part of the internet. How people comment with such authority about things they have no experienced is beyond me. Would "you" comment about the quality of food in a restaurant you've never eaten at? This seems to very common however in audio. Why? that I can't answer. Maybe someone here can.

Although it was not what Peter was addressing - he was just referring to communication issues, not to Ron inexperience, the subject is interesting.

Stereo is not just about listening experiences, but something that also involves psychoacoustics, science and technology. IMO there is knowledge we can get even without direct experience. But surely I would like to read your comment on the russian paper by A. Polakov article I posted in another thread - you have large experience on the subject.

 

[microstrip]

What would be nice, even helpful, is if you (not Peter alone, but the entire body of well informed experts on this forum) would consider what exactly caused you to last part with serious money on your system? What change in SQ (or show factor for those lovers of bling out there) was it that you couldn’t say no to? What was it about the device/performance thereof that would make you spend it again and swear that the high-end is worth it?

IMO Peter fully answered to it in his long thread - he found new friends and a new way of listening to stereo and he preferred it. This is a subjective hobby involving preference, we can pick our poison. IMO the social part has a large weight in the high-end.

Surely we can speculate - would he had made the same move twenty years ago?

 

[Al M.]

I understand the difference in description.


I have heard Spectral on Martin-Logan; obviously not at your friend's place. But from what he used to post I assume I would find the sound of his system even more skeletal than typical Spectral on Martin-Logan.

Counterpoint:

ack's system - end of round 1

Thanks Ian. Corner frequency is the -3dB point people typically quote. It's fun to watch digital do presence, timbre and articulation, separation of instruments. The technology is sound, the implementation is apparently very hard.

www.whatsbestforum.com

(post #864)

 

[exupgh12]

When I audition a piece of equipment in my system, I am usually disappointed because only rarely does something bring the entire experience closer to live musicians in the room. I say “closer” because I have never heard a hi fi system sound like real acoustic instruments playing live in the room with me. Not at shows, not at dealerships and not around friend’s homes. Some get closer to the goal of a “suspension of disbelief” (I will use that phrase, despite previously voiced issues with it, as we know what is meant) than others, but none have reached it in my experience.

Our systems play studio mixes, not raw instrument recordings. I bet that if you record live instruments and play them back on your system, they will sound much closer to the real thing than an edited studio-produced mix.