Is High End Audio Gear Worth the Money?

[DasguteOhr]

You're confusing mediocre sound illusion with precise 3D imaging which implies you haven't actually heard 3D. I didn't experience it until I got to own a high-end store and play around with hundreds of speaker designs.

Perfect 3D imaging, haha, then I have to laugh. A little tip about what drugs you took today: either take more or less.
First of all, it's impossible to reproduce, say, an orchestra with two sound sources. In a concert hall, reverberation times of 1.5-2.5 seconds are normal; if you try it at home, it sounds terrible. At home, people aim for between 0.3-0.5 seconds, which really ruins things. Perfect doesn't exist, but it can get close to reality. It works pretty well with a wave-field synthesis speaker—I'd say 98% of the time. Unfortunately, it's not yet affordable, and it's currently being tested at the Musikhochschule in Detmold, Germany.
If you're in Germany, get tickets, listen to a concert, then go to the WFS room and listen to it again. It sounds incredible.

 

[morricab]

No problem sharing your different experiences but you do your argument no credit with these remarks that someone else's system or their ability to perceive has something wrong with it if they don't experience similar to what you claim to experience.

What 3D image would someone have of an instrument they've never seen before?

Tim, stop this circumlocution. We are not talking about aborigines in the outback who have never heard a piano before. It is obvious we recognise the sound of something and can therefore imagine it once we have a mental map…why do you beat this to death?

Stereo is making imagining something n the mind of the listener BY DESIGN. If that is not happening for you with a large majority of recordings then something is wrong…it’s not about my experience vs. Yours relativism.

 

[morricab]

Perfect 3D imaging, haha, then I have to laugh. A little tip about what drugs you took today: either take more or less.
First of all, it's impossible to reproduce, say, an orchestra with two sound sources. In a concert hall, reverberation times of 1.5-2.5 seconds are normal; if you try it at home, it sounds terrible. At home, people aim for between 0.3-0.5 seconds, which really ruins things. Perfect doesn't exist, but it can get close to reality. It works pretty well with a wave-field synthesis speaker—I'd say 98% of the time. Unfortunately, it's not yet affordable, and it's currently being tested at the Musikhochschule in Detmold, Germany.
If you're in Germany, get tickets, listen to a concert, then go to the WFS room and listen to it again. It sounds incredible.View attachment 153672View attachment 153673

He never said perfect, you are reading things into what he stated, not merely responding to what he actually said.

 

[hopkins]

The problem is me and you can not describe 3D image for others because it is a subjective term.
I think some subjective parameters are not easy to describe for example “Pace”. Before more discussion we should try to describe what 3D image means.

Localisation is obvious and any two listeners will most probably agree to this (unless one of them is deaf in one ear, in which case localisation is impossible).

 

[DasguteOhr]

He never said perfect, you are reading things into what he stated, not merely responding to what he actually said.

For me, precision translates into perfection, that's how we Germans are...sorry

 

[morricab]

For me, precision translates into perfection, that's how we Germans are...sorry

Precision and accuracy are two parts of perfection…and they are not the same. Analytical scientific thinking 101…I have worked with many Germans over the years and yes they are often precise…but not always accurate

 

[morricab]

Localisation is obvious and any two listeners will most probably agree to this (unless one of them is deaf in one ear, in which case localisation is impossible).

As I said to Tim, the what is not that hard to get agreement on…

 

[andromedaaudio]

Precision and accuracy are two parts of perfection…and they are not the same. Analytical scientific thinking 101…I have worked with many Germans over the years and yes they are often precise…but not always accurate

Tell me about it , i had a project in northern germany and despite that the manuals were provided and all works were explained at least 3 times !! ....still all wrongly installed
I work all over the world installing machinery currently in brzeg Poland .

USA is one of the worst at reading manuals sorry to say , i love working in africa not much rules

 

[DasguteOhr]

Precision and accuracy are two parts of perfection…and they are not the same. Analytical scientific thinking 101…I have worked with many Germans over the years and yes they are often precise…but not always accurate

I wouldn't associate precision with thinking. Humans are too error-prone for that. Precision is when a machine creates a part that fits perfectly or very rarely breaks.
Most of the time, it's a mistake: people develop a precision part, but after testing, you realize it's not that good. The machine isn't to blame.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Coming back on topic.

I ve found a new price / performance standard ( High end gear worth the Money .)

Good tapes 300- 400 euro piece / double album .
Telefunken M 15 A 5 K for a revised one .
Second hand HEGEL integrated H590 5 K
High rez speakers 10 -20 K

That makes 20.000 euro a set plus tapes and its hard to beat .
High end audio doesn't need to be expensive , you just need to know WHAT to buy

 

[PeterA]

You try to stretch things too far. Something that is dimensional (length, width and height) will by definition be a 3D object…whether real or a mental perception.
On a good piano recording, for example, the sound perceived not only has dimension, it has structure…hammers on strings, spatial differences in string lengths (where low notes will come from a longer width in the sound field than higher notes), sound board, pedal action etc. If this doesn’t evoke at least a vague image in your mind of a piano then something is wrong.

A vague image now? So vague in fact that it does not have color or edges. It is as clear an image as can be created by a bunch of sounds.

 

[DasguteOhr]

Tell me about it , i had a project in northern germany and despite that the manuals were provided and all works were explained at least 3 times !! ....still all wrongly installed
I work all over the world installing machinery currently in brzeg Poland .

USA is one of the worst at reading manuals sorry to say , i love working in africa not much rules

Men don't read manuals, it starts with the Ikea "Billy" shelf. When it ends up crooked, you're happy as if you were the first person to start a fire.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Men don't read manuals, it starts with the Ikea "Billy" shelf. When it ends up crooked, you're happy as if you were the first person to start a fire.

Real men don t read manuals ,because " They know everything better " .
Which usually ends up in very costly down time / production problems

 

[Don_Camillo]

I don't disagree either. Who in their right mind would? And that is why I said that the discussion is getting silly. That's the problem when you start arguing with people who hold absurd points of views (for example, that space in a recording is completely subjective).

hmm ...

The problem is me and you can not describe 3D image for others because it is a subjective term.
I think some subjective parameters are not easy to describe for example “Pace”.

So, you ment him and not me

 

[Don_Camillo]

A vague image now?

Two completely different worlds collide here, and they are rather incompatible, as can be seen from the discussion and some emotional outbursts.

The technically inclined side knows that playback quality depends on technical factors and parameters.

The other side follows individual emotions and beliefs and even denies the technical side the ability to hear and understand music, forgetting that we all pursue this hobby solely so we can hear music in good quality. This side although does not have any idea of how the other side perceives, interprets, and processes music. One's own individual and highly subjective preferences are then confused with a supposedly universally valid perception, and psychoacoustic effects are rejected as something fundamentally bad or declared nonexistent.

Music is always something emotional; Both in playing and in consuming. This starts with the choice of music and extends far beyond the way we want to understand that music. But if perception is primarily driven by the amygdala, hippocampus, and thalamus, then no attempt at technical explanation will help; it will only exacerbate the emotional outbursts.
That's a shame, and actually contradicts the usefulness of a forum, but obviously it can't be changed.

So I'm curious to see how you guys plan to achieve a meaningful description of 3D imaging, that everyone will understand in the same way; on the last pages this has not been successful

 

[PeterA]

Two completely different worlds collide here, and they are rather incompatible, as can be seen from the discussion and some emotional outbursts.

The technically inclined side knows that playback quality depends on technical factors and parameters.

The other side follows individual emotions and beliefs and even denies the technical side the ability to hear and understand music, forgetting that we all pursue this hobby solely so we can hear music in good quality. This side although does not have any idea of how the other side perceives, interprets, and processes music. One's own individual and highly subjective preferences are then confused with a supposedly universally valid perception, and psychoacoustic effects are rejected as something fundamentally bad or declared nonexistent.

Music is always something emotional; Both in playing and in consuming. This starts with the choice of music and extends far beyond the way we want to understand that music. But if perception is primarily driven by the amygdala, hippocampus, and thalamus, then no attempt at technical explanation will help; it will only exacerbate the emotional outbursts.
That's a shame, and actually contradicts the usefulness of a forum, but obviously it can't be changed.

So I'm curious to see how you guys plan to achieve a meaningful description of 3D imaging, that everyone will understand in the same way; on the last pages this has not been successful

The discussion went from certainty and descriptions of a very clear and precise 3-D image to this:

“If this doesn’t evoke at least a vague image in your mind of a piano then something is wrong.”

I think we are making progress and beginning to understand each. We agree that we are imagining and conjuring up in our minds something based on our experience and what we are hearing that reminds us of something that the sounds are associated with. The meaningful description is of something that exists in our minds based on memories and experience. We can discuss it based on descriptions of the sound, not of an image we see. I suppose it is an aural image.

 

[Rexp]

Its very simple, most Audiophiles have not heard 3D imaging. Some here clearly feel that because they haven't heard it, it can't exist and don't like their audio expert credentials challenged.

The fact is everyone who I demonstrated 3D to in my hifi shop was shocked and described the sound stage/imaging in similar terms.

 

[morricab]

Its very simple, most Audiophiles have not heard 3D imaging. Some here clearly feel that because they haven't heard it, it can't exist and don't like their audio expert credentials challenged.

The fact is everyone who I demonstrated 3D to in my hifi shop was shocked and described the sound stage/imaging in similar terms.

Of course there are varying degrees of success in this. I haven't encountered too many high end systems that were totally flat. What is weird is that I have encountered systems where there was some kind of soundstage depth but the images were like cardboard cut outs placed within that stage...have you ever heard something like that?

Back in the day when I was reviewing, I did a fairly large survey of a number of preamps (you can find the reviews searching the archives of Positive Feedback) and one of them in particular, a Sphinx Project 4 hybrid (tube/transistor) preamp had a very peculiar trait...it made everything flat! Even the cheapest preamp in my survey didn't do this but this damn Sphinx preamp just refused to get out of a 2 dimensional world. Nothing I tried changed it...except swapping with a different preamp. The irony of this was that otherwise it sounded really good! Also, at that time my main amp was a Sphinx Project 14 mkIII, also a hybrid, which sounded fantastic and had great imaging dimensionality and soundstage depth. I was keen on possibly mating it with its natural partner but that preamp just KILLED the soundstage depth and image 3D (image placement and precision on the stage laterally was fine though). One of the most bizarre effects I have ever heard from a piece of gear. To this day, I am still not sure if it was somehow defective but I never found another one to try.

 

[Rexp]

Of course there are varying degrees of success in this. I haven't encountered too many high end systems that were totally flat. What is weird is that I have encountered systems where there was some kind of soundstage depth but the images were like cardboard cut outs placed within that stage...have you ever heard something like that?

Back in the day when I was reviewing, I did a fairly large survey of a number of preamps (you can find the reviews searching the archives of Positive Feedback) and one of them in particular, a Sphinx Project 4 hybrid (tube/transistor) preamp had a very peculiar trait...it made everything flat! Even the cheapest preamp in my survey didn't do this but this damn Sphinx preamp just refused to get out of a 2 dimensional world. Nothing I tried changed it...except swapping with a different preamp. The irony of this was that otherwise it sounded really good! Also, at that time my main amp was a Sphinx Project 14 mkIII, also a hybrid, which sounded fantastic and had great imaging dimensionality and soundstage depth. I was keen on possibly mating it with its natural partner but that preamp just KILLED the soundstage depth and image 3D (image placement and precision on the stage laterally was fine though). One of the most bizarre effects I have ever heard from a piece of gear. To this day, I am still not sure if it was somehow defective but I never found another one to try.

Yes you need good amplification, the best imaging I got was with ATC 20T speakers and Boulder amplification. The downside is that some recordings are revealed to be not as good as you thought and become less enjoyable.

 

[Don_Camillo]

Its very simple, most Audiophiles have not heard 3D imaging. Some here clearly feel that because they haven't heard it, it can't exist and don't like their audio expert credentials challenged.

The fact is everyone who I demonstrated 3D to in my hifi shop was shocked and described the sound stage/imaging in similar terms.

You can't describe the 3D imaging effect, but as a dealer you can demonstrate it in your shop with the gear you sell, and the rest of the audiophile world has no clue. So now we've reached fairy tale time.