AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 129 Posts

·
Wireless member
Joined
·
27,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have been catching flack on a multichannel music thread for mentioning their existence, as if somehow that was insulting. So this thread is my good faith attempt to clear the air.


Thomas Haden Church's Jack in Sideways "reviewed" each wine the same way ... "I like it!" I am in the same camp as Jack on wine. I do not have a sophisticated and educated palate and cannot perceive the subtleties that some can. Because of that, I do not appreciate nor pay for those wines.


When I related that to sound quality .. not everyone has a sophisticated and educated ear ... it caused a ruckus. The words that I apply to myself and wine (without any stigma) were seen as offensive to .. people who did not consider themselves audiophiles.


So, if there are audiophiles, are there non-audiophiles? And if so, should they feel insulted when audiophiles talk about them?


Or even worse, should they feel like they are being talked down to when someone attempts to inform them on things like the dynamic range and frequency bandwidth of digital recordings compared to analog recordings? That was really where it all started .. with me posting links to short pieces by Mark Waldrep on comparing analog to digital after someone "rated" the sound quality of the Foreigner 4 DVD-A as a 10.


Keep it civil.


Jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
This has all the makings of a great thread. Thanks for posting Pepar.


I don't think anybody likes being "talked down to" and that might explain the reactions of people who are overly sensitive to that sort of thing. And even though the level of sophistication in Joe Average's preferences might not approach that of the audiophile (or the oenophile ), I am sure they have distinct preferences, which remain valid.


In addition to liking good music, I am also a wine-lover. But many times when reading about hi-fi gear or fine wines, I come away with the impression that some of the people doing the reviewing are a bit pompous in their pronouncements. I am thick-skinned so it doesn't bother me. For both music and wine I have always bought what pleases me and respects my budget coonsiderations.
 

·
Wireless member
Joined
·
27,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbrio /forum/post/20877259


This has all the makings of a great thread. Thanks for posting Pepar.


I don't think anybody likes being "talked down to" and that might explain the reactions of people who are overly sensitive to that sort of thing. And even though the level of sophistication in Joe Average's preferences might not approach that of the audiophile (or the oenophile ), I am sure they have distinct preferences, which remain valid.


In addition to liking good music, I am also a wine-lover. But many times when reading about hi-fi gear or fine wines, I come away with the impression that some of the people doing the reviewing are a bit pompous in their pronouncements. I am thick-skinned so it doesn't bother me. For both music and wine I have always bought what pleases me and respects my budget coonsiderations.

I share your thinking on this, and I know that I can sound pompous myself, but I tried several different tacks including simply posting links and even that was taken as being condescending. Simple links to an industry professional shouldn't invoke that kind of animosity.


Jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Well, I have to agree that its an odd reaction. After all, somebody frequenting an AV forum presumably would like to hear opinions from people with greater experience, the idea being, if its getting a favourable review from people with more refined tastes than my own, it should be plenty good enough for my modest tastes.


Perhaps they're just being agressive and like winding people up?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,830 Posts

Quote:
I have been catching flack on a multichannel music thread for mentioning their existence, as if somehow that was insulting. So this thread is my good faith attempt to clear the air.

You seem to think you are catching "flack" quite a bit lately here on AVS. Did you ever think that maybe its you and not the others that object to your strong opinions
? Good faith
? If you wanted to show good faith you would just let it go.

Quote:
Thomas Haden Church's Jack in Sideways "reviewed" each wine the same way ... "I like it!" I am in the same camp as Jack on wine. I do not have a sophisticated and educated palate and cannot perceive the subtleties that some can. Because of that, I do not appreciate nor pay for those wines.

I think your analogy to Thomas Haden Church's Jack in comparison to other members posts on their thoughts on the music they reviewed are insulting. It was quite obvious in the movie Sideways that Jack did not have a clue about wine or the differences between them. So when you group all of those people together that post a review with the "I like it" mentality you are saying that you feel they know nothing inregard to the SACD/DVD-As they reviewed.


How would you feel if someone with an educated palate belittled you because you rated a specific wine a 10 when he thought it was at best a 7? Then they just wouldn't let it go even though they brought it up numerous times. Think about it then you will have an idea of the point I'm trying to make


Quote:
When I related that to sound quality .. not everyone has a sophisticated and educated ear ... it caused a ruckus. The words that I apply to myself and wine (without any stigma) were seen as offensive to .. people who did not consider themselves audiophiles.

Its not that you stated this its the way you word the posts that "cause a ruckus". In the Tech thread you posted several apologies for the way you were coming across to others in that thread. If you find yourself doing that I would think you would take a hard look at the way you communicate with others.

Quote:
So, if there are audiophiles, are there non-audiophiles? And if so, should they feel insulted when audiophiles talk about them?

Of course there are non-audiophiles. I have no problem when I talk to many here that I consider audiophiles. But its when those like yourself that think being an audiophile you are better than those that are not. There are many very knowledgable members here that I have a lot of respect for. I not only respect their knowledge but more so for the way they communicate with others. Some of these very knowledgable people never even bring up the term audiophile or do they need to. You have the need to use the term audiophile quite often for some odd reason. Why is that?

Quote:
Or even worse, should they feel like they are being talked down to when someone attempts to inform them on things like the dynamic range and frequency bandwidth of digital recordings compared to analog recordings? That was really where it all started .. with me posting links to short pieces by Mark Waldrep on comparing analog to digital after someone "rated" the sound quality of the Foreigner 4 DVD-A as a 10.

In the Tech thread examples were given of a few older analog recordings that have excellent dynamic range. It was also discussed that many modern all digital recordings have horrible dynamic range and frequency bandwidth. You seem to forget that and seem to consider all digital recordings superior to older analog recordings. You seem to have missed how important the recording process (mastering) is but are more hung upon whether it is all digital or analog. Once again you are trying to force your opinions on others as if they were fact. Do you not see that?


But more than anything it is your way in that you try to "inform" people of a specific subject. In other words in my opinion you are not trying to educate members here but to push your opinions on them. You have beaten to death the topic of how someone rated Foreigner 4 DVD-A as a 10
. Again you are trying to force your opinion that someone should never rate the Foreigner 4 DVD-A a 10 but nothing higher than a 7. If someone wants to rate that DVD-A a 10 then its their right to do so.

Quote:
Keep it civil.

But of course
. I have to ask you why did you really start this thread? Was it to try to get like minded people to side with your opinions? The one thing that comes through loud and clear to me is that you just can't let it go.


Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,764 Posts
A neurosurgeon in Australia has done some work on scans of professional muscians and sound engineers v everyone else. There is a distinct and automatically noticeable difference between the two i.e. a muscian's scans have a higher level of development in one part of the brain compared to everyone else.


Further to this - Toole states that engineers prefer a deader room compared to everyone else who refers sound "muddied" by reflections


Seems pretty cut and dry to me
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,886 Posts
Le me share my experience.


I have a lot of friends that are very fond of music. Many of them have huge CD collections and spend a lot of time listening to music. These friends also know a lot more about music than most "audiophiles" I've met in my life.


They prefer good music... my audiophile friends prefer good recordings.



But I'm going to say something that's going to amaze everybody here: those friends with huge collections own average level audio gear. Most of them own a decent receiver driving a pair of Jamos, B&W of the 600 series or PSBs. They do not have expensive CD players but CD changers and a few still own tape decks.


Are they audiophile, or not?
 

·
Wireless member
Joined
·
27,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Thanks for posting, Bill. You certainly did not disappoint!


Jeff

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac /forum/post/20877528


But of course
. I have to ask you why did you really start this thread? Was it to try to get like minded people to side with your opinions? The one thing that comes through loud and clear to me is you just can not let it go.


Bill
 

·
Wireless member
Joined
·
27,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeLopez11 /forum/post/20877777


Le me share my experience.


I have a lot of friends that are very fond of music. Many of them have huge CD collections and spend a lot of time listening to music. These friends also know a lot more about music than most "audiophiles" I've met in my life.

They prefer good music... my audiophile friends prefer good recordings.



But I'm going to say something that's going to amaze everybody here: those friends with huge collections own average level audio gear. Most of them own a decent receiver driving a pair of Jamos, B&W of the 600 series or PSBs. They do not have expensive CD players but CD changers and a few still own tape decks.


Are they audiophile, or not?

That is an interesting observation, and one I completely understand. I know people who totally obsess over their gear, so much so that I do wonder when they actually find the time to listen to music or watch a movie. But are those obsessive types getting any less enjoyment from their hobby/passion/obsession than the ones who put have "average level" gear and big CD collections? But I also know people who strike a balance between the two.


My real question is what happens if these two groups get together? Can they enjoy the cameraderie, or does it turn into a .. a ... well, read the "point-by-point" post above for an idea what happened in another thread when it was mentioned that ... horrors! ... there might be people that have a different understanding of what a good sounding recording is.


Jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,040 Posts
Well first off, to flatly declare that an analog sourced recording cannot be of "audiophile" quality is pure bull$hit.

Secondly, let's assumed that a digitally sourced recording at 24/96 is really well done, let's say perfect.

NOTHING ELSE IN THE CHAIN AT THE RECORDING STUDIO CAN RESOLVE to 24 BITS and a home system can't even come close to that.

To place my statement in context, I bought the second CD player that Sony made, an ES model can't remember just what, in like 82-3.

Many SACDs are indistinguishable from their CD counterparts digital or analog.

Take the infamous Norah Jones "SACD".

People raved about it only to find out that it wasn't the DSD stream on the SACD but the CD stream due to a mistake in mastering.

Ask 10 audiophiles their opinion on something and you'll get 15 answers.

There are very few absolutes in audio as far as I'm concerned.

But then again it's just my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
I think there are 2 reasons why people participate in on-line forums. Firstly they are looking for technical info. That's probably the only reason they signed up. Later, they might start to enjoy the feeling of cameraderie that Pepar mentions. Most people would probably enjoy a little written pat on the back after posting "I just bought the new Ultrablast 32's" and finding other people who say "Great choice buddy, I also have them and they're fantastic". But if I was sitting in a bar engaged in the same conversation with a bunch of strangers and heard "You were ripped off. You could have gotten much better", I probably wouldn't sit at that table much longer.


When you really think about it, posting subjective views (this sounds better, that sounds worse, this is the best record ever made) are almost a complete waste of time. I continue to do it, but I've recently started to think that I will try to limit future posts to topics where I can be completely objective. But, alas, some of the fun will be missing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,830 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar /forum/post/20878039


Thanks for posting, Bill. You certainly did not disappoint!


Jeff

My pleasure
. I'm glad you weren't disappointed, I would have been heartbroken if you were
.


Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
First thing that comes to my mind is the definition of an "audiophile".


Is it the guy who just has a big checkbook and has to have the $50,000 speakers, $30,000 preamp, $10,000 in interconnects, so on and so forth? Or is it the guy who just cares about the numbers and nothing else? Or is it just someone who enjoys music clarity for the artists work?


I'm a broadcast engineer who also does live music and record mastering. When it comes to broadcast, we don't care much for anything beyond 44.1/16bit simply because that's the hardware we use, and tuners aren't discriminate enough to detail anything beyond that over the air. Live music, well, the PA is in mono if that gives you any ideas, it's simply loud and every instrument is mixed just so you can hear it. Maybe a little "color" is added but not much.


Now, mastering and recording, that's a different story. All my masters are 192kHz/96-bit. This is done for a reason, obviously. It's a master. You want that clarity for mixing the album and resolution to bring detail to the forefront. All of my recordings are also digital. I've done tape recordings in the past, but regardless of what anyone tells me, i just simply can't stand the sound of tape hiss. :p Call me modern if you must, but a noise floor only 60db down is unacceptable to my ears.


Do i consider myself an audiophile? Nope. I just have good ears IMO. Do i have audiophile grade equipment? Nope. Can't hear the difference between my JBL 4412's and a set of Wilson's personally. Same goes for my amps. I'm using some old Mackie 2600's. They work great, they're tanks.


Do i enjoy clear music? Absolutely! My "litmus test" of any sound system is a copy of Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells and a copy of Underworld - A Hundred Days off. Why these pieces you might ask? Well for a simple reason really. Resonance and bass. Bells are a very good item for reproducing harmonics and high frequencies. If they get "drown" out into the background, there's a problem. Bass response is also key. Both these pieces demonstrate that at the same time. One comes from an analog master, the other, entirely digital.


I've seen some systems that are easily 8 figures in price tag. Do they sound good? Yup. Do they sound like they're worth 8 figures? Nope, absolutely not. I've seen systems put together over decades of collecting, maybe about $5k total over 20 years, and they sound absolutely stunning.


What i think is funny is "audiophiles" who use FLAC or MP3 as their showcase. SACD the same. Give me a good ole CD or LP as your showcase, and then i'll make remarks. Anything using a networked codec is laughable however.



So, what really does "audiophile" mean? To me, it's your ears, it's entirely up to you. What sounds great to me might sound like crap to you, and vice versa.


Just my $.02, you can ask for change if you'd like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,830 Posts

Quote:
When you really think about it, posting subjective views (this sounds better, that sounds worse, this is the best record ever made) are almost a complete waste of time.

Why do you think that? Many times I have read subjective thoughts on audio components and specific music titles as well. I find the impressions helpful to a certain extent but one has to hear for themselves to know for sure if that specific component or music title is to their liking.

Quote:
I continue to do it, but I've recently started to think that I will try to limit future posts to topics where I can be completely objective. But, alas, some of the fun will be missing.

Nothing wrong with giving your subjective thoughts at all IMO. But if you think of it what can you post about regarding A/V components or music that can be totally objective?


Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,830 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by goobenet /forum/post/20878436


First thing that comes to my mind is the definition of an "audiophile".


Is it the guy who just has a big checkbook and has to have the $50,000 speakers, $30,000 preamp, $10,000 in interconnects, so on and so forth? Or is it the guy who just cares about the numbers and nothing else? Or is it just someone who enjoys music clarity for the artists work?


I'm a broadcast engineer who also does live music and record mastering. When it comes to broadcast, we don't care much for anything beyond 44.1/16bit simply because that's the hardware we use, and tuners aren't discriminate enough to detail anything beyond that over the air. Live music, well, the PA is in mono if that gives you any ideas, it's simply loud and every instrument is mixed just so you can hear it. Maybe a little "color" is added but not much.


Now, mastering and recording, that's a different story. All my masters are 192kHz/96-bit. This is done for a reason, obviously. It's a master. You want that clarity for mixing the album and resolution to bring detail to the forefront. All of my recordings are also digital. I've done tape recordings in the past, but regardless of what anyone tells me, i just simply can't stand the sound of tape hiss. :p Call me modern if you must, but a noise floor only 60db down is unacceptable to my ears.


Do i consider myself an audiophile? Nope. I just have good ears IMO. Do i have audiophile grade equipment? Nope. Can't hear the difference between my JBL 4412's and a set of Wilson's personally. Same goes for my amps. I'm using some old Mackie 2600's. They work great, they're tanks.


Do i enjoy clear music? Absolutely! My "litmus test" of any sound system is a copy of Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells and a copy of Underworld - A Hundred Days off. Why these pieces you might ask? Well for a simple reason really. Resonance and bass. Bells are a very good item for reproducing harmonics and high frequencies. If they get "drown" out into the background, there's a problem. Bass response is also key. Both these pieces demonstrate that at the same time. One comes from an analog master, the other, entirely digital.


I've seen some systems that are easily 8 figures in price tag. Do they sound good? Yup. Do they sound like they're worth 8 figures? Nope, absolutely not. I've seen systems put together over decades of collecting, maybe about $5k total over 20 years, and they sound absolutely stunning.


What i think is funny is "audiophiles" who use FLAC or MP3 as their showcase. SACD the same. Give me a good ole CD or LP as your showcase, and then i'll make remarks. Anything using a networked codec is laughable however.



So, what really does "audiophile" mean? To me, it's your ears, it's entirely up to you. What sounds great to me might sound like crap to you, and vice versa.


Just my $.02, you can ask for change if you'd like.

Excellent post
! Thanks for sharing your thoughts and if anyone could call themselves an audiophile it would be you IMO.


Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,476 Posts

Quote:
If there are audiophiles, are there non-audiophiles?

99.9% of the population is really a non-audiophile. I always tell anyone that Im definitely not an audiophile. Honestly, I would hate to have that label. I do apologize if that offends but its just reminds me of the few times I went to those Audio events. Every room had a bunch of guys listening but I could not relate to any of them. I just have nothing in common with that sort of audiophile and how they obssess over the most minor issue missing out on what should be the experience.


Sadly it seems the term "audiophile" has taking on a bad meaning because of how every audio debate ends up with some so called audiophile telling anyone that disagress with them that they either have bad ears or their setup isnt good enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,476 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by goobenet /forum/post/20878436


\\

Do i enjoy clear music? Absolutely! My "litmus test" of any sound system is a copy of Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells and a copy of Underworld - A Hundred Days off. Why these pieces you might ask? Well for a simple reason really. Resonance and bass. Bells are a very good item for reproducing harmonics and high frequencies. If they get "drown" out into the background, there's a problem. Bass response is also key. Both these pieces demonstrate that at the same time. One comes from an analog master, the other, entirely digital.


I've seen some systems that are easily 8 figures in price tag. Do they sound good? Yup. Do they sound like they're worth 8 figures? Nope, absolutely not. I've seen systems put together over decades of collecting, maybe about $5k total over 20 years, and they sound absolutely stunning.

Awesome post but this part intrigues me the most. I have dabbled in speaker building for over 6 years now before that I just bought speakers, equipment listened/tested etc for 15+ years. One thing I love about speaker designs is that it allows me to learn all about the science behind audio and what really matters in a speaker design. I know what is require to have the most accuracy and I start to have an understanding of what measurements dictate a way a speaker can sound. Fun stuff for me. Your point about bells is something I never knew about, I have always wondered what the best recordings would be to figure out driver performance so thanks for that post. I will have to search for that content, I have no idea who it is but if you are correct its probably a must for me to use.


btw, Its funny you talk about $$$. In the DIY world we can remove the enormous margins put into speakers so we can essential get a $20K design for under $5K. My latest DIY choice is to use TAD compression drivers and a similar design that would be similar to something like the JBL K2s. 2 TAD Tweeters cost $2400 alone though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,830 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray /forum/post/20878478


99.9% of the population is really a non-audiophile. I always tell anyone that Im definitely not an audiophile. Honestly, I would hate to have that label.


Sadly it seems the term "audiophile" has taking on a bad meaning because of how every audio debate ends up with some so called audiophile telling anyone that disagress with them that they either have bad ears or their setup isnt good enough.

penn,


I agree with your thoughts
. It is true that the word "audiophile" is thrown around like a badge of honor by some here. I consider you to be far more knowledgable than many here including a few that consider themselves "audiophiles"
.


Bill
 

·
Wireless member
Joined
·
27,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbrio /forum/post/20878365


I


When you really think about it, posting subjective views (this sounds better, that sounds worse, this is the best record ever made) are almost a complete waste of time. I continue to do it, but I've recently started to think that I will try to limit future posts to topics where I can be completely objective. But, alas, some of the fun will be missing.

That was my point in starting the technical review/comments thread and trying to set some standards. According to Bill's first post for his sound quality/review thread, that thread is to be fun. So you've hit both nails squarely on the head. Both have valid goals, but on one you would get more objective assessments.


Jeff
 

·
Wireless member
Joined
·
27,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by goobenet /forum/post/20878436


First thing that comes to my mind is the definition of an "audiophile".


Is it the guy who just has a big checkbook and has to have the $50,000 speakers, $30,000 preamp, $10,000 in interconnects, so on and so forth? Or is it the guy who just cares about the numbers and nothing else? Or is it just someone who enjoys music clarity for the artists work?


I'm a broadcast engineer who also does live music and record mastering. When it comes to broadcast, we don't care much for anything beyond 44.1/16bit simply because that's the hardware we use, and tuners aren't discriminate enough to detail anything beyond that over the air. Live music, well, the PA is in mono if that gives you any ideas, it's simply loud and every instrument is mixed just so you can hear it. Maybe a little "color" is added but not much.


Now, mastering and recording, that's a different story. All my masters are 192kHz/96-bit. This is done for a reason, obviously. It's a master. You want that clarity for mixing the album and resolution to bring detail to the forefront. All of my recordings are also digital. I've done tape recordings in the past, but regardless of what anyone tells me, i just simply can't stand the sound of tape hiss. :p Call me modern if you must, but a noise floor only 60db down is unacceptable to my ears.


Do i consider myself an audiophile? Nope. I just have good ears IMO. Do i have audiophile grade equipment? Nope. Can't hear the difference between my JBL 4412's and a set of Wilson's personally. Same goes for my amps. I'm using some old Mackie 2600's. They work great, they're tanks.


Do i enjoy clear music? Absolutely! My "litmus test" of any sound system is a copy of Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells and a copy of Underworld - A Hundred Days off. Why these pieces you might ask? Well for a simple reason really. Resonance and bass. Bells are a very good item for reproducing harmonics and high frequencies. If they get "drown" out into the background, there's a problem. Bass response is also key. Both these pieces demonstrate that at the same time. One comes from an analog master, the other, entirely digital.


I've seen some systems that are easily 8 figures in price tag. Do they sound good? Yup. Do they sound like they're worth 8 figures? Nope, absolutely not. I've seen systems put together over decades of collecting, maybe about $5k total over 20 years, and they sound absolutely stunning.


What i think is funny is "audiophiles" who use FLAC or MP3 as their showcase. SACD the same. Give me a good ole CD or LP as your showcase, and then i'll make remarks. Anything using a networked codec is laughable however.



So, what really does "audiophile" mean? To me, it's your ears, it's entirely up to you. What sounds great to me might sound like crap to you, and vice versa.


Just my $.02, you can ask for change if you'd like.

Don't be offended, but I consider you an audiophile.
My usage is in the classical sense.


Jeff
 
1 - 20 of 129 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top