I think the reality falls somewhere in between.
Needless to say, the Paradigms presented a wonderfully crisp, clean and open sound, ie you could close your eyes and they melted away with a soundstage that extended in front and behind them, and an open 'un veiled' treble. The $3500 Thiele's on the other hand, the soundstage collapsed into a flat, dull lifeless sound.
Even my wife, who probably doesn't know the difference between a woofer and a tweeter could easily tell the difference.
I'm actually gonna do a post with some samples for others to test
I have some music where a certain percussion instrument completely dissappears anywhere from lame -v6 on up to -v2.
Sorry to necrobump but I find this topic endlessly fascinating, there always seems to be two extreme sides in this particular debate, the extreme audiophiles vs the extreme anti-audiophiles.
One side swears bi amping your speakers with gold plated cabling produces 'sparkling' treble and 'spacious' realism, while the other screams 'I can't hear the difference on MY equipment between 128 and 320 so it DOESNT EXIST.
Will a higher quality amp reduce THD and possibly sound better? Certainly, but not on speakers that aren't capable of resolving those details, or in a listening evironment with improperly placed speakers or lots of reflective surfaces, especially if the system hasn't been properly eq'd.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground - This just reinforces my perception that you think you are always 100% right 100% of the time. Such absolutism is simply unreasonable and arrogant.
At the most you're straw-manning both positions.
This is standard "golden ear" (or "golden equipment"?) excuses. If you've been "endlessly" following this topic you should be very aware of these.
Will you also provide ABX logs to support any claims you make about differences in sound quality or else refrain from making them?(That's a rhetorical question.)
As far as the other comments go, fair enough, although I'm not sure what 'straw manning' means, if you thought I was being ambiguous, that wasn't my intention at all. The most important part is what your ears hear, that's a fact. But on the other side of it, what's wrong with using measurements to back up what you are hearing? And I never claimed to be 'above' anybody, that's narcisissm which is something I'm strongly opposed to.
A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position
My apologies for the vapid poetics, but isn't it contradictory to on one hand discourage the use of waveform graphs and nonsense like that to compare sound, yet jump all over me when I used my ears, no frequency response or square wave analysis, to compare two sets of speakers? If it's the terminology I used that is the problem, fine. What is the correct way to analyse stereo imaging when at a hifi store?
The fact my wife could distinguish the difference between them was simply a confirmation by untrained ears that there WAS an easily audible difference between the two
For all I know, those $3500 thiele's might have a more linear frequency response, I don't know I didnt check the graphs. The point is the Paradigms sounded better to our ears, which, I'm pretty sure is the underlying focus of hydrogenaudio.
Could we abx them? Yea they sounded completely different.
Frankly I don't think much of this community because it's members are generally so extreme and dickish.
No matter how much you try to justify it to yourselves you will never appeal to anyone anywhere near the average joe.
Central to this is my perception that you guys think subjective opinions are always wrong
and that anyone who doesn't know everything about anything is not welcome.
I reject any argument saying that audio MUST be subjective, it's rubbish when we have the tools that we do. . . beyond that though, I'll always be somewhat in the middle, because extremists are always wrong.
since measured graphs are unacceptable here, which I completely understand and agree with.
@andy O both sets of speakers were in the same room, albeit the placement was different, the Thiele's were placed slightly wider as it was a row of speakers being presented. The Paradigms were closer to center. But the audio difference was far more than imaging, and far greater than simple placement would incur. The Paradigms were simply far cleaner and had better imaging. BTW I had to tell the sales guy to turn down the volume because his first instinct was to 'crank them up' which resulted in gross distortion.
What does 'level matching' have to do with it? Are you telling me that speakers with poor stereo imaging will suddenly blossom into transparency if you adjust the volume on them?
Eh? How is bringing in somebody with no expectation bias an 'audio cliche'.
I'm pretty sure including somebody without a 'horse in the race' is as objective as you can get is it not?
What I find interesting is how many people are willing to try and tell me that I absolutely did not hear a pair of speakers that I enjoyed far more than another pair.
I also entertain people to enlighten me as to the proper terms to use when judging stereo imaging.
You can't use spectral analysis graphs for something like that.
You have to use your ears.
What does 'level matching' have to do with it?
Are you telling me that speakers with poor stereo imaging will suddenly blossom into transparency if you adjust the volume on them?
On the ABX thing, it's absolutely the most essential way to establish the existence of audio differences.
However I think it is most certainly possible to get fatigued by the process and overlook subtleties, for example when trying to listen for faint pre echo in a complex passage. Sometimes a break is needed, or even more extended listening while not trying to focus directly on what you are listening for.
You've told a group of actually amazingly well-educated and experienced people that your hero from the 1980s is better and smarter than all of us put together.
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 14 August, 2012, 08:41:43 AMYou've told a group of actually amazingly well-educated and experienced people that your hero from the 1980s is better and smarter than all of us put together.You have to admit this is an amazingly transparent argument from authority.
It comes across as WE ARE THE FINEST MINDS OF HYDROGENAUDIO! TREMBLE BEFORE OUR MIGHTY INTELLECT! and I doubt that this is the image we want to project.
Years of experience and a firm grasp of the theory is certainly not evident from just a username or a few posts. I think some leeway can be granted here.