I haven't visited a "hi-fi" shop in a long time, so I'd like to know if my experience was the new norm. I wanted to see and hear a rather unusual and uncommon loudspeaker. There is a dealer about an hour away that was having an open house and demo that included these, so we made a day of it and went to see them.
First, the dealer didn't have the second-from-the-top model that I really wanted to see, so we listened to the third-down model. It was interesting, but it turned out the "demo" wasn't really the speakers. The dealer wanted to demo the power conditioning system, including the mechanical grounding discs to prop everything else. I wanted to ask some technical information about the speakers, especially how they managed distortion in their rather radical omnidirectional driver system. He informed me that there was no distortion--because of the $32,000 insulation-biased cable system. That and the power conditioner, of course.
So is this how it's going to be? I'm not that likely to buy the speakers anyway--they're quite expensive--but I could. But there's no chance at all if I can't have a rational discussion with the supposed experts. I don't expect them to be unbiased and I can deal with normal salesmanship and opinions, but this seems like if you want anything to do with high-end, you have to join the cult and drink the kool-aid.
On my last foray into the "hi-fi" world, I had a good idea of what I wanted and auditioned several pairs of candidates in a dealer's. Nothing in a controlled fashion and I had to try and ignore the BS. When the selected pair was delivered, I also had to ignore the advice about them needing a fair while to "burn in". Nothing was actually said at the time but I caught some puzzled looks at my speaker cables (ordinary, solid copper "mains" cable). I also replaced an amp and CD player not so long ago but I just selected what met my needs, based on specs & features and bought them unseen - I'm not disappointed and didn't sell any organs to fund them.
In short, yes, it's probably "normal". I remember walking out of a hi-fi store some years ago when the spotty-youth of a salesman was trying to sell me some "directional" speaker cable. I gave up and walked out when he wouldn't concede that cables carrying AC cannot possibly work if they're directional. How can you make a sensible purchase in a store that supports such drivel?
I wanted to ask some technical information about the speakers, especially how they managed distortion in their rather radical omnidirectional driver system. He informed me that there was no distortion--because of the $32,000 insulation-biased cable system. That and the power conditioner, of course.
For only $9999 I could give your speaker cables a treatment that eliminates all distortion as well. You can even keep the bolt cutter afterwards, should the distortion return.
Last time I was in my local "high end" store I was told I couldn't listen to a CD I'd brought because the owner was tired of it. I was auditioning a $15k pair of speakers. Haven't been back.
Yes, it's all BS now. Or at least, typical audiophile nonsense is all BS now. It was always mostly BS, but sound reproduction technology has gotten so good now that basic "prosumer"-grade speakers will sound as clear as the most expensive snake oil you can possibly find. Your average clock radio still sounds like crap, of course, but any believably-priced speakers from a respectable brand intended for use in a home audio system are going to sound as good as any 1980's ceiling-height hi-fi speaker stack. That doesn't leave much room for audiophile brands to make genuinely better products anymore, so nowadays they try to sell you cachet, prestige, and bragging rights instead.
After college I lived with my father for a few years while I saved money working at my first job. He's a music hobbyist, with a silent PC dedicated to running Pro Tools to record his music, and a set of JBL self-correcting studio monitors to play it back on. I was blown away by how good they sounded. When I moved out, I dropped $2000 on my own set -- two tweeter/woofers and one subwoofer -- and I still have them with no regrets. They have a special microphone that plugs into the left-front speaker; you connect the microphone, position it where you plan to sit, then press a calibration button on the front of the speaker and run out of the room. The speakers make a series of very loud BWOOOOP! sounds, as they "ring-out" the room to detect resonant and muted frequencies caused by the size and shape of the room as well as the positioning of the furniture, and then they generate an EQ map from those measurements. The effect is subtle, but the bass is noticeably less boomy and the midrange doesn't have any weird peaks at specific frequencies when playing loud music.
The studio monitors are each self-amplified and have a variety of inputs -- TLS, XLR, and S/PDIF. They also have a set of proprietary interconnects that use shielded Ethernet cables, so they can coordinate between each other. I play FLAC files on my computer, with the audio signal transmitted to my TV via a HDMI cable, then I send the TV's TOSlink digital audio output to a converter box made by Audio Authority. That box converts the TOSlink signal to S/PDIF and sends it on to the speakers, where it is finally converted to analog inside the speaker housing by the built-in amplifier. You can't get a cleaner signal than that, not even with $32,000 insulation-biased audio cables, whatever the hell those are. :D (if anyone's wondering, I went into the hidden setup menu on my TV to disable all pre-processing of the digital audio signal.)
With this setup I can use the same speakers to listen to music, watch movies, listen to my vintage(?) Onkyo Hi-MD player, and I have a patch cable hanging out in case anyone wants to plug in their iPod. (I don't actually have any friends, but at least the option is there, in case anyone ever decides to willingly inflict my presence on themselves.)
Some people say studio monitors sound flat, but the last time I checked, THAT'S THE POINT. They reproduce sound as accurately as possible, with no "color" or "depth" or "emotion" added to it, so I hear what the recording engineer heard, and what the musician wanted me to hear. If I feel the need, I can always adjust the EQ on my music player, but thus far the only adjustments I've made to the EQ are to compensate for the human ear's normal sensitivity to different frequencies. (I was pleasantly surprised a few years ago when I looked up a sensitivity map of human hearing, and I realized it looked exactly like my EQ map, flipped upside-down.)
So that's my suggestion -- skip all the audiophile BS and buy the same equipment that actual music professionals use. They listen to the same tracks over and over more times in a year than most of us will in our entire lives.
SONY bull**** with it's SACD format.
Some people say studio monitors sound flat, but the last time I checked, THAT'S THE POINT. They reproduce sound as accurately as possible, with no "color" or "depth" or "emotion" added to it, so I hear what the recording engineer heard, and what the musician wanted me to hear.
I wonder why a recording engineer wouldn't rather use a tool that magnifies errors so they can be detected (and diagnosed) immediately.
MiniDSP is doing some worthwhile stuff IMO: Their headphone measurement jig and matching DSP-equipped headphone amp allowed me to achieve frequency response approximating that proposed by Harman Int'l, and I like what I hear! Let's just say that the combination of a bit of crossfeed combined with equalization has spoiled me.
I wonder why a recording engineer wouldn't rather use a tool that magnifies errors so they can be detected (and diagnosed) immediately.
Because errors that are close to be non-intrusive (for most assumed listeners) take time to be removed. And in the field time is money so they leave it to the mastering engineer who will probably have suitable tools to remove noise, distortions, etc.
I as a mastering engineer will master on neutral gear and test on non-neutral gear after I'm done. Noise usually is one of the more lesser concerns for me (unless it's very loud). I usually look for a balanced frequency response (respective to music genre), dynamics a smaller speaker can handle and good mono compatibility.
I love watching youtube vids of these total 'audiophile' snobs all fapping over these obscure systems that cost more than a house and take up a whole godammn room.
Then the only demo track they seem to play is some shitty old horn or string music from the Stone Age.
Its total bullshit. A good set of studio monitors, good tower or bookshelf speakers will accurately reproduce any god damn sound you want.
Im pretty sure that some of these insane systems are designed only to perfectly reproduce that shitty old horn demo track and if fed something good, will be total useless.
I as a mastering engineer will master on neutral gear and test on non-neutral gear after I'm done. Noise usually is one of the more lesser concerns for me (unless it's very loud). I usually look for a balanced frequency response (respective to music genre), dynamics a smaller speaker can handle and good mono compatibility.
Do you master for vinyl? If so, are there additional considerations?
I usually look for a balanced frequency response (respective to music genre), dynamics a smaller speaker can handle and good mono compatibility.
I was going to ask what you mastered...then saw your sig link. Checking out...
Do you master for vinyl? If so, are there additional considerations?
Nope. I never mastered for vinyl.
I was going to ask what you mastered...then saw your sig link. Checking out...
Don't bother looking for stuff I've done. Beside private mastering I have just four official credits. This is one of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WHirqCvvLI
I was going to ask what you mastered...then saw your sig link. Checking out...
Don't bother looking for stuff I've done. Beside private mastering I have just four official credits. This is one of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WHirqCvvLI
Nice score, my kind of stuff thanks.
I would think "depth" was very much part of the original 3D soundfield, thus critical for a semblance of perceptual recreation. Even with lowly frontal stereo. YMMV.
I wanted to ask some technical information about the speakers, especially how they managed distortion in their rather radical omnidirectional driver system.
MBL? What sort of "distortion" management?
I wanted to ask some technical information about the speakers, especially how they managed distortion in their rather radical omnidirectional driver system.
MBL? What sort of "distortion" management?
I'm new here, so I guess when you press "quote" then "post"....it does so!
Yes! MBL Radialstrahler. I don't mean a separate "distortion management system", just how they designed the drivers. I saw a video of how they are assembled, but not any theory info. It's not obvious to me that those drivers are anything close to linear in their response and I've no idea what the breakup modes would be. I'm pretty sure I could build drivers that looked like those....and sounded very bad. I've even thought that the large driver (not present on the unit we saw) could be sort of an acoustic suspension, if it was internally sealed. What do you know about them?
Yes! MBL Radialstrahler.
Ok. A dealer won't know nor have the techncal understanding for those sort of details, so unsurprising the answer was nonsense.
Most dealers are themselves audiophiles, so they know nonsense, not engineering details.
I don't mean a separate "distortion management system", just how they designed the drivers. I saw a video of how they are assembled, but not any theory info. It's not obvious to me that those drivers are anything close to linear in their response and I've no idea what the breakup modes would be.
Well, the proof is in the pudding, there are both impedance and FR measurements (https://www.stereophile.com/content/mbl-radialstrahler-101e-mkii-loudspeaker-measurements) to suggest that they are fairly linear and well engineered, despite the "audiophile grade" pricing. I design speakers and see nothing of concern.
If you haven't already, I would suggest a quick read http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-loudspeaker-specifications-are.html (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-loudspeaker-specifications-are.html) of what actually matters regarding data.
How did they sound? I suspect the claim above about studio monitor "depth" was not applicable here. I know a dealer here and have heard MBL competently set up on many occasions. They sound pretty darn good to me. YMMV.
Nice score, my kind of stuff thanks.
I would think "depth" was very much part of the original 3D soundfield, thus critical for a semblance of perceptual recreation. Even with lowly frontal stereo. YMMV.
Well, Dennis Sands mixed it (Alan Silvestri, Danny Elfman, etc.), he always prefers this sound (varies from composer to composer). The whole soundfield favoured the left channel, I attempted to correct it. The "3D spatiality" was a little too strong for my taste but the composer told me to leave it alone (he paid extra money for a mix by Sands), even though some stuff (like reverb) might cancel itself out because of phase distortions. On the other hand, both of us tested it on a variety of playback devices (car, kitchen, several headphones, surround, bigger stereo system, soundbar) and didn't find any problems. In the end, I didn't do that much; I altered dynamics, changed the frequency response with an EQ (the bass wasn't audible before) to make it a little more "charming" and limited peaks a bit. I gave the composer three versions to choose from, he chose the 2nd while I would have used the third. But I'm happy with the result nonetheless.
... Then the only demo track they seem to play is some shitty old horn or string music from the Stone Age. ...
And...
Hotel CaliforniaAAAaaaaarrrrrgh!
(I think I used to enjoy that song before I met audiophiles)
ajinfla;
I'll skip the quoting...
Nonsense? Yes. And a bad sales tactic, IMO (for the speakers anyway). He could have said "I dunno. They're German, and they're smart, I'm sure they got it right. No idea how, though." But cables? :o
Thanks for the read. I agree with the conclusions, especially #3, which is relevant here. I realize I wasn't clear--I was referring to the nonlinear distortion in the driver, not the overall response of the speaker. I am assuming that you don't design or build drivers--correct me if I'm wrong--but as you likely know, drivers have been carefully developed and engineered over many years to have a linear, undistorted response. Making sure voice coils are either completely underhung or overhung, designing the magnet for a uniform field, using a surround with appropriate qualities, using drivers in frequency ranges that avoid breakup modes, etc etc. If you designed your own driver from scratch and weren't aware of all these issues, you'd likely make a bad product.
The design of the big pumpkin on the MBLs uses aluminum strips, flexed and then "filled" with rubbery pieces glued in. You've never seen an aluminum spring, have you? There's a reason! Every conventional speaker has a spring force that returns the cone (or equivalent) to the center position. It's only on midrange and lower drivers that you can demonstrate this with your fingers, but on the MBLs, the big pumpkin goes down to about 100 Hz. I'm wondering what the spring force is and if it is linear.
As far as the sound, these were the smaller models (116?) not the 101. So the radial drivers only go down to 650 Hz, the remainder is handled by ported drivers on each side. They had a spacious, omnidirectional sound, of course. You could walk around and even behind or between them and they sounded good and the music was kind of all around you. I found the midbass consistently unpleasant and boomy, however. This was a demo in a listening room, so I would have expected them to be at their best, but I'm probably wrong about that too!
Thanks for the read. I agree with the conclusions, especially #3, which is relevant here.
The design of the big pumpkin on the MBLs uses aluminum strips, flexed and then "filled" with rubbery pieces glued in. You've never seen an aluminum spring, have you? There's a reason! Every conventional speaker has a spring force that returns the cone (or equivalent) to the center position. It's only on midrange and lower drivers that you can demonstrate this with your fingers, but on the MBLs, the big pumpkin goes down to about 100 Hz. I'm wondering what the spring force is and if it is linear.
Well, you are free to speculate about stuff that doesn't matter much if any, but for me, it's the stuff that does matter, as in #1:
1. The perception of loudspeaker sound quality is dominated by linear distortions, which can be accurately quantified and predicted using a set of comprehensive anechoic frequency response measurements (see my previous posting here)
The data we have shows a rather uniform polar is expected.
(https://www.stereophile.com/images/412MBLfig3.jpg)
That's actually remarkably uniform. Passive speaker too, a touch of DSP eq would make things even smoother. I think that's rather impressive engineering, not much else out there that can generate such a uniform field.
I've also done the Harman training (coupled with 40 yrs of speaker building, Klippel training, etc), so I'm not too shabby at detecting resonances. The MBLs do ok. Whatever your concern is about theoretical "aluminum springs" etc, I don't share them, as I'm only concerned with what matters most audibly. Again, the MBLs are certainly "audiophile" priced, but in a rarity, there is actually some clever engineering going on. Yes they are going to be sold by folks who sell a lot of unadulterated nonsense also.
I found the midbass consistently unpleasant and boomy, however. This was a demo in a listening room, so I would have expected them to be at their best, but I'm probably wrong about that too!
Yes, that would be my only quibble, I find the bass quality to be sub-par to terrible, but that is true for about 95% of speakers (which are also ported boxes in rooms), for my tastes.
Unfortunately 30k cables won't solve that, but I'm sure he sells "traps" too.
Well, you are free to speculate about stuff that doesn't matter much if any, but for me, it's the stuff that does matter, as in #1:
OK, you misunderstand me a bit. I'm not speculating, I'm curious. I'm starting from the assumption that they DID solve this problem of driver linearity and I'd like to understand it a little bit, just like we do regular drivers. And I'd gently point out that perhaps the reason you don't have to worry about it is that conventional driver technology is fairly mature. I think you have to go pretty far down the scale nowadays to find a truly badly misdesigned driver product--do you agree?
Are your speaker designs not conventional ported? I have AR and have for years...
I think you have to go pretty far down the scale nowadays to find a truly badly misdesigned driver product--do you agree?
Yes. Or hear something amiss with the unconventional stuff like the MBL, that might suggest non-linearities.
The question of how they addressed non-linear distortion with their radial drivers would be an ask MBL engineer question, not a audiophile dealer.
Are your speaker designs not conventional ported?
No.
I recently made a trip to a town about 2 hours' drive from here in a neighboring state; I was actually going there for lunch at a small pizza restaurant which is the only one of its kind remaining. But this town used to have a number of nice high-end stereo shops back in the 70s and I was curious about what the latest incarnations were like. It's a university town so there's still some interest in tech stuff and a couple of stores remain.
In the end I only found two stores which really sold stereo gear; one was a direct descendant of a store I visited in 1973 and had some sensible people running it. Like most modern stores, they had a large stock of A/V equipment, but also some more high-end stuff. In addition, they had rounded up some used electronics and speakers which were worth a look. I'd go back there more often if I lived closer - they seem to have their heads on straight.
The other place - wow. Full of weird audiophile claptrap, including their pride and joy - a pair of Avantgarde horns driven by a 5-watt 10% distortion tube amp. The salesperson raved about them, and was pushing a new $2000 "budget" turntable as the perfect match (they were actually in different rooms). I noted with some amusement that among the wacky audiofool stuff there was actually a pricey digital music server. I told the guy I already had one - an Airport Express ($100) streaming from my desktop Mac. The worst thing, though (to me) was that since they were a Magnepan dealer I hoped to be able to hear one of their latest offerings... but the only pair they had was disconnected and sort of pushed to the side. Not enough profit margin, I guess. They only really had one room with semi-decent acoustics, and not the best speakers in it. The others were just places to display the gear and watch the blinky lights.
A month ago I was in Philadelphia which (in the 70s as well) used to be a huge mecca for audio stores and music shops. It was home to Dynaco and IMF, a number of other well-respected companies and even some audio publications. The importer Music & Sound Ltd. had a very nice showroom with all kinds of exotic but mostly affordable gear - they carried everything from Crown to Audio Research. All of them gone today, and I didn't see a single ad for a high-end store that looked like it sold primarily audio gear. I wasn't in the mood for "audiophile" shops anyway.
Some people say studio monitors sound flat, but the last time I checked, THAT'S THE POINT. They reproduce sound as accurately as possible, with no "color" or "depth" or "emotion" added to it, so I hear what the recording engineer heard, and what the musician wanted me to hear.
I wonder why a recording engineer wouldn't rather use a tool that magnifies errors so they can be detected (and diagnosed) immediately.
Why do you think a normal speaker set (whether audiophile-grade or not) would amplify errors? They (try to)
obscure errors instead, making music sound superficially better than the mastering could allow;
that's why people buy them. Normal speaker sets are designed to resonate at frequency ranges that people find enjoyable and damp frequency ranges that people find unpleasant, essentially having permanent EQ settings built into the hardware. (Bose speakers achieve the same goal through digital signal processing rather than fancy materials and careful construction.) Audiophiles who prefer high-end speakers made of fancy cone materials, neodymium magnets, hardwood enclosures, and high-tech insulation prefer those speakers because they cater to the audiophiles' subconscious listening bias, same as anyone else -- while the marketing material simultaneously caters to their desire to believe they
don't have a listening bias, thus reinforcing their belief that they're better than normal people. It's not because those fancy speakers sound clearer than cheap speakers. (they
do sound clearer than cheap speakers, but that's not specifically why audiophiles like them.
Everyone likes clear speakers.)
Well, the proof is in the pudding, there are both impedance and FR measurements (https://www.stereophile.com/content/mbl-radialstrahler-101e-mkii-loudspeaker-measurements) to suggest that they are fairly linear and well engineered, despite the "audiophile grade" pricing. I design speakers and see nothing of concern.
Total nitpick, but the saying is "The proof of the pudding
is in the tasting." ;) In other words, you don't know if something you made came out right until you actually try to use it.
A month ago I was in Philadelphia which (in the 70s as well) used to be a huge mecca for audio stores and music shops. It was home to Dynaco and IMF, a number of other well-respected companies and even some audio publications. The importer Music & Sound Ltd. had a very nice showroom with all kinds of exotic but mostly affordable gear - they carried everything from Crown to Audio Research. All of them gone today, and I didn't see a single ad for a high-end store that looked like it sold primarily audio gear. I wasn't in the mood for "audiophile" shops anyway.
Wow, Dynaco is a name I haven't heard in a while. I have a friend who built a replica Dynaco tube amp for his stereo, just because he thinks tubes are cool and he likes fiddling with stuff. I rescued and refurbished a Quadaptor box from eBay to give him as a wedding present. I ended up having to take apart the potentiometer stack and clean all the contacts, then re-solder all the wires that had broken loose from the contact tabs on the pots. It was a solid day of restoration, but he sure was happy when I gave it to him.
Normal speaker sets are designed to resonate at frequency ranges that people find enjoyable and damp frequency ranges that people find unpleasant, essentially having permanent EQ settings built into the hardware.
I don't think that is true as a rule, although there probably are examples of a deliberate mid-bass bump. "Normal" speakers have to live in real rooms and EQ is not the only issue that the designers have to worry about by far--dispersion, distortion, etc all count too. You could probably make perfectly flat EQ (in an anechoic chamber) speakers that sound like dog-doo in my living room.
....
So that's my suggestion -- skip all the audiophile BS and buy the same equipment that actual music professionals use. They listen to the same tracks over and over more times in a year than most of us will in our entire lives.
I am on the periphery of the pro community (I am an EE/DSP/Operating Systems/DEEP audio software writer/etc), and some in the actual pro community will SOMETIMES tongue in cheek call those who are taken in by the BS: audiofools. Actually, the real problem are the predatory and dishonest perveyors of the nonsense.
I am a 'fixit' type of person, but just like US politics nowadays, the audio stuff has become a religion and not an avocation or a quest to improve the world (or listening.)
I believe that if one wants to enjoy their audio/music hobby and share their experiences/helping others -- just stay away from those who have been bitten by the very damaging meme associated with the mythology. Live in the real world -- it really IS nicer -- no surprises when reality does become obvious. (No stark realizations after spending $20k on speakers that are truly no more accurate than very good studio monitors -- in fact, it is more likely that the $20k speakers will have FAKE coloring.) I'd hope that people spend the extra money on other audio/listening & enjoyment endeavours rather than to unknowingly fund more snake oil.
Don't get me wrong -- I am all for the LOVE of a hobby, but I wish some people didin't turn it into a religion!!!
Normal speaker sets
There is no such thing
You could probably make perfectly flat EQ (in an anechoic chamber) speakers that sound like dog-doo in my living room.
Unless the off axis is poor and/or the speaker is broken, that statement isn't supported by science.
I've been burnt few times with what headphones to get. I pretty much just gave up grabbed a pair of ER4XR's, use a fiio Q1 DAC for my PC. Reading Head-fi on its funny how act how world changing allot of the $600+ iem/over ears are ignoring flaws, Like the SE846 pretty poor treble roll off.
... Then the only demo track they seem to play is some shitty old horn or string music from the Stone Age. ...
And... Hotel California
AAAaaaaarrrrrgh!
(I think I used to enjoy that song before I met audiophiles)
It's ironic that these "audiophiles" love Hotel California so much since the song is all about self-indulgence, excesses and the vices of (then) modern America. Of which they're pretty much the poster boys.
That's something I've noticed about "audiophiles", it doesn't seem like the music is actually their priority. They often have a cliché taste in music and tend to play the same songs over and over again (and lots of Jazz of course, it's all about image with these folks). They're like car collectors who never go on a roadtrip.
It's ironic that these "audiophiles" love Hotel California so much
Hotel Audiophilia. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
That's something I've noticed about "audiophiles", it doesn't seem like the music is actually their priority.
I am not sure if I'd reply "not anymore", or would go "well the hard-core ones yes".
I was at one of those hi-[fi|end] fairs some time around y2k. Obviously the sales guys tried to convince people that this gear could play music (rather than test CDs I guess), and that is probably how they would sell the audiophilia pill to ordinary people.
Then after quite a few rooms, I bumped into one of a distributor known for his arrogance. Sat down in a chair, and ... hey, this does not sound impressive at all ... *listening* what's wrong? Oh. The guitar is NOT three meters wide. It actually sounds like someone playing the guitar, not someone trying to put you inside it.
Nobody else was there, so I stuck for quite a while.
The expensive sound systems don't repair the damaged ears of the olders.
For an average sound amateur like me, a cheap $120 speakers eg. Microlab M-910 are good enough for my PC in my room. With a tested audible range of 10Hz-14,000 Hz (audiocheck.net samples), these speakers cover the ATH of any so called "audiophile" aged >50. Someone wrote here the people aged >50 rarely can hear sounds >10,000 Hz and I trust him. The 10 Hz and 14,000 Hz samples seems to be more like vibrations and perceptions than sounds. I think these expensive and sophisticated sound systems (others than the snake oil pretty devices) are good only for some extra surround effects wich make people think they got the God's ears.
Enjoyment is the name of the game. I'm still happy with my Yamaha RX-460 and Paradigm 3seMk3 speakers, as well as other speakers that I (in my mind) have positioned carefully. Never felt the need to go beyond the bass, treble, mid-cut, and the other crucial tone control: volume. I can make the system sound good to me at any level I consider reasonable for the situation. How did we ever get by without room correction? Yeah, yeah, something like the picture I posted earlier, I know. Oh, that and bass traps. ;)
I also have an RX-770 and a pair of AR9s (Hi-Res Series (http://web.archive.org/web/20021206184145fw_/http://www.acoustic-research.com:80/hires_main.asp)), but I don't have an appropriate room to put them in. I also had a pair of AR S20 (http://web.archive.org/web/20021207005741fw_/http://www.acoustic-research.com:80/s20_content.asp)s that I really liked.
Do I have tin ears? Dunno, but I was told that I was one of the best critical listeners at the time when I worked for Dolby Labs.
Enjoyment is the name of the game. I'm still happy with my Yamaha RX-460 and Paradigm 3seMk3 speakers, as well as other speakers that I (in my mind) have positioned carefully. Never felt the need to go beyond the bass, treble, mid-cut, and the other crucial tone control: volume. I can make the system sound good to me at any level I consider reasonable for the situation. How did we ever get by without room correction? Yeah, yeah, something like the picture I posted earlier, I know. Oh, that and bass traps. ;)
I also have an RX-770 and a pair of AR9s (Hi-Res Series (http://web.archive.org/web/20021206184145fw_/http://www.acoustic-research.com:80/hires_main.asp)), but I don't have an appropriate room to put them in. I also had a pair of AR S20 (http://web.archive.org/web/20021207005741fw_/http://www.acoustic-research.com:80/s20_content.asp)s that I really liked.
Do I have tin ears? Dunno, but I was told that I was one of the best critical listeners at the time when I worked for Dolby Labs.
My mantra is: I'd rather have a 9000$ CD collection playing on a 1000$ audio system, than a 1000$ CD collection playing on a 9000$ audio system. Because in the end, if my tech budget is eating up my music budget, then what's the point of getting an audio setup in the first place.
Put it this way: What would you rather eat? A great meal cooked on a decent stove or a mediocre meal cooked on an amazing stove?
We'd all like to have it both ways but that's just not a reality for 99% of people. And a lot of the times when I listen to "Audiophiles" talk, I have the nagging suspicion that that's where they find enjoyment. They enjoy the realization that they're the lucky few who can splurge on this type of stuff.
This fetish for spending insane amounts of money and all the mysticism and snake oil that comes with it seems to be unique to the audio community. You don't find this in other parts of the tech community, take PC gaming for instance. Sure there are expensive graphics cards and processors that people buy, but there it's all about the benchmarks and concrete scientific data. And if companies like intel, AMD or Nvidia use deceptive marketing practices or manipulated benchmarks then there are legions of tech reviews ready to call them out on their BS (which we saw recently with the core i9 release).
There doesn't seem to be this propensity for mysticism and pseudoscience which you find in the audio community. Now you might say that this is because audio is a very subjective topic. But that doesn't explain why people still promote ideas that have literally been scientifically disproven such as SACDs sounding better, 1000$ USB cables sounding better, Nyquist frequency not being adequate, WAV sounding better than FLAC etc. etc.
And this whole "I'll trust my own ears" thing is complete Bull. There's nothing more subjective than one's own hearing after having spend thousands of dollars on a USB cable. Trust me, after having spent that amount of money you're going to hear a difference whether there is one or not.
Besides, you can't turn a subjective personal experience into an objective universal argument.
Anyway, forgive my rambling. I realize some people's eyes might have glazed over :D
My mantra is: I'd rather have a 9000$ CD collection playing on a 1000$ audio system, than a 1000$ CD collection playing on a 9000$ audio system. Because in the end, if my tech budget is eating up my music budget, then what's the point of getting an audio setup in the first place.
Put it this way: What would you rather eat? A great meal cooked on a decent stove or a mediocre meal cooked on an amazing stove?
As someone with enough great meals to kill me (that is, too many CDs to listen to, I bought a few collections over the years, and just last week I filled some holes at £1/piece ...), I spend more on going to concerts. Since I am into amplified music, that means near-mono rumbling, knobs tuned by guys whose "experience" has cost them the second-to-highest octave ..., and I am also well aware that part of what I "hear" I actually see on stage. All them issues with non-blind "testing", I happily use to my advantage.
A side effect is that I have gotten pretty good at "compensating", mentally, for certain types of deficiencies - while I am pickier on others. Rollercoaster bass response? I hear that it is wrong, but it does not bother me much as long as I have the lowest end. Whenever I am caught by the urge to get rid of the room, I put headphones on.
My mantra is: I'd rather have a 9000$ CD collection playing on a 1000$ audio system, than a 1000$ CD collection playing on a 9000$ audio system. Because in the end, if my tech budget is eating up my music budget, then what's the point of getting an audio setup in the first place.
On the face of it this seems an eminently sensible attitude. More music to choose from = good.
But when you think about it, 90% of everything is crud - and this applies as much to music as anything else. There are people out there with enormous music collections, much of which they will never have time to listen to. Whatever happened to prizing quality over quantity? I'd rather have a few hundred really good albums playing on a really good system than thousands (of varying merit), the cost of which has limited the quality of the system I can afford to buy.
Excessive off-topic zealotry removed.
Addicted to Bullsh*t Audio: Why Music Obsessives Blow Their 401Ks Chasing Down Vintage Gear
https://www.wsj.com/articles/addicted-to-audio-why-music-obsessives-blow-their-401ks-chasing-down-vintage-gear-1539883670