Rollcall time: subjectivists and objectivists, the headcount

Well that's true, although there are some of us might argue that spending the price of a house (although not anymore it would seem - bloody house prices), on a music system is also insane, not matter how much richer than yow, they might be

Mind you I would perectly understand someone who spent that much on music over a life time and others might think that mad.

Thinking about his further though, I think I may philosophically speaking be a moderate objectivist (partly because I do see a lot of the tweakery as a faith based rip off), but in practice I probably am a bit of a flat earther and not into the hardcore hifi thing - mainly because

a) I'm too lazy a listener to listen in that way

b) its too anal

c) I do much of my listening lying down on the sofa

d) I'm half deaf in one ear and as a result suspect I couldn't properly judge a soundstage if it ran over my toe

e) its the music that's really my thang and if it makes me toe tap or me leap about the room - its working. If it makes me sit and contemplate, stroking my chin and marvelling at how wonderfully clear it is and how you can tell which buttock the drummer lifted to let out his fart ... then it probably isn't.

Oh and I like it to look cool too

 

Well, the objectivists have rallied - looks like we're almost exactly split down the middle numbers-wise.

 

I'm in this first category and I definitely consider myself to be a "hardcore subjectivist."

However, I wouldn't say that blind testing was completely at odds with [longer term hands-on] experience though, as this would in itself be a pro-objectivst statement. Blind testing should merely confirm what a subjectivist already knows without having to go through the unnecessary clinical tedium.

I'm also opposed to blind testing for the reason that a crisis of confidence on th part of the listener subjected to the test may lead them to over exaggerate subtle differences in kit as a kind of over-compensation for the initial fear of not being able to hear any difference at all.

I'd be correct in saying that someone on this forum who lives in California has spent a small fortune on hi-fi even hough he believes that his expenditure was probably wasted on purely sonic/musical grounds, and he bought a Levinson player because it "looks nice."

Cut the bullshit, the pseudo science and the semantics, but let him pitch his cheap CD player (they all sound the same) through his freebie patches into his amp powerful enough (they all sound the same too, but some just have more oomph) to drive his fancy super-neutral speakers with perfect measurements via bell wire, against a well-sorted CD player via decent and well-matched (by human ear) interconnects into a synergistic amp and more modest speakers (desiged by guys using their ears to fine tune them) using good cable (again tested with those fine measuring instruments called ears in the context of the whole system) on decent performance stands and with optimised mains.

The differences between both systems above - whilst subjective, will be as subtle as the provebial sledgehammer.

Maybe I should post my own poll as to which of the two systems above should sound the most satisfying.

 

Now this sounds interesting - the great clash of the titan systems.

How do we judge it?

Nice post, BTW.

 

Indeed.

How do we judge it?

A panel of music lovers of course!

BTW, when I said "more modest speakers," I meant those as opposed to immodest (claimed) measurements, and not necessarily those with lofty price tags.

In the quest for fine musical reproduction, money is no object if you've got it, but why waste money because you've been sucked into the bullshit about perfect measurements?

I wouldn't buy a car based on claimed bhp, acceleration and top speed figures.

Manufacturers and magazine reviewers can lie about figures; my ears don't.

If you can't trust your ears, you can't trust anything.

The only absolute point of reference is your own sensory inputs - they may only be prejudiced and compromised by the same outside influences that may give you the measurements bullshit.

PS: Tuesday I get my Audio Works acrylic shelf for my QS Ref. The only relevant measurements for me are W-D-H, size and shape of cut-outs.

 

Certain after-market kettle leads with pretentious price tags can actually completely screw up the musicality of a whole system.

 

I can only assume your refering to me - why not name me, I've made my opinions on the 390S quite clear in another thread - https://www.audio-forums.com/as-rediect/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3643

And yes, I've spent quite a bit of money on DAC's and CD players - most bought and sold used on audiogon, but it hasn't really cost me a small fortune - I sold the CDS2 for $100 less than I paid for it. The point I'm getting to is that I've had $30K's worth of DAC's and CD players pass through my hands and there is no great sonic revelation amongst them.. I might add that ownership means that I've had considerable long-term listening to several players side by side, in level matched tests, and that is an experience that most people here are sorely lacking - particularly the level matching as it is a major nuisance variable in evaluating an system.

The Levinson is a nice toy...

... and guess what it's a lot prettier and nicer to use than a naim CDS2/XPS - which I assume remains your asprirational fantasy. I think you are going to be sorely disappointed by the reality after a few weeks of owning a CDS2 - in fact I predict that you will indulge in another round of stands and cables and maybe mains in a futile attempt to "fix" an imaginary problem.

I am completely confident that my:

el cheapo DVD player - $50
Benchmarkmedia DAC1 (built in pre-amp) - $800
direct into my active ATC 50's - $12,000
factory stands for ATC's; canare $50 XLR interconnect; Radioshack 75ohm digital cable $5; dvd+dac1 on the floor (no stands)
positioning optimized by ETF (or similar) - call that a generous $2K (including laptop)

will wipe out any similarly priced source first, nordost valhalla'd/chord, QS ref'd, mains optimized, naim CD player system you care to choose and tweak by listening.

Mostly because the ATC's are such remarkably good speakers and totally dominate the "sound" of the system.

Yep, and they'll be in my favour, because the chances of any recording you choose being mixed on ATC is higher than your Rega Noas, and the recording will likely be a better match for my speakers frequency response. Put as much Mana under your speakers as you like, they are never going to touch my 50's...

You will win Steve... Brits love the underdog

 

oh. so now we are into the 'my system is better than yours' phase. How sad.

 

No, it's more about how where to spend a fixed budget of money to acheive the best sounding system.

If Steve want's to drop $13K on a CDS3 and a nait5 and some cheapo speakers in a source 1st crusade then thats OK with me.

However, I've argued here that with a fixed budget the best place to put the money is the speakers and work backwards to the source.

I'd also argue that spending money on widely disputed tweaks (even amongst the tweakers - eg. QS ref vs Mana vs Fraim) suggests that the tweaks are not delivering the results and consequently only a small fraction of any budget should be spent on cables and speaker stands - with not one penny going on the likes of nordost, fancy stands or "mains optimization".

Steve (by accident ) has started a good topic for the subjectivist vs objectivist debate: how to spend your money and what is likely to provide the best sound for the pound.

 

why not start a new thread about it?

 

Put as much Mana under your speakers as you like, they are never going to touch my 50's...

How about phase seven under my active 100s? Whilst I agree that the 'source first' approach applies mainly to turntables, and has less relevance for digital sources, Mana actually does make a big improvement, Mr dat. But there's only one way for you to find out.

 

Agreed. An interesting subject, worth its own thread.

-- Ian

 

It'll end in tears

You are to my mind Dat, heading up a blind alley.

The term "best sound" means precisely what to you? Whilst we disagree about many things, I believe most of us are agreed that there is no true"best sound" Consequently, any arguement that seeks to find the path leading to it by consulting with others can only end in acrimony due to the less than levelling influence of the male ego.

 

Would a better title for the proposed thread be:

Where to spend your money to make the most DIFFERENCE.?

 

To who Stebbo?

 

To the person who is buying it.

I will start off by saying that Speaker purchases make the biggest difference.

 

So Stuart, if I were to say that turntable differences are more important, it would only be the case for me, not for you.

For you the speaker has more more of an impact on your enjoyment of music. Totally valid, but only for you, others may find this not to be the case, simply because their brain interprets sound differently to yours.

So what's the point in expressing an opinion that is neccessarily at odds with others simply because everyone hears differently. It only leads to animosity because no one can agree on something that is fundementally indefinable.

 

True. Hi-fi/audio is ultimately a bit 'subjective', if it wasn't then we wouldn't have anything to waffle about. Visual things (like projectors or TVs) are far more objective, i.e. different people's opinions of picture quality tend to agree quite closely.

 

But that's true of every thread on a hi-fi forum. The whole thing's subjective. It's true of the music room too. Doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing something just because opinions are necessarily subjective.

The daft bit is the animosity - I don't mind people disagreeing violently about what they prefer, provided it leads to an interesting discussion (which it sometimes does, that's why I like these forums), what I don't understand is why anyone should feel any animosity whatsoever just because somebody has made different choices and has different priorities to them. Why does anyone worry about this stuff? Completely beats me. It's not as if it really matters in the slightest.

Not discussing things that not everybody agrees on means not discussing anything, which makes the whole idea of a forum a touch moot.

-- Ian

 

I disagree.

Seriously though, you hit the nail on the head when you said.

With this in mind, maybe a better approach to a new thread would be say "what's given you the best bang for your buck". Hopefully, by asking for people's personal experience, rather than inviting hypothesis, we may find more reason and harmony. Although many would ifnd it incredibly boring!