Audio Diversity - What is it?

You have set forth most all of the reasons why people find differences in the equipment they discuss. I'm sure there may even be a few more. But, I'm not at all sure that I can make a connection with your statement that to refine your music reproduction system allows you to "get closer to the music". To the contrary, all that you accomplish is to enable yourself to hear what the engineer's put on the recording, which I feel has little to do with music in a pure sense, unless you consider the engineer an artist who suceeds the original composer. IMHO music is an art form, much as painting. One does not need a loupe to appreciate a great painting unless one is assessing the technique of the artists use of the brush and paints. Art is meant to be viewed at a distance. In my view so is music. Its meant to be heard live in an appropriate venue. It does not need electronic reproduction to survive and in fact there is no model for the recording and reproduction of music by which anyone can judge correctness. You may enjoy hearing a piano concerto with the microphone in the piano - you sure will hear all of the sounds from the vibrating wires - but you will not hear what the composer intended.

In my view the more familiar one is with a piece of music the less important it is to hear all of the detail you feel is important to "get closer to the music". Thats why Bose and MP3 are successful outside of this hobby - those folks just need clues, not detail and, interestingly, we denegrate them for their choices. Hum, I wonder who's really better off, us or them? Something to think about as you worry about which cartridge or wire "sounds" better.

Excellent question and I think in your second paragraph you've already hit upon a majority of reasons why people disagree. Another reason is that there appears to no agreement upon a sonic reference. TAS has always held out live unamplified music as the reference. While it may not be a perfect reference, it's at least a pretty good starting point. There is another post today where someone asks for reference quality, technically first class recordings. He/she offers Norah Jones and Willie Nelson's "Stardust" as examples. Others offered equally studio contrived, multi-miked, reverbed, multi-tracked synthetic recordings. Now I know "Stardust" is an excellent recording, but unless I was in the control room at the final mix, I really don't have a clue as to what is supposed to sound like. If we continue to use studio synthetic recordings as sonic references, then it's probable that some systems may euphonically favor some recordings over others. An accurate reproduction of the input signal suddenly becomes a secondary consideration and whatever equipment makes the signal sound "good" takes priority. I'm kind of coming around the backdoor to a "musical" vs. "accuracy" type argument.

Tom,

Great thread. I'm sure there are many things going on here.

One, as a pretty darn good photographer let me make this analogy. The first 35mm camera I got my hands on was a Nikon Nikormat. This was while I was taking a photography course in my freshman year of college. After graduation and finding gainful employment I tried several different brands of cameras before buying my first. I wasn't rolling in cash so I had hoped something less expensive would do the trick. I just couldn't wrap my mind around a Canon, Pentax or any other brand of camera although I knew that great results could be had with any of the above mentioned in the hands of a skilled shooter. I had learned on a Nikon and it was the only brand that felt natural. I bought an F2 Photomic which I still own and is my favorite camera still. I even like this better than later, nicer Nikons.

I believe there is an imprint made on ones mind early on in audio much like my photo analogy. It takes a very open mind and a lot of effort the re-evaluate and change that original imprint.

Some audio experiences are a no brainer. Example: In the early 70's I had a Thorens table (sorry, I can't remember all the details of arm and cartridge) and later in that decade I auditioned an LP12. The LP12 was so much nicer than my other table I couldn't justify NOT making a change. I later bought another LP12 when my original one couldn't be upgraded. The Linn has something about it that has imprinted on my mind, perhaps it's the prat thing. I realize it's not technically as great as a number of other tables but when auditioning them and recognizing their strenghts I find them lacking in something. I honestly can't put my finger on what it is. So, changing is something I'm not compelled to do. As you know I will someday own a Teres. I'll make the change, keep the Linn and listen to the Teres until a time comes to really compare the two. I'm sure I'll laugh at myself when that time comes and then part with the Linn.

In recent years, and especially in my case where I moved to an audio wasteland, the two channel high end shops have become few and far between. Most of them that are left are full of insufferable jerks that tend to insult me with the first words out of their mouths. Mail order and internet sales (especially used) make experimenting much less expensive than walking into one of the high priced salons and paying the entry fee. Many of the small changes one makes to a system is reinforcement of synergy. This is a real phenomenon.

I know from personal experience that two identical motors used for racing never perform the same. The tolerances allowed in each part in the manufacturing process can make for a substantial difference in the end. I believe that to be the case in the world of audio with the exception of the very top of the heap manufacturers. If you look at NASCAR or Indy racing where there is almost no end to the blueprinting process you will find almost no differences with identical motors.

I'm also sure that each of us has a different frequency response in our heads. This can logically be the result of mechanical differences in the shape of our ears, whether we wear glasses or something as small as our seated height, not to mention the necessary differences in the inner ear making each of us unique. Our brains may also be hard wired differently which makes sense too. Physical damage from environmental exposure would obviously have an impact on our choices since we may be trying to compensate for hearing loss.

All that being said I believe that ones hearing can be trained beyond any measurement tools ability to test for the difference. It doens't surprise me that someone in Chicago who belongs to an audio group and is very social among the members would have ears better trained than I. I'm kind of a solitary audiophile here in Idaho. I honestly had better abilities prior to my move here since so many of my friends in Nebraska also had higher end equipment. I did prove to myself that most of my listening abilities are still solid during my last trip home. I listened to many fine systems and could really tell the differences. Like we have discussed in many private emails I heard things that I want during that trip. The troubling aspect is the things I didn't hear that I surely would miss. At least I've been around long enough and have tried hard enough to know what I can or can't live with in audio.

More puzzling to me is the question of whether we see the same colors.

Agreement has a great deal to do with execution. There are many things in our lives that most of us enjoy and maybe even treasure, this is usually due to excellence of the object or product we are experiencing. Audio is far from a perfected endeavor, one could say its state of proficiency is at the level of primitive. Dissatisfaction is the engine that drives change; that is why Audiogon succeeds.