HiFi is an opinion - nothing more


The audiophile community spends vast amounts of time and resources trying to claim truth about something that boils down to be no more than one persons opinion. I read where some proclaimed audiophile has created nirvana by rotating his loudspeaker 1 degree off axis when used with a certain type of interconnect cable. Phew... I might remind everyone that the human ear and the mechanics of hearing are highly individual, namely we don't all hear alike. Add to that the processing that goes on in the brain to add value to what we hear, we end up with nothing more than an opinion not fact. Case in point, a system set up to accurately reproduce sound in terms of phase, and frequency amplitude response would not be desirable by most audiophiles. It would sound bright, thin and certainly not have enough bass. Most audiophiles would prefer the sound of a Bose Wave Radio to a an accurately set up HiFi. Get some acoustical instrumentation sometime and try it for yourself. To all of you who savor the delicious warmth of your tuuuuby like transistors and transparent capacitors, I say get a life. If you find yourself basking in the latest techno tweek and thirteenth set of speakers, I suggest you go off line, visit a used car lot, find an old VW Beatle, turn on the radio and enjoy the music again. Re-invent yourself.
larryh
Hey Albert, quick question about photography. Do you professional photographers ever think that digital cameras will eventually over take the traditional cameras? I work for a flash memory company that supplies removable flash memories for many hand held products. Digital photography is one of our markets. I am just curious to hear what a professional end user think about digital cameras. Thanks in advance for the feed back. Btw, nice comments above.
Larry does have a point about people preferring different "realitites"...that's all true. Besides that, I don't think many audiophiles realize that much of the sound is determined before it ever reaches their stereo. I do some engineering, and there are soooo many factors that create each particular sound. Different brands of instruments sound different (sometimes the same brands sound different based on age, environment, etc), every drumset sounds different, players play differently, all microphones have their own characteristics, microphone placement is a huge variable (as little as a half an inch can change the sound), the recording rooms has it's own sound (size, shape, reflections, humidity,etc), different reverb effects are used (and all have their own characteristics), different tape stock has it's own sound (as does the recording speed). Do you see what I mean?? There are hundreds of variables that we have no control over. (and ALbert's photography comparison still holds true) I do think it's hard to reproduce live sound, but some equipment does it better than others. Some equipment reproduces the sound of the master tape more than others (a more realistic goal). I happen to enjoy it when I find a product that sounds more lifelike and real (good dynamics, transparency, low level resolution, etc)...of course, I prefer the equipment that best captures my personal ideas of what is "lifelike and real". I can relate to that search for the perfect equipment, but I do find it kinda funny when "professional reviewers" (and occasionally Audiogon posters) forget that the recordings aren't perfect. I do think some people tend to react too quickly to particular recordings (messing with speakers, cables, gear,...I'm guilty myself) when something sounds "off", instead of reacting to the general sound of many recordings. I'm trying to learn to remember that some recordings just don't sound "right", but it's not always easy. Okay...time for more coffee.
Hey Larry, my post was in response to your claims on phase and frequency response. At just under 10 feet the Dunlavy's are phase and frequency coherent. I've measured this myself in my room. I have degrees in physics and electrical engineering so I think I understand the principles and the technique (BTW where are your degress from). How closely this does or does not correlate to reproduction of complex music is open for opinion and debate. I hear two or three live orchestral performances a month and am aware of the difference between live and recorded music. But whether my system "accurately reproduce(s) sound in terms of phase, and frequency amplitude response" to quote your post is a matter of rather simple engineering measurement.
Larry...please, give us a break here. I think you just have nothing better to do than try to get a rise out of others. Do you really think any of us really believe that we can reproduce the sound of live musical instruments with audio equipment? It doesn't take all your vast knowledge of "physical and psychoacoustics" to figure that one out. If you have not already done so I suggest you read Albert Porter's post above as it is an excellent analogy. I have been a musician most of my life and I think it is great that technology, with all of its imperfection, allows us to recreate music in our homes with such fidelity, even if it's not the real thing.
Larry I have a few simple questions for you. Are your observations based on your own analytical data with no particular interest in well reproduced audio? Sure would be interested in the details if so. Do you REALLY believe a Bose WAVE radio would be picked by most audiophiles as approximating real music to a greater degree than an accurately setup Hi-Fi? I have the opportunity to listen to a Bose WAVE radio every day in our office and can tell you from my own "critical" listening, your contention just ain't so to these ears but then again we all hear differently, right? Are you a natural born antagonist or sincerely playing the devils advocate? Finally, Do you really have a deep passion for music as the rest of us do? And BTW Albert I think your analogy couldn't have been stated more clearly for all to understand that might not get what well reproduced audio is really all about.