High Performance Audio - The End?

Most hobbyists will not be in the class of systems to enable all genres and recordings to sound wonderful. No judgment of anyone’s efforts, just experience with gear from budget to close to SOTA.

You seems to be serious?

I had an audio system that cost me 500 dollars including dac, amp, and speakers, and it is the best sound i ever listen to.... Why because it is not the price of the gear that impact most but the way it is embed in electrical, mechanical, and acoustical dimension...All genre sound marvellous here even metal or acoustic....

And beside that one of the best amplifier in the world in 1978 does not becomes automatically scrap today...

If your job is selling gear it is ok, but it is a bit snobbery to allegue price to be judge of the way a system sound without being even conscious of the acoustic extraordinary impact.... I dont even mention mechanical and electrical embedding, i doubt you even know what it is....

Sorry to be rude....Awake to reality ans spend less on electronics.. Spend more on thinking... :)

Audiophile experience is not reserved to 100, 000 dollars system....
mine is so good upgrading seems ridiculous....There is better yes, but by a small margin at very, very, high price...

Embeddings: the multiple ways a piece of electronic components is connected and immersed in system gear, house, and room....

To your discharge most audio system dont sound at all with their potential S.Q. it is true... Because like you, most people ignore the method to embed their gear....They think that all is ok ready out of the box....And manufacturer dont have interest to enlighten them when they pay for the "best" and dont want, in addition to paying big money, any hard work to reach the high level their gear is able to reach....ANY gear need to be embed never mind the price.....

My best to you....

The fact of the matter is that the bulk of audiophiles' systems are not that good. Contemporary music sounds bad on these systems because they simply cannot handle it, while superior systems can. It's foolish to blame the genre of music when the system is poor. If you're running a $5-10K rig, then do not expect such music to sound great. Conversely, anyone can delude themselves into thinking their system is all that when it sounds good playing simpler, less challenging music. The fact is that if the modern music sounds poor on your system, then it's not that great of a system, and/or you didn't set it up well.
If this were true then why at audio shows do I not here a wide variety of music, usually the same Audiophile recordings. I know your going to say it's the room.

**** Can your Audio System be too Transparent? ****

Of course... IF the goal is to maximize enjoyment only according to what pleases our own personal ideas about what constitutes enjoyment and not to extract as much of the music as possible, which may be the ultimate and most enjoyable goal for someone else.

The reason is simple. With any diminution of system “transparency” there will be a diminution of musical information. Inescapable. This is why a truly great recording will sound fantastic on a mostly transparent (none are entirely transparent) system and won’t sound as good if that system is made less transparent. A crappy recording can be made to sound less crappy by reducing the system’s level of transparency; but, at what cost?

One of the problems is that we focus almost entirely on frequency response related issues which are what determine musical characteristics such as timbre and ignore the relationship between timbre and rhythm, a component of music which is arguably even more musically important; and, the nuances of which are usually almost entirely ignored. If we aim to make our systems less transparent (enjoyable?) with the focus only being timbre or other frequency response related issues we will invariably diminish (distort) rhythmic nuance and impact.

Personally, I don’t buy the “certain gear for certain music” approach. Only a system that can reproduce the impact of a great Rock band can, in my experience, do justice to a recording of a great symphony orchestra going full tilt playing Stravinsky. Of course, pragmatism dictates that we aim for some sort of balance between ultimate transparency and the realities of the quality of most recorded music.

Personally, I don’t buy the “certain gear for certain music” approach. Only a system that can reproduce the impact of a great Rock band can, in my experience, do justice to a recording of a great symphony orchestra going full tilt playing Stravinsky. Of course, pragmatism dictates that we aim for some sort of balance between ultimate transparency and the realities of the quality of most recorded music.

You had me- right up until that last little bit. I used to think something like this myself. Its not even true. You just have to do it right. 

For a long number of years I was just about convinced there was a point beyond which its just not worth going. Some recordings just aren't gonna sound that good no matter what, and the system is kind of like a microscope revealing all these flaws, until one day its good enough they're all flawed. Pretty much everyone believes this, which is why frogman ended with, "of course." Of course! That's just how it is! Of course! 

Nope. Not even. That's the most amazing discovery of the last year. My system is so much more resolving and revealing than ever, its freaking crazy how good it is now, and what has happened instead is ALL my recordings sound even better than ever. Yes the great ones still sound great. Better than ever. Like so good you wouldn't believe. But what's really crazy is the ones that always seemed to just kind of lay there, flat dead uninteresting, now so alive they're practically demo material. Or the ones that seemed hard and bright, they're now open and present. 

Sorry. Hate to say it, but what happens instead, when you are truly revealing, genuinely revealing, no two records sound the same but they all sound great. Unbelievably great. And you only want more. I've never been so excited and eager for the next tweak that takes me even further into them all. 

My perspective is that there are there are two general design directions for audio equipment at higher price points. One direction focused on more detail and resolution. The other direction is oriented towards more musicality and conveying the emotion of music. Historically, I’ve found that among equipment manufacturers focused on the ultra high end, American brand tended toward the former philosophy while British and French (also Italian?) brands tended toward the latter philosophy. To me, some audio systems sound "right" from a clinical, "objective" standpoint, but leave me cold from the simple perspective of enjoying music listening.

I will say that my personal opinion (which aligns with Steve Guttenberg’s opinion posted here) is that too much focus on detail and resolution seems to detract from musicality for me. Some of the ultra high end systems I’ve heard (notably Wilson and Krell) have such good resolution that they sound larger than life (meaning live music) and as a result, the excessive amount of detail becomes the focus rather than the interaction of voices/instruments and the tonal quality of the music. For my own listening preferences, the sounding larger-than-life aspect is detrimental for my listening enjoyment. I will say that I grew up playing the violin and my audio touchstone is the experience and emotion of live performances that I remember (for jazz, classical, rock, acoustic music) such as sitting 8 feet away from Dizzy Gillespie in a small jazz club seating 50 people in 1989, the speed and deftness of Alicia De Larrocha’s playing at Carnegie Hall in 1998, the power of Mudhoney at Irving Plaza in 1994, the sweetness of Norah Jones’ voice in 2017.

My definition of musicality isn’t necessarily a low bar as some low priced audio systems sound highly musical to me while some ultra expensive systems (over $150k) have not sounded musical at all. I do find that it is easier to produce a musical sounding audio system if the design philosophy allows for "errors of omission" while avoiding "errors of commission". I define errors of omission meaning some aspect of music reproduction or sound quality being not at good as it ideally might be. I find that ultra high end equipment in the process of trying to chase an ideal can end up overemphasizing specific aspects of music reproduction or sound quality at the expense of having music sound coherent and satisfying. I will say that I think it is possible to build an audio system that does everything right, but I also think that the cost to do so is far beyond my budget and willingness to spend time to do so. I like the experience of having good sounding recorded music available when I want it, but perhaps don't have the need or desire to continually tweak my systems to make "improvements" unless I am in the market to buy new equipment. I have systems that play back highly enjoyable music for the locations in which I typically have time to listen and that is more than good enough for me.