High Performance Audio - The End?

@twoleftears


Indeed, all we who are at the bottom of the mountain of enlightenment can do is look up with envy to those atop the mountain.   To us, their enlightenment sounds like riddles...:-)


mahgister,


Ok, through your obscure method of writing, I can infer you were talking about tweaks.  (Yes, all that resonance noise floor acoustic stuff are tweaks). 



That's fine of course.  If you re-read my post you'll see that it isn't a rant against tweaking or sharing experience.  Far from it.  I'm in audio forums because I do very much think we can share our experiences.   I may share the taste of someone else, so what I like may work for someone else.  And some "tweak" or (real) information about how to alter an audio system can certainly be useful information.  



I was referencing the broader stance one often sees, which is a sort of know-it-all, or self-derived "wisdom" that makes assumptions about other audiophiles, like "audiophiles are continually upgrading because of X and I've diagnosed why and what the cure is."  And "X speakers will not satisfy on Y music" etc.  



Do you see the difference I mean to make between imperious pronouncements of that sort, vs sharing our experience and knowledge with our system building? 



So an example might be:


I tried X tweak and it expanded the soundstage in my system.


Cool.  I might want to try that too.  Or not.



Vs



"I've used X tweaks and found benefits, so it's my position "audiophiles OUGHT to use those tweaks" or "audiophiles are really missing out if they haven't tweaked out their system in these methods" or "audiophiles are going to keep chasing their tails unless they do what I'm doing.  The equipment and tweaks I use solve audiophile problems."

Any instance of that kind of stuff is poo-ppo, IMO.  :-)

Very clear and clever remarks... Thanks prof.....

My rant is not about "tweaks" but about the necessity to put attention about the embeddings and how to embed the gear before replacing it or upgrade it....

Calling "embeddings controls" : "tweaks", reduce my concept from a listenings and experiments method to  buying secondary artifacts   ready made branded costly partial solutions....

I am more in the homemade low cost solutions .....  :)

Hmmm...

mahgister, you seem teetering on the type of declarations I was talking about.

You’ve just told of the "necessity" for audiophiles to put attention to "embedding controls" (yeesh!).


Says who?

What "embeddings" must I employ?

There’s a lot of nutty ideas among audiophiles in regards to "vibration control" and "resonances" and "lowering noise floor," so I have no idea what you are advocating. Do I need to start trying cable risers, weights on components? Any in the long list of you-know-who’s system?No thanks. I really don’t need to pay attention to a bunch of that stuff.

But if you are speaking for yourself...fine.

Cheers.

Do you see the difference I mean to make between imperious pronouncements of that sort, vs sharing our experience and knowledge with our system building?



So an example might be:


I tried X tweak and it expanded the soundstage in my system.


Cool. I might want to try that too. Or not.



Vs



"I've used X tweaks and found benefits, so it's my position "audiophiles OUGHT to use those tweaks" or "audiophiles are really missing out if they haven't tweaked out their system in these methods" or "audiophiles are going to keep chasing their tails unless they do what I'm doing. The equipment and tweaks I use solve audiophile problems."

Bingo!

@jjss49,

"the issue or challenge for us who have our very high end gear is that much of that music is really not made to sound best played on our systems - we are simply not their target audience

mass market vs niche..."


Unfortunately music production is a business driven by the wish to make money and not by any inherent aesthetic wish to produce the best sound quality possible.

If and when we do get exemplary recordings they are likely to be accidental in nature and not by design, nor are they usually to be found in the mainstream.

I have yet to hear any Rolling Stones record used in any show for demonstration purposes. Plenty of jazz, (it’s very often something jazzy), and plenty of well recorded but mostly obscure artists.

So perhaps the level of resolution each of us may find optimal is going to be largely down to our individual musical tastes and the choice of music we like to listen to.

Maybe show systems aren’t for pop.

Audiophiles who are into well recorded piano recitals might benefit from more resolution than those who are fans of the pop music charts.

It’s going to be a question of personal preference, but maybe the next time I go to a show I could take along a copy of Now That’s What I Call Music 105! and demand it be played back on the best systems at the show.

I’m sure that Justin Bieber, Rita Ora and Lady Gaga etc will all elicit a standing ovation from a room full of audiophiles.

Or get me thrown out.


As @prof said,

"As much as some of us like to flatter ourselves as Super Experienced, the wisdom we have built over the years tends to be most relevant to ourselves and our tastes (and perhaps for those that share that taste). It’s not discovering The Secret Key Of Satisfaction for others."


Perhaps that explains why I have currently stuck with my dual concentric Tannoy Berkeley speakers for so long.

Perhaps they might be the near optimal loudspeakers for standard pop music, especially that recorded in the UK between 1960 and 1980.

As for those ultra high resolution systems that can somehow still remain forgiving with poor recordings, well, I’m still looking.