Another thought. It is innapropriate to relate "how many times" a more expensive piece of equipment costs with "how much better" it sounds. There may be an absolute measure of perfection with regards to sound, i.e. live music. But the gradations towards that ultimate, probably unreachable goal, are purely subjective. Whether something sounds better than something else, is less subjective than "how much better" it sounds. But it is still subjective --hence all the debates of vinyl vs. CDs, tubes vs. SS, etc. So how much nearer to live sound does a $100K system get you than a $10K system ? Perhaps "a lot" nearer if looked at from the standpoint of the $10K system. But looking at it from the standpoint of the live sound, neither of them sounds that close. To use an example: I would submit that the $10K system gets you 20% of the way to perfection, and the $100K equipment gets you 40% of the way. So a 10x investment over the $10K system (1000% increase in expenditure) gets you only a 100% improvement in sound, but only a 20% absolute step(40%-20%) towards perfection. And as you spend more, these marginal sound improvements will get smaller. Of course, these numbers are subjective, based on my own asessment of sonic imnprovements. We audiophiles are prepared to spend increasingly large amouts of our disposable income for only marginal, as well as highly subjective, improvements in sound reproduction.
Audio & the Emperor’s new clothes.
I have been into audio since the early 70s and once considered myself an "audiophile" - but no longer. At one time being an audiophile meant that you loved music and had a fascination for the gear that reproduced it. But it seems that to be an "audiophile" today means that you are a very specialized acquisitionist; one who pursues yuppie arrogance items of the audio kind and one who - in some cases - simply pursues the Emperor’s new clothes. I still enjoy my music and I do enjoy the equipment and I do have a good ear. I can easily hear the difference between cold equipment and equipment that's been warmed up. I hear differences between cables and - to a lesser extent - interconnects. I have no pretensions of being unique in this ability but I DO hear these kinds of things. I DO know what live music sounds like, having been to many concerts; jazz, rock, classical and opera. I have never heard any audio system, at any price, in any showroom - and I have been to some great ones - that reproduces the so-called "absolute sound" of live music. Listening to live music and listening to reproduced music are entirely different experiences, each having a very unique appeal. I enjoy reproduced music (via a good system) just as much as I enjoy live. But I refuse to be deluded into believing that they sound the same. I know what I hear and am confident enough in my hearing to know what I don't hear, as well, regardless of what the self-proclaimed gurus of high end audio tell me that I ought to hear. What I do NOT hear is that one amplifier or preamplifier "blows another away" in terms of sound quality. There was a time that I did hear significant difference in equipment but I do not hear them any more. And my ears are just fine, thank you. I do not abuse them. The change has come in the audio marketplace. In the early days of solid state, sound quality was regularly sacrificed on the altar of "specsmanship" via abuses of current limiting and negative feedback circuitry, among other things. Only a few manufacturers back then were employing beefy power supplies and direct coupling and other design concepts that are now well known and employed by a large majority of manufacturers. During the 70s, anyone with a decent ear could hear big differences between the average stuff and something really special like the Levinson or Bryston equipment. In the 70s there WERE some big differences in the sound of one component versus another. But even then the differences were not necessarily related to price. I still have my little Advent 300 Receiver. I bought it used when it was about a year old, as part of a package deal ($150.00 for an Advent 300 & Large Advents Speaker pair). Hooked it up and never even THOUGHT of listening to my Pioneer receiver again. Sold the Pioneer for double what the Advent stuff cost and got myself a NICE Thorens 'Table. That Advent based system, of course, is now semi-retired and provides intermitant motivation to lift heavy things in my medium sized exercise room. Does it match the sound quality of my main system? Of course not - my main system employs more recent and more sophisticated engineering than was available in the '70s and has cost me over 10 times what that Advent based system was worth. Sounding better than a sweet sounding little '70s system is what my main system "gets paid for". But does the main system sound 10 times better? You have got to be kidding! It is more articulate, more open, more dynamic and has a sense of presence that the 70s system does not. But either system is sufficiently enjoyable to draw me into the music. And that is what audio is about. Do differences in the sound of various electronics still exist? Of course they do. But I am thinking that the differences have more to do with personal taste than with sound quality. And I suspect that some of the high end amplification equipment is deliberately "voiced" to a particular taste, in the same way speakers are "voiced". But the bottom line - in my opinion - is that the huge differences in sound quality just aren't there anymore. The point of severely diminished returns in terms of sound quality is reached long before you are into the high end stuff. So why all the talk about exquisite differences in high end sound quality?
- ...
- 24 posts total
- 24 posts total