What Matters and What is Nonsense


I’ve been an audiophile for approximately 50 years. In my college days, I used to hang around the factory of a very well regarded speaker manufacturer where I learned a lot from the owners. When I started with audio it was a technical hobby. You were expected to know something about electronics and acoustics. Listening was important, but understanding why something sounded good or not so good was just as important. No one in 1968 would have known what you were talking about if you said you had tweaked your system and it sounded so much better. But if you talked about constant power output with frequency, or pleasing second-order harmonic distortion versus jarring odd-order harmonics in amplification, you were part of the tribe.

Starting in the 1980s, a lot of pseudo scientific nonsense started appearing. Power cords were important. One meter interconnects made a big difference. Using a green magic marker on the edge of a CD was amazing. Putting isolation dampers under a CD transport lifted the veil on the music. Ugh. This stuff still make my eyes roll, even after all these years.

So I have decided to impart years and years of hard won knowledge to today’s hobbists who might be interested in reality. This is my list of the steps in the audio reproduction chain, and the relative importance of each step. My ranking of relative importance includes a big dose of cost/benefit ratio. At this point in the evolution of audio, I am assuming digital recording and reproduction.

Item / Importance to the sound on a scale of 1-10 / Cost benefit ratio

  • The room the recording was made in / 8 / Nothing you can do about it
  • The microphones and setup used in the recording / 8 / nothing you can do about it.
  • The equalization and mixing of the recording / 10 / Nothing you can do about it
  • The technology used for the recording (analog, digital, sample rate, etc.) / 5 / nothing you can do about it.
  • The format of the consumer recording (vinyl, CD, DSD, etc.) 44.1 - 16 really is good enough / 3 / moderate CB ratio
  • The playback device i.e. cartridge or DAC / 5 / can be a horribe CB ratio - do this almost last
  • The electronics - preamp and amp / 4 / the amount of money wasted on $5,000 preamps and amps is amazing.
  • Low leve interconnects / 2 / save your money, folks
  • Speaker cables / 3 / another place to save your money
  • Speakers / 10 / very very high cost to benefit ratio. Spend your money here.
  • Listening room / 9 / an excellent place to put your money. DSPs have revolutionized audio reproduction
In summary, buy the best speakers you can afford, and invest in something like Dirac Live or learn how to use REW and buy a MiniDSP HD to implement the filters. Almost everything else is a gross waste of money.
128x128phomchick
Excellent thread, I am of a similar vintage putting my hifi together during uni in the early 70's. There are two things other than speaker upgrades that have startled me in my long Hifi career, 1. With no other change in any components including cartridge, going from a Rega Planar 3 to a Linn Sondek was a stunning upgrade 2. mounting my CD player on a rigid tower was less stunning but still very noticeable.
Prof, not much I can say if you can’t hear a difference between a Home Depot cable and a synergistic research cable. That’s like saying you can’t hear a difference between a pioneer amp and Classe monoblocks. I have a 1 meter synergistic research cable that cost close to $2000 and there is a difference in the sound compared to my soundstring cables that cost $600-$700. 
I wouldn’t pay for something unless I feel I can hear a difference and the difference is worth the price difference. 
Magen I say spend big bucks, it’s all relative. If I have $50k into amps/speakers/etc.. then spending $5000 or more on quality cables isn’t that much in the scheme of things. When I had my Porsche, tires were up to $500 each. Sure I could have spent 1/10 of that but then, if I was going to do that, then you should just buy a Toyota Corolla.
rbstehno,

Which tires did you have and, if you remember, what size were they? How was the noise?
It's funny, I've been an "Audiophile" for going on 50 years myself. I've spent my time in recording studios and built countless amps from scratch. Does that make my opinion more valid? Of course it doesn't.

The original poster made his points in a cordial fashion. I happen to agree with most of what he said but that's not the point. The thread devolved into nastiness.

We wonder why newbies don't embrace the hobby and we choose to act like children. Are our stances so important that we have to act that way?
I don't pretend to have an answer to that.
In the vernacular, I'm just sayin'
I think the attitude exhibited by the author of the opening post is arrogant and condescending and close-minded. But he is very well aware of that.

I would have expected that 50 years of time in this hobby would have produced more questions and circumspection, and less dogma and certainty. But this opening post proves once again that age is not highly correlated with wisdom.

He certainly is entitled to his subjective, personal opinion, as are we all. I respect his personal opinion. At the highest level of audio reproduction he likely has experienced I might also have arrived at those incorrect conclusions. (Though I certainly would not proffer them as immutable facts.)

His utter dismissal of analog recording and reproduction, and his “assumption” of digital recording and reproduction, informs me that whatever audio hobby he thinks he is engaged in, he in not engaged in the hobby of high-end audio. His opinions evidence a lack of experience with the best the hobby of high-end audio can produce.