Is There any Consensus at all amongst Audiophiles?


I remember once reading somewhere that theories in science don't necessarily disprove and succeed each other - merely that when proponents of less popular theories die they often take their theory with them.

So even in science there is no absolute right or wrong, merely an accepted consensus which can change from day to day. Much like the butter or margarine debate which has seen both sides on top at one time or another. Sometimes even old forgotten theories eg Flat Earth, can attempt a comeback!

However this lack of consensus only applies to cutting edge science. It does not mean that the vast amount of accumulated scientific knowledge is held in contention. Indeed there have been no major upheavals in scientific thought for almost one hundred years. 

And that despite the rise of the internet age.

Anyway, it would be interesting to see whether there is any consensus at all in the world of domestic audio playback. Very little, if the past few years of this forum are anything to go by. Professional audio on the other hand doesn't seem to have the time or stomach for this kind of endless navel gazing. 

But still, there must be some consensus in domestic aydio - there must be. Otherwise we're all doomed to die endlessly disagreeing with each other. Perhaps it might be easier to get the ball rolling if we can all state what we actually believe in. Perhaps.

I'd like to start by saying that err... this isn't easy. Hmm.. how about me saying that increased bandwidth (20Hz-20kHz) is a good thing?

Surely we can all agree with that, can't we?

What else is there?

Loudspeakers have a greater performance impact on the delivered sound than other components. Even more than other transducers like headphones and cartridges.

How about adding that this is because loudspeakers exhibit over a thousand times more distortion than the rest of the audio chain added up together?

Instead of constantly bickering, which we also enjoy, it might be of some interest to see what we actually believe in.

This might be more difficult than knocking other opinions (and less fun) but who knows, it might even make us consider different opinions, if not quite abandon our own.




cd318
Can we at least agree that one objective we all strive for is to reproduce the source material without alterations? Regardless of source type, don’t we all want to build a system that won’t add or subtract anything?  Leave the issue of source quality or accuracy out of this equation. 
vinylfan62,

Probably not. We are already listening in an artificial environment to music that is almost exclusively not representative of a single listener ... so why stop there.

A little extra 3rd harmonic distortion, a little aliased high frequencies, a little compression .... are all things that some people in this community prefer, and perhaps listening condition dependent, many will.

I think a better statement would be the potential for reproduction without alteration. Then let the user decide what they want to hear.
Atdavid, I think we are saying the same thing- no unintended alteration from input to output. That’s my goal. I had assumed it was everyone’s goal. 
@nonoise 
There is one way to herd cats....
Starve them.
Have food.
Run faster than they can.

Yes, I know; not specifically 'herding' but one achieves the same goal.
*shrug*  Vaguely applicable in our instance as well, no? *L*
@atdavid,

"I think a better statement would be the potential for reproduction without alteration. Then let the user decide what they want to hear. "

I can agree with that. *S*  The only addendum would be "...to the best of one's budget, site, and tastes."

A 'baseline' we all might agree on...at least, in theory...;)

BTW...Happy Saturday.