@mahgister You proved my point, we all have our own individual ideas and fleeting aural memories of how things should sound.
If Warmth Is a Distortion, Why Do So Many Audiophiles Still Defend It?
Hi everyone, this is my first post here. If it stirs some emotions — that’s not a bad thing. It means we’re all still passionate about this hobby.
As AI becomes capable of recreating any sound signature — warm, tube-like, analogue, ultra-wide, hyper-detailed, and everything in between — I’m starting to think the real future of audio lies in neutral, transparent, dynamic, and accurate hardware, while many of the “flavours” we chase may soon become software choices.
Over time, a few things have stood out to me:
• Warmth is pleasant, but it’s still coloration.
Beautiful, yes — but not accuracy, not transparency, and not always the artist’s intention.
• Warm gear enhances some tracks but softens accuracy in others.
Especially vocals, piano, violin, guitar, and other acoustic instruments. Some people hear this, some don’t, and some just prefer it that way.
• Modern Class D deserves more respect than it gets.
Many older audiophiles dismiss it based on outdated assumptions. But the latest designs are already extremely neutral, fast, and precise. I’m not sure how much longer Class A/AB will remain relevant beyond nostalgia and brand loyalty.
• Price reflects real quality only up to a point.
Beyond that, it becomes about branding, house sound, and personal bias. Preference is fine — but preference isn’t the same as absolute fidelity.
---
⭐ Why I May Not Respond Immediately
This post is meant as a sharing of thoughts, not a debate I plan to defend point by point.
If I don’t reply right away, it’s because I’m taking time to read, think, and learn from others’ perspectives here.
Posting in good faith — looking forward to all views, supportive or critical.
- ...
- 205 posts total
@carlos269 You are quite the interesting character. What is your objective in posting on Audiogon? |
I am very please to have proved your point.
There is objective concepts and objective parameters in acoustics but all at the end --------- : serve our own biases exactly as an hearing aids can be perfectly designed to help a specific customer ... |
DSP may integrate your system with your room, but it won’t change the former’s sound signature. The same master recording of the same performance by the same musicians is liable to sound 50 different ways depending on edition, medium, remastering, processing at streaming services’ facilities, etc. At the end of the day, the best we (in my view) can do without going ape is look for a sound signature that pleases us. That signature is imparted by speakers, so we pick those first. Then, we pick amplifiers that have the ability / talent to make our new speakers sing, and then we enjoy the music. |
ear @carlos269 : I think that you are not stupid ( ? ) however you posted " hundreds " of stupid questions as some of the ones that you made/posted here and elsewhere: " So why does every system sound different? " " How are thousands of audiophiles chasing “what is in the recording” and yet all have different results? " but even more stupidity from your part: who told you that what we are looking forchasing: " what is in the recording ".
" BUT even more important, how does one confirm, verify, and validate “what is in the recording”? What is the process for anyone of us to state that any our systems reproduce exactly what is on the recording? " NO ONE IN AGON ARE LOOKING TO REPRODUCE EXACTLY WHAT IS IN THE RECORDING. OR WE HAVE TO VALIDATE/CONFIRM NOTHING LIKE THAT.
r.
|
- 205 posts total