I orginally wrote what follows as a response in the current "Audiophile Quality"???? Really?? How so?? thread, but decided that, though related, it was too far off that thread's original topic and purpose.
That's an interesting quote (Audiophilleo.com?). I can agree with the first statement, but find the list of "audiophile" attributes that follow it to be rather narrow. It's certainly one way to define good sound, but there are others. Here's a cut-and-paste comment of mine from another thread:
Whenever I read from someone that component x really "blew away" component y, I want to know in what terms the poster is writing, what attributes he or she is listening for. The first system I heard that really "blew me away" was an LP12 with Basik Plus arm, Basik cartridge, the original Naim Nait integrated amp, and a pair of wall-mounted Linn Kan speakers. People listening for air, instrument placement, soundstaging, transparency, etc., would no doubt have been disappointed, but the little system really nailed beat, rhythm, and melody; it communicated to me in musical terms in a way I hadn't experienced before and was far more satisfying to listen to than systems many times its size and price.
When comparing products, I think we need to define what we hear. When someone opines that a particular vintage turntable is better than a new Rega RP1, I don't doubt them, I just want to know how. Does it have better rhythmic cohesion, are the melody and harmony lines easier to follow, do the instrumentalists sound like they're in better time with each other? I took a lot of ribbing last year when I replaced a pair of Vandersteen 1C's with Bose 301's. I have the greatest respect for Vandersteen, its products, customer support, etc., but in my system, my room, and to my ears, I found that the 301's strengths of extremely wide sweet spot, better timing and rhythmic cohesion, consistent tonal balance everywhere in the room, and dynamics were more important to me than the Vandersteens' more precise imaging, depth of soundstage, detail resolution, and frequency extension.
I think a lot of the disagreements people have over equipment will disappear, or at least be understandable, if we are clearer about what we're listening for.
That's an interesting quote (Audiophilleo.com?). I can agree with the first statement, but find the list of "audiophile" attributes that follow it to be rather narrow. It's certainly one way to define good sound, but there are others. Here's a cut-and-paste comment of mine from another thread:
Whenever I read from someone that component x really "blew away" component y, I want to know in what terms the poster is writing, what attributes he or she is listening for. The first system I heard that really "blew me away" was an LP12 with Basik Plus arm, Basik cartridge, the original Naim Nait integrated amp, and a pair of wall-mounted Linn Kan speakers. People listening for air, instrument placement, soundstaging, transparency, etc., would no doubt have been disappointed, but the little system really nailed beat, rhythm, and melody; it communicated to me in musical terms in a way I hadn't experienced before and was far more satisfying to listen to than systems many times its size and price.
When comparing products, I think we need to define what we hear. When someone opines that a particular vintage turntable is better than a new Rega RP1, I don't doubt them, I just want to know how. Does it have better rhythmic cohesion, are the melody and harmony lines easier to follow, do the instrumentalists sound like they're in better time with each other? I took a lot of ribbing last year when I replaced a pair of Vandersteen 1C's with Bose 301's. I have the greatest respect for Vandersteen, its products, customer support, etc., but in my system, my room, and to my ears, I found that the 301's strengths of extremely wide sweet spot, better timing and rhythmic cohesion, consistent tonal balance everywhere in the room, and dynamics were more important to me than the Vandersteens' more precise imaging, depth of soundstage, detail resolution, and frequency extension.
I think a lot of the disagreements people have over equipment will disappear, or at least be understandable, if we are clearer about what we're listening for.
