Time for a little audiophile myth busting 

Did you treat the midranges with the optional King Cobra venom? It totally opens up the soundstage.. A bargain at $20k per oz.

That's $97,533.91 CAD

@@brazillm10 Elf's blood is better but it takes at least 3 elf's per speaker which brings up the cost to 200 K . Don't get me started on Brazilian smurf love juice . You can't put a price tag on Magic but you can on smurfs . Hey maybe they can do something with white rhinos ?

I call Bull Shit. It was more like 73.850$

That's because the speaker cables were probably on the floor. You need dedicated cable stands to keep the speaker cables off the floor. It has something to do with MPE (Magnetic Polarity Effect) when speaker cables are near the ground. Each stand has a built in CPTM (correcting phase time modulator) that adjusts for the air drag inherent due to the earth's rotation or more commonly known to audiophiles as SATW (sonic atmospheric tidal waves) correction for high and low tidal airwaves that affect the sound or air in the hearing space. This set up costs only about $5K and is a bargain for people who are serious about sound. Just be sure to make your cables-on-the-stands run parallel to the earth's equator. Sit back in your sweet spot and enjoy.

@@tonys4396 Hit a little close to home there eh sparky?

@@tonys4396 You probably think Beats are "audiophile" and a Nikon D810 is "pro". Lawl

@@MuahMan I don't shoot Nikon but if you're in some way arguing that D810 isn't a professional camera...... I like his analogy, being a pro shooter myself. I think I would have worded it differently. As in a lot of people don't spend the time and effort maximizing the gear they already own before spending money on more expensive gear. In doing so they fail to reap the rewards of the more expensive gear because they failed to figure out how to set up the basics that prove most important no matter what gear you use.

I agree. I couldn’t afford a Roleiflex so I got a decent Rolleicord, and I have had more fun with that camera, taking it all over Europe. Technique and passion make a big difference. You can have a $20,000 lens and if your thumb is in the frame it’s still not going to be a nice photo. Haha

@@cosmic-fortytwo I've had both those cameras back in the day for medium format and Nikon and Canon for 35mm. ALL great cameras. But what you are saying is that it's a waste to have a more expensive camera and better to get a cheaper one. Wrong. There are consumer level cameras and professional level cameras. It all depends on what you need. If you;re a profession back then, you needed a Nikon F versus a Nikkormat. You needed the Rolleiflex versus the Rolleicord. What the Rolleicord did, it did great, but it couldn't do many things that a professional needed a camera to do. Let me ask you, what good is a Rolleicord if your thumb is over the lens? I find your analogy as ignorant as you.

That's it, making folks think for themselves, that's the best I can do.

I just bought the PSB Imagine XBs- only bc they were on same for $50 less than the alpha P5s. Haven’t set them up yet- I’m so excited!

Check out A British Audiophile

Dude do you remember the Wisconsin Discount Stereo ads? Almost bought a system from them.

I would say 90% of great audio is a great performance by a great artist. The Edge demonstrated during an interview, some excellent, early U2 demos he made on a small cassette recorder. Louie Louie, by The Kingsmen, was recorded with one take and one overhead mic. Bad recording, priceless performance. Keith Richards insists that 4-track recording is all that is needed for excellence and that one can separate the good bands from the not good bands by how well they can make a simple 4-track recording, Enya notwithstanding. Just my perspective.

I would say 50% because even lesser quality recording can be more much more listenable on a better system. The thing is it CAN be but also the opposite is true sometimes. It all depends on what is meant by a Poor Recording and where the shortfall is . Home made recordings I have of family members from 1970 transposed to CD on a home computer have inadequate quality but the feeling of reality is still there making them "Great recordings" They sound much better on a high resolving system despite the lo-fi nature of the recording

Ado topp actually a poor recording would sound worse, it’s like a saying a bad make up job looks better in 4K than in standard definition

SayUptown . It depends on the recording, and what we mean by a poor recording. As I have got better HiFi over 40 -50 years ,some "less quality"recordings are now playable and enjoyable. If we think about vinyl records then a better quality "record player" actually makes records play better and brings out the music rather than surface noise. I agree with you that in terms of a poor recording being one that is being made too loud as in the "loudness wars" then yes a better system won't make them any better and can sound worse on a better system.

Absolutely.

Or getting your hearing checked for starters haha! great point David Jay

Yeah! Absolutely! Better highs, improved resolution and extended bandwidth 🤗

fill your speaker stand up with cat-litter; the cheapest upgrade there is!

@Jordan Murray How so???

or have another beer

The problem I see is the high end in audio is often so full of woo it can't be taken seriously, especially at the prices much of the equipment goes for. Meanwhile, companies like Bose that actually do produce innovative products get panned simply because they design affordable mass-market products.

A $hit recording sounds fab on a GR8 system. U R a simple dummy seeking a 'mantra' 2 'solve every question'. Reality isn't like that. There R many factors, & a good system can make N E thing sound GR8... just not as GR8 as it COULD B if they didn't trash it 'up the chain'.

You're right. A great mix played over a boom box is better than a crappy recording played through a big powerful set of speakers with EQ & other goodies... HAHAHAHA =)) Tell us next how the taste of a sandwich is determined by it's weight LOL!!!

I use 1 CD for testing every piece of equipment, every cable change for many years, if IT sounds right then everything else will sound right, Tubular bells 2

Danny Hoffman The speakers you're referring to is the Quantum Line Source that Infinity released in 1977. The idea behind them was great, unfortunately the quality control was lacking resulting in loose components inside the enclosures. I was interested in these speakers, but had to pass on them because of the spotty quality problems. Consequently, in 1987, I purchased a set of Polk SRS units ($3000/pr) and never looked back. These speakers were SUPERBLY crafted with sound that totally blew me away. The bass response was "down" only 7db @ 12Hz with distortion at the lowest that HI-FI/Stereo Review had EVER measured. I still have these speakers TODAY. I love them so much that I COVER them after EVERY time I am done playing them. I use them only in 2-channel stereo because for MUSIC they sound best in this arrangement. CHEERS!

chris guy right. I’ve watched some of his videos and it never gets to sound like when will we ever see him enjoying sound vs talking about some theoretical system? Blah blah blah expensive blah resonance when will he show what he’s talking about

@@kingchakazulu7762 Taga Harmony, from Poland.

😂

You're right, I'll try turning the other way!

Israel Branco Why is this funny?

@m riggs you are absurdly paradoxical

@m riggsHey good come back Thanks babe.

Graham Douglas Yes...and there is nothing like finding and enjoying that sound you love..

I couldnt agree more! I have a 1990's Kenwood reciever and CD player, connected to 2 1985 bose bookshelf speakers with a BSR Quanta 500 turntable from the 70's. I also have 2 early 2000's Kenwood subwoofers hooked up. Each thing individually cost less than $100. Sounds like the best setup on the block to my ears!

The problem is saving up for "new" equipment! When you have no money, or simply refuse to part with much, USED is where the value is! Guys like Guttenberg, Stereopiles, & The Absolute Joke ragazines have such a vested interest in whoring the new CRAP that they go out of their way to pretend like used gear doesn't exist! I don't live in their alternate universe, filled with racks of FREE headphones given to me by manufacturers who don't want my ear jam back; chances are neither do 99.44% of us (probably more!). New turntables are especially crappy. Cartridges are largely unimproved since Analog's previous demise in 1985, everything under $1000 is the same shit with a different model name, or even the same name (Hello Gradog, Ortofart, Crapaoka...). Amps are mostly worse because we didn't have this Class D digital RUBBISH back in the '70s & 80's. Anyone who shills for Class D amps is either deaf, a whore from the review "press", or a deaf whore from the review press. Speakers ARE better (mostly...), but unless they are made in a corrupt totalitarian communist SHITHOLE country called China, they are a complete ripoff & no sane person can afford them, much less justify them. Get an old Dual turntable, the older the better. Put an Audio-Technica AT95E on it. Make your own interconnects & speaker cable from minimum 16ga MIL-W-16878 Type E or EE silver-plated & teflon-insulated hookup wire. Buy an old Sansui integrated amp or receiver, or a Lux RX-100 series receiver from 1984. Or for tubes, a Musical Paradise MP-301. Or an Audio Analog 8W/ch. job (sorry, don't have the model # handy, but it's under $500USD). For speakers, get a pair of Dynaco A25's, an old pair of Advent/1's, or any number of EPI, Genesis, Burhoe speakers with the inverted-dome tweeter. Boston Acoustics A70's &A100's are a tasty choice as well. If you insist on new for under $500, I hope you like TINY! Oh, one more thing: YOU'RE WELCOME.

Actually, you should be spending at LEAST $200K on power cables alone to even have the right to call yourself an audiophile. And who cares about how realistic it all sounds? It's not about the music and it never has been. It's about the equipment, specifically about using it to express your OCD and autistic tendencies. Also it's about snobbery.

@@russellhamner4898 Yes snobbery but these audiophools are such fools that they don't realise most of the world laughs at them.

Why wouldn't a piano be as impressive as a guitar or drum set?

@@charleshuguley9903 impressive? yes, but in a different way. The guitar, via the amplifier, moves a lot more air than the piano can move. That's why you will feel it in your gut. Same happens with the drums. Both instruments live can knowck your socks off. I think those two instruments benefit a lot more from a good (not just loud) stereo system than the piano which, at best, will sound like a piano.

Well he would wouldn't he

Spot on comment. I was just thinking, if I had that money to spend on music I'd have season tickets to all the best concert auditoria and operas and money to travel between them and visit cozy jazz bars in between.

mrpositronia , do not get into discussions about religion or politics...........or audio cables

I did!

You can get into politics or religion, but please DO NOT start on $100/ Ft interconnects. THANK YOU.

Mike Witkowski If you forget the price though, some amps are better than others aren't they?

I believe in the sufficiency argument: Once you get to a certain level of design and material quality, there is little to no difference in sound between amplifiers. You can still have a mismatch in amplifier and speakers based on load, loudness requirements, etc., so all those considerations are valid. This is an interesting read from the late Tom Nousaine. www.biline.ca/audio_critic/mags/The_Audio_Critic_19_r.pdf He has published several of these tests. Bottom line: Spend your money wisely.

Agree. (As someone who's participated in amp blind tests) It's all about the speakers and room.

Mike, But regardless of price, some amps are better than others in a given system aren't they?

Maybe it’s because Harbeth speakers aren’t that good and therefore you wouldn’t be able to tell much difference

I should also state that I have around $400 in cabling etc getting power to my system.

There's an obvious reason Metallica sounds better on vinyl. That band (along with the Red Hot Chili Peppers) are infamous for brick walling their albums to maximize loudness. That kills all the dynamics, smashes down peaks, makes everything sound equally loud and introduces digital distortion. You can't do that on vinyl, the album would be unplayable for various technical reasons. So in those cases the vinyl is going to sound a lot better. But the vinyl format itself is definitely not better.

Price does not determine sound quality, so both or neither setup can sound better. It depends what design U buy, not the price.

@Crazy - YES! I agree, very much. I keep telling my friends to put up some acoustic treatment to upgrade their system. It seems equipment without flashing lights and LCD displays is considered "low-end".

The only equipment U ned N E more is amps & speakers =) Do the rest with computers =D Room treatment U can do yourself cheap, but the best treatment is actually 2 physically change the shape of the room by putting big & tall pieces of furniture in it to break up the 'boxy' nature of the sound. U can fiddle around with 'traps' all U like but you don't even need that $hit if the space is no longer so 'resonant'. It's like sabotaging a flute by stuffing legos into it LOL

@@Deathrape2001 - Not quite an accurate analogy.

No, it's totally accurate. U R stuffing a room with various big furniture pieces to break up the shape. U R just contradicting because U R a weak stupid jakazz afraid 2 admit U wasted your $$$. Try the furniture thing out. U can get big furniture FREE (or close 2 it) on Craigslist 4 frax sake.

Thanks, I love covering a wide range of gear. Reading about stuff we can't afford, like Ferraris, seems interesting to folks who will never own or even once drive a Ferrari. I hope the same is true for expensive audio.

And that's what I love about Steve. He covers a wide variety of high end and very affordable but high fi gear. Thanks Steve. And I love it all! I love reading and hearing about the crazy expensive audio gear and the stuff that I can afford. It's a great hobby and its like my subscription to Car and Driver and Motor Trend. I actually read the articles on the Ferrari's and Lamborghini's multiple times and read the article on the Subaru Forrester once.

Richard, the truth of the matter is that a relatively modestly priced can sound wonderful if you take the time to set it up properly and pay attention to room acoustics. I've seen six figure systems set up in an absolute echo chamber and I've seen $3000 systems that worked like magic it a proper room.

@@brazillm10 - Yes! I agree. There is some "magic" in a well-treated room.

There R massive differences between cables, mostly E Z 2 tell in the highs, especially between bright, clean-sounding gear. U will notice differences in 'smoothing' effects =) As 4 clarity, very thin stuff of 'coax' style design with thin copper stranded core & solid aluminum sheet outter wrap sounds best. Somehow the difference in materials 'evens out' things. Speaker wire 2 = aluminum on 1 lead & copper on the other.

I wholeheartedly agree with what Steve G. said about this, so I applaud your strategy. But the endpoint depends on your budget; chose extra-carefully, include used components, & I put the..."event horizon" at no more than $10-15kUSD.

They make one good thing, noise cancelling headphones. Not audiophile but better on NC than anything else by a wide margin.

Andy Cohen I have to admit their noise cancelling headphones are good but the lifestyle home theatre systems are a rip off

lizichell2 if someone likes bose they are quality to them

lizichell2 - bahahahaha. Love it. That’s gold

Jacin Shardlow Haha yeah what do you listen with? I have a pair of grados 500

Clint the Audio Guy Your last sentence addresses the problem. The reason for so much rancor as prices go up is due to the perception of high-end audio equipment being outright lies. Think about it: How many people are satisfied with highly compressed music streamed over Bluetooth or otherwise from a low quality source? How many people listen to music as background noise? How many people, this time including audiophiles, have had the chance to even listen to a megabuck, Hi-Fidelity system anywhere, ever? Now, go out and try to tell these same people how much you love the sound of your new $300K whatever, and watch what happens.

Clint , I too have heard the MBL system at audio shows . It sticks in my memory as it was so good . in the room there was the MBL system AND an aural hologram of a jazz pianist it was brilliant.

Actually you CAN build a way better performing car than a Ferrari 4 like 1/10 the price or less. One example that comes 2 mind is the 'Atom' = street legal, but basically all frame, so very light & agile =) It's a glorified go cart, but outperforms Ferraris because of it HAHA

Then you're missing the whole point of high end audio! It's not about the music, it's about the $$$ spent on the equipment! Hell, it could all just be empty metal and wooden boxes as it won't be listened to anyway. It's all about satisfying the OCD urges and having status symbols.

That’s fine but you aren’t listening to anyone else’s music so whilst I am sure it’s a great experience it is only one of many possible ones. I played in bands for years and of course the soundstage a musician gets is very different from the audience

@@russellhamner4898 Do you honestly believe that ?????

nick parkin I'm not familiar with the Zeniths, I will have to look them up. I am familiar with the full range driver concept from Gallo speakers (roundsounddotcom). I have been fortunate enough to audition some of those at a friend's house and found them to be very nice indeed. : ) Edit: I just looked up the drivers you're talking about. Wow, *that* Zenith! Ha-ha, very cool. : )

im telling you they sound better than anything you could imagine. They make every recording sound so different and have such a good timbre to the sound and they have incredible balance. I have one pair and one speaker has a small hole from a pin in the cone. I was lucky enough to snatch a mint condition pair for about $200. I just can't get over how good they sound! they don't sound like speakers at all they just sound like music.

nick parkin I believe you, after having heard a similar thing in the Gallo's. Full range speakers have the advantage of having no crossover, which always has a detrimental effect on the sound. The other advantage to your Zeniths is running them open baffle. This somewhat gets around the cabinet diffraction of the sound waves coming from the drivers. The Gallo speakers I keep talking about use a spherical enclosure to eliminate diffraction. These two things provide a huge improvement in naturalness of sound, making the speaker much more open and transparent, much like a flat panel speaker. So yes, it is not your imagination; they really do sound that good! :D I'd love to hear 'em.

It's a pitty there aren't more full-range speakers out there. I have a pair of "4 Pyle that has a whizzer cone in it, and it doesn't sound half bad. People love to hate on Pyle but the speakers have the fundamentals right. It's good enough for Prologic type surround sound, which was what I was using it for. On the other hand, 2-ways with silk tweeters can be like laser-beams, and I don't care for that effect. I want better dispersion.

6 million dollar systems exist?

@@1337wafflezz did. Look up Jeremy Kipnis and Kipnis Studio Standard. He was a friend of mine, but passed away a couple of years ago.

I completely agree....the most important component to good sound is well recorded and well mastered material. That being said, I think vinyl is slightly more forgiving of less than good recordings that is digital.

Let us just admit that digital recording and media is objectively better than analog recording and media. They are however both of sufficient quality for us to use and listen to them.

oddboxTopper I share your philosophy of getting the most out of your system. Therefore allow me to recommend Mapleshade Records. If you go there and do your research, read carefully and follow the advice and technical principles found there; I believe you will be able to improve the sound and performance of your current system to a surprising degree. Even if you employ DIY versions of some of the products (which is even mildly encouraged), I think you will hear an improvement. I could say more, but I don't want to sound like an infomercial. Cheers!

One of the biggest issues CD had in the early days, was bad mastering and RIAA curve., They were harsh, tinny and bright coming from Japan. German pressings got it right and the fidelity was VASTLY improved.

Scott Lowell CD does not employ any kind of RIAA. Vinyl does. I think what you meant was brick wall filtering.

@Jordan Murray Problem with measurements is that they are responsible to only a fracture of impression.It matters to those who personally consider them valuable - people have priorities There is no even possible like "stand still picture " in sound to make any complete assessment and have it for compare with different stuff . . All we measure are only quality elements which we actually can measure. For me it is remote valuation while my ears and imagination sometime can do it enough . .

Bullshit. They more than matter.

@Jordan Murray Actually, there are a LOT of people that say, "To hell with measurements, I will trust my ears".

Soda Pop etymotic already had then

Using in-ear phones is a 'process'. U must keep Q-Tips around 2 clean out the 'sweat' & also 'prepare' the surface 4 a good seal, & the right tips & stuff R also super-important, & 2 take breaks every couple hours or more 2 wipe the inside or do something else. It's like swimming. U can do it lots, just don't stay in water all day every day, as U R not made 4 it =)

John Lennon's book "A Spaniard In The Works" is on the shelf to his right.

After the first glass who can tell the difference?

@Steve Tllsdaleys Yes he sure does and I appreciate him for doing it

Spot on. I have a reasonable pair of active speakers I designed and built myself. Not high end but OK. In our rather lively sounding dining room they are a bit coloured but you get used to it. Then one day I took them into the TV room (carpets, sofas and thick curtains) and hitched them up to watch a movie (La La Land I think) They sounded incredible, I couldn't believe they were the same speakers! Tight bass, rock solid image.

Nonsense, with analogue it is always a fight against endless limitations: The grain size of the lp, dust, wow and flutter, electric signal degradation, motion dynamics of the needle. One simple truth remains for all those limitations: it is impossible to get right. Even a professional dust free lab isn’t totally dust free, even the best motor will have some wow and flutter, left and right channel separation is never perfect. With digital it is much simpler: concerned the quality isn’t perfect? Just double the bitrate. There is no limit. Channel separation is perfect, it is simply a separate set of bits. Only difficulty is making it analogue. But the digital part is perfection, only limited by your choice. Vinyl is enjoyable because of the physical aspect, not because of it’s technical aspects. It even needs the RIAA equalization just to get past the basic fundamental limitations of what the needle can physically do.

@@SanderSmit77 You wrote about vinyl in terms of this or that never being perfect. True. Even Ferrari's flagship LaFerrari is not perfect. Why would anyone ever want one when the roads are never perfect, and the weather is not always ideal, and you have to clean it, and you get stuck in traffic? Nothing in life is perfect. But every item you mentioned about vinyl, with the right quality components, and in the hands of expert installers, is near-perfect. Any misalignments are so minuscule that they are imperceptible. And the playback sounds spectacular. Digital can be very good -- even great. But song after song after song almost never sounds great. Very good? Yes. Great? Rarely. If digital is the holy grail of musical reproduction, then why is there one re-master after another, year after year, decade after decade, for the exact same songs? Why is there digital equipment that costs $25 and digital equipment that cost $25,000? Why do the best digital playback systems have dedicated transports? Why does the sampling rate almost never make any difference, in terms of sound quality? Why does the MQA process correct timing issues that were introduced by the studio's equipment, if digital is so state-of-the-art? Why does the MQA process correct timing issues, on MQA certified DACs, if a great DAC is already designed to do such a great job? Measurements are for scientists. I'll take the stereo that sounds like heaven, yet has lackluster measurements, over the stereo that does not hold my interest, yet has impressive measurements. My ears are my only measuring tool, and my ears have heard some dream-level stereos, where the vinyl sounds so good that you realize how sterile digital is. I am curious as to what is the best analog set-up you have heard. Please describe in detail. Because if you have not heard a great set-up, dialed in by professionals (not the guy at BestBuy), then I can understand your not believing in vinyl -- because you have never really heard vinyl's potential. Note that stereos do not have needles.

I thought his comments were kind. Digital sucks total AUDIO DEATH, & exactly ZERO of the digital recordings in my otherwise VAST music collection (3500 LP's, 300 CD's, 1000 cassettes & 100 open-reel tapes, 100 VHS-HiFi tapes recorded in glorious FM- Analog) come even REMOTELY close to the fidelity to source of an analog recording, no matter how badly done! Digital just DESTROYS any fidelity of sound; regardless of bit-depth, sampling rate, or whether it's DSD pulse-width modulated or plain ol' PCM pulse coded. MQA is just MQ3, from what I've heard so far of this, yet another, latest'n'greatest DIGITAL AUDIO FRAUD. Yet another, of soooo many, toooo many to count, of "breakthroughs" in digital audio CRAPNOLOGY. More bits & higher sampling rates does noticeably decrease the metallic graininess, but the utterly synthetic musical timbres, depressing lack of low-level sound & the resulting 2-D imaging & "airless" electronic synthesizer NOISE-YELL remains...So if I have room problems, or my speakers are boomy pieces of crap, I want ANOTHER layer of digital AUDIO DEATH processing to "correct" my poor speaker setup skills? My inane choice of crappy speakers? My dumb choice of listening room, or my lazy-ass unwillingness to use passive room treatment? Sure! Add more digital to my shitty stereo! PLEEZ!

Dynamic range is a BAD thing. Stuff sounds more 'ballzy & real' if it's super-compressed =) Also, most digital is very harsh & fake sounding. Only a few types of DACs sound natural, & yes, very 'analog'. Sound is analog & everything else is a fake approximation, like a digital photograph vs the real object.

Analog is a worse fake approximation than digital.

ROFL! =)) Like compression in the air is in the form of ones & zeroes? You're insane =:-o Only a very few digital things sound as good as analog. U don't believe your own bull$hit, or U R a 'noob' who has never heard a good analog system. What a dork.