The Mysterious World of Audiophiles: What's Behind Their Superior Hearing? (Turntable tips)

Audiophiles can hear subtleties in high-end hi-fi that most people can't. Is it their equipment, their hearing, or maybe just their imagination? Let's find out more about this esoteric topic.
Enroll in the Audio Masterclass Music Production and Sound Engineering Course at bit.ly/3W3tpKo
CREDITS
Yuja Wang - / @yujawangvideo
Benjamin Grosvenor - / @benjamingrosvenorpiano
Walter White - www.sonypictures.com/tv/break...
Werner Heisenberg - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_...
Nagra turntable - www.nagraaudio.com/product/na...

[@kadelbach63]

When I was a youngster I briefly worked for a audiophile company along side my day job as a studio engineer. One day I was shown what a huge difference it made turning a pair of RCA cables around (it sounded exactly the same to me). It felt like the emperor’s new clothes situation. I was also stuck by the miles of mic cables, snakes and other and other interconnects used in the studio all of which to my knowledge were made with no concern for the direction of the cable vs signal flow. Interesting that a 6” piece of silver wire with an arrow on it could miraculously resolve and improve all the errors created in the recording studio with miles of cables that had no direction marked in them.

[@andreatomassini5521]

Haha...true

[@cisco1138]

Then there is the $180 for a 2 meter length of AC power cable between the components and the wall outlet. I'm told that discarding the included AC cable and replacing it with these cables will improve sound quality because the long grain copper conductors in these are all Direction-Controlled to assure induced noise is dissipated and drained properly. Hmmm, that only fixes the last 2 meters, what about the 50' of romex between the circuit breaker and wall outlet?

[@TerryClarkAccordioncrazy]

@@cisco1138 Fancy mains cables are nonsense sold on a misunderstood idea of how power supplies work. I have designed PSUs for a living and the mains cable makes zero difference to the output unless it has such a high impedance that it's literally broken.

[@TerryClarkAccordioncrazy]

If someone could explain how a cable carrying an alternating signal can be directional I'd love to hear it.

[@RickRoberts_simplyrick]

Drive a mini van. You can get around on the highway just fine, a BMW M5 won't be a better experience and more capable of speed and handling for you. For me, it will be significantly more capable. Now just enjoy your Big Mac, you won't know it from a fine dining experience at all. Take that to every other experience in your life. Ignorant bliss...

[@CMI2017]

An audiophile can quote stats and brand names but can't tell an E♭ from a F♯ or a diatonic harmonic progression. Their superior ears are actually eyes that read the product spec-sheet.

[@KenTeel]

Yes, that always cracks me up when I talk to people who "know music" , but can't tell you what a key change is. Well said.

[@scottlowell493]

A lot of them would do very badly at a pure tone audiometric hearing exam. They also fail badly when faced with a double blind test.

[@scottlowell493]

@@KenTeel or they "Know electronics" but don't know any characteristics of components or the relationship between amp/ohm/volt/watt. They cite product literature with no idea of how it works.

[@RagedContinuum]

From my brief readings on audiophile forums, I think you are misjudging. Sure, there's the ridiculously expensive cable aspect of it but most seem to be interested in the electronics as well as the history of speakers and amps. Different setups are going to make source sound different and some of those setups just look amazing in a room. Ultimately, philips, sony, panasonic, etc nailed it with digital cd audio in the 70s and 80s and it's so perfect that it will probably never need to change, and all of us can enjoy music in high quality on cheap headphones or expensive speakers

[@CMI2017]

@@RagedContinuum It's about the equipment as you say.

[@TerryClarkAccordioncrazy]

It's interesting that musicians are rarely audiophiles, and are often happy with an "adequate" audio system. I used to be an audiophile and gradually lost interest in it, which sort of corresponded with the time that I was learning musical instruments myself. I think one aspect is that musicians hear their own instruments and other musicians playing live music a lot and so the mystical "absolute sound" that hifi enthusiasts talk of is not much of a novelty. In fact live instruments can sound a lot rougher around the edges than the sound that an audiophile typically seeks. Perhaps another reason is that musicians are more focused on making music than listening to recordings, and when they do listen it will often be for a practical purpose of studying the performance.

[@jonschroedinger8360]

I think someone elsewhere in these comments had it correct that the term "audiophile" has been abused so bad that those who actually fit the real description of one should probably find a new term for themselves. Im a musician, and an audiophile by its actual definition. Beyond simply music, I'm quite literally fascinated by something like the well recorded sound of a water droplet hitting the surface of a puddle, being able to pick apart both the large and small through the lens of sound. This doesn't mean I wax poetic about audio equipment, but do enjoy a system that will pull the full scope of a recorded sound out and into your ears. All that's necessary for that, he listed quite well in his video. No distortion, an even frequency response across the spectrum, and typically good acoustics will help make it engaging. The folks who obsess more about the stuff inside their gear and things like the potential sound difference a single changed electrical connection may make aren't audiophiles so much as gear snobs. Those exist in musician circles, audiophile circles, really any circle even outside audio that requires gear of some sort.

[@TerryClarkAccordioncrazy]

@@jonschroedinger8360 Yes, you could say such people are obsessed with audio gear more than music.

[@paulcartwright2810]

Eddie van halen....arguably the greatest electric guitar player since Hendrix once surprised an interviewer who asked him who he was listening to yo which he admitted he didn't even own a hifi and only listened to music when driving...that said...I play guitar and used to in my younger days gig..etc...and I also appreciate a good hifi separate system...balance is required in all hobbies you will get elitism...and in all fairness for sure for example your average guitar player might not be an audiophile...mainly as he's too busy pontificating why his Gibson les Paul with its nitro cellulose finish allows the wood to "breath" enhancing the tone of his guitar ...(some more well off players..mainly dentist lawyers and doctors will pay extra to have their brand new guitar artificially aged with great scratches and loads of the paint worn away .pretend.cigarette burns in the headstock where the guitar player had jammed his cig in during songs...and the plastic yellowed as if the guitar has been played in smoke filled bars every weekend for 45 years by some poor working class bar band..rather than sitting in the wealthy guys air conditioned music room where he keeps his collection).and his pickups will be hand wired to his volume and tone controls using such legendary pots and "bumblebee" capacitors which will be played through a few analogue effects pedals with particular attention paid to the actual diodes and transistor used in said pedals... into a hand wired valve amp...it has to be valve..I'll not get into the whole modeling debate as this is a hifi equipment channel not a guitar "corksniffer " channel lol...Ironically enough the said guitar fiend....and tbf whilst maybe not to the level some guys take it...I do myself own a few nice guitars and if I had the cash would love a Gibson or fender custom shop model (although NOT a pretend "relic"one thats insane...cannot imagine audiophiles buying beat up loook turntables and amps lol) rather than my perfectly usable and well made Normal standard fender and gibsons I own....where was I?...oh yes...the guy who cherishes all this music made on vintage spec or indeed real vintage equipment...Will listen to renowned guitar collector and vintage guitars self confessed nerd..(hey his youtube channel is called nerdsville)..Joe Bonamassa albums probably on Spotify...lol....all that finely honed vintage valve goodness...recorded properly on analogue tape...all condensed down to....er a digital chip or whatever it is in a mobile phone and into the air vi's Bluetooth into some earbuds...or worse the tiny speaker in the phone itself.....now I'm not saying I've got special hearing ...but eve through my phone speaker..I swear god dammit...I can hear The difference between a nitro finish that let's the wood breath and a polyester finishes that seal in all the tone stunting it's tonal properties of the wood...lol OK...I mentioned Eddie van Halen at the beginning...er he changed guitar and the way it was played on a guitar he cobbled together from spare parts and a reject body and guitar neck..he bought costing about 200 bucks ...and yes...us guitar geeks obsess these days about every minute detail of this cobbled together famous (Eddie played lots of guitars) battered looking "Frankenstrat " and a few years ago Fenders custom shop made a down to every last detail..scratches..cig burns..even .the same year coin he screwed into it as a temporary repair on its tremolo....copy/replica......yours for 25K.....probably owned by a lawyer these days....lol.....funny old world innit?

[@linosclassics]

@Terry: professional musicians which have an interest in audio are a rare exception indeed. Most own mediocre systems (if any) and are perfectly happy with.. As you rightly said, main reason is that they concentrate on the performance and interpretation when listening. But an other, connex reason, is that they are extremely adept at unconsciously "reconstructing" the sound of the concerned instruments. Even the ones which do enjoy real good sound (and well made recordings) are usualy not bothered in the slightest by mediocre reproduction systems or subpar recordings (within limits..). Now try to make them listen a performance or interpretation they dislike..😅

[@thinkIndependent2024]

Because they are spending so much money being a musician ( another expensive hobby)

[@jolyoncaplin747]

When I was a lad, I was really impressed with audiophile setup my neighbour had. He was a retired electronics engineer and his setup included very large horn loudspeakers and a very solidly mounted record deck. Everything was carefully laid out and operated. His friends would often come round and they would listen to a wide range of classical music. He was quite hard of hearing, though. I plucked up the courage to ask how he could appreciate what his sound system was doing for him. He replied kindly that high frequency response is only one aspect. He could still enjoy the stable bass performance, the clear stereo imaging, lack of wow and flutter - and many other things. Plenty of scope, still, for subjectivity!

[@SounduSleep]

Musicians have the best ears. They can hear with greater perception the flavours of notes against harmonies and feel too a greater degree the rhythm and pulse. I have a pretty good system, and I'm a amateur musician. After starting ear training, I began to hear and understand things in music I was previously ignorant of. Lyrics became easier to understand, and the flavours of notes and chords became more apparent. No need to spend thousands, just a few quid on a course of ear training, plus it's made me a better musician. Most audiophiles aren't musicians, and they have a bland taste in music.

[@brucermarino]

Ear training is so important! But many of my musician friends have suffered ear damage because of playing in groups or orchestras. Use it and lose it? Thanks!

[@kenhurstmedia]

You are expressing exactly what I've been thinking lately after hearing and reading so many audio "experts" go on and on with ridiculous verbal descriptions of what they think is good or is bad about an audio component. It leads me to think that they have little understanding of audio and of how to express themselves in words.

[@SounduSleep]

They are the homeopaths of audio.

[@brucermarino]

Are you insulting homeopaths? :)

[@freeman10000]

🤣

[@Celatra]

@@brucermarino homeopaths are cancer

[@jasonhilliker2266]

I'm no audiophile, but I enjoy the hidden detail, imaging and stereo effects that high performance equipment can provide. There's a lot of quality equipment available at decent cost these days.

[@Think-Tank_Denkfabrik]

100% agree

[@MostlyBuicks]

So you are an audiophile. Why deny it? What does it need to have a negative connotation.

[@pedrocols]

@@MostlyBuicksThat's exactly the point mate. What makes you an audiophile? What make them think they can hear things in ways nobody else can?

[@MostlyBuicks]

@@pedrocols Some people think to be an audiophile requires super hearing. An audiophile is someone who desires and appreciates accurate sound reproduction. It is a hobby, not a capability. And it is not about hearing, it is about listening. Some care some couldn't care less, just like any hobby. I do not care about wine tasting. But I will acknowledge there are those who can pick up nuances of wine that I do not even care to try to understand.

[@pedrocols]

@@MostlyBuicks I am sure that you are fully aware that Accurate sound reproduction is impossible.

[@madmeister407]

I, like many others, have been listening to vinyl for more than 50 years or so and its right your hearing does alter with the passage of time. I consider my present system to be a half decent one and my vinyl collection to be quite varied. However, with a decent slug of single malt and one of my many favourite LP's on my table I crank up the volume and enjoy the music. Whether it be Rock, Classical, Progressive or Baroque I enjoy the music how I hear it and nothing else matters. I consider myself a music lover first and an audiophile second.

[@arvidstorli2501]

There was an experiment a long time ago, (in the late 80s?) a Swede made a network of "bad" components. Capacitors, resistors, coils. But made sure that all measurable units, frequency, phase and level were correct, after the signal had passed through the network. Listening tests showed that very few, if any, could hear a difference between the network and a straight wire.

[@mikesmith5389]

I think there is one important factor that you haven't taken into account .. audiophiles speak in an old English and rarely used dialect called bollox almost always when listening to their mind blowing ultra expensive equipment rather than just relaxing and enjoying the music coming out of it.

[@andymouse]

Wine connoisseurs speak that dialect too.

[@j.t.cooper2963]

"Audiophiles" are mentally disturbed. They think they can hear the slightest things all the while ignoring the sonic imperfections of vinyl.

[@galactusgalan4233]

Fantastic! Just found your channel and love it! Subscribed and thank you.

[@nitromcclean]

You tell it beautifully and I agree with just about everything you say, especially in this video. There's also something I didn't hear you say in this video that could also play into this context. My hobby is recording, mixing and mastering music. I've noticed that the exact same mix played on exactly the same equipment at different times can sound different to me. I believe that exactly the same sound comes out of my speakers or headphones, but that I cause the difference myself. When I'm tired at the end of the day (and have heard a lot of noise) I am no longer able to judge a mix. I just can't hear it anymore. When I listen to the same mix early in the morning the next day, it suddenly sounds much better. And I experience another difference. I can enjoy the musical performance while listening and be really moved by it, but I can also focus on one of many aspects. Then I hear something really different. I am unable to hear all aspects in detail at once. I know that what we see is what our brains make of it. There is too much information coming in through our eyes to our brain at once for us to be able to process it all. Our brain makes a selection based on recognition, fills in "gaps" and that is what we think we see. I have long thought that this is different with sound. You just hear the sound around you. I now think that this works the same as with seeing. A lot comes in through our ears and all the details are too much information for our brain to process. What we think we hear is therefore, in my opinion, not the same as the sound that reaches our ears. I think that audiophiles and hi-fi enthusiasts take in all kinds of things in their minds and that affects their listening experience. If that makes them happy, they should do that. If they also respect me for my listening experiences then we are good friends.

[@andrewwebb4635]

Wow! What a fantastic explanation. Thanks for the view from a professional. I’m merely a listener - I like good quality sound but I’d never call myself an audiophile. I too, however, think the same recording on the sae equipment in the same room can sound different under different circumstances. My test is Barbara Streisand: is she sounding lovely and clear or is she sounding just a little bit edgy?

[@stjernholmreviews]

No matter how you choose to view it, the fact that audiophiles FEEL a difference is a fact. As a "AV-Therapist" this is something I meet a lot. I do a lot of blind testing, and have teached sound engineering for 3 decades, and one thing you can never underestimate is the power of the mind. See this change? Can you hear it? The change was fake.. Can you hear it now? Just seeing a bigger cable, can alter your perception of what you hear. Seeing that "high res audio" light turn on on the equipment, or the components looking bolder for example. can have great effect on the perception of how it sounds. Does that make it less true to the listener? After all, music is all about how it makes you feel, trying to use reason or logic on that is just a silly as questioning why someone loves a specific kind of music IMO 🙂. Great work on the channel!

[@webjammer1]

I was once mixing a well known band and the guitar player's girlfriend came up and said the guitar needed more 400Khz. I told her she had very good hearing and I was just getting ready to turn that up. I went to the guitarist channel and turned up an unused aux send and she said that's better.

[@pauldionne2884]

I'm 62 and the upper limit of my hearing is now about 13K. I've always been into electronics and make my living testing semiconductors. I've also a musician finishing up 20 years in a popular wedding band. I remember getting into electronics because I was curious about Hi Fi but of course I could never afford cool stuff when I was starting out. Thank GOD! I surely would have wasted more money than I did. I always had mid grade consumer stuff that served me well. Now I can afford whatever I want but still don't indulge in very hi end gear. As a technician I can tell you that there is nothing about anything electronic that can't be measured directly or indirectly. The data collected on a simple op amp chip would blow you away starting with the basic menu of analog puzzle pieces that make up the chip then the chip functionality under stress power and load conditions at various temperatures. While I'm attracted to your beautiful AI assistant when she starts babbling audiophile nonsense it's a sign she has been mis-programmed!

[@MVC670]

13K? You're doing pretty good!

[@clicks59]

I find the quality of the recording, when played on a decently flat system, is much more noticeable than the system itself. When I was a young lad (many, many moons ago), I could better identify good recordings versus bad ones. One of my favorite recordings was the live Skynard album. It had tight bass and a smooth top end. Years later, I researched the recording engineer/ producer. It was Tom Dowd. He was a master of live recordings. His philosophy was to capture the magic of bands playing live versus tracking, which he did very well.

[@bikdav]

@clicks59: You have a point. I’ve heard some damn good recordings on some ‘not so great’ systems. I was not disappointed with the enjoyment of the music.

[@jdraven0890]

YES - if certain engineer/mixers worked on a recording, I know it will be good, period. As you said, it makes a huge difference. Example: anything put out by Audio Lab Japan will be an outstanding recording.

[@bopryszlak3863]

I just love when someone tells me that it's possible to hear the difference between a $80 amplifier fuse and a $2 fuse. Or better yet, how much better everything sounds with a $1000 power conditioner. 😅

[@mijorchard6206]

The audiophiles' contempt for any form of blind testing tells you everything you need to know about their brand of woo.

[@tobiaxelsson]

As a former EMI measurement engineer I believe a big reason for all the debate is that a lot of people are unaware about frequency domain and time domain as in the former effects being mostly unknown/misunderstood and how they transfer in between ie a frequency response measurement won't properly catch the effects in time domain. Good example of this is how random jitter looks like noise in the frequency domain, while is actually a time domain distortion, and the same effects also apply to analog. The reason being that the frequency domain is based on component waves that are continuous (thus time is no longer in the measurement other than phase since phase is only equal to time in continuous waves) and simply put don't contain the time component. Time domain is quite a bit more difficult to properly measure, especially waves in a 3D space, so it's quite overlooked compared to frequency spectrums. My personal analogy is that frequency domain is a bit like engines in cars (quite easy to measure) while time domain is more like a cars handling (quite difficult to objectively measure and thereby a lot of BS in the industry, but still a real thing).

[@AudioMasterclass]

I'm going to read this before I go to sleep and let my subconscious work on it overnight so I understand it in the morning. DM

[@jchervella8150]

Sound technicians, for many years now, have been trained to make recordings sound pleasant when listened to with headphones on a smartphone. They only care that the music has a balanced and compressed frequency spectrum as much as possible so that it sounds as high as possible. At no time are other factors such as the recreation of the sound scene taken into account. Actually, almost all music (except classical music) is recorded in false stereo, as they are just separate mono tracks, layered in the mix from left to right with the pan control. Yes, in pop music everything is an artifice, in jazz and classical it is more feasible to record the group in their space, so hi-fi makes real sense to me when it comes to reproducing acoustic music naturally. That's one of the reasons why any Rudy Van Gelder jazz recording from the 50s (yes, recorded without multitracking, in analog and with tube electronics) sounds much more real when played back on a good hifi system than any recording. made in ProTools, without noise and without distortion. Indeed, the studio technicians do not consider the time domain at all, only the frequency domain. Likewise, music is not a standing wave, and therefore, although we use the Fourier Transform to analyze its behavior, the equipment (the electronic components that make it up) actually spend more time working in the transient regime when playing music ( is studied with the Laplace Transform) than in the permanent regime. This is why two amps that have the same noise, frequency response, and damping factor will sound identical when playing a sine wave, but different when playing music (with stops and starts, pulses, rests, etc.)

[@robertdowell9493]

You've obviously never been in a recording or mixing studio. And you've mixed up so many unrelated concepts. Firstly, studios spend literally tens of thousands of pounds on monitors. Some aren't very expensive, like the ubiquitous Yamaha NS10. These are used to duplicate the capability of most domestic systems so that the mix can be assessed for the most commonly experienced environment. You can pick up a pair for around £500. In the same studio control room, or monitoring station, you'll probably also find a pair (or more) of ATC SCM50s at £12,500 a pop. Some larger studios will have SCM300A SLs at £40,000 a pair. Quested make some very good units at similar prices. These can accurately recreate the sound of an orchestra at naturalistic sound pressure levels and if 24 Bit, can also duplicate the entire dynamic range of the orchestra. Music is not only mixed and mastered by people wearing headphones. They often wear headphones during the recording process to isolate certain sounds and microphones, and of course they play a part in the process but the reason modern music sometimes sounds bad is because of excess compression so that it sounds "loud" on the radio or streaming services. Secondly, recording musicians playing ensemble (which sounds "more real" to you), is instantly identifiable from studio produced "tracked" music because of "mic bleed". Every microphone will pick up sound from every source to one degree or another. It's inescapable and often undesirable. It might surprise you to learn that a great many artists don't want to make records that sound like they were playing live at the pub on Saturday night. They'd rather make their art, the way they would prefer you to hear it, in a studio, where they have full creative control over the soundscape and textures. Is that any less "real"? Of course not. Thirdly, phase IS a problem for reproducing sound using normal transducers, but this is well understoodand and can be reduced to a minimum. When you find yourself happy to listen to technically dreadful ensemble recordings from the '50s because they are more "real", but unhappy to listen to the incredible sonic performance of modern digital sound reproduction, limited only by the laws of physics at their boundary because of minute phase errors, you have to question what it is you want from music. Because I can say without much doubt in my mind that if Rudy Van Gelder and his mates had had access to modern recording equipment, they'd have been using it.@@jchervella8150

[@yourstruly1665]

I have a pretty sweet audio setup. Not a $100k system but a pretty good one that covers the frequency space very well. One thing that blew me away was when I decided (to an audiophile's horror) to bring the digital streaming music, CDs and also vinyl into a live performance DAW app with VST audio plugins to modify the sound more to my liking. Mind you, this goes waaaaay beyond simply EQing. I'm using audio plugins that are used in the some of top mixing rooms in the world here. These are high quality plugins which are usually operated around 32 bit and a least 96 kHz for dynamic "headroom". When doing this I'm able to take the sound to a whole other level, IMHO. It's so delightful. And when using headphones I employ plugins like Realphones to duplicate the sound in studio listening rooms or all types of places. Yes, it is audiophile blasphemy but, my goodness, it sounds soooo damn good. And isn't that the true purpose of being an audiophile in the first place? Good sounding music?

[@Think-Tank_Denkfabrik]

Digital streaming music isnt an audiophile's horror if you use an DAC - it´s perfect. "And isn't that the true purpose of being an audiophile in the first place? Good sounding music?" ^^ YES, I agree 100%

[@obscurazone]

​@@Think-Tank_DenkfabrikAll digital music requires a DAC for playback through speakers or headphones. A dac isn't a choice.

[@Think-Tank_Denkfabrik]

@@obscurazone then the WiiM Pro AirPlay 2 or Mini streamer has a DAC chip built in... no effort

[@EthanWiner]

This video is great. To answer your ending question, no, there's no change that any system can make that would improve the sound because any change is by definition a degradation. Now, it's possible that someone's hearing falls off at 10 KHz, so a treble boost in a preamp might be an improvement for that one person. In that case buying an equalizer probably makes more sense. The real issue with too many "audiophiles" is they have little understanding of the limits of their own hearing. So they imagine hearing things that don't really exist. As proof, many believe that a replacement AC power cord can improve the sound, or speaker wire elevators etc. Measuring the four basic parameters of fidelity quickly disproves their flawed perception.

[@NathanOakley1980]

Great video…. Subscribed

[@richclips]

I love music and audio systems, in theory I'm an audiophile lol, but I use a marantz cd player, a tascam LM8ST mixer and an old quad 303 that I rescued and repaired, lined up, driving some beautiful 2nd hand, so affordable ATC SCM35 speakers, sounds great and didn't cost a fortune. No frills, no black magic, no special interconnects etc, just a nice little system that I love and enjoy a wide variety of music with.. love the videos David, I'm quite addicted :)

[@nomis4913]

I once took part in a test to determine whether it's possible to tell the difference between lossy compression and the original source. The guy running the test prepared two WAV files; one a straight rip from a well-known CD, and the other a copy which had been through 320kbps lossy compression. They were both played on the same system. The audible difference between the two didn't slap me across the face, but it was definitely there. The irony was that in a blind test I subjectively preferred the compressed version because the artifacts made it brighter and more detailed to my ears, even if some of the detail was effectively distortion. My own system is decent enough but nothing to write home about. I don't have the luxury of a dedicated listening room, and there are enough compromises in my setup to make many an audiophile weep. But on a quiet winter's evening with the lights dimmed and a glass of single malt in hand it sounds plenty good enough to me, and that's all that really matters.

[@AudioMasterclass]

It can be difficult to tell the difference between uncompressed and AAC compression. My view however is that I would prefer not to have to worry that the music I listen to has been messed about with. Ideally we would be close to having universal uncompressed audio, but my bet is that it will be an upsell item for the next few years before it becomes the norm. DM

[@davidcurry8440]

I recently stumbled across you recently and have thoroughly enjoyed your posts. With all of the talk about connections, equipment, music formats, pressings (when talking about physical media sources), I’ve yet to hear anyone speak about the obvious: when was the last time you cleaned your ears? Maybe this is a new product line, audiophiles ear cleaning solutions 😂. Well, off to Kickstarter to start my new company, cheers! 😂

[@stevengagnon4777]

Audiophile? Let's get back to the definition. In short...more than a casual interest in sound qualities ,yes a fairly broad definition. But this will take it to the heart of the matter...all encompassing. For example walk into an old church and you hear a trained vocalist singing and you appreciate what hear, that's all the works of various audiophiles. You the listener, the vocalist and the designer of the space. This can be both healthy and good. The same can be applied to electronic media . So when this becomes unhealthy it is now an addiction and hurts you and your family in the process. As all healthy people know an addict will say and do extreme things to justify the time and expense to propagate the addiction and isn't really an audiophile, but now is an addict. Thank you David for keeping it real and continue the good work.

[@latheofheaven1017]

I do wonder with audiophile equipment reviews that they seem to be exercises in creative writing more than anything else. What does '...a surgical view of the music that was only revealing, never analytical' even mean?

[@diemturner5755]

Precisely. It's fanciful gobbledygook that says nothing. I'm always reminded of art critics when I hear them talk. Their, ahem, interpretation of a blank canvas is quite something.

[@DigbyOdel-et3xx]

If you just spent say $10,000 on a turntable you already know its sounds better without every plugging it in and actually listening to it. That is what audiophiles know. I was falling into the audiophile end of the swimming pool so to speak. Spent more money than I should especially on vinyl playback. But I inevitably stopped before spending a King's ransom endlessly on vinyl playback. I eventually walked away from vinyl playback and re-engaged my CD playback to just enjoy my CD collection going back as early adopter in the mid 80's. I stopped drinking the audiophile and notably vinyl Koolaid and accepted truth that in general CD playback mops the floor with vinyl playback.

[@DrBroncanuus]

I think all hifi reviwers should first state their hearing range in hz before each review

[@terryscanlan6738]

I loved your reference to "differences that don't really matter" in a previous post. That is my experience. My brain is capable of finding the essence, the fun, the beauty, in the music whenever I listen to an adequate system. I have several, and while they are different I can enjoy each one. Spending big dollars to get small increases in measurable specs. seems a fool's errand. Are we listening to the gear or the music? (It seems that the engineers have really caught up with our ears. The marketers are not done with our heads.)

[@andrewwebb4635]

I like your idea of several mi-fi systems! I’ve long believed all these nuances in reproduction quality due to changes in amps, DAC, wires and so on is more psychological than actual. Of course, you need to have basically good quality gear but I think I’d agree with you that changing rooms or using another setup would make your ears hear afresh sounds and details they have long got used to. There’s another side to this, of course. It may be a lot cheaper to swap your interconnects or even speaker cables than buying a ‘spare’ system!

[@G8YTZ]

I have to agree with a lot of what you say, funnily enough, I have a 401, 3009 vII and an A&R P77 with Quad 34 FM4 and 405, with a 66 CD player and a pair of Rogers, LS7s The turntable is 58 years old, and yes, it’s in a superb granite plinth, previously had the same plinth design as yours, which made it rumble, most of the kit is 40 years old, the CD player is little bit newer but not by much.. I also have a Linn, Akurate stream receiver, which is quite superb. I also have three reel to reel machines a Denon DRM710 cassette deck and a Sony CDP,101 CD player that I bought new in 1982. Part of my career was in broadcasting in other words, pro audio. So my philosophy is quite simple. I want to hear the sound as the recording engineer intended it to be heard. If you’re listening to music from the 1970s, then you should be listening to it as the original mix on vinyl because that’s how it was intended to be heard. If you’re listening to newer music, then a digital format is appropriate for the same reason. I really hate all the remastering, so I guess it’s the music I like. I also agree with what you say about classical music and hearing it live actually that goes for most music but one of my favourite artists is Ludovico Einaudi we saw him recently at the Royal Albert Hall and before that a few times of the Hammersmith Apollo.

[@Kevin_Carlson]

Layering profundity? Leading edge of the piano notes? In the immortal words of The Doobie Brothers..."Listen to the music!" Sometimes I do hear distortion in poorly mastered recordings, and audio compression lowers the quality a bit. But unless it's absolutely unbearable, it's not going to keep me from enjoying my favorite music. Then again I grew up on AM radio, so what do I know? Thanks again for a great video!

[@mikesmith5389]

Some of my best musical moments occured when listening to AM radio despite fading, noise and an adjacent French station trying to muscle in on the action .. those were the good ol' days.

[@mikecantwell77]

The audiophile forum purple prose reminded me of another KZbin video analysing a forgotten piece of audiophile equipment to improve the dynamism, airiness, clarity and, of course a much wider sound stage. This was the CD shaver. A piece of equipment that blithely ignored how the technology actually works to deliver improved audio by reducing unwanted internal reflection from the CD edge. I've put a link that goes straight to the comments from reviewers and it's full of the usual audiophile bunkum. It's perhaps true that I can't hear what these self-professed audio experts can pick up because I seem to have been born with natural bs filters in my ears. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nF60qX93rdyroa8

[@stephengriffin2188]

Probably unrelated. I have a couple of modest budget stereos. A floor stander, sub woofer, valve amp. And a class d monoblock, sub woofer bookshelf speaker set up. Any live music Ive listened to always sounds better recorded on my systems rather than the usually overly loud, bad theatre acoustics and conflicting ambient crowd noise of a night out. The thing that excites me most is space and separation and spacial width and depth between equipment. I don't really know that's even a thing but that's what gets me going when listening to recorded music

[@amdenis]

I know this is likely obvious, but in addition to the two main factors of frequency response and noise that you cite, you need to look at time domain response characteristics as a function of frequency, phase, damping and levels. Also, in the case of monitors/speakers, the room, the position of the monitors in the room and the listening levels are all important factors. Finally, power transfer, impedance matching, efficiencies and damping / control factors all affect and are often affected by other components in the signal chain. For example, if you try to drive a high current load device like a Martin Logan or Magnapan speaker with a typical amp that is designed more around driving resistive loads in the form of voice coils and compression drivers, you will find a poor match in terms of resulting distortion, response and output levels.

[@carlitomelon4610]

Yep My Magnepan LRS are singing happily now connected to a pro Bryston amp. My chifi tube amp choked at trying to drive them, in spite of having a 4ohm transformer tap. Point is, like it or not, you have to pay attention to system matching, speaker position and basic room acoustics to get closer to a satisfying reproduction of recorded music event. The danger is in becoming obsessed with the gear over the MUSIC.... 🎵🎶😉🎶🎵

[@Wizardofgosz]

Narcissism is rampant in the audiophool circles.

[@richsherman3673]

Awesome. You are spot on. I just play music and enjoy it. The equipment I use delivers each a version of the recording. No worries as I focus on the Music, not the Gear.

[@ferociousmullet9287]

One point I will raise as I think as being valid is that yes, lots of amplifiers will measure almost perfectly. HOWEVER, you mentioned loudspeakers as being outside of this, and I would put it to you that as amplifiers and speakers form a reactive pair you cannot treat amplifier performance in isolation in the same way as you can say a CD player from a technical performance pov. How any amplifier performs is a function of the reactive complex load connected to it. And most measurement tests do not take this into account. Thus, I feel it is valid to claim there to be 'better' and 'worse' sounding/voicing amplifiers than their purely technical measurements would suggest. Especially when you consider the wildly different reactive loads that different loudspeakers can present. A simple example would be a low wattage amplifier when presented with an easy load might well voice very similarly to a more high-powered amplifier but when presented with a difficult load only present at certain frequencies (remember it is a reactive system) the low power amp might well struggle to deliver enough current at the loads being seen by the amplifier and during these moments would sound much worse than the higher power amp capable of delivering more current during this time. But both will measure the same on a bench. Real world and test bench are not always equivalent. But otherwise I would be in agreement with the position that specs as long as they are below that which is discernible by the ears means most well measured kit will more or less sound the same.

[@AudioMasterclass]

I agree with this as the amplifier needs to control the speakers and damping factor is an issue. I try not to worry about it now, but in the days when I proudly owned a Quad 303 and a pair of Leak TL12 tube power amps I definitely could tell the difference. My memory struggles to remember which way round it was but I'll have a deep think and consider making a video on this topic. DM

[@ferociousmullet9287]

@@AudioMasterclass There is a reason my main monitors are connected to a pair of class A monoblock Brystons that can dump huge current on demand and not a modern PWM based amplifier, despite them being over 25 years old. Yes they run hot, yes they draw current all the time, no they are not 'green'. But they will drive anything. And drive it without breaking a sweat ever. My main speakers are PMC with sub setup, which is a very complex reactive load at the best of times. And I've tried a few times to find something 'better' to drive them with, and there is just something about modern PWM amplifiers that simply does not work to my ears. Good channel btw, keep it up. I commented on your video about DAW noise floor on what I feel is causing that 0.6dB discrepancy on your levels between the gained channel and not gained channel.

[@dingdong2103]

@@AudioMasterclass The dampening factor is quickly reduced to close to 1 when any reasonable amount of speaker cable is introduced between the amp and the speaker. Even a fraction of output resistance destroys the dampening factor. Active speakers are the future, with them the designer can make sure that the amplifiers are adequate to drive the drivers and there are no speaker cables to worry about either. Active crossover / DSP will also cut costs and still provide superior performance compared to passive XOs.

[@johnstone7697]

@@dingdong2103 "Damping factor" is an antiquated term from the tube days, whose value varies all over the map depending on the impedance of a loudspeaker at any given frequency. In those days, some amplifiers were made with damping factor controls, that would (theoretically) help to "dial in the bass" on the loudspeaker. That's been long abandoned, and virtually all speakers today are designed to work properly with a source impedance as close to 0 ohms as possible. Dick Pierce, a highly regarded loudspeaker engineer explained that anything above a damping factor of about 20 measured at the speaker terminals, was overkill. The output impedance of an amplifier should be low enough that it acts like a pure voltage source to the speaker, e.g. 1/10 ohm or less. A reasonably thick, e.g. 10ga set of 10ft speaker cables would only add about 20 milliohms to that. That combo would easily give a damping factor much greater than 1. I do totally agree with you about active loudspeakers. They are the future.

[@stevendog510]

Brilliant summary, an endless game of chasing your tail.

[@ericlubow4354]

We’ve all seen that cartoon of a fellow showing his audio system to a friend with the caption: “Two things that really drew me to vinyl were the expense and the inconvenience.” This is more true than meets the eye. During the CD era, I collected thousands of CDs. There was always something missing and it wasn’t necessarily the sound. After 20 years I went back to vinyl and have never regretted it. Yes, it’s more expensive and it takes more work, but on good recordings, the sound is phenomenal. Just ask some of the best mastering engineers like Bernie Grundman and Kevin Gray. And most of the records I buy today are well pressed and noiseless ( no pops and ticks). The whole process is more involving. Sometimes what’s easiest is not necessarily best. Why do people like small sports cars with clutches? Certainly a Lexus with automatic transmission, excellent suspensions and comfortable seats would give a smoother ride. Why should you have to work switching gears? BECAUSE IT’S FUN! In the same way, for me, vinyl is fun. I’m much more involved in the music than when I’m just pressing a button. If you’ve never opened a sealed 50 year old record that after cleaning plays perfectly, you’ll never experience that great feeling. For those who enjoy digital, kudos to you. Each to his own! Amen…

[@ZehNettoOficial]

I totally agree!

[@TheRealAudioDidact]

Can you really not hear leading edges in music? Can you not sense reverb tails and how they are separate from the original sound in a good system? Audiophile does not have anything to do with having money. It is "phile" the-love-of something, in this case Audio.

[@MJHiteshew]

This comment wins the internet! I think that cables are underappreciated and can dramatically impact leading edges and tails.

[@billd9667]

As someone with impaired hearing that uses high quality hearing aids, I can most definitely attest to the fast that the leading edges of consonants (and percussion) can be detected, and that it’s the one thing that hearing aids cannot address, explaining why we hearing impaired *still* say “Excuse me?” - especially in these days of mask wearing. Losing the hair cells in your cochlea and loses you your ability to tell Ts from Ps and Bs under certain conditions, like when the speaker’s lips cannot be seen, again as in today in these mask-wearing times. I work in surgery and get irritated when doctors mumble! Hear that!?

[@Olyxes]

🤡

[@tigertiger1699]

Certainly appears that getting the noise floor as low as possible.. is very important

[@andreemilsen369]

Lol🙊 That was funny🤣😂🤣 Defenetly some distortion in the recording of you technical asistant though🙊

[@realworldaudio]

I have noticed that the majority of people who have the most expensive systems have quite worse hearing (=discerning ability as far as sound goes). They rely on other audiophiles with better hearing (and less resources) to give them recommendations for their gear selection. This is true for people I know of, in our audio circles. However, there are exceptions, and there are some with extraordinarily expensive systems while they also have very keen hearing. (In fact, they have the most expensive systems I know of.) The main difference between people who have expensive system and good hearing vs those who just have the money, is that the ones with good hearing all spent an awful lot of time, DECADES researching out their current system. Not necessarily major changes along the way, but extreme effort done to fine-tune it and to LEARN how to refine it. Those who cannot hear, have a rough canvas, very expensive components but they are not synergizing due to lack of skill in implementation. These sound more like showroom systems. For those, who have the money and the hearing, their systems sound LEAGUES better than the finest I heard at any show, period. And it's not just "maybe someone could hear it, but we should all do a thorough AB test". No! Their systems sound so obviously better than other stereo gear, even to folks with hearing aids. The difference is so easily discernible as comparing a tin can to a drum.

[@nicktube3904]

Focusing on tonal balance and distortion tell me enough.. Obviously music is only about music, but for me aspects like instrument separation, depth, width, liquidy, transient attack are important to connect with the music. And yes, those terms are terrible, but it pretty accurately describes how a system sounds and whether it's within your tastes or not. As you say, the tonal balance and distortion factor is minimal with modern equipment, yet I find the average stereo image of mainstream equipment disappointing. But as long as you are less concerned with imaging and three dimensionality most moderate equipment will sound ‘good’. Now I do wonder who is really a music lover… It’s about the feeling of being there and you won’t get that without a 3D soundstage, atleast imo.

[@Lilregpack]

i guess my imagination is so vast that i dont need perfect soudning equipment to get that "feeling of being there" that happens everytime i listen to music.

[@Celatra]

As a musician who's held many concerts. The difference between 20k equipment and 200$ equipment is not as life changing as you'd think. Sometimes, cheaper stuff sounds better despite being of cheaper build quality.

[@carlitomelon4610]

Well said!

[@zackw4941]

My theory on this issue is this: Our auditory system is very complex and makes many calculations that we are not consciously aware of. We are sensitive to minute changes in pitch, phase or timing, in order to paint a 3D picture of the sound around us in the real world. It is a given that high quality microphones can pick up things our ears can't and that recording devices are orders of magnitude more accurate than what we think we are perceiving... But everything we think we hear comes from somewhere. Those minute fluctuations in pitch or phase are very difficult to capture and relay through a graph. Let alone to layman who doesn't understand the actual science of sound beyond basic frequency response. For example, look at frequency response graphs for headphones. They're all over the place. They have to be in order to compensate for sitting so close to our ear and bypassing some of the ear's functionality. Now compare multiple graphs for different headphones. Do you come away with an intimate understanding of how each one will sound? Hell no. Beyond sweeping generalizations of which one will have more bass, more forward midrange, or more extended highs, I for one, can't tell how they will image or what the sound stage will be like, or even how their tonality will come across, just by looking at those graphs. And I've been into headphones for over 20 years. Yet, even with my aging ears, I can pick out clear, if subtle differences between the very good stock cable on my LCD-4 and my more expensive Cardas Clear cable. Is the Cardas worth the price? No. I got a deal on it and I'm still not sure, but I'm not taking out and selling it either. My point is, I know it makes a difference, therefore there is data to be measured and prove my point. However, the act of capturing that specific data and representing it in a way that a normal enthusiast can understand is more or less what the IT industry calls, "security by obscurity." I'm not saying for a second that snake oil, placebo effect, or rich audiophiles high on their own farts don't exist. They do and in spades. Beyond that, even the most well intentioned reviewers are, out of necessity, desperate to pick out differences between pieces and put a magnifying glass over them. How long are you going to follow a reviewer that comes out every week and says, "Yup, all this stuff sounds very similar and you're wasting your money trying to do better."? The important thing for the rest of us is to remain objective. That means keeping an open mind, but applying common sense. Trusting our own ears to decide if we actually like one thing more than another and finally, weather or not a new component is worth it.

[@user-od9iz9cv1w]

Well said.

[@diemturner5755]

It's a well established fact that we hear with our eyes and with our mind. The result of this is that If we see something change or even just the expectation of a change will cause us to hear a difference. Even if there is none. Blind and double blind testing melts most of this nonsense away and there's good reason why audiophiles are so averse to it. It demonstrates that their ability to hear changes made is about on par with someone just guessing. You can play the same thing twice with no change whatsoever and people will hear differences. Ask them to take notes of the differences they hear. If they're audiophiles, you'll get a lot of colorful adjectives mixed with some gobbledygook. Afterwards tell them no change was made and let the hemming and hawing commence. They prove, objectively, that we cannot trust our ears. We can trick or talk ourselves into hearing almost anything.

[@raymondbunkofske4702]

I basically agree with your premise with this note. I believe there are system characteristics which we don’t know how to measure yet, or, are measured so seldom that most people aren’t aware that the measurement exists. Awhile back I purchased a new DAC because the power supply on the old one failed and parts were not available. One of my friends loaned me a CD which had been played on the previous DAC and said “see if you can hear the talking now”. He had noted a conversation in the background at one point in the playback, we were unable to hear it on my system with the old DAC despite carefully queuing up the music at the precise time point. I took home the CD and could now hear the background conversation and “proved” it by writing down the words spoken which he later verified. (I didn’t know them beforehand). Clearly something about the new DAC made a difference but it wasn’t due to any of the specifications published with either DAC. That doesn’t mean the reason for the difference isn’t measurable, just that it wasn’t-or can’t be-measured. Like the old saying “strangers are friends we haven’t met yet”, these perceptions may be “things we don’t know how to measure yet”.

[@a.h.d.h.2803]

Psychoacoustics excluded?

[@rabarebra]

You prob got a opamp in the new DAC with 6dB extra headroom. This will unveil more details.

[@sonic2000gr]

Solo piano really can differ between systems. I could easily hear and distinguish between two of my CD players using classical music. Nothing to do with frequency response, distortion or noise: the difference in the attack of the notes was very noticeable. The cheap CD player would make it sound quite flat. Pop music on the other hand was very difficult to differentiate between the two.

[@MJHiteshew]

Probably the quality of the DAC

[@ener5361]

Probably psycho acoustics.

[@sandrosachser]

Piano´s sound? I like so much Elton John´s piano. Regards from Brazil

[@StillAliveAndKicking_]

Could you do it in a blind test?

[@sonic2000gr]

@@StillAliveAndKicking_ yes, consistently... It was very evident but only in solo (classical) piano.

[@edgarortiz4681]

When you take into account that most audiophiles are well into their 50's, you must take all of their recommendations with a grain of salt. Everyone's hearing declines significantly over time.

[@kartoffelbrei8090]

some even dont know hearing includes your brain

[@markboyle9941]

Whenever audiophilia is discussed it's important to be aware of the fact that ears are merely pressure transducers and that your brain makes sense of it all. I have always been sceptical of audiophile claims, but I too was able to hear a difference in cables where physics tells me there shuld be none, simply because I was told that I should hear a difference and my brain applied the bias. This is why audiophiles hate blind testing. They apply word salad when all they mean is more expensive, so *must* sound better due to cognitive bias.

[@Think-Tank_Denkfabrik]

Thats true, but but you're not going to deny that different sources have different quality, are you?

[@latheofheaven1017]

Imagine the job of a reviewer though. After the fiftieth Pair of speakers, amplifier, turntable etc. has passed in front of you, and they're all really good, how do you say something different? How do you say, "Yup. Clear stereo image, full frequency response, undistorted with clear transients" over and over unless you find new ways to say it? The magazine or website needs to keep its readership, and you need to keep your job!

[@Garry646]

As a hi-fi enthusiast, I can agree with this video on the consumer side. There is no magic in an expensive speaker cable carefully raised 10cm above the floor Vs a sensibly priced(copper isn't cheap) one. A "power conditioner" won't transform your whole system into a million-dollar one if you get your power from the national grid(all your amps already have filters to deal with that, just look at their S/N rating) However. Looking at it from the side of an architect of a system(in the analog domain), you're either solving problems left-and-right, or choosing the lesser of two evils. For example, in electronics you deal with the phase curves of individual sections, then how they interact, the frequency curves of sections, and how they interact(electrolytic vs film caps, myriad of different components, ICs, etc), and once you figure all the specifics figured, you realize it would actually be pretty expensive to build, so you try to trim the costs down until you have a balance of costs vs flaws. Next, we have the transducers(microphones and speakers), the most distorting piece of equipment that comes from the manufacturers. Here, “The code is more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.” No one even knows what perfection is, thus it has never been achieved. Full-range? Coaxial? Two-way? Three-way? Dynamic? Horn-loaded? Condenser microphone? What are their polar patterns?(remember, the more directional it is, the worse its frequency curve) Then, we have the room. Boy-oh-boy you better not skip this one, otherwise you just made an expensive headache-inducer. This is where the home consumer does the work. Speaker placement, toe-in, listener position, subwoofer placement if you have it(then 360° phase and level matching with the speakers), room treatment, all need to be thought through for an optimal listening experience. And then you realise the music you want to listen to is so compressed it might as well be 8bit with some smoothing effects on playback, what used to be a low resolution sRGB picture of a house, is now a 4k ProPhoto RGB picture of a single color square with triangle on top, made in MS paint

[@ksnstechtopics8650]

You are absolutely right, if you can't measure it then it doesn't exist. A flat frequency response, low noise, and minimal distortion are the key. The only thing that limits true Hi-Fi (in the digital recording/delivery domain) are transducers i.e microphones and loudspeakers and the listening environment. Oh and dynamic range. Please can we have some more when the format (CD/FLAC) is capable of delivering 96dB's of it perhaps 30-40dB wouldn't be so much to ask for!

[@jacquespedals]

Great video as usual ! When I A/B-test different speakers, I hear different frequency balances. Which one is the true one ?

[@AudioMasterclass]

Probably neither. DM

[@jacquespedals]

@@AudioMasterclass So, like in 'Animal farm' , if all systems are inaccurate, some are more inaccurate than others, opening way to audiophile search ?

[@breakoutpete210]

Many recordings were made, and engineered on Tannoy, and JBL loudspeakers, yet some audiophiles don't like those brands of loudspeakers that many of the great recordings were engineered on...go figure...🙄🤦

[@rabarebra]

@@jacquespedals You don't understand that your room is also an EQ.

[@rabarebra]

@@breakoutpete210 You may choose any studio monitor, what it boils down to is how experienced the engineer is to use exactly the speakers of choice. It is not the speaker itself that does the mixing/mastering. It is due to skills. Why some use those speakers you listed, is because the engineer knows the speakers. Why do you think the NS10's were so popular? Because they had paper as woofers. If an engineer could make those speakers sing, he'd done the job correctly. It is about skills. Skills, baby.

[@tigertiger1699]

The girl is quite incredible…, her tone/ look.. she seems incredibly agreeable/ likeable… .. the facial expressions..

[@kevinmcgrath3591]

I agree and delight in the delicious way you present your case ; love it

[@mallacai]

audiophiles use music to listen to their hifi, music lovers use their hifi to listen to music

[@rabarebra]

No. Music lovers use their iphones to listen to music on streaming. Hifi is nonexistent among average people these days.

[@carlitomelon4610]

I would happily have your assistant read stereophile to me... I quit my free subscription a couple of years ago. Lost patience with the snobby pricetag listeners. The down to earth Herb Reichert endorsed kef's flagship ls50s as worthy & reasonably priced monitors. He also recommended the Magnepan LRS And John Atkinson bought a pair of Ls50s These are now my reference speaker systems with pairs of REL subs. It's not just about frequency response and distortion when it comes to music reproduction. I love the recreation of the hall acoustic and imaging. 🎶😊🎶

[@georgelewis3047]

I've noticed that no reviewers have ever posted their audiology report alongside their opinions.

[@AudioMasterclass]

I suspect that audiophile reviewers would say something along the lines that audiology only reveals gross problems of sensitivity vs. frequency and that it doesn't assess the fine resolution of a hi-fi enthusiast's hearing. This is a topic I may consider in a future video.

[@glenlapwing8468]

They don’t have better hearing than anyone else, they just hear more music on their $100,000 speakers, amps & turntables & so would you

[@markvandenberg4606]

My middle-aged ears can certainly hear the difference between an MP3 played over wireless earbuds and a high-res file streamed bit perfect to an amp and set of floor-standing speakers. I’m always looking for (or more often dreaming about) upgrades to my speakers and amps. That said, I’m also on a budget and sometimes wonder if the chase for audiophile perfection I see in so many folks is not just another manifestation of modern-day obsessive consumerism. Twelve grand for a phono cartridge, really? I would perhaps spend that kind of dough on an entire system were I a millionaire. But not a penny more.

[@peterwollenberg4905]

"C'est un Nagra, c'est tres précieux (This is a Nagra, it is very valuable)" from the film 'Diva' by Jean Jacques Beinix. One of my favourite movies btw. - for obvious reasons.

[@jchervella8150]

Sound technicians, for many years now, have been trained to make recordings sound pleasant when listened to with headphones on a smartphone. They only care that the music has a balanced and compressed frequency spectrum as much as possible so that it sounds as high as possible. At no time are other factors such as the recreation of the sound scene taken into account. Actually, almost all music (except classical music) is recorded in false stereo, as they are just separate mono tracks, layered in the mix from left to right with the pan control. Yes, in pop music everything is an artifice, in jazz and classical it is more feasible to record the group in their space, so hi-fi makes real sense to me when it comes to reproducing acoustic music naturally. That's one of the reasons why any Rudy Van Gelder jazz recording from the 50s (yes, recorded without multitracking, in analog and with tube electronics) sounds much more real when played back on a good hifi system than any recording. made in ProTools, without noise and without distortion. Indeed, the studio technicians do not consider the time domain at all, only the frequency domain. Likewise, music is not a standing wave, and therefore, although we use the Fourier Transform to analyze its behavior, the equipment (the electronic components that make it up) actually spend more time working in the transient regime when playing music ( is studied with the Laplace Transform) than in the permanent regime. This is why two amps that have the same noise, frequency response, and damping factor will sound identical when playing a sine wave, but different when playing music (with stops and starts, pulses, rests, etc.)

[@diemturner5755]

lol

[@6643bear]

Hi, another great informative video, dead right how your own hearing frequency range can hear . I have done a lot of short wave long distance listening over the years and trained brain to listen noise, but as you said as older we get we loose our top end frequencies hearing. Some good quality headphone for eg Sennheiser Hd560s frequency response goes up to 38kHz and no way I can hear that . That’s why can’t hear totally difference between that and my other Sennheiser headphones. Regards Mark

[@ampheat]

Some audio existential questions: Is possible that one listens to the equipment rather than to the music? may that affect our sonic judgement?

[@multicyclist]

An audio system can do one or more of the following 1. Approximate the reproduction of sound. 2. Change sound. 3 Degrade sound. But an audio system cannot improve audio fidelity beyond the original source signal's fidelity. At lease in the physical universe we all currently live in. For the sake of this argument, it is not including signal processing.

[@AudioMasterclass]

Quick, run and hide. There's a posse of audiophiles who want to give you a good talking to.

[@multicyclist]

@@AudioMasterclass it is OK. I have some experiance dealing with the type. Before I retired, at one of the facilities I worked at, I would occasionally have to enter the psych ward.

[@stephenowen5229]

An ex-band member, a drummer who hit those things hard, and never wore ear plugs (I used to wear ear plugs during rehearsals) can apparently hear the difference between different high end hi-fi cables (I might be able to hear the difference between £5 cables and £100 cables, but when the music is playing I'm not really interested in focusing my attention on how much high end I can hear, I want to focus on the music in general). We are the same age, 60 next year, and I've protected my hearing for most of my adult life (I wear earplugs when walking around the city where I live because the traffic noise can be very high, and I find sometimes a little painful), and when I last checked my hearing it was about right for a 60 year old (lost a lot of that top end). Perhaps he can hear the difference between £100 cables and £500 cables, I cannot.

[@connorduke4619]

One sonic aspect that matters a lot to me is that bass guitar needs to sound both weight and fast at the same time. My Marantz PM11S2 with HDAM does this very well, yet many much higher prices amplifiers cannot pull it off. Some Class D amps can, but then often at the expense of midrange smoothness.

[@1ralton1]

I agree, I've been enjoying hifi for decades and I find I don't need equipment worth silly money to obtain really enjoyable and often quite analytical detail and a tonally neutral sound. In fact some of the best audio experiences I've had were on systems I had decades ago on a turntable I made myself with an amplifier worth about £100 through cheap speaker cable to a pair of budget 2 way bookshelf speakers. But surely you can't make the assumption that someone who can afford expensive hi fi has superior hearing? In some ways one can draw the opposite conclusion. Those with better hearing are able to understand more where audible problems exist in a given system and are better equipped to solve the problem more effectively and efficiently rather than just throwing silly amounts of money in building a hi fi system in the hope that its bound to have a positive effect!!??

[@kadelbach63]

Secondly people seem to have more money to spend on audiophile gear as they get older. I think manufacturers know this because a lot of very expensive gear sounds overly bright to me (and I’m nearly 60 😵‍💫) reflecting the target markets naturally declining hearing.

[@jeremythornton433]

Audiophiles often make me laugh. I have a friend who is one. He complained that one set of high end speakers was "too forward". whatever that means. Here's the thing though. Live music is "forward"! When you go to a show or club, the live music is forward. Punchy, it's supposed to be. I know, I'm a musician and I also own a recording studio. The funny thing is, most studios have less expensive equipment than the high end audiophiles own. Well, at least least the rich ones.

[@KeriRautenkranz]

Once, long ago (pre-'95!) I met an older gentleman at dance class who apparently thought it was normal for everyone to have their multi-thousand dollar turntable mounted on stone. Even though we both liked the dance music of the 80s-90s, the typical ballroom or studio had a completely average turntable like my own, at the time. This was my first exposure to an Audiophile, a nice person generally but kind of obsessed. He did not like my appreciation of CDs one bit!

[@LeonFleisherFan]

Money won't buy anyone better ears, but potentially, a better system. Setting the audiophile vocabulary aside (reminds me of wine tastings), the fact remains, we're not born to be audiophiles, it's not a talent, audiophiles are trained listeners, that's all there is to it. I live in Switzerland, so I'm lucky enough to know a number of audiophiles who own systems in the price category you're alluding to, and while not all of them sound great, nor all of their owners have golden ears, some of these systems are lightyears ahead of anything to be had for less, let alone little money. It's irrelevant if someone's is golden-eared or in their old age and hard of hearing, as long as they're enjoying music and indeed life itself, along with their wives, kids, friends and visitors, who will all attest to a well curated and set-up audiophile system sounding so much better than, we can agree on that part, words can express. Besides, I'm sick and tired of hearing people complain about money, when clearly, so many simply have different priorities. I can't possibly afford a nice stereo and a car - now why should I be envious of other people's cars?

[@ThizOne]

“Money won buy anyone better ears...” yet 😜

[@eaustin2006]

I have the exact same opinion. Thanks! It seems to me that audiophiles, a group I formerly considered myself to be in, like colored sound. Not flat or transparent but something they simply like to hear. That didn't use to be the case. It's very much the case with headphone reviewers as a group. Hey, if the song didn't have punchy base why should it have it when I'm listening to it through headphones?

[@scottlowell493]

A lot of them hate bass and extended treble. They exist in a midrange-only world.

[@Think-Tank_Denkfabrik]

@@scottlowell493 stereotype, cmon

[@georgeswanson9483]

It's amazing what you can hear if you just pay attention. That being said, overanalyzing is the road to hell. The best litmus test I've been able to come up with after all these years (and it takes a while) is if I make a change to my system and it makes me want to listen to more of my music more often, then it is a step forward. If it makes me want to listen to less of my music collection or less often generally, then it is a step backward. The key is to only make one change at a time and be patient. As for whether or not a system can "improve" the sound, it all depends on how you define improve. I explained my definition above but someone else might have a different idea about what constitutes an improvement. With someone else maybe the decrease in measured distortion products calms the OCD voices in their head. To someone else maybe it's the approval or envy of their audio buddies does it for them. To me, audio systems are ENJOYMENT ENGINES and they should make you happy. If they don't, then what's the point? Greetings from Minnesota and thanks for the thoughtful videos. I'm really enjoying them.

[@klausnurimller5781]

I do share your point of view and that has been my philosophy all along. But do not underestimate the pleasure of owning the right brand and what that does to your hearing - absolutely wonders, just trust me. But it reminds me of various gimmicks, like one where plenty of audiophiles were for an audition of interconnects (what we call cables) and could clearly hear the differences between them I think nicely correlated to the cost and storry it came with before connected and the same piece of music being played - they were no doubt about the wonders or differences the transparency improvements and so on. The only thing was that the system actually playing was another system all together not visible to the crowd - no cable was changed at any point but in the dummy system. And when I see a cable that shows which direction the current should flow i get confused. Half the time it will flow the one direction the other half the other direction as far I have understood A/C doesn't move anywhere but alternates (I guess that's why it is named alternate currency). Same gimmick with wine where the same wine coming from the same container poured into three similar bottles except for the label - however a clear difference in taste nicely correlated to the label design and the storry along with it - do not underestimate the pleasure of having spent that much money on the superb wine does to the taste. I read somewhere that the cost of things is a sixth sense we have and that can make us believe in the unbelievable. Keep it up - always entertaining and down to earth.

[@mostirreverent]

Are there no things that could be better that are being measured, hence the discontinuity between specs and sound?

[@brodiejones2028]

Innumerable double blind tests have been done that show "Audiophiles" can't hear what they claim they can can. E.g. 24 bit v 16 bit and differences between interconnects or heaven forbid, power cables! They of course always have an out. "You need to listen for a week to fully appreciate the differences. A double blind test isn't fair..." I think it fair to say you won't be changing your mind anytime soon.

[@stevenholt5484]

this is why I am not, and never will be, an 'audiophile'. just listen to the music, that's all.

[@MJHiteshew]

Interesting question - can you improve the sound? If every measurable aspect of playback is perfect, and is an exact faithful reproduction of the original, any "improvement" is then a subjective matter of taste ASSUMING your room treatments and acoustics allow for this. If I feel that the bass in the track being played is too low, I can boost it, making it sound "better" TO ME. But is it? What is better than perfect? Having said that, a more interesting question could be, can you reduce the defects or poor recording/producing practices. Like the "wall of sound" so prevalent in loudness wars of the 90’s and 00’s. Can you ‘decompress" all that compression that was used during production to bring dynamics back into the playback? Marantz and others have attempted to do this (M-DAX) but I’m not in a position to say it’s "better". It may subjectively sound better to me, but it may be impacting the playback in other ways that are really adulterating the quality. Finally - If your system is incredible but your room a mess, or you set it up poorly (subs in corners anyone?), that will negate all of the great things your equipment is capable of. As an aside, I have seen many many audiophile systems set up incredibly poorly in rooms that look like they have reverb times of a second or more. So while they may be of the finest gear, with each piece being best in class from a measurement standpoint, it’s executed so poorly it can’t sound "good". As the saying goes, you’re not hearing your speakers, you are hearing the room.

[@enewhuis]

Ha this reminds me of an ongoing debate over 192 versus 48 and me crashing a china type, trash, and Zildjian's Oriental Crash of Doom, and still being able to make out all three and simultaneous rapid clikety-clicks on my hi-hat. :D I'm ~55 and I can still make out differences at the high end of the EQ. We're finding that although one may not be able to hear frequencies above 20kHz, the aliasing from layered effects isn't as noticable at the higher bitrates.

[@FiddlingCPA]

When the playback sounds realistic to my ears, I know I have as good a setup as I need. At the point, spending more wouldn't be a very good use of money.

[@LiquidEyes100]

Where to start! One that gets me is KZbin reviewers talking about alleged fine differences between one premium DAC and another **when I can see they are listening in an untreated room** Or trotting out clichés about the "wonderful stereo separation" of components where there can't possibly be any interaction between the L/R channels unless there's something horrifically wrong with the internal wiring. It's almost like these people don't understand how electricity travels along a wire... How many of these self professed 'audiophiles' do you think would submit themselves for blind listening tests to see if they really can consistently tell the differences between fancy audio hardware? Studies have shown that 'expert' wine tasters are generally full of shit - frequently their opinions are as good as random under blind test conditions when they have no preconceptions about the brand or pricing.

[@1ralton1]

In answer to your final question:- To "Improve" a sound is a completely subjective thing. A "Sound" comprises of many different artifacts as I'm sure you know. And it also depends how good or bad the "Sound" was to begin with. Again, as I'm sure you're aware, there are already many digital devices which can distinctly improve the sound of a poor recording. But when it comes to "treating" a sound produced by a modern day studio, what comes from that "treatment" may well be consider to many as simply that. It might be different but not everyone may perceive that as being better.?

[@aeyb701]

I always thought “pace, tempo and rhythm” were defined by the time signature. Then again, i can’t recognize a soundstage if it broadsided me.

[@matthewbarrow3727]

Found the generative AI creation of the woman doing audio-speak funny. I can't hear above 12kHz. However, I do have a top spec Linn Sondek LP12 turntable with Lumin U1 streamer with Legacy Audio Valor speakers. ie. Very expensive. There is a mix of digital and tubes in the mix within a 4 way active system. I certainly don't have perfect pitch. I listen to mixed pop music, which may have synthesizers. As such, I may not even know what the pitch is supposed to be. However, with my old Martin Logan SL3 speakers, the sound stage depth felt like about 3 feet from front to back, but with my new speakers, I can close my eyes and feel like I am in a large hall, given how large (height, width, and depth) the sound stage is. The human ear is very sensitive to phase, which is how people tell sound source position. I can ear music notes move smoothly from one place in the sound stage to another. There is also the aspect of rhythm. A system which is very good in timing captures that rhythm. I use a tube phonostage with Cardas clear cables as the rhythm is extremely good when compare to other cables. When listening to music, I am drawn to the rhythm, rather than to some special effects (which other systems may focus on). The huge drivers (three 14 inch drivers per speaker, along with subwoofers) pressurize the room, making it feel like I am totally immersed in the sound stage. Even though the speakers weigh about 300 pounds each, the sound does not seem to come from them. ie. They totally disappear, leaving only the music in space. Almost all of my record collection is from the 70s through 90s. Given the lack of quality of ADCs back then, the transfer of analog to digital probably wasn't good back then. As such, no matter how good the DAC is, garbage in, garbage out. As such, when I compare streaming to vinyl for my collection, I find the streaming dull and lifeless in comparison. As such, I continue to buy used vinyl, even though I have a very good streamer. For newer releases, where the entire music production chain is in digital, I am quite happy with digital. This immersive and rhythmic aspect with deep sound stage where instruments have a solidity to them seems to transport me out of my room. Of course, it can get very expensive to get this. Everything is a compromise, and enjoyment can be had with systems which are a fraction of the price. People were happy with VCD, but now people like 4K video. If one never experienced 4K video, one would be perfectly happy with VCD. However, once you have experience 4K video, you don't want to go back.

[@ZehNettoOficial]

Just loved your comments! The very well known British ironic way pleases me. Indeed....🙂

[@TH-ox5ig]

Brava

[@southeastgasservices]

People claiming they can hear well over 20Kh. yes of course they can.....Indeed........ you can pay whatever money you want on a turntable... £10.000. no problem. you still cant get rid of scratches and all the other stuff associated with vinyl. I used to worry about audio gear years ago....I gave it up. now i just listen to the music......

[@tigertiger1699]

I think I do experience a lot more than I’m aware of in my Hifi… esp in the cables etc

[@MostlyBuicks]

It isn't hearing, it is paying attention to what most people are not trained to nor interested in hearing. It is not hearing, it is listening.

[@laika25]

I'm laughing so hard 🤣🤣 In total agreement. 👏👏👏

[@christopherward5065]

I guess the audiophiles are aiming for an ideal. Most systems change the presentation of the recording and if that means that all systems sound wrong we generate audiophiles. They change a component in their system and the new system sounds different. Different will mean a change in presentation and that may be better than before or more pleasing than before in some way. It’s an endless game that can run and run. The very best systems are astonishingly capable and the ability to explain or justify the directions of audiophile pursuits become very esoteric. Their motivations have improved and evolved the equipment that’s available so, it’s not complete madness. I dare suppose you could take something that you have recorded and listen to it in an audiophile system and that would be a good way to develop a perspective on what’s driving the audiophiles’ pursuit of “better”.

[@JohnSmith-of4vh]

When I think about what I considered to be a good sound 40 plus years ago to what I get these days with cutting edge equipment playing the same (old) records it bears little comparison. Engineers have improved & refined the state of the art to such a degree that the sky is now the limit. However I think most music lovers who know about hifi can obtain a good sound for a relatively modest outlay.

[@christopherward5065]

@@JohnSmith-of4vh so true! There is often vintage equipment that is up to the task that can be had for very little money. The expectations have gone up as the more mainstream equipment has caught up with the more esoteric equipment. There is more good equipment cheaply available and cheap doesn’t mean terrible like it used to.

[@JohnSmith-of4vh]

@@christopherward5065 Mid range gear is a good commpromise for many music lovers offering a taste of the high end allied to superior build quality over cheaper low budget stuff.

[@JeffWernerIthacaNY]

Lol this is great. I remember seeing audiophile reviews of components like cd players or dacs or amps, and they talk about its “stereo image” or “soundstage” and I was like, WTF? The cd player sends the audio to the left speaker or to the right speaker, based on whats in the recording. The only reason a cd player could impact the stereo image of a recording is if it’s broken! There is so much BS out there, for sure! Enjoyed your video, thanks!

[@rabarebra]

Dear God how little insightful many of you are. 🙈

[@diemturner5755]

@@rabarebra Dear God, how poor Engrish some of you are.

[@RichardDurishin]

But, in a stream, certainly the file format (kHz/bit rate) certainly can affect the soundstage.

[@dalefoote2957]

Quite entertaining.

[@AudioMasterclass]

As I progress in my KZbin journey I shall do what I can to take the "quite" out of your comment. DM

[@ThinkingBetter]

There is more to human perception of audio than simple metrics of frequency response, harmonic distortion and noise. A baby is born without knowing the appearance of all the things around us and gradually learn from experience to recognize, for example, what is a car and what is a truck. Likewise, a baby is born without knowing how to recognize how different instruments and voices are to sound like. It takes some actual listening experiences to train your brain to recognize the fine details of audio fidelity. The more you train your brain the better it becomes also in being an audiophile. Personally I became audiophile from listening to my Stax electrostatics headphones that I spent all my savings on at age 15 long ago. Listening to classical music is especially only enjoyable if you have some really good audio system that can make you sense the live ambience of it. Those who grow up with cheap phone earbuds and small Bluetooth speakers might never get the learning experience to build audiophile skills.

[@kentcorbett7116]

Over the years I've found that I have heard some of things your techo assistant descrbed. Just because you can't measure something doesn't mean there isn't a difference A basic entry level violin probably measures the same as a Stradivarius but they sound d quite different

[@diemturner5755]

That's probably down to the fact that the Strad is exclusively played by only the best players in the world.

[@insurrectionindustries1706]

Loved the video, I have noticed differences between equipment but that is largely speaker and maybe phono cartridges, which are measurably very different from one another and have orders of magnitude more distortion than other equipment. Otherwise the differences are always extremely subtle, hard to describe, and only perceptible by direct comparison with minimal delay. I can’t help but think that the variability of neurological sensory interpretation must play a role in some of the subjective descriptions you quoted. I wouldn’t strictly call it bias but certainly hearing is subject to emotional input