Timcat
pfm Member
Ah but this is the crux of the matter. Surely it's the inaccuracies (or eccentricities?!) of the ear/brain interface that determines the absolute final results. NOT the output of the gear so much. Hence why so many ultimately choose their gear on how it sounds to them. And we come to forums like this to discuss these findings, and a subjective language to describe these sounds has naturally developed over the decades, as is the case in other hobbies involving the senses.
I can see where the waters get muddied by both sides. Some subjectivists reject the fact that the human brain can fool them (and there's endless tests of how the eye or price tags or brands can fool the ear, or for example, the tastes buds in terms of wine tasting etc etc), and call out what are in fact colourations as being superior. Measurements "don't matter" etc. And the objectivists dote on their measurements as being the ultimate arbiter of what sounds accurate to the input signal, whilst often snubbing people's real world subjective findings as something to shun or ridicule.
I can see why objectivists are vocal however, especially at the moment. There IS so much audiofoo around, as the marketeers have long taken advantage of the subjective nature of audio ("I heard it, therefore it's true") to flog silly cables, clamps, special fuses and all the other idiocies... things designed to serve a purpose (i.e. USB cables, interconnects) and fit for purpose are suddenly NOT good enough unless they're from an audiophile brand, and to hell with the laws of physics or science, and so on... Unfortunately we're now at the point in this hobby where the lies have been touted often enough to be truths, and the magazines and some dealers have unfortunately perpetuated the foo side of things, and now it's all way out of proportion. Very much like a cult or religion. On both sides.
I think both camps need to acknowledge and accept the findings of the other. From own findings and tastes, I'd subjectively take a coloured 'Quad II' over an accurate Purifi any day of the week, for example, whilst happily acknowledging the measured superiority of the latter. Ultimately - for me - I want the majority of my music collection to be as enjoyable as possible, even given lousy recordings/masterings (and there's a LOT of those), and often an amplifier (for example) with a little 2nd harmonic distortion can sweeten the end result enough without compromising other areas. So subjectively there's a balance unique to each individual, and that cannot be measured, and should not be put down as is often the case over at ASR.
Probably the most sensible post in the second part of this thread.
I think that you have hit upon one of the reasons why many people find less than perfect equipment preferable to more transparent alternatives with some recordings. Much distortion is introduced during the recording process, particularly by the over use of compression and "brick walling" by recording/mastering engineers and producers. As a result, such recordings can sound terrible through a transparent, revealing system, but acceptable through less than perfect kit, like the Quad 606 you mention. If the original recording is highly distorted, then I can see no reason why this should not be addressed by using a "nicer" bit of kit that is nicer because it alters the recored input, i.e, distorts it, in order to enjoy the music.
One example that comes to mind is that many rock tracks can be more enjoyable when played on an old Naim CDI, which is far from perfect, than via modern DACs.