TheFlash

My numbering for reference. (1) Agreed (2) it depends what you mean by "relevance". To most audiophiles, what we believe something should sound like is far more relevant than how high the degree of fidelity to the recording is. That's because we use our hifi systems to enjoy music not to enjoy measurements. For some audiophiles, accuracy and enjoyment coincide, meaning they will get greater enjoyment from greater accuracy; for the rest, enjoyment beats accuracy every time.

"Implement EQ": is that the same as using the tone controls on a proper amp?

Will you please stop posting porn!

Ooh err, missus, that is what I call proper hifi.

You may have misled by quoting me when I was quoting someone else... just saying!

I think what Keith is trying to say here is that the DAVE’s SQ can’t be improved upon. That’s good to know! 🤔

Well if you're out you won't read this, but I might as well type it. There are real extremes of view and experience here on the Wam; some issues are as divisive as Brexit, and that's saying something. I have chunky shielded LAT AC-2 mains cables with Furutech/Iego trimmings, "dedicated" mains with switchless sockets, an Isotek Mini-Sub GII on all sources, and cables which include Nordost Blue Heaven LS and Townshend Isolda. That makes me open to significant piss-taking... with which I can live because more people than not are surprised by how good my modest system sounds. Go figure. There are others who think this is all foo and that if you can't measure it then it doesn't exist. That's the Wam. I have huge respect for those with whom I disagree (as well as sympathy because they're so wrong, bless them). But there are extremes and there are extremes. If you can accept that (ALAC/FLAC) lossless genuinely means lossless in every meaningful sense then that's a good start. If you start speaking up for fancy expensive fuses and weird and potentially dangerous electrical jiggery-pokery then you're going to alienate most of the Wam. If you hang around, you'll find it's a sometimes challenging environment but can also be educational; if you don't then you'll miss out but it's clearly your call. Have a great life.

No, it's not a downgrade. Changing from FLAC to WAV is not an upgrade. They're the same in information content, though obviously not in file size.

Great post for which thanks! Please, please, don't be put off coming to Kegworth in March: you'll love it. And you'll really really kick yourself if you visit in a few years time and realise what you've been missing. I've heard some stunning kit, notably one magician's who has an uncanny knack of stitching together cheap-as-chips components into something which makes everyone look at each other and wonder why they've bothered speding so much more... and reassuringly expensive kit which entitely justifies the price label... and expensive stuff which sounds absolutely awful to this particular pair of ears. It's not dangerous, honest! And the banter and Team Wam spirit is fabulous. Buy a ticket. I'll give you your money back if you don't have a hoot.

Love it! Damned clever, those Germans...

High fidelity to the recording is all some people seek because there is nothing else available to us as a reference point. But high fidelity to the recording is not the ultimate or absolute truth; it's not better or truer than any other reproduction one might enjoy, whether "distorted" or filtered or otherwise tampered with; it's just a personal choice. If we accept that, we can all sleep happily. If we can't, and insist on arguing that high fidelity to the recording is somehow loftier, more right, better, more objective/rational, then we will continue to argue. So be it.

What's the first exam then? ADI-2 vs DAVE by any chance? With and without a filter or three?

... because the sound is not just the data on the recording, the sound is what the producer heard, which also involved amplifiers and headphones or loudspeakers and if the latter then the room ... so even if we can reproduce with 100% accuracy, with no distortion, etc the signal on the recording, no more no less, we are not reproducing the sound. We can only know we are doing this if we use the same reproduction equipment and, if relevant, the same room. Is that correct? Because I fully expect you will get a response that the signal is all we know. We can't know the rest, or even if we do then we may not be able to reproduce it, and the rest of the equipment would need to be varied from record to record which is for all intents and purposes impractical. Those seeking the highest fidelity, the greatest accuracy, in their playback chain have as their baseline the only "known" we all have: the recording. Is the wholly accurate reproduction of this signal as close as possible to what the producer heard and signed off? We really will never know. So the person grasping at accuracy as the holy grail of hifi reproduction is simply exerting personal choice as much as the person who chooses to introduce distortion of whatever hue; no more and no less. They are making a value judgement. But they are no more "right" than any other audiophile.

Of course, along with my adjustable sorbothane hifi cushion to ensure all comparisons are level-matched.

It shouldn't be: it doesn't measure too well!