The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Logic behind tube vs regular mic sound difference?
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #151
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
there are different types of transistors used in different industries. Tolerances are just one part of it, materials are another, the manufacturing process differs. If new transistors were so great there would be no need for a NOS industry.
The NOS market has nothing to do with new transistors not being great. The NOS market is driven by rehab, repair, and people wanting to put in a device and not modify a vintage circuit or physical mounting. NOS is a microscopic segment of the total market, simply not worth discussing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
You can't confuse LSI style with what is an old Nuemman Fet.
Nobody's doing that (I hope) as LSI, Large Scale Integration, includes many thousands of transistors on a substrate, which is nothing at all like a vintage FET. They are about as different as active devices can be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
Also a transistor in a memory chip or a cpu is not what is in a microphone or stomp box, hence my original comment. you can't lump them all in one category.
I believe you are now the only one even mentioning that. It's silly. Nobody's lumping anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
Not to mention "tolerances" are one metric, and tighter/higher tolerance is not necessarily better in all audio applications. It all depends.
Depends on what? From a designer's viewpoint, it's much easier to have precision parts to work with because you now what to expect and don't have to build in a range of tolerance. From a practical standpoint, we don't always use them because the cost more. I can't justify a $.75 .1% resistor when a $.03 10% will work just fine. You use the precision parts where they make sense. They'll work better in any audio application where they bring some benefit along with their cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
In general the transistors mass produced today do not sound as good as what was made in the 60s. Same with caps, and other components often used in audio.
OMG, please stop. Unless you have actual data to support this wild claim, this is complete hogwash. There are excellent parts of all kinds available today, not to mention entirely different circuits that use modern parts and beat the pants off vintage stuff. Unless...and this is a big one...you actually LIKE inferior performance. In which case, you use inferior parts and equipment, or simulate the effects another way. But the point is, that grunge factor is an effect, not a design goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
I wonder if kraku would swap out the vintage motorola 2n3055 in his 1073 with a new high tolerance SMT version made in China?? think not
Of course not, nobody would. Retrofitting SMT in place of a TO3 package is just absurd.

...and it's flat out inappropriate to label all parts as bad because of the country the were made in. Come on now, take the high road.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #152
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 ➡️
Not my experience, either - mass produced, transistorized stuff sounded pretty bad back then. Can you say Fender SS amps? Lol
Yup. And much of the early SS hifi stuff sounded pretty bad. Hence the roots of the "tubes are better" cult. Fortunately, that has been remedied.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #153
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by nosebleedaudio ➡️
60's?
Ever looked closely to the Line output of a Scully 280?
Has a boat load of noise & grunge from the Transistors..Transformers are huge and sound nice, but not the amp circuit..
Also reliability was an issue even much later, remember having the 723 regulator IC's Burned in because many kept going out...This was in the early 80's..
Oh yeah! There was an entire decade or so when we were learning how to best use the new devices, and at the same time, the devices were getting better by leaps and bounds. We went from germanium to silicon bipolars, to FETs the MOSFETs, and so on. So, all that is backward progress? Yeah, I don't think so, and neither does anyone else who has ever designed a circuit.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #154
Lives for gear
 
ponzi's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by haysonics ➡️
Interesting you mention that. Isn’t it just the absence of an IC - aka the 990 is a discrete opamp (a number of individual components making up a module) where as the 5532 is an IC opamp ?
The number of junctions on a substrate is another way to put it. Op amp is a functional topology. Most are many transistors on a substrate, IC—the 5535 has shown up in lots of audio gear. Some have built op amps from discrete components that may sound better. Yes the John Hardy comes to mind.

On the other subject, there those that seek put old geometries, like germanuim based, to try and replicate the sound of vintage devices. This is a quest for distortion, not an indicator that old devices were ‘better’. There is no such thing as a hunger for ‘NOS’ solid state devices except perhaps to fix an old neumann or make a fuzz pedal. Modern capabilities are thousands of times better than decades ago.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #155
Gear Nut
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nosebleedaudio ➡️
Ever looked closely to the Line output of a Scully 280?
Has a boat load of noise & grunge from the Transistors..
definitely and that is my point, new transistors won't sound the same
the character of old components is what we hear on all the classic records and presumably the classic records are what everyone still goes after.

So yeah I totally agree with you
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #156
Gear Nut
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie ➡️


Of course not, nobody would. Retrofitting SMT in place of a TO3 package is just absurd.
ok glad we are on the same page

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie ➡️
Nobody's doing that (I hope) as LSI, Large Scale Integration, includes many thousands of transistors on a substrate, which is nothing at all like a vintage FET.
I think that is what I stated, I'm glad we are on the same page. FYI all transistors are made on a substrate since all transistors are semiconductors and all semiconductors are made using a substrate. The semiconductor substrate is merely solid substance/surface that can conduct where desired.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #157
Lives for gear
 
nosebleedaudio's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
definitely and that is my point, new transistors won't sound the same
the character of old components is what we hear on all the classic records and presumably the classic records are what everyone still goes after.

So yeah I totally agree with you
That was not my point, they (Scully 280) no doubt have a sound, it was the noise & grunge I was pointing out that was NOT good...
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #158
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
definitely and that is my point, new transistors won't sound the same
the character of old components is what we hear on all the classic records and presumably the classic records are what everyone still goes after.

So yeah I totally agree with you
So, inferior parts result in inferior sound.

And some people love inferior sound, so they mourn the loss of inferior parts.

Ignoring that when you start with good high quality sound you can always degrade it any number of ways that do not involve old junk parts...

...explain why some people love inferior sound.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #159
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by nosebleedaudio ➡️
That was not my point, they (Scully 280) no doubt have a sound, it was the noise & grunge I was pointing out that was NOT good...
As a former Scully 280 and 280B user and owner, I completely agree. NOT good, and why I no longer use or own them. And other reasons too.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #160
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
definitely and that is my point, new transistors won't sound the same.
No, your point was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
In general the transistors mass produced today do not sound as good as what was made in the 60s. Same with caps, and other components often used in audio.
...which is incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
the character of old components is what we hear on all the classic records and presumably the classic records are what everyone still goes after.
Which is also incorrect.

1. The sound on classic records had many huge factors in it, including early and inferior tape and machines, and the entire signal chain to the lacquer.

2. Not "everyone still goes after" that sound. There are some in certain genres, but far, far from "everyone".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
So yeah I totally agree with you
Also, obviously, incorrect.
Old 1 week ago
  #161
Gear Nut
 
Everything older is more authentic, and therefore better.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #162
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob 28 ➡️
Everything older is more authentic, and therefore better.
Ok. Then we should all be recording on steel wire. No, wait. Wax. Acoustically, with no mean ol' nasty electronics at all. Not even a mic.


There's a real win.
Old 1 week ago
  #163
Lives for gear
 
haysonics's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Great business idea ... Multi-track wax ... you heard it here first !
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #164
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Besides the fact that it's rarely clever, the other big problem with sarcasm is that certain people won't get it.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #165
Gear Nut
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie ➡️

2. Not "everyone still goes after" that sound. There are some in certain genres, but far, far from "everyone".

Also, obviously, incorrect.
yeah 'obviously'

But the majority of people do. The vintage gear market is huge and the clone markets are huge too. No one is really buying new designs for the sound, they buy them because they can afford it and it is readily available at sweetwater or GCs.

Vintage gear is very expensive. People spend loads of money on vintage gear for a reason. If clones were just as good, no one would waste the money on vintage gear. Part of the reason vintage stuff sound so good are the components from the era the product was manufactured. They have a certain harmonic musical timbre that is hard to produce with modern import components.

But back to the original point, at the end of the day the oscilloscope crew will never understand the vintage crowd crew since the former only care about specs. The later only care about tone. TBH I think there needs to be balance and no one philosophy on gear is 100% correct, but it is the way it is right or wrong. It comes down to what inspires the artist and d that includes the artists engineer and producer.

I personally love the sound of digital converters and I love high quality JFET opamps as well as vintage tube and tranny gear. But what really matters to me is musical performance, the gear is secondary. Although I realize where both camps are coming from and and I respect both POVs. Closed minded folks that think one way OR the other seems counterproductive IMO. I like tape I like digital I am fine with either but I am open minded enough to enjoy their respective sounds in the right hands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn ➡️
Besides the fact that it's rarely clever, the other big problem with sarcasm is that certain people won't get it.
"sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #166
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
yeah 'obviously'

But the majority of people do. The vintage gear market is huge and the clone markets are huge too. No one is really buying new designs for the sound, they buy them because they can afford it and it is readily available at sweetwater or GCs.

Vintage gear is very expensive. People spend loads of money on vintage gear for a reason. If clones were just as good, no one would waste the money on vintage gear. Part of the reason vintage stuff sound so good are the components from the era the product was manufactured. They have a certain harmonic musical timbre that is hard to produce with modern import components.
"
The majority of “people”, or “professionals”? What are the numbers, do you have them? I’m curious as to how many people in our business are purchasing vintage gear vs modern vs clone.

I don’t know of a single person jonesing for a fender solid state amp from the late 60s, and if there were such an amp to jones for, it would have had many if not most of its components replaced by now.

No vintage piece of gear goes through this world sounding exactly the way it did when it came out if the factory - time and deterioration takes a toll - your argument is moot.

What mostly drives the vintage market is romance, just as it does the muscle car market and anything else where ones childhood is either needing to be relived, or newly experienced by those who were never there.

Can an old mic sound good? Sure it can, with a ton of work, which essentially makes it a clone since it’s no longer original. Out of the box new mics, like the Wunder are way better, but $$$
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #167
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
yeah 'obviously'

1. But the majority of people do.
2. The vintage gear market is huge and the clone markets are huge too.
3. No one is really buying new designs for the sound, they buy them because they can afford it and it is readily available at sweetwater or GCs.
<sigh>. OK, by now you should be expecting this.
1. The majority of what people? The people who buy vintage gear? Quote stats or it's just another wild opinion.
2. The only thing huge about the vintage and clone market are the prices. And that's because the original stuff, in good shape, is scarce because back when they were everywhere we hated Sta-Levels and dumped them! The clones are expensive because of how they have to be constructed using ancient manufacturing methods. All that for an "effect" you don't use all the time. No, the market is not "huge" unless you're in it and its all you can see. Look wider.
3. There are threads on this very forum that disprove that completely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
Vintage gear is very expensive. People spend loads of money on vintage gear for a reason.
Rarity is it. If you must have real old stuff in working condition, they will always be expensive. Audio gear, camera gear, cars, toasters, you name it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
If clones were just as good, no one would waste the money on vintage gear.
They are just as good. The only thing missing is they aren't old originals. Age and condition equate to value in everything. Shop for antiques some time if you want to learn what age does to value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
Part of the reason vintage stuff sound so good are the components from the era the product was manufactured. They have a certain harmonic musical timbre that is hard to produce with modern import components.
This is simply untrue. There's nothing done 70 years ago that can't be replicated exactly today, it's that it's SO expensive to do so, and you still won't have an "original".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
But back to the original point, at the end of the day the oscilloscope crew will never understand the vintage crowd crew since the former only care about specs. The later only care about tone.
I take offense to the above. There may be such a thing as an "oscilloscope crowd", but if there is, they're using their scopes to repair vintage gear.

Lemme give you a perspective. One of the things I do is restore vintage gear. Note I said "restore", not "rehab", "modify", "renovate" or "ruinovate". I do it because I can, and people will eventually pay for it. I can't make a living doing it, so it's a "hobby". Sometimes it's a mic, sometimes an audio processor, sometimes it's a console. I respect the original design, and don't do anything that doesn't end up with the original sound.

But, to understand what changes the sound and what doesn't you need two things:
1. A knowledge of electronics and components.
2. A deep love for music and the emotion in it, along with a very sensitive and trained "ear".

You really cannot do this without both. And you have to be realistic too, knowing when a piece is just too far gone, or recognizing a piece that wasn't any good to begin with. And here are many of those.

I use an oscilloscope too, but not for judging audio quality.

I submit that your statements above are made with a bit of the second quality and a lack of the first. Because if electronics and components were actually understood, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
I personally love the sound of digital converters and I love high quality JFET opamps as well as vintage tube and tranny gear.
Digital converters: ever heard one that was not as good as the others? I have one on the bench right now. Relative to tape, it sounds great. Relative to a modern converter, not so much in some areas. It was made in 1982, and I found exactly why it's not as good. I did that by listening AND testing. I'm listening and testing transformers now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
But what really matters to me is musical performance, the gear is secondary. Although I realize where both camps are coming from and and I respect both POVs. Closed minded folks that think one way OR the other seems counterproductive IMO. I like tape I like digital I am fine with either but I am open minded enough to enjoy their respective sounds in the right hands.
In a great recording, you must have both a great musical performance and great gear. They are not opposite, or separate, the are interdependent in the art.

I think you love the tools for the tools sake, but don't really know what you're hearing. Have you, even once, set up a controlled ABX test of, say, just a pair of transformers? You know, to see if, by the sound alone, you could differentiate them from the lack of them? Some of us have, and much more. It's not enough to love the tool, you have to really understand what it does, how to use it, and what its limitations are. And, if you're using old gear as an "effect", you'd be better at adding that effect if you knew exactly what it was and where it was coming from. From the sweeping generalities, I'm pretty sure it's just love of the tools, along with a strong resistance to learning from others who have gone down that road farther.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeraz ➡️
"sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"
If you're going to quote someone, at least include the entire quote.

"“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but the highest form of intelligence." - Oscar Wilde

Go google it.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #168
Lives for gear
 
ponzi's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie ➡️
..."“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but the highest form of intelligence." - Oscar Wilde

Go google it.
I can keep my distance when absurdities are uttered about the vintage market, but the attacks on sarcasm simply struck too close to home and I struggled mightily to hold my tongue, so to speak.

From Juvanal to Jonathan Swift, the dark, the dry, and the droll can convey ideas in a compact and nuanced way, where straight talk would be clumsy and ineffective.

Perhaps I digress, but the 1,000,000th measurement of sound versus listening internet debate, with a side order of vintage versus modern, and preposterous claims of a vintage semiconductor market for dessert must surely benefit to the degree that comments are off topic.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #169
Gear Nut
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 ➡️
We used to think the earth was flat, until we discovered it wasn’t - through “science”.

Science isn’t religion, it isn’t dogma and myth we repeat and settle on, it’s designed to welcome input and challenge - that’s what science is - we know we don’t know everything and always want to know more.
I guess some people think we are on the brink of a Round Earth kind of revelation with regard to audio technology.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #170
Lives for gear
 
DougS's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob 28 ➡️
Our understanding will always be incomplete. But for the purposes of audio technology, we're fine.
Not true. You cannot put a WAV file into a device or run a test and get a parameterized readout showing how good it sounds (to you or to a given population). Same for a piece of hardware - which is basically the larger idea behind this thread.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #171
Gear Nut
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougS ➡️
Not true. You cannot put a WAV file into a device or run a test and get a parameterized readout showing how good it sounds (to you or to a given population). Same for a piece of hardware - which is basically the larger idea behind this thread.
Well, "how good it sounds" is never going to be quantized. You know that, so that's a straw man. The fundamentals of audio tech are solid, though. Muons notwithstanding.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #172
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougS ➡️
Not true. You cannot put a WAV file into a device or run a test and get a parameterized readout showing how good it sounds (to you or to a given population). Same for a piece of hardware - which is basically the larger idea behind this thread.
Of course not, that's simply an invalid test method.

What you can do is put that file though to a system that can be heard by a number of different listeners, who are permitted to compare that file with another. You can collect subjective opinions that indicate preference and analyze the data statistically. However, you must never indicate what the choices are, or you introduce bias.

When comparing hardware, you can test for a preference, but we always first test for an audible difference. You present an A choice, a B choice, and an X choice which is the same as A or B, but changes with each test on a random basis. Listeners are asked to match A or B with X, and are give as much time as they need, with a selection of test material. With a sufficient number of test and a sufficient number of listeners we can tell with repeatability if a difference is audible. THEN we can go for preference.

And no oscilloscopes were injured or used during this test. The measurement device is human hearing.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #173
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob 28 ➡️
Well, "how good it sounds" is never going to be quantized. You know that, so that's a straw man. The fundamentals of audio tech are solid, though. Muons notwithstanding.
"How good it sounds" can be quantized as an extension of preference testing. This has been done. If you look at how Harmon developed their target curves for headphones and speakers, that is precisely what they did.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #174
Gear Nut
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie ➡️
"How good it sounds" can be quantized as an extension of preference testing. This has been done. If you look at how Harmon developed their target curves for headphones and speakers, that is precisely what they did.
Granted. But as to measuring what sounds "good", objectively, all bets are off. You don't measure pleasure with a yardstick.
Likewise, you don't measure amplitude or frequency response, accurately, with the human ear. Different tools for different applications.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #175
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
In case some are missing this...this is the classic “It’s wrong because I don’t understand it” problem we run into so often. People judge something as wrong without truly knowing what it is they are objecting to. You can see this in the statements portraying the “science” group as rigid, and arrogant, believing their answer is absolute. If science were really that way, no progress would be made on anything. The best scientists, those actually doing the work, are often very humble people.

It’s a form of prejudice. And frankly, it’s every bit as offensive as every other form.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #176
Lives for gear
 
jaddie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob 28 ➡️
Granted. But as to measuring what sounds "good", objectively, all bets are off. You don't measure pleasure with a yardstick.
Likewise, you don't measure amplitude or frequency response, accurately, with the human ear.
You can get objective analysis of subjective data, then objective analysis of the preference differentiated from the non-preference. You can measure the preferred frequency response using the human hearing system, then quantify it using instrumentation.

Ever hear of the Fletcher-Munson curves? Stevens equal-loudness contours? Do you know how an audiologist calibrates digital hearing aids?

Any idea at all how speakers are designed? Sound systems equalized?
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #177
Gear Nut
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie ➡️
You can get objective analysis of subjective data, then objective analysis of the preference differentiated from the non-preference. You can measure the preferred frequency response using the human hearing system, then quantify it using instrumentation.

Ever hear of the Fletcher-Munson curves? Stevens equal-loudness contours? Do you know how an audiologist calibrates digital hearing aids?

Any idea at all how speakers are designed? Sound systems equalized?
I'm talking about preference. Taste. You can't quantize taste. I love piano. My wife detests piano. Two human hearing systems. And to the extent people can hear a difference between tubes and transistors, the preference is not an objective one. It's all down to what sounds good to you.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #178
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie ➡️
In case some are missing this...this is the classic “It’s wrong because I don’t understand it” problem we run into so often. People judge something as wrong without truly knowing what it is they are objecting to. You can see this in the statements portraying the “science” group as rigid, and arrogant, believing their answer is absolute. If science were really that way, no progress would be made on anything. The best scientists, those actually doing the work, are often very humble people.

It’s a form of prejudice. And frankly, it’s every bit as offensive as every other form.
And even after you explain to them that science is fluid and welcomes debate - as per its definition - they still don’t get it and react with hostility.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #179
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie ➡️
You can get objective analysis of subjective data, then objective analysis of the preference differentiated from the non-preference. You can measure the preferred frequency response using the human hearing system, then quantify it using instrumentation.

Ever hear of the Fletcher-Munson curves? Stevens equal-loudness contours? Do you know how an audiologist calibrates digital hearing aids?

Any idea at all how speakers are designed? Sound systems equalized?
Yes, but in music, some people will think the thing that has less fidelity “sounds better” than than the thing that performs better, objectively. Hence the tape lovers, tube lovers and people who worship lo fi - this crowd finds new things to adhere to, lately, it’s been an obsession with transformers. Lol

All that is perfectly valid, but trying to get people to understand the difference between objective and subjective is nearly impossible.
Old 1 week ago | Show parent
  #180
Lives for gear
 
DougS's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob 28 ➡️
Well, "how good it sounds" is never going to be quantized. You know that, so that's a straw man. The fundamentals of audio tech are solid, though. Muons notwithstanding.
Its already been shown that music (like some drugs) stimulates the pleasure sensors in the brain and produces Dopamine. Just like understanding how different drugs effects people, its possible to understand how music effects people at this level - we just have not done the science yet.

Take a drug like LSD and imagine we understood the molecule itself, but had almost no understanding of its effect on the brain. This is where we are with music. Most appropriately society has put the resources into understanding drugs before music, but that does not mean the chemical effects of music are not there in the real world waiting to be studied. Otherwise, you would have to believe in a higher being pushing you to like some types of music and not others. (as in "Rock 'n Roll is the Devil's Music")

With genetics we are beginning to understand how a given drug effects different people (or populations) in different ways. It not unfeasible that we could someday understand this with regard to music. Science has shown that food preference are highly impacted by genetics. To think music preference is not seem foolish to me.

Why do otherwise normal people commonly known as audiophiles spend an in ordinate amount of money on audio playback equipment? Could they, perhaps be addicted to the Dopamine rush?

Why do some folks play their favorite albums over and over and over again. From the outside this appears to be neurotic behavior. Perhaps it is - by way of a Dopamine addiction?

Why do you like the music you like? It only seems random from person to person because we don't understand the mechanisms. Just because we don't know much about this area now does not mean its metaphysically unknowable. For me the belief that the unknown is knowable or fundamentally unknowable is the primary difference between science and religion. I always choose the science. Some may choose otherwise.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 98 views: 44623
Avatar for nst7
nst7 14th February 2014
replies: 2704 views: 403938
Avatar for Diogo C
Diogo C 30th October 2015
replies: 468 views: 19375
Avatar for gentleclockdivid
gentleclockdivid 5 hours ago
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump