Fortunately, I can’t hear this. 
Roon’s Nucleus costs more than DIY NUC, because the middlemen need a cut, and that’s the only reason.
Roon’s Nucleus, in spite of what some people (for some reason) want to believe, is just a NUC with an attenuated Linux fork.
The Roon folks themselves hold that no SQ improvement should be expected from using Nucleus.
As expected you didn’t get the idea. If you go to my original post, in the end, I’ve said that the comparation may not be accurate and is the idea that counts not the words.
Let’s be clear, this thread is about high fidelity. Mentioning AM radio, PA systems or budget sound systems is simply a distraction.
If I indeed didn’t get the idea then maybe your illustration is flawed? You don’t need to have high-end gear to appreciate or get lost in music. There’s a whole generation on this forum who were introduced to music played on an old AM radio or their parent’s record player cabinet. That passion for music is no less real because the equipment, by today’s standards, was low-fidelity.
The idea that high-end equipment reveals more is also flawed. Critical listening may reveal something you haven’t heard before, but I assure you it was always there. Hi-fi is for men what wrinkle cream is to women. High prices, dubious claims, and only the buyer (and their husband of course!) notice the results.
3 Likes
Now if it were certain hifi companies that made them, they would be making outrageous claims of how the electrons are being caressed by angels to yield vastly improved sound 
5 Likes
9 Likes
Loving this thread!
2 Likes
There’s something you are overlooking: better equipment lets you more easily hear details. I’ve noticed “new” details on high end equipment and later realized that it can also be heard on much lesser equipment. But I never heard/noticed those details on lesser equipment. Only after better equipment made me aware of them could I hear them on the less expensive stuff. IMO, a system that lets you more easily hear the detail is superior reproduction, and is allowing more natural relaxed listening that adds to the enjoyment of music.
A related phenomenon: when I upgraded my system I found that I could understand all sorts of lyrics and background voices that I never could before - even on selections I’d heard dozens or hundreds of times. Was the very good - but not high-end - system producing those same words and voices? Sure it was. But I couldn’t decipher the words till I heard them on a high end system. So your point saying on a lesser system “it was always there” isn’t correct, in my view.
2 Likes
And this well known phenomenon on how active the brain is on listening and learning shows that AB listening tests are flawed at best.
2 Likes
I think there are two kind of people who appreciate music - there are those who appreciate vocals and those who appreciate the music. The former may be a lot more tolerant of lower end equipment and kitchen radios etc. I think this is the majority of people. The latter love the detail in music, or the groove etc and may not even pay much attention to any vocals. It is the latter IMHO who care about higher end systems because they can create a more spacious and immersive experience.
The former group may be the more socially communicative group - women in particular. The latter group may be the more thoughtful or focussed types, techies, musicians, artists etc to generalize a bit. My wife seems very much in the former group. I’m am very much in the latter (also ex DJ, producer and mix engineer).
Audiophiles to me seem to be the latter group who lost their way and got more obsessed with gear than with just enjoying music 
1 Like
Audiophiles fear the ABX more than vampires fear garlic.
Takes a look if you dare! 
6 Likes
Not overlooked. But there is no evidence to support this view. 
I’ve certainly experienced this. However, this has more to do with us then the audio equipment … unless audiophiles are somehow immune to the placebo effect.
1 Like
Martin, you are just plain wrong. Higher fidelity equipment provides more clarity and resolution and allows the listener to hear detail that lower quality equipment does not present. Placebo has nothing to do with it.
Provide some evidence and I’ll reconsider.
2 Likes
Sorry, that’s a ridiculous response. It’s fine if you want to be evidence based, but being stubborn about it when YOU have no evidence that you are correct isn’t being scientific. Please bring me the results of the properly done scientific testing showing what you are claiming. Bet you can’t - because there isn’t. Has someone tested this specific propostion?
Some systems cause audible background noise through the speakers. Better ones don’t. So you can more easily make out detail.
In addition, when I can understand lyrics that I’ve never understood before - even when making an effort to, and even when I’ve tried dozens of times on more than one setup and after more than one upgrade- on a better setup: to dismiss that as placebo effect is ridiculous and is not “the most reasonable explanation” available.
Danny, I think we are supposed to just accept what Martin says as gospel.
One of my favourite other forums to read at the moment is gearslutz. There are many threads there discussing studio monitoring and in particular ‘monitor’ grade speakers. They are called such, and valued for their ability to, let listeners easily produce a translatable mix. The replay chain lets them hear details in the mix more easily and hence fine tune the various balances. Of course, all the sound is always there whatever the speakers you are listening on, but high quality monitor speakers let you more easily hear it due to lack of colourations elsewhere in the sound.
Start with a poor quality DAC as a source and this would all become so much harder.
Requiring evidence is perfectly acceptable. But the correct way to prove anything is to provide the evidence and the correct way to disprove anything is to provide the evidence. This is why it is difficult to challenge anecdotal evidence in any constructive way, because most who do cannot insist the person making those claims back them up and don’t have the skills or hardware to do the same themselves. The result is discussions like this go around in never ending circles.
2 Likes
Let’s not make this personal please. Much of the thread has had tongue firmly in cheek (although I admit I do have a wooden spoon in hand at times.)
I believe there’s is plenty of evidence supporting ABX testing, scientific measurement and psychology relating to high fidelity music reproduction. Indeed some was referenced earlier in the thread and was dismissed out of hand.
In my youth, high fidelity meant buying a well-engineered product that was typically sold on the basis of measurable performance. Claims grounded in physical science and engineering principles.
Over the past twenty years this has changed. We now see an emphasis on more and more dubious claims with certain businesses capitalising on, what I called, chasing the rainbow.
In an earlier post, a particularly well regarded DAC was seen to perform poorly: jitter, noise and distortion IIRC. That evidence was rebuked. Yet, the reviewer acknowledged that their owners (who are clearly open minded about the testing) still enjoyed the sound and had no inkling of its shortcomings.
What does this mean? I don’t think this can be entirely attributed to brand loyalty. What it does confirm is that one high-end DAC (I appreciate this is relative) performs worse than another at a fraction of the cost. This may mean: we can’t easily discern the difference between two devices and much of our belief about performance is formulated by the mind not through hearing.
2 Likes
That perhaps depends on whether you want to listen to it or measure it