I also like having gear profiles too because if someone expresses a preference for a given mastering over another, or even something such as remixes of other artists, I like seeing if their equipment has similar sound profiles to mine just for a general ballpark frame of reference I don't have expensive gear at all, but show mine in case others in a similar type of listening situation have similar gear and are interested how certain albums interact with my ears with the same or similar gear So needless to say when some folks are very strongly opposed to listing their gear profiles especially when they are very very vocal and opinionated over Zeppelin stuff, or things like The Beatles releases old or new, or any other hotly debated band with various mastering and mixes in the world, my eyebrow raises a little bit
That's a good example of a good point - but repeatedly raising this point in isolation can become a deflection from the facts that (a) the forum rule is quite clear, and more importantly (b) even someone with the world's best hearing cannot reliably distinguish certain sonic qualities by ear if the system they're listening with lacks sufficient fidelity. If we are talking about, say, two Zeppelin masterings where one has more high end than the other, then on pretty much any system that would remotely be considered "hi-fi" or even "mid-fi," it would be possible (and perhaps easy) to hear that difference. (One's assessment of which mastering sounds better could be influenced by the quality and character of the sound system, but the existence of a difference would be audible on almost any halfway decent system.) And of course it would be possible to see and verify that difference by comparing the waveforms of both masterings, which takes one's playback equipment totally out of the equation. So I get what you are saying and agree with you, to a point. But it is quite possible, even with what most folks would consider to be a good quality system, to miss important differences in soundstage and bass energy in different masterings/pressings. If one's speakers have an F3 of 50Hz or higher, then important differences in bass content between two masterings might be indistinguishable. Likewise, differences in soundstage width or precision of different masterings might be obscured if one's speakers have especially narrow or wide directivity, or if one's room is especially "live" or "dead." And as exemplified by the recent exchanges involving a certain member who's been making rather sweeping claims in this thread about the superiority of all the Zep Marino masterings for literally a decade now, sometimes claims are made here that go beyond the simple and/or very specific differences you tend to point out. Sometimes folks equate differences with sonic value judgments, and sometimes overarching claims are made that are not supportable with evidence. In that scenario it makes sense to inquire into what someone is listening on. The equipment might be only one factor, but just because it's not the whole ballgame doesn't mean it isn't useful to know about.
By the same token...those differences can also simply be preferences. "Soundstage" isn't something that can be quantified, and even with the best system, not everyone will necessarily agree. Especially audiophiles.
That said at the very least least with equipment listed we can inch towards a slightly clearer picture of what soundstage may potentially mean to a given person
No disagreement there. My only point is that the perception of soundstage - as variable and subjective as that can be - can also be impacted by one's equipment and room. (And I'll be the first to acknowledge that filling out one's equipment profile here doesn't tell us anything about the listening space, which has a huge impact on soundstage and on the reproduction of frequencies below about 250Hz.)
What the 'rule' does is form a frame of reference. If 4 people swear by a particular issue of a recording and then one complains that they don't care for it because of a certain reason then we can check into why they may feel that way. For example they say x-LP sounds too bright and then we can see they are using all solid-state gear and an A-T cartridge then we may know why they feel that way. Having your gear listed when commenting on sound quality of recordings is meant (by me anyway) to get that common frame of reference. NOT to belittle others because they may have gear of a lesser status. If they are happy with it then great! I would never criticize that. It just helps to know what their system may err to... as most all systems err to a certain degree.
But we don't have a common frame of reference when we don't actually know what things sound like in their space, what their ears are hearing, what their listening ability is, etc. "Bright" to someone with hearing loss can mean something very different to someone without. I had an experience where someone claimed some remixes were brighter than the corresponding original mixes, but it was demonstrably true that the original mixes contained more high frequency information. It turned out they weren't able to hear the higher frequencies, and "bright" was actually referencing midrange. And...an A-T cartridge? They can sound different depending on the cartridge, and depending on the preamp and loading. Not to mention...different people can have different preferences. "Sound quality" is highly subjective. Two people can be listening in the same room on the same system to the same sources and come to different conclusions.
It's a hobby it's about sharing info. It's not about status or who has what but the level of equipment people use is important and that's part of the information people seek out. I have had several personal messages over the years asking about experiences with that equipment etc. Most people build systems over years and if the equipment wasn't important then people simply wouldn't invest in it. And that's not to say mistakes aren't made, we've all made them. I'm going to say this and it's been my experience that people who don't list their system always have an attitude about it unless it's been an oversight. All the talk of other factors whilst important is irrelevant on whether you prefer to share info with people or not. And of course it's your human right to do what you want but there's a reason for the rules on the site, actually all kinds of reasons. Your wider argument would exhaust all debate on here (and that's not to say by any stretch all debate/view/opinions carry value for everyone) if we just said oh it's all variables, the traffic on here would be two people because the info would be meaningless. We need a filter and an open mind to navigate any source of information that either questions or supports what we hear on recordings.
I generally find the attitude comes with those who bring it up in threads out of the blue. Normally that's considered threadcrapping.
More often than not, it's an easy weapon for those who want to shut up "whiney audiophiles" who are ruining their happy fun time - because they either don't care about the sound quality or just spent $250 on a box set. Which is the opposite of the rule's intent.
THAT is for certain... Back to my point. I have 3 systems setup and all are used on a regular basis. They all 3 have their own 'sonic signature'. One is a little brighter, cleaner, clearer than the others. One is a little warmer than the others. And so on. In fact I keep certain recordings in the room with the system that best presents that particular pressing for me. I have had some recordings that I did not like on system 1 where system 2 was magical with the same pressing. Sure it is all subjective and to each their own. Again, I would never try to belittle some people's system like some have done with mine.
Going back to Zeppelin, I recently made my way through all of the blind listening threads that compared the big 3 masterings (Diament/Sidore, Marino, Davis) for each album and they are fun seeing everyone's guesses as well as which ones ended up taking the win I wish the sample size was bigger for those threads, however there was an instance especially for Zeppelin IV where my expectation was certainly subverted. But it did reinforce how happy I was with the Davis masterings overall in a general sense, with just a couple of exceptions of preference
It's been normal on a lot of threads for comments to be pulled that don't abide by the rules. Pointing out the rules isn't threadcrapping.
I generally prefer the second round of reissues, that came with a 2nd CD of extras. While I agree some of the '80s CDs sounded 'warm', they can also sound 'dull', depending on ears and system. Plus there are a few errors that were corrected in later versions, example being the late fade-in on "Thank You" (II).
There's even a very few people like myself that just don't hear a 3D 'image'. I just hear L-R, on a flat plane between the speakers. When I first got into the hobby I used to call b.s. on other audiophiles about soundstage; but I've long since figured out it's the sonic equivalent of colourblindness, or something. My brain just doesn't put that sonic illusion together. Saves me an item on the checklist though, when auditioning new speakers!
That is interesting! I am curious, how do your ears interpret spacial audio such as 5.1 or Dolby Atmos in that case?
It's essentially the same thing (or worse!), I just hear sort of hear the sound as a flat fence around me (if that makes sense). I'm actually more aware of speaker location in surround, too. I actually dislike 5.1 for most pop music, seems unnatural to be surrounded by the different mix elements. Not how music sounds in a live situation. I've not heard Atmos.
I've found that any dullness goes away once you get up over 100 watts on your speaker stacks. The Diaments are more dynamic. As some have said, the Zep albums are definitely a case by case basis. I prefer Diaments for I, III, HOTH. For II I roll with the RL needledrop. IV is Marino. Physical Graffiti is a 1st edition Canadian needledrop.
