Double OOOPs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

"50 watts per channel amplifier - bearing in mind that you would need 500 watt peaks for most modern recordings at normal listening levels"

That's what makes me leary of this bloke, such a spurious statement mine eyes cannot believe. Firstly, 50 watts per channel and peak power are different, so he's wording the statement unfairly. Secondly, 500!?!? What kind of gargantua speakers would I need for that at "normal listening levels?" What efficiency for that matter...

He sounds like so many sleazeball hifi salesmen saying "more power the better" and "you should probably ignore your speaker's rated power." A 500 wat amp doesn't cost 5 times as much to make but sure as heck usually sells for that. They love trying to shove absurd amounts of power on you for some percieved benefit (the lovely smell of melting coils).

Maybe I'd want a 500w peak if I was trying to electrocute a kodiak bear....

 

[Anonymous]

Then you know what we should do...do the double-blind test...who's got £940 handy?

I actually agree with this guy. Part of his speech is obviously to promote his products (he's not going to slate them!), but his argument is entirely correct, ableit a little overstated.

First of all, the markup on hi-fi is disgusting...but to be honest, it's the only way these companies can make any money these days (the rage is all tvs)...there are no moving parts inside an amp, they arn't designed well, they don't last long and they are incredibly inefficient...and then we come to the people who "sware by vinyl"...er, yes they do have a higher sampling rate (not a black plastic term) but er, it's a ring of plastic...and what happened to those computers using magnetic tapes?

Secondly, people who say "ah, displays affect the sound-quality" and "equilisers have a negative effect on quality" are talking absolute tosh to a very high extent. The only thing a display does is interfere with the power-supply (and hence create a very quiet high frequency sound often) but this is only because they are such a poor design that the manafacturer didn't want to waste money on putting on a better power-supply! And as for equilisers...it's digital technology people...a little bit more signal-path is NOT going to create any unwanted effects, unless it's a poor design! And I can GUARANTEE 100% that NON OF YOU could tell the difference between a £500 amplifier you didn't know and my £50 1979 JVC A-X5 in a blind-test.

Infact, if you want to save yourself a hell of alot of money, buy yourself a decent Super-class A JVC off ebay, take it to a hi-fi shop and say "can I compare my amplifier with the £500 XXXXX XXXX you have for sale?"...make sure it's an amplifier you havn't heard before and if you can say the £500 XXXX XXXX sounds better under blind-test conditions then you should be the conducter of the London P Orchestra because frankly your hearing is better than anybody else on this planet.

I love my Arcam A32 for the simple reason that my heart tells me it's better than my JVC. But my brain knows it isn't, and so do my ears, and that's why the 70 watts per channel, JVC A-X5 has just replaced it on my hi-fi rack.

Please argue with that.

 

[drummerman]

[quote user="Hughes123"]
I love my Arcam A32 for the simple reason that my heart tells me it's better than my JVC. But my brain knows it isn't, and so do my ears, and that's why the 70 watts per channel, JVC A-X5 has just replaced it on my hi-fi rack.
Please argue with that

[/quote]

You wont get an argument from me. Sorry mate, you know what I mean

 

[Anonymous]

I do! ; )

And another thing - why do we all buy speakers which "improve" the sound, rather than studio monitors which tell the sounds EXACTLY as it is? Isn't this the true point of hi-fi?

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="Hughes123"]

And another thing - why do we all buy speakers which "improve" the sound, rather than studio monitors which tell the sounds EXACTLY as it is? Isn't this the true point of hi-fi?[/quote]

now THAT is a good one!

 

[drummerman]

[quote user="unleash_me"][quote user="Hughes123"] And another thing - why do we all buy speakers which "improve" the sound, rather than studio monitors which tell the sounds EXACTLY as it is? Isn't this the true point of hi-fi?[/quote]
now THAT is a good one!

[/quote]

Indeed, but how do you know how it's meant to sound exactly? You would have to be there at every recording. You may know how an instrument sounds but thats about it. Even then, the recording engineer perhaps did'nt want that instrument to sound exactly as in real live conditions ...

 

[Anonymous]

The same question occured to me when i started looking for some speakers recently. i was looking at PRoacs studio 100, 110 and Pmc tb2i.The answer i got from the dealer was that the studio monitors are BIG on detail being designed for that purpose so may sound a bit flat. The studio people just want to hear everything as clearly as possible.

Isn't stereo sound all about imaging etc on top of that?? Therefore which is the most accurate sound. i think it depends on which camp ur in. studio - defintiton and detail fullstop , Home - detail + imaging, soundstage etc etc.

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="drummerman"]

Indeed, but how do you know how it's meant to sound exactly? You would have to be there at every recording. You may know how an instrument sounds but thats about it. Even then, the recording engineer perhaps did'nt want that instrument to sound exactly as in real live conditions ...
[/quote]

Fair point. The only way to truly tell is to analyse the frequency curve (are there any peaks) and look at how this is linked to how it performs in a normal listening environment...I'm a firm believer in all thing 20-20000hz, so a wide frequency response is also crutial and so is how the impedence varies. And things such as resonence should be considered too (sorry my spelling is quite awful!).

That said, active speakers are the way forwards...our Yamaha active studio monitors at school are just sublime...especially for £300.

But then again, I don't always want the music as the artist/producer intended...sometimes it can feel a little emotionless...but then again, well produced music shouldn't do this.

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="JAXON5"]

Isn't stereo sound all about imaging etc on top of that?? Therefore which is the most accurate sound. i think it depends on which camp ur in. studio - defintiton and detail fullstop , Home - detail + imaging, soundstage etc etc.[/quote]

Studio monitors MUST have a good soundstage - otherwise the producer cannot tell if the instrument/voice is positioned correctly!

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, why not monitors! I love them, and should have been shot for selling my LS1's. My totems aren't monitors I know but their closer than yours hughes!!

I don't know about this active speaker voodoo though, I can appreciate the technical benefits but old habits die very hard with me.

I dream of Harbeth Super HL5's at night...

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="raypalmer"]My totems aren't monitors I know but their closer than yours hughes!!

[/quote]

Refering to my Wharfedales or school speakers? The Wharfedales do their job, but I would really appreciate some better speakers that is for sure! I was thinking along lines of PMC GB1i, AVI Duo or possibly some ProAc models...it seems as if you can't buy any passive hi-fi quality studio monitors anymore apart from the LS3/5a varients (but I am not going to spend £1.5k on speakers with 82db sensitivity and a maximum spl that my headphones can supress from 1 meter away!)

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="Hughes123"][quote user="JAXON5"]
Isn't stereo sound all about imaging etc on top of that?? Therefore which is the most accurate sound. i think it depends on which camp ur in. studio - defintiton and detail fullstop , Home - detiil + imaging, soundstage etc etc.[/quote]

Studio monitors MUST have a good soundstage - otherwise the producer cannot tell if the instrument/voice is positioned correctly!
[/quote]

Sure but ur missing the point here if i be so bold. Studio monitors are designed differently to 'hifi' for a reason. They have different requirements to hifi speakers even though they aim to produce a sound for a consumer furtiher down the line. That of course is not to say studio monitors cannot be used at home-some can with success ( eg proac 100 is far more musical than other studio monitors). all im doing here i here is pointing out some studio monitors will not sound good outside of a studio environment. Calling something a Monitor doesn't make it a ubiquitous "Audio Reference". Even the famous Yamaha ns10m monitors were known to have a bias in frequencies.. (remember paper tissues over tweeters??) and yet they were still chosen as a standard and similarly calling something a "hifi" speaker doesn't mean it's unnaturally EQ'd. obviously all speakers/ monitorsi have their own characteristics. What i believe is buy what sounds good to you. period.

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="JAXON5"][quote user="Hughes123"][quote user="JAXON5"]
Isn't stereo sound all about imaging etc on top of that?? Therefore which is the most accurate sound. i think it depends on which camp ur in. studio - defintiton and detail fullstop , Home - detiil + imaging, soundstage etc etc.[/quote]

Studio monitors MUST have a good soundstage - otherwise the producer cannot tell if the instrument/voice is positioned correctly!
[/quote]

Sure but ur missing the point here if i be so bold. Studio monitors are designed differently to 'hifi' for a reason. They have different requirements to hifi speakers even though they aim to produce a sound for a consumer furtiher down the line. That of course is not to say studio monitors cannot be used at home-some can with success ( eg proac 100 is far more musical than other studio monitors). all im doing here i here is pointing out some studio monitors will not sound good outside of a studio environment. Calling something a Monitor doesn't make it a ubiquitous "Audio Reference". Even the famous Yamaha ns10m monitors were known to have a bias in frequencies.. (remember paper tissues over tweeters??) and yet they were still chosen as a standard and similarly calling something a "hifi" speaker doesn't mean it's unnaturally EQ'd. obviously all speakers/ monitorsi have their own characteristics. What i believe is buy what sounds good to you. period.[/quote]Dead right, that's why I ended up in totem town. They're monitor-ish- but also musical. Straight-cut monitors can get tiring, that's the downside. Case in point my LS1's became a nightmare when I flogged my Rotel RX602 (warmest fet I ever heard) and replaced with a Luxman.

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="Hughes123"]I do! ; )

And another thing - why do we all buy speakers which "improve" the sound, rather than studio monitors which tell the sounds EXACTLY as it is? Isn't this the true point of hi-fi?[/quote]

this is a very good point - and one that doesnt just affect hi-fi. When i try out a new bass amp im thinking which part of that sound is the amp, which part is the pre amp, which part is the speakers, which part is the electronics in the bass and which is the actual guitar? i really dont know what my bass sounds like :-/

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="Hughes123"][quote user="drummerman"]

Indeed, but how do you know how it's meant to sound exactly? You would have to be there at every recording. You may know how an instrument sounds but thats about it. Even then, the recording engineer perhaps did'nt want that instrument to sound exactly as in real live conditions ...
[/quote]

Fair point. The only way to truly tell is to analyse the frequency curve (are there any peaks) and look at how this is linked to how it performs in a normal listening environment...I'm a firm believer in all thing 20-20000hz, so a wide frequency response is also crutial and so is how the impedence varies. And things such as resonence should be considered too (sorry my spelling is quite awful!).

That said, active speakers are the way forwards...our Yamaha active studio monitors at school are just sublime...especially for £300.

But then again, I don't always want the music as the artist/producer intended...sometimes it can feel a little emotionless...but then again, well produced music shouldn't do this.[/quote]

increased detail and accuracy shouldnt come at the expense of musicality - as is often the case with monitors... if it doesnt sound good musically then whats the point...?

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="ifitsoundsgoodlistentoit"]

increased detail and accuracy shouldnt come at the expense of musicality - as is often the case with monitors... if it doesnt sound good musically then whats the point...?[/quote]

Musicality is, in my opinion, an opinion! (bit of a mouthfull)...some people like that raw sound you get from monitors and believe that is musical, whereas some believe a warmer sound is more musical (the majority). However, I will agree with the arguments above, that music is designed for hi-fi speakers and thus is mixed slightly dryer than suitable for monitors, thus why they don't sound musical...vous comprendez?

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="fr0g"]WHy did you feel the need to replace?
[/quote]

Because I believed that it would be a significant improvement - and as you only live once, I thought I might aswell try it - but all it is, is a slightly different sound (more forward, more controlled bass) which you could just achieve by wacking any half decent amp through a nice early 80s EQ. I don't think I wasted my money however, because atleast it starts up everytime has many more features and is better looking...but it's just not as fun. It's like choosing between a Ford Mondeo and an old Ford Sierra Cosworth...the mondeo may be more reliable and more practical, but it just can't put a big grin on your face.

 

[Andrew Everard]

I think you mean 'comprenez-vous?'.

In fact, far too many recordings are mixed to sound good on the radio. If they happen to sound good on a hi-fi system that's a happy accident - but most systems that make many modern recordings sound good are anything but neutral.

Verstehen Sie?

 

[Anonymous]

Ja, aber ich spreche kein Deutsch

 

[drummerman]

[quote user="Hughes123"]Ja, aber ich spreche kein Deutsch [/quote]

Nicht schlecht fuer jemanden der kein Deutsch spricht

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="drummerman"]

Nicht schlecht fuer jemanden der kein Deutsch spricht
[/quote]

Danke, oh die Freuden von Google šbersetzer.

 

[drummerman]

[quote user="Hughes123"]
Danke, oh die Freuden von Google šbersetzer.

[/quote]

Ah natuerlich, habe ich total vergessen. Technologie. Zurueck zum englischen oder alle werden anfangen in ihren Muttersprachen zu posten, koennte ein wenig muehsam werden

 

[laserman16]

Mon Internet Explorer joue vers le haut. Seulement montrant en allemand

 

[JoelSim]

[quote user="Solomon1"]N**m amp has 50 watts per channel, costs 725. Entry level cd player costs 850. I'm pretty sure Ashley James has this brand in mind, see http://www.avihifi.co.uk/ 4th consumer's comment. Can't be coincidence.Please bear in mind that this isn't necessarily my own opinion.EDIT: Ashley James even suggests that an apple mini computer can sound better than an a***m cd92. Remains to be seen...interestanding standpoint for launching a heated debate...I'm actually beginning to understand why Ashley doesn't like to be on shows- with claims like these, you won't make many friends among collegues![/quote]

Well I have an iPod, a MacBook and an Arcam CD92 and I know which sounds better...much much better.

 

[Anonymous]

Essayez Firefox...J'ai Firefox. C'est tres rapide...Je deteste le Francais, je ne parle que pour GCSE. (that was purely my knowledge not google...yay!)