Hi-Fi Hype !!

[Vladimir]

If you line up 7 jars full of air, write labels with structured prices going from cheapest to most expensive, then write some anecdote about each jar, say each air is from different parts of the Earth and add some testimonials, people will distribute different value in coordinance with prices and ancdotes.

Which is why subjective and anecdotal reviews are to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Measure the quality and chemical composition of the air in each jar then make this information available to the consumer - that they are so similar as makes no difference - then I bet the consumer would change their mind. Put some of the same air inside an aluminium engraved jar ... now we're talking *acute*

BRUSHED ALUMINIUM, sir please.

I'm surrounded by amateurs here.

 

[tino]

BRUSHED[/u] ALUMINIUM, sir please.

I'm surrounded by amateurs here.

Brushed ... pah ... that's so 80's.

Get some of this ...

 

[Vladimir]

Double post.

 

[ID.]

Some people like McDonalds and prefer it to proper restaurants. If they are satisfied with that, more power to them. If they think that anything beyond that is a scam, it's their loss.

 

[Vladimir]

Now, let's use jars of transparent glass but tinted in different colors. Antartica is bright white, Samoa in the Pacific is navy blue, Sahara is desert pale yellow etc. On each jar we can place under the metal caps linen textile tied with natural thin rope. We tell the customers this keeps the air inside, but if you bring your nose close on the linen they can smell it (smell the air in Antartica). We can add aroma to the linen by rubbing used flat car freshners, but we can also just leave them plain without anything and people will imagine different smells on their own. Just rub refreshners for the PREMIUM range.

If someone complains they can't smell a difference from the air in their room, we can say the jar leaked and we will replace the air under warranty, but also offer them to upgrade to the more wafty PREMIUM range. To avoid too many returning the jars due to skepticism we will write that each jars needs 'burning-in' period before smelling, and you do this by warming it with your hands for hours.

We will get organic lifestyle blogs and magazines review the jars for a small % of our sales. The consumers will develop their own favorit tricks to enhance the experience, like keep the Antarctica jar in the cold shade or Sahara on the hot sun. Of course people need to bring the jars to refill for a small fee each year.

Good idea?

 

[Gazzip]

I would say the people who spend seriously big money on high end Hifi would say something differently to this thread but as I have not seen that kind of person on this site it's a bit one sided thread as most on here are budget to midrange but if there is someone on here who has what they class as top end Hifi let us no what make your Hifi better then a £2000 one . But I still think you get what you pay for in Hifi even if in high end even if they are small gains but they are still gains even if they are small ones plus if you can afford the very best that Hifi can give then the chances are that they would have a room just for Hifi and built for Hifi too as this people do not cut corners they do it right and then the components in top Hifi will be far better then our richer sound Hifi any day of the week it's just a different would that the normal person on the street does not live on but When it comes down to the format there is always going to be rubbish and very good recordings there is not much you can do about that it's just life you have a choice But yes I do Agee that the music is important that always comes first in my book and most people who are on this site do too or why bother being members of this site if it did not matter

I have had some pretty exotic stuff in and out of my listening room over the years and yes, you do generally get what you pay for. However the law of diminishing returns usually applies as you head up the Hifi tree.

 

[Andrewjvt]

Some people like McDonalds and prefer it to proper restaurants. If they are satisfied with that, more power to them. If they think that anything beyond that is a scam, it's their loss. 

They develop stomach problems

 

[Snooker]

Some people like McDonalds and prefer it to proper restaurants. If they are satisfied with that, more power to them. If they think that anything beyond that is a scam, it's their loss.

No need to be rude as in the above statement, and most importantly its very inaccurate as explained below

Unfortunetely though McDonalds food does not taste 95% as good as proper restaurant food, and therefore yes there is only about a 5% difference in sound quality that could be made with more expensive gear over £2000, if you can not see that then its your loss financially, unless you have allot of money to waist for just an extra 5% increase in sound quailty

 

[Gazzip]

Some people like McDonalds and prefer it to proper restaurants. If they are satisfied with that, more power to them. If they think that anything beyond that is a scam, it's their loss.

No need to be rude as in the above statement, and most importantly its very inaccurate as explained below

Unfortunetely though McDonalds food does not taste 95% as good as proper food, and therefore yes there is only about a 5% difference in sound quality that could be made with more expensive gear over £2000, if you can not see that then its your loss financially, unless you have allot of money to waist for just an extra 5% increase in sound quailty

I am not sure that one can quantify an improvement in SQ as a measurable percentage. However assuming that you can for the sake of debate then I think you will find that many Hifi enthusiasts engage in this hobby with the precise intention of achieving that final 5% you refer to.

if you just want great music then stick with your relatively inexpensive system and you will be happy. If you want to squeeze the pips out of your recordings (as I do) then I'm afraid you are delusional if you think you are doing it at the low end price point.

I would go further to say that some who post on here are simply music fans and not Hifi enthusiasts. To be the latter requires one to be the former but that equation does not necessarily reciprocate.

 

[Snooker]

Some people like McDonalds and prefer it to proper restaurants. If they are satisfied with that, more power to them. If they think that anything beyond that is a scam, it's their loss.

No need to be rude as in the above statement, and most importantly its very inaccurate as explained below

Unfortunetely though McDonalds food does not taste 95% as good as proper food, and therefore yes there is only about a 5% difference in sound quality that could be made with more expensive gear over £2000, if you can not see that then its your loss financially, unless you have allot of money to waist for just an extra 5% increase in sound quailty

I am not sure that one can quantify an improvement in SQ as a measurable percentage. However assuming that you can for the sake of debate then I think you will find that many Hifi enthusiasts engage in this hobby with the precise intention of achieving that final 5% you refer to.

if you just want great music then stick with your relatively inexpensive system and you will be happy. If you want to squeeze the pips out of your recordings (as I do) then I'm afraid you are delusional if you think you are doing it at the low end price point.

I would go further to say that some who post on here are simply music fans and not Hifi enthusiasts. To be the latter requires one to be the former but that equation does not necessarily reciprocate.

I respect you have a different view to me and that is fine, and your system may be outstanding, but because something is much much dearer does not mean its better, as this sort of expensive gear is generally just targeted at rich people, and that is why I believe in blind tests as I said in my opening post

 

[bigfish786]

That's like saying ford and Ferrari cars are the same, only the Ferrari is for rich people and does exactly the same!!

im off to buy a fiesta!.... Maybe not.

 

[ID.]

Some people like McDonalds and prefer it to proper restaurants. If they are satisfied with that, more power to them. If they think that anything beyond that is a scam, it's their loss.

No need to be rude as in the above statement, and most importantly its very inaccurate as explained below

Unfortunetely though McDonalds food does not taste 95% as good as proper food, and therefore yes there is only about a 5% difference in sound quality that could be made with more expensive gear over £2000, if you can not see that then its your loss financially, unless you have allot of money to waist for just an extra 5% increase in sound quailty

I am not sure that one can quantify an improvement in SQ as a measurable percentage. However assuming that you can for the sake of debate then I think you will find that many Hifi enthusiasts engage in this hobby with the precise intention of achieving that final 5% you refer to.

if you just want great music then stick with your relatively inexpensive system and you will be happy. If you want to squeeze the pips out of your recordings (as I do) then I'm afraid you are delusional if you think you are doing it at the low end price point.

I would go further to say that some who post on here are simply music fans and not Hifi enthusiasts. To be the latter requires one to be the former but that equation does not necessarily reciprocate.

I respect you have a different view to me and that is fine, and your system may be outstanding, but because something is much much dearer does not mean its better, as this sort of expensive gear is generally just targeted at rich people, and that is why I believe in blind tests as I said in my opening post

no need to be rude. As mentioned, you are talking out of your proverbial and you cannot quantify the difference in sound quantity as a percentage. You can't hear enough of a difference, then fine stick with McDonalds, or of you find that offensive, stick with home cooking instead of fine cuisine in restaurants.

By your objective standards the law of diminishing returns kicks in very early, which is fair enough, but don't confuse your tastes and preferences for some objective fact. Now, if you want to discuss measurements, etc. and show me that a cheap system measures as well as a more expensive system, then there will be no argument. Considering how low distortion figures, etc. are I'm prepared to agree that digital sources and even amps can measure well within 5 percent of one another.

If your argument is based on "I once went to a hi fi show and the system i liked best was..." Or "I love my cheap all in one so therefore it doesn't get much better than that" then you don't have anything that will convince anyone and it's like trying to discuss atheism with a religious nutter. You've already taken your own limited experiences as an article of faith.

And yes, I've heard your system but it is easily bested by systems that can be had for cheaper. Or at least in measurements and my personal preferences.

 

[Romulus]

I admit, I like reading Hi Fi reviews for guidance and interest in the particular product. I know ultimate decision is to audition to see if one can actually live with this product/component. Lately for a quite a few months I noticed HiFi World reviews all ending their reviews by saying mostly 'outstanding' and sometimes for a difference the review ends with the words 'excellent'. I am not in the cynical camp of thinkers who say reviews are load of rubbish and the reviewers are controlled by advertising. That to me is a stupid argument promoted by old HiFi Dinosaurs who think that all is by personal discovery, as if we all have limitless travel expenses, limitless time to travel to all the HiFi Dealers in Uk to try out different makes of HiFi..! Also when reviewers from around the world use different words to describe the same meaning about the same product model it can be argued that there is some veracity in the reviews.

However the endless 'outstanding' and 'excellent' words in reviews of HiFi World does begin to cross the border, and I am beginning to form a perception that all reviews in this magazine appear to lose its HiFi integrity. Even I am now am losing all interest in their reviews.as they will invetably end with conclusion 'Outstanding' or maybe Excellent'. Surely not all HiFi components of today are such stars?

Has any one else noticed this trend?

 

[Gray]

Error

 

[Gray]

Sorry

 

[pyrrhon]

blind testing/measurements

Please stop that science thing. We are in the subjective world here, your not goint to put a number everywhere.

What Hi-Fi. Hi-Fi = High Fidelity.

High Fidelity - Oxford English

!The reproduction of sound with little distortion, giving a result very similar to the original:"

All your equipment and how it works is based on science, physics and maths. Whether you like high fidelity or prefer lower fidelity is really your choice but you can't argue the science of high fidelity.

Do you thrust your own ears? Measurement does not reach much below the volume contour and trying to overflatten that worsen the sound something you'd notice if you used you ears.

Blind test to me is like asking a women to close her eyes and sleep with many men quickly alternating to find her true love.

I'm not denying science I'm just putting it back where it belongs. The day you'll all dump science then I'll come at its rescue. Today we are all blinded by science and think we know it all while the opposite is true. So I'm playing Socrates. It's pretty much my nature to oppose but don't assume I don't like science, I want science to dig deeper. For now the ear is centuries ahead of any measuring tool.

 

[pyrrhon]

There was this question by vlad, and most people expressed how they didn't care anymore about fidelity and prefered to enjoy. Guitarists crave for tubes. Mélomanes play vinyle. Honda car system plays better then hifi system costing more then the car. Look around science failed for the last 30 years in audio and we are stubborn lunatics swear by measurements or abstract notions of simplicity so we can't even have a bass knob. We need to wake up.

 

[ID.]

There's a bit of poo pooing science and measurements, but t have you ever tried putting together a system based on science and measurements rather than the postmodern false equivalency that says everyone's opinion is as valid as anyone elses irrespective of any expertise so we should just purchase hi fi with our impulsive lizard brains and get whatever sounds most impressive to us in a relatively brief audition?

Give it a try, you might like it. After all, most of us who like to rely on science and measurements to a degree have tried the other way. I prefer how my system sounds now. You may or may not.

 

[Gaz37]

A Rolls Royce Phantom costs IRO £300,000

Look at it like this-

A top spec Ford Mondeo a shade under £30,000

So does that mean that the Phantom is 10x better?

No of course it isn't, it isn't 10x faster, 10x more fuel efficient or even 10x more reliable, in fact it isn't even twice as good in any measurable area (except maybe rear legroom)

The Mondeo can do pretty much everything, in the real world, that the Phantom can, expect of course impress people.

The main difference is that the Phantom makes you FEEL as though you have a better car.

 

[Gazzip]

The problem for me with this post and many like it is that they are always started by members who do not own and live with, and who have never owned and lived with, high end Hifi. Although I agree that one does not always get what one pays for in this hobby (as with any product centric hobby populated by obsessives trying to achieve their nirvana) it does not necessarily follow that anything expensive is a rip off/snake oil.

There seems to be little/no appreciation of the fact that what an item is "worth" is intrinsically linked to a buyer's wealth. The OP's £600-ish system would be as eye wateringly unattainable to some as a £10k system would be to the OP. To the OP the £600 outlay was "worth" spending to achieve his goal in the same way that £10k would be "worth" spending by those with pockets which go a little a little deeper.

Just because one is financially constrained and cannot personally afford to go beyond a certain level it does not follow that the bar is set by that level. Sorry if this doesn't sit well with any members' social ideals but such is life.

 

[Gaz37]

The problem for me with this post and many like it is that they are always started by members who do not own and live with, and who have never owned and lived with, high end Hifi. Although I agree that one does not always get what one pays for in this hobby (as with any product centric hobby populated by obsessives trying to achieve their nirvana) it does not necessarily follow that anything expensive is a rip off/snake oil.

There seems to be little/no appreciation of the fact that what an item is "worth" is intrinsically linked to a buyer's wealth. The OP's £600-ish system would be as eye wateringly unattainable to some as a £10k system would be to the OP. To the OP the £600 outlay was "worth" spending to achieve his goal in the same way that £10k would be "worth" spending by those with pockets which go a little a little deeper.

Just because one is financially constrained and cannot personally afford to go beyond a certain level it does not follow that the bar is set by that level. Sorry if this doesn't sit well with any members' social ideals but such is life.

But the real question is- (hypothetically) If all audio equipment cost the same would better off people still buy the same brands?

 

[Gazzip]

The problem for me with this post and many like it is that they are always started by members who do not own and live with, and who have never owned and lived with, high end Hifi. Although I agree that one does not always get what one pays for in this hobby (as with any product centric hobby populated by obsessives trying to achieve their nirvana) it does not necessarily follow that anything expensive is a rip off/snake oil.

There seems to be little/no appreciation of the fact that what an item is "worth" is intrinsically linked to a buyer's wealth. The OP's £600-ish system would be as eye wateringly unattainable to some as a £10k system would be to the OP. To the OP the £600 outlay was "worth" spending to achieve his goal in the same way that £10k would be "worth" spending by those with pockets which go a little a little deeper.

Just because one is financially constrained and cannot personally afford to go beyond a certain level it does not follow that the bar is set by that level. Sorry if this doesn't sit well with any members' social ideals but such is life.

But the real question is- (hypothetically) If all audio equipment cost the same would better off people still buy the same brands?

A bit of a silly question because if everything cost the same then the "best" would prevail and there would only be one or two brands. However, for the sake of it if a Ferrari 488 GTB cost the same as a Ford Focus which do you think most people would buy?

 

[andyjm]

The problem for me with this post and many like it is that they are always started by members who do not own and live with, and who have never owned and lived with, high end Hifi. Although I agree that one does not always get what one pays for in this hobby (as with any product centric hobby populated by obsessives trying to achieve their nirvana) it does not necessarily follow that anything expensive is a rip off/snake oil.

There seems to be little/no appreciation of the fact that what an item is "worth" is intrinsically linked to a buyer's wealth. The OP's £600-ish system would be as eye wateringly unattainable to some as a £10k system would be to the OP. To the OP the £600 outlay was "worth" spending to achieve his goal in the same way that £10k would be "worth" spending by those with pockets which go a little a little deeper.

Just because one is financially constrained and cannot personally afford to go beyond a certain level it does not follow that the bar is set by that level. Sorry if this doesn't sit well with any members' social ideals but such is life.

In engineering, it is a mistake to confuse quality and performance with cost. This is particularly the case with software where all the cost is development, it costs nothing to 'produce'.

For the electronic and (increasingly) software dependent systems sold in the HiFi world, the main driver of price is volume. If a system costs £100,000 to develop and you sell 100, then you have to charge at least £1000 just to cover the development costs. Sell 10,000 and you only have to charge £10 - same product, same quality, just driven by the volume.

The vast majority of the 'innards' of high end electronics are the same as much cheaper products. By paying up, you might get a fancy aluminium case to make your amp look better, but the components are the same ones, made in the same factory in Shenzhen, as used in an amp costing 5% of the price.

The above is not true to the same extent for mechanical systems, where the ratio between the cost of the components and the cost of development is more balanced. Paying more allows the designer to use better cabinetry, higher spec drivers in speakers, more precise and lower noise bearings in turntables and so on.

It is my guess that the high end HiFi market will become restricted to analogue amps, fancy speakers and turntables as manufacturers find it increasingly difficult to absorb development costs with the high software content in modern electronics.

The new Sonos play 5 has multiple drivers, multiple amps, multiple DACs, sophisticated DSP allowing room correction along with WiFi and ethernet capability for £430. As a guess, it cost less than £100 in parts and many hundreds of £000s to develop. There is no way a low volume, high end firm could produce a product like this, the development costs would make the price prohibitive.

 

[Gaz37]

The problem for me with this post and many like it is that they are always started by members who do not own and live with, and who have never owned and lived with, high end Hifi. Although I agree that one does not always get what one pays for in this hobby (as with any product centric hobby populated by obsessives trying to achieve their nirvana) it does not necessarily follow that anything expensive is a rip off/snake oil.

There seems to be little/no appreciation of the fact that what an item is "worth" is intrinsically linked to a buyer's wealth. The OP's £600-ish system would be as eye wateringly unattainable to some as a £10k system would be to the OP. To the OP the £600 outlay was "worth" spending to achieve his goal in the same way that £10k would be "worth" spending by those with pockets which go a little a little deeper.

Just because one is financially constrained and cannot personally afford to go beyond a certain level it does not follow that the bar is set by that level. Sorry if this doesn't sit well with any members' social ideals but such is life.

But the real question is- (hypothetically) If all audio equipment cost the same would better off people still buy the same brands?

A bit of a silly question because if everything cost the same then the "best" would prevail and there would only be one or two brands. However, for the sake of it if a Ferrari 488 GTB cost the same as a Ford Focus which do you think most people would buy?

Probably the Focus, have you ever driven a Ferrari in traffic? lol

How do you define "best"?

 

[Gazzip]

That is why I put "best" in inverted commas. Impossible to define in this context.

I have never driven a Ferrari. I am a Porsche man and have until very recently used them on a daily basis over many years. I can assure you that on every level and in all traffic conditions a Porsche has been a far more enjoyable driving experience than whatever second car I have had during that period. Although they are a bit thirsty!

I assume your choice of the Ford Focus is based upon personal experience of the Ferrari's inferior performance in traffic, and not just a desire to poo poo the unatainable. Make its unatainability slightly more palatable? *biggrin*