HiFi - Facts, Fiction and Conjecture

[Ajani]

I definately feel that a mans mood impacts the enjoyment of the music but not the sound as that is always the same.

Now as the human brain is so complex and powerful, could not a small subtle difference in equipment presentation appear like night and day to the listener?

If subtle differences appear night and day to the listener, then how would regular or, worse yet, dramatic differences appear? Presumably some sense of scale must exist to the listener.

 

[andyjm]

There is a lot of misinformation in our hobby and it's not quite as one way as it might seem.

For example, are following 3 statements fact, fiction or conjecture?

1) All amplifiers sound the same.

2) Tube amps are popular because they distort the sound in a pleasant manner.

3) All cables sound the same.

Ajani,

The problem with your questions is that they are absolute - they need qualification to be meaningful. Ignoring the valve question which is (IMO) a personal preference question, I would have:

1. All properly engineered amplifiers, used at reasonable listening levels, driving moving coil loudspeakers in a domestic listening environment will sound the same.

3. All properly engineered cables, using cable of appropriate specification and length and using appropriate connectors used in a domestic listening environment will sound the same.

Of course 'twin and earth' mains cable has poor noise rejection if used as an low level interconnect, and using thin bell flex for long runs of speaker cable will sound different to adequately specified conductors. At high volumes, low powered amps driven beyond their capacity will sound worse than a high powered 'high end' monster. Equally, a budget amp driving some wierdo electrostatic load might struggle in comparison to an amp that could double up as an arc welder. You need to be specific about the parameters of your questions to obtain sensible answers.

While there is always some duffer who can't design or engineer his product correctly, electronics are so cheap now that any competent engineer should be able to deliver a quality product capable of colouration-free performance at a very resonable price.

 

[Snooker]

You can't have a sound quality threshold for a system since it includes speakers and maybe a turntable. They are transducers and as such have far more imperfections to deal with. A DAC on the other hand is already delivering best audible sound quality at $25, CD/DVD under $100 and an amplifier at $200.

I posted this earlier but was not quite clear in what I was trying to say, so this should now be fine, and can not now edit that post

I had taken the cost of speakers without a turn table into account for the reasons you have since said, as an example a pair of headphones at say around £300 in my opinion will sound probably "90-95%" as good as what is possible, same for speakers around say £1000, so I still believe a system for around £2000 with out a turnatable would sound "90-95%" as good as what is posible, in other words we have reached the freshold where it drops off exponentially, but others again may disagree at where this threshold point is where the system can sound around "90-95%" as good as what is possible, surely most people must agree that a system for a few thousand will sound around the same as a much more expensive sytem in the £20,000 range, there really is so much hype connected to hi-fi and I am sure the high end manufacturers love this so that they can just up there price and then "say !!" its "better sound quality as you get what you pay for !!", would be interesting what the reviewers here on what hi-fi think regarding where they think the threshold point is as stated above, also I believe in blind tests to give the most accurate results

 

[matt49]

I had taken the cost of speakers without a turn table into account for the reasons you have since said, as an example a pair of headphones at say around £300 in my opinion will sound probably "90-95%" as good as what is possible, same for speakers around say £1000, so I still believe a system for around £2000 with out a turnatable would sound "90-95%" as good as what is posible, in other words we have reached the freshold where it drops off exponentially, but others again may disagree at where this threshold point is where the system can sound around "90-95%" as good as what is possible, surely most people must agree that a system for a few thousand will sound around the same as a much more expensive sytem in the £20,000 range, there really is so much hype connected to hi-fi and I am sure the high end manufacturers love this so that they can just up there price and then "say !!" its "better sound quality as you get what you pay for !!", would be interesting what the reviewers here on what hi-fi think regarding where they think the threshold point is as stated above, also I believe in blind tests to give the most accurate results

Let's be clear here: we're talking about diminishing returns, and I'm confident pretty much everyone would agree that, in one form or another, spend on hi-fi components is indeed subject to diminishing returns.

But your talk of a 'threshold' suggests that there's a point in the price curve (£1K for speakers) after which returns suddenly and steeply drop off. That's possible, of course, but I think it's wrong for these reasons:

(i) the price/returns curve is likely to be less regular than you imagine, once we've factored in personal tastes and experience, as well as the different speaker technologies on offer at the top end of the price range (the price/return curve will look quite different for, say, electrostatics)

(ii) the price/returns curve is also likely to be smoother than you imagine because

(iii) with speakers, there are still very significant returns to be had above the £1K mark, not least because IME speakers retailing under £1K can't produce undistorted bass at high SPLs.

 

[Ajani]

There is a lot of misinformation in our hobby and it's not quite as one way as it might seem.

For example, are following 3 statements fact, fiction or conjecture?

1) All amplifiers sound the same.

2) Tube amps are popular because they distort the sound in a pleasant manner.

3) All cables sound the same.

Ajani,

The problem with your questions is that they are absolute - they need qualification to be meaningful.

Facts are absolute. The point was to show that without the proper qualification, certain statements are utterly misleading and others are just opinions. The science often is not saying what we preach about on HiFi forums.

Ignoring the valve question which is (IMO) a personal preference question, I would have:

1. All properly engineered amplifiers, used at reasonable listening levels, driving moving coil loudspeakers in a domestic listening environment will sound the same.

3. All properly engineered cables, using cable of appropriate specification and length and using appropriate connectors used in a domestic listening environment will sound the same.

Of course 'twin and earth' mains cable has poor noise rejection if used as an low level interconnect, and using thin bell flex for long runs of speaker cable will sound different to adequately specified conductors. At high volumes, low powered amps driven beyond their capacity will sound worse than a high powered 'high end' monster. Equally, a budget amp driving some wierdo electrostatic load might struggle in comparison to an amp that could double up as an arc welder. You need to be specific about the parameters of your questions to obtain sensible answers.

Even with appropriate qualification the statements you made are still not facts. I believe them to be true, but they aren't actually proven by the science. The reason being quite simple: DBT can't prove that a difference does not exist. The most we can say is that no-one has been able to prove that there is a difference between amps (with all the relevant qualifications mentioned earlier).

While there is always some duffer who can't design or engineer his product correctly, electronics are so cheap now that any competent engineer should be able to deliver a quality product capable of colouration-free performance at a very resonable price.

The key word being "should". There are a lot of poorly engineered products (whether deliberately or through incompetence) on the market. Yes, high quality products can be found for relatively cheap prices. However, you can't just pick up any old amp and expect it to be up to standard. You still need to do some research on the item first.

 

[Vladimir]

I remember audiophiles frequently criticized how CDs sounded horrible, bright, clinical and without soul in the 80s and how they improved in the 90s. A decade later we all learn what this 'improvement' was.

 

[Electro]

Subtle differences can be 'jarring' to some which is one reason these debates get so heated.

I believe some persons find it easier to identify subtle differences, whether due to years of listening, training etc... But I think the only jarring differences can be explained by measurements etc...

IMO, the jarring part (for subtle differences) is due to sighted bias. So the difference is real, but because you know it's there you find yourself exaggerating it. A lot of blind testing seems to indicate that this is the case. Persons who swear that high res MP3s sound terrible and unlistenable have a very difficult time telling the difference, when they don't know what they're listening to.

I see it as being like treating yourself to an expensive shirt or watch for your birthday. You love the item until you realize that there is a very small blemish on it. From then on it's all you focus on. Even though no one else sees it (until you force them to stare at it), you can't ignore it because you know it's there.

I dunno.

The other day some one linked to a 'loudness' video in it the author played a track one 'original' the other 'loud'.

The differences were subtle imo. But most would consider one version unlistenable without any visual que.

Like wise a real example a track that you know well that last say 3mins getting 1sec lobbed of the end or at the start - the music itself being identical becoming unlistenable again without visual que.

The differences are real - I suspect you're trying to get back to 'its all in the brain'.

Blind testing is just that living with a system will reveal what blind test miss.

It was me that posted the loudness link *smile*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

With respect Thompson if you think the difference is subtle then there is little or nothing more to say .

Give this one a try and tell me the difference is subtle *shok* *biggrin* .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v6ML2DsBfA

 

[Covenanter]

I remember audiophiles frequently criticized how CDs sounded horrible, bright, clinical and without soul in the 80s and how they improved in the 90s. A decade later we all learn what this 'improvement' was.

Some were! I've quoted it before but the Karajan Prokofiev 5th was like someone scratching their fingernails down a blackboard and it wasn't alone. It took a while for the engineers to get this right and the remastered versionof this particular disc is much better if still bright.

Modern classical recording are generally very good in my experience.

Chris

 

[Vladimir]

I remember audiophiles frequently criticized how CDs sounded horrible, bright, clinical and without soul in the 80s and how they improved in the 90s. A decade later we all learn what this 'improvement' was.

Some were! I've quoted it before but the Karajan Prokofiev 5th was like someone scratching their fingernails down a blackboard and it wasn't alone. It took a while for the engineers to get this right and the remastered versionof this particular disc is much better if still bright.

Modern classical recording are generally very good in my experience.

Chris

I take it scratching fingernails on blackboard is worse than any loudness compression. Admittedly I've only owned a small stack of CDs from the early 80s.

 

[NSA_watch_my_toilet]

Quote
"3) All cables sound the same.

None of those statements are facts. 1 & 3 are straight up fiction and 2 is conjecture."

Ok. Let's display the proof about that. Because, if you are looking some researchs based on this theme, it's written multiple times "Cables used in interconnect and speaker cables responding to a minimum standard made no differences whatsoever". It's written around like this in the study manual of the engeneers of the german radio company. And BBC made a more scientifical article in the early 70's about that. I will not even quote top engeneers we know like Rupert Neve, Willy Studer or Jim Thiel : All of them declared it's bogus.
EPFL Switzerland, that have a section that develope high end hifi technologies (3d sound chamber/new speaker types/research about technical themes... So those dudes are not beliving it either. And they have hundreds of engeneers in physic and sound technolgies.

I would like to see, if possible, everybody that would write after me refering to actual studies and not internet quotes. Specially when it comes to cable talk. So we could spare time and gygabites traffic... for a greener world.
----------------------------------------------------------

About tube amps. I had many mesures of that a times ago, thanks to magazines like Stereopay and Audio. And a lot of them had a higher amount of harmonic distortion at low volume that raise quickly at medium volume. But is it systematic (are they exceptions) ? Is it possible to realise tube amps without those high amount of K2 distortions and K3 ?

----------------------------------------------------------

About amps sounding the same. I didn't heard a difference between lots of power amps when the speaker was not critical (impossible to make this conclusion on a B&W 804 D2 or 802 D2) and when minimum seriousity was made in testing blindfolded and with volume calibration. This is not excluding that some brand will not try to put a sound in their gear, for having a "fabric sound" that you will identify. I would not like that, but the world is a wide place and tastes are diverse. When you are refering to integrated amps, the things is becoming different, even if a wide range of hifi gear is using very similar functions, you can turn a little bit the gain button (not you, the builder) and obtain diverse results. At the other side, it's very difficult to pinpoint those because the differences are tiny, and our hearing is far away from beeing a perfect mesuring tool. In fact, it's filled with bugs and glitches that will have greater influences on the sound that every amp could have.

 

[Ajani]

Quote"3) All cables sound the same.

None of those statements are facts. 1 & 3 are straight up fiction and 2 is conjecture."

Ok. Let's display the proof about that. Because, if you are looking some researchs based on this theme, it's written multiple times "Cables used in interconnect and speaker cables responding to a minimum standard made no differences whatsoever".

Are you asking me for proof of something? I'm not sure I'm interpreting your post correctly, but I'll attempt to explain the point anyway:

All cables sound the same is clearly fiction. Why? Because unless the minimum standards (that you refer to) are met then the cables can sound different.

Often on forums people just say "all cables sound the same" and neglect the critical part of that statement (the minimum requirements). So it is possible that when someone said they heard a difference from changing cables that they did, simply because one of the cables they used didn't meet minimum requirements.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Subtle differences can be 'jarring' to some which is one reason these debates get so heated.

I believe some persons find it easier to identify subtle differences, whether due to years of listening, training etc... But I think the only jarring differences can be explained by measurements etc...?

IMO, the jarring part (for subtle differences) is due to sighted bias. So the difference is real, but because you know it's there you find yourself exaggerating it. A lot of blind testing seems to indicate that this is the case. Persons who swear that high res MP3s sound terrible and unlistenable have a very difficult time telling the difference, when they don't know what they're listening to. ?

I see it as being like treating yourself to an expensive shirt or watch for your birthday. You love the item until you realize that there is a very small blemish on it. From then on it's all you focus on. Even though no one else sees it (until you force them to stare at it), you can't ignore it because you know it's there.?

I dunno.

The other day some one linked to a 'loudness' video in it the author played a track one 'original' the other 'loud'.

The differences were subtle imo. But most would consider one version unlistenable without any visual que.

Like wise a real example a track that you know well that last say 3mins getting 1sec lobbed of the end or at the start - the music itself being identical becoming unlistenable again without visual que.

The differences are real - I suspect you're trying to get back to 'its all in the brain'.

Blind testing is just that living with a system will reveal what blind test miss.

It was me that posted the loudness link *smile*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

With respect Thompson if you think the difference is subtle then there is little or nothing more to say .

Give this one a try and tell me the difference is subtle *shok* *biggrin* .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v6ML2DsBfA

Electro the video is broken - ended up watching & listening to some bloke called Ian Shepard and a few other loudness wars vids.

To me pop sounds flat anyway although the Micheal Jackson 'Thriller' demo was interesting.

There was a Katie Perry one too.

I preferred the loud.... :-D

 

[Vladimir]

The burden of proof falls on the claimant. Those who claim expensive audiophile boutique cables make a sound quality improvement need to come up with evidence for their exceptional claims. Those that claim this amplifier sounds different than that amplifier needs to provide evidence for this claim. And only acceptable evidence is scientific (objective) evidence (DBT, measurements etc.). Anecdotal (subjective) evidence is not valid and can never be treated as facts.

If someone claims their product does something that in reality it doesn't, this is de jure and very likely de facto a fraud. Sadly people who bought fraudulent products will tend to defend them. No one wants to be the naive victim. And most frequent logical falacy used by audio foo apologetics is demand of negative proof. "proove that it doesn't do what it says on the box and that all products X don't as well". This silly argument we so often hear in these debates is known as Russell's teapot. If you claim your product does something and I say prove it does, you can't tell me to prove it doesn't. With that false reasoning we are effectively enabling fraud.

Here is how it works gentlemen.

Machina Dynamica manufactures a product for which they provide no evidence showing it does what the manufacturer claims. However, that product doesn't immediately go to the shops. It is first sent to a publication like Positive Feedback to give it a review (anecdotal evidence) and thus credibility. Then the readers buy this fraudulent product and if told they were effectively scammed, they will deffend their action and the product, thus generating testimonials (more anecdotal evidence).

Fraudster (manufacturer) > Enabler (reviewer) > Consumer (sucker born every minute)

Of course there are also shills used in this process, but let's not get this post too exciting now.

When you see someone drowning it is the decent thing to help and save a life. However, one should be cautious not to lose their own in the process. You better be a very good swimmer before trying such a thing. Same with these discussions where one group or individual wants to raise awareness and help people from being had due to their ignorance on a certain subject matter. They have to be prepared to be attacked, ridiculed and insulted by the very people they would like to help. Often they end up banned on forums for being too outspoken and a crowd irritant. Once a happy customer does not feel nice when placed in the role of an ignorant and naive victim. Therefore, no one likes a gadfly, but individuals who don't fall under peer pressure serve a positive role nevertheless. Why else do you think Ajani started these threads?

Small disclaimer. I'm not this morally driven. I just like throwing rocks at Safari animals.

 

[steve_1979]

On the other hand NwAvGuy also said he would not recommend the Behringer due to 'serious issues as a headphone dac' in a response below.

The DAC section is good. The headphone amplifier section isn't.

It makes a great fixed output DAC via the RCA output sockets. It makes a rubbish pre-amp via the 3.5mm output jack.

 

[Ajani]

The burden of proof falls on the claimant. Those who claim expensive audiophile boutique cables make a sound quality improvement need to come up with evidence for their exceptional claims. Those that claim this amplifier sounds different than that amplifier needs to provide evidence for this claim. And only acceptable evidence is scientific (objective) evidence (DBT, measurements etc.). Anecdotal (subjective) evidence is not valid and can never be treated as facts.

If someone claims their product does something that in reality it doesn't, this is de jure and very likely de facto a fraud. Sadly people who bought fraudulent products will tend to defend them. No one wants to be the naive victim. And most frequent logical falacy used by audio foo apologetics is demand of negative proof. "proove that it doesn't do what it says on the box and that all products X don't as well". This silly argument we so often hear in these debates is known as Russell's teapot. If you claim your product does something and I say prove it does, you can't tell me to prove it doesn't. With that false reasoning we are effectively enabling fraud.

Here is how it works gentlemen.

Machina Dynamica manufactures a product for which they provide no evidence showing it does what the manufacturer claims. However, that product doesn't immediately go to the shops. It is first sent to a publication like Positive Feedback to give it a review (anecdotal evidence) and thus credibility. Then the readers buy this fraudulent product and if told they were effectively scammed, they will deffend their action and the product, thus generating testimonials (more anecdotal evidence).

Fraudster (manufacturer) > Enabler (reviewer) > Consumer (sucker born every minute)

Of course there are also shills used in this process, but let's not get this post too exciting now.

When you see someone drowning it is the decent thing to help and save a life. However, one should be cautious not to lose their own in the process. You better be a very good swimmer before trying such a thing. Same with these discussions where one group or individual wants to raise awareness and help people from being had due to their ignorance on a certain subject matter. They have to be prepared to be attacked, ridiculed and insulted by the very people they would like to help. Often they end up banned on forums for being too outspoken and a crowd irritant. Once a happy customer does not feel nice when placed in the role of an ignorant and naive victim. Therefore, no one likes a gadfly, but individuals who don't fall under peer pressure serve a positive role nevertheless.

Agreed. I've argued on several forums that instead of rejecting science, the manufacturers and reviewers who claim they can hear differences, should make the effort to prove they can. It adds credibility to our hobby and would end the perception that they are all selling snake oil. Of course that assumes that they aren't just selling snake oil.

I have no problem believing that differences may exist that have yet to be proven, but I sure won't spend my money on those differences until I see some proof.

Why else do you think Ajani started these threads?

Actually I get paid by WHF for generating forum traffic. So the more controversary I create = more money to spend on exotic cables. *biggrin*

 

[manicm]

Manufacturers have to do all the testing they can, but for the consumer it's a different story altogether, it's a massive ask of both consumer and retailer to do proper blind testing, and how many retailers encourage it anyway?

That's the real world. And hifi ain't a life or death situation, unlike a car which is - a badly designed car can kill you.

 

[NSA_watch_my_toilet]

Manufacturers have to do all the testing they can, but for the consumer it's a different story altogether, it's a massive ask of both consumer and retailer to do proper blind testing, and how many retailers encourage it anyway?

That's the real world. And hifi ain't a life or death situation, unlike a car which is - a badly designed car can kill you.

When you buy an aftermarket power cord, you take a risk of burning down your house, your family and yourself in it if the cable hasn't been built up to proper standards and it isn't tested and certified.

+17'200 !!!!! In fact, a fautly phono preamp burned at my home. We was able to spot the problem right on the begining, so it ended into "a bit too much smoke in the room", but your whole house can catch fire. On the hifi-forum, you have a dude that was knocked off by his amp. The current was circulating on the casing of the amplifier due to unproper solding.

 

[Vladimir]

Manufacturers have to do all the testing they can, but for the consumer it's a different story altogether, it's a massive ask of both consumer and retailer to do proper blind testing, and how many retailers encourage it anyway?

That's the real world. And hifi ain't a life or death situation, unlike a car which is - a badly designed car can kill you.

When you buy an aftermarket power cord, you take a risk of burning down your house, your family and yourself in it if the cable hasn't been built up to proper standards and it isn't tested and certified.

+17'200 !!!!! In fact, a fautly phono preamp burned at my home. We was able to spot the problem right on the begining, so it ended into "a bit too much smoke in the room", but your whole house can catch fire. On the hifi-forum, you have a dude that was knocked off by his amp. The current was circulating on the casing of the amplifier due to unproper solding.

I bought a cheap SMSL headphone amp and it has a hot chasis. You can feel electricity on the case and when you plug the cord it may zap you a bit (+ a lot of sparking for visual effect). 24V to start your day with a smile. So I bought a regulated linear PSU to replace the power brick it came with and that solved it.

BTW, most people are not aware that 50mA of current is enough to create a cardiac arrest and possibly kill you. Voltage is not the enemy, but current. You get thousands of volts while you walk on a carpet but it's harmless.

 

[Vladimir]

Manufacturers have to do all the testing they can, but for the consumer it's a different story altogether, it's a massive ask of both consumer and retailer to do proper blind testing, and how many retailers encourage it anyway?

That's the real world. And hifi ain't a life or death situation, unlike a car which is - a badly designed car can kill you.

When you buy an aftermarket power cord, you take a risk of burning down your house, your family and yourself in it if the cable hasn't been built up to proper standards and it isn't tested and certified. Same could happen with power conditioners, power bricks and other audiophile cottage industry manufacture. The manufacturer may use parts that individually pass safety standards, but there will be no actual tests and validation on the complete unit as a finished product. We are left to trust a manufacturer's word if their product is safe or not.

If by some chance you have a fire or some electrical hazard and you want to claim insurance, your insurance company may decline payout because you used untested and uncertified aftermarket high voltage (high energy) products. When you buy such products you want one of these logos assigned on them - UL, VDE, TUV.

C E (Conformité Européenne) is self assigned label and often faked by Chinese manufacturers as CE (no spacing) meaning "China Export". Therefore, best to ignore that certification as an indicator of build quality and safety. VDE, TUV and UL are indipendant labs where you send products to be rigorously tested. Those do have validity and an insurance investigation will certanly look for them along with the British Standards code in the UK.

 

[tonky]

And I suspect that most (if not all) music listeners do when purchasing costly hifi equipment. The source - the amp - the speakers. All play a part musically (and financially).

If all amplifiers sounded the same - we'd all buy the same - but we don't! Just ask Colin and the comments he gets on his abrahamssen amps in various comparisons with customers. Also the Marantz SA8005 owners - a great sounding amp. I've owned enough amps over the last 35 years or so to know there is a difference in sound quality between them. Could be synergy with speaker interaction etc. BUT I have always used my EARS to make the final decision and not the paper specification - as do the vast majority of enthusiasts on this site.

tonky

 

[Vladimir]

Is it usefull? Clicky

Also: Clicky

 

[Electro]

Subtle differences can be 'jarring' to some which is one reason these debates get so heated.

I believe some persons find it easier to identify subtle differences, whether due to years of listening, training etc... But I think the only jarring differences can be explained by measurements etc...

IMO, the jarring part (for subtle differences) is due to sighted bias. So the difference is real, but because you know it's there you find yourself exaggerating it. A lot of blind testing seems to indicate that this is the case. Persons who swear that high res MP3s sound terrible and unlistenable have a very difficult time telling the difference, when they don't know what they're listening to.

I see it as being like treating yourself to an expensive shirt or watch for your birthday. You love the item until you realize that there is a very small blemish on it. From then on it's all you focus on. Even though no one else sees it (until you force them to stare at it), you can't ignore it because you know it's there.

I dunno.

The other day some one linked to a 'loudness' video in it the author played a track one 'original' the other 'loud'.

The differences were subtle imo. But most would consider one version unlistenable without any visual que.

Like wise a real example a track that you know well that last say 3mins getting 1sec lobbed of the end or at the start - the music itself being identical becoming unlistenable again without visual que.

The differences are real - I suspect you're trying to get back to 'its all in the brain'.

Blind testing is just that living with a system will reveal what blind test miss.

It was me that posted the loudness link *smile*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

With respect Thompson if you think the difference is subtle then there is little or nothing more to say .

Give this one a try and tell me the difference is subtle *shok* *biggrin* .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v6ML2DsBfA

Electro the video is broken - ended up watching & listening to some bloke called Ian Shepard and a few other loudness wars vids.

althougTo me pop sounds flat anywayh the Micheal Jackson 'Thriller' demo was interesting.

There was a Katie Perry one too.

I preferred the loud.... :-D

Thompson if you prefer the compressed loud version then that is ok, I suspect your'e not alone, some people don't like live music either!

Micheal Jackson's Thriller will sound pretty good no matter what is done to it because it is an exceptionally good recording done by a legend of the recording industry ( Bruce Swedien ) using the best possible amplifiers to monitor and mix it ( Electrocompaniet *smile* ) .

Bruce Swedien's core philosophy is to preserve transients and the whole of each individual note .

https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/nov09/articles/swedien.htm

The link above is a very interesting read if you are interested in how music should be recorded.

 

[Ajani]

Manufacturers have to do all the testing they can, but for the consumer it's a different story altogether, it's a massive ask of both consumer and retailer to do proper blind testing, and how many retailers encourage it anyway?

No argument here. I don't think consumers should do blind testing. Manufacturers and even reviewers should. You and I can buy whatever we want, for any reason we want. Ideally, DBT results and measurements should be made available to the consumer. The consumer can then choose whether to even look at the data, but it should be available.

 

[Ajani]

Manufacturers have to do all the testing they can, but for the consumer it's a different story altogether, it's a massive ask of both consumer and retailer to do proper blind testing, and how many retailers encourage it anyway?

That's the real world. And hifi ain't a life or death situation, unlike a car which is - a badly designed car can kill you.

When you buy an aftermarket power cord, you take a risk of burning down your house, your family and yourself in it if the cable hasn't been built up to proper standards and it isn't tested and certified.

+17'200 !!!!! In fact, a fautly phono preamp burned at my home. We was able to spot the problem right on the begining, so it ended into "a bit too much smoke in the room", but your whole house can catch fire. On the hifi-forum, you have a dude that was knocked off by his amp. The current was circulating on the casing of the amplifier due to unproper solding.

I bought a cheap SMSL headphone amp and it has a hot chasis. You can feel electricity on the case and when you plug the cord it may zap you a bit (+ a lot of sparking for visual effect). 24V to start your day with a smile. So I bought a regulated linear PSU to replace the power brick it came with and that solved it.

BTW, most people are not aware that 50mA of current is enough to create a cardiac arrest and possibly kill you. Voltage is not the enemy, but current. You get thousands of volts while you walk on a carpet but it's harmless.

This is a great example of the problem with the idea that anybody can just start up a HiFi company out of their basement, and through trial and error craft a great product. Sure you might create a product that is subjectively pleasing, but If you don't have the proper training/education there are serious risks to yourself and the consumer.

 

[NSA_watch_my_toilet]

Yes. I think consumers should enjoy music at first. After that, understanding how things works is not a waist of time, and will help a lot to spare money (a lot of money) and could help maximize the amount of music quality you will have at the end.

But in the moment they are going on the internet and review things, at least then, it's for me the moment when they should become more critic and test things out.