HiFi - Imagination, Exaggeration and Colouration?

[Ajani]

I like this thread, better then reading about boring Arcams or Denons.

That's the main reason I create these kind of threads. To give us something else to discuss other than the usual which amp should I buy? etc etc etc...

These threads are inevitably controversial, but so be it. It's all in good fun and occassionally some useful knowledge (such as the Floyd Toole video) is spread.

 

[Ajani]

Coca Cola is far more superior taste to Pepsi Cola and one can discern the difference in taste quite easilly even when being highly tipsy!

Pepsi tastes better. *biggrin*

But anyway, the Pepsi vs Coke example is an excellent parallel to HiFi. Do you really care why Coke tastes better to you? Does it matter whether that might be the result of excellent marketing on Coke's part, rather than your taste buds?

Looking at the responses in this thread and similar topics I've created or participated in over the years, it's clear to me that many (quite possibly most) audiophiles don't care about why they like what they like. Part of that is the fact that HiFi is a seperate (though related) hobby from listening to music. There is a simple joy in auditioning different combos at dealers and at your home. Part of the reason active speakers are more popular among pros than audiophiles is because of very limited ability to uprade, tweak and mix and match. Even CD players lack the appeal of tweaking that you get with a turntable.

Do people really care about whether a Ferrari is that much better than a Corvette? Or do they just buy the Ferrari because they have the money to do so and they think it's cool. HiFi is like any luxury good/service. Some of the benefits are real, some are inflated by marketing and hype and others are just straight up imagined.

 

[Ajani]

Who told us we really know how to measure sound as at yet.

Now that is an EXCELLENT question! It's long been my belief that we don't know how to measure everything (but we are getting closer and closer). My hope has and always will be that one day we will achieve that goal. But that only happens if we have brands and scientists that care about understanding sound and how to measure it. Consumers don't need to care, they can buy anything they like.

 

[ID.]

Coca Cola is far more superior taste to Pepsi Cola and one can discern the difference in taste quite easilly even when being highly tipsy!

Pepsi tastes better. *biggrin*

But anyway, the Pepsi vs Coke example is an excellent parallel to HiFi. Do you really care why Coke tastes better to you? Does it matter whether that might be the result of excellent marketing on Coke's part, rather than your taste buds?

Looking at the responses in this thread and similar topics I've created or participated in over the years, it's clear to me that many (quite possibly most) audiophiles don't care about why they like what they like. Part of that is the fact that HiFi is a seperate (though related) hobby from listening to music. There is a simple joy in auditioning different combos at dealers and at your home. Part of the reason active speakers are more popular among pros than audiophiles is because of very limited ability to uprade, tweak and mix and match. Even CD players lack the appeal of tweaking that you get with a turntable.

Do people really care about whether a Ferrari is that much better than a Corvette? Or do they just buy the Ferrari because they have the money to do so and they think it's cool. HiFi is like any luxury good/service. Some of the benefits are real, some are inflated by marketing and hype and others are just straight up imagined.

Coke Vs. Pepsi = whether you prefer vanilla over citrus. I believe that is the major difference between the two.

I agree that it's a good question. Is the fact that people hear differences because of psychological biases, etc. or is it because we need to be able to take better, or different, measurements.

 

[lindsayt]

How is what I said an insult?

I said in this thread, exactly what I said in the other thread (so I have no idea why you say I should say it in that thread): we disagree and are not going to change each other's mind.

I didn't question your intelligence or experience. So I have absolutely no idea why you feel I am insulting you.

This is part of why I have no desire to debate with you, if you find that insulting, then I can't see how we have any kind of discussion.

As for speakers you asked me about: what would be the point? If I tell you a Magico S7 with sufficient amplification is capable of Horn level dynamics, then what? You'll say you disagree? So what's the point?

We've both said what we wanted to say on the issue. and obviously neither of us is changing our minds. If you find that insulting, then I really don't know what to tell you.

I find it insulting for anyone to question my ability to change my mind when I am presented with evidence that contradicts my internal model of the world.

It's insulting because it's not true. It's insulting because you're saying that I have this negative aspect to my personality when I don't.

If you or anyone else can nominate a coned and domed speaker that you seriously think matches the dynamics of full sized horns and midrange resolution of electrostatics then I will try my best to go out and listen to that speaker. Ideally in a level matched A/B demo.

If that speaker then turns out to be as good as the nominator said, then I will completely amend post #2 of this thread.

If that speaker doesn't turn out to be as good as claimed, then I will come back here and report my findings.

Are you seriously suggesting that I should go out and audition Magico S7's?

Have you heard (or tested) the Magico S7's yourself? If so, what were your full and honest impressions of them?

 

[lindsayt]

You must be new.

All discussion with lindsayt end up with praising his system. Just let the man tell you why it is so great and why he loves it so much. Have some holiday spirit.

Peace and love.

Vladimir, that is a disgusting slur.

Re read post #2 of this thread.

Where my stance is the opposite of the insult you have tarred me with.

IE in post #2 I'm saying that NO SPEAKERS ARE BEST AT EVERYTHING. Which of course includes all the speakers that I own and have owned in the past.

I completely understand your point about the very real limitations of transducers vs electronics, Hoffman's Iron law of speaker design etc. Although "NO SPEAKERS ARE BEST AT EVERYTHING" is a very sobering thought, this thread was about AJ venting his frustration with audiophile thinking.

What do you think audiophiles do wrong?

How is what I said an insult?

That would be me.

Vladimir, feel free to apologise for your insult or to edit your insulting post.

I can't answer this question: "What do you think audiophiles do wrong?"

It's too general.

 

[lindsayt]

It's funny, I remember Vlad and I being accused by the anti-science crowd in this thread of using veiled insults cuz we ran out of points etc... Yet I don't see them objecting to a string of blatant insults being aimed at me by somone from their side of the argument.

Anyway Chris, I'm sure you can see arguing this point with him is a waste of time.

Ajani, are you referring to Thompsonuxb or me or both of us?

I'd prefer it if you used usernames when referring to other members of this forum.

Instead of using mildly insulting ad hominem tags like "the anti-science crowd".

 

[ID.]

What I was trying to say that I found my first Pioneer dvd and NAD players so disappointing that sometimes things are so clear cut you don't need blind testing. But no, invariably you will continue to argue otherwise...

Not hard to fathom. We are moving the discussion beyond what you picked for playing your CDs.

All you did is heard something that you found more appealing to you. Why you did so is not something you can answer, only keep repeating yourself that you prefered A over B.

Why was one player better than the other to you, despite scientific theory and engineering (applied science) both telling us there should be no audible qualitative differences, only possibly quantative? You told us you heard a difference, now think why.

Ok I'll indulge your particular combination of incomprehension and obduracy. The first Pioneer dvd deck simply sounded as dull as dishwater with cds. There was a lack of clarity and detail. I then traded up to a better Pioneer dvd model. It was an improvement but I found it extreme to the other end - I found it very clear, but also very bright and detailed. Because initially I could not get used to this hyper-detailed sound (to me anyway) and I had already sold my Technics, I then read about and acquired the NAD C521i cdp. It was very sibilant to the point of hurting my ears and had a soundstage that focused too much in the middle, I however tried to persevere with it for months in conjunction with the 2nd Pioneer dvd deck. After 4 or 5 months I had actually gotten used to the Pioneer and ditched the NAD. The Pioneer was bright and detailed but did not have the nasty sibilance.

So I had months of listening to both decks, and I had my Technics for 11 years before that.

he isn't asking about how it sounded to you, the question that needs to be answered is why one sounded dull and the other hyper detailed or piercing, or whatever.

as I said, it depends on the amount of vanilla or citrus used in the formula. Most people like the mellowed sweetness of vanilla, but some like he rang and astringency of citrus. I'm oversimplifying here.

 

[Vladimir]

Vladimir, feel free to apologise for your insult or to edit your insulting post.

I apologize for exposing to Ajani how much you love talking up your speakers.

 

[ID.]

Double post

 

[manicm]

What I was trying to say that I found my first Pioneer dvd and NAD players so disappointing that sometimes things are so clear cut you don't need blind testing. But no, invariably you will continue to argue otherwise...

Not hard to fathom. We are moving the discussion beyond what you picked for playing your CDs.

All you did is heard something that you found more appealing to you. Why you did so is not something you can answer, only keep repeating yourself that you prefered A over B.?

Why was one player better than the other to you, despite scientific theory and engineering (applied science) both telling us there should be no audible qualitative differences, only possibly quantative? You told us you heard a difference, now think why.?

Ok I'll indulge your particular combination of incomprehension and obduracy. The first Pioneer dvd deck simply sounded as dull as dishwater with cds. There was a lack of clarity and detail. I then traded up to a better Pioneer dvd model. It was an improvement but I found it extreme to the other end - I found it very clear, but also very bright and detailed. Because initially I could not get used to this hyper-detailed sound (to me anyway) and I had already sold my Technics, I then read about and acquired the NAD C521i cdp. It was very sibilant to the point of hurting my ears and had a soundstage that focused too much in the middle, I however tried to persevere with it for months in conjunction with the 2nd Pioneer dvd deck. After 4 or 5 months I had actually gotten used to the Pioneer and ditched the NAD. The Pioneer was bright and detailed but did not have the nasty sibilance.

So I had months of listening to both decks, and I had my Technics for 11 years before that.

he isn't asking about how it sounded to you, the question that needs to be answered is why one sounded dull and the other hyper detailed or piercing, or whatever.?

as I said, it depends on the amount of vanilla or citrus used in the formula. Most people like the mellowed sweetness of vanilla, but some like he rang and astringency of citrus. I'm oversimplifying here. 

Well why don't you tell me why I found something so offensive sounding, so sibilant. I didn't design or engineer the equipment, did you??

So come on then, tell me why?

 

[Andrewjvt]

What I was trying to say that I found my first Pioneer dvd and NAD players so disappointing that sometimes things are so clear cut you don't need blind testing. But no, invariably you will continue to argue otherwise...

Not hard to fathom. We are moving the discussion beyond what you picked for playing your CDs.

All you did is heard something that you found more appealing to you. Why you did so is not something you can answer, only keep repeating yourself that you prefered A over B.?

Why was one player better than the other to you, despite scientific theory and engineering (applied science) both telling us there should be no audible qualitative differences, only possibly quantative? You told us you heard a difference, now think why.?

Ok I'll indulge your particular combination of incomprehension and obduracy. The first Pioneer dvd deck simply sounded as dull as dishwater with cds. There was a lack of clarity and detail. I then traded up to a better Pioneer dvd model. It was an improvement but I found it extreme to the other end - I found it very clear, but also very bright and detailed. Because initially I could not get used to this hyper-detailed sound (to me anyway) and I had already sold my Technics, I then read about and acquired the NAD C521i cdp. It was very sibilant to the point of hurting my ears and had a soundstage that focused too much in the middle, I however tried to persevere with it for months in conjunction with the 2nd Pioneer dvd deck. After 4 or 5 months I had actually gotten used to the Pioneer and ditched the NAD. The Pioneer was bright and detailed but did not have the nasty sibilance.

So I had months of listening to both decks, and I had my Technics for 11 years before that.

he isn't asking about how it sounded to you, the question that needs to be answered is why one sounded dull and the other hyper detailed or piercing, or whatever.?

as I said, it depends on the amount of vanilla or citrus used in the formula. Most people like the mellowed sweetness of vanilla, but some like he rang and astringency of citrus. I'm oversimplifying here.?

Well why don't you tell me why I found something so offensive sounding, so sibilant. I didn't design or engineer the equipment, did you??

So come on then, tell me why?

We hear you and understand but maybe time to drop the dvd cd thing now. Lol

Ps does anyone want to buy a new amp?

 

[ID.]

What I was trying to say that I found my first Pioneer dvd and NAD players so disappointing that sometimes things are so clear cut you don't need blind testing. But no, invariably you will continue to argue otherwise...

Not hard to fathom. We are moving the discussion beyond what you picked for playing your CDs.

All you did is heard something that you found more appealing to you. Why you did so is not something you can answer, only keep repeating yourself that you prefered A over B.

Why was one player better than the other to you, despite scientific theory and engineering (applied science) both telling us there should be no audible qualitative differences, only possibly quantative? You told us you heard a difference, now think why.

Ok I'll indulge your particular combination of incomprehension and obduracy. The first Pioneer dvd deck simply sounded as dull as dishwater with cds. There was a lack of clarity and detail. I then traded up to a better Pioneer dvd model. It was an improvement but I found it extreme to the other end - I found it very clear, but also very bright and detailed. Because initially I could not get used to this hyper-detailed sound (to me anyway) and I had already sold my Technics, I then read about and acquired the NAD C521i cdp. It was very sibilant to the point of hurting my ears and had a soundstage that focused too much in the middle, I however tried to persevere with it for months in conjunction with the 2nd Pioneer dvd deck. After 4 or 5 months I had actually gotten used to the Pioneer and ditched the NAD. The Pioneer was bright and detailed but did not have the nasty sibilance.

So I had months of listening to both decks, and I had my Technics for 11 years before that.

he isn't asking about how it sounded to you, the question that needs to be answered is why one sounded dull and the other hyper detailed or piercing, or whatever.

as I said, it depends on the amount of vanilla or citrus used in the formula. Most people like the mellowed sweetness of vanilla, but some like he rang and astringency of citrus. I'm oversimplifying here.

Well why don't you tell me why I found something so offensive sounding, so sibilant. I didn't design or engineer the equipment, did you??

So come on then, tell me why?

or maybe I should just get aggro. It's not an attack on you so chill. It's just that it's worth considering for various reasons. Some people are just happy enough dealing with what sound comes out of the "magic box", others like to look at the available information and data and see if they can work out why it gave that result. It's not an attack on you, even when it takes into consideration that it may be due to psychoacoustic factors on the part of the listener. It may be an indictment on the fallibility of human beings in general, it does not impugn you and your faculties.

So this intellectual exercise of considering why you heard what you did is just that. An intellectual exercise that may come up with an answer that could be useful when looking to purchase products in future.

Or, you know, you could just faff around with trial and error forever. That's fine too, if you enjoy that kind of thing.

Oh, and Coke & Pepsi

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/pepsi.asp

 

[Vladimir]

We all know that audiophiles (aka music lovers, aka audio enthusiasts) pride themselves on the mantra "Just Listen" and they climb the audiophile ladder by how many components they've auditioned and owned. But when it comes to recommending to others what components to combine and buy I've noticed a phenomenon called 'Hi-Fi Astrology'. Can anyone define the term hifi astrology for us?

Subjectivists vs Objectivists in hi-fi remind me a lot of Astrology vs Astronomy.

 

[ID.]

We all know that audiophiles (aka music lovers, aka audio enthusiasts) pride themselves on the mantra "Just Listen" and they climb the audiophile ladder by how many components they've auditioned and owned. But when it comes to recommending to others what components to combine and buy I've noticed a phenomenon called 'Hi-Fi Astrology'. Can anyone define the term hifi astrology for us?

Astrology is hokum. What you want is hi fi augury. The owls are not what they seem.

I would also respect the results divined through hifi haruspicy.

 

[Vladimir]

We all know that audiophiles (aka music lovers, aka audio enthusiasts) pride themselves on the mantra "Just Listen" and they climb the audiophile ladder by how many components they've auditioned and owned. But when it comes to recommending to others what components to combine and buy I've noticed a phenomenon called 'Hi-Fi Astrology'. Can anyone define the term hifi astrology for us?

Astrology is hokum. What you want is hi fi augury. The owls are not what they seem.

I would also respect the results divined through hifi haruspicy.

You don't think all Rotel amps and all B&W speakers work perfectly together because the two companies have a business relationship?

 

[andyjm]

But when it comes to recommending to others what components to combine and buy I've noticed a phenomenon called 'Hi-Fi Astrology'. Can anyone define the term hifi astrology for us?

The gravitational attraction of every atom in the universe effects every other atom. So the alignment of the constellations has an effect on the tracking of the laser in your CD player. I notced that when I played Clapton's unplugged version of Layla, it sounded different in the springtime than in the autumn.

I am thinking of marketing a chart to place under a CD player and a small weight. Every day the chart indicates where to place the weight to counter the 'astronomical distortion' associated with this gravitational effect. A database would be set up logging the date that a recording was originally produced indictating where to place the weight to replicate the exact gravitational conditions when the track was recorded. This would allow purchasers to experience the music 'just as the mixing engineer had intended'.

 

[ID.]

We all know that audiophiles (aka music lovers, aka audio enthusiasts) pride themselves on the mantra "Just Listen" and they climb the audiophile ladder by how many components they've auditioned and owned. But when it comes to recommending to others what components to combine and buy I've noticed a phenomenon called 'Hi-Fi Astrology'. Can anyone define the term hifi astrology for us?

Astrology is hokum. What you want is hi fi augury. The owls are not what they seem.

I would also respect the results divined through hifi haruspicy.

You don't think all Rotel amps and all B&W speakers work perfectly together because the two companies have a business relationship?

They go together like bacon and egg. Of course, you need to upgrade to Classe when moving higher up the range.

 

[Frank Harvey]

You don't think all Rotel amps and all B&W speakers work perfectly together because the two companies have a business relationship?

During the 90s, with the original B&W 600 series, I always found most suitably priced amps (the sort of amps you would partner with a £200 pair of DM601 speakers or £280 pair of DM602 speakers) just couldn't control the bass that the 600 series had. The Rotel amplifiers on the other hand were able to do this, and make them sound punchy, which is of course how the 600 series should sound. So in general, yes, the Rotel amplifiers work very well with B&W. Whether or not one would actually prefer that combination over others with various other amps is another matter though.

Attending the dealer launch of the 800 series, Bowers & Wilkins were using the Rotel RC1590 pre-amp and a pair of RB1590 power amplifiers to demo start the 803, 802, and 800 models.

 

[ID.]

You don't think all Rotel amps and all B&W speakers work perfectly together because the two companies have a business relationship?

During the 90s, with the original B&W 600 series, I always found most suitably priced amps (the sort of amps you would partner with a £200 pair of DM601 speakers or £280 pair of DM602 speakers) just couldn't control the bass that the 600 series had. The Rotel amplifiers on the other hand were able to do this, and make them sound punchy, which is of course how the 600 series should sound. So in general, yes, the Rotel amplifiers work very well with B&W. Whether or not one would actually prefer that combination over others with various other amps is another matter though.

Attending the dealer launch of the 800 series, Bowers & Wilkins were using the Rotel RC1590 pre-amp and a pair of RB1590 power amplifiers to demo start the 803, 802, and 800 models.

we have the anecdotal evidence, so I guess the deeper question is what made/makes them work together well. There should be somethings specific in the design rather than just saying they are made by the same company or even made to work together well.

FWIW, Marantz imports B&W into Japan so Marantz kit is very frequently matched with B&W speakers there. Does that mean they go together well? Because there's a commercial partnership between the companies?

Rotel I see paired with JBL most often. Sometimes also with Quad panels.

 

[Frank Harvey]

we have the anecdotal evidence, so I guess the deeper question is what made/makes them work together well. There should be somethings specific in the design rather than just saying they are made by the same company or even made to work together well.

I'm sure as B&W have the ability to use Classe and Rotel when testing their speakers, they will take full advantage of that. As we know, Neat use Naim, PMC use Bryston, and presumably Focal will now use Naim etc etc to give but a few examples. It may not necessarily be anything specific in the design other than voicing. I don't know, I don't design them.

FWIW, Marantz imports B&W into Japan so Marantz kit is very frequently matched with B&W speakers there. Does that mean they go together well? Because there's a commercial partnership between the companies?

God no. But then, if that's the sound the Japanese want, I'm sure they're more than happy with it. I know you're hinting at the commercial/financial angle, and of course, that exists (as it may well be in Japan by the look of it), but I've found that over the decades, B&W and Rotel have paired very well together.

Rotel I see paired with JBL most often. Sometimes also with Quad panels.

I've always said that Rotel gives you a relatively neutral taste of high end for sensible money, so it is probably users who don't wish to spend mega bucks on electronics, and those who feel there is no need to.

 

[lindsayt]

Vladimir, feel free to apologise for your insult or to edit your insulting post.

I apologize for exposing to Ajani how much you love talking up your speakers.

Thar is a pure and utter troll post from you Vladimir.

 

[manicm]

What I was trying to say that I found my first Pioneer dvd and NAD players so disappointing that sometimes things are so clear cut you don't need blind testing. But no, invariably you will continue to argue otherwise...

Not hard to fathom. We are moving the discussion beyond what you picked for playing your CDs.

All you did is heard something that you found more appealing to you. Why you did so is not something you can answer, only keep repeating yourself that you prefered A over B.?

Why was one player better than the other to you, despite scientific theory and engineering (applied science) both telling us there should be no audible qualitative differences, only possibly quantative? You told us you heard a difference, now think why.?

Ok I'll indulge your particular combination of incomprehension and obduracy. The first Pioneer dvd deck simply sounded as dull as dishwater with cds. There was a lack of clarity and detail. I then traded up to a better Pioneer dvd model. It was an improvement but I found it extreme to the other end - I found it very clear, but also very bright and detailed. Because initially I could not get used to this hyper-detailed sound (to me anyway) and I had already sold my Technics, I then read about and acquired the NAD C521i cdp. It was very sibilant to the point of hurting my ears and had a soundstage that focused too much in the middle, I however tried to persevere with it for months in conjunction with the 2nd Pioneer dvd deck. After 4 or 5 months I had actually gotten used to the Pioneer and ditched the NAD. The Pioneer was bright and detailed but did not have the nasty sibilance.

So I had months of listening to both decks, and I had my Technics for 11 years before that.

he isn't asking about how it sounded to you, the question that needs to be answered is why one sounded dull and the other hyper detailed or piercing, or whatever.?

as I said, it depends on the amount of vanilla or citrus used in the formula. Most people like the mellowed sweetness of vanilla, but some like he rang and astringency of citrus. I'm oversimplifying here.?

Well why don't you tell me why I found something so offensive sounding, so sibilant. I didn't design or engineer the equipment, did you??

So come on then, tell me why?

or maybe I should just get aggro. It's not an attack on you so chill. It's just that it's worth considering for various reasons. Some people are just happy enough dealing with what sound comes out of the "magic box", others like to look at the available information and data and see if they can work out why it gave that result. It's not an attack on you, even when it takes into consideration that it may be due to psychoacoustic factors on the part of the listener. It may be an indictment on the fallibility of human beings in general, it does not impugn you and your faculties.?

So this intellectual exercise of considering why you heard what you did is just that. An intellectual exercise that may come up with an answer that could be useful when looking to purchase products in future.?

Or, you know, you could just faff around with trial and error forever. That's fine too, if you enjoy that kind of thing.?

?

Oh, and Coke & Pepsi

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/pepsi.asp

Ok so, again, you can give me a scientific explanation of why I heard those differences, go ahead. No one's disputing fact but your ilk seem prone to disputing common sense.

 

[chebby]

Rotel started off (in the UK at least) with amps and receivers made for the Rank Organisation back in the early 1970s.

This was after Rank had absorbed Wharfedale and Leak (hence some old Rotel gear being badged as Leak like the 3900a.)

Again, as with B&W, Rotel remained an independent entity owned wholly by it's founding family.

 

[Vladimir]

Vladimir, feel free to apologise for your insult or to edit your insulting post.

I apologize for exposing to Ajani how much you love talking up your speakers.

Thar is a pure and utter troll post from you Vladimir.

It's OK. They are indeed impressive speakers and quite rare. They are probably significantly better than 99.99% of everything other members here own. If I had them I would be their biggest advocate.