-
Is OLED burn-in a problem? We want your input on one of TV’s hottest topics!
I'd say that the third rule is more or less correct...best thing you can do is try different combinations and make up your own mind. Also, the rule of diminishing returns is really correct. I tried an £8000 CD system recently and I'd say it was about 20% better than my £2800 system. I listened to a £500 record deck and it was about half as good as my system and then a £12,000 record deck and it was about the same as my system...
bowiebexley:I'd say that the third rule is more or less correct...best thing you can do is try different combinations and make up your own mind. Also, the rule of diminishing returns is really correct. I tried an £8000 CD system recently and I'd say it was about 20% better than my £2800 system. I listened to a £500 record deck and it was about half as good as my system and then a £12,000 record deck and it was about the same as my system...
I'd take that a step further. For one thing, "bettter" is entirely subjective. Ever wonder why Hi Fi people are always switching gear? It's not because they keep hearing better systems. I doubt anyone's ability to even determine what "better" is when they hear it. For instance, can you really remember how systems sound when you compare them. If you're not doing immediate A/B switch testing, I doubt there's much accuracy at all in determing what sounds "best". I just don't think your brain has the capacity to recall subtle differences in sound with accuracy. Additionally, often anything different or new may sounds better than your existing system.
Add to that all the placebo effects that we are vulnerable to. I can almost guarantee that if I stuck the guts of a NAD 326 in an all aluminum chasis, stamped a fancy name on it like "esoterique" and charged £4000 for it, it would get good press.
I not saying there are not differences. There are big differences in equipment, but I'm saying that our ability to innately determine quality on a finely granular level is very flawed. Funny how people almost universally equate price with quality. This is obviously not true. There are many products that cost more and sound worse.
I'd take that a step further. For one thing, "bettter" is entirely subjective. Ever wonder why Hi Fi people are always switching gear? It's not because they keep hearing better systems. I doubt anyone's ability to even determine what "better" is when they hear it. For instance, can you really remember how systems sound when you compare them. If you're not doing immediate A/B switch testing, I doubt there's much accuracy at all in determing what sounds "best". I just don't think your brain has the capacity to recall subtle differences in sound with accuracy. Additionally, often anything different or new may sounds better than your existing system.
Add to that all the placebo effects that we are vulnerable to. I can almost guarantee that if I stuck the guts of a NAD 326 in an all aluminum chasis, stamped a fancy name on it like "esoterique" and charged £4000 for it, it would get good press.
I not saying there are not differences. There are big differences in equipment, but I'm saying that our ability to innately determine quality on a finely granular level is very flawed. Funny how people almost universally equate price with quality. This is obviously not true. There are many products that cost more and sound worse.
idc
Well-known member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 1,142
- 117
- 19,370
Messiah:JoelSim:
There's plenty of room for many different sounds in the music world, many of which can be good, if different.
Agreed
You are both so wrong......................................Chinese Opera
There's plenty of room for many different sounds in the music world, many of which can be good, if different.
Agreed
You are both so wrong......................................Chinese Opera
A computer with a half decent DAC will outperform CD players costing many multiples more ... then upgrade amp and speakers till your happy .... safe in the knowledge that your source is probably as good as it can get.
Schbeemb: A computer with a half decent DAC will outperform CD players costing many multiples more ... then upgrade amp and speakers till your happy .... safe in the knowledge that your source is probably as good as it can get.
I would generally agree with that proposition but only if high bitrate (preferably lossless) files are fed to the DAC.
I would generally agree with that proposition but only if high bitrate (preferably lossless) files are fed to the DAC.
jaxwired:
bowiebexley:I'd say that the third rule is more or less correct...best thing you can do is try different combinations and make up your own mind. Also, the rule of diminishing returns is really correct. I tried an £8000 CD system recently and I'd say it was about 20% better than my £2800 system. I listened to a £500 record deck and it was about half as good as my system and then a £12,000 record deck and it was about the same as my system...
I'd take that a step further. For one thing, "bettter" is entirely subjective. Ever wonder why Hi Fi people are always switching gear? It's not because they keep hearing better systems. I doubt anyone's ability to even determine what "better" is when they hear it. For instance, can you really remember how systems sound when you compare them. If you're not doing immediate A/B switch testing, I doubt there's much accuracy at all in determing what sounds "best". I just don't think your brain has the capacity to recall subtle differences in sound with accuracy. Additionally, often anything different or new may sounds better than your existing system.
Add to that all the placebo effects that we are vulnerable to. I can almost guarantee that if I stuck the guts of a NAD 326 in an all aluminum chasis, stamped a fancy name on it like "esoterique" and charged £4000 for it, it would get good press.
I not saying there are not differences. There are big differences in equipment, but I'm saying that our ability to innately determine quality on a finely granular level is very flawed. Funny how people almost universally equate price with quality. This is obviously not true. There are many products that cost more and sound worse.
AMEN. Incidentally I just replied on the mains lead thread and now notice that I said something almost identical to your points in the above second paragraph. Only without the brevity, sadly.
bowiebexley:I'd say that the third rule is more or less correct...best thing you can do is try different combinations and make up your own mind. Also, the rule of diminishing returns is really correct. I tried an £8000 CD system recently and I'd say it was about 20% better than my £2800 system. I listened to a £500 record deck and it was about half as good as my system and then a £12,000 record deck and it was about the same as my system...
I'd take that a step further. For one thing, "bettter" is entirely subjective. Ever wonder why Hi Fi people are always switching gear? It's not because they keep hearing better systems. I doubt anyone's ability to even determine what "better" is when they hear it. For instance, can you really remember how systems sound when you compare them. If you're not doing immediate A/B switch testing, I doubt there's much accuracy at all in determing what sounds "best". I just don't think your brain has the capacity to recall subtle differences in sound with accuracy. Additionally, often anything different or new may sounds better than your existing system.
Add to that all the placebo effects that we are vulnerable to. I can almost guarantee that if I stuck the guts of a NAD 326 in an all aluminum chasis, stamped a fancy name on it like "esoterique" and charged £4000 for it, it would get good press.
I not saying there are not differences. There are big differences in equipment, but I'm saying that our ability to innately determine quality on a finely granular level is very flawed. Funny how people almost universally equate price with quality. This is obviously not true. There are many products that cost more and sound worse.
AMEN. Incidentally I just replied on the mains lead thread and now notice that I said something almost identical to your points in the above second paragraph. Only without the brevity, sadly.
jaxwired:
I'd take that a step further. For one thing, "bettter" is entirely subjective. Ever wonder why Hi Fi people are always switching gear? It's not because they keep hearing better systems. I doubt anyone's ability to even determine what "better" is when they hear it. For instance, can you really remember how systems sound when you compare them. If you're not doing immediate A/B switch testing, I doubt there's much accuracy at all in determing what sounds "best". I just don't think your brain has the capacity to recall subtle differences in sound with accuracy. Additionally, often anything different or new may sounds better than your existing system.
I not saying there are not differences. There are big differences in equipment, but I'm saying that our ability to innately determine quality on a finely granular level is very flawed. Funny how people almost universally equate price with quality. This is obviously not true. There are many products that cost more and sound worse.
I think that a sizeable chunk of hi fi enthusiasts are more interested in the equipment than music and just like car enthusiasts, they purchase all sorts of add-ons that make them feel they are getting a better result or they keep trading them. However, for serious music enthusiasts and we see many, quality is paramount and most come here with music and speech to make sure they get it.
"Better" definitely isn't subjective, it's something you can measure and equate to the sound quality that results and I'm sure that we're not alone in a perpetual quest to improve what we do. Therefore you can imagine how frustrated we get when people (shops usually) say that it's "what you prefer" or "what's good for you". It isn't, it's what's best at reproducing accurately and in a non fatiguing way, what has been recorded, so that whatever you choose to play sounds as good as it can and thus allows you to see though your system to music unimpeded by any distortion that a lesser system might add.
Given help and guidance, it's possible to very accurately assess hi fi, but a lot of the language people use to describe what they hear is meaningless and helps no one. There are big differences and there will be until we all put our heads together and agree the best way to recognise the factors that constitute the best quality sound reproduction.
Placing emphasis on the wrong bits to improve a system doesn't help either. People are hearing differences that cannot exist like mains cables, even speaker cables, bi-wiring, MP3s versus Lossless and jitter, arguing about bit perfect sound reproduction and all sorts of other red herrings, when they probably have an underpowered amp and indifferent speakers. Both of which if changed for the better, could make a dramatic improvement.
As someone else has pointed out, any old Laptop and an M-Audio Transit gets you 98% of the best front end you can buy, whereas there won't be many on here who could say that for the rest of their system.
Ash
I'd take that a step further. For one thing, "bettter" is entirely subjective. Ever wonder why Hi Fi people are always switching gear? It's not because they keep hearing better systems. I doubt anyone's ability to even determine what "better" is when they hear it. For instance, can you really remember how systems sound when you compare them. If you're not doing immediate A/B switch testing, I doubt there's much accuracy at all in determing what sounds "best". I just don't think your brain has the capacity to recall subtle differences in sound with accuracy. Additionally, often anything different or new may sounds better than your existing system.
I not saying there are not differences. There are big differences in equipment, but I'm saying that our ability to innately determine quality on a finely granular level is very flawed. Funny how people almost universally equate price with quality. This is obviously not true. There are many products that cost more and sound worse.
I think that a sizeable chunk of hi fi enthusiasts are more interested in the equipment than music and just like car enthusiasts, they purchase all sorts of add-ons that make them feel they are getting a better result or they keep trading them. However, for serious music enthusiasts and we see many, quality is paramount and most come here with music and speech to make sure they get it.
"Better" definitely isn't subjective, it's something you can measure and equate to the sound quality that results and I'm sure that we're not alone in a perpetual quest to improve what we do. Therefore you can imagine how frustrated we get when people (shops usually) say that it's "what you prefer" or "what's good for you". It isn't, it's what's best at reproducing accurately and in a non fatiguing way, what has been recorded, so that whatever you choose to play sounds as good as it can and thus allows you to see though your system to music unimpeded by any distortion that a lesser system might add.
Given help and guidance, it's possible to very accurately assess hi fi, but a lot of the language people use to describe what they hear is meaningless and helps no one. There are big differences and there will be until we all put our heads together and agree the best way to recognise the factors that constitute the best quality sound reproduction.
Placing emphasis on the wrong bits to improve a system doesn't help either. People are hearing differences that cannot exist like mains cables, even speaker cables, bi-wiring, MP3s versus Lossless and jitter, arguing about bit perfect sound reproduction and all sorts of other red herrings, when they probably have an underpowered amp and indifferent speakers. Both of which if changed for the better, could make a dramatic improvement.
As someone else has pointed out, any old Laptop and an M-Audio Transit gets you 98% of the best front end you can buy, whereas there won't be many on here who could say that for the rest of their system.
Ash
matthewpiano
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2007
- 494
- 334
- 19,270
Ashley James:jaxwired:
I'd take that a step further. For one thing, "bettter" is entirely subjective. Ever wonder why Hi Fi people are always switching gear? It's not because they keep hearing better systems. I doubt anyone's ability to even determine what "better" is when they hear it. For instance, can you really remember how systems sound when you compare them. If you're not doing immediate A/B switch testing, I doubt there's much accuracy at all in determing what sounds "best". I just don't think your brain has the capacity to recall subtle differences in sound with accuracy. Additionally, often anything different or new may sounds better than your existing system.
I not saying there are not differences. There are big differences in equipment, but I'm saying that our ability to innately determine quality on a finely granular level is very flawed. Funny how people almost universally equate price with quality. This is obviously not true. There are many products that cost more and sound worse.
I think that a sizeable chunk of hi fi enthusiasts are more interested in the equipment than music and just like car enthusiasts, they purchase all sorts of add-ons that make them feel they are getting a better result or they keep trading them. However, for serious music enthusiasts and we see many, quality is paramount and most come here with music and speech to make sure they get it.
"Better" definitely isn't subjective, it's something you can measure and equate to the sound quality that results and I'm sure that we're not alone in a perpetual quest to improve what we do. Therefore you can imagine how frustrated we get when people (shops usually) say that it's "what you prefer" or "what's good for you". It isn't, it's what's best at reproducing accurately and in a non fatiguing way, what has been recorded, so that whatever you choose to play sounds as good as it can and thus allows you to see though your system to music unimpeded by any distortion that a lesser system might add.
Given help and guidance, it's possible to very accurately assess hi fi, but a lot of the language people use to describe what they hear is meaningless and helps no one. There are big differences and there will be until we all put our heads together and agree the best way to recognise the factors that constitute the best quality sound reproduction.
Ash
For goodness sake!! It IS all about what we, as listeners, prefer. You talk as if the ideal situation is one in which a universal sound/system is adopted by all. That is complete rubbish. This is not something which can be dictated or where there is an absolute. Music and hi-fi are both subjective and, as such, what is best will change according to each individual, their own hearing, and the music they listen to.
Auditioning equipment is so vital purely because this is really the only way in which we can be sure that what we buy is right for us. Consequently 'a lot of the language people use to describe what they hear' IS meaningless when discussing hi-fi, but (by the same terms) so are the scientific graphs and objective evaluations which have no bearing on daily listening pleasure.
I'm sure you can imagine how frustrated many of us get when people like you insist that their's is the only, and best, way. I admire your belief in your own product and the fact that you have built up such a successful company but I find your approach to all of this quite ridiculous.
I'd take that a step further. For one thing, "bettter" is entirely subjective. Ever wonder why Hi Fi people are always switching gear? It's not because they keep hearing better systems. I doubt anyone's ability to even determine what "better" is when they hear it. For instance, can you really remember how systems sound when you compare them. If you're not doing immediate A/B switch testing, I doubt there's much accuracy at all in determing what sounds "best". I just don't think your brain has the capacity to recall subtle differences in sound with accuracy. Additionally, often anything different or new may sounds better than your existing system.
I not saying there are not differences. There are big differences in equipment, but I'm saying that our ability to innately determine quality on a finely granular level is very flawed. Funny how people almost universally equate price with quality. This is obviously not true. There are many products that cost more and sound worse.
I think that a sizeable chunk of hi fi enthusiasts are more interested in the equipment than music and just like car enthusiasts, they purchase all sorts of add-ons that make them feel they are getting a better result or they keep trading them. However, for serious music enthusiasts and we see many, quality is paramount and most come here with music and speech to make sure they get it.
"Better" definitely isn't subjective, it's something you can measure and equate to the sound quality that results and I'm sure that we're not alone in a perpetual quest to improve what we do. Therefore you can imagine how frustrated we get when people (shops usually) say that it's "what you prefer" or "what's good for you". It isn't, it's what's best at reproducing accurately and in a non fatiguing way, what has been recorded, so that whatever you choose to play sounds as good as it can and thus allows you to see though your system to music unimpeded by any distortion that a lesser system might add.
Given help and guidance, it's possible to very accurately assess hi fi, but a lot of the language people use to describe what they hear is meaningless and helps no one. There are big differences and there will be until we all put our heads together and agree the best way to recognise the factors that constitute the best quality sound reproduction.
Ash
For goodness sake!! It IS all about what we, as listeners, prefer. You talk as if the ideal situation is one in which a universal sound/system is adopted by all. That is complete rubbish. This is not something which can be dictated or where there is an absolute. Music and hi-fi are both subjective and, as such, what is best will change according to each individual, their own hearing, and the music they listen to.
Auditioning equipment is so vital purely because this is really the only way in which we can be sure that what we buy is right for us. Consequently 'a lot of the language people use to describe what they hear' IS meaningless when discussing hi-fi, but (by the same terms) so are the scientific graphs and objective evaluations which have no bearing on daily listening pleasure.
I'm sure you can imagine how frustrated many of us get when people like you insist that their's is the only, and best, way. I admire your belief in your own product and the fact that you have built up such a successful company but I find your approach to all of this quite ridiculous.
Personally I do not always experience the most "transparent" reproduction as the "best". I.e. a chain that adds no colour is not one that I would necessarily prefer - even though science or objectivity might suggest that I should.
Similarly speakers that separate out the frequencies into acres of space (or conversely cluster them together rendering them hard to distinguish) - in each case a preference can hardly be determined objectively - or what?
I do agree however that the language often used to describe signals and sources can be meaningless.
Similarly speakers that separate out the frequencies into acres of space (or conversely cluster them together rendering them hard to distinguish) - in each case a preference can hardly be determined objectively - or what?
I do agree however that the language often used to describe signals and sources can be meaningless.
If it's what's best at reproducing accurately and in a non fatiguing way, what has been recorded, so that whatever you choose to play sounds as good as it can and thus allows you to see though your system to music unimpeded by any distortion that a lesser system might For the customer that really want that they wouldn't waste time with small cheap avi kit they would go for top flight top of the range atc or pmc.After all if that's the goal the customer wants they do it better and more accurate seeing as the music was made using them in the first place.There's a old saying though.The customer is always right.People want different things from a system and its very arrogant to tell them they are hard of hearing or just wrong if they don't want your kit mr james.
People have been arguing about "objectivity" vs "subjectivity" since time immemorial, wars have been fought over it. There will always be people who argue objectivity is scacred (lawyers for instance) and there is a very good reason for that.
But in everyday life, people make their own decisions about cars, hi fi, clothes, spouses(!) blah blah blah according to their own subjective views, not what the man on the Clapham Omnibus would decide.
Objectivity is a good guide or starting point but in the end, in this debate, it is our ears and our wallets which decide.
That is Life and all its brilliant and different colours and wonderful shades in between.
But in everyday life, people make their own decisions about cars, hi fi, clothes, spouses(!) blah blah blah according to their own subjective views, not what the man on the Clapham Omnibus would decide.
Objectivity is a good guide or starting point but in the end, in this debate, it is our ears and our wallets which decide.
That is Life and all its brilliant and different colours and wonderful shades in between.
matthewpiano
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2007
- 494
- 334
- 19,270
I would also ask Ashley why, if objectivity is the way forward, does the AVI website include links to subjective reviews of both the conventional components they used to make and the current range?
john dolan:If it's what's best at reproducing accurately and in a non fatiguing way, what has been recorded, so that whatever you choose to play sounds as good as it can and thus allows you to see though your system to music unimpeded by any distortion that a lesser system might For the customer that really want that they wouldn't waste time with small cheap avi kit they would go for top flight top of the range atc or pmc.After all if that's the goal the customer wants they do it better and more accurate seeing as the music was made using them in the first place.There's a old saying though.The customer is always right.People want different things from a system and its very arrogant to tell them they are hard of hearing or just wrong if they don't want your kit mr james.
Mr Dolan
I suspect that you, like so many fascinated by this hobby, don't understand the mechanisms involved or how to weigh up the various compromises that exist in hi fi design. You've also assumed something large and expensive must be better. And it's certainly not arrogant to to pass on the benefits of years of research to people interested in improving their hi fi system
You are also overly suspicious of my motives and so insist in relating what I say to a sales patter for what I make, which is a mistake.
If you read an early post of mine in this thread I've explained what happens to our hearing as we age and why we actually benefit from better sound quality, just as we do reading glasses. Therefore it is worth thinking about what I've said carefully for any merit it may have rather than just insulting me or our products. Don't forget that there is a post on here from someone who sold a £6.5K system (five stars too) to buy 9s and stated that there was a noticeably improvement or that the most expensive system anyone has sold so far to buy them was £20K! And he though them better too. However, for the purpose of this discussion, our products should be ignored and the points I've made alone, should be considered.
Please also remember that most records are made on speakers similar in size to normal domestic ones, that our ears are most sensitive from Middle C (257 Hz to 3 kHz) and that a big expensive loudspeaker is just a small two-way sitting on a big box with a Bass driver in it and that the extra crossover can add more problems than it can remove. The arguments are not as clear cut as you may think, but I doubt that will stop you.
IMO these discussions would be more constructive if people less confrontational.
Ash
Mr Dolan
I suspect that you, like so many fascinated by this hobby, don't understand the mechanisms involved or how to weigh up the various compromises that exist in hi fi design. You've also assumed something large and expensive must be better. And it's certainly not arrogant to to pass on the benefits of years of research to people interested in improving their hi fi system
You are also overly suspicious of my motives and so insist in relating what I say to a sales patter for what I make, which is a mistake.
If you read an early post of mine in this thread I've explained what happens to our hearing as we age and why we actually benefit from better sound quality, just as we do reading glasses. Therefore it is worth thinking about what I've said carefully for any merit it may have rather than just insulting me or our products. Don't forget that there is a post on here from someone who sold a £6.5K system (five stars too) to buy 9s and stated that there was a noticeably improvement or that the most expensive system anyone has sold so far to buy them was £20K! And he though them better too. However, for the purpose of this discussion, our products should be ignored and the points I've made alone, should be considered.
Please also remember that most records are made on speakers similar in size to normal domestic ones, that our ears are most sensitive from Middle C (257 Hz to 3 kHz) and that a big expensive loudspeaker is just a small two-way sitting on a big box with a Bass driver in it and that the extra crossover can add more problems than it can remove. The arguments are not as clear cut as you may think, but I doubt that will stop you.
IMO these discussions would be more constructive if people less confrontational.
Ash
matthewpiano:I would also ask Ashley why, if objectivity is the way forward, does the AVI website include links to subjective reviews of both the conventional components they used to make and the current range?
Subjective assessment is terribly important but cannot be done with out objective measurement and analysis, because, as someone else pointed out, we are very easily fooled. I think there is a tendency amongst hi fi enthusiasts to see things in Black and White rather than looking for balance.
In our opinion objective assessment is much more important than subjective, but we'd be very foolish not to test our theory all the time of people we know who've proved to be very good at subjective assessment, which is what we do.
Ash
Subjective assessment is terribly important but cannot be done with out objective measurement and analysis, because, as someone else pointed out, we are very easily fooled. I think there is a tendency amongst hi fi enthusiasts to see things in Black and White rather than looking for balance.
In our opinion objective assessment is much more important than subjective, but we'd be very foolish not to test our theory all the time of people we know who've proved to be very good at subjective assessment, which is what we do.
Ash
matthewpiano
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2007
- 494
- 334
- 19,270
Ashley James:john dolan:If it's what's best at reproducing accurately and in a non fatiguing way, what has been recorded, so that whatever you choose to play sounds as good as it can and thus allows you to see though your system to music unimpeded by any distortion that a lesser system might For the customer that really want that they wouldn't waste time with small cheap avi kit they would go for top flight top of the range atc or pmc.After all if that's the goal the customer wants they do it better and more accurate seeing as the music was made using them in the first place.There's a old saying though.The customer is always right.People want different things from a system and its very arrogant to tell them they are hard of hearing or just wrong if they don't want your kit mr james.
Mr Dolan
I suspect that you, like so many fascinated by this hobby, don't understand the mechanisms involved or how to weigh up the various compromises that exist in hi fi design. You've also assumed something large and expensive must be better. And it's certainly not arrogant to to pass on the benefits of years of research to people interested in improving their hi fi system
You are also overly suspicious of my motives and so insist in relating what I say to a sales patter for what I make, which is a mistake.
If you read an early post of mine in this thread I've explained what happens to our hearing as we age and why we actually benefit from better sound quality, just as we do reading glasses. Therefore it is worth thinking about what I've said carefully for any merit it may have rather than just insulting me or our products. Don't forget that there is a post on here from someone who sold a £6.5K system (five stars too) to buy 9s and stated that there was a noticeably improvement or that the most expensive system anyone has sold so far to buy them was £20K! And he though them better too.
Ash
Ashley, they are subjective judgements by individual listeners.
Nobody is being confrontational. People are standing up for what they believe in, beliefs that are every bit as valid as yours and which, often, are the results of years of listening experience with a whole variety of hi-fi equipment.
I am quite sure that your research has been thorough and in-depth and that in a purely technical sense you are entirely correct. However, this takes absolutely no account of the human emotional elements in all of this. Ultimately music is all about emotional response and as a consequence so is hi-fi.
Mr Dolan
I suspect that you, like so many fascinated by this hobby, don't understand the mechanisms involved or how to weigh up the various compromises that exist in hi fi design. You've also assumed something large and expensive must be better. And it's certainly not arrogant to to pass on the benefits of years of research to people interested in improving their hi fi system
You are also overly suspicious of my motives and so insist in relating what I say to a sales patter for what I make, which is a mistake.
If you read an early post of mine in this thread I've explained what happens to our hearing as we age and why we actually benefit from better sound quality, just as we do reading glasses. Therefore it is worth thinking about what I've said carefully for any merit it may have rather than just insulting me or our products. Don't forget that there is a post on here from someone who sold a £6.5K system (five stars too) to buy 9s and stated that there was a noticeably improvement or that the most expensive system anyone has sold so far to buy them was £20K! And he though them better too.
Ash
Ashley, they are subjective judgements by individual listeners.
Nobody is being confrontational. People are standing up for what they believe in, beliefs that are every bit as valid as yours and which, often, are the results of years of listening experience with a whole variety of hi-fi equipment.
I am quite sure that your research has been thorough and in-depth and that in a purely technical sense you are entirely correct. However, this takes absolutely no account of the human emotional elements in all of this. Ultimately music is all about emotional response and as a consequence so is hi-fi.
Ashley James:jaxwired:
I'd take that a step further. For one thing, "bettter" is entirely subjective.
"Better" definitely isn't subjective, it's something you can measure and equate to the sound quality that results and I'm sure that we're not alone in a perpetual quest to improve what we do. Therefore you can imagine how frustrated we get when people (shops usually) say that it's "what you prefer" or "what's good for you". It isn't, it's what's best at reproducing accurately and in a non fatiguing way, what has been recorded, so that whatever you choose to play sounds as good as it can and thus allows you to see though your system to music unimpeded by any distortion that a lesser system might add.
With all due respect, "better" IS subjective. "Better" is all personal preference. You have defined "better" as more accurate. Do you think vinyl lovers define it that way? People who are known to enjoy the pops and hiss?
The whole reason we are arguing about "better" is because we all define "better" our own way. Many people prefer accentuated bass. That's not accurate, but to them it's "better". Lot's of people find super accurate treble to be harsh and abrasive. Also not "better" to them. So "better" actually means "what I enjoy the most" and that my friend is absolutely subjective.
In fact, I feel confident that most people given a choice between 10 great speakers would not pick the most accurate one as the one they'd like to own.
I do agree that "most accurate" is NOT subjective. That can indeed be measured.
Also, I'd like to make the point that you had a mild contradiction in your post because you used the phrase "non-fatiquing" when describing how "better" is not subjective. I think you'd be very hard pressed to measure "non-fatiquing".
Finally, I want to comment on this confrontational business. Ashley, I very much enjoy this debate and your input. Your passion and obvious knowledge is appreciated and respected. Thank you for contributing.
I'd take that a step further. For one thing, "bettter" is entirely subjective.
"Better" definitely isn't subjective, it's something you can measure and equate to the sound quality that results and I'm sure that we're not alone in a perpetual quest to improve what we do. Therefore you can imagine how frustrated we get when people (shops usually) say that it's "what you prefer" or "what's good for you". It isn't, it's what's best at reproducing accurately and in a non fatiguing way, what has been recorded, so that whatever you choose to play sounds as good as it can and thus allows you to see though your system to music unimpeded by any distortion that a lesser system might add.
With all due respect, "better" IS subjective. "Better" is all personal preference. You have defined "better" as more accurate. Do you think vinyl lovers define it that way? People who are known to enjoy the pops and hiss?
The whole reason we are arguing about "better" is because we all define "better" our own way. Many people prefer accentuated bass. That's not accurate, but to them it's "better". Lot's of people find super accurate treble to be harsh and abrasive. Also not "better" to them. So "better" actually means "what I enjoy the most" and that my friend is absolutely subjective.
In fact, I feel confident that most people given a choice between 10 great speakers would not pick the most accurate one as the one they'd like to own.
I do agree that "most accurate" is NOT subjective. That can indeed be measured.
Also, I'd like to make the point that you had a mild contradiction in your post because you used the phrase "non-fatiquing" when describing how "better" is not subjective. I think you'd be very hard pressed to measure "non-fatiquing".
Finally, I want to comment on this confrontational business. Ashley, I very much enjoy this debate and your input. Your passion and obvious knowledge is appreciated and respected. Thank you for contributing.
When i go to a dealers for a demo i don't take a oscilloscope with me.I listen to 2 or 3 units in my price range and i buy the one i like the sound of the most.More often than not id suspect the parts that sound the best measures the worst.The best sounds ive heard come from valve and vinyl.Active avi and a laptop may well measure better but they lack sole and sound sterile.I want a sound i enjoy in my home as listening to my music is for pleasure.My brother is ordering a sme 20 as i write this to go with his 300b SET he has never owned a cd player doesn't want one doesn't like the sound.There's lots of kit out there and im sure every salesman from those companies would all say they make the best.Some like the sound of avi that's fine but some don't and to tell people they are wrong to like something else because they are deaf or don't understand the mechanisms involved is very arrogant mr james and wont win you many friends or customers.
chebby
Well-known member
- Jun 2, 2008
- 1,257
- 34
- 19,220
There has to be some merit in having decent hifi made to measurable standards and designed by competent electronics engineers.
If your whole system and every component inside it were designed by 'touchy-feeliness' subjectivism - rather than according to the laws of physics and good engineering practice - then it would never work!
We would have amplifiers made from hemp or capacitors made from wood and marshmallow. Guitar shaped speakers to sound good with... guitars etc.
People would be buying stuff that was unsafe nonsense if left entirely to the subjectivists.
No point in throwing away 80+ years of hard research into what now makes a good hifi. (Saw too much of that during the 'flat-earth' reign especially with all that Peter Belt insanity!)]
However there is a balance as in all good things. The other extreme is the hifi designed entirely on the lab bench and in the anechoic chamber that makes it into the shop without music ever being listened to as a fundamental part of the development process.
It should be important that music replay is valued as an important part of development. But not your taste in music, or my taste in music or the engineer's taste or the owner of the company or hifi reviewer's tastes in music. This most important bit of tuning should be driven by feedback from non-interested parties (ie can't be sacked by the boss for disliking it) with as wide a spead of musical tastes as possible. There should not be a 'rock amp' or 'jazz speakers' or a 'classical system'.
If your whole system and every component inside it were designed by 'touchy-feeliness' subjectivism - rather than according to the laws of physics and good engineering practice - then it would never work!
We would have amplifiers made from hemp or capacitors made from wood and marshmallow. Guitar shaped speakers to sound good with... guitars etc.
People would be buying stuff that was unsafe nonsense if left entirely to the subjectivists.
No point in throwing away 80+ years of hard research into what now makes a good hifi. (Saw too much of that during the 'flat-earth' reign especially with all that Peter Belt insanity!)]
However there is a balance as in all good things. The other extreme is the hifi designed entirely on the lab bench and in the anechoic chamber that makes it into the shop without music ever being listened to as a fundamental part of the development process.
It should be important that music replay is valued as an important part of development. But not your taste in music, or my taste in music or the engineer's taste or the owner of the company or hifi reviewer's tastes in music. This most important bit of tuning should be driven by feedback from non-interested parties (ie can't be sacked by the boss for disliking it) with as wide a spead of musical tastes as possible. There should not be a 'rock amp' or 'jazz speakers' or a 'classical system'.
idc
Well-known member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 1,142
- 117
- 19,370
Ashley James: "Better" definitely isn't subjective, it's something you can measure and equate to the sound quality that results and I'm sure that we're not alone in a perpetual quest to improve what we do. Therefore you can imagine how frustrated we get when people (shops usually) say that it's "what you prefer" or "what's good for you". It isn't, it's what's best at reproducing accurately and in a non fatiguing way, what has been recorded, so that whatever you choose to play sounds as good as it can and thus allows you to see though your system to music unimpeded by any distortion that a lesser system might add. Given help and guidance, it's possible to very accurately assess hi fi, but a lot of the language people use to describe what they hear is meaningless and helps no one.
'Better' is both objective and subjective, it can be used in both contexts. An AVI set up will be better than my Bose, objectively, as the Bose Sounddock has obvious limitations. But when comparing a similarly priced and specked set up to one with AVI kit then 'better' becomes more subjective.
Your comment about shopping for hifi reminds me of a trip to a restaurant where we were told how the meat was cooked as there was only one true way, the chefs way and that was that. It tasted very good, but we did did not like that holier than thou attituted, which left a bitter taste and we have not been back. Do you favour the hifi shops who say AVI is what you need as it is the most faithful at reproducing sound, or the ones who say that Krell is, objectively the best? I know your answer, but I am not sure of mine. I would want to try out both and then decide which is better. Would that 'better' be objective and correct if I chose AVI and subjective and wrong if I chose Krell?
With regards to your point about meaningless language, I have suggested a glossary before, maybe you should write the definitions we all should use. The problems with describing the differences in sound are the same as encoutered by wine enthusiasts and describing taste. But if someone describes speakers as light, forward and lacking in bass, I will have a good idea what they mean.
'Better' is both objective and subjective, it can be used in both contexts. An AVI set up will be better than my Bose, objectively, as the Bose Sounddock has obvious limitations. But when comparing a similarly priced and specked set up to one with AVI kit then 'better' becomes more subjective.
Your comment about shopping for hifi reminds me of a trip to a restaurant where we were told how the meat was cooked as there was only one true way, the chefs way and that was that. It tasted very good, but we did did not like that holier than thou attituted, which left a bitter taste and we have not been back. Do you favour the hifi shops who say AVI is what you need as it is the most faithful at reproducing sound, or the ones who say that Krell is, objectively the best? I know your answer, but I am not sure of mine. I would want to try out both and then decide which is better. Would that 'better' be objective and correct if I chose AVI and subjective and wrong if I chose Krell?
With regards to your point about meaningless language, I have suggested a glossary before, maybe you should write the definitions we all should use. The problems with describing the differences in sound are the same as encoutered by wine enthusiasts and describing taste. But if someone describes speakers as light, forward and lacking in bass, I will have a good idea what they mean.
jaxwired:john dolan:When i go to a dealers for a demo i don't take a oscilloscope with me. LOL!And ive got one if i wanted to lol http://dik.dolan.googlepages.com/hifi28808.JPG
For me back in the 90's the next item I wanted to upgrade was my Rotel 965BX CD Player that I had grown to cherish. This was £300 when I bought it so I assumed the next upgrade I could afford was up to £600. So I listened to an Arcam player at this price and a Cyrus. There was also a product that had just been launched called "Dac in the Box" that I recall was £250 and with a QED Digital cable at £50. The Rotel and Dac Combo to me was more superior and I recall the Hifi Dealer at Radfords (now taken over by Sevenoakes) was amazed at how good the combo was over the more expensive players. For me it was nice to see that someone else agreed with my choice as I was obviously slightly biased / loyal to the Rotel but for me this was an improvement over my old setup. Sadly after this stage with a new baby on the scene I sold my Hifi to someone who still appreciates it now and who bought the Dac in the box and QED lead. To me budgetly you can reach an impasse where minor tweaks may be just the answer over a complete upgrade.
How much to spend per component?
Digital sources are mostly good and needn't cost much.
Try a Beresford as a DAC and a pre, and spend the rest of the budget on active loudspeakers from Dynaudio, PMC or ATC. Spending ratio £100 (DAC / pre) : £5,000 (actives)
If you're feeling flash then Lavry and Benchmark sell DACs with pre-amps too. Spending ratio £1,000 (DAC/pre) : £20,000 (actives)
Digital sources are mostly good and needn't cost much.
Try a Beresford as a DAC and a pre, and spend the rest of the budget on active loudspeakers from Dynaudio, PMC or ATC. Spending ratio £100 (DAC / pre) : £5,000 (actives)
If you're feeling flash then Lavry and Benchmark sell DACs with pre-amps too. Spending ratio £1,000 (DAC/pre) : £20,000 (actives)
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram