Question Is expensive hifi worth it today?

[SteveR750]

Exactly.

Soundstage width, soundstage depth, instrument separation are all important factors to how a system sounds to me.

Are there measurements to show these traits ?

Yes, but they will likely be significantly influenced by room interaction, but for example, crosstalk is as a good an indicator of soundstaging capability for an amp.
Consider the industrial applications say for a signal amplifier, if you were installing into an aircraft, there is a clear process of certification to prove that the component works. This is achieved by characterising it by objective measurement, not be a subjective assessment. Testing electronic components is not new, nor difficult; it's just not in the commercial interests of consumer electronics to do that, so a bit of smoke and mirrors helps drive those margins.
The really difficult part of consumer audio is to try to quantify the psychosomatic effects, blind ABx testing goes someway, and the development of some form of average standard sound from Dr Sean Olives work for Harman Audio tries to address the natural variation of the human form and corresponding aural response to the same stimuli. In all likelihood, present 100 people with a a selection of tailored profiles and they won't agree which sounds the "best"
Good specs mean that the kit does the job it is designed to do, but it doesn't mean that you personally will like that sound in your room.; however, as I said before using that data as a starting or reference point can more quickly get you to where you want to be, rather than watching youtube or reading subjective only product reviews. I can't stress the influence of room response though, it is way more significant than what amp or dac you use, so if you're going to measure anything, I'd start there.

 

[nopiano]

Tink there's somethin to be said for this .... I was using my AVR for stereo in direct mode to avoid any "flavouring" from the amp / it's EQ and some songs with deep bass were very rumbly / unpleasant to listen to.
I thought it was my speakers so upgraded those (I wanted to anyway) and it was the same, it was only when I then upgraded to a seperate amp it stopped.
I did wonder if it's "flavoured" to give that rumble for movie effects like thunder / expolsions etc. so targeting the AVR rather than stereo market but surely that'd be software based and direct mode should bypass that.
Apart from this one trait though it's hard to differentiate between them, especially as you only get it in certain songs.

Apart from a few AV amps in the luxury class, my experience is similar in that most affordable AV designs sound ‘mechanical’ in some way. Not natural at all, but just making some sort of sound. Many seem to use ’chip’ amp stages, and when you see insides and the rear panel they couldn’t be further from a ‘purist’ Hifi design.

Of course, it might be my in—built prejudice, but I experienced this many years ago when WHF were in Teddinton and they invited readers to attend listening days. (Readers panels, I think they might have been called). I remember a multi-thousand £ Yamaha AV amp sounding glorious, but most of the others were very clunky.

 

[Deleted member 201267]

Yes, but they will likely be significantly influenced by room interaction, but for example, crosstalk is as a good an indicator of soundstaging capability for an amp.
Consider the industrial applications say for a signal amplifier, if you were installing into an aircraft, there is a clear process of certification to prove that the component works. This is achieved by characterising it by objective measurement, not be a subjective assessment. Testing electronic components is not new, nor difficult; it's just not in the commercial interests of consumer electronics to do that, so a bit of smoke and mirrors helps drive those margins.
The really difficult part of consumer audio is to try to quantify the psychosomatic effects, blind ABx testing goes someway, and the development of some form of average standard sound from Dr Sean Olives work for Harman Audio tries to address the natural variation of the human form and corresponding aural response to the same stimuli. In all likelihood, present 100 people with a a selection of tailored profiles and they won't agree which sounds the "best"
Good specs mean that the kit does the job it is designed to do, but it doesn't mean that you personally will like that sound in your room.; however, as I said before using that data as a starting or reference point can more quickly get you to where you want to be, rather than watching youtube or reading subjective only product reviews. I can't stress the influence of room response though, it is way more significant than what amp or dac you use, so if you're going to measure anything, I'd start there.

Overall, although i think measurements are useful at the product development stage, the fact that final testing by the designers is done by listening tests says it all.

As you have pointed out the listening room influences the final sound of a HIFI "system" significantly therefore the only accurate judge is yourself, in your listening room, which is a unique situation.

 

[SteveR750]

Overall, although i think measurements are useful at the product development stage, the fact that final testing by the designers is done by listening tests says it all.

As you have pointed out the listening room influences the final sound of a HIFI "system" significantly therefore the only accurate judge is yourself, in your listening room, which is a unique situation.

Indeed, as consumers we only have our ears as the final and decisive arbiter. I only have issues with wild unsubstantiated claims of perfection. If we had an industrial standards approach to consumer electronics, in that utopian world we could much more quickly find the optimum system for our own preferences and rooms, instead of listening to adjective waterfalls from multiple social media channels. It's hilarious how these guys get name dropped simply because they've got a lot of content and sound convincing. Sounds familiar?
Plus ca change, and mist importantly caveat emptor and all that

 

[giocap]

I have a Marantz PM6007 with a pair of Dali Spektor 2 speakers. I play all my music (mostly classical) via my Samsung S20 phone, and I stream using Amazon HD. The image below shows the location, a room about 9ft by 15ft, with soft furnishings/carpet. I find the sound quality really good and although I have heard other systems in other locations I think I could only really tell any difference if I could listen to them side-by-side. The important point is I really enjoy listening to the music because of the music itself, and as long as the music is played on fairly good quality equipment, as I have, then is there any point in paying thousands for something that is supposed to be superior?

The best piece of music I ever heard was All Along the Watchtower (Hendrix) in 1970 at a friends house where about 10 people were relaxing and perhaps smoking something they shouldn't have (but not me). It was played on vinyl on a slightly dodgy old record player. It sounded so good because of the vibe that was going on. The equipment didn't seem to matter too much.

So, is it worth upsetting my wife (a lot) and spending some money?


View attachment 4217

Firstly , your memory of hendrix may have been influenced by passive smoke. Just my suspicion.
Secondly, the answer to your question is personal. Listen to the equiment and decide if the joy of the better sound is worth the money.
For sure, the law of diminishing returns is real, from 100$ to 500$ the difference is immense form 500$ to a 1000$ it's large, from 1000 to 2000$ its noticeable but not immense .

I have noticed , if you have the money to spend, the bulk of music lovers, including me, see no sense beyond a 3000$ system

 

[WayneKerr]

I have noticed , if you have the money to spend, the bulk of music lovers, including me, see no sense beyond a 3000$ system

I didn't either... until I spent more

 

[giocap]

I didn't either... until I spent more

I have a 500$ budget a year for stereo. My system is 2 years old. Rougly 1k, and i am quite happy, but am already in the market for a new ampli.
Theoretically in 10 years i'll be sporting a 6k system, that's how they get you 😉

 

[giocap]

Firstly , your memory of hendrix may have been influenced by passive smoke. Just my suspicion.
Secondly, the answer to your question is personal. Listen to the equiment and decide if the joy of the better sound is worth the money.
For sure, the law of diminishing returns is real, from 100$ to 500$ the difference is immense form 500$ to a 1000$ it's large, from 1000 to 2000$ its noticeable but not immense .

I have noticed , if you have the money to spend, the bulk of music lovers, including me, see no sense beyond a 3000$ system

To answer your question seriously, you have a 1k system, (700$ ampli, 300$speakers)
There is room for significant improvements with little money.
Your source is a phone, the marantz has a dac, but perhaps you might like a 200$/300$ external dac more.
Your ampli is a really good, it could control well some 700$ 1k speakers, you must also subtract the money you would get selling your dali's.

So with 800$ 1k there is significant improvement you could have. Not trivial stuff, truely better listening experience.

As i said , The jump from 1k to 2k is noticeable for everybody. Your system is roughly a 1k system. There are cheap-ish improvements you could make upgrading the speakers and DAC. I believe your ampli is hard to beat without spending a lot of money (if you like it)

But in general more expensive does not mean you will love it more! Try it out first to be sure.
Theoretically you could get a big jump of quality with 700-1000$ but it must be a jump for you. It is not uncommon to go from 300$ speakers to 1000$ speakers, and like the old ones more!

 

[podknocker]

I agree with these figures. £1000 to £2000 is noticeable, but the cost of mainstream parts means the law of diminishing returns kicks in about here. Above this, it becomes cosmetic 'improvements' and aesthetics, not an appreciable change in sound that you're paying for. I think you need to spend a lot more, without cosmetic changes, to realise a much better sound. Very high end components and attention paid to power supplies and keeping noise under control. Again, even at high end prices, there must be a limit based on the technology currently available. Also, human hearing has limits. I'm still open minded about this and would love to hear something like the Focal Sopra 2 at the end of a Hegel H590 for example. I'm not sure what front end I would use, but I'm sure the pre out on my Audiolab Omnia would be good enough. Having a big, grippy amp, with high damping factor and huge current reserves, could be a good match for the top end materials, build and design of the Focals. I bet this £25000 combo would sound great, but how many times better than my £2000 system?

 

[giocap]

I agree with these figures. £1000 to £2000 is noticeable, but the cost of mainstream parts means the law of diminishing returns kicks in about here. Above this, it becomes cosmetic 'improvements' and aesthetics, not an appreciable change in sound that your paying for. I think you need to spend a lot more, without cosmetic changes, to realise a much better sound. Very high end components and attention paid to power supplies and keeping noise under control. Again, even at high end prices, there must be a limit based on the technology currently available. Also, human hearing has limits. I'm still open minded about this and would love to hear something like the Focal Sopra 2 at the end of a Hegel H590 for example. I'm not sure what front end I would use, but I'm sure the pre out on my Audiolab Omnia would be good enough. Having a big, grippy amp, with high damping factor and huge current reserves, could be a good match for the top end materials, build and design of the Focals. I bet this £25000 combo would sound great, but how many times better than my £2000 system?

25k is definetly asymptotic diminishing returns territory.
UNLESS.
that 25k thing does something to your ears you cannot explain. It is not even scientific, it's emotional. One could have the same thing happen with a 500$ device! If you fall in love with a 25k hifi, and NOTHING else would do, i am sorry for you, you just lost your house downpayment 🤣🤣🤣

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

Said it before, so will say it again:

But there's another way of looking at this - I know you can't put a percentage on how a system sounds, but humour me as a way of illustrating my point. Let's say someone has a modest system, and we gauge it as sounding 60% of real (yes, I know this opens up more questions than it might answer...). Suppose a system based upon double the budget gets to 80%, that's obviously a diminishing return. But a doubling of budget has also halved the gap between what the system can deliver and 'reality'. In that respect, my rather contrived example does deliver. A doubling of budget halves the deficit to reality.

I think that sometimes relatively small improvements can be the things that maximise listening pleasure. It depends upon how demanding/picky (delete as applicable) the listener is.

 

[giocap]

Said it before, so will say it again:

But there's another way of looking at this - I know you can't put a percentage on how a system sounds, but humour me as a way of illustrating my point. Let's say someone has a modest system, and we gauge it as sounding 60% of real (yes, I know this opens up more questions than it might answer...). Suppose a system based upon double the budget gets to 80%, that's obviously a diminishing return. But a doubling of budget has also halved the gap between what the system can deliver and 'reality'. In that respect, my rather contrived example does deliver. A doubling of budget halves the deficit to reality.

I think that sometimes relatively small improvements can be the things that maximise listening pleasure. It depends upon how demanding/picky (delete as applicable) the listener is.

Definetly true.... "diminishing returns" may not be appropriate. This is not a quantitative evaluation it's qualitative.
If you measure things , however you do that, you will see little improvements in the 10k area, BUT in terms of experience, for some that little bump might be extraordinary.

The gist of what i wanted to say was: "with 3000$ you'll get most of the beauty out there" , but i know that for some there may be a transcendental experience out there at 10k.

This said, a stereo should never be more than 1% of your net worth. Thats just irresponsible. I don't care how much love you have for it.
I am still paying off my house i do not even entertain buying 6K mcintosh products.

 

[podknocker]

Different people have different priorities and apportion their income in many different ways. I'm sure some would spend 50% of their income on kit, or perhaps on fine wine, or gear to climb mountains. There's no rule as to what percentage of income, anyone should spend on anything. Having a frugal diet perhaps and then being able to buy expensive watches, might suit some, but not others. I decided to spend a chunk of my wages on a variety of kit over the last 35 years and not have holidays. Spending a fortune to sit in the scorching sunshine, drinking poor quality lager and lots of other families and noise nearby, doesn't really appeal to me. I have work colleagues and friends and they do this, but don't care about the authentic reproduction of music. It's horses for courses. If you are very poor, then you're probably not thinking about expensive kit anyway.

 

[giocap]

Different people have different priorities and apportion their income in many different ways. I'm sure some would spend 50% of their income on kit, or perhaps on fine wine, or gear to climb mountains. There is no rule as to what percentage of income, anyone should spend on anything. Having a frugal diet perhaps and then being able to buy expensive watches, might suit some, but not others. If you are very poor, then you're not probably thinking about expensive kit anyway.

I may be an absolutist. And of course who am i to tell people how to live?
I have a 800$ system, and i come here to learn, expecting to enter the 2k range soon, because i like how a better stereo sounds.
But in my view it is responsible because i can afford it.
Some people put 50% of their net worth in a stereo and the other 50% in a motorcycle. God bless them, but IMHO it's irresponsible.

 

[rayolight]

I find this conversation very interesting, just recently purchased a Vincent sv-237mk hybrid amp,KEF ls50 meta speakers, Rega phono preamp and Clearaudio Concept turntable fitted with Ortofon 2m Black stylus. This was done as a proposed upgrade to my old 35year old Pioneer M73/C73 amp/preamp with Acoustic Energy AE1's, Arcam r phono preamp, and Transcriptors Reference Hydraulic turntable with Ortofon 540mk2 cartridge which I will never part with. The sound was very different and I suppose in some ways better,but,not hugely better when considering the money spent. It's by no means an expensive system definitely not classed as high end ,and of course I'm in my seventies ,which must have huge importance as to the changes you can hear. I would love to know if paying let's say £1500 pounds on a moving coil would make a huge difference in what I am able to hear at the moment. One thing I do know is that I am very fortunate and happy with what I've got,and so is my son who continually tells me to look after everything 🤣

 

[podknocker]

My system was bought in a part exchange so good value, but would cost £2000 now. It sounds great, but I don't get the 'etched in air', holographic quality and floating soundstage, which I did get from my cheaper system, several years ago. I got my kit in the sales, but even at full price, it would have been cheaper than what I have now. My old system was a NAD T585 (£200), a NAD C355BEE (£200) and a pair of KEF Q35.2 (£200) and it came to £621 with the 2 lengths of QED 79 strand and banana plugs. Sadly, the T585 transport failed twice and I refused to send it back for a 2nd repair, outside warranty. It's always the transport. I opened it up and looked at the chips and it had some great silicon, including chips from Sony. Incredible sound quality, let down by the mechanical bits. I remember the clarity and depth of the sound, especially with vocals. I really miss that sound and I just don't get that with the system I have now. It's a different sound, but I don't prefer it. I think synergy plays a huge part and sometimes, you just get a really good mix of kit and it's very difficult to recreate, even with very expensive kit.

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

This said, a stereo should never be more than 1% of your net worth. Thats just irresponsible. I don't care how much love you have for it.

I suspect for someone young and keen, that's always going to be exceeded. Besides, it depends upon what you prioritise. I can't see the point in very expensive holidays but others do - each to their own.

 

[giocap]

I suspect for someone young and keen, that's always going to be exceeded. Besides, it depends upon what you prioritise. I can't see the point in very expensive holidays but others do - each to their own.

Yeah, to each their own , i got a little judgmental there. Already posted a sort of retraction above. I'm just fiscally prudent and owning a 5k stereo and 10k in records as most of your wealth is inconceivable to *me*.

 

[Witterings]

I must admit I've been chasing the Holy Grail recently and I'm certainly not "Blown Away" by the difference and would go so far as to say more expensive doesn't neccessarily mean better but more just different.
I was using my Denon AVR for stereo with some old Avoustic Energy Evo 3 floorstanders that are part of a surround speaker package, these had a lovely tone but were quite "muddy".
I upgraded to Monitor Audio Silver 300's and initially found the mid and bottom end lovely but the top could be very bright with elevated recordings, I read a dedicated Amp is much better than an AVR so bought a 2d hand Arcam SA30 to see if it improved / softened them but it didn't.
I changed the speakers for Focal Aria 926's, these aren't as bad on the elevated recordings (but still there) but lacked on the bottom end and were nowehere as good at low volume as the MA's, that said I genuinely feel the bottom end at reasonable listening levels has vastly improved since I've had them.
I bought some Acoustic Energy AE 509's home for a weekend's home trial and back to backed them with the Focals and whilst "punchier at the bottom end lack a lot of the detail the Focals has.
I received a 2nd hand pair of Spendor A7's yesterday which I was expecting to be completely blown away by and whilst the bottom end is so much tighter / punchier with greater depth, elevated songs they err towards being slightly more "edgy" on the high mids / top end than the Focals so definitely "different" but possibly not an "overall" better.

The only real difference I noticed buying the Arcam vs the AVR in direct mode (so not using the Sub), the AVR with very deep songs such as lost Without You by Freya Ridings and some of Rag 'n' Bone Mans tracks as examples, the bottom end on the deepest of notes could be very "rumbly" and unpleasant almost like the AVR was "tuned" towards LFE's for explosions etc. for movies but the characteristic seems to carry through to stereo as well.

In another room I have a Denon M39 with Elac B5.2's and a 2nd hand Sub and I absolutely love that combo but it'd be "lost" if I replicated it in my lounge.

The Arcam and the Focals and Spendors were all at "good" 2nd hand prices where I know I'll get my money back if I sell them which as I'm not completely blown away with the changes / extra expense I'm awful tempted to do and think this falls into the classic "diminishing returns" catagory.

I'd then keep my eyes open for a 2nd hand Roksan K3, Cyrus or Rega Amp (one with HT/AV bypass and would solve the LFE issue with the AVR) and maybe try some Dali Oberon 5's or Elac F6.2 Floorstanders ... either of which I'm sure won't be so muddy as my Evo 3's and overall would be a good upgrade allowing me to return a not inconsiderable sum to my bank account and still leave me with a "decent" system.

 

[Deleted member 201267]

I must admit I've been chasing the Holy Grail recently and I'm certainly not "Blown Away" by the difference and would go so far as to say more expensive doesn't neccessarily mean better but more just different.
I was using my Denon AVR for stereo with some old Avoustic Energy Evo 3 floorstanders that are part of a surround speaker package, these had a lovely tone but were quite "muddy".
I upgraded to Monitor Audio Silver 300's and initially found the mid and bottom end lovely but the top could be very bright with elevated recordings, I read a dedicated Amp is much better than an AVR so bought a 2d hand Arcam SA30 to see if it improved / softened them but it didn't.
I changed the speakers for Focal Aria 926's, these aren't as bad on the elevated recordings (but still there) but lacked on the bottom end and were nowehere as good at low volume as the MA's, that said I genuinely feel the bottom end at reasonable listening levels has vastly improved since I've had them.
I bought some Acoustic Energy AE 509's home for a weekend's home trial and back to backed them with the Focals and whilst "punchier at the bottom end lack a lot of the detail the Focals has.
I received a 2nd hand pair of Spendor A7's yesterday which I was expecting to be completely blown away by and whilst the bottom end is so much tighter / punchier with greater depth, elevated songs they err towards being slightly more "edgy" on the high mids / top end than the Focals so definitely "different" but possibly not an "overall" better.

The only real difference I noticed buying the Arcam vs the AVR in direct mode (so not using the Sub), the AVR with very deep songs such as lost Without You by Freya Ridings and some of Rag 'n' Bone Mans tracks as examples, the bottom end on the deepest of notes could be very "rumbly" and unpleasant almost like the AVR was "tuned" towards LFE's for explosions etc. for movies but the characteristic seems to carry through to stereo as well.

In another room I have a Denon M39 with Elac B5.2's and a 2nd hand Sub and I absolutely love that combo but it'd be "lost" if I replicated it in my lounge.

The Arcam and the Focals and Spendors were all at "good" 2nd hand prices where I know I'll get my money back if I sell them which as I'm not completely blown away with the changes / extra expense I'm awful tempted to do and think this falls into the classic "diminishing returns" catagory.

I'd then keep my eyes open for a 2nd hand Roksan K3, Cyrus or Rega Amp (one with HT/AV bypass and would solve the LFE issue with the AVR) and maybe try some Dali Oberon 5's or Elac F6.2 Floorstanders ... either of which I'm sure won't be so muddy as my Evo 3's and overall would be a good upgrade allowing me to return a not inconsiderable sum to my bank account and still leave me with a "decent" system.

"more expensive doesn't necessarily mean better but more just different. "

Agree 100% and, if your comparing different brands of kit, cheaper products from one company can often outperform pricier kit from another.

Larger companies may have a better economies of scale and can, generally, create high performance products more affordably.

However some smaller companies will have a smaller profit margin to help deliver the best value for money product possible.

Finding such products is the key which, i feel, is entirely down to sound each individual likes.

 

[bigfish786]

I’ve experienced the extremes of entry level and high end amplifiers today. Going from a budget Arcam A70; amp I paid £230 for about 20 years ago to a Luxman L509x at around £9300.
a massive gulf in quality in sound and build. But the little Arcam did itself proud. The Luxman has a massive jump in quality, which you would expect. Just better at everything and looks amazing.
the Arcam did music very well. And has been a pleasure to use in the interim. even though the Luxman was way way more expensive, I still feel I’ve got value for money, and something that will last me the rest of my life.

 

[Deleted member 201267]

I’ve experienced the extremes of entry level and high end amplifiers today. Going from a budget Arcam A70; amp I paid £230 for about 20 years ago to a Luxman L509x at around £9300.
a massive gulf in quality in sound and build. But the little Arcam did itself proud. The Luxman has a massive jump in quality, which you would expect. Just better at everything and looks amazing.
the Arcam did music very well. And has been a pleasure to use in the interim. even though the Luxman was way way more expensive, I still feel I’ve got value for money, and something that will last me the rest of my life.

Luxman = Quality...

 

[podknocker]

I've had a good look at the Luxman 509 and it looks like it's built like a tank and the attention to detail is incredible, although the VU meters are about as useful as those on my Audiolab Omnia, not very. It's beautiful engineering and it would be interesting to see how it compares to a Hegel H590 which is a similar price. I hope IAG don't get their sticky fingers into them, like they have done with Audiolab, Quad, Wharfedale et al. I don't think they'll have as much control over Luxman, as they do with their 'cheaper' brands. The high end Japanese sound and design philosophy should endure. I'm old enough to remember Audiolab and Quad, before the IAG and TAG McLaren takeovers and they were better products.

 

[Birdseed007]

Expensive hi-fi is certainly very audibly different to cheaper hi-fi and in the context of what many people spend on cars is a better investment.

It's not unusual nowadays for many 'ordinary' people to spend say £300 a month on a lease or HP deal for a new car, so that's £3600 a year or £11000 plus lets say a deposit of £2000 just to put a mid level Ford Focus or VW Golf on the drive... The Golf or Focus will be essentially worthless after that period, with a bit of luck you might get out with a bit of a deposit to put towards your next boringly average car.

£11000 in 3x years puts you well into 'expensive hi-fi' but the difference is if you took that £11 000 you could put together something like a Naim streamer/Naim pre/power and a set of ATC loudspeakers which would provide tens of thousands of hours of seriously high quality music listening for the next 20 years.

I don't know about you, but I do know which strikes me as the best value and which will enhance my life the most!

Equally how many people on here spend £50 on Sky and £40 just to have the latest and greatest iphone? That's £1200 a year or £12000 over 10 years. You could buy a £10 a month line only rental deal and a £150 Oppo handset and a Freesat box and again I would argue you would materially enhance your life and every single record you play with the expensive hi-fi system.

I'm a reviewer for Soundstage Ultra and before that for Hi-Fi News so I have had all sorts of expensive gear pass through my system. In general the difference between low/mid-fi and the higher end stuff is:

1. Full bandwidth sound, you simply can't engineer cheap speakers that offer genuine deep tight controlled bass and when you do you will need expensively engineered high current drive amps to control them properly...
2. Presence and scale - higher end products make it sound as if there are live instruments and players in the room on the very best recordings. The attack of a snare, the timbre of a piano or violin, the jolt in the air of tom drums being struck or a bass drum kick - you hear a whole lot more of that on a high end system and things appear more 'life sized'.
3. Transparency - Higher end systems make deconstructing a track so much easier so you can hear how it was put together in the studio. It becomes much easier to follow what the bass player is doing as distinct from the bass synths for example. Low level effects and sounds are much more obvious, you hear more detail but it's not shrill or tonally unbalanced.
4. Dynamics and headroom - High end systems have the ability to play very loud very cleanly. Live music is often loud and very dynamic, on on lesser systems that dynamic range is lost.
5. Pride of ownership - using a gorgeous turntable you have always dreamt of owning or cueing a record with something like an SME tonearm is just a gorgeous thing to do and brings a lot of pleasure you simply don't get from say a budget Project deck.

For me music is the overriding passion of my life so over the course of 35 years I have assembled a system that to an average person is ludicrously expensive. I bought much of it secondhand (Naim NAC82/Hicap/NAP250/Naim NDX streamer/Naim CDi CD player) and some of it new (Michell Gyrodec/SME IV/AT-OC9 - Trichord Dino and ATC SCM40's). In truth with the home cinema stuff included too the book value of the system is probably around £40-50 000 but it probably cost me around £20k due to shopping wisely and secondhand. It's in use every single day/night though for hours at a time either playing music, concerts or movies. I'd say £20k outlay for 35 years of 3-4 hrs/day pleasure is money well spent - others may differ!

The best way to hear a lot of brilliant hi-fi is at shows. All my life I have been going to things like the Bristol hi-fi show and really enjoying hearing for example high end Naim, ATC loudspeakers, beautiful Sonus Faber's and brilliant music. It really is worth the time and effort to go there, book a Premier Inn for the night, turn it into a romantic weekend away with the missus or better still get 3-4 pf your best mates down for it!! Enjoy meeting the designers, the people who work for the companies or bump into some of the reviewers, sink some beers and don't worry about driving back. Take two days out to immerse yourself in great music and systems and you'll gain a real appreciation for just how much joy a great record on a great system can bring to your life... Just be prepared to start dreaming of owning those £4000 ATC SCM40's like I did and then figuring out a way to achieve them!

So often listening to hi-fi and records becomes a solitary pursuit when we are older. One of the best things about the shows is that you're in amongst your tribe of like minded souls and that can be very sociable... Before I became a reviewer I loved meeting and chatting to people like Max Townshend, Julian Vereker, John Michell and Malcolm Steward to name but four who have all passed away now. It's a rare privilege to meet such people and to even have a beer with them, a unique experience in fact! Go - you'll thank me!

Birdseed007

 

[bigfish786]

I've had a good look at the Luxman 509 and it looks like it's built like a tank and the attention to detail is incredible, although the VU meters are about as useful as those on my Audiolab Omnia, not very. It's beautiful engineering and it would be interesting to see how it compares to a Hegel H590 which is a similar price. I hope IAG don't get their sticky fingers into them, like they have done with Audiolab, Quad, Wharfedale et al. I don't think they'll have as much control over Luxman, as they do with their 'cheaper' brands. The high end Japanese sound and design philosophy should endure. I'm old enough to remember Audiolab and Quad, before the IAG and TAG McLaren takeovers and they were better products.

If someone wants to send me a H590 I’d gladly do a comparison 😊
the VU meters are lovely to look at, and are quite hypnotic. The lights in them can be turned off, but they could have done with having a few different steps of brightness as they can be a touch too bright at night, so a dimmer setting would have been better.
as a temporary measure I’m going to connect an Audiolab 8200cd to it, so I’ll be interested to see how they get along together.