Is hifi worth what it costs

[Native_bon]

Don't quite agree with the some people not seating in the right places analogy. When you go into a really good sounding room in any hi-fi exhibition, people come saying that was a really good sounding room regardless to seating positions.

Taking all things into consideration, the more expensive system should win hands down or at less have more votes. Hi-fi is not always about price.

the speakers freq response will be completely different for all 8 seats as will the reflected abd direct sound from the speakers. how can anyone test anything fairly in those conditions?

listening at a show and getting an idea is one thing if the same system was setup for just 1 seat it would sound 100% better

Does the disadvantages not count for both systems? .. no?

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Not if they are changing seats between the two systems it doesn’t, which is another thing the test didn’t say one way or tother. Also there is only 6 seats or so but many more people. Where are the others?. In same room? I’m not being over critical but this is all stuff a scientific survey would say, so people can work out the credibility of these ‘’results’

 

[Gazzip]

Excerpt from the current ATC SCM12 User Manual. I understand that the previous model SCM12 had even lower sensitivity:

With any passive loudspeaker there is a trade off between low frequency extension and sensitivity. These monitor’s extended low frequency response means the sensitivity is relatively low. It is therefore advisable to select a power amplifier of relatively high power output capabilities.Typically, best performance comes with use of amplifiers capable of >150W continuous into 8 ohms.

So we can surmise that the test was almost certainly rigged to the “High End” system’s detriment.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

But interesting as a reason that anyone owning a cheap amp with loads of power might be forming a view it’s better than more expensive amplifiers.

 

[Native_bon]

Not if they are changing seats between the two systems it doesn’t, which is another thing the test didn’t say one way or tother. Also there is only 6 seats or so but many more people. Where are the others?. In same room? I’m not being over critical but this is all stuff a scientific survey would say, so people can work out the credibility of these ‘’results’

If i'm honest, even if the conditions were not truely conducive, sounds like excuses for the loosing system IMHO. Why would seating in the wrong place only affect the more expensive system & not the less expensive one?.. Its simple logic here really.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

If the conditions are not conducive you try to ‘test them out’ to exclude variables. If a hundred people took part, how many in seat a versus seat f said they prefered one system over another. Is there any correlation that’s significant. You might say there isn’t any correlation of seat types, in which case you’ve ironed it out. This is what a science study would do. You don’t just lick your finger and hold it to the wind.

But they have got totally the wrong hypothesis for the question they sought to ask, as they’ve asked them which they prefer. So it’s skewed already. They didn’t ask them which is more expensive. If they are all experienced audiophiles as they said, they should have been told basic power outputs and stuff like that and even if they were not, if they are asked which is more expensive they might have drawn a view a less powerful amp wouldn’t sound as good in their own minds. Or why not ask them as a corrolllary, ‘which system is more powerful’ in addition to asking what they prefer.

 

[Gazzip]

But interesting as a reason that anyone owning a cheap amp with loads of power might be forming a view it’s better than more expensive amplifiers.

I owned the Behringer A500 a few years ago as part of an experiment I was doing to see if I could match the performance of my (then) £22K Bryston 28BSST2 mono amps with a super budget (£175) pro-audio amp. Although the A500 was not (to my ears) successful in giant killing the big B’s it most certainly did not disgrace itself. I would have liked to have heard it pitted against Bryston’s £2.5K 2BSST PRO amp instead, as I suspect it would have given it a real run for its money, although I have read an article by a recording studio owner in the US who did just that but didn’t rate the A500 in the same league as his Brystons...

 

[Native_bon]

If the conditions are not conducive you try to ‘test them out’ to exclude variables. If a hundred people took part, how many in seat a versus seat f said they prefered one system over another. Is there any correlation that’s significant. You might say there isn’t any correlation of seat types, in which case you’ve ironed it out. This is what a science study would do. You don’t just lick your finger and hold it to the wind.

But they have got totally the wrong hypothesis for the question they sought to ask, as they’ve asked them which they prefer. So it’s skewed already. They didn’t ask them which is more expensive. If they are all experienced audiophiles as they said, they should have been told basic power outputs and stuff like that and even if they were not, if they are asked which is more expensive they might have drawn a view a less powerful amp wouldn’t sound as good in their own minds. Or why not ask them as a corrolllary, ‘which system is more powerful’ in addition to asking what they prefer.

*smile*

 

[BigH]

If the conditions are not conducive you try to ‘test them out’ to exclude variables. If a hundred people took part, how many in seat a versus seat f said they prefered one system over another. Is there any correlation that’s significant. You might say there isn’t any correlation of seat types, in which case you’ve ironed it out. This is what a science study would do. You don’t just lick your finger and hold it to the wind.

But they have got totally the wrong hypothesis for the question they sought to ask, as they’ve asked them which they prefer. So it’s skewed already. They didn’t ask them which is more expensive. If they are all experienced audiophiles as they said, they should have been told basic power outputs and stuff like that and even if they were not, if they are asked which is more expensive they might have drawn a view a less powerful amp wouldn’t sound as good in their own minds. Or why not ask them as a corrolllary, ‘which system is more powerful’ in addition to asking what they prefer.

You have got it totally wrong. It should be just which they preferred. I don't see the relevance of asking which is the most expensive. If you start telling people which is more powerful etc then you bring in expectation biased.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

The point is if your hypothesis is ‘expensive hi Fi isn’t any better sounding than cheap hi fi’ as Is clearly their hypothesis (something you try and test) then the way you set out to test it has relevance to the reliability of results you get, as preference is different to what is better. For something to be better it has to be set objectively. Eg levels of clarity etc.

 

[davidf]

I believe they were 38 audiophiles: "The human testers were all trained ears and used to extensively listening to high end equipments"

In that case, I don’t believe it. Any details on the systems used?

Easier to give you the link: http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_marco.htm

I remember ripping the piss out if that one last time it was mentioned. So I don’t need to this time round.

 

[BigH]

The point is if your hypothesis is ‘expensive hi Fi isn’t any better sounding than cheap hi fi’ as Is clearly their hypothesis (something you try and test) then the way you set out to test it has relevance to the reliability of results you get, as preference is different to what is better. For something to be better it has to be set objectively. Eg levels of clarity etc.

Yes I see your point but these blind tests they should not know what they are testing, maybe it's cables, cd v streaming etc. I agree it's really not a true blind test.

 

[ellisdj]

Not if they are changing seats between the two systems it doesn’t, which is another thing the test didn’t say one way or tother. Also there is only 6 seats or so but many more people. Where are the others?. In same room? I’m not being over critical but this is all stuff a scientific survey would say, so people can work out the credibility of these ‘’results’ 

If i'm honest, even if the conditions were not truely conducive, sounds like excuses for the loosing system IMHO. Why would seating in the wrong place only affect the more expensive system & not the less expensive one?.. Its simple logic here really.

The reason its important is how can you assess sound quality if what you are hearing is terribly marred by poor setup and poor room conditions or poor freq response.

Setup deems what you hear as much as the kit so its very likely the limiting factor of the test overall not allowing the better system attributes to come through obvious enough to stand out.

This test is the same as FA cup matches where non league teams beat premiership teams on bad pitches in pooring rain days.

what would a better cd player do - better timing and lower noise. well if you have a long decay time you are potentially losing that timing improvement or if your not sitting in the sweetspot.
better cd player should be lower noise - again reasons above why you might not be able to hear that in an obvious way, made worse by both systems being plugged into one ikea power strip.

then they have used limited freq range speakers? why?
a better amp might control the drivers better giving better bass but if there is no bass then that obvious benefit is lost.

what we will never know is who got it right. did the guys more in the sweetspot get it right the others wrong.

why did they chose those speakers not floodstanders my guess is either easier to transport or too much bass boom in that room - looks very likely to me - hence where they have placed the speakers and some absorption.

lessons to be learned from this test for sure but its setup for the expensive system to fail imo probably not on purpose.

Happy New Year everyone btw

 

[BigH]

"made worse by both systems being plugged into one ikea power strip"

Do you have any evidence for that?

 

[newlash09]

I have 3 pairs of floor standers at home. And all of them sound almost the same in my room on the same amplification. I have changed probably 4 amplifications too. But I still can't make out much. The difference's are real small.

But when I heard my friends B&W system, it was a different room. And it sounded so different and rich. Since I heard them for a extended period of time. Iam sure it sounded rich . About differences not being there, is a forgone conclusion. There is certainly a difference, buy my question is why such small difference for so much more money

 

[newlash09]

I gifted my sister a powernode for Christmas and told her that it costed 700 pounds , so she should spend a decent amount of money on speakers to enjoy them. And she still hasn't done that. I think I will have gift her the speakers too....so unwilling is the main stream user to make any investment in hifi...and why should they considering the small improvements in sound quality .

So who's the stupid one here...the person who spends £700 on a Powernode for someone who really doesn't want it, or the person who knows that if she procrastinates for a bit, the same person will buy her some expensive speakers to go with it.

 

[ellisdj]

"made worse by both systems being plugged into one ikea power strip"

Do you have any evidence for that?

none scientific enough to write a white paper with

but I do know plugging them all into one block like they have done is not doing any of the components used any good for SQ.

 

[lindsayt]

Here's a couple of questions. I'd expect a range of different answers as we all have different experiences in hi-fi, different AB demos that we've attended.

1. If you take 2 x components at random, how often will the more expensive component sound better, and how often will the less expensive component sound equally good or better? For the purpose of this question, you might like to use the original retail price, with any adjustmens for inflation using this: http://www.wolfbane.com/rpi.htm

2. If you were to cherry pick an inexpensive or not too expensive component, what percentage chance would you give it for sounding equally good or better than a more expensive component picked at random?

My highly estimated answers to those questions would be:

1. More expensive sounds better 70% of the time. Cheaper sounds equally good or better 30% of the time. BTW if we were to take random components and look at their weight, I'd estimate heavier would sound better 75% of the time.

2. Cherry picked "reasonably priced" sounds equally good or better 85% of the time.

If hi-fi were a boardgame, it'd be a game mostly of skill, with some luck to it.

 

[drummerman]

Here's a couple of questions. I'd expect a range of different answers as we all have different experiences in hi-fi, different AB demos that we've attended.

 

1. If you take 2 x components at random, how often will the more expensive component sound better, and how often will the less expensive component sound equally good or better? For the purpose of this question, you might like to use the original retail price, with any adjustmens for inflation using this: http://www.wolfbane.com/rpi.htm

 

2. If you were to cherry pick an inexpensive or not too expensive component, what percentage chance would you give it for sounding equally good or better than a more expensive component picked at random?

 

 

My highly estimated answers to those questions would be:

1. More expensive sounds better 70% of the time. Cheaper sounds equally good or better 30% of the time. BTW if we were to take random components and look at their weight, I'd estimate heavier would sound better 75% of the time.

2. Cherry picked "reasonably priced" sounds equally good or better 85% of the time.

 

If hi-fi were a boardgame, it'd be a game mostly of skill, with some luck to it.

Uh?

 

[lindsayt]

Drummerman, in my boardgame analogy in hi-fi, the amount of "luck" that you have is the amount of money you have to spend on hi-fi. The skill is in picking and putting together a great sounding system with whatever "luck" (money) you have.

Hi-fi is not like Ludo, where there's no skill. Where the winner is always the person with the luckiest die rolls.

Hi-fi is not like Chess. Where the most skillfull player always wins.

Hi-fi is like Twilight Struggle. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/12333/twilight-struggle

Most skill will win more often, but less skilled with more "luck" will sometimes win. And sometimes it's a draw.

"Winning" in hi-fi in this analogy is having the better sounding system.

 

[drummerman]

Wow, you need to give me time to wake up and to get a little of the alcohol out of my system. Although I didn't go out I had a few ... .

 

[davidf]

The more I look at furniture and other stuff I’m thinking about, I’ve come to the conclusion that nothing seems worth it’s price any more. Just looking at sofas, there’s plenty of sub £500 sofas around, but the majority are uncomfortable, and a 50/50 chance of it lasting any more than a couple of years. All the best ones seem at least £1000 or more nowadays (for just a two or three seater). Same with sideboards and shelving/bookcases - you can only get something from IKEA or some skinny piece of faux wood veneer for a few hundred quid - anything that looks sturdy or actually looks like it won’t wobble when you walk across the floor is £500+.

Cars. Is the average car really worth £15/20k? Ok, park it next to a pair of high end speakers and the car looks like VFM, but should we really have to pay £20k to get something remotely decent? You used to be able to get a “good” bike when I was a kid for a few hundred quid - nowadays, you don’t even get a brand name for that.

So my answer to this thread is that nothing is really worth the asking price nowadays - it’s down to what you are willing to pay out for. I guess the answers might come down to which era you grew up in - if you grew up in the 70s, you’d be used to Japanese monoliths that costs a few hundred quid, which nowadays you can only get when you’re spending family car money. If you grew up in the 90s, I guess your answers would be quite different.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

I’d agree on the percentages Lindsayt but if you upgrade within a range I’d say it’s more like 95% certainty a more expensive item is better than a cheaper one. Providing of course you are making big jumps, the stuff is good quality, and the brand is a good one.

 

[jjbomber]

2. If you were to cherry pick an inexpensive or not too expensive component,

I would have to have a serious conversation with myself as to why I can only afford cheap crap. If the glass ceiling gets any lower I would be getting a haircut.

I understand the logic, in that an entry level car is far better value for money than one with a bigger engine and loads of extras. But i want the bigger engine with loads of extras. Do I upgrade the cars, even though the old ones are still working? Of course I do. Hi-fi is no different to anything else.

 

[newlash09]

The more I look at furniture and other stuff I’m thinking about, I’ve come to the conclusion that nothing seems worth it’s price any more. Just looking at sofas, there’s plenty of sub £500 sofas around, but the majority are uncomfortable, and a 50/50 chance of it lasting any more than a couple of years. All the best ones seem at least £1000 or more nowadays (for just a two or three seater). Same with sideboards and shelving/bookcases - you can only get something from IKEA or some skinny piece of faux wood veneer for a few hundred quid - anything that looks sturdy or actually looks like it won’t wobble when you walk across the floor is £500+.

Cars. Is the average car really worth £15/20k? Ok, park it next to a pair of high end speakers and the car looks like VFM, but should we really have to pay £20k to get something remotely decent? You used to be able to get a “good” bike when I was a kid for a few hundred quid - nowadays, you don’t even get a brand name for that. 

So my answer to this thread is that nothing is really worth the asking price nowadays - it’s down to what you are willing to pay out for. I guess the answers might come down to which era you grew up in - if you grew up in the 70s, you’d be used to Japanese monoliths that costs a few hundred quid, which nowadays you can only get when you’re spending family car money. If you grew up in the 90s, I guess your answers would be quite different.

Fully agree why things cost what they are