BigH said:
Absolutely, but you've missed the point , which was Quest's analogy does not add up!
A higher litre engine doesn't always equal a faster one.
-
Is OLED burn-in a problem? We want your input on one of TV’s hottest topics!
Absolutely, but you've missed the point , which was Quest's analogy does not add up!
A higher litre engine doesn't always equal a faster one.
It’s always on looking at comparable specs and making meaningful comparisons. The bmw is a similar hp per tonne (power to weight ratio) to the Skoda, in fact a little more, but the Skoda is cheaper and set up probably stiffer with its suspension as a rs model, whereas the bmw is really meant for the road (I’ve had a m sport bmw before) even though it’s sold as ‘m sport’. The Skoda is not really a full track car, but it’s lighter and shorter and it’s hardly surprising that it’s entry speed into the corners will be faster and if it’s on a twisty circuit this makes the time up. But the bmw is a long wheel base cruising type car used by rep managers etc, of a different quality with a bigger engine and bigger size and it’s hardly surpsiring it’s going to be double the price.
If the test is best sound quality, analogous with being fastest in a car, all you are really comparing of the classe amp to the behringer amp in the matrix test, is a £30k Mercedes with a basic ‘cooking engine’ at 100hp compared to £20k Ford Fiesta with a rs engine and 250hp. The Ford is going to be cheaper and be better for speed analogous to sound quality, on that basis alone.
If the test is best sound quality, analogous with being fastest in a car, all you are really comparing of the classe amp to the behringer amp in the matrix test, is a £30k Mercedes with a basic ‘cooking engine’ at 100hp compared to £20k Ford Fiesta with a rs engine and 250hp. The Ford is going to be cheaper and be better for speed analogous to sound quality, on that basis alone.
BigH said:
im not with that at all I don’t think judging by the way you’ve said that bigh. A £1000 40watt amp will often sound better than a £500 80watt amp of a lower quality as often it’s not just in outright power that determines sound quality. It will help with dynamics of music to have more power but it’s not the be all. the insight of the dacs, power supplies can all play a part in things like clarity and soundstage etc. Likewise you can get really powerful 200 watt budget amps with nasty power supplies and cheap dacs that don’t sound as good as premium 200 watt amps with better power supplies, dacs. It will stand to reason you are getting these better quality components as you spend more just as a function of what is possible economically at the price, when you factor in not necessarily the component costs, but costs of design, assembly, complexity, tooling and all the other things that go into making premium amps more expensive, not least the market is much smaller so the price will be higher as limited economies of scale of budget hi Fi.
As someone who recently spent a large chunk of Euros on a new system, I would definitely say Hifi is worth the cost to myself.
Since purchasing my partner have barley turned on the TV and have spent countless late nights listening to music, we have derived so much pleasure from our listening together.so much so we will probably invest more money in the near future. We don' look on it as a waste of money, more an investment in something that will in all honesty provide years and years of service.
Since purchasing my partner have barley turned on the TV and have spent countless late nights listening to music, we have derived so much pleasure from our listening together.so much so we will probably invest more money in the near future. We don' look on it as a waste of money, more an investment in something that will in all honesty provide years and years of service.
QuestForThe13thNote said:
I agree about economies of scale but better components does not always happen as some have found when taking products apart. More expensive does not always mean better, there was a Stereophile article on Sony playstation being better than many other cd players under about $3,000. Bespoke components cost a lot of money, does not mean they are better than off the shelf ones. Low volume, high price. Maybe high proprotion spent on marketing.
You are buying better components in the sense of the dacs and what they do and how they are designed. For instance with the cyrus stuff you get a cheap off the shelf burr brown dac in the basic 6dac intergrated, but when you buy the dac xp signature higher end pre amp you get cyrus designed dacs and circuits. Also with cheaper stuff you get switching power supplies but a toroidal will cost more. Also more power supplies to breakdown elements of the circuit. So am talking about it in this sense. So there is an element of cost in this but I tend to agree with you about quality of components as electronic components are all mass produced and cheap and form a small part of the costs of the item. Not so with some unit cases more difficult and timely to manufacture and higher material metal costs. Hi Fi is all about design and meshing components together to get best returns in sq and you tend to do that better the more it’s designed with that purpose and that’s what you tend to get in a naim, musical fidelity, leema etc. So if you don’t use all the off the shelf stuff because it can be designed better with bespoke stuff, it’s this design and effort and testing which costs, not to mention premises, staff, insurance, vehicles etc. That’s why naim need to sell an amp at £5k because they are designing it with all these costs, and a small run on all these costs. Not just marketing, but if you look at the profitability of firms like naim it’s not a lot in th scheme of things when they then will no doubt have to pay investors and set aside future product investment money.
Id be dubious if using a PlayStation with hi Fi would be as good as a bespoke cd transport in the right system. I might give it a go with my ps3 which I’ve never done, and report back. Is there an online article re this.
Id be dubious if using a PlayStation with hi Fi would be as good as a bespoke cd transport in the right system. I might give it a go with my ps3 which I’ve never done, and report back. Is there an online article re this.
knaithrover
Well-known member
- Nov 24, 2013
- 217
- 89
- 18,870
Imo hifi is worth what one can afford or are prepared to pay. System matching is equally as important as price paid. I like the fact that cheaper stuff beat higher end kit in a blind test, it gives hope to box swappers like myself..
It's about Opportunity Cost...ie. Would you get more enjoyment by spending the same money on something else. If not, then it is worth what it costs (to you).
Simples.
Simples.
knaithrover said:
Is there an emoji for “said through clenched teeth”?
NO IT DIDN’T! The blind test was set up so that the cheaper system won. The “high end” amp was half the power in to 8 ohms of the “budget” amp, which happened to be half the power in to 8 ohms that ATC recommended for those loudspeakers.
The cheap kit beat the expensive kit in the same way that I could beat Usain Bolt over 100 metres if I shot him in the knee cap.
Yes it should have been more equal power like usain bolt v linford Christie, but I’m sure ‘the matrix’ would have managed to get nails in usain bolts trainers. Lol.
knaithrover
Well-known member
- Nov 24, 2013
- 217
- 89
- 18,870
Gazzip said:
I still like the idea of the underdog winning. Its only a hifi unclench your teeth and chill...
Behringer A500 is specified as 125Wpc at 8ohms with 1kHz signal at 1% THD (CLIPPING), 185Wpc in 4ohms. That means it is less powerful at 20Hz-20kHz and 0.5% THD.
YBA 2A has bigger power supply, higher quality parts, doubles its 8 ohms rating into 4 ohms (70/140)
(click to zoom)
I seriously doubt the Behringer A500 would noticably outmuscle the YBA 2A (if at all).
YBA 2A has bigger power supply, higher quality parts, doubles its 8 ohms rating into 4 ohms (70/140)
(click to zoom)
I seriously doubt the Behringer A500 would noticably outmuscle the YBA 2A (if at all).
Vladimir said:
Interestingly that’s not what the loudspeaker manufacturer thinks. They’re looking for 150 Wpc in to 8 Ohms, which the YBA does not get even close to producing. They say:
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.
Use of an underpowered amplifier will result in the premature distortion of the system and increased risk of damage due to voice coil overheating
Let’s look at that last bit again shall we - Use of an underpowered amplifier will result in the premature distortion of the system - I think I’m going to go with ATC’s specified power rating requirements rather than the your 12th Grade physics.
It's not like that Classe Behringer test is the only one in history where a much chepaer system has sounded equally good or better.
Just thinking about the most most recent forum bake-offs I've attended:
Speaker bake off where a £75k Japanese field coil was beaten by a DIY'd speaker with £3k in parts that would retail for about £12k if put into production. They were both relatively good sounding speakers.
Phono stage bake-off where a £10k phono stage was equalled by an £800 one. They were both very good sounding phono stages. I'd be happy to use either.
Hegel 360 & ATC 11 vs Creek 4040 & EV Sentry III vs AVI DM10 with sub. In real terms, adjusted for inflation, the new retail price of the EV and ATC systems would be similar. The AVI's would be about two fifths of the price. EV system sounded best followed by AVI followed by ATC. That's a commendable performance from the AVI's in those terms. However the EV's were bought when they were 35 years old which made the actual cost to buy the EV system one third that of the AVI's and one seventh that of the Hegel and ATC's.
Just thinking about the most most recent forum bake-offs I've attended:
Speaker bake off where a £75k Japanese field coil was beaten by a DIY'd speaker with £3k in parts that would retail for about £12k if put into production. They were both relatively good sounding speakers.
Phono stage bake-off where a £10k phono stage was equalled by an £800 one. They were both very good sounding phono stages. I'd be happy to use either.
Hegel 360 & ATC 11 vs Creek 4040 & EV Sentry III vs AVI DM10 with sub. In real terms, adjusted for inflation, the new retail price of the EV and ATC systems would be similar. The AVI's would be about two fifths of the price. EV system sounded best followed by AVI followed by ATC. That's a commendable performance from the AVI's in those terms. However the EV's were bought when they were 35 years old which made the actual cost to buy the EV system one third that of the AVI's and one seventh that of the Hegel and ATC's.
Plenty of times in my life I have heard a cheaper system sound better than an expensive system. That is not the issue with the matrix test however. The issue with the matrix test is that it was deliberately rigged to get that result. Foolish really because their point could have been easily proven without fixing it!
Using this calculator: http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html
And feeding it with 85 db sensitivity, 150 watts, 2 speakers, away from wall, 12 feet listening distance, that gives 98.5 dbs at the listening position (that's very loud even if it's just for transient peaks)
Change it to 20 feet listening distance and it's 94 dbs. Still very loud.
What ATC says is true - for listening levels where there's peaks above 94 to 98 dbs, depending on listening distance.
Below those volumes there's no additional distortion whatsoever due to the amplifier only having 150 watts. Any sonic differences then would be down to the quality of each amplifier in normal unclipped conditions.
I think ATC are making a misleading statement as the volumes at which clipping distortion sets in with 150 watts are so high that many owners may never listen that loud. For sure a 2 watt amplifier would be unsuitable as that'd give only 80 dbs at 12 feet, but 80 to 150 watts would be fine for most people.
And feeding it with 85 db sensitivity, 150 watts, 2 speakers, away from wall, 12 feet listening distance, that gives 98.5 dbs at the listening position (that's very loud even if it's just for transient peaks)
Change it to 20 feet listening distance and it's 94 dbs. Still very loud.
What ATC says is true - for listening levels where there's peaks above 94 to 98 dbs, depending on listening distance.
Below those volumes there's no additional distortion whatsoever due to the amplifier only having 150 watts. Any sonic differences then would be down to the quality of each amplifier in normal unclipped conditions.
I think ATC are making a misleading statement as the volumes at which clipping distortion sets in with 150 watts are so high that many owners may never listen that loud. For sure a 2 watt amplifier would be unsuitable as that'd give only 80 dbs at 12 feet, but 80 to 150 watts would be fine for most people.
Whether rigged or unfair or not, that Matrix test proved that expensive equipment is not, as is often suggested, ALWAYS better than budget kit.
If I could be bothered I could probably go back through this forum & find many quotes where it is claimed that spending more money gets better sound, this is clearly not always true as is demonstrated in that test.
Going back to the car analogy where Gazzip (I think) suggested the Matrix test was like putting a 1.8 BMW against a 3 litre Ford, maybe it was but even that would disprove a statement like "expensive cars are better than cheap ones"
Maybe the Matrix test was misleading but no more so than self proclaimed experts stating, as a fact, that sound quality increases with price
If I could be bothered I could probably go back through this forum & find many quotes where it is claimed that spending more money gets better sound, this is clearly not always true as is demonstrated in that test.
Going back to the car analogy where Gazzip (I think) suggested the Matrix test was like putting a 1.8 BMW against a 3 litre Ford, maybe it was but even that would disprove a statement like "expensive cars are better than cheap ones"
Maybe the Matrix test was misleading but no more so than self proclaimed experts stating, as a fact, that sound quality increases with price
Blacksabbath25
Well-known member
- Sep 20, 2015
- 309
- 88
- 18,970
I am a great believer of you get what you pay for
there is a big difference between budget build quality and build quality of middle to high end components and coming from budget hifi when I started what I have now is far superior then a budget sound hifi and that includes speakers as well without getting into a argument about blind tests .
there is a big difference between budget build quality and build quality of middle to high end components and coming from budget hifi when I started what I have now is far superior then a budget sound hifi and that includes speakers as well without getting into a argument about blind tests .
DocG
Well-known member
- May 1, 2012
- 54
- 4
- 18,545
Blacksabbath25 said:
Exactly. And you need to get your priorities right. And realise that esthaetics cost money too.
When getting my Devialet, I realised I paid a substantial sum for its functionality and its looks. Which is fine. It looks gorgeous.
My main system's amps cost significantly less, though I have 4 x 200 W (vs. 2 x 70 W in the Dev). They are DIY, in rather ordinary, black aluminum boxes. Which is fine. They are hidden in a cabinet.
Both worth what they cost? Yes, to me they are.
Blacksabbath25 said:
I'm the exact opposite, having found first hand that you mostly pay for marketing, image & hype, not necessarily just with hifi but cars, watches, domestic appliances, clothes, in fact just about everything.
I've changed SAAB for Toyota, VW for Ford, Rotary for Casio, Bosche for Beko and found every single one to be as good or better.
One of my favourite TV shows is Eat Well For Less. If you haven't seen it a family's groceries are taken away & replaced (or not) with supermarket own brand items. It is hilarious watching them spitting out the cheap coffee, saying it's undrinkable, only to find it wasn't swapped & is actually their usual brand. Yes sometimes the opposite happens but it's the total conviction when they believe their usual brand has been swapped for a cheap version that I find funny.
davidf
Well-known member
- May 9, 2017
- 1,459
- 1,283
- 21,070
To me, that's just an advert for personal preference, and nothing to do with quality (as in the case of this blind test example). With regards to coffee (I don't drink coffee, but I'm drawing parallels to my tea drinking habits), if good coffee (or tea) is made by someone, it'll taste different to when you make it yourself. Over years, you've perfected your own coffee/tea drinking habits in how you make it, and you can make your own drink to more or less perfection. In the hands of someone else, the same ingredients can taste foul. I can prove it - the missus doesn't like the way I make her coffee - because I don't make it the same way that she does. I'm fussy about my tea, and now I only have those Yorkshire tea bags - in comparison to the usual PG etc, they're far better, producing a stronger cup of tea with some taste to it. Stick another cup of tea in front of me - it doesn't matter if you've used two PG Tips tea bags to make a stronger tea - I'll know.Gaz37 said:
davidf said:
The family made their usual coffee in their usual way & spat it out calling it undrinkable because they believed it to be a cheaper brand which they wouldn't like.
I can't think of a better example of expectation bias overriding reality, in this case to the point where it fooled their senses
Native_bon
Well-known member
- Nov 26, 2008
- 182
- 5
- 18,595
Now we want examples of very well controlled test of expensive systems beating cheaper ones.
Well, we know expensive does sound better but how easy is it in a blind test.
Well, we know expensive does sound better but how easy is it in a blind test.
davidf
Well-known member
- May 9, 2017
- 1,459
- 1,283
- 21,070
I can't imagine that. I'll make the odd duff cuppa every now and again, but I know that it's my fault. If I know I'm using different tea bags, I'll make the cuppa a little differently to compensate. But then, I suppose you're putting that doubt in someone's head to begin with. If I was unknowingly making a cuppa out of something like PG Tips or Tetley etc, I'd know while I'm making it (before I've tasted it), as one Yorkshire tea bag can make a strong tea equivalent to two of the regular brands. Note I'm not even talking cheapo own brands here.Gaz37 said:
Maybe these programmes are paid for by supermarkets trying to push their own brands because they make more money on them? Sound familiar? 🙂
Then again, this sounds like one step away from reality TV, which I despise with every single molecule in my body - fake trash.
I'm not a brand snob though, as sometimes I'll have a supermarket's own cheese, as I've tried them before and they're very good -I reckon that'd be harder to taste any difference with. But no one's getting past me with tea bags 🙂
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram