Is hifi worth what it costs

[QuestForThe13thNote]

You aren’t talking sense. Have you visited a factory to see the r and d teams and what they do, have you ever spoken to r and d managers and people. If you think it’s that’s easy and their isn’t a competitive market between manufacturers for best sound quality from speakers, you should have a go at it if you think it’s all about bolting stuff in a box and it’s that easy. You think the laminair stuff pmc do is bs, that they’ve had to invest in r and d for that out of their own money when they think it’s bs and a waste of money. That customers of the fact range are wanting this tech in the fact range etc. I’m not saying you talk rubbish all the time, but you are at the moment. The reason why pmc changed the length of the transmission line in the twenty 5range and not just bolted speakers into the cabinets is because things are dependent on the ports, the drivers etc. They had to test what’s best for cabinet dimensions etc, what about all the different types of drivers you can use. They have had to develop their own woofers for the series.

youve just said your speakers are shitty but all speakers are meant to be the same as with 1200 v 18000. Aren’t you making my points for me.

 

[Vladimir]

R&D 'teams'. Two people on two PCs and the boss chandeleering above their heads to do their days work. But I'm sure you imagine Charlies chocolate factory with magical umpalumpas designing speakers on valyrian steel etchasketches filled with moon dust and a unicorn tip tracer. *biggrin*

 

[BigH]

You aren’t talking sense. Have you visited a factory to see the r and d teams and what they do, have you ever spoken to r and d managers and people. If you think it’s that’s easy and their isn’t a competitive market between manufacturers for best sound quality from speakers, you should have a go at it if you think it’s all about bolting stuff in a box and it’s that easy. You think the laminair stuff pmc do is bs, that they’ve had to invest in r and d for that out of their own money when they think it’s bs and a waste of money. That customers of the fact range are wanting this tech in the fact range etc. I’m not saying you talk rubbish all the time, but you are at the moment. The reason why pmc changed the length of the transmission line in the twenty 5range and not just bolted speakers into the cabinets is because things are dependent on the ports, the drivers etc. They had to test what’s best for cabinet dimensions etc, what about all the different types of drivers you can use. They have had to develop their own woofers for the series.

youve just said your speakers are shitty but all speakers are meant to be the same as with 1200 v 18000. Aren’t you making my points for me.

So you believe all what PMC say, do you?

 

[BigH]

A blind test is floored anyway as most people who go to one each persons hearing is different at that test as everyone hears at different frequency range and most probably the people going to one are into there 40-50s so the older you get so does some of the frequency range disappears and probably the only person who benefited was the 16 year old as his hearing should be perfect for his age .

I bet that most of us on here I bet you can’t hear half the frequencies your speakers are capable off and that includes myself and you would also need someone who has classical training to spot the frequencies and the difference in music to fully understand we just scratch the surface let’s face it we understand what sounds good to our selfs and no body else .

So what you are saying is hifi is wasted on most buyers as they are older? Having a decent system is a waste of money because they can't hear the difference. The point of blind tests is you are not influenced by sight as the Harman guy says.

 

[Vladimir]

I used a hypothetical speaker costing $20,000 with off the shelf $800 drivers. If you guys want to pick appart specific makers and speaker models, have fun at it. I believe my point was made clearly.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

You aren’t talking sense. Have you visited a factory to see the r and d teams and what they do, have you ever spoken to r and d managers and people. If you think it’s that’s easy and their isn’t a competitive market between manufacturers for best sound quality from speakers, you should have a go at it if you think it’s all about bolting stuff in a box and it’s that easy. You think the laminair stuff pmc do is bs, that they’ve had to invest in r and d for that out of their own money when they think it’s bs and a waste of money. That customers of the fact range are wanting this tech in the fact range etc. I’m not saying you talk rubbish all the time, but you are at the moment. The reason why pmc changed the length of the transmission line in the twenty 5range and not just bolted speakers into the cabinets is because things are dependent on the ports, the drivers etc. They had to test what’s best for cabinet dimensions etc, what about all the different types of drivers you can use. They have had to develop their own woofers for the series.

youve just said your speakers are shitty but all speakers are meant to be the same as with 1200 v 18000. Aren’t you making my points for me.

So you believe all what PMC say, do you?

im intelligent enough to realise that if pmc think it’s worthwhile and these changes have dramatic sound effects on the last range of speaker I owned, they are doing it for a purpose and changes made are good ones. Are you saying you think they waste all that money on r and d for commercial suicide.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

I used a hypothetical speaker costing $20,000 with off the shelf $800 drivers. If you guys want to pick appart specific makers and speaker models, have fun at it. I believe my point was made clearly.

your point is the same, you think anything expensive at any range and make, they just saw you coming.

ps you didn’t even say what Sonus Faber speakers you referred too, so we could make a comparison with speakers using same drivers in a cheaper 1200 model, assuming that was the case? I suspect you’d have a job finding the exact drivers but even so the designs to another would probably be markedly different.

 

[BigH]

You aren’t talking sense. Have you visited a factory to see the r and d teams and what they do, have you ever spoken to r and d managers and people. If you think it’s that’s easy and their isn’t a competitive market between manufacturers for best sound quality from speakers, you should have a go at it if you think it’s all about bolting stuff in a box and it’s that easy. You think the laminair stuff pmc do is bs, that they’ve had to invest in r and d for that out of their own money when they think it’s bs and a waste of money. That customers of the fact range are wanting this tech in the fact range etc. I’m not saying you talk rubbish all the time, but you are at the moment. The reason why pmc changed the length of the transmission line in the twenty 5range and not just bolted speakers into the cabinets is because things are dependent on the ports, the drivers etc. They had to test what’s best for cabinet dimensions etc, what about all the different types of drivers you can use. They have had to develop their own woofers for the series.

youve just said your speakers are shitty but all speakers are meant to be the same as with 1200 v 18000. Aren’t you making my points for me.

So you believe all what PMC say, do you?

im intelligent enough to realise that if pmc think it’s worthwhile and these changes have dramatic sound effects on the last range of speaker I owned, they are doing it for a purpose and changes made are good ones. Are you saying you think they waste all that money on r and d for commercial suicide.

No, but why are you messing around with passive speakers when PMC say that active speakers " provide a much better performance than a passive speaker ever could". Why are you not using technically better speakers, have you ever tried them?

 

[Blacksabbath25]

I was talking about frequency in sounds that people listen to when they go to a blind test they have to sit there and listen for what sounds better A. budget Hifi or B. expensive hifi can you tell the difference between both A-B blind which is the expensive hifi .

so if your got someone sitting there with 80% of there hearing and someone sitting there with 90% of there hearing who’s going to hear the most frequencies the person with 90% hearing is or we have 5 people with hearing ranging from 65% , 70% , 80% , 90% , 100% how can all 5 agree which is the winner ?

I wouldn’t spend £20.000 or £30.000 on a setup but I would go up to £10.000 and think it’s worth it to me not because I’ve spent £10.000 but because I like the sound and the build and the company’s history I am the last person to willy wave on what my hifi is worth it’s what it’s worth to me only I’ve had a Marantz PM6005 and if I couldn’t afford anything else then I would of kept it and been content with what I had as long as it played music .

 

[Vladimir]

I used a hypothetical speaker costing $20,000 with off the shelf $800 drivers. If you guys want to pick appart specific makers and speaker models, have fun at it. I believe my point was made clearly.

your point is the same, you think anything expensive at any range and make, they just saw you coming.

Here's where you misunderstood. I'm not a commie and I don't think buying luxury is bad because children in Africa are starving or the polar bear is out of real estate. I don't think buying Veblen status goods is wrong or bad. I don't moralize the issue, I simply observe it as is.

When I have my small successes I personaly like to treat myself within reason. I like the visual aspect of this hobby too, it's not all about how it measures and how it sounds for me. I love real walnut veneer, I hate black ash vinyl. I hate it with a vengance. I love looks of some vintage amplifiers, turntables, speakers etc. I'm eager to pay more for something that looks better than something else even if there's no performance advantage to be gained.

 

[BigH]

I was talking about frequency in sounds that people listen to when they go to a blind test they have to sit there and listen for what sounds better A. budget Hifi or B. expensive hifi can you tell the difference between both A-B blind which is the expensive hifi .

so if your got someone sitting there with 80% of there hearing and someone sitting there with 90% of there hearing who’s going to hear the most frequencies the person with 90% hearing is or we have 5 people with hearing ranging from 65% , 70% , 80% , 90% , 100% how can all 5 agree which is the winner ?

I wouldn’t spend £20.000 or £30.000 on a setup but I would go up to £10.000 and think it’s worth it to me not because I’ve spent £10.000 but because I like the sound and the build and the company’s history I am the last person to willy wave on what my hifi is worth it’s what it’s worth to me only I’ve had a Marantz PM6005 and if I couldn’t afford anything else then I would of kept it and been content with what I had as long as it played music .

Thats why you have lots of different people, just like people buying hifi, you can't rely just on young people as their hearing is different, older people may require a different sound. You remember this: The Mosquito or Mosquito alarm is an electronic device used to deter loitering by young people by emitting sound at high frequency, in some versions so it can be heard mostly by younger people.

In the test they did not know what there were testing, just asked which they preferred. Just like people buying hifi. I would not spend £20k on hifi, I don't need to, to listen to music, yes it maybe better but for me it's a waste of money. I could buy an expensive car but again it's a waste of money.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

You aren’t talking sense. Have you visited a factory to see the r and d teams and what they do, have you ever spoken to r and d managers and people. If you think it’s that’s easy and their isn’t a competitive market between manufacturers for best sound quality from speakers, you should have a go at it if you think it’s all about bolting stuff in a box and it’s that easy. You think the laminair stuff pmc do is bs, that they’ve had to invest in r and d for that out of their own money when they think it’s bs and a waste of money. That customers of the fact range are wanting this tech in the fact range etc. I’m not saying you talk rubbish all the time, but you are at the moment. The reason why pmc changed the length of the transmission line in the twenty 5range and not just bolted speakers into the cabinets is because things are dependent on the ports, the drivers etc. They had to test what’s best for cabinet dimensions etc, what about all the different types of drivers you can use. They have had to develop their own woofers for the series.

youve just said your speakers are shitty but all speakers are meant to be the same as with 1200 v 18000. Aren’t you making my points for me.

So you believe all what PMC say, do you?

im intelligent enough to realise that if pmc think it’s worthwhile and these changes have dramatic sound effects on the last range of speaker I owned, they are doing it for a purpose and changes made are good ones. Are you saying you think they waste all that money on r and d for commercial suicide.

No, but why are you messing around with passive speakers when PMC say that active speakers " provide a much better performance than a passive speaker ever could". Why are you not using technically better speakers, have you ever tried them?

i doubt they’d say that, because it would deride passives they sell but even if they did the actives tend to be large and expensive and way out of my budget. If power and authority is your thing I’m sure they would suit. But you need big rooms for the best pmc actives. Also how loud you listen. But this is a separate point to that on r and d. They are in the business of designing speakers as actives and passives for different markets. Some will be more a compromise than others.

 

[BigH]

You aren’t talking sense. Have you visited a factory to see the r and d teams and what they do, have you ever spoken to r and d managers and people. If you think it’s that’s easy and their isn’t a competitive market between manufacturers for best sound quality from speakers, you should have a go at it if you think it’s all about bolting stuff in a box and it’s that easy. You think the laminair stuff pmc do is bs, that they’ve had to invest in r and d for that out of their own money when they think it’s bs and a waste of money. That customers of the fact range are wanting this tech in the fact range etc. I’m not saying you talk rubbish all the time, but you are at the moment. The reason why pmc changed the length of the transmission line in the twenty 5range and not just bolted speakers into the cabinets is because things are dependent on the ports, the drivers etc. They had to test what’s best for cabinet dimensions etc, what about all the different types of drivers you can use. They have had to develop their own woofers for the series.

youve just said your speakers are shitty but all speakers are meant to be the same as with 1200 v 18000. Aren’t you making my points for me.

So you believe all what PMC say, do you?

im intelligent enough to realise that if pmc think it’s worthwhile and these changes have dramatic sound effects on the last range of speaker I owned, they are doing it for a purpose and changes made are good ones. Are you saying you think they waste all that money on r and d for commercial suicide.

No, but why are you messing around with passive speakers when PMC say that active speakers " provide a much better performance than a passive speaker ever could". Why are you not using technically better speakers, have you ever tried them?

i doubt they’d say that, because it would deride passives they sell but even if they did the actives tend to be large and expensive and way out of my budget. If power and authority is your thing I’m sure they would suit. But this is a separate point to that on r and d. They are in the business of designing speakers as actives and passives for different markets.

Better watch this then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwnd6GgS0qY

Large, you don't seem to know anything about it.

 

[lindsayt]

I can't question your maths regarding the dB level at given distances because I don't know the equation you used, but I definitely question your definition of very loud.

When expressing loudness as dB you need to factor in the "A" weighting to take account of how loud a sound is actually perceived by the human ear. dBA levels are weighted to approximate the way the human ear hears certain frequencies, and are usually much lower than dB ratings. For example a 94dBA rating is equivalent to the sound level endured inside a carriage on the London Underground.

Even if you don't take account of the "A" rating we are still only talking about a lawnmower at 94dB. Not exactly ear splitting volume levels.

Get a calibrated sound meter. Put it on the DIN A fast mode. Play your hi-fi loud. As loud as you ever normally listen. Tell us what reading you get.

When I've done the same, my meter has shown peaks of 95 dbs at volumes I wouldn't normally listen at, as I don't like to have my ears ringing after listening to music at home. My normal, let the hair down and crank it up volume gives peak readings of about 89 dbs.

It's impossible to calibrate hi-fi listening volumes with lawnmower volumes. It all depends what lawnmower you're talking about and how close your ear is to the exhaust.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

I was talking about frequency in sounds that people listen to when they go to a blind test they have to sit there and listen for what sounds better A. budget Hifi or B. expensive hifi can you tell the difference between both A-B blind which is the expensive hifi .

so if your got someone sitting there with 80% of there hearing and someone sitting there with 90% of there hearing who’s going to hear the most frequencies the person with 90% hearing is or we have 5 people with hearing ranging from 65% , 70% , 80% , 90% , 100% how can all 5 agree which is the winner ?

I wouldn’t spend £20.000 or £30.000 on a setup but I would go up to £10.000 and think it’s worth it to me not because I’ve spent £10.000 but because I like the sound and the build and the company’s history I am the last person to willy wave on what my hifi is worth it’s what it’s worth to me only I’ve had a Marantz PM6005 and if I couldn’t afford anything else then I would of kept it and been content with what I had as long as it played music .

Thats why you have lots of different people, just like people buying hifi, you can't rely just on young people as their hearing is different, older people may require a different sound. You remember this: The Mosquito or Mosquito alarm is an electronic device used to deter loitering by young people by emitting sound at high frequency, in some versions so it can be heard mostly by younger people.

In the test they did not know what there were testing, just asked which they preferred. Just like people buying hifi. I would not spend £20k on hifi, I don't need to, to listen to music, yes it maybe better but for me it's a waste of money. I could buy an expensive car but again it's a waste of money.

I didn’t say pmc didn’t make that point I was referring to the fact I doubted it.im referring to biggest best pmc actives.

you were saying earlier that expensive hi Fi is not always better but it seems you are coming to our tune because you are saying it maybe better, which means it can or it could. But what you are talking about is the value you place on things. You might not think it’s worth it and you are obviously entitled to that judgement if you think what you have is more than adequate or you don’t place importance on it, but equally if you don’t know if it’s better (as you say it may be which implies you don’t know) how can you form a view to worth in that sense if you don’t know what it does.

These are normally the same or similar reasons why people hold the views expensive hi Fi is not worth it.

what becomes worth something is down to affordability too in different circumstances. If I was a multi millionaire those actives pmcs would be a drop in the ocean and I’d see their value as probably being value for money, much more so than if I thought now they are a waste of money, which I wouldn’t probably but to be honest I’ve never put them side by my system. I’d never think they are a waste of money without hearing them.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Expensive is not always better when are you going to get that into your brain.

Why do you think actives are more expensive?

ill debate with you bigh if you want to do that? Good hi Fi which is more Expensive is better most of the time as I’ve more than demonstrated with the points youve agreed that it maybe better, which is indicative you aren’t sure as fair enough to you, you probably haven’t tried it. right? You’ve made your mind up it’s a waste of money before a demo.

Actives are not always more expensive, it depends what goes into them and the economics, development etc.

 

[BigH]

Expensive is not always better when are you going to get that into your brain.

Why do you think actives are more expensive?

PMC do smaller active speakers as well.

 

[Gazzip]

Surely the truth is that some expensive gear is awful, as is some cheaper gear, and visa versa.

Thread closed? *preved*

 

[BigH]

Expensive is not always better when are you going to get that into your brain.

Why do you think actives are more expensive?

ill debate with you bigh if you want to do that? Good hi Fi which is more Expensive is better most of the time as I’ve more than demonstrated with the points youve agreed that it maybe better, which is indicative you aren’t sure as fair enough to you, you probably haven’t tried it. right? You’ve made your mind up it’s a waste of money before a demo.

Actives are not always more expensive, it depends what goes into them and the economics, development etc.

So you are changing your tune now. So you admit it is not always better? You seem to be completely missing the point.

How can actives for the same speaker be cheaper, say the manufacturer makes passive and active versions?

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Yes but what I’m challenging gazzip is the view that it’s even Stevens on both sides and that most expensive hi fis are at a similar performancd level as most cheap ones and vice versa. Ie that price and cost has no bearing on performance, and that’s certainly not the case. From what some have said in this thread they believe this.

 

[Gazzip]

Yes but what I’m challenging gazzip is the view that it’s even Stevens on both sides and that most expensive hi fis are at a similar performancd level as most cheap ones and vice versa. Ie that price and cost has no bearing on performance, and that’s certainly not the case. From what some have said in this thread they believe this.

IMO you are right. There are exceptions on both sides, but on the whole you get what you pay for with new kit. Second hand kit is a different matter of course...

I have more systems than I am allowed to reference in my signature and the sound/build quality tends to go up with the price. However, I have had some very expensive kit on demo, worth many £K, that has contained parts worth £10’s and demonstrated a sound to match the sum of those parts. Caveat Emptor!

 

[Gaz37]

Expensive is not always better when are you going to get that into your brain.

Why do you think actives are more expensive?

PMC do smaller active speakers as well.

It is not ALWAYS better.

I don't think anybody is saying it CAN'T be better.

This is precisely what is proved by the Matrix test. If the expensive amp was too underpowered to drive those speakers is irrelevant, as is the room size & treatment. The only relevant point is that the indisputable fact that for whatever reason the expensive kit did not sound better.

As I mentioned before there seems to be a general consensus in the hifi world that expensive must be better, the more you spend the better sound you get etc.

This is simply wrong

 

[knaithrover]

Surely the truth is that some expensive gear is awful, as is some cheaper gear, and visa versa.

Thread closed? *preved*

Fully wholeheartedly agree. Goodnight pop pickers

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

Expensive is not always better when are you going to get that into your brain.

Why do you think actives are more expensive?

ill debate with you bigh if you want to do that? Good hi Fi which is more Expensive is better most of the time as I’ve more than demonstrated with the points youve agreed that it maybe better, which is indicative you aren’t sure as fair enough to you, you probably haven’t tried it. right? You’ve made your mind up it’s a waste of money before a demo.

Actives are not always more expensive, it depends what goes into them and the economics, development etc.

So you are changing your tune now. So you admit it is not always better? You seem to be completely missing the point.

How can actives for the same speaker be cheaper, say the manufacturer makes passive and active versions?

im not sure what you are saying?

No am not changing my tune. I was answering your question and talking about actives accross all makes eg genelec, Adam actives etc.

i know the biggest pmc actives are probably better in the quick demos at shows (they sound clearer, bigger soundstage etc as you’d expect etc) but I haven’t realky sat down and done side by side tests in dealers as I’m not in the market for them and very few dealers stock them in shop too. But considering they are top of the line I’d expect them to trounce my speakers.

But pmc don’t make actives of the same consumer range eg twenty5, twenty, fact etc. It’s the preserve of the studio stuff which are obviously their reference stuff.

 

[QuestForThe13thNote]

#197 this is not well thought out at all. It was simply a preference of a small number of people on a rigged test that is full of holes. If you’ve ever studied science or have a look at how a scientific paper is written you’ll know what I mean.