It seems non-audiophiles never tire of proving that everything sounds the same.

[CJSF]

Of course. My main point (FWIW) was in the first para. I'm even aware of a manufacturer saying they will make a product brighter than they would naturally like to in order to get a better review where review rooms have been heavily acoustically treated.

I find that depressing BenLaw, ads to my recent feeling that we are being ripped off, taken to the cleaners?

The old hifi values seem to have been lost to modern ways . . . There seems to be almost an ignorance, with no one caring . . . ?

I have been having a hifi weekend after a few weeks off, other things needing my attention. The laps was interspersed with minor changes to the system being made without proper follow up. Resulting in the system, especially the TT requiring those little insignificant tweaks that make all the difference to a sensitive ear.

This has lead me to consider my old style analogue hifi as almost 'organic', requiring constant TLC, as one does with a musical instrument. Has the 'new way' lost or discouraged this need for involvement and understanding with the instrument?

CJSF

 

[chebby]

I'm even aware of a manufacturer saying they will make a product brighter than they would naturally like to in order to get a better review where review rooms have been heavily acoustically treated.

Was this the Yamaha A-S500? (After the A-S700 received criticism from WHF for being too smooth/soft.)

I remember talk of it (the A-S500) being especially tweaked/voiced against other amps for the UK market.

 

[matthewpiano]

I don't really agree with this concept of the 'old way' and the 'new way'. There has always been those people who care about sound and those who don't and there has always been a range of equipment to cater for different tastes.

I don't think the school of constant adjustment is a necessary part of running a satisfying hi-fi system either, and it certainly shouldn't be seen as some 'old way' that is somehow right. There is nothing wrong with this approach if you enjoy it, but one of the advantages of modern technology for many people is that you can set a system up carefully in the first place and then enjoy it for a long time to come without having to get dragged into any maintenance. For many people it isn't a 'need' at all. Quite often I'm very tired when I get to sit down and listen to my music and, most of the time, that really is all I want to do. I spend all day at work listening intently to pianos - discussing the differences between makes and models between customers, working with technicians and voicers to prepare each instrument to give its best - and I don't want to feel that I 'need' to do this to get the best out of my listening at home.

 

[the record spot]

I think that's probably looking at it a little too deeply for most people. I don't really want to spend time mucking around with the stereo; once it's setup, I want to play it every day and that's the only involvement I want on an ongoing basis. I definitely don't want (or have the time) to be tweaking this or that. Right now, I've a fit and forget arrangement and that's how I'll keep it, irrespective of whatever changes come in the future.

 

[CJSF]

I think that's probably looking at it a little too deeply for most people. I don't really want to spend time mucking around with the stereo. Once it's setup, I want to play it every day and that's the only involvement I want on an ongoing basis. I definitely don't want (or have the time) to be tweaking the system. Right now, I've a fit and forget system and that's how I'll keep it, irrespective of whatever changes come in the future.

My point exactly . . . ?

"The old hifi values seem to have been lost to modern ways . . . "

I thought a hobby was something to get involved in, getting the most from it . . . Each to his own?

Personal, I try to get the maximum, its cost me a packet, so I want value for money . . . value and pleasure.

By the way TRS, the adjustment I refer to take little time in themselves . . . knowing where and how to adjust is part of the art, ' lost to modern ways'? Its the listening that takes the time, thats the pleasure bit is it not?

CJSF

 

[moon]

"It seems non-audiophiles never stop pointing out that audiophiles can't prove that everything doesn't sound the same"

I can't get my head round that it doesn't seem unreasonable, that reasonable thinking non-audiophiles wouldn't be more unreasonable, about components that don't sound the same. :?

Hi Cno, :O too many double negatives for me . I think I could read that for the rest of my life and still not understand it!

Maybe it's cause I am from the south

 

[the record spot]

I've been through the tweakers mill thanks CJSF, it's fine if it's your hobby, go enjoy. What endless (short or long) time investment won't do will change my view on the sound I like (which I have) or how to go about getting it (which I know how to achieve). In short, I'm there and I take advantage of the technology to deliver a music system that delivers on several fronts with no loss in quality as a consequence.

 

[BenLaw]

I'm even aware of a manufacturer saying they will make a product brighter than they would naturally like to in order to get a better review where review rooms have been heavily acoustically treated.

Was this the Yamaha A-S500? (After the A-S700 received criticism from WHF for being too smooth/soft.)

I remember talk of it (the A-S500) being especially tweaked/voiced against other amps for the UK market.

That wasn't the product I was referring to, but I certainly don't think what I've heard about is a one off. As I say, it's one possible explanation for what Cno has perceived, a trend towards brighter, more forward components.

 

[matthewpiano]

One of the trends I find difficult to understand is the one for over bloated bass. I've heard more than my fair share of modern kit that really seems to overdo this part of the frequency range and I personally find it virtually impossible to listen to. Maybe it suits a lot of people, and I'm one of the few, and maybe it just doesn't suit the music I listen to, but to me it doesn't sound at all like most live music.

 

[chebby]

I've been through the tweakers mill thanks CJSF, it's fine if it's your hobby, go enjoy. What endless (short or long) time investment won't do will change my view on the sound I like (which I have) or how to go about getting it (which I know how to achieve). In short, I'm there and I take advantage of the technology to deliver a music system that delivers on several fronts with no loss in quality as a consequence.

What's so good about a system that needs constant attention/maintenance/tweaking to sound right?

Seems like such a system is fundamentally wrong in some way and that hundreds of little sticking plasters are not providing the cure.

 

[CnoEvil]

I've been through the tweakers mill thanks CJSF, it's fine if it's your hobby, go enjoy. What endless (short or long) time investment won't do will change my view on the sound I like (which I have) or how to go about getting it (which I know how to achieve). In short, I'm there and I take advantage of the technology to deliver a music system that delivers on several fronts with no loss in quality as a consequence.

What's so good about a system that needs constant attention/maintenance/tweaking to sound right?

Seems like such a system is fundamentally wrong in some way and that hundreds of little sticking plasters are not providing the cure.

There will always be tweekers, and people who can't understand the need to do so.....and it doesn't just apply to Hifi.

 

[CJSF]

I don't really agree with this concept of the 'old way' and the 'new way'. There has always been those people who care about sound and those who don't and there has always been a range of equipment to cater for different tastes.

I don't think the school of constant adjustment is a necessary part of running a satisfying hi-fi system either, and it certainly shouldn't be seen as some 'old way' that is somehow right. There is nothing wrong with this approach if you enjoy it, but one of the advantages of modern technology for many people is that you can set a system up carefully in the first place and then enjoy it for a long time to come without having to get dragged into any maintenance. For many people it isn't a 'need' at all. Quite often I'm very tired when I get to sit down and listen to my music and, most of the time, that really is all I want to do. I spend all day at work listening intently to pianos - discussing the differences between makes and models between customers, working with technicians and voicers to prepare each instrument to give its best - and I don't want to feel that I 'need' to do this to get the best out of my listening at home.

I see the point Matthew . . . however, as I have already said, I view 'my system' as organic, this applies to a lesser or greater degree to analogue systems in general. I'd be very surprised if you do not see this with your pianos, they need care, some perhaps more than others, its interesting you have voicing issues, just as I see in hifi. Those that dont get the after attention will end up in a sorry state?

Minimum maintenance is a must for turn tables, unsuspended obviously require less than suspension equipped. I like tickling my system, but it does have periods where it needs no attention, a Rega, so needs a minimum of attention. Today, I’ve been listening since 1 o'clock, the minor adjustment took 10 minutes. I'm currently listening to Syd Lawrence playing a Glen miller tribute, the quality of this 1970 recording is superb. An orchestral sound quality made possible by my 10 minutes attention to detail earlier this afternoon.

I consider the various substances a hifi system/TT are made from, change over their life to a lesser or greater degree, needing a check every so often at the least. The moving of speakers because of domestic requirements, my own TT was poorly mounted, (my fault entirely) it has taken a lot of fettling to get it right . . . I enjoyed this process of course, still a work in progress, resulting eventually in a totally new support system. Modern thinking is 'plug and play' bourn of digital systems. However, maintenance is essential, even if its only unplugging and re connecting phono plugs every few weeks to keep them clean.

I drive a taxi for a living, like you Matthew, when I park up on Friday night I dont want anything to do with motors until Monday, thats how its been this weekend! I'll take a bus or walk in preference, but I still have my cab maintained as prescribed to maintain its performance and reliability.

Incidentally, I've not played this Syd Lawrence, Phillips album for over 20 years . . . its brilliant, I'm sitting here, speaker either side, it feels like I am right in the middle of the orchestra 8)

CJSF

 

[CJSF]

One of the trends I find difficult to understand is the one for over bloated bass. I've heard more than my fair share of modern kit that really seems to overdo this part of the frequency range and I personally find it virtually impossible to listen to. Maybe it suits a lot of people, and I'm one of the few, and maybe it just doesn't suit the music I listen to, but to me it doesn't sound at all like most live music.

Matthew, I'm in your camp, one of the few . . . a good base line has a tune and notation, for me it can be strong but has to be clean and musical.

CJSF

 

[SteveR750]

To the OP, how does one even prove that argument?

And even if you can, yeah?

Rest is just opinion, and after all that's all this hobby is about, that's all music is too thankfully.

 

[matthewpiano]

To the OP, how does one even prove that argument?

And even if you can, yeah?

Rest is just opinion, and after all that's all this hobby is about, that's all music is too thankfully.

I agree with you 100%. I studied music up to MMus level and there were times when I got caught up in the academic world of value judgements about music. A few years on, whilst I still believe that every period of music has musicians who innovate and those who consolidate, I think it is wrong to try to make value judgements about them. Both types have their place, just as all music has its place if somebody out there somewhere enjoys it, whether as a performer, listener or both.

 

[BenLaw]

To the OP, how does one even prove that argument?

And even if you can, yeah?

Rest is just opinion, and after all that's all this hobby is about, that's all music is too thankfully.

I agree with you 100%. I studied music up to MMus level and there were times when I got caught up in the academic world of value judgements about music. A few years on, whilst I still believe that every period of music has musicians who innovate and those who consolidate, I think it is wrong to try to make value judgements about them. Both types have their place, just as all music has its place if somebody out there somewhere enjoys it, whether as a performer, listener or both.

Can I still make a value judgment about 'One Direction' :quest:

 

[CnoEvil]

I don't really agree with this concept of the 'old way' and the 'new way'. There has always been those people who care about sound and those who don't and there has always been a range of equipment to cater for different tastes.

I don't think the school of constant adjustment is a necessary part of running a satisfying hi-fi system either, and it certainly shouldn't be seen as some 'old way' that is somehow right. There is nothing wrong with this approach if you enjoy it, but one of the advantages of modern technology for many people is that you can set a system up carefully in the first place and then enjoy it for a long time to come without having to get dragged into any maintenance. For many people it isn't a 'need' at all. Quite often I'm very tired when I get to sit down and listen to my music and, most of the time, that really is all I want to do. I spend all day at work listening intently to pianos - discussing the differences between makes and models between customers, working with technicians and voicers to prepare each instrument to give its best - and I don't want to feel that I 'need' to do this to get the best out of my listening at home.

I don't know if "old way vs new way" is the best way to describe it, but there has been a paradigm shift from TT + Amp (usually with less power) + Large Sealed Speakers; to the Digital Source + Amp (often higher power) + Narrow Reflex WAF Speakers .

The sound produced by these approaches is quite different, and I for one am not arrogant enough to say that my preference is the right one.....the main thing is to understand the difference and know your preference.

 

[seasonsdownfall]

We all see, and hear the world differently... that's part of what makes us individual. So if for example a test was done, and one person said they could tell the difference between two sets of cables, and what they think sounds 'better' or 'clearer' ... then it does, to them!

 

[dannycanham]

You could talk to the designers/engineers from Arcam, Sudgen, MF, Rega, Naim, AVI, Marantz, Cambridge Audio (and half a dozen others) and get an entire spectrum of highly experienced, highly qualified opinions on what makes a great hifi system. Many of these opinions will conflict and this is a good thing.

It leads to the diversity of 'solutions' to the problem of making great sounding hi-fi that we all enjoy.

Without any formal education in audio electronics, how are you or I to decide on the best sounding solution from all those different approaches? They will all be qualified and plausible and will all have data and test documentation to back up their individual philosophies.

I might sit in a room talking with Roy Gandy and Terry Bateman* (of Rega Research) and leave absolutely convinced that only Rega have the right engineering approach. The next day I might sit in a room and talk to the team from Naim (or Cambridge Audio or whoever) and leave convinced that only their engineers really know what they are talking about.

That's the problem with unqualified people like you and I. The qualified professionals who do this stuff for a living are all going to be really persuasive.

So it all, ultimately, comes down to things like listening for ourselves, budget, features, design, perceived build quality. (Things we can understand.)

*I'd love to chat to these two over a pint

Completely untrue. Different opinions yes. Ideas focusing on improving different areas yes. The building blocks are all the same however. Also engineers are notoriously unconvincing. They tend not to have the gift of the gab. Cable makers and hi fi salesmen on the other hand.

 

[dannycanham]

Hearing subtle hifi differences requires experience and training.

I disagree. I'd posit that anyone can hear the differences, it only takes training to understand and communicate those differences.

I doubt that. Based on my experience with both Harman's free online Audiophile training software and a distortion test (used by audiophiles on another forum) I found (as did the other audiophiles who tried them) that the first time you took the test you did far worse than on subsequent tests when you had practiced. Generally, the more you practiced to detect differences, the better you became at identyfing them. That is totally different from understanding and communucating them. I became significantly better at identifying differences with practice and training.

No. You are getting better are the tests because you are practicing the tests. You are training yourself at tests. Not the same thing by a long way. If you concentrate on one thing there is if anything an increased likelyhood that you are not concentrating on the rest. If anything you are likely to make yourself worse off when evaluating the whole. Happens alot. Read a hi fi mag. Convince yourself you understand more about hi fi because you have read about bass extension, punch and detail, then go out and listen for them and end up buying a system that sounds like a bag of £^$%^ because you bought something that ticked some boxes more obviously than other systems. If you'd gone into a a hifi store clueless and just listened though.

 

[dannycanham]

As far as i'm aware, nobody has ever successfully and consistently identified one cable from another, one amp from another, etc etc, in a blind test.

That's not true. Persons have been able to do so. John Atkinson and Michael Fremmer (Both from a major US review mag) have both spoken about taking part in DBT of amps and scoring 4/5 and 5/5 respectively. However, their scores were deemed to be statiscally insignificant, since the other listeners scored poorly.

So while the conclusion of the test is that users were not able to differentiate between amps under blind conditions, the fact that the 2 HiFi experts in the test were able to do so is really interesting IMO.

So it is true then :rofl:

There was a link to a trial with cables a while back. Of the 20 odd people that tested the same cables 3 or 4 posted proudly that they had correctly guessed. It looked like people could do it. Did it mean anything? Of course it didn't as the others couldn't and they were more sluggish to reveal what happened to them. Read the reports of all the people who failed? No of course you haven't. Broken clock right twice a day rubbish.

 

[moon]

Hearing subtle hifi differences requires experience and training.

I disagree. I'd posit that anyone can hear the differences, it only takes training to understand and communicate those differences.

I doubt that. Based on my experience with both Harman's free online Audiophile training software and a distortion test (used by audiophiles on another forum) I found (as did the other audiophiles who tried them) that the first time you took the test you did far worse than on subsequent tests when you had practiced. Generally, the more you practiced to detect differences, the better you became at identyfing them. That is totally different from understanding and communucating them. I became significantly better at identifying differences with practice and training.

Of course that leads to a bigger question - Why should I train to be able to pick out subtle differences? That seems to just lead to disatisfaction with my existing gear and the need to spend lots more money on upgrades.

4) because we don't currently know how to measure a phenomena doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. DBT can't prove that differences don't exist, only that on average persons are unable to identify differences under test conditions.

That's true, but it's also a cop-out. Creationism has been playing that whack-a-mole game for quite some time. It's scientifically impossible to prove a negative, which means anyone can claim anything: any time a scientist takes enough interest to disprove your specific theory-du-jour, you simply amend your theory slightly and keep claiming "science didn't prove me wrong, so I must be right".

No. That is illogical and unscientific. Science not proving something wrong, doesn't make it right. Just because I can't prove the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, does not mean that it is real. So persons who believe it's real will continue to do so and those who don't believe it's real will also continue to do so. Neither side can prove anything to the other. So my point is not a cop out - just a fact. I just don't like to see when persons use DBT to make claims that are not actually proven by DBT. Now don't get me wrong - I support the use of DBT in HiFi as it helps to identify when differences are far more subtle than many audiophiles claim.

Now I've heard it all.. Audiophile Training software...... I am sorry but with the greatest respect that is a load of tosh old bean.

And insanely dull.

 

[bigboss]

I agree entirely. It is hard to blame the manufacturer tho, especially in the current climate, as sales are everything. It is difficult to see a way to break the cycle tho.

Perhaps a warning "sticky" on this forum might help educate the potential consumer?

And maybe a glossary/translation of review terms:

"not the best match for a system which is already on the bright side" = "this thing will make your head hurt"

Only the individual listener can decide if it's the best match or not. Some actually prefer overly bright sounds. So such glossary is not possible in reviews. Some reviews do mention about pairing carefully.

 

[SteveR750]

You could talk to the designers/engineers from Arcam, Sudgen, MF, Rega, Naim, AVI, Marantz, Cambridge Audio (and half a dozen others) and get an entire spectrum of highly experienced, highly qualified opinions on what makes a great hifi system. Many of these opinions will conflict and this is a good thing.

It leads to the diversity of 'solutions' to the problem of making great sounding hi-fi that we all enjoy.

Without any formal education in audio electronics, how are you or I to decide on the best sounding solution from all those different approaches? They will all be qualified and plausible and will all have data and test documentation to back up their individual philosophies.

I might sit in a room talking with Roy Gandy and Terry Bateman* (of Rega Research) and leave absolutely convinced that only Rega have the right engineering approach. The next day I might sit in a room and talk to the team from Naim (or Cambridge Audio or whoever) and leave convinced that only their engineers really know what they are talking about.

That's the problem with unqualified people like you and I. The qualified professionals who do this stuff for a living are all going to be really persuasive.

So it all, ultimately, comes down to things like listening for ourselves, budget, features, design, perceived build quality. (Things we can understand.)

*I'd love to chat to these two over a pint

Completely untrue. Different opinions yes. Ideas focusing on improving different areas yes. The building blocks are all the same however. Also engineers are notoriously unconvincing. They tend not to have the gift of the gab. Cable makers and hi fi salesmen on the other hand.

I have worked in sales for over 20 years, and that comment is deeply offensive

 

[Anonymous]

My evidence is all anecdotal, but I do belive my own ears.

Of course. Everyone believes their own ears, and there is nothing wrong with that. But I hope you realize that by "trusting your own ears", you will never be able to anything more absolute than "according to jaxwired's ears, ...." -- and that is not what science is about. Science is about finding universal truths, not personal ones.

Now I really don't get the point of that comment.

What hifi is all about is trusting your own ears to find what's right for YOU. Science, in as a far as someone who believes in it, or cares about it, is a means to an end. This is not a scientific debate, there are no universal truths about what hifi equipment sounds like (other than is sounds like sound sounds)

It is absolutely about trusting your own ears.