John Duncan said:Alec said:
I think that's exactly what I'm saying, yes. I'm not sure I've thought of it in those terms before, but am liking it a lot. To your previous point: I was making generalisations about which kinds of systems are generally regarded as accurate and which are not. Wasn't point scoring, just a useful example of two different kinds of equipment which have - generalising - particular traits. My point is that *nobody* can produce a system that will accurately represent every studio or set of recording equipment ever made, which is why 'accurate' equipment - whatever its design philosophy - is by definition, unless it's the same equipment used to master a particular recording, nothing of the sort. Which is a bit of a bummer really, otherwise we could all go home
Your point is true. But then the idea of "High Fidelity" is to strive for the closest to optimal, distortion-free sound as is possible.
So even if you can never accurately reproduce what was heard, you "can" aim to achieve the lowest distortion / flattest frequency response.
I believe that there are then 2 paths one can take in the search for audio nirvana...1. Reproduction of the medium which results in the closest match to what it contains (or rather what was recorded onto it), and 2. Reproduction of the medium which results in the most pleasant sound on a subjective level.
Both are valid paths but only one is "Hi-Fidelity".
Of course most people will sample a bit from each path along the way, but what differentiates us is which path we are more strongly tied to.
So... When choosing equipment on path 1, looking at scientific facts is "extremely" important. So that discounts low powered amplifiers, as they cause clipping. It discounts vinyl as a medium because of the inherent distortion.
That isn't to say valve amplifiers, turntable, horn speaker systems can't be great "path 2" systems...they can sound fantastic, but ultimately they aren't as "high fidelity" as a system with (say) a good 3-way active speaker with bags of head-room playing back a well mastered CD (or better still, a well mastered CD transferred to a more robust storage system such as HDD or SSD).
Which you prefer depends on which camp you lean to, but I personally believe you will get very very close to "2" if you strive for "1". You may even get close to "1" you strive for "2", but that will usually come with years of box-swapping, disillusionment and financial pain...
John Duncan
Well-known member
fr0g said:Your point is true. But then the idea of "High Fidelity" is to strive for the closest to optimal, distortion-free sound as is possible.
So even if you can never accurately reproduce what was heard, you "can" aim to achieve the lowest distortion / flattest frequency response.
I believe that there are then 2 paths one can take in the search for audio nirvana...1. Reproduction of the medium which results in the closest match to what it contains (or rather what was recorded onto it), and 2. Reproduction of the medium which results in the most pleasant sound on a subjective level.
Both are valid paths but only one is "Hi-Fidelity".
Of course most people will sample a bit from each path along the way, but what differentiates us is which path we are more strongly tied to.
So... When choosing equipment on path 1, looking at scientific facts is "extremely" important. So that discounts low powered amplifiers, as they cause clipping. It discounts vinyl as a medium because of the inherent distortion.
That isn't to say valve amplifiers, turntable, horn speaker systems can't be great "path 2" systems...they can sound fantastic, but ultimately they aren't as "high fidelity" as a system with (say) a good 3-way active speaker with bags of head-room playing back a well mastered CD (or better still, a well mastered CD transferred to a more robust storage system such as HDD or SSD).
Which you prefer depends on which camp you lean to, but I personally believe you will get very very close to "2" if you strive for "1". You may even get close to "1" you strive for "2", but that will usually come with years of box-swapping, disillusionment and financial pain...
There seems to be a tacit assumption here that those of us who are less worried about 'accuracy' than others - since we've now established beyond doubt that it's unattainable ;-) - are sitting here listening to systems with a Big Muff wired between speakers and amp, and that 'JD's System'® is underpowered, coloured, boomy, tizzy, and generally a crime against humanity. It is (or more accurately now, was) none of the above.
It's also patently untrue to say that any system which, on paper, has higher THD figures than another somehow cannot attain high fidelity. In my experience, the difference between two systems which broadly - according to those who haven't heard both - fall into the two camps you describe, is much smaller than some would have you believe (see also: inconsequential), and those differences that do exist are not always to the benefit of musical enjoyment.
I see this, of course, as a good thing.
AEJim
Well-known member
John Duncan said:igglebert said:
Accuracy is impossible. And before you ask, this is not a dig at any manufacturer... Whilst in theory active speakers are more technically accurate, if you play something through them that was mastered at Abbey Road, you won't hear what they heard, since their setup is passive and is therefore distorted. So what you're hearing is an accurate representation of what was on tape, but not an accurate representation of what was heard in the control room. So you might as well listen to different hifis and see which one you *enjoy* the best. Which is what I'm doing
This is absolutely correct. No Hi-Fi is "accurate" to the original performance, which itself has already gone through many components and processes before it gets to your hi-fi. In any case, can your 6" bass drivers recreate a 22" Kick drum at realistic level? No, of course not. Can a 2" tweeter recreate a trumpet at full blare accurately? No. Can the recording mic capture these kinds of instruments that well in the first place? Probably not. The whole process has many flaws really.
What a good Hi-Fi should do is recreate the recording in a way enjoyable to you, which may be as neutral as possible given the circumstances (the typical Hi-Fi ideal) or indeed with colouration you prefer. There's no right or wrong and no perfect components - many "better" components don't sound that way in any case, just different. Listen before you buy where possible (and where possible listen in your own room) and don't let other people influence your decision, except maybe the wife because at the end of the day domestic harmony will help you enjoy the Hi-Fi that little bit more...
John Duncan said:fr0g said:Your point is true. But then the idea of "High Fidelity" is to strive for the closest to optimal, distortion-free sound as is possible.
So even if you can never accurately reproduce what was heard, you "can" aim to achieve the lowest distortion / flattest frequency response.
I believe that there are then 2 paths one can take in the search for audio nirvana...1. Reproduction of the medium which results in the closest match to what it contains (or rather what was recorded onto it), and 2. Reproduction of the medium which results in the most pleasant sound on a subjective level.
Both are valid paths but only one is "Hi-Fidelity".
Of course most people will sample a bit from each path along the way, but what differentiates us is which path we are more strongly tied to.
So... When choosing equipment on path 1, looking at scientific facts is "extremely" important. So that discounts low powered amplifiers, as they cause clipping. It discounts vinyl as a medium because of the inherent distortion.
That isn't to say valve amplifiers, turntable, horn speaker systems can't be great "path 2" systems...they can sound fantastic, but ultimately they aren't as "high fidelity" as a system with (say) a good 3-way active speaker with bags of head-room playing back a well mastered CD (or better still, a well mastered CD transferred to a more robust storage system such as HDD or SSD).
Which you prefer depends on which camp you lean to, but I personally believe you will get very very close to "2" if you strive for "1". You may even get close to "1" you strive for "2", but that will usually come with years of box-swapping, disillusionment and financial pain...
There seems to be a tacit assumption here that those of us who are less worried about 'accuracy' than others - since we've now established beyond doubt that it's unattainable ;-) - are sitting here listening to systems with a Big Muff wired between speakers and amp, and that 'JD's System'® is underpowered, coloured, boomy, tizzy, and generally a crime against humanity. It is (or more accurately now, was) none of the above. It's also patently untrue to say that any system which, on paper, has higher THD figures than another somehow cannot attain high fidelity. In my experience, the difference between two systems which broadly - according to those who haven't heard both - fall into the two camps you describe, is much smaller than some would have you believe (see also: inconsequential), and those differences that do exist are not always to the benefit of musical enjoyment. I see this, of course, as a good thing.
Absolutely. Nobody should dismiss anybody elses choice based on either scientific facts, or lack of. In the end, you are right, the main thing is that you enjoy the music.
However, those scientific facts should not be dismissed in the usual "It's not about science it's about listening pleasure" way. After all, most if all component makers use the same science when designing your kit.
While not everyone wants to go through proper blind testing and comparison and following scientific principles, doing so can improve both listening pleasure and reduce the stress on your wallet.
For many the endless swapping of components is a hobby in itself. I do think some people care more about that than the actual music.
Personally I now try to test every aspect where possible, and the conclusions I have come to by scientific research and blind testing are...
CD is as good as SACD or HD recordings..(or CAN be. Many SACDs and HD downloads are simply better masterings - This can be tested by downsampling HD downloads and ABX testing) - This has saved me a fortune.
MP3 or AAC at 256 KBps and above is indistiguishable to CD for most people including me (again through ABX testing). This hasn't changed anything other than I feel happier listening to Spotify (or rather WiMP for me for the moment). I still buy CD and FLAC downloads.
Active speaker technology is superior. I have done a bit of auditioning at pro audio shops recently, and a good pair of £400 pro monitors will outperform any speaker/amp combination you can get at the price. This makes sense in a number of ways...The amplifier is made for the speaker load rather than being overengineered to cater for wildly varying loads, the active crossover has less distortion and is more efficient and of course, the box count is down.
Wires sound (almost) the same given that you start with a reasonable thickness. When I say almost, I mean "inconsequential". Chasing fixes with espensive wire is a fools errand imo.
A £5 optical lead sounds (exactly) the same as a £100 one.
A £5 hdmi lead performs equally to a £100 one given the same specification.
The mind can be tricked into hearing differences where there are none.
5/5 on an ABX is not statistically valid. (I did this myself with 2 tracks that I later found were the same). For a good ABX result you should be looking at 10 to 20 passes with no fails.
Of course all of this is boring to some people, and some people will certainly disagree with me. But if it's boring, then I just say, don't worry about it. Personally I found it liberating.
My next system (when the kids are older) will be an active 3 way. It will be High Fidelity AND pleasurable, and I will be happy to listen to internet radio and Spotify.
Lastly, I think the anymosity between the 2 camps is caused by (on one side) A lack of acceptance that someone enjoys their turntables and valve amps without wanting to criticise and point out the technical disadvantages and (on the other)... Wild claims for superiority made for kit, wires, formats etc.
More people from both sides of the argument should cease using absolutes. While it is fine to say "X has less distortion than Y" or "X sounds better than Y to me", it is incorrect to say "X sounds rubbish".
All my opinion of course...
Peace.
John Duncan
Well-known member
...and most of which I cannot disagree with at all. Give me a minute while I find the bits I do disagree with...;-)
matthewpiano
Well-known member
Frog is right . live and let live
.. each to there own... there is no right or wrong. You either like the sound your Hi Fi makes, or you don't, nothing else matters.
The only thing wrong is my current system. :wall: Which due too me being impetuous is being replaced in full by something different.
.. each to there own... there is no right or wrong. You either like the sound your Hi Fi makes, or you don't, nothing else matters.
The only thing wrong is my current system. :wall: Which due too me being impetuous is being replaced in full by something different.
moon said:
Can I tempt you over to the dark side maybe?... Muhahahaha haaaa hahahaa... (in an eerie, scooby doo voice).
fr0g said:
I like actives, I really do. I ve listened to a lot. The best so far being Genelecs, the worst due to their chuffing bass ports were Adams. I don't quite understand how the Adam engineers didn't hear it, its so obvious.
I like the clarity, but
One very good reason why I can't have actives or indeed any powered speaker(sub) is that I get a viscous ground loop hum whenever I've plugged them in. Cabling for me is easier with separate amp.... it's just my room layout. Shelving e.t.c
I think if I had a near perfect listening environment then actives would be a good choise. Also for some reason the rest of the family find just having to operate the amp really easy. one click of the remote and they can listen to film,tv,music, radio... well to them it's more user friendly anyway.
So when I have my own room with acoustic treatment then yes I would be tempted.
for now though a workhorse amp and speakers that don't boom in my room are required.
Cambridge Audio 651a, Wharfedale Diamond 9.1( oldy but goodie)and PC
Still a simple set up, a for music only two plugs needed....... The 651a has a good DAC, it only goes up to Cd quality. which is fine because apple lossless and Spotify Premium is what I listen to.
Any way, it was impetuous. Just trying to get the soound I like. for some reason my previous kit started sounding wierd in my room.
Cheers for bringing some rational to this thread. Its useless all this one up manship. Poeple should be intrigued and accepting of other peoples listening preferences, not negative the whole time.
Scooby doo rocks!
well the old one ..anyway
fr0g said:John Duncan said:fr0g said:Your point is true. But then the idea of "High Fidelity" is to strive for the closest to optimal, distortion-free sound as is possible.
So even if you can never accurately reproduce what was heard, you "can" aim to achieve the lowest distortion / flattest frequency response.
I believe that there are then 2 paths one can take in the search for audio nirvana...1. Reproduction of the medium which results in the closest match to what it contains (or rather what was recorded onto it), and 2. Reproduction of the medium which results in the most pleasant sound on a subjective level.
Both are valid paths but only one is "Hi-Fidelity".
Of course most people will sample a bit from each path along the way, but what differentiates us is which path we are more strongly tied to.
So... When choosing equipment on path 1, looking at scientific facts is "extremely" important. So that discounts low powered amplifiers, as they cause clipping. It discounts vinyl as a medium because of the inherent distortion.
That isn't to say valve amplifiers, turntable, horn speaker systems can't be great "path 2" systems...they can sound fantastic, but ultimately they aren't as "high fidelity" as a system with (say) a good 3-way active speaker with bags of head-room playing back a well mastered CD (or better still, a well mastered CD transferred to a more robust storage system such as HDD or SSD).
Which you prefer depends on which camp you lean to, but I personally believe you will get very very close to "2" if you strive for "1". You may even get close to "1" you strive for "2", but that will usually come with years of box-swapping, disillusionment and financial pain...
There seems to be a tacit assumption here that those of us who are less worried about 'accuracy' than others - since we've now established beyond doubt that it's unattainable ;-) - are sitting here listening to systems with a Big Muff wired between speakers and amp, and that 'JD's System'® is underpowered, coloured, boomy, tizzy, and generally a crime against humanity. It is (or more accurately now, was) none of the above. It's also patently untrue to say that any system which, on paper, has higher THD figures than another somehow cannot attain high fidelity. In my experience, the difference between two systems which broadly - according to those who haven't heard both - fall into the two camps you describe, is much smaller than some would have you believe (see also: inconsequential), and those differences that do exist are not always to the benefit of musical enjoyment. I see this, of course, as a good thing.
Absolutely. Nobody should dismiss anybody elses choice based on either scientific facts, or lack of. In the end, you are right, the main thing is that you enjoy the music.
However, those scientific facts should not be dismissed in the usual "It's not about science it's about listening pleasure" way. After all, most if all component makers use the same science when designing your kit.
While not everyone wants to go through proper blind testing and comparison and following scientific principles, doing so can improve both listening pleasure and reduce the stress on your wallet.
For many the endless swapping of components is a hobby in itself. I do think some people care more about that than the actual music.
Personally I now try to test every aspect where possible, and the conclusions I have come to by scientific research and blind testing are...
CD is as good as SACD or HD recordings..(or CAN be. Many SACDs and HD downloads are simply better masterings - This can be tested by downsampling HD downloads and ABX testing) - This has saved me a fortune.
MP3 or AAC at 256 KBps and above is indistiguishable to CD for most people including me (again through ABX testing). This hasn't changed anything other than I feel happier listening to Spotify (or rather WiMP for me for the moment). I still buy CD and FLAC downloads.
Active speaker technology is superior. I have done a bit of auditioning at pro audio shops recently, and a good pair of £400 pro monitors will outperform any speaker/amp combination you can get at the price. This makes sense in a number of ways...The amplifier is made for the speaker load rather than being overengineered to cater for wildly varying loads, the active crossover has less distortion and is more efficient and of course, the box count is down.
Wires sound (almost) the same given that you start with a reasonable thickness. When I say almost, I mean "inconsequential". Chasing fixes with espensive wire is a fools errand imo.
A £5 optical lead sounds (exactly) the same as a £100 one.
A £5 hdmi lead performs equally to a £100 one given the same specification.
The mind can be tricked into hearing differences where there are none.
5/5 on an ABX is not statistically valid. (I did this myself with 2 tracks that I later found were the same). For a good ABX result you should be looking at 10 to 20 passes with no fails.
Of course all of this is boring to some people, and some people will certainly disagree with me. But if it's boring, then I just say, don't worry about it. Personally I found it liberating.
My next system (when the kids are older) will be an active 3 way. It will be High Fidelity AND pleasurable, and I will be happy to listen to internet radio and Spotify.
Lastly, I think the anymosity between the 2 camps is caused by (on one side) A lack of acceptance that someone enjoys their turntables and valve amps without wanting to criticise and point out the technical disadvantages and (on the other)... Wild claims for superiority made for kit, wires, formats etc.
More people from both sides of the argument should cease using absolutes. While it is fine to say "X has less distortion than Y" or "X sounds better than Y to me", it is incorrect to say "X sounds rubbish".
All my opinion of course...
Peace.
:clap: :cheers:
moon said:
They say the key to negotiating peace is finding common ground.... Perhaps the answer to ending needless hi-fi squabbling is to agree that Scrappy Doo sucks
EDIT - excellent swear-word filter change to the little dog's name there!
John Duncan
Well-known member
professorhat
Well-known member
fr0g said:
Only a matter of time in these threads before someone posts a ludicrous opinion such as this. Nephew of Scooby was inferior in EVERY way. "Ta dadada ta daaa! Puppy Power!" oh please...
Paul.
Well-known member
Lee H said:fr0g said:
Only a matter of time in these threads before someone posts a ludicrous opinion such as this. Nephew of Scooby was inferior in EVERY way. "Ta dadada ta daaa! Puppy Power!" oh please...
Have you double blind tested to be sure?
Paul Hobbs said:Lee H said:fr0g said:
Only a matter of time in these threads before someone posts a ludicrous opinion such as this. Nephew of Scooby was inferior in EVERY way. "Ta dadada ta daaa! Puppy Power!" oh please...
Have you double blind tested to be sure?
I can pick the nephew out every time. Much more low end in Scooby
Alec
Well-known member
fr0g said:
Quite.
I make none of those assumptions about your system John, or anyone's. I ended up with my system because I thought "oh that looks convenient. Looks nice too. And there's all that stuff about accuracy but I wonder how it sounds...(goes for demo)...Oh, it sounds how I want it to. That's me sold".
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
Highlight for end of sentence - beware - SPOILER!
It was worth the invention of Scrappy Doo just to see him deafeated as the baddie in the movie.
It was worth the invention of Scrappy Doo just to see him deafeated as the baddie in the movie.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram