On your reviews could you give us a rating for sound quality not taking price into account ?

[Anonymous]

I may be in a minority here - but ultimately I don't see any advantages of blind testing over sighted testing - after all we don't listen to music blindfolded or always in the dark. And my hifi decisions have always been sighted and non the worse for it. And I think it's because I 'hunt' down specific characteristics in the sound - so blindfolding would have no advantage.

Blind testing doesn't mean you have to be blindfolded, just that you don't can't see the equipment you're testing. It has a major advantage in that your brain cannot tell you that the nicer looking or more expensive item is better...which it does without you wanting it to, due to expectation, pride etc (placebo). You can still seek out "specific sound characteristics", because you only need your ears for that.

Check this out. It's a horizon video showing the McGurk effect. What we hear is closely related to what we see...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCvdZhrEmm4&feature=related

I don't agree, so are you telling me that a nicer looking Blu-ray player might trick me into perceiving as the better player? Maybe, but then I'll be looking at the telly and not the player.

Likewise when listening to music I'm not looking at the equipment, certainly not the amps or sources anyway. Seems to me this is thumb-sucking.

Disagree all you like, but placebo is a fact of life. The more expensive looking the kit or the bigger the price tag, the more your brain will be expecting more quality, which is often not the case.

DId you watch the video? It's interesting.

 

[Anonymous]

Dimishing returns? Kicks in a heck of a lot lower than 31k - try some WAV files of well mastered discs through (in my case) a 32Gb Touch and some good in-ear 'phones.

I am hearing you on this one. Apple lossless files on an IPad 1 @£429 plus Superlux Semi-open HD 668B Headphones €29

Simply superb

 

[Anonymous]

It really would be interesting to have a blind review test of sound quality as I am sure many of the cheaper end stuff would sound better than the really expensive stuff, I beleive you could buy a complete system for £1,000-£2,000, and have no or extremely little afurther improvement the higher in cost you went ?

I don't think that review setup would work. Say you had a pair of MA bookshelves that got 80% as a score from the perfect sound. The next model that comes out, if its better, will get 81% or more. Eventually, after several revisions, they'll be up to the 90's and closing in to the 100, making it look on paper like they're close to the higher end £10,000+ models, when in reality they're worlds apart.

Plus, if the really high end stuff gets better and takes the magic 100, every other score needs to be revised etc...

A syst costing £2,000 will have no chance standing up to the quality of high end actives or even a system costing £3-£4,000. I think to hit the wall of diminishing returns, you'd need to spend £4,000. After that, things get a biharder to justify.

It worries me that you believe the last paragraph you wrote!

 

[matthewpiano]

I've found the correlation between price and performance to be very inconsistent and I believe the law of diminishing returns sets in very early. To a certain extent I think this depends on how you view money. If you never have to think about how much you are spending I'm sure the diminishing returns seem irrelevant but if, like me, it takes careful planning to get through each month, it is a very real and pertinent issue.

I have come to the conclusion that a well matched and well set up (!) system of good quality budget components is probably all most of us need to enjoy the music. Yes, improvements can be made by carefully spending more, but I'm not so sure those improvements are all that huge any more.

I firmly believe that synergy and careful set-up are the key to satisfying performance and that so many people (including myself) have changed perfectly good systems that could have sounded so much better if they'd spent a bit more time getting the positioning of the speakers right in the room.

 

[Anonymous]

I've found the correlation between price and performance to be very inconsistent and I believe the law of diminishing returns sets in very early. To a certain extent I think this depends on how you view money. If you never have to think about how much you are spending I'm sure the diminishing returns seem irrelevant but if, like me, it takes careful planning to get through each month, it is a very real and pertinent issue.

I have come to the conclusion that a well matched and well set up (!) system of good quality budget components is probably all most of us need to enjoy the music. Yes, improvements can be made by carefully spending more, but I'm not so sure those improvements are all that huge any more.

I firmly believe that synergy and careful set-up are the key to satisfying performance and that so many people (including myself) have changed perfectly good systems that could have sounded so much better if they'd spent a bit more time getting the positioning of the speakers right in the room.

+1

 

[the record spot]

Dimishing returns? Kicks in a heck of a lot lower than 31k - try some WAV files of well mastered discs through (in my case) a 32Gb Touch and some good in-ear 'phones.

I am hearing you on this one. Apple lossless files on an IPad 1 @£429 plus Superlux Semi-open HD 668B Headphones €29 Simply superb

Thanks for quoting me; of course, I meant £1k not £31k! Typo, oops!

I think you and MP make some very relevant observations - the quality of "budget" gear is excellent today, probably as good as it's ever been in most cases.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Hey, guys, there's a couple of points here.

Yup, you don't need massively expensive systems to enjoy music, in a £10 tranny can do the trick. The point is adding to your enjoyment by having a decent system, so you can hear more of the original performance.

Frankly, you get what you pay for. There's no way I'm knocking budget gear, but it is limited. I've listened to the Monitor Audio B somethings up to the top of the line Martin Logans in the last coupla weeks, and there's no comparison, the MLs are way, way better than the budgets, and that includes Totem, Harbeth, and even the maggies. Yes, you can have a good budget system but it's never going to give you anywhere near the performance of the best.

You don't have to believe me, go have a listen yourself. Even the mid range MLs are way better than the budgets, and well worth the money if you could afford it. The maggies are the ones that stand out from the pack up to about the £2000 mark, but they'e not up there with the best. Haven't heard the expensive ones though.

I suspect there may be a grain on truth when it comes to the electronics, in that there's not a world of diff between amps and CD players, except tube sorts, but for speakers, no, you get what you pay for.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey, guys, there's a couple of points here.

Yup, you don't need massively expensive systems to enjoy music, in a £10 tranny can do the trick. The point is adding to your enjoyment by having a decent system, so you can hear more of the original performance.

Frankly, you get what you pay for. There's no way I'm knocking budget gear, but it is limited. I've listened to the Monitor Audio B somethings up to the top of the line Martin Logans in the last coupla weeks, and there's no comparison, the MLs are way, way better than the budgets, and that includes Totem, Harbeth, and even the maggies. Yes, you can have a good budget system but it's never going to give you anywhere near the performance of the best.

You don't have to believe me, go have a listen yourself. Even the mid range MLs are way better than the budgets, and well worth the money if you could afford it. The maggies are the ones that stand out from the pack up to about the £2000 mark, but they'e not up there with the best. Haven't heard the expensive ones though.

I suspect there may be a grain on truth when it comes to the electronics, in that there's not a world of diff between amps and CD players, except tube sorts, but for speakers, no, you get what you pay for.

I too feel that you get what you pay for when buying speakers. For under £1000 you can get your self a very very very good pair of speakers if you want. If you go for something with a fancy finish then are you getting real value for money at this price point? If you want the best drivers and electronics for under £1000 then sometimes you have to sacrifice looks. For example the Dynaudio DM range, where you are paying really just for the drivers.

 

[Anonymous]

Why don't they just do what Hifi Choice did years ago and have a simple rating system of "Recommended" and "Best Buy" (maybe with "Avoid" for the shocking stuff)?

It would get people off their sofa and down to a shop to hear a selection of candidates. Plus reorganising what products remain within the two bands when the market progresses.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Why don't they just do what Hifi Choice did years ago

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/20/future-magazines-close-sell

 

[altruistic.lemon]

I too feel that you get what you pay for when buying speakers. For under £1000 you can get your self a very very very good pair of speakers if you want. If you go for something with a fancy finish then are you getting real value for money at this price point? If you want the best drivers and electronics for under £1000 then sometimes you have to sacrifice looks. For example the Dynaudio DM range, where you are paying really just for the drivers.

My point is more that for £4000 you can get some astonishing speakers well worth the premium and in a different league from the budget range.

 

[Anonymous]

A tad arrogant to mock a rival publication and it's problems. Maybe (apart from the US problems listed) it fell from grace because it moved away from it's original format a number of years ago. (Didn't they start using a percentage system too? That's even more farcical than using stars!)

I used to love the fact that each issue was dedicated to large number of products from a particular category, and that reviews carried a reasonable amount of analysis/measurements.

It makes modern reviews seem very dumbed down in comparison. Plus I felt inclined to go and listen to a shortlist of "Best Buys" or Recommended models, rather than just click on "Add to Cart" for a 5 Star-er!

Maybe we've all become too lazy to trust our own subjective judgement....

And besides a publication's sustainability is not solely based upon circulation, I would have thought advertising brings in more revenue. Maybe they had a poor marketing department?

 

[Andrew Everard]

Far from mocking the problems of HFC and HCC, all of us here are fully aware that the loss of two titles from what is a relatively small market is a subject of great concern, and we have every sympathy with those we know on those titles whose jobs are in jeopardy.

I wasn't being arrogant: I was just pointing out that doing things the HFC way wouldn't really help anyone: even before this latest announcement, the title was selling in relatively small numbers, suggesting that its approach didn't find favour with that many magazine buyers. And advertisers look at circulation numbers before making booking decisions.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Far from mocking the problems of HFC and HCC, all of us here are fully aware that the loss of two titles from what is a relatively small market is a subject of great concern, and we have every sympathy with those we know on those titles whose jobs are in jeopardy.

I wasn't being arrogant: I was just pointing out that doing things the HFC way wouldn't really help anyone: even before this latest announcement, the title was selling in relatively small numbers, suggesting that its approach didn't find favour with that many magazine buyers. And advertisers look at circulation numbers before making booking decisions.

Wasn't its circulation increasing? One of their journos indicated that was the case on another forum.

 

[Anonymous]

The Placebo effect is an interesting one - a few years back I really wanted a specific speaker.

They were made by an aspirational brand, the speakers looked great and they carried a nice premium price conveying their quality.

I knew they really just didn't suit my system or music preference from the first time I heard them but it took 2 months of listening others to "get over" the looks, feel, brand of the set i originally wanted and buy some that were 20% cheaper.

So... Did i really not like the more expensive speakers or was it all a figment of my imagination caused by Cognitive Dissonance because i secretly didn't want to spend that much money? I truely believe Cognitive Dissonance and especially post-purchase Cognitive Dissonance is the most powerful force at work when buying something expensive and subjective like a new Hi-Fi.

On the matter of diminishing returns, i'd guess that the returns don't just drop off a cliff at any level as is suggested by putting a £1,000 or £4,000 tag on it. There is absolutely no denying that some of the best kit available is very expensive. Of course there is expensive tat and there are some fantastic bargains, but that shouldn't confuse the matter. Even staying in the same brand the more expensive stuff generally sounds much better (of course they are strange exceptions). The B&W 805's sound miles better than the 685's, the Naim 252/300 sounds miles better than a Nait 5i.

The best system i've ever heard was a pair of Avantgarde Acoustics speakers with a Tron Valve amp and a turntable that i "think" was a TW Acoustics Raven (guessing, but the system put together by gtaudio.com). That system must have cost over £50k but as Count Bassie past away 6 months before I was born, any system that truly sounds like he is still playing with his band must be priceless.

I guess if you can get the same experience from a £1000 hi-fi, I certainly envey you.

 

[Anonymous]

Blind testing is the last thing many hi-end manufacturers would want to see.

Their favourite questions is: What hi-end amplifier can I get for £1k

And not: What's the best amplifier I can get for £1k

Competing on sonic merit along is a marketing man's worst nightmare. Especially for cables, that strange mixed up world of make believe where even their own adverts contradict themselves.

Good to see agenda-driven twaddle at last elevated to an art-form – it's long overdue. :doh:

Which agenda is that Andrew?

 

[Andrew Everard]

Yes, but from an all-time low

 

[Andrew Everard]

Which agenda is that Andrew?

The usual one.

 

[Clare Newsome]

This thread is going nowhere. As previously stated, review system always open to evolution and constructive ideas welcome. Thanks