Personal Conclusion

stereoman

Well-known member
Mar 22, 2016
146
14
10,595
Visit site
Hi all. So, a controversial thing now. I came to thinking a bit about the stereo systems again. It looks like all us are prone to and need some certain frequency sound to be satisfied with the sound. What I mean is this - if you have a system where some critical to a listener frequency is missing (muddled or not pronuonced alongside other) no matter how good the other tonality spectrum is you will not be satisfied with it. On the other hand when your system presents some ultrabass, bass, midrange and highs even when they are of the much worse quality but have the same presence you will be satisfied with the sound. The expensive Hi Fi systems put only an icing on the cake - i.d. they only polish the frequency for which you pay sometimes thousands of bucks. Look at this small experiment. Buy yourself any proper bluetooth speaker with small subwoofer inside that gives you good bass, mids and highs - I bet you can use it almost everyday without a smallest complaint although it will cost you 200 € instead 2000 €. The same goes for some 2.1 Home cinema systems. Some cheap ones cover the most critical sound spectrum although they cost a fraction of a proper HiFi. Still they sound really good in comparison. I wonder if you share that spectrum covering is the most critical thing in music listening...
 
Q

QuestForThe13thNote

Guest
stereoman said:
Hi all. So, a controversial thing now. I came to thinking a bit about the stereo systems again. It looks like all us are prone to and need some certain frequency sound to be satisfied with the sound. What I mean is this - if you have a system where some critical to a listener frequency is missing (muddled or not pronuonced alongside other) no matter how good the other tonality spectrum is you will not be satisfied with it. On the other hand when your system presents some ultrabass, bass, midrange and highs even when they are of the much worse quality but have the same presence you will be satisfied with the sound. The expensive Hi Fi systems put only an icing on the cake - i.d. they only polish the frequency for which you pay sometimes thousands of bucks. Look at this small experiment. Buy yourself any proper bluetooth speaker with small subwoofer inside that gives you good bass, mids and highs - I bet you can use it almost everyday without a smallest complaint although it will cost you 200 € instead 2000 €. The same goes for some 2.1 Home cinema systems. Some cheap ones cover the most critical sound spectrum although they cost a fraction of a proper HiFi. Still they sound really good in comparison. I wonder you share this that spectrum covering is the most critical thing in music listening...

i think you do need a good range of frequencies, and other qualities like detail, dynamics are very important to make good hi Fi real.
 

stereoman

Well-known member
Mar 22, 2016
146
14
10,595
Visit site
QuestForThe13thNote said:
stereoman said:
Hi all. So, a controversial thing now. I came to thinking a bit about the stereo systems again. It looks like all us are prone to and need some certain frequency sound to be satisfied with the sound. What I mean is this - if you have a system where some critical to a listener frequency is missing (muddled or not pronuonced alongside other) no matter how good the other tonality spectrum is you will not be satisfied with it. On the other hand when your system presents some ultrabass, bass, midrange and highs even when they are of the much worse quality but have the same presence you will be satisfied with the sound. The expensive Hi Fi systems put only an icing on the cake - i.d. they only polish the frequency for which you pay sometimes thousands of bucks. Look at this small experiment. Buy yourself any proper bluetooth speaker with small subwoofer inside that gives you good bass, mids and highs - I bet you can use it almost everyday without a smallest complaint although it will cost you 200 € instead 2000 €. The same goes for some 2.1 Home cinema systems. Some cheap ones cover the most critical sound spectrum although they cost a fraction of a proper HiFi. Still they sound really good in comparison. I wonder you share this that spectrum covering is the most critical thing in music listening...

i think you do need a good range of frequencies, and other qualities like detail, dynamics are very important to make good hi Fi real.

Hi Simon. You mean good tonal balance ? Definitely....the point is that such things like detail and dynamics will be following the frequency spectrum. I gave this funny example of a bluetooth speaker because this is what I have noticed for years. There are some audio systems that people love and never sell them on. The goldilock rule.
 
Q

QuestForThe13thNote

Guest
I’m sure you can two sets ups that measure equally well accross the frequency range like with your cyrus amp, but perform differently on detail, dynamic realism, and the musicality they covey.
 

Vladimir

New member
Dec 26, 2013
220
7
0
Visit site
I personally don't see what's the contraversy in your observation. Most people (not in this hobby) can't tell a difference between a plastic 100 quid 5.1 LG setup you get free with your 40"+ TV and a pair of Sonus Fabers costing 5K and up. The main thing is to demonstrate with equal loudness, otherwise louder wins every time.

There's a learning process when you enter this 'sport' of ours. You learn what distortion, sibilance, difference in attack, speed, phase etc. sounds like. You become overly sensitive at very minute differences and you exagerate them (night and day), sometimes finding differences where they don't even exist. The audiophile is a critical aka anal listener. I've been oversensitized and desensitized over how kit sounds multiple cycles through the years. I currently don't care how wire or digital makes a difference, but few years ago I was really interested and experimented with them and heard actual differences.

In the evolutionary process, the overly analytical, paranoid and cautious survived at a higher rate than those who thought the very minute rustling in the grass was probably nothing to worry about. Maybe it was nothing 9/10 times, but that one time mattered who gets to have progeny and who becomes lunch. Now that we don't deal with savana problems, we can excercise our biological features in a hobby. Some do physical sports, some play chess, we get paranoid over wire.
 
Q

QuestForThe13thNote

Guest
I’m not sure what your point is here Vladimir.
 
Q

QuestForThe13thNote

Guest
Boring day but then I’m not that well. I’m going out for a 15 mike walk tomorrow and pub lunch.
 

stereoman

Well-known member
Mar 22, 2016
146
14
10,595
Visit site
Vladimir said:
Why is this in off-topic? It should be in Hi-Fi.

Moved. On the other hand guys - there is this something, elusive thing that I'm trying to get the gist of. I'm really starting to be partial on these hiFi High End things and systems. I get this strange feeling that when a friend of mine plays his music on a 500€ 2.1 system it sounds so bloody good. I also noticed that I never ever wanted to change my wifi system although it cost me 250€ and though it lacks sophisticated detail and resolution it gives me this full body sound that I've been listening to it for years without the slightest desire to sell it or change. It never happened this with any of my HiFi systems that I've had for years so far. Have you also noticed that 90% of all audiophiles sell their systems on because they are not glad with their HiFi and only the rest 10% for another reasons ? There must be "something" in it. That is why I started the topic with this frequency full coverage because this is what seems to be the most critical part in any HiFi.
 

stereoman

Well-known member
Mar 22, 2016
146
14
10,595
Visit site
Vladimir said:
I personally don't see what's the contraversy in your observation. Most people (not in this hobby) can't tell a difference between a plastic 100 quid 5.1 LG setup you get free with your 40"+ TV and a pair of Sonus Fabers costing 5K and up. The main thing is to demonstrate with equal loudness, otherwise louder wins every time.

There's a learning process when you enter this 'sport' of ours. You learn what distortion, sibilance, difference in attack, speed, phase etc. sounds like. You become overly sensitive at very minute differences and you exagerate them (night and day), sometimes finding differences where they don't even exist. The audiophile is a critical aka anal listener. I've been oversensitized and desensitized over how kit sounds multiple cycles through the years. I currently don't care how wire or digital makes a difference, but few years ago I was really interested and experimented with them and heard actual differences.

In the evolutionary process, the overly analytical, paranoid and cautious survived at a higher rate than those who thought the very minute rustling in the grass was probably nothing to worry about. Maybe it was nothing 9/10 times, but that one time mattered who gets to have progeny and who becomes lunch. Now that we don't deal with savana problems, we can excercise our biological features in a hobby. Some do physical sports, some play chess, we get paranoid over wire.

Vlad, these people actually are a very good example. When they enter the shop and have no clue what Hi Fi means they are presented with all those non audiophile products that give them the full sound with new DSP and almost all of them are totally impressed. Right ? This is the thing. How "ordinary" ;) people "perceive" and hear the sound. In 99,9% they need to be impressed with exposed bass, midrange etc. whereas audiophiles concentrate on sophistication - but the thing is that this sophistication won't change the critical approach in sound for us - We all need the same. A good example is Sony which for years have been producing the sound systems of the mid level and those have an enourmously wide span of customers who love Sony sound although Sony is hardly ever an audiophile company (with some exception for a few products).
 

Vladimir

New member
Dec 26, 2013
220
7
0
Visit site
stereoman said:
Vladimir said:
Why is this in off-topic? It should be in Hi-Fi.

Moved. On the other hand guys - there is this something, elusive thing that I'm trying to get the gist of. I'm really starting to be partial on these hiFi High End things and systems. I get this strange feeling that when a friend of mine plays his music on a 500€ 2.1 system it sounds so bloody good. I also noticed that I never ever wanted to change my wifi system although it cost me 250€ and though it lacks sophisticated detail and resolution it gives me this full body sound that I've been listening to it for years without the slightest desire to sell it or change. It never happened this with any of my HiFi systems that I've had for years so far. Have you also noticed that 90% of all audiophiles sell their systems on because they are not glad with their HiFi and only the rest 10% for another reasons ? There must be "something" in it. That is why I started the topic with this frequency full coverage because this is what seems to be the most critical part in any HiFi.

I have one more yammering to add.

Most audiophiles are stuck in a huge pool of mediocrity where they have to be more and more critical over minute differences to get their kicks and excitement from the hobby. So when they hear a truly Hi-End system, the actual step up feels enormous, giant. This drives prices up to insanity levels. The logic is, if I was ready to pay 15K for mediocrity, I don't mind paying 10 times more for something that feels 10 times better, although in reality it isn't 10 times better, just feels like it. There's a palpable difference.

This ocean of mediocrity is also why different sells as better by default, and if you can't get different by improving (too expensive), then you make controlled worsening. Solid state and digital created this ocean, so many are going back to vinyl, valves etc. to get their differences. They can enjoy fiddling with tonearms, carts, cables and actually hear differences and not get called out as delusional.

This line of thinking got me to recommend in another thread a Mcintosh valve beast to replace a Yamaha A-S2000 integrated. The OP didn't mention any criteria for us to base advice on, just said I want different, I'm open to any suggestion. So what's the point in suggesting him another solid state integrated?
 

newlash09

Well-known member
Aug 28, 2015
226
50
18,870
Visit site
My first purchase was the Harman kardon sound sticks and loved them absolutely. Since my whole kit is sitting packed in my new place, am presently listening via the Harman kardon in my parents house again.

Was unbearable the first day. But after 3 days, sounds acceptable I guess.
 

Vladimir

New member
Dec 26, 2013
220
7
0
Visit site
stereoman said:
A good example is Sony which for years have been producing the sound systems of the mid level and those have an enourmously wide span of customers who love Sony sound although Sony is hardly ever an audiophile company (with some exception for a few products).

Sony was an audiophile company more than any of the cottage rubbish like Naim and similar will ever be. But its a corporation and can't survive on niche sales, so they stopped being active in our market. Feel free to see the list of patents Sony has in audio and compare it to toy businesses like Wilson Audio or Burmester.
 

Samd

Well-known member
stereoman said:
Vladimir said:
I personally don't see what's the contraversy in your observation. Most people (not in this hobby) can't tell a difference between a plastic 100 quid 5.1 LG setup you get free with your 40"+ TV and a pair of Sonus Fabers costing 5K and up. The main thing is to demonstrate with equal loudness, otherwise louder wins every time.

There's a learning process when you enter this 'sport' of ours. You learn what distortion, sibilance, difference in attack, speed, phase etc. sounds like. You become overly sensitive at very minute differences and you exagerate them (night and day), sometimes finding differences where they don't even exist. The audiophile is a critical aka anal listener. I've been oversensitized and desensitized over how kit sounds multiple cycles through the years. I currently don't care how wire or digital makes a difference, but few years ago I was really interested and experimented with them and heard actual differences.

In the evolutionary process, the overly analytical, paranoid and cautious survived at a higher rate than those who thought the very minute rustling in the grass was probably nothing to worry about. Maybe it was nothing 9/10 times, but that one time mattered who gets to have progeny and who becomes lunch. Now that we don't deal with savana problems, we can excercise our biological features in a hobby. Some do physical sports, some play chess, we get paranoid over wire.

Vlad, these people actually are a very good example. When they enter the shop and have no clue what Hi Fi means they are presented with all those non audiophile products that give them the full sound with new DSP and almost all of them are totally impressed. Right ? This is the thing. How "ordinary" ;) people "perceive" and hear the sound. In 99,9% they need to be impressed with exposed bass, midrange etc. whereas audiophiles concentrate on sophistication - but the thing is that this sophistication won't change the critical approach in sound for us - We all need the same. A good example is Sony which for years have been producing the sound systems of the mid level and those have an enourmously wide span of customers who love Sony sound although Sony is hardly ever an audiophile company (with some exception for a few products).

The usage on this site (and others) of 'audiophile' is basically wrong though. I'm an audiophile i.e. lover of or enthusiast for music whereas those (not me) in your 0.1% are really audio-ANALists, meant in the nicest possible way m'lud!
 

stereoman

Well-known member
Mar 22, 2016
146
14
10,595
Visit site
Samd said:
stereoman said:
Vladimir said:
I personally don't see what's the contraversy in your observation. Most people (not in this hobby) can't tell a difference between a plastic 100 quid 5.1 LG setup you get free with your 40"+ TV and a pair of Sonus Fabers costing 5K and up. The main thing is to demonstrate with equal loudness, otherwise louder wins every time.

There's a learning process when you enter this 'sport' of ours. You learn what distortion, sibilance, difference in attack, speed, phase etc. sounds like. You become overly sensitive at very minute differences and you exagerate them (night and day), sometimes finding differences where they don't even exist. The audiophile is a critical aka anal listener. I've been oversensitized and desensitized over how kit sounds multiple cycles through the years. I currently don't care how wire or digital makes a difference, but few years ago I was really interested and experimented with them and heard actual differences.

In the evolutionary process, the overly analytical, paranoid and cautious survived at a higher rate than those who thought the very minute rustling in the grass was probably nothing to worry about. Maybe it was nothing 9/10 times, but that one time mattered who gets to have progeny and who becomes lunch. Now that we don't deal with savana problems, we can excercise our biological features in a hobby. Some do physical sports, some play chess, we get paranoid over wire.

Vlad, these people actually are a very good example. When they enter the shop and have no clue what Hi Fi means they are presented with all those non audiophile products that give them the full sound with new DSP and almost all of them are totally impressed. Right ? This is the thing. How "ordinary" ;) people "perceive" and hear the sound. In 99,9% they need to be impressed with exposed bass, midrange etc. whereas audiophiles concentrate on sophistication - but the thing is that this sophistication won't change the critical approach in sound for us - We all need the same. A good example is Sony which for years have been producing the sound systems of the mid level and those have an enourmously wide span of customers who love Sony sound although Sony is hardly ever an audiophile company (with some exception for a few products).

The usage on this site (and others) of 'audiophile' is basically wrong though. I'm an audiophile i.e. lover of or enthusiast for music whereas those (not me) in your 0.1% are really audio-ANALists, meant in the nicest possible way m'lud!

Also right !
 

newlash09

Well-known member
Aug 28, 2015
226
50
18,870
Visit site
Fully agree there. Though my point was that, even though I didn't like the Harman kardon sound sticks on first listen. Slowly you get over the distortion and lack of detail, and just concentrate on the music. Of course every part of me longs to get back to my main system. But the Harman are not as unbearable now, as on the first listen. There is always a higher reference point that I have of course.
 

stereoman

Well-known member
Mar 22, 2016
146
14
10,595
Visit site
Vladimir said:
stereoman said:
Vladimir said:
Why is this in off-topic? It should be in Hi-Fi.

Moved. On the other hand guys - there is this something, elusive thing that I'm trying to get the gist of. I'm really starting to be partial on these hiFi High End things and systems. I get this strange feeling that when a friend of mine plays his music on a 500€ 2.1 system it sounds so bloody good. I also noticed that I never ever wanted to change my wifi system although it cost me 250€ and though it lacks sophisticated detail and resolution it gives me this full body sound that I've been listening to it for years without the slightest desire to sell it or change. It never happened this with any of my HiFi systems that I've had for years so far. Have you also noticed that 90% of all audiophiles sell their systems on because they are not glad with their HiFi and only the rest 10% for another reasons ? There must be "something" in it. That is why I started the topic with this frequency full coverage because this is what seems to be the most critical part in any HiFi.

I have one more yammering to add.

Most audiophiles are stuck in a huge pool of mediocrity where they have to be more and more critical over minute differences to get their kicks and excitement from the hobby. So when they hear a truly Hi-End system, the actual step up feels enormous, giant. This drives prices up to insanity levels. The logic is, if I was ready to pay 15K for mediocrity, I don't mind paying 10 times more for something that feels 10 times better, although in reality it isn't 10 times better, just feels like it. There's a palpable difference.

This ocean of mediocrity is also why different sells as better by default, and if you can't get different by improving (too expensive), then you make controlled worsening. Solid state and digital created this ocean, so many are going back to vinyl, valves etc. to get their differences. They can enjoy fiddling with tonearms, carts, cables and actually hear differences and not get called out as delusional.

This line of thinking got me to recommend in another thread a Mcintosh valve beast to replace a Yamaha A-S2000 integrated. The OP didn't mention any criteria for us to base advice on, just said I want different, I'm open to any suggestion. So what's the point in suggesting him another solid state integrated?

Absolutely...
 

stereoman

Well-known member
Mar 22, 2016
146
14
10,595
Visit site
newlash09 said:
Fully agree there. Though my point was that, even though I didn't like the Harman kardon sound sticks on first listen. Slowly you get over the distortion and lack of detail, and just concentrate on the music. Of course every part of me longs to get back to my main system. But the Harman are not as unbearable now, as on the first listen. There is always a higher reference point that I have of course.

You would not concetrate only on music if some substantial sound aspects were missing. It seems that your HK system allows you to enjoy it because as said it gives you the most basic sound coverage.
 

newlash09

Well-known member
Aug 28, 2015
226
50
18,870
Visit site
That was my whole point. Most systems are good enough, till one starts listening to better gear.

I have gifted my sister my bluesound powernode and have been trying to convince her ever since to buy a pair of qacoustics concept 20's. She simply doesn't understand why she has to spend a good deal of money on speakers just to listen to music. Will probably gift her the speakers for Christmas. But the point is that many people are happy at their respective quality levels , except a few. And these few are folks I tend to call audiophiles.
 

Vladimir

New member
Dec 26, 2013
220
7
0
Visit site
stereoman said:
newlash09 said:
Fully agree there. Though my point was that, even though I didn't like the Harman kardon sound sticks on first listen. Slowly you get over the distortion and lack of detail, and just concentrate on the music. Of course every part of me longs to get back to my main system. But the Harman are not as unbearable now, as on the first listen. There is always a higher reference point that I have of course.

You would not concetrate only on music if some substantial sound aspects were missing. It seems that your HK system allows you to enjoy it because as said it gives you the most basic sound coverage.

There are many substantial things missing in old telephone lines regarding human voice reproduction (outrageously narrow frequency range), yet our brain was capable of distinguishing if it was talking to John and not Matt. A lot of lovers of classical music listened on cheap tiny transistor radios and mini boomboxes, which in no way can reproduce clean +-3dB 20Hz-20khz, yet they know its violins playing, not cellos.
 

Vladimir

New member
Dec 26, 2013
220
7
0
Visit site
newlash09 said:
My first purchase was the Harman kardon sound sticks and loved them absolutely. Since my whole kit is sitting packed in my new place, am presently listening via the Harman kardon in my parents house again.

Was unbearable the first day. But after 3 days, sounds acceptable I guess.

Not to be pedant here, but technically our hearing isn't adaptable. We hear what we hear, then the brain interprets, adapts. Our senses just captchure raw information within their design limits.

1) We adapt to both worse and better, but not in the same way. When you are given a very nice cake the first time you are getting 100% of pleasure from it. Each following time its given to you without any other variety, you get less and less % pleasure from it, untill its boring, even disgusting.

2) When you live next to a bussy boulevard street, at first you are unable to sleep, it distracts you, you receive 100% displeasure from it. As more time goes by, you adapt to it and eventually you tune out the constant noise of cars and pedestrians completely.

Some say that the formula to long lasting marriage is to pass both phase 1 and 2 consecutively. *biggrin*

First impressions are generally the right one in hifi. If you heard somethign that you didn't like, within time you will adapt to it like with that busy boulevard street, but you will never truly like it, just get used to it. If you hear speakers that you love the first time you hear them, you may get bored with them over time, but they are true love.
 

Vladimir

New member
Dec 26, 2013
220
7
0
Visit site
Samd said:
stereoman said:
Vladimir said:
I personally don't see what's the contraversy in your observation. Most people (not in this hobby) can't tell a difference between a plastic 100 quid 5.1 LG setup you get free with your 40"+ TV and a pair of Sonus Fabers costing 5K and up. The main thing is to demonstrate with equal loudness, otherwise louder wins every time.

There's a learning process when you enter this 'sport' of ours. You learn what distortion, sibilance, difference in attack, speed, phase etc. sounds like. You become overly sensitive at very minute differences and you exagerate them (night and day), sometimes finding differences where they don't even exist. The audiophile is a critical aka anal listener. I've been oversensitized and desensitized over how kit sounds multiple cycles through the years. I currently don't care how wire or digital makes a difference, but few years ago I was really interested and experimented with them and heard actual differences.

In the evolutionary process, the overly analytical, paranoid and cautious survived at a higher rate than those who thought the very minute rustling in the grass was probably nothing to worry about. Maybe it was nothing 9/10 times, but that one time mattered who gets to have progeny and who becomes lunch. Now that we don't deal with savana problems, we can excercise our biological features in a hobby. Some do physical sports, some play chess, we get paranoid over wire.

Vlad, these people actually are a very good example. When they enter the shop and have no clue what Hi Fi means they are presented with all those non audiophile products that give them the full sound with new DSP and almost all of them are totally impressed. Right ? This is the thing. How "ordinary" ;) people "perceive" and hear the sound. In 99,9% they need to be impressed with exposed bass, midrange etc. whereas audiophiles concentrate on sophistication - but the thing is that this sophistication won't change the critical approach in sound for us - We all need the same. A good example is Sony which for years have been producing the sound systems of the mid level and those have an enourmously wide span of customers who love Sony sound although Sony is hardly ever an audiophile company (with some exception for a few products).

The usage on this site (and others) of 'audiophile' is basically wrong though. I'm an audiophile i.e. lover of or enthusiast for music whereas those (not me) in your 0.1% are really audio-ANALists, meant in the nicest possible way m'lud!

You are in denial, like many these days. I can't blame you though. The subjectivists have earned us the title of idiot snake oil aficionados.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts