So, the truth is out.

[Alberich]

In my opinion, there is definetely allot of hype associated with hi-fi regarding cost and sound quality, and would say that a very well matched system costing around £800 or so, can sound as good or better than probably most systems costing much more, and that the improvements are small after this point from a mid range system, and that blind tests would probably prove it *smile*

Have you ever experienced a well matched system around the £8K region or upwards ?

If not, arrange something with your dealer and audition a system at this price point and you will have little doubt as to the performance level of kit around this price.
The improvements over an £800ish system will be anything but small.

 

[Snooker]

I have implied that some dearer systems will sound better, but will not be a huge difference in sound quality, this is based on me listening to different systems at The Bristol Hi-Fi exibition, but did notice that some of the dearer systems did not sound as good as the Denon Ceol when I was last at the exibition, but was also impressed by the better sounding system by Chord Electronics *smile*

 

[Alberich]

Recently I was able to audition a system at my dealers comprising of a Nad M12 / M22 combo paired with JMR Bliss Silver speakers.
The system came in at around £9k.
The value of my current system and ones I've had in the past are usually around the £3K mark.
I can categorically say that this particular £9k system was a world apart from the other systems I've owned, and I've had quite a few combos.
I will not forget in a hurry what i heard that day.
Things start to get truly interesting around that price point.

 

[Alberich]

I have implied that some dearer systems will sound better, but will not be a huge difference in sound quality, this is based on me listening to different systems at The Bristol Hi-Fi exibition, but did notice that some of the dearer systems did not sound as good as the Denon Ceol when I was last at the exibition, but was also impressed by the better sounding system by Chord Electronics *smile*

Large Hi-fi shows and exhibitions are really not the best place to be auditioning gear tbh.

 

[Frank Harvey]

If, as suggested there is no or very little difference between cheap and expensive hifi.

Would I be right in thinking that a well put together cd,amp and speakers costing all in say £800 would perform as well as a system of say £5000

I've not read the thread, but no. You generally get what you pay for, and I've experienced the biggest differences in my system over the past year or two, one of those being a £4250 AV pre/power.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

Personally, I can recommend the following, priced at GBP49.99 at Argos:

Bush Bluetooth DAB Microsystem with Colour Screen, Catalogue Number 553/5446.

As today is the last of the month, all WHF journos should immediately head home (or to the pub, oh wait, they're probably already there...) as your P45s are in the post. The magazine should close it doors immediately.

I say this without a shadow of a doubt, as all those boffins at Arcam, Audiolab, Chird, Cyrus, Naim, Rega, Wharfedale, to name but just a few, have clearly been wasting their time and our money for donkey's years and the game is finally up.

Now, hearing aid batteries....

That'll be Catalogue number 980/.5732....

 

[lpv]

I wanted to go for:

Harbeth P3ESR - about £1600

Croft Line R Integrated - £1700

Auralic Aries - £1500

Cables, about 10% of total cost - £500

I went for AVI DM5 with AirPort Express for £779

give me some hate

 

[andyjm]

I say this is because of blind tests where people cannot discern differences between cheap and expensive. Plus the fact that a Cd player is a Cd player, how can one be better than another as they do the exact same thing

Although amps may have different power outputs and speaker size may alter the sound.

If the blind test is a reality then surly there can be no or very little difference between systems

The component cost of amplifiers, CD players and so on is relatively low, and with high end products you are paying for a fancy case and the limited production run rather than better innards. There is no reason why a competently designed budget amp should be any different to a fancy high end product at resonable volume levels. Power does cost money though, and big transformers and big reservoir caps are expensive, so if you want high power you will need to pay up for it.

Speakers are different. While the low production run / high cost argument still applies, there does seem to be a correlation between cost of materials / quality of build / quality of sound /overall price.

So, I would be pretty confident that I would be able to tell cheap vs expensive speakers apart in a blind test, but I doubt I could tell amplifiers or CD players apart.

 

[oivavoi10]

If, as suggested there is no or very little difference between cheap and expensive hifi.

Would I be right in thinking that a well put together cd,amp and speakers costing all in say £800 would perform as well as a system of say £5000

Not including speakers? I've never heard the argument made that competent cheap speakers are hard to tell apart from competent expensive speakers, so that's one issue with your proposition, unless you take the lindsayt path, in which case perhaps 800 pounds 2nd hand buys you better sound quality than 5000 pounds new perhaps.

Theres also the discussion of at what price point you can get a competent amplifier capable of driving any speakers to decent levels. I suspect it won't creep in under your budget.

Exactly this. Speakers do sound different. And very often you get what you pay for. Buying more expensive speakers will usually (but not always) give you better sound.

Electronics is different. When doing blind-tests, people are seldom able to distinguish between different amplifiers, CD-players, DACs, etc.

If I had $10000 to spend on hifi and I had to put together a passive system with components and passive speakers, I would probably spend $200 on the Behringer A500 amplifier, which provides 2 channels with 120 watt in 8 ohm, and has proven itself as a reliable amp in many setups. I would buy a streamer, either Chromecast or Spotify connect. And then I would spend all the rest on buying the best speakers I could get (probably second-hand for getting best value for money). I would also spend $500 on room correction with Dirac Live and a box from Minidsp. I honestly believe this to be the most rational approach if one wants to have a passive set-up.

The even more rational approach, of course, is to buy active speakers. AVIs, adams, genelecs, or high-end stuff like the Kii Three or Avantgard Zero. Passive crossovers don't make any sense at all, and active all-in-one packages gives you much better value for the money.

 

[nopiano]

I wanted to go for:

Harbeth P3ESR - about £1600

Croft Line R Integrated - £1700

Auralic Aries - £1500

Cables, about 10% of total cost - £500

I went for AVI DM5 with AirPort Express for £779

give me some hate

Probably a wise choice. I'm looking forward to hearing some AVI quite soon. Unfortunately, it doesn't prove the OP's post which was based on perceptions in a noisy hotel bedroom.

 

[hg]

If, as suggested there is no or very little difference between cheap and expensive hifi.

Would I be right in thinking that a well put together cd,amp and speakers costing all in say £800 would perform as well as a system of say £5000

If chosen wisely £800 can get a new system that sounds fine except it will lack deeper bass, won't play cleanly at standard levels and the bass that is present will be uneven due to the room. Increasing the budget will allow these shortcomings in sound quality to be addressed along with perhaps one or two other minor ones. For most people on normal incomes simply wishing to enjoy music at home the improved sound quality from a wisely chosen £5000 system is almost certainly not going to be worth the large increase in cost. But the difference will be easy enough to hear in blind tests.

 

[Native_bon]

Sound quality is a tricky thing. It's hard to get right. A good expensive system could sound really bad in the wrong room. I doubt everyone gets it right with expensive gear. Hence room correction plays a big part. It always helps to get the right speakers in the first place.

If you put a cheap CD player and cheap amp(say £500 each) driving a set of expensive speakers(say 4k) the music may still sound very good. It's when you replace the source and the amp to say around 2 to 3k each, you will notice a substantial improvement to almost every aspect of the music presentation. All things being equal.

It has to be said, active systems are giving passive ones a good run for their money these day. If not for my enjoyment of movies as well as music, I would sure be the owner of an active system by now.

 

[Gazzip]

If, as suggested there is no or very little difference between cheap and expensive hifi.

Would I be right in thinking that a well put together cd,amp and speakers costing all in say £800 would perform as well as a system of say £5000

*ROFL*

 

[lindsayt]

I have implied that some dearer systems will sound better, but will not be a huge difference in sound quality, this is based on me listening to different systems at The Bristol Hi-Fi exibition, but did notice that some of the dearer systems did not sound as good as the Denon Ceol when I was last at the exibition, but was also impressed by the better sounding system by Chord Electronics *smile*

I've exhibited 3 times at the Scalford hi-fi show.

There was only one time that the system at the show sounded anywhere near like as good as it did at home. And that was when I took a system with a total value of less than £100, with small 2 way speakers.

The other 2 times I might have got a sound at the show nearly as good as at home if I'd taken a large van load of furniture / acoustic treatments. But that was not practical on top of taking systems that weighed a total of 230 or 330 kgs.

The very high background noise levels at shows don't help.

Also, at this years Scalford show, one of the main rooms had a truly mad (in a good way) mega horn set up. When I sat at the front it sounded too lean / forward / in your face. When I sat at the back it was too bass heavy. In the middle it sounded just right - especially if I slouched really low in the chair. Whilst I was in the room I saw no other visittors trying different seats. Many of them stood by the door for a minute before leaving.

In other words, the poor sounds that some people report from hi-fi shows might be down to the listener's fault, as much as anything. If you don't move around the room till you get the best sound then you may not have given the system a fair chance.

Add to that, the art form of picking the right recordings and volume at a hi-fi shows - which some exhibitors will be better at than others.

At the end of the day, I would never write off a system based on what it sounded like at a hi-fi show.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Whilst I was in the room I saw no other visittors trying different seats. Many of them stood by the door for a minute before leaving.

In other words, the poor sounds that some people report from hi-fi shows might be down to the listener's fault, as much as anything.

You get that at Bristol all the time.

 

[plastic penguin]

If, as suggested there is no or very little difference between cheap and expensive hifi.

Would I be right in thinking that a well put together cd,amp and speakers costing all in say £800 would perform as well as a system of say £5000

In isolation a well put together budget system will tick all your boxes. If you're a stickler and you start comparing then NO.

I lived with my A65+ and other budget components for years. It's still one of my favourite sub-£1000 integrated amps.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

The component cost of amplifiers, CD players and so on is relatively low, and with high end products you are paying for a fancy case and the limited production run rather than better innards.  There is no reason why a competently designed budget amp should be any different to a fancy high end product at resonable volume levels. Power does cost money though, and big transformers and big reservoir caps are expensive, so if you want high power you will need to pay up for it.

Speakers are different. While the low production run / high cost argument still applies, there does seem to be a correlation between cost of materials / quality of build / quality of sound /overall price.

So, I would be pretty confident that I would be able to tell cheap vs expensive speakers apart in a blind test, but I doubt I could tell amplifiers or CD players apart.

Ball-cocks.
All electronic components like resistors, capacitors, diodes and even transistors come in a variety of quality (accuracy, consistency) levels.
Standard resiators, for example, come in three ranges: gold-band +/-5%, silver-band +/-10% and no-band +/-20℅. It follows that the higher the quality of the components, the higher their unit costs (probably exponentially). Using tighter tolerance components, however, would mean more predictable and consistent circuit performance. I would wager the higher end hi-fi products therefore use higher cost components, and that some even go as far as individually testing and matching them, all of which costs a lot lot more than the 20p they pay for a resistor.
That's just one reason high end hi-fi costs more and performs better.

 

[andyjm]

The component cost of amplifiers, CD players and so on is relatively low, and with high end products you are paying for a fancy case and the limited production run rather than better innards. There is no reason why a competently designed budget amp should be any different to a fancy high end product at resonable volume levels. Power does cost money though, and big transformers and big reservoir caps are expensive, so if you want high power you will need to pay up for it.

Speakers are different. While the low production run / high cost argument still applies, there does seem to be a correlation between cost of materials / quality of build / quality of sound /overall price.

So, I would be pretty confident that I would be able to tell cheap vs expensive speakers apart in a blind test, but I doubt I could tell amplifiers or CD players apart.

Ball-cocks. All electronic components like resistors, capacitors, diodes and even transistors come in a variety of quality (accuracy, consistency) levels. Standard resiators, for example, come in three ranges: gold-band +/-5%, silver-band +/-10% and no-band +/-20℅. It follows that the higher the quality of the components, the higher their unit costs (probably exponentially). Using tighter tolerance components, however, would mean more predictable and consistent circuit performance. I would wager the higher end hi-fi products therefore use higher cost components, and that some even go as far as individually testing and matching them, all of which costs a lot lot more than the 20p they pay for a resistor. That's just one reason high end hi-fi costs more and performs better.

Hmmn. Been a while since you have looked at component pricing I would guess.

There is some truth in your comments, generally tighter tolerance components cost more. However, the prices are so low now that even paying up for quality doesn't involve paying much. Using your resistor example, a 1% tolerance metal film resistor (not the 'standard' resistors you quote) costs 19p for a pack of 10, or £1.40 for a pack of 100 from radiospares. Thats 1.4p each.

Another example would be a Raspberry Pi. Upwards of 4 billion transistors for £25.

I have a Krell amplifier. Absolutely nothing fancy in any of its electronics whatsoever. All basic 'cooking' quality components. The transformer is an exception, weighs a ton and is clearly a special one-off. Not sure it justified the price I paid for the amp though.

 

[NSA_watch_my_toilet]

If, as suggested there is no or very little difference between cheap and expensive hifi.

Would I be right in thinking that a well put together cd,amp and speakers costing all in say £800 would perform as well as a system of say £5000

It's a little bit more compllicated than that. if it's true that amplifiers and cd players are really cheap to make and that cheap one could perform very well on matching speakers.

Good speakers in the other hand, are expensive, and will stay expensive. Because :
1) There is an amount of material needed for making them, that makes them not cheap
2) There is a developpement fee to making them, that is making them more costly
3) Good baskets/membranes/crossovers all have a cost, and there is no shortcut aroun them
4) Margins in the hifi branch are astonishing. So just the speaker cones alone could do several thousands of £ in the end price

-> So, in the end, by far, your speaker added to your room will be the most determinant factor in hifi reproduction. So if you have 500£ floorstanders, there will be not much to do against another speaker that have already this expense just for his woofers (imho).

 

[Gaz37]

Err, no you don't.

You pay what the marketing people convince you to pay.

Classic non hifi example is painkillers.
You can buy 16 200mg Boots own brand Ibuprofen for 49p, alternatively you can buy 16 200mg Nurofen for £2.49p.
As any pharmacist will tell you they do exactly the same thing.

So how do Nurofen sell even a single box?
Marketing and brand image that's how.

Sad thing is that those who buy Nurofen probably genuinely believe that they work better and all the science and facts in the world won't convince them otherwise.

 

[Gaz37]

The Matrix test either.

http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

 

[Native_bon]

Err, no you don't.

You pay what the marketing people convince you to pay.

Classic non hifi example is painkillers.
You can buy 16 200mg Boots own brand Ibuprofen for 49p, alternatively you can buy 16 200mg Nurofen for £2.49p.
As any pharmacist will tell you they do exactly the same thing.

So how do Nurofen sell even a single box?
Marketing and brand image that's how.

Sad thing is that those who buy Nurofen probably genuinely believe that they work better and all the science and facts in the world won't convince them otherwise.

I must say, very good analogy. True to some extent with most products.

 

[chebby]

Err, no you don't.

You pay what the marketing people convince you to pay.

Classic non hifi example is painkillers. You can buy 16 200mg Boots own brand Ibuprofen for 49p, alternatively you can buy 16 200mg Nurofen for £2.49p. As any pharmacist will tell you they do exactly the same thing.

So how do Nurofen sell even a single box? Marketing and brand image that's how.

Sad thing is that those who buy Nurofen probably genuinely believe that they work better and all the science and facts in the world won't convince them otherwise.

I must say, very good analogy. True to some extent with most products.

It's worse than that with a lot of food products. The 'secret' of the brand leader's success is often more salt and sugar than supermarket branded alternatives. So not only do you pay more (a LOT more) but you end up more prone to weight gain and blood pressure!

We have almost eradicated 'premium branded' products from our shopping. (My wife still has a favourite brand of tea and I can't change from Garners Pickled Onions!)

 

[torikoos]

If, as suggested there is no or very little difference between cheap and expensive hifi.

Would I be right in thinking that a well put together cd,amp and speakers costing all in say £800 would perform as well as a system of say £5000

I'm going to assume that both systems (Whatever they are made up off) are well matched components that all work well together, and placed in ideal positions in the listening room, then that 5000 pound system will sound better. It won't be a 6 times improvement, but it will certainly be there. In addition the 5000 pound system has the potential to be nicer build, better finish, design etc. But a Dacia Sandero can drive you safely from Edinburgh to London and back, but so does a Rolls Royce Ghost. One costing significantly more than the other. I don't need to tell you that one will do it better than the other, but they'll both get you there. Same with music. If the 800 pound system get's your toes tapping, great! Listen to music, not the hifi!

 

[Gaz37]

If, as suggested there is no or very little difference between cheap and expensive hifi.

Would I be right in thinking that a well put together cd,amp and speakers costing all in say £800 would perform as well as a system of say £5000

I'm going to assume that both systems (Whatever they are made up off) are well matched components that all work well together, and placed in ideal positions in the listening room,  then that 5000 pound system will sound better.  It won't be a 6 times improvement, but it will certainly be there. In addition the 5000 pound system has the potential to be nicer build, better finish, design etc.   But a Dacia Sandero can drive you safely from Edinburgh to London and back, but so does a Rolls Royce Ghost. One costing significantly more than the other. I don't need to tell you that one will do it better than the other, but they'll both get you there.   Same with music. If the 800 pound system get's your toes tapping, great!  Listen to music, not the hifi! 

How will the Rolls get you to you your destination "better" than the Dacia?
If you have arrived at your destination then the objective has been achieved.
Yes the Rolls will make you "feel special" and be more comfortable but that doesn't mean better