Sonic Differences: Accuracy, Delusion or Preference?

[Ajani]

Maybe I'm just getting bored with HiFi, but more and more I've come to believe that most differences in HiFi are due to preference (ie the delibearate voicing of components) than the pursuit of greater accuracy.

I'm not convinced that all differences between SS amps or CDPs are just delusion (ie the placebo effect). I do believe that some differences in HiFi are due to accuracy, some to self delusion and others to personal preference. However, I believe the majority of the differences and reasons for all this brand loyality/rivarly comes down to manufacturers deliberately voicing their products to sound a particular way. Whether that voicing is because the designer thinks it sounds best/most accurate or simply because it is what they think they can sell, is another issue.

So what's your thought? Do you think the majority of sonic differences in HiFi are due to Accuracy, Delusion or Preference?

Note: for some info on voicing check out this thread

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/voicing-of-a-hifi-component

 

[ID.]

I think you are approaching this from too much of a binary perspective. Hi-fi, particularly at the budget end, is really an issue of compromises.

There are also unknowns in terms of matching equipment, particularly the amp-speaker relationship. So even if you build an amp that has excellent measurements on its own, how it drives certain speakers is another issue.

I don't think the people are deluding themselves when they think CD players, amps and speakers sound different, but I don't think that accuracy vs. preference is such a binary, and preferences could be for one form of distortion over another, etc. I think people need to get over the whole semantic issue of hi-fi originating from high fidelity and insisting only equipment that strives for the best measurements can be referred to hi-fi. There's room enough in the industry for people to seek out all kinds of flavours without having people giving them sermons on forums.

To behonest, I roll my eyes whenever people start going on about accuracy and then give a subjective opinion about how they know what is accurate from their experience with live instruments. So what about instruments with effects, or electronic music? How do you know what it sounded like when it was mastered? Ignoring the fact that the people in the studio, etc. were dealing with the distortion of whatever speakers/headphones/room that constituted the listening environment. I think it is great to shoot for accuracy, but in reality you usually can't tell whether you are hearing it like the engineer or the musicians in the studio (this of course applies less to certain live recordings and non-amplified instruments).

 

[matthewpiano]

What really matters to me is that a system pulls me in so that I'm no longer thinking about what the equipment is doing.

 

[chebby]

Does it have all the functions, facilities and connectvity that I need?

Can I afford it?

Does it sound nice?

Does it look good? (That one may not be important to everyone.)

What else is there to bother about? No point in concerning myself with all the other options that didn't meet the criteria.

 

[Al ears]

Does it have all the functions, facilities and connectvity that I need?

Can I afford it?

Does it sound nice?

Does it look good? (That one may not be important to everyone.)

What else is there to bother about? No point in concerning myself with all the other options that didn't meet the criteria.

+1

ID has a point when it comes to accuracy. This is one of the most subjective areas around. I always take along some solo guitar, piano and choral works when auditioning as, I think, I have some idea as to how these should sound.

If it then sounds good to me and fulfills all of chebby's criteria I might consider purchasing it.

At the end of the day I am putting together a system that sounds good to me not necessarily anyone else.

 

[steve_1979]

What really matters to me is that a system pulls me in so that I'm no longer thinking about what the equipment is doing.

I agree. But here's the catch. IME the more accurate and less distorted a system is the more it pulls me into the music without me thinking about what the equipment is doing.

If other people prefer a warmer/brighter/whatever sounding system then good for them if that's what they enjoy. But for me less accurate systems, particularly the ones that are bright or introduce phase distortion take me away from the music and I can't help but hear the sound of the equipment more.

 

[Native_bon]

I think you are approaching this from too much of a binary perspective. Hi-fi, particularly at the budget end, is really an issue of compromises.

There are also unknowns in terms of matching equipment, particularly the amp-speaker relationship. So even if you build an amp that has excellent measurements on its own, how it drives certain speakers is another issue.

I don't think the people are deluding themselves when they think CD players, amps and speakers sound different, but I don't think that accuracy vs. preference is such a binary, and preferences could be for one form of distortion over another, etc. I think people need to get over the whole semantic issue of hi-fi originating from high fidelity and insisting only equipment that strives for the best measurements can be referred to hi-fi. There's room enough in the industry for people to seek out all kinds of flavours without having people giving them sermons on forums.

To behonest, I roll my eyes whenever people start going on about accuracy and then give a subjective opinion about how they know what is accurate from their experience with live instruments. So what about instruments with effects, or electronic music? How do you know what it sounded like when it was mastered? Ignoring the fact that the people in the studio, etc. were dealing with the distortion of whatever speakers/headphones/room that constituted the listening environment. I think it is great to shoot for accuracy, but in reality you usually can't tell whether you are hearing it like the engineer or the musicians in the studio (this of course applies less to certain live recordings and non-amplified instruments).

A system that plays non-amplified instruments well in my books is the real deal. But having said that how would it deal with other aspects of music..?.. I have heard a lot of live non amplified instruments, but yet to hear a system that really truely plays live instruments. The closest i have heard to real instruments from a speak is the B&W Nautilus speakers. Warmth is applied to most hifi to give the illusion of body around instruments.

No matter what we want to think about HIFI its just an illusion, just like are senses are fooled looking at a picture with our eyes or a 3D image or movie.Some how when it comes to Music, are ears are being fooled. Some hifi manufacturers are better at fooling our sense of hearing.

 

[chebby]

What really matters to me is that a system pulls me in so that I'm no longer thinking about what the equipment is doing.

I agree. But here's the catch. IME the more accurate and less distorted a system is the more it pulls me into the music without me thinking about what the equipment is doing.

So you and Matthew have achieved exactly the same end but with different 'means'. (Barely a difference in the wording.)

There is no 'catch' that I can tell. Surely it's an excellent result all round?

 

[CnoEvil]

I think it's all to easy to get bogged down in all this.

IMO. In order to get the measure of a Hi-Fi system, it helps to have listened to live, unmiked Jazz and Classical, to act as a benchmark.

Then when assessing a system, I like to think in terms like:
- Is it believable / realistic?
- Does it move me?
- Is the skill and intention of the musicians being conveyed?

This is a very personal and subjective measure, but one that leads to an outbreak of pleasure when the music starts playing.

 

[steve_1979]

What really matters to me is that a system pulls me in so that I'm no longer thinking about what the equipment is doing.

I agree. But here's the catch. IME the more accurate and less distorted a system is the more it pulls me into the music without me thinking about what the equipment is doing.

So you and Matthew have achieved exactly the same end but with different 'means'. (Barely a difference in the wording.)

There is no 'catch' that I can tell. Surely it's an excellent result all round?

Agreed.

Alhough I suspect that most people prefer an accurate sounding system even if they don't realise what it is that they prefer about the sound. Unfortunately brighter systems with more bass tend to stand out in brief auditions in shops but when you start listening to them properly at home they're not as easy to listen to as an accurate system. Have you ever noticed that it's quite common for people to buy a bright/bassy 'stand out' system for their first hifi then they upgrade it for a less distorted one a few months later to improve the sound?

It's also worth mentioning that our brains are quite adaptable at focusing out distortion so we can acclimatise to it over time too.

 

[chebby]

What really matters to me is that a system pulls me in so that I'm no longer thinking about what the equipment is doing.

I agree. But here's the catch. IME the more accurate and less distorted a system is the more it pulls me into the music without me thinking about what the equipment is doing.

So you and Matthew have achieved exactly the same end but with different 'means'. (Barely a difference in the wording.)

There is no 'catch' that I can tell. Surely it's an excellent result all round?

Agreed.

Alhough I suspect that most people prefer an accurate sounding system even if they don't realise what it is that they prefer about the sound. Unfortunately brighter systems with more bass tend to stand out in brief auditions in shops but when you start listening to them properly at home they're not as easy to listen to as an accurate system. Have you ever noticed that it's quite common for people to buy a bright/bassy 'stand out' system for their first hifi then they upgrade it for a less distorted one a few months later to improve the sound?

It's also worth mentioning that our brains are quite adaptable at focusing out distortion so we can acclimatise to it over time too.

I'll admit I don't give a stuff about ultimate accuracy. I probably can't afford it for a start, and secondly I don't really know what it means in the context of home audio. There are too many definitions, too many variables and too many manufacturers making claim to it (with products so diverse in character). I doubt anyone really know what it means.

That leaves me with 'do I like it' or - going back to a much used expression from my parent's generation and, probably, a far more sensible concept - does it have a 'nice tone'?

 

[Covenanter]

I think it's all to easy to get bogged down in all this. IMO. In order to get the measure of a Hi-Fi system, it helps to have listened to live, unmiked Jazz and Classical, to act as a benchmark. Then when assessing a system, I like to think in terms like: - Is it believable / realistic? - Does it move me? - Is the skill and intention of the musicians being conveyed? This is a very personal and subjective measure, but one that leads to an outbreak of pleasure when the music starts playing.

+1

Chris

 

[Vladimir]

Undeniable truth: Human hearing is not linear thus Louder is percived as better.

Hi-Fi enthusiast driven by intelectual goals may choose more neutral sounding gear and music mastering but a common person would always go for the louder and more exciting ones.

 

[davedotco]

What really matters to me is that a system pulls me in so that I'm no longer thinking about what the equipment is doing.

I agree. But here's the catch. IME the more accurate and less distorted a system is the more it pulls me into the music without me thinking about what the equipment is doing.

So you and Matthew have achieved exactly the same end but with different 'means'. (Barely a difference in the wording.)

There is no 'catch' that I can tell. Surely it's an excellent result all round?

Agreed.

Alhough I suspect that most people prefer an accurate sounding system even if they don't realise what it is that they prefer about the sound. Unfortunately brighter systems with more bass tend to stand out in brief auditions in shops but when you start listening to them properly at home they're not as easy to listen to as an accurate system. Have you ever noticed that it's quite common for people to buy a bright/bassy 'stand out' system for their first hifi then they upgrade it for a less distorted one a few months later to improve the sound?

It's also worth mentioning that our brains are quite adaptable at focusing out distortion so we can acclimatise to it over time too.

I'll admit I don't give a stuff about ultimate accuracy. I probably can't afford it for a start, and secondly I don't really know what it means in the context of home audio. There are too many definitions, too many variables and too many manufacturers making claim to it (with products so diverse in character). I doubt anyone really know what it means.

That leaves me with 'do I like it' or - going back to a much used expression from my parent's generation and, probably, a far more sensible concept - does it have a 'nice tone'?

My personal view is that I want my system to make some attempt at recreating a real musical event.

I know that in many cases the event never actually took place but that is not really the point. The system needs to adress enough of the original event (construct?) to convince the listener that what he is listening to did actually take place.

If I can get the feeling that I am listening to something that actually happened, that I can hear not just disembodied tones but actually get a sense of the people producing the music, the way they play it, the way they interact one with another, then that is what I am looking for.

I understand that, for all kinds of reasons, that I am not often going to be able to recreat the event such that I can believe that the performers are there in the room but what I am trying to do, is to convince myself that I am listening to a real musical performance, played by real people.

If this event is separated from me, the listener, in terms of time and space, then I can handle that, what I require is enough of the performance to be recreated to convince me that it did actually take place.

 

[Ajani]

Hmmm...

Even though most (all?) persons in this thread are uninterested/unwilling to pick a category, it seems to me that the majority lean toward preference, a few to accuracy and none (so far) to delusion.

I have no issue whatsoever with buying HiFi based solely on preference. It is YOUR money, so why shouldn't you buy what you like? But if you accept that many/most differences are down to preference and voicing, then you start to wonder what the point of all these endless quarrels about brands is.

So when someone says that the Monitor Audio Silver series is better than the B&W 600, what they're really saying is that they prefer the voicing of the MA over the B&W. So what's the point of getting into a heated debated over which is better?

 

[CnoEvil]

Hmmm...

Even though most (all?) persons in this thread are uninterested/unwilling to pick a category, it seems to me that the majority lean toward preference, a few to accuracy and none (so far) to delusion.

I have no issue whatsoever with buying HiFi based solely on preference. It is YOUR money, so why shouldn't you buy what you like? But if you accept that many/most differences are down to preference and voicing, then you start to wonder what the point of all these endless quarrels about brands is.

So when someone says that the Monitor Audio Silver series is better than the B&W 600, what they're really saying is that they prefer the voicing of the MA over the B&W. So what's the point of getting into a heated debated over which is better?

I think DDC put it well when he said that he wanted his system to try and recreate a live event.....so if by accurate, you mean realistic, then I'd go for accurate.

If you mean that the system gets as close as possible to what the mastering engineer intended, then my preference is for preference. The thing is, I can get a handle on the former (realistic); the latter is much harder to prove, so like Chebby, I think there is no point in worrying about it

 

[obsidyen]

I think the law of diminishing returns works almost always in hi-fi. At the budget end, the more you spend, the better sound you get. A 1.500 pounds amp is probably lots better than a 750 pounds one. The same works for speakers, CDPs etc. That said, I think speakers is the component that can make the most difference. In high-end though, paying more doesn't mean much better sound, it means slightly better sound. You won't find that much difference between 10K and 20K amps, if you can find any at all (unless your hearing is really exceptional).

 

[davedotco]

I think the law of diminishing returns works almost always in hi-fi. At the budget end, the more you spend, the better sound you get. A 1.500 pounds amp is probably lots better than a 750 pounds one. The same works for speakers, CDPs etc. That said, I think speakers is the component that can make the most difference. In high-end though, paying more doesn't mean much better sound, it means slightly better sound. You won't find that much difference between 10K and 20K amps, if you can find any at all (unless your hearing is really exceptional).

Sorry, but that is nonsense from begining to end.

At £10-12k amplifier designers are making statements, they all sound very different indeed.

And no, speakers do not make the 'most difference', mostly in the same price bracket they have very similar capability, they just present music in a different way.

It takes a while, but once you understand this then your chances of assembling a decent system goes up considerably.

 

[the record spot]

Neutrality, good power, accuracy and I'll typically get what's on the disc. Which is what I want. Anything after that is just the recording and how good or badly that was done.