source, sound , speakers - which triumphs ?

[Anonymous]

recently read an interesting article ... there is a guy (think herw in the UK) called Stewart Pinkerton ... he has issued a challenge to people who can hear differences in cables to do a blind test ... If they can succesfully tell differences on blind tests, he will give them £1000

as far as I know, no-one has won the £1000 and as far as I know, that is one of the reasons why hifi magazine reviews refuse to do blind tests when it comes to cable tests?

 

[plastic penguin]

peebs:

I 've noticed an inconsistency in advice given on the relative importance of the source, the sound ( amp) and the speakers in Hi Fi systems when it comes to flashing the cash .

Some suggest that most should be spent on the source others on the amplier and yet others on the speakers

Once the source has put out it's all about as little degradation as possible - so spend more on that initial clarity ?

I wonder what others think and have done in actual fact with their systems and any upgrades that may have followed

I haven't read many from this thread, so I apologise if I'm duplicating some elses reply(s). WHFI have always maintained that the source is the most important aspect, because any info lost on the CDP cannot be retrieved elsewhere. That is so true. Others will say that the amp is the most important cause it allows the rest of the system to flourish. Again, true. There are those that swear by having magnificent speakers, way beyond the price of the electronics, because, as they say, the speaker is the most important part in terms maximising the sound. True.

You can have the greatest cdp in the world, however, if the rest of the system isn't up to the task, the cdp is rendered useless; and like for all other components. You need to strike a balance (sometimes fine one) to maximise all components. If you mix 'n' match that balance can be more tricky, although can be far more rewarding.

 

[the record spot]

storsvante:
Comments like 'science can't explain the subtleties in HiFi' and 'I rather trust my own ears than science' are of course complete nonsense.

They are? Why?

I'm always amused at comments like this, most especially the latter one. It's funny because I've read numerous reviews over the years where the specs on paper suggest a total star in the making until that fateful moment someone presses the play button and the end result delivers something significantly less than the promise suggested.

I trust my own ears WAY more than what the spec tells me - if I like the sound of a piece of kit that the "science" says I shouldn't because of "A" or "B", then tough on the science. Because the science says something shouldn't sound good is no more reason for me to like or dislike an item any more than if it says some kit does sound good thanks to the spec.

 

[Andrew Everard]

dim_span:and as far as I know, that is one of the reasons why hifi magazine reviews refuse to do blind tests when it comes to cable tests?

I've never heard of Stewart Pinkerton, but would just like to add that we regularly do blind tests. Indeed, many forum members have been involved in them, for our regular feature The Big Question.

 

[Ant8519]

I think you are mistreating the word "science" there. Read storsvante thread fully and you can see that he explains the scientific process as the key. I am not aware of any component that "science" says shouldn't work. Generally if something has great specs and sounds bad then there is an engineering issue somewhere, which could be rectified by the scientific process inherent in engineering.

If you choose kit based on your ears and it is "tough on science" then I wouldn't worry too much about it - you're happy and "science" will no doubt learn to get over your snub!

 

[Andrew Everard]

Ant8519:After all who would benefit from this? I'm not sure that a magazine that relies on advertising revenue would be too quick to bite the hand that feeds it...

And by the way, this is an elderly and rather feeble argument, to which we have responded far too many times now...

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:

dim_span:and as far as I know, that is one of the reasons why hifi magazine reviews refuse to do blind tests when it comes to cable tests?

I've never heard of Stewart Pinkerton, but would just like to add that we regularly do blind tests. Indeed, many forum members have been involved in them, for our regular feature The Big Question.

ok ... was just quoting what I had read ... google Stewart Pinkerton (think he is based in the UK) ... £1000 up for grabs! (as far as I know) ... keep us informed!

 

[the record spot]

Ant8519:
I think you are mistreating the word "science" there. Read storsvante thread fully and you can see that he explains the scientific process as the key. I am not aware of any component that "science" says shouldn't work. Generally if something has great specs and sounds bad then there is an engineering issue somewhere, which could be rectified by the scientific process inherent in engineering.

If you choose kit based on your ears and it is "tough on science" then I wouldn't worry too much about it - you're happy and "science" will no doubt learn to get over your snub!

I merely make the point that it is down to the listener to decide what they think sounds best over and above what a white paper says should. It is incumbent on the listener to decide on what they perceive, not because a paper spec reports. Do you get my point? I think we can both cope with that ultimately.

 

[Andrew Everard]

dim_span:google Stewart Pinkerton (think he is based in the UK) ... £1000 up for grabs! (as far as I know) ... keep us informed!

Life's too short...

 

[Ant8519]

I merely make the point that it is down to the listener to decide what they think sounds best over and above what a white paper says should. It is incumbent on the listener to decide on what they perceive, not because a paper spec reports. Do you get my point? I think we can both cope with that ultimately.

Absolutely, I made exactly the same point earlier in the thread...

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:

dim_span:google Stewart Pinkerton (think he is based in the UK) ... £1000 up for grabs! (as far as I know) ... keep us informed!

Life's too short...

Life's too short ... but heck £1000 is a lot of money!

 

[Ant8519]

Regarding the "elderly and feeble argument" of bias, I have never read your previous responses to this, but can state that part of the scientific process of criticism is identifying potential bias.

WHF receives income from hifi manuafcturers and while I am certain that conscious bias and favouritism is adequately excluded it is nevertheless an "Elephant in the room" issue, from a properly critical perspective.

 

[Thaiman]

Some of you need to join http://www.thescienceforum.com/ and leave our hifi hobby to us who can hear different. A cheap shot at the magazine also make you look so out of place too.

 

[plastic penguin]

Apologise if I seem thicker than thick custard made from extra thick cream, thickened with cornflour, but are we not making too much of the scientific thesis? Should we just not be trusting our ears and going with 'gut feeling'?

 

[Anonymous]

Thaiman:Some of you need to join http://www.thescienceforum.com/ and leave our hifi hobby to us who can hear different. A cheap shot at the magazine also make you look so out of place too.

Thaiman, this is a public forum, not bebo or facebook ... so some people will discuss issues and sometimes it becomes a bit 'heated', but think that everyone has been polite...

this has been an interesting thread ... half of the people agree and half dont ... I know that cables make a difference, because I have a box full of old cables which I have tested and they all sound different (to me)

I read what everyone says then make up my own mind ... only issue I have is the Tacima ... I never heard any difference on all 3 of my systems ... yet others have heard differences ... does not really bother me, as it was cheap and I now have added protection to my system

 

[the record spot]

Ant8519:
I merely make the point that it is down to the listener to decide what they think sounds best over and above what a white paper says should. It is incumbent on the listener to decide on what they perceive, not because a paper spec reports. Do you get my point? I think we can both cope with that ultimately.

Absolutely, I made exactly the same point earlier in the thread...

I think you're straddling two views however or at least that is how I read it, so feel free to correct me if I am misinterpreting.

You say anyone with a modicum of scientific understanding is better placed to debunk the hifi myths ("I trust my own ears more than the science/white paper/spec"), but a spec won't give you the sonic character of a piece of kit, just rated parameters or tolerances.

As all this information is uniform across equipment (i.e. the same thing is measured and publicy rated for each manufacturer), it would be easy to choose based on the paper content alone, but it doesn't pan out that way in practice and hence my comment that listening and trusting one's own ears is a far more reliable way of determining such character, and, further on, equipment preference/purchase later in the process.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Ant8519:Regarding the "elderly and feeble argument" of bias, I have never read your previous responses to this, but can state that part of the scientific process of criticism is identifying potential bias.

WHF receives income from hifi manuafcturers and while I am certain that conscious bias and favouritism is adequately excluded it is nevertheless an "Elephant in the room" issue, from a properly critical perspective.

Not in the slightest, I'm afraid - I think you are very unscientifically letting supposition get in the way of the facts.

OK here we go with the explanation again: WHFSV comfortably outsells all its rivals put together in the UK, and by an even greater margin on the global stage, so advertisers are attracted to the magazine by its reach, not specific content.

Advertising is not sold against reviews, unlike on other magazines, and the advertising department have no awareness of the specific brands/products to be reviewed in an issue when they are selling advertising space in it; neither do the editorial team have any awareness of the advertising sold in the magazine.

Manufacturers who are small-minded enough to stop advertising if their product gets a poor review a) usually come back once they've calmed down, and b) are often surprised that we keep on asking for product for review.

It's worked this way on the magazine for the past 30+ years, and we see no reason to change now.

 

[Thaiman]

dim_span:
Thaiman:Some of you need to join http://www.thescienceforum.com/ and leave our hifi hobby to us who can hear different. A cheap shot at the magazine also make you look so out of place too.

Thaiman, this is a public forum, not bebo or facebook ... so some people will discuss issues and sometimes it becomes a bit 'heated', but think that everyone has been polite...

this has been an interesting thread ... half of the people agree and half dont ... I know that cables make a difference, because I have a box full of old cables which I have tested and they all sound different (to me)

I read what everyone says then make up my own mind ... only issue I have is the Tacima ... I never heard any difference on all 3 of my systems ... yet others have heard differences ... does not really bother me, as it was cheap and I now have added protection to my system

dim, nothing personal at all and if I came over as being rude, I am sorry BUT this subject really getting me down! Forums after Forums people are argueing about everything sound the same! Well it ain't! Even the same system sound different each time you listen to them because of all different factors at the particular time and that including your mood.

If we are talking about cables only that I may see the piont (like you & Tacima) but when people start saying all CD players and Amps do sound the same then either 1. They only ever heard 2 very badly design amps. 2. They are only try to start trouble in this hifi forum for some strange reason or 3. They are deaf!

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:Ant8519:Regarding the "elderly and feeble argument" of bias, I have never read your previous responses to this, but can state that part of the scientific process of criticism is identifying potential bias.

WHF receives income from hifi manuafcturers and while I am certain that conscious bias and favouritism is adequately excluded it is nevertheless an "Elephant in the room" issue, from a properly critical perspective.

Not in the slightest, I'm afraid - I think you are very unscientifically letting supposition get in the way of the facts.

OK here we go with the explanation again: WHFSV comfortably outsells all its rivals put together in the UK, and by an even greater margin on the global stage, so advertisers are attracted to the magazine by its reach, not specific content.

Advertising is not sold against reviews, unlike on other magazines, and the advertising department have no awareness of the specific brands/products to be reviewed in an issue when they are selling advertising space in it; neither do the editorial team have any awareness of the advertising sold in the magazine.

Manufacturers who are small-minded enough to stop advertising if their product gets a poor review a) usually come back once they've calmed down, and b) are often surprised that we keep on asking for product for review.

It's worked this way on the magazine for the past 30+ years, and we see no reason to change now.

Andrew, good post, however, having been involved in the Engineering and sales field for several years, (multi million pound tenders) ... there has always (and will always be) some form of 'soft' methods to sway people's way of thinking ...

be it a free lunch or a bottle of Johnny walkers blue at christmas time .... or a free airticket and 5 star accomodation to a seminar etc

good sales/marketing guys have a way of 'influencing' people's train of thought and this happens in all fields of business/commerce

not pointing fingers, but just stating facts

 

[Anonymous]

no probs Thaiman ... have seen this debate over and over again on several forums ... this one was going around in circles and think some people are just bored

will contact you in the newyear as regards good cd players ... been reading about the Sugden and Art you recommended but am not ready to buy yet

 

[JoelSim]

I'm very bored of the snake oil posse, they obviously trust science more than their ears.

 

[Ant8519]

No one has stated that eveything sounds the same. Fahnsen referred to ONE article that suggests that in one blind test an unidentified number of "audiophiles" (qualification not noted) "failed" to differentiate between sources.

This received a somewhat heated and defensive response.

Clearly one article, based on hearsay not properly referenced, cannot prove or disprove anything and nor do I believe it is meant to. It merely suggest the possibility that certain viewpoints are vulnerable to rigorous intellectual challenge.

This thread has rather snowballed and the view responses to the original question have become sidelined, nevertheless it passes a bit of quiet time at work...

 

[idc]

Sceince cannot measure sound quality, yet. One day a microphone attached to a PC with a clever programme may be able to 'listen' to a hifi and rate it. But just like with the reviewers at What Hifi there will be disagreement over those ratings. How do you measure subjectivity?

Science can predict what is likely to be a better sounding hifi than another based on the quality of components and construction.

Science cannot yet explain, convincingly and unrefutably whether some components, such as digital cables can or cannot make a difference.

Blind testing is carried out by What Hifi and elsewhere and it has flaws, as has non-blind comparison tests. Both forms of testing also rely on subjective rating of sound quality.

So we are back to the begining again, where science cannot measure sound quality, yet............

 

[Andrew Everard]

dim_span:Andrew, good post, however, having been involved in the Engineering and sales field for several years, (multi million pound tenders) ... there has always (and will always be) some form of 'soft' methods to sway people's way of thinking

We're not in the engineering or sales fields, so your argument has no relevance. And if you think we would be influenced by such tactics, you really haven't been paying attention...

And please don't come back with the 'it's not overt, but there are subtle ways of influencing' argument - we know all about those tactics, and they don't wash.

 

[matthewpiano]

WHFS&V are impartial and the lack of relationship between advertising and reviews is blindingly obvious to me.

Take Sony. WHFS&V have been consistent in highlighting issues they have seen with their Sony review sets all year and yet who has a banner advert on ther WHFS&V website and a Christmas Gifts booklet secured inside the latest magazine?

Also guess which magazine DOESN'T use reps from manufacturers on their review panels??