Upgrade?

[Overdose]

When it's time to 'upgrade', what constitues one?

Outside of the context of hi-fi, an upgrade is a general change for improvement purposes. Therefore, if you wanted to upgrade your car, you would get something better than your existing model.

Given that just about every bit of hi-fi kit colours the sound in some way, what else could constitue a quantifiable upgrade other than perhaps improved build quality or less distortion, for example?

Perhaps 'upgrade' would be better phrased as 'change'?

 

[noogle]

I'd say anything perceived by the owner to be an improvement.

 

[CnoEvil]

An upgrade is always a change, but a change is not always an upgrade.....Cno's first law! 😉

 

[chebby]

For me it would be ever less visible equipment (unless it looked beautiful) with ever better sound and completely intuitive in operation. But there is only so much I can afford to that end, so a compromise is necessary.

Next time (hopefully) less compromise, and less system.

 

[Overdose]

For me it would be ever less visible equipment (unless it looked beautiful) with ever better sound

Less visible, I can get, so too with better asthetics, but even that is subjective.

But what is 'better' sound quality though?

 

[Anonymous]

In my opinion, it's only worth to get a newer HI-FI component when we are really moving to higher grade equipment. In other words, moving from entry level to mid-priced components or from mid to high-end ones so that there's no trade off in audio quality.

Replacing existing a hi-fi component by another in the same league is waste of money in my opinion. The newer one may be better, but it won't be good enough for a change. I mean, "a bit better" is not enough for that.

 

[chebby]

For me it would be ever less visible equipment (unless it looked beautiful) with ever better sound

Less visible, I can get, so too with better asthetics, but even that is subjective.

But what is 'better' sound quality though?

You put the 'quality' on the end of 'better sound' whereas I didn't.

 

[busb]

For me it would be ever less visible equipment (unless it looked beautiful) with ever better sound

Less visible, I can get, so too with better asthetics, but even that is subjective.

But what is 'better' sound quality though?

Whatever the owner thinks it is

 

[lindsayt]

Better sound quality is something that sounds better to you the listener. Something that sounds more enjoyable.

Play the same recording on 2 different systems or on the same system with 1 component changed and it's often very easy to tell which one you prefer. There's often large easily noticeable differences between them. No golden ears required. No special listening technique.

It's also possible that you might not hear any significant differences, or that the 2 might sound different but with no overall preference to which you prefer. In that case I'd go for the cheapest and consider it a value for money upgrade.

 

[Overdose]

So 'better' then, by the current rational explained so far is more of what you have already.

Therefore if you had and liked a neutral sounding system would you want a more neutral one? What about if you liked a 'bright' system? Move to brighter?

You see, with regards to how something sounds, how can you have more of it?

 

[CnoEvil]

So 'better' then, by the current rational explained so far is more of what you have already.

Therefore if you had and liked a neutral sounding system would you want a more neutral one? What about if you liked a 'bright' system? Move to brighter?

You see, with regards to how something sounds, how can you have more of it?

Cno's 2nd law: Better is more real, but more real isn't always better. 🙂

 

[Overdose]

A bit like choosing a detailed/accurate system then? I can get with that, as poor recordings show up as such, more readily.

 

[CnoEvil]

It's a subject that can tie you up in knots. If I had a 3rd law (which I don't), it would be that real is always accurate, but accurate isn't always real. So what do I mean by that bit of b*l!*cks?

Well, if a sound is life-like then it has to be accurate (ie to the real thing); on the other hand, it can be "accurate" to the recording, which may be badly mastered and not sound in the least real. Neutral vs Natural. :~

 

[Overdose]

I've gone for the acuraccy to the original reocrding route, plenty of detail etc and if I need to warm things up a bit, or otherwise add any flavour of distortion, I can always EQ the sound digitally, but the system retains the ability to be 'true'.

My take on 'upgrade' is an improvement, clarity and detail could be improved on I guess, but the sound that I have will most likely not change dramatically if I stay with studio monitors for any future purchases. I would, however, be looking for a better frequency range (more bass extension) and the ability to better fill a larger room.

My netbook could be upgraded to a larger HDD and better speed. My NAS could integrate better with my network and be faster etc, but never again will I be swapping amplifiers or sources for a perceived upgrade in sound, I think that I have found a price performance level where 'diminishing returns' really kicks in and speakers now are my only focus for potential realistic improvements.

 

[True Blue]

In my opinion, it's only worth to get a newer HI-FI component when we are really moving to higher grade equipment. In other words, moving from entry level to mid-priced components or from mid to high-end ones so that there's no trade off in audio quality.

Replacing existing a hi-fi component by another in the same league is waste of money in my opinion. The newer one may be better, but it won't be good enough for a change. I mean, "a bit better" is not enough for that.

Exactly

 

[lindsayt]

So 'better' then, by the current rational explained so far is more of what you have already.

Therefore if you had and liked a neutral sounding system would you want a more neutral one? What about if you liked a 'bright' system? Move to brighter?

You see, with regards to how something sounds, how can you have more of it?

Neutral and bright covers the tonal balance. There are lots of other areas that are important to how enjoyable your hi-fi sounds:

You can get more:

dynamic

detailed

extended bass - so that bass guitars and kick drums don't get buried in the mix

pitch accuracy and stability - especially with vinyl sources - so that a piano sounds more like a real piano

more natural and less synthetic sounding

more focused / better clarity - so that instruments have less of that wrapped in cotton wool coming from a cloud effect and sound more like an actual musician playhing in front of you

better timing - especially in the bass - so that notes start and stop quicker instead of droning on and on and merging into the next note. Resulting in a more toe tapping sound

 

[Overdose]

Neutral and bright covers the tonal balance. There are lots of other areas that are important to how enjoyable your hi-fi sounds:

You can get more:

dynamic

detailed

extended bass - so that bass guitars and kick drums don't get buried in the mix

pitch accuracy and stability - especially with vinyl sources - so that a piano sounds more like a real piano

more natural and less synthetic sounding

more focused / better clarity - so that instruments have less of that wrapped in cotton wool coming from a cloud effect and sound more like an actual musician playhing in front of you

better timing - especially in the bass - so that notes start and stop quicker instead of droning on and on and merging into the next note. Resulting in a more toe tapping sound

Most of the above should be a prerequisite for true hifi anyway, surely?

I don't understand what 'toe tapping sound' is though. :~

 

[noogle]

[/quote]

I don't understand what 'toe tapping sound' is though. :~

[/quote]

You're obviously not a Flat Earther...

 

[the record spot]

Neutral and bright covers the tonal balance. There are lots of other areas that are important to how enjoyable your hi-fi sounds:

You can get more:

dynamic

detailed

extended bass - so that bass guitars and kick drums don't get buried in the mix

pitch accuracy and stability - especially with vinyl sources - so that a piano sounds more like a real piano

more natural and less synthetic sounding

more focused / better clarity - so that instruments have less of that wrapped in cotton wool coming from a cloud effect and sound more like an actual musician playhing in front of you

better timing - especially in the bass - so that notes start and stop quicker instead of droning on and on and merging into the next note. Resulting in a more toe tapping sound

Most of the above should be a prerequisite for true hifi anyway, surely?

I don't understand what 'toe tapping sound' is though. :~

I agree - well designed amps/speakers should be more than capable of doing all that. The more accurate they are, the nearer you'll get.

 

[Overdose]

I don't understand what 'toe tapping sound' is though. :~

[/quote]

You're obviously not a Flat Earther...

[/quote]

Hmmm, is that a good or bad thing? My garden is far from flat, or is that not it? 😉

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

(...) but never again will I be swapping amplifiers or sources for a perceived upgrade in sound, I think that I have found a price performance level where 'diminishing returns' really kicks in and speakers now are my only focus for potential realistic improvements.

it seems for me that you've never heard quality source when you say such things. I see alot of room for improvement in that department.

 

[Anonymous]

Education is the best upgrade😉

One of the best places I have found is here, expecially reading the history of Hi-Fi.

http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/index.html

Without education you can't make educated decisions to upgrade as you won't know what improves or degrades the sound. It could also be worse and you'll have your wallet emptied by unscrupulous 'hi-fi' salemen.

I must note here however that the best Hi-Fi seems to be DIY these days - the cost of components, the care of assembly, the rigorous testing and discussion of circuit topologies is far greater than in any commercial place, partly because so many top experts are involved whereas you'll generally only have one at a commercial firm. For instance instead of reading the latest advert for Naim mains cable I can decide if I should use a comon cathode, SRPP, Mu follower or aikido VAS stage to name a few, and what type of capacitors and resistors I'd like to try.

In fact my next amp I build won't even have a volume pot as it will use beam deflection tubes to do that, eliminating even the best volume pot/contraption at a stroke, probably feeding into SRPP driver stages (as i like them).

Also with DIY the upgrades are far more numerous. For instance I use Russian PIO capacitors bypassed with Silver Mica for small values, and Electrolytics bypassed with PolyP for larger ones. Some DIYers have built PSUs entirely out of poly caps instead of electrolytics too - very nice, the field for improvement in endless.

Hell, with tube amps I can even swap and compare amplifying devices (known as tube rolling) - currently settled on an Amperex ECC88 input triode. In fact if I go to Tubecad.com I can buy kits of some extremely good designs that will rival commercial stuff at any level and price.

I understand not everyone is interested enough in the technology to actually build stuff, but by knowing what to look for, what affects the sound and what options for design there are you can be far more selective about what you do pick and choose...

 

[Overdose]

Granted, I may not have heard 'really' expensive sources, but I have heard many types of Amplifiers,DACs and CD players up to the price point of £1000, including DIY kit. The overiding impression, is that digital sources have had the least effect on sound quality when compred to speakers.

When it comes to sources and amps, competent is all you need, the real star performers need to be the speakers. My old system was sold to make way for what I have now, which puts to shame my old system in terms of clarity and detail. The distortion is far less too, with a much more controlled bass.

This for me was a genuine upgrade, costing nothing in real terms due buying second hand, but providing a real night and day improvement in objective terms. Subjectively of course, I really like it, but the room for improvement in quality of sound is now much smaller than it was and so it goes as you go further up the ladder of cost.

Any future kit changes will be to add functionality, or to provide a more room filling sound by getting more powerful/larger speakers, small incremental sound quality improvements will be made in the process.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with the basis of what you are saying, I think the quality goes in order of:

1) Recording+mastering

2) Speakers

3) Amp

4) DAC etc

But a good amp can transform speakers - but I guess you didn't read up into the link I put up 😉

 

[lindsayt]

Most of the above should be a prerequisite for true hifi anyway, surely?

I don't understand what 'toe tapping sound' is though. :~

Hi-fi sound quality is all relative.

Sadly most components / hi-fi systems are relatively lacking in a number of the areas that I've listed. It's the sort of thing that you don't realise how lacking they are until you hear something better. And then once you've lived with a relatively good system, you really notice it when you listen to a worse system.

On the toe tapping front: I have 2 main pairs of speakers. One pair will put a sparkle in my eyes due to it having a more open and dynamic midrange. The other pair will get me tapping my feet much more often, due to it having a harder edged stop-start stop-start bass - ie better timing.