What is good hi fi for you

[MajorFubar]

More than any other criteria I must enjoy the sound. That probably goes for all of us, but for each of us the route is different.

For example, in terms of tonal balance, I like midrange clarity more than the absolute deepest bass or the sparkliest treble. When I buy new equipment I get a great amount of satisfaction from listening to old familiar songs and tracks and hearing new details or nuances I hadn't heard before. It was definitely the main reason I was so in love with the EB2s, but that sound doesn't suit everybody. For example I'm certainly not intending this to speak ill of Insider9, but when he heard the EB2s he found the sound to be a bit of a culture shock. So we're all different.

My current system is more revealing and has much greater clarity than anything I have ever before owned, and is as enjoyable to listen to as anything I've ever before owned. But with that said, I have owned systems in the past which were several leagues removed from my current system in terms of proficiency, yet at the time I enjoyed listening to them just as much as my current system. Springing to mind straight away is the system I built more than two decades ago around a Technics SL-P777 CD player, Kenwood KA-5020 amplifier and some Tannoy 607 loudspeakers. I might listen to it now and think "Jesus what did I see in this", but at the time I enjoyed it just as much as my current system, and that's by far the most important thing.

Do I like accuracy / true fidelity and is that what I'm aiming for? I like to think so. But really I don't know. Accuracy is an intangible goal because I don't think we've ever clearly defined what so-called 'accurate' systems are actually accurate to.

 

[insider9]

More than any other criteria I must enjoy the sound. That probably goes for all of us, but for each of us the route is different.

For example, in terms of tonal balance, I like midrange clarity more than the absolute deepest bass or the sparkliest treble. When I buy new equipment I get a great amount of satisfaction from listening to old familiar songs and tracks and hearing new details or nuances I hadn't heard before. It was definitely the main reason I was so in love with the EB2s, but that sound doesn't suit everybody. For example I'm certainly not intending this to speak ill of Insider9, but when he heard the EB2s he found the sound to be a bit of a culture shock. So we're all different.

Do I like accuracy / true fidelity and is that what I'm aiming for? I like to think so. But really I don't know. Accuracy is an intangible goal because I don't think we've ever clearly defined what it is so-called 'accurate' systems are actually accurate to.

Yes Major, it was exactly as you describe. In a way, I could hear more than I would like (yes, really). I could still appreciate their virtues but somehow felt emotional disconnect. My head was telling me that I can hear all these wonderful things, yet my heart wasn't in it. Too much, too soon most definitely.

But, I embrace differences and look to learn so I'm not disheartened. At least they're with a caring owner now

 

[alwaysbeblue1]

Interesting how everyone likes different sounds.

With every thing said though... the quality of the way the music is produced in the first place is my annoyance.

When you have a decent band that sounds thin because it was made for the radio and no matter what you play it on it seems off

 

[plastic penguin]

For me it's about balance. I'm not overly big on all components being totally neutral. Nor do I gravitate to all smooth or warm set-up. So my system is made up of a neutral amp with smooth sources and speakers that compliments the sonic whole.

Above all else it needs to be enjoyable, and a set-up you can live with for years without it grating or without boring the pants off you.

It's easier with all-same makes but equal or better results can be had by mixing 'n' matching -- this can take time, though, to achieve to a satisfactory level.

 

[ellisdj]

Great thread however what do you mean

What is great hifi or what is great sound at home I think obviously the 2 relate but can be considered differently to a degree. Both are good thread topics

 

[Gazzip]

Interesting how everyone likes different sounds.

With every thing said though... the quality of the way the music is produced in the first place is my annoyance.

When you have a decent band that sounds thin because it was made for the radio and no matter what you play it on it seems off

You are so right. Never gonna happen but it would be nice to have two CD's released for every album. One containing the compressed red book copy of the initial mastering, the other the compressed red book copy of the final grotbox mastering for radio release.

 

[chebby]

Interesting how everyone likes different sounds.

With every thing said though... the quality of the way the music is produced in the first place is my annoyance.

When you have a decent band that sounds thin because it was made for the radio and no matter what you play it on it seems off

You are so right. Never gonna happen but it would be nice to have two CD's released for every album. One containing the compressed red book copy of the initial mastering, the other the compressed red book copy of the final grotbox mastering for radio release.

Radio stations are more than capable of compressing music themselves. They've been doing it since the technology existed. (Long before CDs.)

 

[Gazzip]

Interesting how everyone likes different sounds.

With every thing said though... the quality of the way the music is produced in the first place is my annoyance.

When you have a decent band that sounds thin because it was made for the radio and no matter what you play it on it seems off

You are so right. Never gonna happen but it would be nice to have two CD's released for every album. One containing the compressed red book copy of the initial mastering, the other the compressed red book copy of the final grotbox mastering for radio release.

Radio stations are more than capable of compressing music themselves. They've been doing it since the technology existed. (Long before CDs.)

Maybe so, but it is not just about compression. A great deal of music is deliberately mastered at source to sound better through a car stereo, cheap headphones or whatever it is the youth call a midi system these days. A dock perhaps?

"Grot Boxes" (slang for really crap studio monitors) are an industry standard tool to ensure that job has been done, not something I made up.

 

[chris_bates1974]

Clarity is the big one for me, and easily identifiable separation of instruments. Also, that feeling of sinking into the listening chair, closing the door, and immersing yourself in whatever music it is that you love...

Having kit that you like the look of is also of course a bonus, especially if you're lucky enough to have a dedicated listening room!

 

[chebby]

"Grot Boxes" (slang for really crap studio monitors) are an industry standard tool to ensure that job has been done, not something I made up.

We know all about the Auratones. (They still make them.)

Many a pop record got mixed for portable radio using them.

http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/auratone-5c-super-sound-cube

 

[drummerman]

Not necessarily any hifi virtues, just something I can sit down in front and get carried away by the music.

The smaller (without to many compromises) the better.

 

[Gazzip]

"Grot Boxes" (slang for really crap studio monitors) are an industry standard tool to ensure that job has been done, not something I made up.

We know all about the Auratones. (They still make them.)

Many a pop record got mixed for portable radio using them.

http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/auratone-5c-super-sound-cube

You would be surprised by how many people don't know about the part that Grot Boxes play in the final stages of audio mixing. I have been doing domestic hi-fi for a couple of decades and only found out about this (on here as it goes) a couple of years ago!

Your link to the Auratone review makes for interesting reading and helps to explain why so many "pop" recordings can sound so shrill, mid-heavy and lacking in dynamics on my system. Thanks!

 

[stereoman]

I have my own personal adage, " a good hi fi is when you play one of your worst bands you ever heard and it sounds amazing..."

In truth, no good hi fi can be bought new and cheap. You can forget about being happy with low to mid range hi fi. Impossible ( unless bought new or second hand "hi end" ). Secondly, in comparison to other media like TV, Computers, Consoles etc. the biggest percentage of dissatisfied owners are owners of their Hi Fi systems. It's just because human sense of hearing is the least to be easily satisfied. So a good system is the one that is profesionally engineered from A to Z starting with lowest possible cost of this engineering.

 

[Al ears]

More than any other criteria I must enjoy the sound. That probably goes for all of us, but for each of us the route is different.

For example, in terms of tonal balance, I like midrange clarity more than the absolute deepest bass or the sparkliest treble. When I buy new equipment I get a great amount of satisfaction from listening to old familiar songs and tracks and hearing new details or nuances I hadn't heard before. It was definitely the main reason I was so in love with the EB2s, but that sound doesn't suit everybody. For example I'm certainly not intending this to speak ill of Insider9, but when he heard the EB2s he found the sound to be a bit of a culture shock. So we're all different.

Do I like accuracy / true fidelity and is that what I'm aiming for? I like to think so. But really I don't know. Accuracy is an intangible goal because I don't think we've ever clearly defined what it is so-called 'accurate' systems are actually accurate to.

Yes Major, it was exactly as you describe. In a way, I could hear more than I would like (yes, really). I could still appreciate their virtues but somehow felt emotional disconnect. My head was telling me that I can hear all these wonderful things, yet my heart wasn't in it. Too much, too soon most definitely.

But, I embrace differences and look to learn so I'm not disheartened. At least they're with a caring owner now

They are indeed. Still haven't had time to set them up yet. ;-)

 

[tino]

In truth, no good hi fi can be bought new and cheap. You can forget about being happy with low to mid range hifi.

Can you define what you mean by 'cheap' or 'mid-range'? Do you have a price in mind? And at what point does mid-range stop and hi-end start?

I've always set myself an arbitrary limit of about £500(ish) per component whether new of ex-dem. With digital components or amplifiers that's reasonably easy to achieve and the quality (from my point of view and usage) is really good. New speakers or esoteric components like a good valve amplifier might need a bit more money, but still within reach without spending thousands. I don't begrudge anyone who does spend that amount of money though in pursuit of their personal happiness .. each to their own.

 

[thewinelake.]

Funny to hear about Auratones. I once built myself a portable stereo using a pair of those and a car headunit (which was one of those pull-out jobbies that also fitted in my car). Wasn't bad for that....

 

[stereoman]

In truth, no good hi fi can be bought new and cheap. You can forget about being happy with low to mid range hifi.

Can you define what you mean by 'cheap' or 'mid-range'? Do you have a price in mind? And at what point does mid-range stop and hi-end start?

I've always set myself an arbitrary limit of about £500(ish) per component whether new of ex-dem. With digital components or amplifiers that's reasonably easy to achieve and the quality (from my point of view and usage) is really good. New speakers or esoteric components like a good valve amplifier might need a bit more money, but still within reach without spending thousands. I don't begrudge anyone who does spend that amount of money though in pursuit of their personal happiness .. each to their own.

The price point is relative but let us say first that we need 3 basic Hi Fi components. An amp, source and loudspeakers. Let us state that cheap means indeed 500 pounds pro component. For many people the mid range budget for all three is up to 2000 pounds. Now let's focus on the loudspeakers first. The lowest (original new price) for loudspeakers who are very well arranged , win the tests with getting max rating etc. hovers in 750 pounds up to 950 pounds for bookshelves. That means that loudspeaker engineers cannot design a speaker that ticks all boxes for 350 pounds because a loudspeaker for 350 pounds although still good ( max / good rating etc ) will never be designed in a professional way. If you pull apart a 350 pound speaker you will see how each component must cost and also bring the profit back. So 100 for casing ? 50 for tweeter ? 50 for woofer ? 50 for labour ? Even when less , 50 for all the rest plus time for work and design , distribution ? Can you design a good profi speaker for this price ? So to my opinion you need to set as said the lowest possible starting cost for a professional loudspeaker. That means that a profi loudspeaker needs also earn for itsels and the company ( I do not mean putting on extra ridiuculous fake pumped up prices that will make hi fi overpriced so that will only be bought by individuals etc. ) I mean only to achieve the basis including hours of engineering work etc. including. Then add to this a profi basic amp ( again count all the components ,profi labour , design etc. ) add the source etc. So coming to conclusion - a good profi hi fi starting point for me means that new components must more or less cost around 1000 pounds each. That is over 2000 pounds without cables etc. and that is not a low budget and that is also when mid range will start to fade. If you want "a good hi fi" new ,please count with 3 up to 5 Grand for starting point. My personal opinion.

 

[Romulus]

What is good HiFi to me, something that makes me happy and excited at the prospect of using it and having the pleasure of using it to explore my musical collection and to listen to all types of music from worldwide radio.

 

[drummerman]

In truth, no good hi fi can be bought new and cheap. You can forget about being happy with low to mid range hifi.

Can you define what you mean by 'cheap' or 'mid-range'? Do you have a price in mind? And at what point does mid-range stop and hi-end start?

I've always set myself an arbitrary limit of about £500(ish) per component whether new of ex-dem. With digital components or amplifiers that's reasonably easy to achieve and the quality (from my point of view and usage) is really good. New speakers or esoteric components like a good valve amplifier might need a bit more money, but still within reach without spending thousands. I don't begrudge anyone who does spend that amount of money though in pursuit of their personal happiness .. each to their own.

The price point is relative but let us say first that we need 3 basic Hi Fi components. An amp, source and loudspeakers. Let us state that cheap means indeed 500 pounds pro component. For many people the mid range budget for all three is up to 2000 pounds. Now let's focus on the loudspeakers first. The lowest (original new price) for loudspeakers who are very well arranged , win the tests with getting max rating etc. hovers in 750 pounds up to  950 pounds for bookshelves. That means that loudspeaker engineers cannot design a speaker that ticks all boxes for 350 pounds because a loudspeaker for 350 pounds although still good ( max / good rating etc ) will never be designed in a professional way. If you pull apart a 350 pound speaker you will see how each component must cost and also bring the profit back. So 100 for casing ? 50 for tweeter ? 50 for woofer ? 50 for labour ? Even when less , 50 for all the rest plus time for work and design , distribution ? Can you design a good profi speaker for this price ? So to my opinion you need to set as said the lowest possible starting cost for a professional loudspeaker. That means that a profi loudspeaker needs also earn for itsels and the company ( I do not mean putting on extra ridiuculous fake pumped up prices that will make hi fi overpriced so that will only be bought by individuals etc. ) I mean only to achieve the basis including hours of engineering work etc. including. Then add to this a profi basic amp ( again count all the components ,profi labour , design etc. ) add the source etc. So coming to conclusion - a good profi hi fi starting point for me means that new components must more or less cost around 1000 pounds each. That is over 2000 pounds without cables etc. and that is not a low budget and that is also when mid range will start to fade. If you want "a good hi fi" new ,please count with 3 up to 5 Grand for starting point. My personal opinion.

Mmmmh, pressed report by mistake. Hope that doesn't go further.

 

[Samd]

In truth, no good hi fi can be bought new and cheap. You can forget about being happy with low to mid range hifi.

Can you define what you mean by 'cheap' or 'mid-range'? Do you have a price in mind? And at what point does mid-range stop and hi-end start?

I've always set myself an arbitrary limit of about £500(ish) per component whether new of ex-dem. With digital components or amplifiers that's reasonably easy to achieve and the quality (from my point of view and usage) is really good. New speakers or esoteric components like a good valve amplifier might need a bit more money, but still within reach without spending thousands. I don't begrudge anyone who does spend that amount of money though in pursuit of their personal happiness .. each to their own.

The price point is relative but let us say first that we need 3 basic Hi Fi components. An amp, source and loudspeakers. Let us state that cheap means indeed 500 pounds pro component. For many people the mid range budget for all three is up to 2000 pounds. Now let's focus on the loudspeakers first. The lowest (original new price) for loudspeakers who are very well arranged , win the tests with getting max rating etc. hovers in 750 pounds up to 950 pounds for bookshelves. That means that loudspeaker engineers cannot design a speaker that ticks all boxes for 350 pounds because a loudspeaker for 350 pounds although still good ( max / good rating etc ) will never be designed in a professional way. If you pull apart a 350 pound speaker you will see how each component must cost and also bring the profit back. So 100 for casing ? 50 for tweeter ? 50 for woofer ? 50 for labour ? Even when less , 50 for all the rest plus time for work and design , distribution ? Can you design a good profi speaker for this price ? So to my opinion you need to set as said the lowest possible starting cost for a professional loudspeaker. That means that a profi loudspeaker needs also earn for itsels and the company ( I do not mean putting on extra ridiuculous fake pumped up prices that will make hi fi overpriced so that will only be bought by individuals etc. ) I mean only to achieve the basis including hours of engineering work etc. including. Then add to this a profi basic amp ( again count all the components ,profi labour , design etc. ) add the source etc. So coming to conclusion - a good profi hi fi starting point for me means that new components must more or less cost around 1000 pounds each. That is over 2000 pounds without cables etc. and that is not a low budget and that is also when mid range will start to fade. If you want "a good hi fi" new ,please count with 3 up to 5 Grand for starting point. My personal opinion.

Mmmmh, pressed report by mistake. Hope that doesn't go further.

Don't worry - you were not alone! It's that sort of post which drives so many away even though it was only a personal opinion.

 

[stereoman]

In truth, no good hi fi can be bought new and cheap. You can forget about being happy with low to mid range hifi.

Can you define what you mean by 'cheap' or 'mid-range'? Do you have a price in mind? And at what point does mid-range stop and hi-end start?

I've always set myself an arbitrary limit of about £500(ish) per component whether new of ex-dem. With digital components or amplifiers that's reasonably easy to achieve and the quality (from my point of view and usage) is really good. New speakers or esoteric components like a good valve amplifier might need a bit more money, but still within reach without spending thousands. I don't begrudge anyone who does spend that amount of money though in pursuit of their personal happiness .. each to their own.

The price point is relative but let us say first that we need 3 basic Hi Fi components. An amp, source and loudspeakers. Let us state that cheap means indeed 500 pounds pro component. For many people the mid range budget for all three is up to 2000 pounds. Now let's focus on the loudspeakers first. The lowest (original new price) for loudspeakers who are very well arranged , win the tests with getting max rating etc. hovers in 750 pounds up to 950 pounds for bookshelves. That means that loudspeaker engineers cannot design a speaker that ticks all boxes for 350 pounds because a loudspeaker for 350 pounds although still good ( max / good rating etc ) will never be designed in a professional way. If you pull apart a 350 pound speaker you will see how each component must cost and also bring the profit back. So 100 for casing ? 50 for tweeter ? 50 for woofer ? 50 for labour ? Even when less , 50 for all the rest plus time for work and design , distribution ? Can you design a good profi speaker for this price ? So to my opinion you need to set as said the lowest possible starting cost for a professional loudspeaker. That means that a profi loudspeaker needs also earn for itsels and the company ( I do not mean putting on extra ridiuculous fake pumped up prices that will make hi fi overpriced so that will only be bought by individuals etc. ) I mean only to achieve the basis including hours of engineering work etc. including. Then add to this a profi basic amp ( again count all the components ,profi labour , design etc. ) add the source etc. So coming to conclusion - a good profi hi fi starting point for me means that new components must more or less cost around 1000 pounds each. That is over 2000 pounds without cables etc. and that is not a low budget and that is also when mid range will start to fade. If you want "a good hi fi" new ,please count with 3 up to 5 Grand for starting point. My personal opinion.

Mmmmh, pressed report by mistake. Hope that doesn't go further.

Don't worry - you were not alone! It's that sort of post which drives so many away even though it was only a personal opinion.

Exactly , a personal opinion so if you do not like then no further comments necessary. Simple.

 

[davedotco]

In truth, no good hi fi can be bought new and cheap. You can forget about being happy with low to mid range hifi.

Can you define what you mean by 'cheap' or 'mid-range'? Do you have a price in mind? And at what point does mid-range stop and hi-end start?

I've always set myself an arbitrary limit of about £500(ish) per component whether new of ex-dem. With digital components or amplifiers that's reasonably easy to achieve and the quality (from my point of view and usage) is really good. New speakers or esoteric components like a good valve amplifier might need a bit more money, but still within reach without spending thousands. I don't begrudge anyone who does spend that amount of money though in pursuit of their personal happiness .. each to their own.

The price point is relative but let us say first that we need 3 basic Hi Fi components. An amp, source and loudspeakers. Let us state that cheap means indeed 500 pounds pro component. For many people the mid range budget for all three is up to 2000 pounds. Now let's focus on the loudspeakers first. The lowest (original new price) for loudspeakers who are very well arranged , win the tests with getting max rating etc. hovers in 750 pounds up to 950 pounds for bookshelves. That means that loudspeaker engineers cannot design a speaker that ticks all boxes for 350 pounds because a loudspeaker for 350 pounds although still good ( max / good rating etc ) will never be designed in a professional way. If you pull apart a 350 pound speaker you will see how each component must cost and also bring the profit back. So 100 for casing ? 50 for tweeter ? 50 for woofer ? 50 for labour ? Even when less , 50 for all the rest plus time for work and design , distribution ? Can you design a good profi speaker for this price ? So to my opinion you need to set as said the lowest possible starting cost for a professional loudspeaker. That means that a profi loudspeaker needs also earn for itsels and the company ( I do not mean putting on extra ridiuculous fake pumped up prices that will make hi fi overpriced so that will only be bought by individuals etc. ) I mean only to achieve the basis including hours of engineering work etc. including. Then add to this a profi basic amp ( again count all the components ,profi labour , design etc. ) add the source etc. So coming to conclusion - a good profi hi fi starting point for me means that new components must more or less cost around 1000 pounds each. That is over 2000 pounds without cables etc. and that is not a low budget and that is also when mid range will start to fade. If you want "a good hi fi" new ,please count with 3 up to 5 Grand for starting point. My personal opinion.

I think it is very brave of you to try and put a 'price' on equipment that you think makes a decent stab at good reproduction and in some ways I think you have been very fair.

That said, I am far from in agreement, to my mind the criteria revolves the design and what the manufacturer is trying to achieve. Some even quite modestly priced components are built for performance, sound quality above all else, conversely some quite expensive components are built to other agendas.

One of my favourite amplifiers is the Croft integrated, in a suitable system it is way, way, better than it's £800 asking price would suggest, and with suitable speakers it can embarrass far more expensive setups.

This is my benchmark, the desire of the manufacturer to get the best possible performance within a particular brief, some manage that extremely well and whilst I understand the advantages in technology and production that a big manufacturer can bring, they rarely, in my opinion, hit the mark.

 

[stereoman]

In truth, no good hi fi can be bought new and cheap. You can forget about being happy with low to mid range hifi.

Can you define what you mean by 'cheap' or 'mid-range'? Do you have a price in mind? And at what point does mid-range stop and hi-end start?

I've always set myself an arbitrary limit of about £500(ish) per component whether new of ex-dem. With digital components or amplifiers that's reasonably easy to achieve and the quality (from my point of view and usage) is really good. New speakers or esoteric components like a good valve amplifier might need a bit more money, but still within reach without spending thousands. I don't begrudge anyone who does spend that amount of money though in pursuit of their personal happiness .. each to their own.

The price point is relative but let us say first that we need 3 basic Hi Fi components. An amp, source and loudspeakers. Let us state that cheap means indeed 500 pounds pro component. For many people the mid range budget for all three is up to 2000 pounds. Now let's focus on the loudspeakers first. The lowest (original new price) for loudspeakers who are very well arranged , win the tests with getting max rating etc. hovers in 750 pounds up to 950 pounds for bookshelves. That means that loudspeaker engineers cannot design a speaker that ticks all boxes for 350 pounds because a loudspeaker for 350 pounds although still good ( max / good rating etc ) will never be designed in a professional way. If you pull apart a 350 pound speaker you will see how each component must cost and also bring the profit back. So 100 for casing ? 50 for tweeter ? 50 for woofer ? 50 for labour ? Even when less , 50 for all the rest plus time for work and design , distribution ? Can you design a good profi speaker for this price ? So to my opinion you need to set as said the lowest possible starting cost for a professional loudspeaker. That means that a profi loudspeaker needs also earn for itsels and the company ( I do not mean putting on extra ridiuculous fake pumped up prices that will make hi fi overpriced so that will only be bought by individuals etc. ) I mean only to achieve the basis including hours of engineering work etc. including. Then add to this a profi basic amp ( again count all the components ,profi labour , design etc. ) add the source etc. So coming to conclusion - a good profi hi fi starting point for me means that new components must more or less cost around 1000 pounds each. That is over 2000 pounds without cables etc. and that is not a low budget and that is also when mid range will start to fade. If you want "a good hi fi" new ,please count with 3 up to 5 Grand for starting point. My personal opinion.

I think it is very brave of you to try and put a 'price' on equipment that you think makes a decent stab at good reproduction and in some ways I think you have been very fair.

That said, I am far from in agreement, to my mind the criteria revolves the design and what the manufacturer is trying to achieve. Some even quite modestly priced components are built for performance, sound quality above all else, conversely some quite expensive components are built to other agendas.

One of my favourite amplifiers is the Croft integrated, in a suitable system it is way, way, better than it's £800 asking price would suggest, and with suitable speakers it can embarrass far more expensive setups.

This is my benchmark, the desire of the manufacturer to get the best possible performance within a particular brief, some manage that extremely well and whilst I understand the advantages in technology and production that a big manufacturer can bring, they rarely, in my opinion, hit the mark.

Yes, I'm not saying I'm right. That's why I said "personal". I believe you can have sth. cheap/er that will embarrass sth. much more expensive. But from my personal experience it's incredibly hard to built a new, "good hi fi system" with low money. To say it differently. You can go to a shop and buy a new very very good TV nowadays. A superb TV that will cost you 500 pounds. ONLY. The same TV could cost before ( only a few years ) 1800 or up to 3000 pounds when new. With laptops it is the same. Good ones can be bought for really small money. Other pieces of technology as well. BUT with hi fi - it never changes. Good Hi Fi was always expensive - is expensive - and will be expensive. I do not know myself why it is so , but it simply is. We have new great audio technology etc. but still. you cannot simply buy a good , thruthful professional sound for cheap. Simply, HiFi is extremely demanding piece of technology.

 

[pyrrhon]

What is good hifi?

Im looking for equipement that will give me those feelings I lost. Im a bit vintage.

 

[nopiano]

What is good hifi?

Im looking for equipement that will give me those feelings I lost. Im a bit vintage.

Will pills do it? ;-)