What rough price does Hi-Fi sound start at ?

[drummerman]

Surely, an iphone or similar, with some decent recordings and a pair of good earbuds/phones qualifies as hifi ... no?

regards

 

[steve_1979]

<£800 buys you a pair of DM5's, a set of speaker stands plus a 3.5mm to RCA cable to connect whatever phone/tablet/MP3 player you already own that has a decent output.

 

[CnoEvil]

I suppose the OP has to define what he means by Hifi (as it relates to him) ie. Does it include the Active route, as well as iPhone + Headphones.

 

[steve_1979]

...as well as iPhone + Headphones.

£40 in that case.

A pair of Sound Magic E10 earphones plus whatever phone/tablet/MP3 player you already own.

 

[Esra]

OP´s system with Denon Ceol and Dali Zensor 1 is a lot better than other stuff "normal" people usually call or know as hifi.So from this point of view he has entry level hifi system many people would be happy with it forever.

 

[Craig M.]

I suppose the OP has to define what he means by Hifi (as it relates to him) ie. Does it include the Active route, as well as iPhone + Headphones.

Why wouldn't it, given that technically an active speaker has a better chance of high fidelity than the passive equivalent?

If headphones are included the price of entry drops dramatically, imo.

 

[Vladimir]

Not trying to slug headphones here, I love good headphones. However, music is an experience of hearing and feeling with our bodies. We "listen" lowest octave with our bodies as vibrations and without that the experience is incomplete, therefore not high fidelity.

I once went to an event with traditional folklore dance groups coming from different European countries. One dance group stood out because memebers were actually deaf. They felt the drum's vibration to dance to the music (drummer kept his instrument on the floor). They were equally amazing as all other groups.

 

[matthewpiano]

I certainly consider my system to be hi-fi, though that matters less to me than whether it promotes/enables musical enjoyment. Not overly powerful, but it produces a very clear sound with accurate tonal reproduction, handles dynamics surprisingly well, never veers into harshness but never sounds remotely shut-in or soft either.

So that's a £550 CD player + £450 amp + £400 speakers = £1400 plus stands and cables for the CD replay set-up.

The one caveat of course is that I never listen at ear-bursting levels so for anyone that likes it Loud 'N Proud my system more than likely wouldn't do. Its all about fidelity at low to medium levels in a normal domestic setting.

As for the Marantz MCR610s of this world, I feel (from personal ownership experience) that they are certainly capable of hi-fi level performance, again WITHIN THEIR INTENDED LIMITS. For huge sound at blistering levels the MCR is going to be an unmitigated disaster and that full power distortion figure would certainly make itself known. However, at acceptable domestic levels and with the right pair of speakers (Wharfedale Diamond 220s perhaps or some Dalis) they can make a very nice sound which enables real musical enjoyment.

Everything is relative.

 

[CnoEvil]

I suppose the OP has to define what he means by Hifi (as it relates to him) ie. Does it include the Active route, as well as iPhone + Headphones.

Why wouldn't it, given that technically an active speaker has a better chance of high fidelity than the passive equivalent?

I have been on this forum long enough to know that not everyone wants to go down the Active route...and that isn't a reflection on its viability. It's usually a matter of accessibility, personal preference or even just a notional view.

 

[Snooker]

I agree with mathewpiano, as I feel with the right source quality recordings that my Denon Ceol N8 does give real hi-fi sound without a doubt, and it is interesting that mathew agrees having owned the very similar MCR610 all in one and also much more expensive separates etc

I have been to hi-fi exibitions and heard systems not as good as mine which have been much more expensive, and realise that after a certain price point there is very little to any improvement at all in sound quality, its just hi-fi for rich people etc

 

[CnoEvil]

I have been to hi-fi exibitions and heard systems not as good as mine which have been much more expensive, and realise that after a certain price point there is very little to any improvement at all in sound quality, its just hi-fi for rich people etc

It's a shame you've reached that conclusion.

Hifi shows are notorious for making very expensive systems sound poor.

Hearing the "right" system (for your taste), properly set up, would most probably change your mind.

 

[Covenanter]

This is a subjective game. I got back into it 3 years ago with help from people on this CB. I thought the system I bought, Marantz CD6004. PM6004, and Kef R500s, was hifi and indeed I still think it was, i.e. it reproduced music close to the what I thought the original should sound like. I was very happy with it but having found some money I went back and listened to different kit and it is much better, much, much better. At list prices the first system cost about £1700, the second about £3,700.

What does this prove? I think at the relatively low end big percentage changes in price bring big increases in quality. At the high end you get relatively small changes in quality for huge changes in price. In some ways this is like wine. If you buy a £5 bottle of wine the cost of the wine is less than 50p, the rest is tax, bottling, shipping, marketing, margins, etc. If you buy a £10 bottle of wine the cost of the wine is close to £5.50, i.e. by paying twice a such you get wine which judged on price alone is 11 times better. It's more complicated than that of course but what's certainly true is that it's a false economy (if you value quality) to scrimp on cost.

To digress, and to use the wine analogy again, fashion plays a part. In wine Bordeaux is very fashionable and you would have to pay £100s per bottle for a first class growth. On the other hand you can get first class Burgundies for less than £100. Both are fabulous wines but the price difference is down to fashion not quality. The same applies to hifi. There are brands that are "sexy" and those that are not. We all know who they are!

Chris

 

[CnoEvil]

There are brands that are "sexy" and those that are not. We all know who they are!

I totally agree with your post, though imo. there are brands that one has heard and brands that one hasn't....and it's all to easy to make assumptions about the latter.

 

[Craig M.]

I suppose the OP has to define what he means by Hifi (as it relates to him) ie. Does it include the Active route, as well as iPhone + Headphones.

Why wouldn't it, given that technically an active speaker has a better chance of high fidelity than the passive equivalent?

I have been on this forum long enough to know that not everyone wants to go down the Active route...and that isn't a reflection on its viability. It's usually a matter of accessibility, personal preference or even just a notional view.

I read the OP as just wanting to know what people consider the minimum cost for something they would consider 'hifi', can't see the sense in trying to introduce categories when talking about something that ultimately ends in the same thing - a pair of speakers firing sound towards you. The thought that someone might reject trying a system that could be exactly what they are looking for, simply because it's active, seems like utter stupidity to me. But, as Forest Gump said...

Anyway, my own personal opinion based on what I've heard so far, is you don't get anywhere near what I think of as 'hifi' with budget kit - that's not to say it can't make an enjoyable sound. If I wanted to get as near to 'hifi' as I could at the lowest price, I'd get some decent headphones - I rarely get the opportunity to listen loud enough to start vibrating internal organs, so I wouldn't feel like I was missing out in that respect, although there's the un-natural 'sound inside your head' aspect to think about. I'd probably plump for these: Precise Ergo 2 headphones

 

[Craig M.]

The same applies to hifi. There are brands that are "sexy" and those that are not. We all know who they are!

Chris

I must be well out the loop, which brands are sexy?

 

[BigH]

This is a subjective game. I got back into it 3 years ago with help from people on this CB. I thought the system I bought, Marantz CD6004. PM6004, and Kef R500s, was hifi and indeed I still think it was, i.e. it reproduced music close to the what I thought the original should sound like. I was very happy with it but having found some money I went back and listened to different kit and it is much better, much, much better. At list prices the first system cost about £1700, the second about £3,700.

What does this prove? I think at the relatively low end big percentage changes in price bring big increases in quality. At the high end you get relatively small changes in quality for huge changes in price. In some ways this is like wine. If you buy a £5 bottle of wine the cost of the wine is less than 50p, the rest is tax, bottling, shipping, marketing, margins, etc. If you buy a £10 bottle of wine the cost of the wine is close to £5.50, i.e. by paying twice a such you get wine which judged on price alone is 11 times better. It's more complicated than that of course but what's certainly true is that it's a false economy (if you value quality) to scrimp on cost.

To digress, and to use the wine analogy again, fashion plays a part. In wine Bordeaux is very fashionable and you would have to pay £100s per bottle for a first class growth. On the other hand you can get first class Burgundies for less than £100. Both are fabulous wines but the price difference is down to fashion not quality. The same applies to hifi. There are brands that are "sexy" and those that are not. We all know who they are!

Chris

Your wine example is incorrect from what I can see, a £5 bottle of wine, the wine cost is about £0.82, a £10 wine cost is about £3.50. SO your figures are somewhat exaggerated.

However Im not sure hifi quite works like that, because more something costs then sales are likely to be lower so economies of scale are a factor, Im sure we have all read about some expensive hifi products being full of cheap components because their are made in so few amounts that the manufactoring costs are high, then there are bespoke components that cost a fortune but probably no better than off the shelf ones.

 

[CnoEvil]

I read the OP as just wanting to know what people consider the minimum cost for something they would consider 'hifi', can't see the sense in trying to introduce categories when talking about something that ultimately ends in the same thing - a pair of speakers firing sound towards you. The thought that someone might reject trying a system that could be exactly what they are looking for, simply because it's active, seems like utter stupidity to me. But, as Forest Gump said...

I usually recommend stuff in the area that I know about...all the Active systems I've heard have been very expensive.

I took it for granted that an Active solution would get a mention sooner or later.

 

[Covenanter]

I was doing my wine numbers from memory but even on your numbers the difference in the cost of the basic product is out of scale to the end price.

I don't think there are many economies of scale in hifif though. The volumes are just too low! And electronic components are as cheap as chips (unintended pun!).

Chris

 

[BigH]

I was doing my wine numbers from memory but even on your numbers the difference in the cost of the basic product is out of scale to the end price.

I don't think there are many economies of scale in hifif though. The volumes are just too low! And electronic components are as cheap as chips (unintended pun!).

Chris

Really so if say Marantz make say 10,000 6005s there is no economy of scale? Than someone who makes a 100?

Anyway I dont believe if something costs 2x as much in hifi you are getting 4x the cost, maybe 2x.

Anyway I think your wine example is slewed because duty is on the bottle not the price of the wine I believe, so £2 per bottle, if it costs £4 or £50. Yes VAT is on the price.

 

[Vladimir]

Only the best for audiophiles discerning ears. Clicky

 

[Covenanter]

I was doing my wine numbers from memory but even on your numbers the difference in the cost of the basic product is out of scale to the end price.

I don't think there are many economies of scale in hifif though. The volumes are just too low! And electronic components are as cheap as chips (unintended pun!).

Chris

Really so if say Marantz make say 10,000 6005s there is no economy of scale? Than someone who makes a 100?

Anyway I dont believe if something costs 2x as much in hifi you are getting 4x the cost, maybe 2x.

Anyway I think your wine example is slewed because duty is on the bottle not the price of the wine I believe, so £2 per bottle, if it costs £4 or £50. Yes VAT is on the price.

You are, as they don't say in the real world, having a giraffe. 10,000 units on the price of a few resistors you would get about 0% discount. You ned to be buying those things in millions to get a significant discount. There are no economies of scale in the hifi world!

I've no idea what you are talking about wrt wine! You seem to be reinforcing my point.

Chris

 

[Vladimir]

I rarely get the opportunity to listen loud enough to start vibrating internal organs, so I wouldn't feel like I was missing out in that respect, although there's the un-natural 'sound inside your head' aspect to think about.

With headphones you are vibrating your whole head and everything in it. Sort of a brain massage. *music2*

 

[BigH]

I was doing my wine numbers from memory but even on your numbers the difference in the cost of the basic product is out of scale to the end price.

I don't think there are many economies of scale in hifif though. The volumes are just too low! And electronic components are as cheap as chips (unintended pun!).

Chris

Really so if say Marantz make say 10,000 6005s there is no economy of scale? Than someone who makes a 100?

Anyway I dont believe if something costs 2x as much in hifi you are getting 4x the cost, maybe 2x.

Anyway I think your wine example is slewed because duty is on the bottle not the price of the wine I believe, so £2 per bottle, if it costs £4 or £50. Yes VAT is on the price.

You are, as they don't say in the real world, having a giraffe. 10,000 units on the price of a few resistors you would get about 0% discount. You ned to be buying those things in millions to get a significant discount. There are no economies of scale in the hifi world!

I've no idea what you are talking about wrt wine! You seem to be reinforcing my point.

Chris

Of course there are econmies of scale thats why they try to buy in large batches because its cheaper, if you buy speaker tweeters they may cost £50 each for 1 or £20 each if you buy 100.

Re wine Im saying on a £4 bottle the duty is 50% on a £100 its 2% so its not proportional, hifi is not like that its 20% on everything.

 

[matthewpiano]

This is quite subjective, but imo, probably a Rega system:

Apollo R (£548) + Brio R (£548) + RS1 (£438)

or

Linn Sneaky + Kef R100

Can think of far better systems than the Rega for similar money, certainly the speakers.

Have to say, in terms of the electronics I think it would be very very hard to better the Apollo R/Brio R combination. I agree that the speakers are a more personal choice, and I'd substitute my Dyns, but I think the Rega combo is a pretty fine affordable duo.

 

[lindsayt]

Wouldn't it be great if CD format really did sound so good that it made all my analogue records and tapes sound like lo-fi in comparison.

Wouldn't it be great if amplifiers really did sound better in all important respects as the maximum power output went up.

Wouldn't it be OK if THD was actually commonly measured and published for speakers.

Wouldn't it be great if you could get speakers that went from 20 hz to 20 khz +/- 1 db without introducing compromises, such as additional crossover areas or the need for equalisation / DSP.