Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
the time will come soon when we won't be able to. Despite our reasons for keeping CD players and CDs, I don't think they figure in the long-term plans of the music industry
Essentials for getting yourself good music in the home
- Thread starter Sawyer
- Start date
the time will come soon when we won't be able to. Despite our reasons for keeping CD players and CDs, I don't think they figure in the long-term plans of the music industry
In conclusion...
1. Speakers are and are likely to remain the key influencers, along with room acoustics for determining audible sound quality. While progress is being made in this area, this is at a far slower rate than what speaker marketers and review magazines would like us to believe. A good, well selected speaker can render both reliable service and sound quality that will remain satisfactory, in comparison to current models for decades, where stereo music sound is concerned. Buying the best one can afford is a good idea from a sound quality and financial perspective, as long as one is able to resist the upgrade bug.
2. Room acoustics has a huge influence on sound quality. Leaving aside the setting up of anechoic and dedicated listening rooms, the ordinary living room usually contains enough clutter, furniture, curtains, bookshelves and the like for this to be a problem that can be solved to a reasonable level with some common sense. Within this is the subject of where the speakers are placed - and the available possibilities are something to be aware of before deciding which speaker pair to invest in. And tone controls on amplifiers are invaluable in this regard. Audiophiles who disdain tone controls in the search for signal path purity do themselves a great disservice by losing a valuable tool for attaining hifi sound by customising the sound of their speakers to their room to bring the final product back to hifi, and which has a much greater audible impact than that caused by signal path "corruption", if any.
3. As a very general guideline, any 2 channel amplifier of a reputed brand, with 60-80wpc of power output is a safe buy. Features are important, as is availability of after sales service. Tone controls and input sockets are features that come to mind. An amplifier with a USB socket may even do away with the need to buy a CDP, saving valuable money and footprint. An ideal amp today is a box like the Denon M39. Brilliant product, if a little underpowered at 30wpc. A small footprint gives one an amp, a CDP, FM/AM radio, a digital USB socket - wired to good speakers that are easy to drive loads, it delivers very good sound. Wire a wifi equipped I pod touch, and with home wifi, one can access the wonderful world of internet radio too. For a little more expense, there is a similar but more powerful Marantz box too.
4. A CDP may not even be needed. But if it is, as in amps, the budget models of the reputed brands are excellent music source providers now.
Finally, the increasing numbers of audiophiles is good news for music lovers on a budget - for the market they create for quality used gear at attractive prices!
1. Speakers are and are likely to remain the key influencers, along with room acoustics for determining audible sound quality. While progress is being made in this area, this is at a far slower rate than what speaker marketers and review magazines would like us to believe. A good, well selected speaker can render both reliable service and sound quality that will remain satisfactory, in comparison to current models for decades, where stereo music sound is concerned. Buying the best one can afford is a good idea from a sound quality and financial perspective, as long as one is able to resist the upgrade bug.
2. Room acoustics has a huge influence on sound quality. Leaving aside the setting up of anechoic and dedicated listening rooms, the ordinary living room usually contains enough clutter, furniture, curtains, bookshelves and the like for this to be a problem that can be solved to a reasonable level with some common sense. Within this is the subject of where the speakers are placed - and the available possibilities are something to be aware of before deciding which speaker pair to invest in. And tone controls on amplifiers are invaluable in this regard. Audiophiles who disdain tone controls in the search for signal path purity do themselves a great disservice by losing a valuable tool for attaining hifi sound by customising the sound of their speakers to their room to bring the final product back to hifi, and which has a much greater audible impact than that caused by signal path "corruption", if any.
3. As a very general guideline, any 2 channel amplifier of a reputed brand, with 60-80wpc of power output is a safe buy. Features are important, as is availability of after sales service. Tone controls and input sockets are features that come to mind. An amplifier with a USB socket may even do away with the need to buy a CDP, saving valuable money and footprint. An ideal amp today is a box like the Denon M39. Brilliant product, if a little underpowered at 30wpc. A small footprint gives one an amp, a CDP, FM/AM radio, a digital USB socket - wired to good speakers that are easy to drive loads, it delivers very good sound. Wire a wifi equipped I pod touch, and with home wifi, one can access the wonderful world of internet radio too. For a little more expense, there is a similar but more powerful Marantz box too.
4. A CDP may not even be needed. But if it is, as in amps, the budget models of the reputed brands are excellent music source providers now.
Finally, the increasing numbers of audiophiles is good news for music lovers on a budget - for the market they create for quality used gear at attractive prices!
Yes, provided it is correctly designed and working within design limits, in a level matched comparison. And that has been my experience.
The thing is that many tube amps don't have enough power to drive the speakers they are coupled to, and are often clipping. At moderate clipping levels, the distortion caused can be a preference, lending the warmth etc that is associated with them. However, it isn't something that is there in the source signal, and technically therefore, not hifi. Good ones are also expensive, and I therefore do not see them as essential to good sound. They do have their charm though, speaking from experience again. They look good at night, and offer lots of opportunities for playing around with them, replacing tubes and the like.
M
mpw
Guest
sawyer,
i dont quite agree on your comment on the sources.
I use a CDP and a TT as a source and i do find a difference amongst commonly available CDP and the pricier ones - if i may.
In fact i find digital sources rather not to my taste and i suppose it is YMMV at the end of the day.
But drawing conclusions is rather unfair.
mpw
i dont quite agree on your comment on the sources.
I use a CDP and a TT as a source and i do find a difference amongst commonly available CDP and the pricier ones - if i may.
In fact i find digital sources rather not to my taste and i suppose it is YMMV at the end of the day.
But drawing conclusions is rather unfair.
mpw
Everything said on this forum is an opinion and not a conclusion binding in any manner on anyone
. I have given the reasons for why I hold the ones I do. I have also said that the ultimate arbiters are the ears of the person making the assessment, and I have set out commonly known factors that affect this assessment that one should be aware of. No more, no less, I think.Very nice read,Sawyer, thanks.
I am one of your target audiences. No money, aged ears, love for music and always looking for the cheapest upgrade, a peg or 2 of the most ordinary whiskey.
Do continue, please
PS: Listening to Free Jazz online streaming music, sipping on said grade whiskey. Heavenly !!! Finger pointing to the moon brought back memories of the late great Mr. Lee.
I am one of your target audiences. No money, aged ears, love for music and always looking for the cheapest upgrade, a peg or 2 of the most ordinary whiskey.
Do continue, please
PS: Listening to Free Jazz online streaming music, sipping on said grade whiskey. Heavenly !!! Finger pointing to the moon brought back memories of the late great Mr. Lee.
Last edited:
apk
Well-Known Member
Re: In conclusion...
+1 on this. Though I was very well aware of this fact, a recent move of my audio system from a larger living room to a smaller spare bedroom proved to me just how true this is. To be honest, the sound changed so much just because of the room shift that I can't believe that it is the same 2 channel music system that I have owned and listened to for the past 5 years. Such is the difference in sonic quality that the listening environment can bring about! In my case, playing around with speaker placement and tone controls (I have them on my pre-amplifier) has helped improve the sound, but is still a far cry from the earlier sound I used to get.
Your posts have been an interesting read; do continue to share your audio experiences
Best,
APK
+1 on this. Though I was very well aware of this fact, a recent move of my audio system from a larger living room to a smaller spare bedroom proved to me just how true this is. To be honest, the sound changed so much just because of the room shift that I can't believe that it is the same 2 channel music system that I have owned and listened to for the past 5 years. Such is the difference in sonic quality that the listening environment can bring about! In my case, playing around with speaker placement and tone controls (I have them on my pre-amplifier) has helped improve the sound, but is still a far cry from the earlier sound I used to get.
Your posts have been an interesting read; do continue to share your audio experiences
Best,
APK
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Sawyer, do you think that amplifiers have flavour designed into them? I'm not sure that it is entirely looks and marketing that get people hooked on a particular brand: the companies have also to produce a sound that their customers like --- which is not the same as making that wire-with-gain transparent amplifier.
Look at the Carver amplifier challenge, where Mr C said that he could dial in to the design of his amplifier the characteristics to make it sound identical to a very much more expensive "high-end" machine. He won the challenge, which was judged not only by ears, but by getting a null by summing the outputs.
This presupposes --- that they did not sound the same to begin with.
If I remember rightly, when asked why he did not make his amps sound as expensive-high-end to begin with, he said that that was not what his customers wanted.
Look at the Carver amplifier challenge, where Mr C said that he could dial in to the design of his amplifier the characteristics to make it sound identical to a very much more expensive "high-end" machine. He won the challenge, which was judged not only by ears, but by getting a null by summing the outputs.
This presupposes --- that they did not sound the same to begin with.
If I remember rightly, when asked why he did not make his amps sound as expensive-high-end to begin with, he said that that was not what his customers wanted.
Who is Mr Lee? I agree completely about the heavenly part about the experience you describe. The only care I take at such times is to be able to go to bed directly, no driving!
I agree. Placement and tone controls can only go so far, room acoustics get intimately coupled to the speaker to deliver what is heard, at the end of the day. But that doesn't mean they aren't useful tweaks. In your room, you may now want to try near field listening. Pull up a chair to a couple of feet away from the speakers, adjusting the volume downwards from normal as required. This reduces further the effect of the room, and you will be surprised at what you hear. Be warned though, that this can be a test for speaker voicing and you may end up not liking what you hear. With that caveat, worth the try.
I am not aware of the Carver thing, but I can change the sound/flavour of my amplifier at will - by using the tone controls! But if this was to be done on a permanent basis for me before I bought it, would it still be a hifi amplifier, by any definition?
If you read what marketers and designers say when they talk about their expensive amp offerings, using expensive custom built parts, it is usually about achieving a combination of:
1. More gain, i.e power, and the ability to handle the heat generated by that.
2. More and more signal purity.
3. More reliability for a long service life - not just that it works for years, but it does so without wandering away from the original spec due to component deterioration with age.
4. Features for convenience and flexibility of use.
And although they don't explicitly talk about it, the photos focus on all the eye candy. Outside and inside the fancy casework!
In a shrinking market for expensive 2 channel components, I can't see how any one would offer a fixed sonic signature by design. That would further reduce the market size by making the amp suitable for a subset of music types, and for a subset of customers. It would be commercial suicide to do this, I would think.
Last edited:
Sidebar: TV and Home theatre
Caveat: I am not as keen on TV/Movies as I am about music. I find music to be far less intrusive and a lot more enjoyable/relaxing allowing other things to be pursued while listening to it when required, unlike the monster vacuum cleaner of attention that TV is. Children can even study better with the right music playing.
Although I am now fortunate to have a dedicated room for movie watching, I have never pursued the multi channel AVR and speaker/sub path. What has continued to work for me is a DVD - now Bluray - player, with L/R audio wired to a stereo amp, wired to a pair of stand mounted speakers. About 15 years ago, someone I respect said in this connection that 2 good speakers are a better choice than 5 mediocre ones that you will get for the same price. Obviously, the same logic then flows into the supporting amp, all you need is 2 channel electronics, which is cheaper than the equivalent 5 or more channel.
My experience has been that with these speakers properly sited, they create an excellent phantom centre that allows for all dialogue to be both clear, and sound like it is coming from the mouth of the actors. No need for a centre speaker. And with most of the action happening across the screen, accompanying sound effects are well created by their movement across the two speakers. I have never felt the need for being surrounded by speakers. And since a lot of my movie watching is late at night, civic sense demands that I don't have a sub rumbling along, moving LF energy through apartment walls.
I am reasonably sure that my movie sound experiences are better than those I would have had if I had installed the typical HT in a box that is sold at various price points. It won't be as good as a full scale HT set up, I recognise that, but I remain on good terms with my neighbours. And when I want the full experience for movies such as The Dark Knight, I go to the multiplex.
For space constrained dwellers, my experience therefore suggests that a best of both worlds - music and TV - solution is better served by a 2 channel set up with 2 quality speakers. For music, it will be definitely better than the usual HT alternative, while for most movies, it will be just as good. And for regular TV watching, most of my TV watching is done with the volume very low, because I can't stand to listen to - as just one example - the way the commentators keep prattling about the cricket action. For many other channels, the 2 channel solution should be perfectly adequate.
Caveat: I am not as keen on TV/Movies as I am about music. I find music to be far less intrusive and a lot more enjoyable/relaxing allowing other things to be pursued while listening to it when required, unlike the monster vacuum cleaner of attention that TV is. Children can even study better with the right music playing.
Although I am now fortunate to have a dedicated room for movie watching, I have never pursued the multi channel AVR and speaker/sub path. What has continued to work for me is a DVD - now Bluray - player, with L/R audio wired to a stereo amp, wired to a pair of stand mounted speakers. About 15 years ago, someone I respect said in this connection that 2 good speakers are a better choice than 5 mediocre ones that you will get for the same price. Obviously, the same logic then flows into the supporting amp, all you need is 2 channel electronics, which is cheaper than the equivalent 5 or more channel.
My experience has been that with these speakers properly sited, they create an excellent phantom centre that allows for all dialogue to be both clear, and sound like it is coming from the mouth of the actors. No need for a centre speaker. And with most of the action happening across the screen, accompanying sound effects are well created by their movement across the two speakers. I have never felt the need for being surrounded by speakers. And since a lot of my movie watching is late at night, civic sense demands that I don't have a sub rumbling along, moving LF energy through apartment walls.
I am reasonably sure that my movie sound experiences are better than those I would have had if I had installed the typical HT in a box that is sold at various price points. It won't be as good as a full scale HT set up, I recognise that, but I remain on good terms with my neighbours. And when I want the full experience for movies such as The Dark Knight, I go to the multiplex.
For space constrained dwellers, my experience therefore suggests that a best of both worlds - music and TV - solution is better served by a 2 channel set up with 2 quality speakers. For music, it will be definitely better than the usual HT alternative, while for most movies, it will be just as good. And for regular TV watching, most of my TV watching is done with the volume very low, because I can't stand to listen to - as just one example - the way the commentators keep prattling about the cricket action. For many other channels, the 2 channel solution should be perfectly adequate.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Stereophile: The Carver Challenge (Oct. 1985)
Enjoy. Audio mythbusting may not have got better than this, but audio story-telling never did. It's a gripping read!
~
Interesting, thank you. What is even more striking is this was in 1985, almost 30 years ago. With nothing much in the way of visible progress in the thinking involved since then. Or in any outcome.
PS: This is even more stark when you see the progress made in electronic/digital tech since then. Many gadgets we take for granted now were in the realm of SF. While this segment seems to be mired in navel gazing - perhaps because there isn't any useful progress to be made, which also explains the dwindling sales and increasing number of snake oil sellers. I am referring to the SQ things, on the features front innovative delivery solutions have of course been invented.
Last edited:
Sidebar on room acoustics
It was at the last Munich show I think that the room acoustics problem was said to be solved by a device which "re-structures the atoms in the air of the listening room''.
People spending some time in the demo room were served expensive wine. It was said to be very good, the wine.
Good cue in this, for the next post - On the wonderland of HiFi magazines!
It was at the last Munich show I think that the room acoustics problem was said to be solved by a device which "re-structures the atoms in the air of the listening room''.
People spending some time in the demo room were served expensive wine. It was said to be very good, the wine.
Good cue in this, for the next post - On the wonderland of HiFi magazines!
Last edited:
Equipment reviews or audiophile porn?
Before the HiFi magazine reviews post, an example of what is on the net.
Once upon a time, I had a well regarded tube buffer in the signal path from the solid state preamp to the power amp, made by a well known UK company. It was a small box with a wall wart power supply. The company also sold a similarly sized box to do power supply duty, to provide the tube buffer a supply of "clean power", with a cable connecting the two, that carried the power. All of this to impart the tube sound to a solid state system.
With me so far?
Now, the equipment I am talking about is the cable that carries this power. And the review that follows is for a replacement to that cable. Read it and weep:
Quote
tube buffer improved in all of the key sonic areas that one would expect of a major upgrade in tube gear, and a few you wouldnt:
Bottom end:
o The first cable allowed me to hear the plucked string of a bass this one gave me much more sense of the whole note and the instrument it came from
o The bass line became both a much more distinct and separately articulated entity, as well as better integrated in the overall fabric of the music
o Deep bass notes were much more apparent in a way that I didnt think my system was cable of. It simply went deeper and with way more authority, allowing me to hear bass notes that were not as audible previously.
o On well produced pop/rock the bass rocked and it was incredibly easy to hear the distinction between a synth bass vs. and electric bass
o Bass guitar and bass drum, while tonally distinct, locked together in the tightest way (partly a function of increased dynamics too)
o Overall bass tonality seriously improved
Midrange:
o That reviewer term palpable presence manifest itself here (best way I can think to describe it) the entire midrange spectrum was much more there than before, especially vocals, sax, etc.
o I heard much more of the body of the instrument or voice the sound of the wooden guitar body, the resonant cavity of a piano and of the male voice were all much more apparent
o Music was warmer and more natural but in no way woody. Perhaps its best to say the midrange had an increased sense of illumination and life I dont know how to articulate this better, it just seemed more real
o Brass sounded much more golden and simply glorious. I can now hear much more cleanly the specific timbres of alto/tenor/soprano sax, trumpet and trombone, whether foreground or buried in the back of a mix/orchestra
Highs:
o As with the previous cable, a reduction of more (but still not all) of the sibilance on certain CDs
o Reverb tails and overall ambience were again more apparent, enhancing the sense of the real/studio-faked space
o Cymbals developed much more sheen (crash) and you could hear the individual rivets of a ride cymbal much better
o Bells had much more presence as well as a fuller sound not only the initial strike but the soft envelope of the decay
o Everything sounded rounder, more complete, more whole, more fleshed out
Soundstage:
o The soundstage expanded in the most amazing way. Not only did it become deeper and wider (yet again), but it also expanded well in front of the speakers and seemed to envelope the listener/room. I have never heard this before in my system and it thrilled me completely. It enhanced the sense that, not only were the musicians in the room with me, but that I was virtually transported to the room in which the recording took place.
o Depth and width grew to well outside the walls of my room the sheer volume of acoustic spaces was vivid and exciting
o Every CD became much more holographic and I was literally immersed in the music
o Spaces between sources increased yet again as did the layering of sounds within a space
Image Focus:
o Images were much more defined in a seemingly natural space and were bigger and more tightly delineated.
o Image specificity deep in the soundstage was enhanced even more things were much more naturally (theres that word again) real
o Images seemed more solidly locked into place and more coherent each image seemed to be more individualized and more whole
o There seemed to be an envelope of air around each instrument
Dynamics and bloom:
o Music seemed sharper and faster pace and rhythm improved greatly on both rock/classical
o The snap of drums and other percussive sounds was enhanced in a much more real and natural way far greater jump factor
o As an example a crash cymbal, when hit, starts with an explosion of sound in a very specific location (the cymbal) and then expands outward to fill the surrounding space I can hear this for the first time
o The dynamic scale of music, from softest to loudest sounds, increased significantly
o Musical crescendos in naturally recorded spaces (classical, jazz) bloomed in the most amazing way, expanding to truly fill the space in the dynamic sense (this is the first time I have heard this effect in my system)
Unquote
Enough said?
Before the HiFi magazine reviews post, an example of what is on the net.
Once upon a time, I had a well regarded tube buffer in the signal path from the solid state preamp to the power amp, made by a well known UK company. It was a small box with a wall wart power supply. The company also sold a similarly sized box to do power supply duty, to provide the tube buffer a supply of "clean power", with a cable connecting the two, that carried the power. All of this to impart the tube sound to a solid state system.
With me so far?
Now, the equipment I am talking about is the cable that carries this power. And the review that follows is for a replacement to that cable. Read it and weep:
Quote
tube buffer improved in all of the key sonic areas that one would expect of a major upgrade in tube gear, and a few you wouldnt:
Bottom end:
o The first cable allowed me to hear the plucked string of a bass this one gave me much more sense of the whole note and the instrument it came from
o The bass line became both a much more distinct and separately articulated entity, as well as better integrated in the overall fabric of the music
o Deep bass notes were much more apparent in a way that I didnt think my system was cable of. It simply went deeper and with way more authority, allowing me to hear bass notes that were not as audible previously.
o On well produced pop/rock the bass rocked and it was incredibly easy to hear the distinction between a synth bass vs. and electric bass
o Bass guitar and bass drum, while tonally distinct, locked together in the tightest way (partly a function of increased dynamics too)
o Overall bass tonality seriously improved
Midrange:
o That reviewer term palpable presence manifest itself here (best way I can think to describe it) the entire midrange spectrum was much more there than before, especially vocals, sax, etc.
o I heard much more of the body of the instrument or voice the sound of the wooden guitar body, the resonant cavity of a piano and of the male voice were all much more apparent
o Music was warmer and more natural but in no way woody. Perhaps its best to say the midrange had an increased sense of illumination and life I dont know how to articulate this better, it just seemed more real
o Brass sounded much more golden and simply glorious. I can now hear much more cleanly the specific timbres of alto/tenor/soprano sax, trumpet and trombone, whether foreground or buried in the back of a mix/orchestra
Highs:
o As with the previous cable, a reduction of more (but still not all) of the sibilance on certain CDs
o Reverb tails and overall ambience were again more apparent, enhancing the sense of the real/studio-faked space
o Cymbals developed much more sheen (crash) and you could hear the individual rivets of a ride cymbal much better
o Bells had much more presence as well as a fuller sound not only the initial strike but the soft envelope of the decay
o Everything sounded rounder, more complete, more whole, more fleshed out
Soundstage:
o The soundstage expanded in the most amazing way. Not only did it become deeper and wider (yet again), but it also expanded well in front of the speakers and seemed to envelope the listener/room. I have never heard this before in my system and it thrilled me completely. It enhanced the sense that, not only were the musicians in the room with me, but that I was virtually transported to the room in which the recording took place.
o Depth and width grew to well outside the walls of my room the sheer volume of acoustic spaces was vivid and exciting
o Every CD became much more holographic and I was literally immersed in the music
o Spaces between sources increased yet again as did the layering of sounds within a space
Image Focus:
o Images were much more defined in a seemingly natural space and were bigger and more tightly delineated.
o Image specificity deep in the soundstage was enhanced even more things were much more naturally (theres that word again) real
o Images seemed more solidly locked into place and more coherent each image seemed to be more individualized and more whole
o There seemed to be an envelope of air around each instrument
Dynamics and bloom:
o Music seemed sharper and faster pace and rhythm improved greatly on both rock/classical
o The snap of drums and other percussive sounds was enhanced in a much more real and natural way far greater jump factor
o As an example a crash cymbal, when hit, starts with an explosion of sound in a very specific location (the cymbal) and then expands outward to fill the surrounding space I can hear this for the first time
o The dynamic scale of music, from softest to loudest sounds, increased significantly
o Musical crescendos in naturally recorded spaces (classical, jazz) bloomed in the most amazing way, expanding to truly fill the space in the dynamic sense (this is the first time I have heard this effect in my system)
Unquote
Enough said?
Last edited:
Getting back to essentials
At its most complex, my main system looked like this:
Mains supply>power conditioner>CDP>Preamp>tube buffer(including its own little support system)>power amp>quality speaker pair. In a component rack with CD towers. And a turntable on the periphery.
It now looks like this:
Mains supply>Sonos Connect Amp>quality speaker pair. No component racks, no CDs to be seen.
I get the same sound quality as before. Because of Sonos, I also get a LOT more music, from the net, and play much more of owned music than before. Replace the Sonos unit with a USB socket equipped box that has a CDP+Amp, you will get the same sound quality and access to music, if Sonos isn't your cup of tea.
99% of the sound quality I hear is derived from the mastering quality, speaker quality and room acoustics. I can't be bothered now tweaking the 1%.
The essentials to getting good music in the home are in place, so why sit manicuring the finger is how I see things.
Hopefully, these experiences will be of use to somebody in following a far simpler and cheaper path to the same destination. And with the money saved, to spend it on other things that matter - remember too that this saving may also allow you to finance better speakers than may have otherwise been possible.
At its most complex, my main system looked like this:
Mains supply>power conditioner>CDP>Preamp>tube buffer(including its own little support system)>power amp>quality speaker pair. In a component rack with CD towers. And a turntable on the periphery.
It now looks like this:
Mains supply>Sonos Connect Amp>quality speaker pair. No component racks, no CDs to be seen.
I get the same sound quality as before. Because of Sonos, I also get a LOT more music, from the net, and play much more of owned music than before. Replace the Sonos unit with a USB socket equipped box that has a CDP+Amp, you will get the same sound quality and access to music, if Sonos isn't your cup of tea.
99% of the sound quality I hear is derived from the mastering quality, speaker quality and room acoustics. I can't be bothered now tweaking the 1%.
The essentials to getting good music in the home are in place, so why sit manicuring the finger is how I see things.
Hopefully, these experiences will be of use to somebody in following a far simpler and cheaper path to the same destination. And with the money saved, to spend it on other things that matter - remember too that this saving may also allow you to finance better speakers than may have otherwise been possible
.Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Re: Equipment reviews or audiophile porn?
And that review could easily have been a post on hifivision.com, so you might hear rather more disproving sniffs than weeping.hyeah:
And that review could easily have been a post on hifivision.com, so you might hear rather more disproving sniffs than weeping.
hyeah: Hifi Magazines and their reviews
Coming to the media, I can't think of a more difficult job than as a reviewer. Imagine finding new ways to write, every month, for every new piece of kit that comes along, including this year's iteration of a component that you went ballistic over in a review written just 12-24 months ago. Inventing new ways, new words and new metaphors all the time. I couldn't do this for more than a year or two - one equipment cycle - before my imagination and vocabulary ran out. Doesn't matter which magazine - from certain respected American ones to the eye candy oriented monthly issue of a well known one from the UK. Levels of subtlety may vary, but the underlying challenge would remain the same.
And all of this with the influence that advertisers always have on the content - it would be naive to exclude that, although the extent of this may vary from one magazine to the next.
In my view, these reviews and magazines are useless. Particularly since things such as specs are now easily available on the net. Not only are they not essential to getting good sound at home - their one purpose seem to me to be to leave you in a permanent state of dissatisfaction with what you have.
Hifi media isn't the only one with these issues. Photography is another, as is automobiles. Or almost any other specialist hobby magazine. But one thing makes Hifi unique, afaik. One uses a camera to take pictures. One drives a car to get from one place to another, even as a hobby. The pursuit of the hobby involves a continuous interaction with the relevant equipment and the interface as well as the to and from communication with it which is an important part of use and improvements in this can usually elevate hobby outcomes - or at least have the potential to. Not so with hifi - 99% of the time the equipment has to just sit there, doing the job. Might even be out of sight, from a functional perspective. Not very different from a washing machine or a microwave oven really. And all that matter in these are things like: does it do the job reliably, what is the capacity, and how much power does it consume. And what does it cost.
I guess it is male of the species thing - no female can be bothered with a equivalent pursuit of home appliances - hence no magazine called What Microwave or What Washing Machine. Which is probably how they see audio equipment too, and can't be bothered about it enough to become audiophiles.
I think I know what you mean!you might hear rather more disproving sniffs than weeping.
Coming to the media, I can't think of a more difficult job than as a reviewer. Imagine finding new ways to write, every month, for every new piece of kit that comes along, including this year's iteration of a component that you went ballistic over in a review written just 12-24 months ago. Inventing new ways, new words and new metaphors all the time. I couldn't do this for more than a year or two - one equipment cycle - before my imagination and vocabulary ran out. Doesn't matter which magazine - from certain respected American ones to the eye candy oriented monthly issue of a well known one from the UK. Levels of subtlety may vary, but the underlying challenge would remain the same.
And all of this with the influence that advertisers always have on the content - it would be naive to exclude that, although the extent of this may vary from one magazine to the next.
In my view, these reviews and magazines are useless. Particularly since things such as specs are now easily available on the net. Not only are they not essential to getting good sound at home - their one purpose seem to me to be to leave you in a permanent state of dissatisfaction with what you have.
Hifi media isn't the only one with these issues. Photography is another, as is automobiles. Or almost any other specialist hobby magazine. But one thing makes Hifi unique, afaik. One uses a camera to take pictures. One drives a car to get from one place to another, even as a hobby. The pursuit of the hobby involves a continuous interaction with the relevant equipment and the interface as well as the to and from communication with it which is an important part of use and improvements in this can usually elevate hobby outcomes - or at least have the potential to. Not so with hifi - 99% of the time the equipment has to just sit there, doing the job. Might even be out of sight, from a functional perspective. Not very different from a washing machine or a microwave oven really. And all that matter in these are things like: does it do the job reliably, what is the capacity, and how much power does it consume. And what does it cost.
I guess it is male of the species thing - no female can be bothered with a equivalent pursuit of home appliances - hence no magazine called What Microwave or What Washing Machine
. Which is probably how they see audio equipment too, and can't be bothered about it enough to become audiophiles.
Last edited:
Join WhatsApp group to get HiFiMART.com Offers & Deals delivered to your smartphone!
Similar threads
