James
Lord of the Erg\o/s
Does this mean that the perfect hifi system can be built in the absence of budgetary limits? How much money do I need to spend?
James
The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio
- Thread starter internet radio
- Start date
- Status
James
Except event opals according to that aussie dude with an earring.......
dave
Plywood King
Fully agree, Tony.
I've mentioned before that I've found loudspeakers overall relatively unimportant since most seem equally mediocre in passing a signal that can suspend belief. Improved low frequency extension and dynamics doesn't mean much when your still listening through a wet blanket.
Some electrostatics in the form of loudspeakers or headphones remove much of that blanket yet their flaws become tiring as well.
cheers,
dave
david ellwood
Kirabosi Kognoscente
Firstly you base your argument on an incorrect assumption.
My experience of understanding is that the more I understand anything the more I see how many holes there are in my knowledge.
It is a truly ignorant man who claims to perfectly understand anything.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
Does this mean that the perfect hifi system can be built in the absence of budgetary limits? How much money do I need to spend?
James
Excluding loudspeakers, a few hundred pounds will do it, as even modest CD players and amplifiers are transparent, and hence as "perfect" as need be.
As to loudspeakers, they are as yet still somewhat imperfect, so it's a case of balancing the imperfections to one's taste.
S.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
There are many things we don't understand. There are many things we don't even know we don't understand. Donald Rumsfeld got it right about known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
How to make CD players and amplifiers are known knowns. Have been for many years. How to make 'perfect' loudspeakers is a known unknown. We know they're imperfect, and we have a pretty good idea why, and the better manufacturers are getting there with better materials, better magnet assemblies etc. Other manufacturers, perhaps with fewer development resources are using existing knowledge to best effect, whilst there are a few manufacturers, often working at the "high end" price-wise, who should know better and are even now producing loudspeakers that are far worse than even existing knowledge requires.
Anyone who thinks that HiFi is so esoteric that it needs new science, or even the abandonment of science and apply purely subjective criteria, is, in my view, misguided.
S.
david ellwood
Kirabosi Kognoscente
I am all for a scientific approach.
Good engineering and design are fundamental.
Good engineering and design are fundamental.
S-Man
StrivingON
My opinion WFIW:
Cables - I believe, although the science tells me not to. No need to spend big$s though.
Valves - Agree with the Critic. Let's face it if "tube rolling" changes the sound, then only one of the sounds can be correct, at best.
Antidigital - Digital perfoms very well indeed.
Listening test - ABX etc is tosh. The only way to audition is over a long period in a relaxed situation.
Feedback - agree with the Critic
Burn-in - speakers yes. Others, not sure, but who cares, just use the thing for a while as per "Listening Test"
Bi-wiring - Unnecessary.
Power conditioner - waste of money.
CD treatment - no idea (don't care)
Golden Ears - I have them, nobody else does
Seriously: I think some people are more sensitive to some distortions than other people. Non-audiophiles often have the best judgement.
Robert
Tapehead
I would add analogue sources to the list of items were the spend still needs to be what most would consider 'considerable' in order to get excellent results.
However, I think that with loudspeakers, we need improvements in technology and understanding to move things forward, while with say TTs and phono cartridges, we simply need good engineering and that always costs.
Robert
Tapehead
I agree to some extent with the whole idea of balancing the system, but how you do that is where the arguments arise.
Some will swap amps, cables, dacs or whatever in order to attempt to tune the system. But this is incredibly haphazard IMO and often just doesn't work. Tuning a system with a dac change is like changing the car upholstery in the hope that it will go faster.
Nearly all non loudspeaker related system issues, leaving aside the basics of having enough power and not having too much noise etc, come down to issues of tonal presentation.
Too warm, too lean, a bit forward, a bit recessed, perhaps a bit hard, a front row presentation as opposed to middle of the hall etc, etc.
I would always maintain that the best way to tackle such issues is to use a dedicated solution and EQ the system to how you want it to sound.
Here I perhaps disagree with Serge in that I don't think that absolute faithfulness to the source is that important. Faithfulness to your own ideas of what sounds right is what counts.
The real problem is that hi-fi enthusiasts are EQ phobic because they've swallowed the line over the years that any form of tone control is bad.
I hear many systems and some really are quite shockingly bad - a tone control would be the least of the worries!
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Rob and Serge,
Do you think there's essentially no difference between, say, a Sony CDPCE500 CD player and, say, the Rega Isis?
Joe
Do you think there's essentially no difference between, say, a Sony CDPCE500 CD player and, say, the Rega Isis?
Joe
Chefren
pfm Member
For all practical purposes you can measure an infinite number of frequency responses from a speaker, all different. Most of them won't be inside +-2 dB for any speaker, even when not counting in reflections. In a practical listening environment any speaker will deliver a very phase and level distorted performance to the listening position.
The results will looks something like this: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mebentz2/Measurements/total.jpg
This is what we are actually listening to, "somewhat imperfect" is a bit of an understatement.
Quite a few amps also don't measure perfectly anymore either when they are connected to real speakers during measurements and measurements are taken from the speaker terminals at the speaker end. Again, when measured under their normal use conditions.
Get some better speakers...
sergeauckland
pfm Member
Firstly, I was referring to the anechoic response of the loudspeaker. +-2dB can be achieved anechoically, especially with a bit of DSP equalisation in the crossover. What you're referring to is the in-room response which will be different fer every room, and for every location in every room, an infinite number of variations.
That doesn't mean, though, is that a flat anechoic response isn't a good thing. When one sits in a room, for any length of time, one's brain gets accustomed to the sound of everyday noises, speech, whatever. The room's response is superimposed on these natural sounds, and that sounds "right" for those sounds, in that room. Now play a musical instrument, say, a violin, in that room. The sound of the violin will be modified by the room's acoustic but will still sound natural in that room. The violin's output won't have changed, the harmonic structure will be the same, in other words, the violin's anechoic response will be unchanged as the violin itself hasn't changed. Play now a recording of that violin, done in a dead acoustic. For it to sound natural, the loudspeaker needs to have a flat response so that the violin's harmonic structure isn't changed. If fidelity to the source is desired, then a loudspeaker needs to have a flat anechoic response.
It is for this reason that I have found room-correction machines unsatisfying. They correct for (i.e. remove) some of the the effects of the room and so whilst everyday noises, speech etc still sound natural in the room, sounds from a nominally flat loudspeaker no longer sounds natural.
S.
Robert
Tapehead
Joe,
I'd put money on those two being indistinguishable in a blind test, assuming I could check that the response of both were within +/- 1dB limits up to around 15khz - most would be.
So the answer is yes.
However, I'm glad you said 'essentially no difference' - because there will be differences for sure at some level. Audibility is what matters, in the same way that pushing amplifier THD down from 0.005 to 0.0005, while nice, isn't audible.
One thing to check is that some companies subtly skew the response - a little lift at the top to improve perceived detail or a little bump at the bottom to add weight.
But with digital things are usually very subtle indeed.
All bets would be off with the valve Isis
- Status