I've just had a CD playback on a £350,000 Hi-Fi system

[Conan]

[quote name='BassTractor' timestamp='1394023739' post='2386995']for me it's about the music.[/quote]

I want that on my gravestone!

[BigRedX]

The important thing to remember about "audiophile" HiFi systems is that no-one who is in the business of actually recording, mixing or mastering music uses any of those sorts of systems.

I think the average HiFi fanatic would be appalled if they saw the sorts of very ordinary (but perfectly serviceable) cables and the distances that the audio signals run through these in a typical recording studio. However it doesn't seem to have done the actual [b]MUSIC[/b] any harm.

[Matt P]

i've managed to avoid the dreaded upgrade bug with my hifi, but i have made a few changes that are noticeable, when i got married i moved my beloved hifi out of the bedroom in my student house into the living room of our newly purchased home and suddenly it sounded a bit flat, i tried moving the speakers (kef floorstanders) around and it just didn't work, 60 quid on a pair of secondhand castle speakers and 20 for some stands and suddenly it was alive again, and i got 50 quid for the old speakers from a friend, when i heard them in his livingroom they sounded excellent again!

the other noticeable improvement was fitting a new Ortofon cartridge to Thorens turntable but i think this was more to do with the clean sharp stylus than becuse the new cartridge was "better" then the old Shure one.

every so often i find myself in a hifi shop and enquire about a new amp, the general opinion of most of the salespeople is that i need to spend a minimum of 500 quid to get something "better", when it finally dies i think i'll actually spend 50 quid on something from ebay (which is how i got the current one anyway)

Matt

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1394024457' post='2387004']
The important thing to remember about "audiophile" HiFi systems is that no-one who is in the business of actually recording, mixing or mastering music uses any of those sorts of systems.

I think the average HiFi fanatic would be appalled if they saw the sorts of very ordinary (but perfectly serviceable) cables and the distances that the audio signals run through these in a typical recording studio. However it doesn't seem to have done the actual [b]MUSIC[/b] any harm.
[/quote]

Exactly. Its also telling that high quality scientific equipment---high end oscilloscopes, military radar systems and so on---don't have any of these megabucks directional connectors or power cables that cost £££. If they gave you better signal to noise then people other than audiophiles would be using them.

[Dingus]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1393965953' post='2386439']
IMO, most HiFi is pointless. Unless you are listening on exactly the same system as was used in the studio where the mastering was done, you won't hear what the recording was supposed to sound like anyway.

I find it all a bit sad really can't we just enjoy the music?
[/quote]
[quote name='gjones' timestamp='1393980927' post='2386672']
What is the aim of a top notch Hi Fi system? Surely it is to replicate the sound of an album as it would be heard in a top notch recording studio. I doubt Abbey Roads CD player, Amp and monitors cost £350,000 combined.

I suspect it's just an exercise in separating the obscenely rich from their money. Nothing wrong with that.
[/quote]

This assumption that the point of hi-fi equipment is to try and reproduce the music as it was originally heard in the studio is[u] completely wrong[/u].

Firstly, even in some of the best equipped recording studios in the world, the playback equipment and the studio monitors in particular are quite harsh-sounding and unforgiving by the standards of most domestic hi-fi. The people who mix and master professional recordings are quite aware of this, and the music is mixed and mastered taking that discrepancy into account. In that respect it is far more accurate to say that the converse is true, and that the point of how it was recorded in the studio was to take into account the kind of equipment people would be listening to it on at home. The people who make records are acutely aware of the kind of equipment they likely to be listened to on in the real world, and usually tailor the sound accordingly. The result is that a lot of records sound worse on expensive high end equipment that they would on a crappy system.

In fact, , in the very best recording studios in the world, they actually incorporate high-end hi-fi equipment into both the monitoring and playback process to assess how the the recording will sound on domestic equipment. Last time I looked, at Abbey Road they were using electronics from Chord, solid silver cables and the top of the range B&W speakers for final playback. That system wouldn't cost you £350,000, but it would be in the tens of thousands of pounds range.

One of the reasons that properly equipped professional studios use multiple sets of differently sized speakers to listen and mix through is so they can get an idea how the recording is going to sound through various kinds of equipment that people are likely to be listening through, and to strike some kind of a balance between the different demands of different kinds of audio systems. Historically, the sound of popular music has been influenced by the kind of equipment people were using at any given time to listen to it on, and that is just as true today as it was in the early 1960's when Berry Gordy would get the local radio in Detroit to play the rough mixes of Motown tracks so he and his team could hear how they sounded on A.M radio, because that is what would most influence sales.Nowadays, digital audio and mp3 players mean that an unprecedented number of people are actually hearing music in relatively high quality, and that has in itself influenced how music is designed to sound. The idea that if you aren't listening to the studio playback then you aren't hearing the ultimate realisation of the music is completely spurious.

The simple fact is if you enjoy music and you listen on a decent hi- fi system, the chances are that you will hear nuances in terms of not only in the details of the music but also in terms of the overall tonal balance and , most importantly, the pace, rhythm and timing of the music. If you love music then listening on a good quality audio system can be a sensual pleasure that ranks along with the very best that human beings can enjoy. Being dismissive of that pleasure is akin to saying "why bother planning and cooking a fabulous meal when you can get a Pot Noodle from the corner shop?". It is philistinism of the worst kind.

I wonder how many people who are sceptical about good quality audio have actually heard any for any length of time, because I can remember the first time I heard decent hi-fi equipment , and from that moment I couldn't wait to get some of my own. Yes, audiophilia is a hobby that attracts a fair few nutters and weirdos , and a large proportion of people who are actually looking for something to do rather than listen to music, but good quality sound is not the exclusive domain of those kind of people. Besides, before anyone on here starts being too scathing of so-called audiophiles, how many people on this forum buy expensive bass equipment despite the fact that the harsh reality is that they can't actually play very well, and would actually be much better advised to spend their money and their energies getting some lessons ? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, as the saying goes.

I am most certainly not an audiophile, but I do enjoy listening to music in at least a moderately good level of playback , and I make no apologies for that. Like Ziphoblat says, the law of diminishing returns applies to hi-fi to a very large extent, and a well-chosen budget system could surprise you with how persuasive it can sound. £350,000 is undoubtedly excessive by most standards, but if you listened to a good system costing £3500 or even £35,000 then you might find it far more of a revelation.

[Dingus]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1394024457' post='2387004']
The important thing to remember about "audiophile" HiFi systems is that no-one who is in the business of actually recording, mixing or mastering music uses any of those sorts of systems.

I think the average HiFi fanatic would be appalled if they saw the sorts of very ordinary (but perfectly serviceable) cables and the distances that the audio signals run through these in a typical recording studio. However it doesn't seem to have done the actual [b]MUSIC[/b] any harm.
[/quote]

Once again, you are completely missing the point. What king of equipment was used in the studio is largely irrelevant. It's like saying that a painting is pointless because it doesn't look the same as reality.

[Dingus]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1394024457' post='2387004']
The important thing to remember about "audiophile" HiFi systems is that no-one who is in the business of actually recording, mixing or mastering music uses any of those sorts of systems.

[/quote]

Actually, at the highest level of the industry they do.

[Dingus]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1393975474' post='2386618']
I suspect the use of batteries was less to do with heavy currents than to ensure a perfectly clean DC power supply with no mains ripple or regulator 'noise'.

I also suspect it made no discernable audible difference.




Did you miss out a 'dear' in that sentence?
[/quote]

Power supply makes a very noticeable difference to audio quality on most decent quality equipment. How you channel and condition mains power definitely influences the final sound .

Edited March 5, 2014 by Dingus

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1394028557' post='2387072']
Actually, at the highest level of the industry they do.
[/quote]

Well then where are they?

Certainly none of the articles I've read in the last few years in Sound On Sound about big name studios or recording/mixing/mastering engineers seem to feature any of these systems. Many of the facilities described have some impressive amps and speakers but they have little in common with the sorts of systems of the "high-end HiF" world.

One of the things that annoys me about "audiophile" hifi is that is appears to be aimed at a very narrow range of music. It's all very well going on about enhancing "clarity" "separation" and "detail", but a lot of music is recorded and mixed deliberately so that the all the instruments stick together sonically and separation is probably the last thing the people involved in the recording want.

I had hoped that with the coming of digital delivery mediums the HiFi nuts and their "willy waving" systems would go away but in fact they seem worse than ever. That digital would be the great democratiser when it comes to audio reproduction and we could just get on with enjoying the music that we were hearing, without worrying that spending more money might make it sound "better".

Having spent a long time listening to lots of different speaker systems when I was setting up my home studio all I can say is that they all sound different. Which sound better is entirely subjective.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='BetaFunk' timestamp='1393969901' post='2386528']
If i had £350,000 to spend i'd buy an old Dansette and a pile of 45s and still have £349,950 left to spend on far better things than some fancy hi-fi.
[/quote]
[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1394006967' post='2386725']
Me too!
[/quote]

That's a bugger; you could have a Dansette for a nixer. I hauled one off to the charity shop about a fortnight ago. The stacker didn't work but everything else did. And despite the fact it runs off an EL84 and I had a new stylus, it sounded like absolute sh*t.

Apparently they sell on the Bay for £100+, twice that for the rarer Red / Cream or Royal Blue versions. 19 gns it cost in the early 60's which is about£350,000 in today's money.

Edited March 5, 2014 by skankdelvar

[Dave Vader]

[quote name='BetaFunk' timestamp='1393969901' post='2386528']
If i had £350,000 to spend i'd buy an old Dansette and a pile of 45s and still have £349,950 left to spend on far better things than some fancy hi-fi.
[/quote]

I can help you there, I've a couple of those knocking about for drunken comedy DJ nights at home. You can have them for 350,000 the pair.

I am not an audiophile, though was pleasantly surprised to find my old Wharfedale XP2 speakers (that my Grandad gave me 20 years ago when he went into an old folks home) and NAD 3020 amp (got for £20 off a junkie in a record shop around the same time) are in fact highly regarded. It certainly explains why I am always defending my cheap gear. I apologise to them constantly for having them hooked up to a soundlab turntable and an old DVD player.

[Dave Vader]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1394034363' post='2387171']
Apparently they sell on the Bay for £100+, twice that for the rarer Red / Cream or Royal Blue versions.
[/quote]

You are joking me? I've got one each of them. Well, i say I have, they're the wife's and she won't sell them. Bugger....

[yorks5stringer]

Good job I did not play "Stir it Up" then.....

[Bilbo]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1394028214' post='2387066']
This assumption that the point of hi-fi equipment is to try and reproduce the music as it was originally heard in the studio is[u] completely wrong[/u].
[/quote]

I actually agree with most of what you say but, when it is broken down, hearing what it sounded like when the musicians played it HAS to be the whole point of it all. Not in the sense that no-one is allowed to make any alterations to the recorded sound but in the sense that the inherent VALUE of the art form is in its production not in its reproduction.

Shirley?

[Dingus]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1394031344' post='2387123']
Well then where are they?

Certainly none of the articles I've read in the last few years in Sound On Sound about big name studios or recording/mixing/mastering engineers seem to feature any of these systems. Many of the facilities described have some impressive amps and speakers but they have little in common with the sorts of systems of the "high-end HiF" world.

One of the things that annoys me about "audiophile" hifi is that is appears to be aimed at a very narrow range of music. It's all very well going on about enhancing "clarity" "separation" and "detail", but a lot of music is recorded and mixed deliberately so that the all the instruments stick together sonically and separation is probably the last thing the people involved in the recording want.

I had hoped that with the coming of digital delivery mediums the HiFi nuts and their "willy waving" systems would go away but in fact they seem worse than ever. That digital would be the great democratiser when it comes to audio reproduction and we could just get on with enjoying the music that we were hearing, without worrying that spending more money might make it sound "better".

Having spent a long time listening to lots of different speaker systems when I was setting up my home studio all I can say is that they all sound different. Which sound better is entirely subjective.
[/quote]

What you are saying here is both factually inaccurate and, more's to the point, apparently motivated by some kind of idealogical grudge that sees the aesthetic sensibilities of others as inappropriate, superfluous and overly ornate whilst asserting your own supposedly utilitarian values.

A lot of top professional studios as well as mixing and mastering facilities [u][i]do[/i][/u] have domestic hi-fi equipment in service at various levels of the process, and there an increasing overlap between the two industries. .Even if they didn't , as I have pointed out to you previously, it would have no bearing on the subjective value final listening experience on domestic hifi equipment . Someone posed the question earlier in this thread "what is the point of a high-end hi fi system ? ". The answer is simply this: to sound good. And, as the old adage goes, if it sounds good, it is good.

I can't speak for "willy waving" hi-fi nuts, because I have never encountered any myself and I am sorry these people seem to be harassing you in some way as you seem to suggest , but I do know that a well-put together system can have a persuasive and thrilling sound that is a source of great joy and pleasure for many years to people who love music.

Your assertion that high -end hifi is aimed at a particular kind of music is very wide of the mark , too. You would be very surprised at a lot of the music used in the designing of a lot of audio products, and the irreverent attitude of the people who design it. I could play you some high -end hifi systems that will take your Ramones records and pin you against the wall with the sound they put out, if that is what you want, as well as be capable of great subtlety at the same time. Great systems can reveal the essence of the music, whatever it may be, and that is their enduring appeal.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Dingus

[Dingus]

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1394036238' post='2387205']
I actually agree with most of what you say but, when it is broken down, hearing what it sounded like when the musicians played it HAS to be the whole point of it all. Not in the sense that no-one is allowed to make any alterations to the recorded sound but in the sense that the inherent VALUE of the art form is in its production not in its reproduction.

Shirley?
[/quote]

The point I am making, Bilbo, is that the sound as it is mixed in the studio is not an accurate representation of the performance anyway, and was usually never actually designed to be so. It is a version of events that has been manipulated to take into account the effect that domestic playback will have on the final effect.

If you are talking about reproducing live performance then, yes, the ideal would be to reproduce the sound that the actual event produced, but even that is open to a large degree of subjectivity. For example, what was the real sound of the event, was it the backline on stage , the monitor mix , the mix at the desk or what came out of the P.A? I suppose it's fair to say that hifi is a rendition of a rendition, but a good quality rendition on decent equipment is far more likely to capture the spirit and actual experience of the original event than a bad quality rendition on poor equipment.


Could I also draw attention to the fact that decent hifi doesn't have to be expensive ( luckily for me) or elitist, and comes in many forms. For example, nowadays you can get a decent pair of headphones for about a hundred quid and a USB DAC/ headphone amplifier for around the same price with stunningly good results, and use them turn your P.C or laptop into a source of high quality listening pleasure with an endless supply of free music.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Dingus

[BetaFunk]

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1394034363' post='2387171']
That's a bugger; you could have a Dansette for a nixer. I hauled one off to the charity shop about a fortnight ago. The stacker didn't work but everything else did. And despite the fact it runs off an EL84 and I had a new stylus, it sounded like absolute sh*t.

Apparently they sell on the Bay for £100+, twice that for the rarer Red / Cream or Royal Blue versions. 19 gns it cost in the early 60's which is about£350,000 in today's money.
[/quote][quote name='Dave Vader' timestamp='1394034433' post='2387174']
I can help you there, I've a couple of those knocking about for drunken comedy DJ nights at home. You can have them for 350,000 the pair. [/quote]
I don't have £350,000 but i already have a Dansette (a nice two-tone blue one) and hundreds of 45s. The sound may not be the greatest but for example the Fab Four have never sounded better to me. In fact i insist on playing all of the mopped topped ones recordings i have on it. I use Ob-La-Di-Ob-La-Da as a reference for all the vinyl i [s]chuck[/s] put on the Dansette. If that sounds good then anything that follows will be o.k.

[gjones]

The most realistic hi fi sound I ever heard, was after I'd smoked a big doobie and sat and listened to a blues compilation on a cheap cassette, through a £20 Woolworths music centre, sometime in 1995.

Maaaaan It sounded like John Lee Hooker and the band were in the room, dude.

[bubinga5]

a friend of mine has Krell separates and sone fancy B & W speakers, it is incredible. possibly as good as you would want, sound wise. he spent £9000 i think. £350,000 is very silly. its like those in ear headphone's i saw fro £1900. what sort of moron would spend that.??

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Matt P' timestamp='1394024972' post='2387017']
i've managed to avoid the dreaded upgrade bug with my hifi, but i have made a few changes that are noticeable, when i got married i moved my beloved hifi out of the bedroom in my student house into the living room of our newly purchased home and suddenly it sounded a bit flat, i tried moving the speakers (kef floorstanders) around and it just didn't work, [i][b]60 quid on a pair of secondhand castle speakers[/b][/i] and 20 for some stands and suddenly it was alive again[/quote]

- where's an inconsolable icon when you need one?!? (You can put another "6" in front of yours for what I paid for my "Severn"s)

Well done on avoiding Hi-fi GAS though. Me too, haven't bought any new kit in over 10 years, had a pair of Senn's bought for me & a Pure DAB radio off my son but that's it.
It's also rare that I buy any "new" recordings, as in new artists, as the attraction rarely lasts. Been buying a fair bit of vinyl lately, but only if it's close to or actual mint.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Big_Stu

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='bubinga5' timestamp='1394040413' post='2387289']
a friend of mine has Krell separates and sone fancy B & W speakers, it is incredible. possibly as good as you would want, sound wise. he spent £9000 i think. £350,000 is very silly.[/quote]

A mate of mine has a mostly Linn system that he bought via a web-site for a fraction of the list price. At full value (taking £ as a basis which is stupid as a value of the sound it produces by hey-ho) it makes my system seem like cheap crap. In turn another mate of mine said that my cables cost more than his entire system. I gave him the offcuts of my speaker cable and a couple of good interconnects & he said he could def hear a big difference.
Throw depreciation & obsolescence into the equation and it explains why I've never heard of any hi-fi deviants or elitists. Enjoying the particular sound-system you have in your home isn't exactly a "cred" thing that would be worth blowing about, unless it was to your mates at the end of the station platform while you waited for a rare train to come your way.

[Dingus]

[quote name='bubinga5' timestamp='1394040413' post='2387289']
a friend of mine has Krell separates and sone fancy B & W speakers, it is incredible. possibly as good as you would want, sound wise. he spent £9000 i think. £350,000 is very silly. its like those in ear headphone's i saw fro £1900. what sort of moron would spend that.??
[/quote]

That is what I would describe as "sensible" crazy money, if that makes sense.

Always bear in mind , if you buy really expensive hifi equipment, you also have to budget for the price of a property with a space you can use as a dedicated listening room, because unless the environment is correct you won't hear anything like the true potential of the equipment.

I have had most of my own relatively modest system for several years, and none of my components are the latest thing by any means- my CD player dates back to the mid-1990's( but it is recognised classic), and the newest thing is my Exposure amp that I bought about five and a half years ago- but a good sound is a good sound , regardless of the age of the equipment, and I am very happy with the overall sound it makes. I know people who have spent a lot more money than me and ended up with systems they are far less happy with. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't recognise the superior performance and potential for enjoyment of much more costly and impressive gear than my own. If I had a more normal and settled home life I would probably have bought a much better system by now, but there seems little point when I seem to hardly get time to listen to it. .

[Matt P]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1394041339' post='2387301']


- where's an inconsolable icon when you need one?!? (You can put another "6" in front of yours for what I paid for my "Severn"s)

Well done on avoiding Hi-fi GAS though. Me too, haven't bought any new kit in over 10 years, had a pair of Senn's bought for me & a Pure DAB radio off my son but that's it.
It's also rare that I buy any "new" recordings, as in new artists, as the attraction rarely lasts. Been buying a fair bit of vinyl lately, but only if it's close to or actual mint.
[/quote]

I must point out that my castles are the much more lowly Durham 2's, the guy I bought them from was having a clear out and we actually got 2 pairs for 60 a pair and I snagged a nakamichi cassette deck 2 for another 40 quid, they guy lived in a huge house in an area mostly populated by premiership footballers, the system in his living room looked like Stonehenge!

(I probably shouldn't let on that my thorens turntable was given to me by a mates dad who was going to throw it out if I didn't want it!)

Matt

[yorks5stringer]

[quote name='Matt P' timestamp='1394048476' post='2387415']
I must point out that my castles are the much more lowly Durham 2's, the guy I bought them from was having a clear out and we actually got 2 pairs for 60 a pair and I snagged a nakamichi cassette deck 2 for another 40 quid, [b]they guy lived in a huge house in an area mostly populated by premiership footballers[/b], the system in his living room looked like Stonehenge!

(I probably shouldn't let on that my thorens turntable was given to me by a mates dad who was going to throw it out if I didn't want it!)

Matt
[/quote]

Darras Hall I reckon? I grew up in Ponteland...

Edited March 5, 2014 by yorks5stringer

[Matt P]

[quote name='yorks5stringer' timestamp='1394049072' post='2387431']


Darras Hall I reckon? I grew up in Ponteland...
[/quote]

Yup, the advert was in the local free paper, I phoned up as soon as I saw it and went straight there via the cash point!

Matt