Is HiFi purely about subjective preference?

[Geoffcin]

Actually lower distortion of the signal IS what separates a "High Fidelity" reproduction from one that is not. Your subjective preference has nothing to do with it.

The Shure V15 type IV was a well respected cartridge in it's day. The current permutation, the Shure v15vxmr is very well received by the audiophile community, even though very little improvement in distortion levels were, or are achievable with phono technology.

[RGA]

THD is the threshold? Would you argue this for loudspeakers too?

[E-Stat]

AS I've said on a good many occassion, vinyl isn't an option of me because the music I listen to isn't available on LP.

As I've said on a good many occasions, NOT having a vinyl playback system isn't an option for me because a lot of the music I have on vinyl isn't available on digital.

I'm not seeking euphonic warm or smoothness. I'm not going to dumb down all my recordings for the sake of the 20% that sound substandard.

Nor am I. I've tossed the truly bad recordings I once had.

Bottom line is I would be nuts to spend thousands of dollars for a
half-decent LP playback system. Maybe I'm the only enthusiast who feels this way or, more likely, I'm not.

Since I'm 54, I already have two turntables - one purchased in 1976. No need for new investment other than the twenty year old Shinon Red in the Ariston/SME table needs retipping from Soundsmith..

[Feanor]

Distortion isn't the only factor of what constitutes a high fidelity system. The ear is the ONLY acceptable and viable arbiter of quality sound reproduction. Just as it is for taste.
...

So that leaves no doubt about your position. Your statement defines good sound quality as subjective. QED

[Feanor]

...
Since I'm 54, I already have two turntables - one purchased in 1976. No need for new investment other than the twenty year old Shinon Red in the Ariston/SME table needs retipping from Soundsmith..

I'm 66 and had my first TT in 1971, (I was a late starter). I recently retired my latest TT and phono preamp to the basement; there they lie awaiting any impulse I might have in future to play any of my remaining LPs.

[RGA]

Feanor

If measurements that were done told a 100% complete picture I would be on board - they don't.

I am quite comfortable at looking at certain measurements - Distortion in a loudspeaker is far higher than distortion on amplifiers or even sources.

For instance as a Magnepan owner one of the reasons you LOVE them is because of their bass response - it sounds more natural and better than a boxed speaker. And yet. (Home theater magazine)

[Feanor]

Feanor

If measurements that were done told a 100% complete picture I would be on board - they don't.

I am quite comfortable at looking at certain measurements - Distortion in a loudspeaker is far higher than distortion on amplifiers or even sources.

For instance as a Magnepan owner one of the reasons you LOVE them is because of their bass response - it sounds more natural and better than a boxed speaker. And yet. (Home theater magazine)

Where I'll agree is that after all these decades we still don't know the measurements most related to preceived good sound. This is true of distortion measures especially; frequency response measures are less controversial.

I own Magneplanars but I've never bragged about their base response. I like the good resolution (at their price points) and the dipole soundstage.

As for Maggy measurement, I recently published my measurements with and without EQ, (including PSB subwoofer):

Without EQ ..



With EQ ...



Since then I've further refined the EQ, e.g less sag around 5.5 kHz. Flatter is better.

[Geoffcin]

Well I own Magnepans and I rave about their response, especially the bass! Graphing the distortion at 50hz is always going to be a lesson in futility though, as the dipole back wave will be read as distortion. My guess is that the true distortion is more like what was recorded at 1000hz;

FWIW; I've always been sensitive to bass distortion. One of the reasons I run Velodyne servo subs in the HT system.

[Ajani]

Frankly I would leave out all bias towards ease of use and running time out of the equation - the fact that something is much easier to use and cheaper may very well bias the hearing of it to be deemed better because one WANTS it to be better because it is easier to use.

I don't know any company that makes both turntables and digital who like their digital players better. And some of them make the best digital available.

Master Tapes are getting a little ridiculous - since the availability of music is so low that their being better is largely a moot issue. DAT is/was better than other formats just as Beta is/was better than VHS and laserdisc was better - but the oddball selection made them fringe players.

The best sound I have heard in playback as been on vinyl - and it's not close. But the practical aspects MUST be in play. The expense of the player is vast. Not happening. Tape is arguably better but selection very tiny.

The people who say CD is better have never heard a good turntable playing a good record - expensive doesn't mean good. Though it often does.

I'm not sure that the Tube Fan gets it though - Most music post 1990 is digital and most of it is NOT available on any other format. Sorry but I am not willing to close the door on 20 years of music just because the perceived sound quality of vinyl is better.

Reviewers who choose a digital based system is fine since they have only so much money to go around. They choose to spend the bulk of their money in one direction. The direction where all the music is heavily centered. Further if they have a $10k budget on source - they can spend it all on digital - they don't have to allocate it out into a $3k CD player and $7k on the turntable/arm/cart/phono-stage.

I have no issue with anyone who buys and only uses CD or digital streaming or Soolos type interfaces. I don't even mind if they think it sounds better - my only request to that is instead of purely relying on external information that they actually bother to say listen to 3-4 of what are deemed the world's best turntables and 3-4 of the world's best digital rigs and compare them both with the same music. Then decide. Regardless of the ease of operation or the pain in the ass nature of vinyl and go strictly by the resulting sound. Not comparing your 1970 $100 Technics turntable with el cheap misaligned cartridge and belt that hasn't been replaced (ever) and a beat to hell record to a $2000 Ayre digital processor of a great remastered edition of a piece of given music.

Tube Fan

Nobody at Audio Note thinks their digital is in league with even their modest turntables using their entry level MC cart. And AN IMO and IME is easily the best maker of CD players out there. Most like the sound better than top flight SACD machines. The problem is that the people who argue the points never audition good turntables - they remember their father's $50 Yorx or Fisher or only slightly better Duals - all of which sound like complete crap. You can really get horrendously awful sound from a turntable very very easily. But when Richard Vandersteen brings a turntable to an Audio Show - he brings a turntable - a real one - one you can say - "I get why you would buy a turntable - and I get what the sound is all about." The people you are arguing with have never ever heard a GOOD turntable - most have never ever heard a good stereo system. More to the point they don't want to. You see if they did and they had even remotely decent hearing (a big if) and they did get "blown away" they'd have to admit they were wrong - and they're never wrong - after all they have read a graph - and that is gospel.

For the most part this argument sounds reasonable. Except for the bold section: That is pure theory and IMO irrelevant to just about any buying decision...

If I have a budget of $500, $1K, $2K or even $5K for a source, then all that matters are the best examples of digital and analog available within my budget... I could care less whether a $100K turntable smokes a $100K CDP as I will never own either...

Just because the top vinyl beat the top CDP, doesn't mean that within my budget, vinyl is better than CDs...

[RGA]

Geofcin and Feanor

I actually don't take issue with the bass of the panels - but the graph is what the graph is and if we're going to say that the graph is wrong or irrelevant on one speaker it is thusly so on all speakers.

The issue is this is NOT JUST a speaker measurement - it is a speaker coupled to the room measurement. If you notice every review of every dipole the measurements suck but the reviewer will always say - this is because of the room. Odd since who cares how the speaker measures in an Anechoic chamber or how it would measure in the middle of a football field? Unless you listen in those environments those "pretty measurements" don't count.

The fact is most rooms are going to throw frequency measurements out of whack. Using a sophisticated EQ you can defeat/add db at given frequency points. A speaker is 3db too high at 1khz reduce to 0db - one speaker is 3db too low increase by 3db etc. Feanor could adjust his Magnepan but he could also adjust any boxed speaker in the same way.

But the only measurement that matters is still the "in room response at the listening chair." Distortion is a factor but so is pair matching - if the left speaker doesn't sound the same as the right speaker then what do you have? Many holy grail speakers are off by more than 3db and some more than 6db including some of the big boys with supposedly all the money to make the best speakers.

[RGA]

For the most part this argument sounds reasonable. Except for the bold section: That is pure theory and IMO irrelevant to just about any buying decision...

If I have a budget of $500, $1K, $2K or even $5K for a source, then all that matters are the best examples of digital and analog available within my budget... I could care less whether a $100K turntable smokes a $100K CDP as I will never own either...

Just because the top vinyl beat the top CDP, doesn't mean that within my budget, vinyl is better than CDs...

I agree on buying decisions you have to go with your budget - but not when making sweeping commentary on the "sound quality" the technology is capable of. The fact that wow and flutter is an issue for a turntable while measuring it as being far lower on a CD player is moot if the wow and flutter of said turntable is so low that no ear can detect it.

An entry level turntable today is much better than they were in the 1970s so there is that. I have not heard them all because I am not in the market for $500 tables. But these guys have not even bothered to audition these tables let alone the $2k and $5k models.

Again - I have no issue for people not wanting to go down the vinyl path - it's a pain in the arse on a number of fronts but don't come on saying that you have some truth about the sound without ever hearing even a "good" model let alone a "great" model or "reference standard" model as if it's bad because you read a graph some place. Especially when every maker who sells both will tell you the table kicks their digital player's arse.

The result is the only thing that counts - does system A sound more natural and "right" than system B. if yes system A is the better audio reproduction system. Regardless of what "some" very limited measurements may indicate.

[Ajani]

I agree on buying decisions you have to go with your budget - but not when making sweeping commentary on the "sound quality" the technology is capable of. The fact that wow and flutter is an issue for a turntable while measuring it as being far lower on a CD player is moot if the wow and flutter of said turntable is so low that no ear can detect it.

An entry level turntable today is much better than they were in the 1970s so there is that. I have not heard them all because I am not in the market for $500 tables. But these guys have not even bothered to audition these tables let alone the $2k and $5k models.

Again - I have no issue for people not wanting to go down the vinyl path - it's a pain in the arse on a number of fronts but don't come on saying that you have some truth about the sound without ever hearing even a "good" model let alone a "great" model or "reference standard" model as if it's bad because you read a graph some place. Especially when every maker who sells both will tell you the table kicks their digital player's arse.

The result is the only thing that counts - does system A sound more natural and "right" than system B. if yes system A is the better audio reproduction system. Regardless of what "some" very limited measurements may indicate.

Agreed...

I don't audition TTs, as the technology is a royal pain & being a younger audiophile, all my albums are on CD (in fact a good deal of the music I listen to is not available on vinyl)... So whether Vinyl sounds better is completely irrelevant to me... I'm not going to change my musical tastes to fit a technology...

I don't worry at all about sweeping generalizations about which technology is better as all that is pure nonsense IMO... In general I might prefer panel speakers to boxes, but that doesn't mean I prefer any panel to any box... Same for tubes versus SS... IMO, the quality of the design of the component is even more important than just the underlying technology... A good SS amp will whoop a poorly designed tube amp and vice versa...

[RGA]

I agree with you 100%. I have general preferences perhaps for certain technologies - but I still like SS over some tube amps and I like panels over numerous boxes (maybe even most boxes).

The Vinyl/CD debate is problematic since in many cases it largely comes down to the actual recording and NOT the medium. I have albums on both formats and the CD sounds better and vice versa. To me if you want the best sound you need both formats since again any given album may sound better on the other format. Ray Charles and most of the music I listen to from that era sounds vastly better than it does on every CD version I have. While several other albums from 70s onwards is a mixed bag affair - some CD's have been remastered for example and sound better than the CD.

Add to that your argument and mine to Tube fan that everything is on CD from 1990 onwards - and that isn't the case with vinyl. A lot of mainstream music is on vinyl of course and a lot of jazz. Vinyl also has a lot of remix music for clubs that are popular with DJ's so there has been a lot of this kind of music that was never produced on CD. Further a lot of vinyl has had "extra tracks" not available on the CD version. Though this does occur the other way around as well.

Vinyl also has a problem of local availability. If there is no store in your area then it's probably not worth it because new records tend to be expensive. So unless you can "save" money in the long run on vinyl purchases to offset the expense of owning a good turntable then it is financially cumbersome. Where I live in BC I live near a recycling center so every month I head down and go through the vinyl - $2 and I am allowed to fill a bag with as many records that will fit - maybe 25-30. All of which are in very good condition. So the "software" cost is absurdly low.

If I didn't have this and the two big used cd/vinyl shops in my town I would not have bothered with vinyl (having grown up on CD and SS). Further - unlike some - I believe you have to spend at a certain level to really get what it is about vinyl that is superior. I had the budget tables and they are so-so IME. They hint at what is possible. Perhaps an entry level Pro-Ject with an upgraded cartridge might convince. The cart seems to me to be the most critical aspect assuming the table is competent and the arm is not a total disaster. But cartridges - good ones - cost a significant amount of money. And you really do hear the difference very noticeably just going from a $60 one to a $100 one to a $150 to a $400 to $1000 to a $1500 one for example. An aspect that I like about turntables and carts etc is that you really hear the BIG improvements immediately. I can't say that about $200 to $600 CD players from $800 to $1500. To me the gaps need to be larger to really appreciate improvements rather than just small differences.

[E-Stat]

I actually don't take issue with the bass of the panels - but the graph is what the graph is and if we're going to say that the graph is wrong or irrelevant on one speaker it is thusly so on all speakers... If you notice every review of every dipole the measurements suck but the reviewer will always say - this is because of the room.

I couldn't disagree more. Dipoles radiate into the room differently and I don't know of a single sole who listens to their panel speakers at the 45" distance that Atkinson chooses to measure. If you've read his comments, you would already understand this. To wit:

With the exception of large panel speakers, such as the Apogee Stage and Audiostatic ES-100, the 45" distance has proved acceptable.

[RGA]

Don't get me started on the way JA measures speakers - You won't get argument from me - I find the whole thing to be ridiculous - it's easy to do but it isn't good.

Measuring a speaker (incidentally - only one of the two) at a distance no one listens at is problematic. The problem with Stereophile's measurements is that if you are going to measure something - but you know that the graph you just showed is mostly meaningless because you don't have the proper space or tools or whatever then what exactly was the point of the endeavor?

Measurements not done at the listening position don't say much. Beyond ease of drive measurements the rest is pretty weak.

And if you can't tell if it sounds good by listening to the bloody things then you may as well shop at Sears. I use to read every spec measurements going and it confounds the issue. It makes me think I should like something more based on a measurement - it makes me think I should dislike something due to the technology being used.

I'd be happier going with blind level matched auditions with classical and jazz trained musicians over reading frequency plots of one speaker at 1 meter not measured correctly.

[Erorrorse]

HiH

I've been lurking here for many many months but this is my first time posting.

There's a treasure trove of information here but I was wondering about additional resources you use for this type of stuff.

Please let me know other sites/forums you use

I'll go post an intro now!

[swan24]

While the production and measurment of HI FI equipment can be largely objective, it is hearing that is subjective... Also, there are immeasurable artifacts in certain gear that make it sound 'good.' The word 'good' also implying a subjective evaluation...

Fortunately, most of us 'know' when everything is right... We listen into the wee hours of the morning and marvel at the sound... (m.)

[LeRoy]

Here is a link that you guys may have in interest in:
Mandala of Tone | BYOB.info

My thoughts are everybody goes through their own personal audio evolution and each person, based on exposure to many system configurations, settles on a particular music re-recreation the he or she allows as a benchmark of satisfactory musicality. Since I am not a biological replica of anyone else my ears and brain are unique processors of musical information and thereby by default my end evaluation of a product or system is subjective.

Hope you like the link above.

[tube fan]

The only speakers that have really impressed me in the last twenty years are the Audio Note E and the Magnepan 1.7. Yes, neither matches my 35+ years old Fulton J speakers. The only CD I have heard that I liked was an Audio Note $4,500 one. My goal is truth to the absolute sound: live unamplified music. In audio, cost is NOT related to quality. My least favorite rooms at the CAS 2011 were the $500,000 MBL and Wilson ones. The sound was just dreadful in both rooms. Yes, the MBL room was THE WORST EVER system I have ever heard: everything was bright, hard, and congested!

[Janjuc]

Very subjective, we all distinguish sounds slightly differently in our brains due to age, ethnicity, aural damage and many other things. Blind testing with no idea of what product is being tested is possibly the only way to listen prior to purchase as previous biases should not then become involved....

JJ

[crowley]

Hifi sound preference or the illusion of a good sounding system is definately subjective based on many variables of the individual listener. I've listened to many a set of bookshelf speakers before choosing my M/A RX2's, not liking some of the more expensive or more highly rated equipment over the RX2's.

Auditioning the gear before you buy is a definate must when shopping around, you don't want to waste money on a bit of highly rated kit only to find out it doesn't suit your tastes.

It's just a shame nowhere allows auditioning of older equipment in Aus, I'd love to listen to some older kit.

[Mash]

Is HiFi purely about subjective preference?

Not if you want lasting satisfaction!

Lasting satisfaction will only be obtained if you attend enough live recitals to make live music your reference.

[Mash]

Measuring a large panel speaker up close & personal is silly... you do not sit there to listen to them. Also the room is, like it or not, a big part of the solution.... or the problem.

Our previous house was a *real* log chalet. The listening room had a 20' ceiling and effective dimensions of 26' by 36'. The Tympani and even the servosubs were smooth, sharp, & distinct. That rock-solid listening room produced excellent results. Would the system sound as good in the typical flexy 13' by 18' by 8' room? Never. So why does Atkinson publish such silly results?

[Mash]

HEY! Where is the post by "Voineekib" ...??? I just saw it in an email from AR.

He/she was on a real tear... the post read like a high-end audio equipment review...............

[Mash]

I tried this years ago, and the equalizer trashed the attack / transient response of the Maggies.