Is "better" equipment always ... better?

[MeanDumpsterCat]

Good afternoon everyone. Long time since I made a post here so I hope you are all doing well.

An interesting thought came up a while ago while I was having a conversation with a friend of mine about audio equipment.

I was thinking about how there are a lot of people out there who will spend ludicrous amounts of money on audio equipment to a point where I cant see how its justified (i.e a pair of speakers that cost over £10,000).

I've always found that audio quality is entirely subjective. My current setup is an old Dual 1219 turntable connected up to a very middle of the road Cambridge Audio amp and some old Technics SB-F990s and I absolutely love how it sounds.

A friend of mine has a pair of speakers and a valve amp in their back garden (yes, really). They're damp, rotten falling apart and when you get up close to an individual speaker, they sound horrible. But take a few steps back and they sound amazing almost as if they compensate for each other.

I've been to a few audio tech shows and I have never really heard a system that makes me say anything more than 'yeah that sounds alright I suppose but its not worth that'.

Do technical specs actually matter in the real world or is it all subject to preference?

Its like valve amps. Technically not as advance but still many people (myself included) love how they sound even though on paper they're inferior to a more modern transistor based amp.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this subject.

Cheers.

-Dan

[MrBungle]

I've thought long and hard about this in the past.

I figured all forms of quality are totally subjective. When someone tells you something is better, there are usually dragons hiding. Most people seem to have some insecurity about their own sense of quality. This turns into an ever unfulfilled chase to find something better than now that results in £10k pairs of speakers. Other people know this chase exists and keep the wheel spinning with false promises and magic beans.

Everything is now. The past is gone. The future hasn't happened yet. Quality is now. Persig wrote a nice book on that

[Lucien Nunes]

At the bottom end of the scale, generally, yes it is. Cheap products usually have evident deficiencies that, regardless of any personal preferences, most would agree are deficiencies. It's usually the transducers and other mechanical bits that are expensive to get right, that harbour the most gremlins. Speakers with nasty resonances, pickup cartridges with overbearing colouration, tape transports with excess wow and flutter. But they are gremlins that you can measure, and buy your way past, in a fairly linear and proportional fashion.

When you reach HiFi, as defined by some reasonable engineering standard, the path widens out and the direction along which to seek the holy grail is much less clear. At a level where all products offer technically competent performance, one's personal preferences, listening environment, music choices etc. take over as the guiding parameters as to what constitutes 'good'. From here on, each must find their own way and travel as far as they wish to go. Price and technical performance no longer necessarily correlate.

[emeritus]

"Zen and the art of motor cycle maintenance" if I remember rightly.

I had listened to classical music various friends' 1970's hi-fi setups before I went to my first real orchestral concert at the Royal Festival Hall. My impression of the real thing was that it lacked both bass and treble!

[martin.m]

Back in the late 1960s, a school friend of mine couldn't afford a fancy turntable. He got an elderly BSR Monarch autochanger, removed all of the cams plates and gears to do with the auto mechanism, lightened the tone arm using a hacksaw, then fitted a Shure M3D magnetic cartridge. It sounded great.

Regards
Martin

[joebog1]

Originally Posted by emeritus

I had listened to classical music various friends' 1970's hi-fi setups before I went to my first real orchestral concert at the Royal Festival Hall. My impression of the real thing was that it lacked both bass and treble!

HHMMM !!!! I saw the Sydney Symphony orchestra at the Sydney town hall!!
MY thoughts as yours exactly. They also have a superbly beautiful organ, ALAS they cannot play the lower two registers, because some architect has determined that the WHOLE Sydney town hall will fall down into Town Hall Railway station .

Hi-Fi ?, well my very modest setup sounds good to me, AND I have better bass than Sydney town hall.

I do, on occasion listen to some nice organ recitals, and choral works, BOTH of which require nice bass.

Joe

[Bazz4CQJ]

Rather too often, I've bought new (and intended to be better) bits of kit only to find out that I crave the 'familiarity' of the old kit and go back to it. Example; the last multimeter I bought, which on paper, excels in every aspect over its predecessor. Sign of getting old?

B

[Radio Wrangler]

As Lucien said, at the lower end of the scale, things are relatively sane. A bit more money will buy you something that really is better.

By the time you get to the stuff that calls itself 'high end' things get almost random. Most 'upgrades' are sideways movements, some are downwards. Quite often there will be no discernible difference, but listeners are afraid to admit that they cannot hear what the wise men insist is there and is a large difference. Oddly, there seem to be no small differences in this world of expensive exotica. The law of diminishing returns seems to have been repealed. This is equipment for 'showing off', being able to listen to music is secondary.

There are signs you've left the real universe:

* All the small differences have mysteriously vanished.
* Prices have been scaled up by large factors.
* Every poster on internet fora lists all their equipment at the foot of every post.
* You suspect more effort went into choosing a product's name than in developing the product itself.
* Real, hard, science is like sunlight to a vampire, so pseudoscience is used instead.
* No-one is ever unsure which of two things is better.
* Things are designed for eye appeal, the ears have to live with it.
* Every ounce of equipment comes with a pound of justification.
* You can smell the fear, and the aura of insecurity is tangible. Anyone numerate and logical is seen as a threat.
* There are various words; soundstaging, granularity, authority, quantum, etc which are clues.

So if you start to get that feeling you aren't in Kansas anymore, lock your wallet!

Some of the very expensive hifi stuff is quite nicely made, some looks like engineering jewellery. Some looks like it was made in small quantities with basic tools. Some is a bodge-up. It's like Ferraris, Lamborghinis and Koenigseggs. You want to be seen in one, but when you're in heavy traffic, trying to fit shopping in, or just leaving it parked, you yearn for that Ford Fiesta. If you can't afford the supercar, you have the Fiesta. If you could afford the supercar and don't have insecurities, you have the Fiesta.

Ask yourself if you want a piece of hifi equipment to use to listen to music, or is it something you want to be seen owning?

David

[M0SOE_Bruce]

I find it interesting that all the hype is about the transmitter, the audio equipment that transmits the sound. I don't think people pay attention to the receiver, the human ear. Manufacturers publish all sorts of graphs of frequency response but each ear has it's own characteristics. Getting a hearing test can graph the frequency response of each ear so the equipment (however cheap or expensive) can be compensated, much like using a graphic equalizer.

Then again I'm surprised these hearing testing companies haven't jumped on the audio bandwagon with expensive cryogenically treating, full, warm, rich sound (expensive) hearing aids.

[mark2collection]

I must confess into having a brief moment in buying HiFi, but gave up in my 20's (late 1990's), some 3 years of 'playing' with equipment.

It became abundantly apparent there was no right or wrong, since it's a personal experience, dependant on mood, environment (location) etc.

The conclusion for me, I'd only end up with perhaps at best, nicely engineered boxes, offering little way of improvement vs empty-wallet guilt syndrome!

I still have the same gear I had all those years ago, still performing their duty, still sounding great. Even spending 10x what I paid, from what I've actually 'auditioned' would yield no further 'sonic' improvement. This has put the biggest smile on my face!

Furthermore, the enjoyment in buying classic/vintage audio, resurrecting it back to original spec and being blown away by 'its' capabilities, all for the cost of an evening out.

Building your own audio can be hugely rewarding, though not always cheap. I've learnt an awful lot over the years, believing my own ears and not believing my eyes, especially when prices approach the national living wage.

Had to chuckle at the post above, to coin a phrase, 'The audio-grade hearing aid!' You 'heard' it here first.

I'll grab me coat ...

Mark

[Radio Wrangler]

Audio grade hearing aids are unlikely to sell into a market where the high-rollers all swear that their hearing is definitive and outperforms any measurement equipment.

Being seen wearing anything would be an admission of fallibility.

There would have to be a valve version.

David

[mark2collection]

A valve version I'd love to see.

We could always make the audio-grade hearing aids fashionable, the 'here and now/have to haves today' would love that, especially if it kept their ears warm. Clever marketing around Christmas time could be a hit(?)

Cryogenically treated, directional earmuffs with in-build hearing aids! (Valve, of course), styled as 'high-end' headphones, no one would be any the wiser, including the wearer.

Mark

[Heatercathodeshort]

Most 'upgrades'are disappointing, breaking the laws of the trade descriptions act.
'Cult' examples are without doubt the worst examples of their class. This goes for practically everything, not just sound equipment.

If your happy with your equipment and are aware of the 'hall of mirrors' effects of searching for the impossible and have the money to waste, then fair enough.

In my opinion the best Hi Fi equipment was manufactured during the 1980's and little if any improvement has been effected since then. Regards, John.

[stevehertz]

"Better" does not have to be a comparison of finite values. It can be a perception. Hence someone may simply like using say a valve amplifier for the looks and general vibe of using it, as it appeals to them in many others way than sheer performance figures or monetary value. So to them it is 'better' than the SOTA uber expensive solid sate amplifier that has immeasurable distortion figures.

To me this is why a lot of people buy fancy, fast, whizzy cars, because they think that it is better than the bloke's old Ford Escort next door and gives them some kind of higher status in the eyes of their neighbours . What they don't realise is, is that the bloke next door probably gets far more enjoyment tinkering with his old Escort, as the flash guy does worrying about how long he has before he has to 'upgrade' the great god car in order to maintain his misplaced plastic status.

[kellys_eye]

Too often 'better' means 'added functionality' - especially where digital processing is incorporated and functions that are software-defined are easily added at 'zero' cost.

In the case of many items however, there are, and will remain, basic technical parameters that can be identified to tell you the 'actual' quality of the equipment - above and beyond those specifications you're paying for 'fluff'.

[russell_w_b]

A camera or watch or radio or hi-fi costing eighty pounds can reasonably be expected to be ten times better than a camera or watch or radio or hi-fi costing eight pounds.

But there is absolutely no way that a camera or watch or radio or hi-fi which costs eight thousand pounds is any better than a camera or watch or radio or hi-fi which costs eight hundred pounds.

Between these price scales, the spread of diminishing returns will vary. But it won't be ten times better, however 'better' is defined.

[MrBungle]

I disagree. The Casio F91W for example. Still around £8.

[mhennessy]

I don't think it's a linear scale - especially at the top end

Electronics - be it amplifiers, CD players, DACs, whatever - are pretty mature and sound and measure rather more similar than manufacturers, dealers and enthusiasts would care to admit. Providing there's enough power so clipping is never an issue (easier said that done), one competently designed solid state amplifier sounds pretty much like any other.

Not so with speakers. Assuming you're buying from a sane manufacturer, always spend the most on speakers because you do get what you pay for. Diminishing returns obviously sets in, but at least you can actually hear (and measure) a difference.

[dave walsh]

I repeatedly cite the psychological aspect in this area in my many [possibly too many] posts. Something "high end" and high wattage can often appear superior at the time but then, sitting at home with a system perhaps cobbled together or constructed from the very basic reconstruction of an old deck [as mentioned] might be more satisfying because you've over come the cash barrier or simply that the music is more important than the specification. At the other end of the scale, I often "note" things in a recording that I haven't picked up before when say, I'm doing something else and a very low-fi source is playing eg a very cheapo cassette player with an old tape!

I think it was Wharfedale who did those blind comparisons [heavily attended] at the Royal Festival Hall in the fifties between Live Orchestra and Recordings. I was never quite sure what that proved as the "live" experience is also a matter of personal response-again mentioned here. I once posed a question during a period of 30's Gramophone fever when one was being re-built up, piece by piece, into an empty cabinet. If the temporary modern amp being used to test the speaker relayed a thirties Dance Band and you kept the lid down would listeners be able to tell that it wasn't the original in operation?

Dave W

[IanBland]

Originally Posted by Bazz4CQJ

Rather too often, I've bought new (and intended to be better) bits of kit only to find out that I crave the 'familiarity' of the old kit and go back to it. Example; the last multimeter I bought, which on paper, excels in every aspect over its predecessor. Sign of getting old?

Not necessarily. I still reach for my cheap "Draper" brand multimeter for simple measurements over my more expensive, more accurate, theoretically better Tenma for a couple of reasons; firstly it's smaller and lighter and thus a bit more ergonomic but secondly because it gives its less accurate readings much faster. This is particularly true of the continuity checker which is basically instant compared to the Tenma which has to think about it before beeping.