The "is there a difference" Hi-Fi/Home Cinema Discussion thread

oli collett

oli collett

oli collett

Soldato
Joined
19 Apr 2004
Posts
4,793
Location
London
In response to some of my recent posts i thought it would be best to start a separate thread to discuss whether certain pieces of hi-fi/home cinema equipment sound or look different to one another.

This thread is not intended to prove that you cannot tell the difference between such equipment because it is virtually impossible to do so. It is intended to provide evidence and opinion, both for and against the argument.

To start with I thought i'd post some resources with information on A/B/X testing.

What ABX Testing is all about

Audio Wisdom - a useful resource

Do all Amplifiers sound the same?

Speaker Cable - Can you tell the difference


"Do coat hangers sound as good as monster cables?"


The Audio Critic - Excellent online magazine

A simple way to perform an A/B comparison of audio hardware

Is this the truth about audio reviews?

I'll find some more later when i get the chance.
 
Last edited:
Here's some evidence of there being a difference between say low end and high end kit.

For example, Naim audio had annual turnover of an estimated £9m last year:
http://www.swmas.co.uk/Case_Studies/CaseStudy_Master.php?Company_ID=540
The source might be the most reputable, but it's fair to say that they clearly have reasonable turnover.

The implications are that they sold quite a lot of kit to either:
1. People who genuinely felt that it sounded better than a base level amplifier from say Richer sounds, or
2. That hi-fi shops can miraculously hypnotise enough people to blow that amount of money on something with no significant benefit

I've no idea what the true high-end market value is across the world, but with the existence of kit costing well into 6 figures from top end manufacturers, I'm assuming that it's not small.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
Here's some evidence of there being a difference between say low end and high end kit.

For example, Naim audio had annual turnover of an estimated £9m last year:
http://www.swmas.co.uk/Case_Studies/CaseStudy_Master.php?Company_ID=540
The source might be the most reputable, but it's fair to say that they clearly have reasonable turnover.

The implications are that they sold quite a lot of kit to either:
1. People who genuinely felt that it sounded better than a base level amplifier from say Richer sounds, or
2. That hi-fi shops can miraculously hypnotise enough people to blow that amount of money on something with no significant benefit

I've no idea what the true high-end market value is across the world, but with the existence of kit costing well into 6 figures from top end manufacturers, I'm assuming that it's not small.
Click to expand...

Good points. There's no doubt these manufacturers sell a huge amount of kit to people and there are a huge number of satisfied customers.

For those who are interested (probably few of you) I began researching this stuff months ago when looking at upgrading my current setup. I was becoming increasingly frustrated by hi-fi magazines ranting about effects of certain items which defied logic (the common example being HDMI cables making colours more vivid etc). I then started to wonder if there was such a difference between a lot of hi-fi equipment as manufacturers and magazines claim, or whether it's all hype. I'm open to the idea that a lot of this stuff can make a difference, it's just that i've yet to see it being demonstrated in a controlled environment.

I was actually looking at getting a Naim amp, when i get the chance to i'd like to try and do some blind listening comparisons at a local dealer but it's not going to be easy to set up.
 
Getting a dealer dem of a Naim amp should be dead easy. I remember giving my local dealer a call a number of years back and he was quite happy to dem a Nait5 vs the Arcam, Meridian and Cyrus equivalents.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
Getting a dealer dem of a Naim amp should be dead easy. I remember giving my local dealer a call a number of years back and he was quite happy to dem a Nait5 vs the Arcam, Meridian and Cyrus equivalents.
Click to expand...

I know that getting a demo will be easy - i mean setting up a double blind demo might not be so easy, and an A/B/X demo i would think would be impossible. I would love to do one alongside the dealer though and see how they score with a Nait vs a £200 amp..

It's a bit of a problem with hi-fi testing - to create any kind of worthwhile test is so much sodding effort that you might as well just buy it based on whatever looks nicest in your living room!
 
You mean you don't feel confident in your own ability to discern sonic differences?
Go have a listen. When I did my first test like that (though not blind) I took my brother along. It was a pretty unanimous decision.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
You mean you don't feel confident in your own ability to discern sonic differences?
Go have a listen. When I did my first test like that (though not blind) I took my brother along. It was a pretty unanimous decision.
Click to expand...

I don't feel confident in anyone's ability to discern sonic differences. If people can not tell the difference between equipment when you take out so called placebo effects, then who's to say there is such a difference? I would like to partake in an ABX test myself to see but as i say, it's not exactly easy to do.
 
Well put it this way, I have better things to do than waste my time with blind testing.

I bought a Lyngdorf amp to replace my arcam and it made my ATC speakers sound like they were playing music and not a recording on a disc. Before hand with the arcam when i switched it back after a while it sounded like the speakers were submerged in a peat bog. I don't need to prove my methodology or any scientific reason coupled with multiple blind tests using drugged up, cancer ridden, drunk, monkeys or anyone else to get a representive sample of scientific and perceived differences. No argueing over the difference, it was truly massive 11111

What I did in upgrading made a massive difference, and even a blind person would be able to tell that. With blind testing anyone with sight is biased so go get stevey wonder to demo some kit and devote some time then I'l listen.

il have a proper read of the links in the next few days, amp upgrade not affect the sound = pure BS, cables on the other hand I have not proved yet. Im about to make some enamelled copper cable to compare to my ixos stranded stuff, then I also have my solid core canare [mark grant] interconnect to compare to my fancy twisted DIY 99.99% silver thing with cotton. the interconnects cost the same and it doesn;'t matter to me which one sounds best, as all I care about is the sound. If it sounds better then it will stay in my system, and scientists can preach at me all day about their graphs and waves but there has been no concrete proof actually relating scientific measurments to sound differences. Have some poeple thought that these sound differences might actually not be picked up by equipment.

Im ranting no w so off to perv over the hot cyclon bird in battlestar. great series by the way, just about to finish the mini series.
 
-Ad- said:
Well put it this way, I have better things to do than waste my time with blind testing.

I bought a Lyngdorf amp to replace my arcam and it made my ATC speakers sound like they were playing music and not a recording on a disc. Before hand with the arcam when i switched it back after a while it sounded like the speakers were submerged in a peat bog. I don't need to prove my methodology or any scientific reason coupled with multiple blind tests using drugged up, cancer ridden, drunk, monkeys or anyone else to get a representive sample of scientific and perceived differences. No argueing over the difference, it was truly massive 11111

What I did in upgrading made a massive difference, and even a blind person would be able to tell that. With blind testing anyone with sight is biased so go get stevey wonder to demo some kit and devote some time then I'l listen.

il have a proper read of the links in the next few days, amp upgrade not affect the sound = pure BS, cables on the other hand I have not proved yet. Im about to make some enamelled copper cable to compare to my ixos stranded stuff, then I also have my solid core canare [mark grant] interconnect to compare to my fancy twisted DIY 99.99% silver thing with cotton. the interconnects cost the same and it doesn;'t matter to me which one sounds best, as all I care about is the sound. If it sounds better then it will stay in my system, and scientists can preach at me all day about their graphs and waves but there has been no concrete proof actually relating scientific measurments to sound differences. Have some poeple thought that these sound differences might actually not be picked up by equipment.

Im ranting no w so off to perv over the hot cyclon bird in battlestar. great series by the way, just about to finish the mini series.
Click to expand...

I've been expecting you :p

Go and read the links and come back later!! I'm not disputing that ABX testing is a pain in the bum to do, but i haven't yet seen any reasonable argument to suggest there is anything flawed in the methodology. So if the method is sound and the results do not support the original hypothesis, then surely there is only one conclusion to make?
 
oli collett said:
I've been expecting you :p

Go and read the links and come back later!! I'm not disputing that ABX testing is a pain in the bum to do, but i haven't yet seen any reasonable argument to suggest there is anything flawed in the methodology. So if the method is sound and the results do not support the original hypothesis, then surely there is only one conclusion to make?
Click to expand...

hehehe you sound like darth vader, I'm coming for you father :D

I'l have a proper read at work tomorrow. Cables i still ahven't made my mind up on yet, but its just this silly ABXBX then some AB X, but even if done properly and documented etc etc someone will come along and say it was worthless as it isn't scientific proof.

this is the worst and best hobby in the world :D:D
 
-Ad- said:
hehehe you sound like darth vader, I'm coming for you father :D

I'l have a proper read at work tomorrow. Cables i still ahven't made my mind up on yet, but its just this silly ABXBX then some AB X, but even if done properly and documented etc etc someone will come along and say it was worthless as it isn't scientific proof.

this is the worst and best hobby in the world :D:D
Click to expand...

lol

I don't think people can say ABX testing is worthless as it isn't scientific proof, it should be highly effective at proving something DOES make a difference. The arguments i've seen to the contrary all seem to stem from people not being able to accept the results of the test and tend to be irrational. How, for example, can someone suggest that the pressure and environment of an ABX test affects the results whilst completely ignoring psycological affects of a normal subjective test!

I think the amplifier test makes the most interesting reading - note the difference in peoples perceptions and comments when listening to the test before and during. The comments before all seem to be as you would expect given the amplifiers peidgree, yet under controlled conditions the amplifiers all sounded so similar!
 
source, amps, cables and speakers.

Almost always speakers tend to be the weakest link, especially in more expensive systems.

IMO you need to get the best speakers you can as there are very small gains (if any) to be had when upgrading source, amp or cables.
 
MikeHunt79 said:
source, amps, cables and speakers.

Almost always speakers tend to be the weakest link, especially in more expensive systems.

IMO you need to get the best speakers you can as there are very small gains (if any) to be had when upgrading source, amp or cables.
Click to expand...

I completely agree - yet this is the exact opposite of what hi-fi magazines say!
 
MikeHunt79 said:
source, amps, cables and speakers.

Almost always speakers tend to be the weakest link, especially in more expensive systems.

IMO you need to get the best speakers you can as there are very small gains (if any) to be had when upgrading source, amp or cables.
Click to expand...

I'll argue with that on the grounds of "garbage in, garbage out".
Having great speakers on the back of "ok" amp and source will just result in the speakers showing up how pants the rest of the kit is.
My experiences suggest that the speakers need to be bought to suit your personal preferences. The real "musical" improvements are in the source.

Ref ABX testing, I do see one key fatal flaw in the idea, which is regarding getting used to the kit and long term testing.
Comparing short clips has always seemed to be effective in noticing the differences in say bass and treble outputs. Being able to spot the additional "nuances" is often lost in that area. For one thing, my own system doesn't sound it's best until it's had 30 mins of use to warm it up. If you were to keep powering bits of it down to allow a swap of kit, you'd lose some of that consistency of sound.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
I'll argue with that on the grounds of "garbage in, garbage out".
Having great speakers on the back of "ok" amp and source will just result in the speakers showing up how pants the rest of the kit is.
My experiences suggest that the speakers need to be bought to suit your personal preferences. The real "musical" improvements are in the source.

Ref ABX testing, I do see one key fatal flaw in the idea, which is regarding getting used to the kit and long term testing.
Comparing short clips has always seemed to be effective in noticing the differences in say bass and treble outputs. Being able to spot the additional "nuances" is often lost in that area. For one thing, my own system doesn't sound it's best until it's had 30 mins of use to warm it up. If you were to keep powering bits of it down to allow a swap of kit, you'd lose some of that consistency of sound.
Click to expand...

1) GIGO - it's a fair point, but looking at the physics of what the individual parts of the system do will tell you that the difference made by a poor CD player compared to a poor set of speakers is huge. I'm willing to bet that a £100K Classe CD system with a pair of £100 speakers will not compare to a £30,000 pair of speakers hooked up to a £100 CD player. The audio critic is a good site about this theory:
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/

This issue in particular is v good:
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_26_r.pdf

2) If you read the 2 tests i had in the first post everything was warmed up! If you're doing A/B/X i'm pretty sure that everything is still playing so you are switching why they are still warm.
 
oli collett said:
1) GIGO - it's a fair point, but looking at the physics of what the individual parts of the system do will tell you that the difference made by a poor CD player compared to a poor set of speakers is huge. I'm willing to bet that a £100K Classe CD system with a pair of £100 speakers will not compare to a £30,000 pair of speakers hooked up to a £100 CD player. The audio critic is a good site about this theory:
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/

This issue in particular is v good:
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_26_r.pdf

2) If you read the 2 tests i had in the first post everything was warmed up! If you're doing A/B/X i'm pretty sure that everything is still playing so you are switching why they are still warm.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard a really expensive pair of speakers driven by something that doesn't quite work with them? I have, and it's not nice.
I heard a pair of £10k+ speakers a few years ago, can't remember what they were, but they sounded truly awful.
What you need to remember is what you're getting with each.
As the speakers go up in cost, you reduce distortion and add bandwidth. With sources, it appears that you're revealing more detail. Don't ask me why it is that way, just what I've experienced. So absolute sound quality appears to be driven by the source, not the speakers.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating spending 90% on the source, however I'd certainly recommend spending a good deal on it.
 
I will be honest the argument about extremes for source and speakers will not get anyone anywhere. No individual who would be willing to spend £Xk on a set-up would then split it to an extreme eg 90% on a single component.

this throws out any argument about needing the very best of a single item, but the very best of everything within the price range. The important thing set out by Mr_Sukebe is the fact they have to be complimenting peices of equipment to produce the best sound.

So look around for the items in the budget you set, aim for a split of between 30 - 40% max of the budget on any single item.

my 2p.
 
I also agree with the above (Mr_Sukebe), and its fairly easy to tell the differance. I have made a 2 copies of the same CD with my standalone CD player and my DVD player hooked up to my amp with the same cables and the differance is huge. The DVD player has poor seperation, unclear highs and a woolly bass. Switch to the standalone player and its like you have removed a blanket that was over the speakers.

The same can also be said for speakers, I had a set of Mission 751, amazing little speakers in their day but they always needed a good amp to drive them. I gave them to my dad when I upgraded. First he tried them on the end of a £120 sony amp and they sounded truly shocking, dull and lifeless, knowing how well they could sound I was digusted at *** gumf coming out of the speakers, his old cheap sony ones sounded better. for his birthday I bought him a Arcam Alpha 8 (or maybe 9 i cant remember) amp, we tried the mission's again and they sounded like totally differant speakers, springin gback into life and sounding like I knew they could.

Its weird, every now and again these topics come up on forums, people intent on saying all hi-fi's clearly sound the same, they have links to various reports which prove this conclusivly. Seriously, if a £100 amp sounded the same as a £1000 amp then no one would buy the more expensive product, its that simple. I admit that some areas in hi-fi are very subjective and hard to quantify such as speaker cables and to an even greater extent power cables etc. but in my all be it limted experiance the core componants of Source-Amp-Speakers make a huge differnce to the sound. This really isnt difficult to prove. got to any decent hi-fi shop and ask to demo the same CD player and speakers hooked up to a Cyrus amp first, them an Arcam 2nd, the differance is night and day.

What I would say is that the higher up the price range you get the less bang you get for your buck, I have heard a 1k cd player demod then onto a 5k player and the differance was very negligable, differnt yes, but 4k better, not IMO
 
Last edited:
I agree with Sukebe that source is very very important.

Good amp = check, good speakers = check, £12 marantz cd-player with loads of mods = check ;)

Broken player repaired and upgraded is the best value part of my system. Far far superior to the standard player, with a new clock, op-amps, laods of other really boring things, and a total cost of £250. I honestly can't think about what cd players to compare to this one, but I would probably start comparing with ones around the £1k mark.

Finishing lunch, time to read those articles and get my tv sold :D
 
-Ad- said:
I agree with Sukebe that source is very very important.

Good amp = check, good speakers = check, £12 marantz cd-player with loads of mods = check ;)

Broken player repaired and upgraded is the best value part of my system. Far far superior to the standard player, with a new clock, op-amps, laods of other really boring things, and a total cost of £250. I honestly can't think about what cd players to compare to this one, but I would probably start comparing with ones around the £1k mark.

Finishing lunch, time to read those articles and get my tv sold :D
Click to expand...

Yep, I am still using my Marantz CD63KI sig that has been modded with superclock II. I was going to upgrade it last year but I couldnt find anything under a grand that improved on it. I even listened to the Musical Fidelty A5, which cost 1.5k and I didnt notice all that much differance, certainly not enough to make to hand over the cash
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom