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

kidloco said:
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
Click to expand...

I'm not intent on saying all hi-fi's sound the same - far from it. If i thought that i would have sold all my stuff. The idea that if something sounded the same as another then no-one would buy it is however nonsence - that's how advertisers make their money!!!

I've merely provided some links to some scientifically conducted subjective tests which do not seem to prove that one amp sounds different to another. This is not about a 20wpc amp trying to compete with a 1KW krell powering some 2 Ohm speakers, if you read the test the amps are set at the same level within their limits of power. Of course, if you drive an amp past what it can take it's going to distort, so if you've got a seriously hefty pair of speakers it's unlikely you can get away with a cheap amp whilst not having a huge amount of distortion. Your point with regards to the sony amp sounding cheap and lifeless sounds to me like a lack of power.

With regards to something not being difficult to prove, you are right, it isn't. But the test you are describing is not proving anything. The tests i linked to at the start of the thread have been setup in a controlled manner and contradict what people are saying in this post with regards to certain components making a difference in the system. These tests take out all possible psycological effects which might effect the listeners opinion and are coming out with a different conclusion. If you go down to a hi-fi shop and demo with your dealer you are prone to all kinds of psychological effects.
 
div0 said:
The methodology is flawed to some extent in that it only tells you the number of people that prefer one system to the other. It tells you very little about how much 'better' people consider the difference to be.

Also, does it not assume that both systems have been set to their 'optimum' settings? Where 'optimum' is a matter of preference. For example when comparing 2 systems, most people may decide that system A is better because it sounds slightly louder, or has better bass. But obviously these things could be changed easily on either system and so would not be an indicator of which system is actually better, just an indicator of which system was configured 'better' during the test.
Click to expand...

ABX has nothing to do with who prefers what, it is about identifying what X is. Preference has nothing to do with it.

Systems are setup level matched, that's all! If A has better bass than B, then you should be able to identify X as one or the other and therefore you will score 100% in the test. If you look at the test results in the amplifier comparison the results are nearer to 50% which puts choice down to chance.

Please do not bring "what sounds better" and personal preference into this - this is not the argument here, it's about whether you can hear a difference between the two under controlled conditions.
 
I do believe that people accustomed to using better systems find it easier to tell the difference between kit, almost like the way that wine experts can. My guess is that in normal day to day listening, that we become used to automatically compensating for cheap TV, tannoy announcements and similar. If that really is true, then you need to ask the question on DBTs on just who is doing the reviewing.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
I do believe that people accustomed to using better systems find it easier to tell the difference between kit, almost like the way that wine experts can. My guess is that in normal day to day listening, that we become used to automatically compensating for cheap TV, tannoy announcements and similar. If that really is true, then you need to ask the question on DBTs on just who is doing the reviewing.
Click to expand...


You cannot compare wine experts to hi-fi experts. It's very easy to setup a double blind test of wine and it's very easy to prove that people taste a difference between wine A and B. It doesn't necessarily mean they can tell you exactly what it tastes of, why it tastes that way or anything, but it will tell you that a difference is there.

You now seem to be using the "golden ears" argument - if you look at who was undertaking the tests in the links i posted i don't believe this is valid. Personally, I think the whole "golden ears" thing is bobbins that is invented by hi-fi eliteists when people claim they cannot tell the difference between equipment.
 
Btw, i've just discovered i was banned from the cables forum on AVforums, for being "negative". To me, that sets a rather worrying precedent where you cannot give an opinion on a subject if you do not follow the popular opinion. And it makes the world incredibly dull.
 
kidloco said:
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
Click to expand...

Ye truly awesome players. Mine was the standard one but had a better chassis transplanted from an older player I killed. Superclock 2 with dedicated PSU, new caps, x3 5V audiocom voltage regulators, bypassed HDAM and new lm4562 op-amps, 12v audiocom regs feeding them etc etc, the list goes on. Bitumen damping on chassis, stainless steel sheets on bottom of chassis, wooden cones, Now only need to fit some black gates in the output stage and solder up my pure silver rca sockets and she is done :D

Not upgrading this for many many years to come as I know nothing will be able to beat it, just like you said below 1k, 1.5k, maybe even more. And most importantly great synergy in my system.

oli collett said:
Btw, i've just discovered i was banned from the cables forum on AVforums, for being "negative". To me, that sets a rather worrying precedent where you cannot give an opinion on a subject if you do not follow the popular opinion. And it makes the world incredibly dull.
Click to expand...

lol oli you cable witch, we should stone you :p I love the word 'negative' used, hehe sounds harsh.

Right back to avforums, trying to sell my Kuro over there :D
 
Some intersting articles in your links oil collett.

I have some questions :-

Is it possbile tell the difference between a £12k Krell Power amp and a lesser priced Rotel amp at the same volume in blind listening tests?

Would it be possible to tell the difference in the above situation when the amps are powering some £25k Wilson System 8 speakers?

I've read some of the links you've posted oil collet and they seem to suggest that there may be *some* slight differences in hi-end cd players with regards to stereo imaging. Does the same principle apply to amps? I always thought amps had a bigger effect on sound than cd players.
 
Last edited:
oli collett said:
Btw, i've just discovered i was banned from the cables forum on AVforums, for being "negative". To me, that sets a rather worrying precedent where you cannot give an opinion on a subject if you do not follow the popular opinion. And it makes the world incredibly dull.
Click to expand...

For a similar thread as this one? that's shocking if so....

Anyone who thinks double blind/ABX testing isn't a) valid b) the only real way of 'proving', may as well go and visit their nearest homeopath and give them lots of money in exchange for water. (I am of course aware there are some complications with Hi-Fi stuff that make it even trickier, room ambience, electrical interference, 'burn in' etc, but the principle is true)
 
DreadNiK said:
For a similar thread as this one? that's shocking if so....

Anyone who thinks double blind/ABX testing isn't a) valid b) the only real way of 'proving', may as well go and visit their nearest homeopath and give them lots of money in exchange for water. (I am of course aware there are some complications with Hi-Fi stuff that make it even trickier, room ambience, electrical interference, 'burn in' etc, but the principle is true)
Click to expand...

I got banned because every time someone posted saying "should i spend £x on a cable?" i said it would be a waste of money and they would be better off looking at other things. It's bizzare that an attempt to save people some money would bring such a reaction, especially in todays climate, but i'm not bothered, i just don't use the site anymore (i had been a member for 6-7 years as well).
 
oli collett said:
I got banned because every time someone posted saying "should i spend £x on a cable?" i said it would be a waste of money and they would be better off looking at other things. It's bizzare that an attempt to save people some money would bring such a reaction, especially in todays climate, but i'm not bothered, i just don't use the site anymore (i had been a member for 6-7 years as well).
Click to expand...

I've got to ask, have your ever gone out and played with some different cables in a good system?
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
I've got to ask, have your ever gone out and played with some different cables in a good system?
Click to expand...

A reasonable question. I expect you know the answer, which is no. I've tried out different cables on my current system and never noticed any difference but it's hardly high end.

That is, however, irrelevant. If i listened to a system with platinum coated magnetised mermaid hair and thought it was better than bog standard copper, it would be meaningless. If i have a cold and feel better after eating a bar of chocolate, i don't start recommending it to everyone as a miracle cure.

The point is to look at tests of hi-fi equipment which are done in a way which eliminates all kinds of psychological effects to avoid bias. All of the tests i have seen so far of this type suggest that cables of sufficient build make no difference whatsoever to the sound of a system. If it wasn't for marketing people and hi-fi magazines, i think this would be the widely held belief amoungst hi-fi folk.
 
It would be ridiculous to try and reason with people who believe 'breaking in' speakers is a real and tangible effect.
The majority of 'breaking in' goes on between your ears, getting used to the new sound of the speakers, which can vary immensely depending on the source, amplifier or speakers. To my mind, the only article which ever suggested 'breaking in' mattered also qualified that by saying it all occurs when testing the cones in house, before it's even shipped out.

Unless it can be measured with calibrated equipment with repeatable certainty, there's no science in it.

As for A/B comparisons, many high end vendors and salesfolk will be able to spot the more expensive equipment for one factor alone - It sounds brighter. As you age, your hearing gets worse. In the case of men, significantly worse.
The kind of consumers of high-end and premium grade equipment tend to be people who have the money, e.g. the older 'more discerning' gentleman. As a result the products are brighter to compensate for his aging ears.

This isn't a problem, nor is it even worth debating from an audiophilic point of view.
Everyone's ears are different, one man's aural nirvana might be another's hell.

Buy whatever makes you happy.
If you think spending £400 on cable sprinkled with pixie dust will take you a step towards a more 'perfect' sound, there are plenty of people willing to take your money. It's up to you to decide whether it's worth it. :o
 
I believe in the breaking in of speakers, as it has moving parts which are going to change after they've been stressed for a while. However, I'm much more skeptical of amps etc breaking in.
 
Hey, it's OK guys, the world really is still flat, people do spontaneously combust when travelling at high speeds and the end of the world is nigh.

Talk about armchair sceptics.
How about actually getting out there and giving it a try sometime, instead of simply regurgitating stuff originally quoted by people that you've no idea about, or their motivations.

If you genuinely go give it a try and think that these things don't make any appreciable difference, that's cool, and you'll be able to talk from a position of strength. In the meantime, you're simply acting as forum trolls.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
Hey, it's OK guys, the world really is still flat, people do spontaneously combust when travelling at high speeds and the end of the world is nigh.

Talk about armchair sceptics.
How about actually getting out there and giving it a try sometime, instead of simply regurgitating stuff originally quoted by people that you've no idea about, or their motivations.

If you genuinely go give it a try and think that these things don't make any appreciable difference, that's cool, and you'll be able to talk from a position of strength. In the meantime, you're simply acting as forum trolls.
Click to expand...

This is what really baffles me about hi-fi.

Seriously, there's some very clever people in Audio, and i'm not talking about the marketing people. I'm talking about people who have high paying jobs, brain surgeons, nuclear scientists and whatnot. Sure, not every "tweako" is the sharpest tool in the block but generally such people appear to be.

But here's the thing. When you point out that there is no credible evidence (i've still not seen anyone post any on this thread yet) that this stuff makes a difference, you are accused of heresy! I mean, you are comparing my views in your post to that of people who believe the world is flat. Do you not see the irony there? Wasn't that theory blown away through a mixture of science and common sense? How about the IT industry. Would you start buying new SATA cables at 5 times the price of a normal one if you read some reviews that said they thought it made file transfers a bit quicker, without them running any before/after comparison tests? I'd hope not.

Scientists don't come up with theories and just publish them along with a load of marketing rubbish without any evidence to back it up, but that's exactly what happened in the hi-fi industry when these products entered the market.

If these products do make a difference to your hi-fi, prove it. That's all I and all the other "armchair sceptics" are asking. That's not trolling, if anything it's the complete opposite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom