"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Andy Evans wrote:

MC does sometimes quote a sort of
'magic number' that he makes up

This is true, of course, but nevertheless he does rank componants which is
frankly the only way to do it. The ear is a very sensitive instrument, the
memory very fallible for intervals of days and weeks between listening
tests. The best we can do for this basic level of evaluation is say 'L
sounds better than M' however fallible the criteria. We can then say 'if G
sounds better than L then it also sounds better than M'. Over time you
build up rankings. Audio Amateur did this, and so did Stereophile I
believe. Of course manufacturers hate it so magazines have dropped the
whole thing. Commercial pressure. There you are. You end up with nonsense
like What HiFi - seventeen different products
with five stars and no idea which to buy. At least MC tried, and I
thought some of his ideas were interesting enough and miles better than
the rest of the field.


Trouble is they are still subjective measurements and therefore of no value
to anyone other than the person who made them - one man's meat etc.

Ian

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Alex Butcher wrote:

This raises an interesting point; a while ago, I was planning on
building a modest home cinema/hi-fi rig and my plan was to treat it
much the same as I treat building computers; good quality central
components (motherboard, PSU, DAC/Amplifier) and Human IO devices
(monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers) and spend what I can afford on
the rest (CPU, memory, video card, CD transports). The logic behind
that is that I
don't want to spend large amounts of money on components that rapidly
become obsolete, but instead spend it on components that will be the
last to be upgraded and for which good quality/stability is necessary.

I can see the thinking regarding computers - two components that can be
bought for a reasonable price/performance trade-off are CPU and hard disk.
But what parts of an audio system quickly become obsolete, such that the
same thinking can be applied?


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Alex Butcher wrote:

This raises an interesting point; a while ago, I was planning on
building a modest home cinema/hi-fi rig and my plan was to treat it
much the same as I treat building computers; good quality central
components (motherboard, PSU, DAC/Amplifier) and Human IO devices
(monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers) and spend what I can afford on
the rest (CPU, memory, video card, CD transports). The logic behind
that is that I
don't want to spend large amounts of money on components that rapidly
become obsolete, but instead spend it on components that will be the
last to be upgraded and for which good quality/stability is necessary.

I can see the thinking regarding computers - two components that can be
bought for a reasonable price/performance trade-off are CPU and hard disk.
But what parts of an audio system quickly become obsolete, such that the
same thinking can be applied?


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Trouble is they are still subjective measurements and therefore of no value
to anyone other than the person who made them

Put it this way - I'd MUCH rather any competent audiophile ranked ten products
in order of preference than gave them arbitrary stars. There's bad and there's
worse.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Trouble is they are still subjective measurements and therefore of no value
to anyone other than the person who made them

Put it this way - I'd MUCH rather any competent audiophile ranked ten products
in order of preference than gave them arbitrary stars. There's bad and there's
worse.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 17:30:16 -0000
"chris" wrote:

Well if you wernt getting any errors in the first place the difference in fibre
will make no difference.

Of course it will, as long as you put a working fibre in in place of the broken one ;-)

The light signal will be either on or off. So to my
reconning you wouldnt be able to hear any difference either.

;-)

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 17:30:16 -0000
"chris" wrote:

Well if you wernt getting any errors in the first place the difference in fibre
will make no difference.

Of course it will, as long as you put a working fibre in in place of the broken one ;-)

The light signal will be either on or off. So to my
reconning you wouldnt be able to hear any difference either.

;-)

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:06:14 +0000, Chris Morriss
wrote:

All audio fibre-optic links use multimode fibre. Single mode fibre
(with no bouncing about) is only used on telecomms links at hundreds and
more Megabits/sec.

Not true. There are several 'high end' transport/DAC pairs which use
the AT&T system. This has high bandwidth Tx/Rx units and normally uses
monomode quartz fibre links.

At the VERY low bit rate used for SPDIF it really doesn't matter a damn.

Well, that's arguably true! :-)

Likewise, as many others have pointed out, for cable runs of a metre or
so, phono-plugs are quite OK for copper connections. Use a proper
RG-spec cable and BNC connectors for long lengths by all means.

Agreed.

I'm now playing with multi-channel 24bit, 48kHz sample-rate pro-audio
over Cobranet at work. Have a look at the Cirrus web site, some
seriously good work being done on the distribution of digital audio
feeds there.

Well, it's hardly rocket science for any comms engineer, is it? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:06:14 +0000, Chris Morriss
wrote:

All audio fibre-optic links use multimode fibre. Single mode fibre
(with no bouncing about) is only used on telecomms links at hundreds and
more Megabits/sec.

Not true. There are several 'high end' transport/DAC pairs which use
the AT&T system. This has high bandwidth Tx/Rx units and normally uses
monomode quartz fibre links.

At the VERY low bit rate used for SPDIF it really doesn't matter a damn.

Well, that's arguably true! :-)

Likewise, as many others have pointed out, for cable runs of a metre or
so, phono-plugs are quite OK for copper connections. Use a proper
RG-spec cable and BNC connectors for long lengths by all means.

Agreed.

I'm now playing with multi-channel 24bit, 48kHz sample-rate pro-audio
over Cobranet at work. Have a look at the Cirrus web site, some
seriously good work being done on the distribution of digital audio
feeds there.

Well, it's hardly rocket science for any comms engineer, is it? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

CD players and ..... ehhhhhh.... CD Players
"Wally" wrote in message
...
Alex Butcher wrote:

This raises an interesting point; a while ago, I was planning on
building a modest home cinema/hi-fi rig and my plan was to treat it
much the same as I treat building computers; good quality central
components (motherboard, PSU, DAC/Amplifier) and Human IO devices
(monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers) and spend what I can afford on
the rest (CPU, memory, video card, CD transports). The logic behind
that is that I
don't want to spend large amounts of money on components that rapidly
become obsolete, but instead spend it on components that will be the
last to be upgraded and for which good quality/stability is necessary.

I can see the thinking regarding computers - two components that can be
bought for a reasonable price/performance trade-off are CPU and hard disk.
But what parts of an audio system quickly become obsolete, such that the
same thinking can be applied?


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

CD players and ..... ehhhhhh.... CD Players
"Wally" wrote in message
...
Alex Butcher wrote:

This raises an interesting point; a while ago, I was planning on
building a modest home cinema/hi-fi rig and my plan was to treat it
much the same as I treat building computers; good quality central
components (motherboard, PSU, DAC/Amplifier) and Human IO devices
(monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers) and spend what I can afford on
the rest (CPU, memory, video card, CD transports). The logic behind
that is that I
don't want to spend large amounts of money on components that rapidly
become obsolete, but instead spend it on components that will be the
last to be upgraded and for which good quality/stability is necessary.

I can see the thinking regarding computers - two components that can be
bought for a reasonable price/performance trade-off are CPU and hard disk.
But what parts of an audio system quickly become obsolete, such that the
same thinking can be applied?


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:38:06 +0000, Wally wrote:

Alex Butcher wrote:

This raises an interesting point; a while ago, I was planning on
building a modest home cinema/hi-fi rig and my plan was to treat it
much the same as I treat building computers; good quality central
components (motherboard, PSU, DAC/Amplifier) and Human IO devices
(monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers) and spend what I can afford on the
rest (CPU, memory, video card, CD transports). The logic behind that is
that I
don't want to spend large amounts of money on components that rapidly
become obsolete, but instead spend it on components that will be the
last to be upgraded and for which good quality/stability is necessary.

I can see the thinking regarding computers - two components that can be
bought for a reasonable price/performance trade-off are CPU and hard
disk. But what parts of an audio system quickly become obsolete, such
that the same thinking can be applied?

Digital components such as CD/DVD players for a start, it would seem.
Analogue components admittedly (much) less so. But even then, these are
probably components you'd more readily want to upgrade in favour of better
components.

An example of the sort of systems I'm proposing would be:

~130GBP CD player
~100GBP DVD player
~150GBP HT receiver

vs.

~ 50GBP DVD player
~320GBP HT receiver
10GBP digital cable

Same overall price, but I would expect that the DAC in that ~320GBP
receiver is better than either of the DACS in the ~100GBP-range CD/DVD
players, and further, that the amplifier in the ~320GBP device is better
than the ~150GBP device. I wonder whether anyone could tell which was the
cheaper CD/DVD transport...

Of course, taking my approach literally, you'd want to get a HT decoder
and seperate amplifiers, so that the decoder (rapidly changing) can be
upgraded without having to ditch the (probably perfectly good) amplifiers.
Sadly, doing that would be rather expensive compared with an all-in-one.
:(

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 http://www.assursys.com/

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:38:06 +0000, Wally wrote:

Alex Butcher wrote:

This raises an interesting point; a while ago, I was planning on
building a modest home cinema/hi-fi rig and my plan was to treat it
much the same as I treat building computers; good quality central
components (motherboard, PSU, DAC/Amplifier) and Human IO devices
(monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers) and spend what I can afford on the
rest (CPU, memory, video card, CD transports). The logic behind that is
that I
don't want to spend large amounts of money on components that rapidly
become obsolete, but instead spend it on components that will be the
last to be upgraded and for which good quality/stability is necessary.

I can see the thinking regarding computers - two components that can be
bought for a reasonable price/performance trade-off are CPU and hard
disk. But what parts of an audio system quickly become obsolete, such
that the same thinking can be applied?

Digital components such as CD/DVD players for a start, it would seem.
Analogue components admittedly (much) less so. But even then, these are
probably components you'd more readily want to upgrade in favour of better
components.

An example of the sort of systems I'm proposing would be:

~130GBP CD player
~100GBP DVD player
~150GBP HT receiver

vs.

~ 50GBP DVD player
~320GBP HT receiver
10GBP digital cable

Same overall price, but I would expect that the DAC in that ~320GBP
receiver is better than either of the DACS in the ~100GBP-range CD/DVD
players, and further, that the amplifier in the ~320GBP device is better
than the ~150GBP device. I wonder whether anyone could tell which was the
cheaper CD/DVD transport...

Of course, taking my approach literally, you'd want to get a HT decoder
and seperate amplifiers, so that the decoder (rapidly changing) can be
upgraded without having to ditch the (probably perfectly good) amplifiers.
Sadly, doing that would be rather expensive compared with an all-in-one.
:(

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 http://www.assursys.com/

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:51:01 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Err, isn't it all down to personal taste anyway ?

--
Nick

I agree. So I think that it is very difficult to rank order such
players, as many reviewers do, based on their own personal listening
experience and, I suspect, the price of the gear in question. Its
interesting to see how, in Hi Fi World for example, kit that measures
comparatively poorly gets a good review full of flowery, subjective
mush.

Regards

David

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:51:01 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Err, isn't it all down to personal taste anyway ?

--
Nick

I agree. So I think that it is very difficult to rank order such
players, as many reviewers do, based on their own personal listening
experience and, I suspect, the price of the gear in question. Its
interesting to see how, in Hi Fi World for example, kit that measures
comparatively poorly gets a good review full of flowery, subjective
mush.

Regards

David

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Alex Butcher" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 10:06:58 +0000, Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Oliver Keating
wrote:

[snip]

Which brings me onto CD players. I always thought that amplifier and
speakers mattered the most, but What HiFi reckons CD players are
important, and worthing spending loads of money on. Now, if you have a
CD player in a half decent Hi-Fi setup then you use a digital
interconnect, so really, all the CD player is having to do is read the
raw data off the CD and feed it to the Amp, and the cleverness of its
own DAC is neither here nor there.

The above apparently assumes you have a DAC inside the amp, and that
this is better than the one in the CD player. I doubt that either
assumption is correct in most cases for stereo audio systems. The
situation with the multichannel amps/receivers for AV may be different,
though. These may have digital inputs to allow the unit to process the
digital stream from something like a DVD player. However these aren't
(currently at least) the norm for serious stereo audio use.

This raises an interesting point; a while ago, I was planning on building
a modest home cinema/hi-fi rig and my plan was to treat it much the same
as I treat building computers; good quality central components
(motherboard, PSU, DAC/Amplifier) and Human IO devices (monitor, keyboard,
mouse, speakers) and spend what I can afford on the rest (CPU, memory,
video card, CD transports). The logic behind that is that I
don't want to spend large amounts of money on components that rapidly
become obsolete, but instead spend it on components that will be the last
to be upgraded and for which good quality/stability is necessary.

When I explained this to the guy behind the counter in Richer Sounds he
seemed a bit surprised but intrigued by my strategy. What does the
collective wisdom of u.r.a think?

Except of course the audio world is nothing like the computer world. I would
(controversially say), that really there is no development in audio left.

I have a couple of speakers that are ~25 years old which I love, and a
couple more (uprights) that are over 30 years old. I had to replace the
cones as the old ones were made of paper and were beginning to come apart.
Ditto amplifiers. I am very suspicious of "upgrades", if you get some really
good equipment from the 70s you can build a high end Hifi at about one tenth
the cost of buying similar quality stuff new. Of course, the manufacturers
don't want you to know this. Of course, the main development has been CD
over the years (although some will argue vinyl is better).

I walk in to shops that have a complete HiFi setup for £1,000 and I am
appalled at how crap it sounds compared to my kit :)

Anyway my 2 cents is this:

Speakers should get 60% of the total budget.
Amp should get up to 40% of the total budget
CD player - £100 absolute maximum (even for a very high end system)

[snip]

Jim

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 http://www.assursys.com/

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Alex Butcher" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 10:06:58 +0000, Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Oliver Keating
wrote:

[snip]

Which brings me onto CD players. I always thought that amplifier and
speakers mattered the most, but What HiFi reckons CD players are
important, and worthing spending loads of money on. Now, if you have a
CD player in a half decent Hi-Fi setup then you use a digital
interconnect, so really, all the CD player is having to do is read the
raw data off the CD and feed it to the Amp, and the cleverness of its
own DAC is neither here nor there.

The above apparently assumes you have a DAC inside the amp, and that
this is better than the one in the CD player. I doubt that either
assumption is correct in most cases for stereo audio systems. The
situation with the multichannel amps/receivers for AV may be different,
though. These may have digital inputs to allow the unit to process the
digital stream from something like a DVD player. However these aren't
(currently at least) the norm for serious stereo audio use.

This raises an interesting point; a while ago, I was planning on building
a modest home cinema/hi-fi rig and my plan was to treat it much the same
as I treat building computers; good quality central components
(motherboard, PSU, DAC/Amplifier) and Human IO devices (monitor, keyboard,
mouse, speakers) and spend what I can afford on the rest (CPU, memory,
video card, CD transports). The logic behind that is that I
don't want to spend large amounts of money on components that rapidly
become obsolete, but instead spend it on components that will be the last
to be upgraded and for which good quality/stability is necessary.

When I explained this to the guy behind the counter in Richer Sounds he
seemed a bit surprised but intrigued by my strategy. What does the
collective wisdom of u.r.a think?

Except of course the audio world is nothing like the computer world. I would
(controversially say), that really there is no development in audio left.

I have a couple of speakers that are ~25 years old which I love, and a
couple more (uprights) that are over 30 years old. I had to replace the
cones as the old ones were made of paper and were beginning to come apart.
Ditto amplifiers. I am very suspicious of "upgrades", if you get some really
good equipment from the 70s you can build a high end Hifi at about one tenth
the cost of buying similar quality stuff new. Of course, the manufacturers
don't want you to know this. Of course, the main development has been CD
over the years (although some will argue vinyl is better).

I walk in to shops that have a complete HiFi setup for £1,000 and I am
appalled at how crap it sounds compared to my kit :)

Anyway my 2 cents is this:

Speakers should get 60% of the total budget.
Amp should get up to 40% of the total budget
CD player - £100 absolute maximum (even for a very high end system)

[snip]

Jim

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 http://www.assursys.com/

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

In message , Stewart Pinkerton
writes
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:06:14 +0000, Chris Morriss
wrote:

All audio fibre-optic links use multimode fibre. Single mode fibre
(with no bouncing about) is only used on telecomms links at hundreds and
more Megabits/sec.

Not true. There are several 'high end' transport/DAC pairs which use
the AT&T system. This has high bandwidth Tx/Rx units and normally uses
monomode quartz fibre links.

At the VERY low bit rate used for SPDIF it really doesn't matter a damn.

Well, that's arguably true! :-)

Likewise, as many others have pointed out, for cable runs of a metre or
so, phono-plugs are quite OK for copper connections. Use a proper
RG-spec cable and BNC connectors for long lengths by all means.

Agreed.

I'm now playing with multi-channel 24bit, 48kHz sample-rate pro-audio
over Cobranet at work. Have a look at the Cirrus web site, some
seriously good work being done on the distribution of digital audio
feeds there.

Well, it's hardly rocket science for any comms engineer, is it? :-)

True!

Actually Cobranet is really quite interesting. Multiple 24/48 or 24/96
channels with a guaranteed latency sent over 100base-t Ethernet is a
good way to send high-quality audio round buildings.

(The telecomms company in Cambridge closed down in the end, that's why
I'm back working on audio and PSU stuff again!)
--
Chris Morriss

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

In message , Stewart Pinkerton
writes
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:06:14 +0000, Chris Morriss
wrote:

All audio fibre-optic links use multimode fibre. Single mode fibre
(with no bouncing about) is only used on telecomms links at hundreds and
more Megabits/sec.

Not true. There are several 'high end' transport/DAC pairs which use
the AT&T system. This has high bandwidth Tx/Rx units and normally uses
monomode quartz fibre links.

At the VERY low bit rate used for SPDIF it really doesn't matter a damn.

Well, that's arguably true! :-)

Likewise, as many others have pointed out, for cable runs of a metre or
so, phono-plugs are quite OK for copper connections. Use a proper
RG-spec cable and BNC connectors for long lengths by all means.

Agreed.

I'm now playing with multi-channel 24bit, 48kHz sample-rate pro-audio
over Cobranet at work. Have a look at the Cirrus web site, some
seriously good work being done on the distribution of digital audio
feeds there.

Well, it's hardly rocket science for any comms engineer, is it? :-)

True!

Actually Cobranet is really quite interesting. Multiple 24/48 or 24/96
channels with a guaranteed latency sent over 100base-t Ethernet is a
good way to send high-quality audio round buildings.

(The telecomms company in Cambridge closed down in the end, that's why
I'm back working on audio and PSU stuff again!)
--
Chris Morriss

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Alex Butcher wrote:

I can see the thinking regarding computers - two components that can
be bought for a reasonable price/performance trade-off are CPU and
hard disk. But what parts of an audio system quickly become
obsolete, such that the same thinking can be applied?

Digital components such as CD/DVD players for a start, it would seem.

Obsolete?


An example of the sort of systems I'm proposing would be:

~130GBP CD player
~100GBP DVD player
~150GBP HT receiver

Why both CD and DVD players?


~ 50GBP DVD player
~320GBP HT receiver
10GBP digital cable

Same overall price, but I would expect that the DAC in that ~320GBP
receiver is better than either of the DACS in the ~100GBP-range CD/DVD
players, and further, that the amplifier in the ~320GBP device is
better than the ~150GBP device.

I'm tempted to agree. What would be the upgrade candidate in the latter
system?


I wonder whether anyone could tell
which was the cheaper CD/DVD transport...

If they're all going through the DAC in the dearer HT amp, I think it would
be hard to tell.


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Alex Butcher wrote:

I can see the thinking regarding computers - two components that can
be bought for a reasonable price/performance trade-off are CPU and
hard disk. But what parts of an audio system quickly become
obsolete, such that the same thinking can be applied?

Digital components such as CD/DVD players for a start, it would seem.

Obsolete?


An example of the sort of systems I'm proposing would be:

~130GBP CD player
~100GBP DVD player
~150GBP HT receiver

Why both CD and DVD players?


~ 50GBP DVD player
~320GBP HT receiver
10GBP digital cable

Same overall price, but I would expect that the DAC in that ~320GBP
receiver is better than either of the DACS in the ~100GBP-range CD/DVD
players, and further, that the amplifier in the ~320GBP device is
better than the ~150GBP device.

I'm tempted to agree. What would be the upgrade candidate in the latter
system?


I wonder whether anyone could tell
which was the cheaper CD/DVD transport...

If they're all going through the DAC in the dearer HT amp, I think it would
be hard to tell.


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

So until I can find a voice matched centre speaker for my main left/right
that is magnetically shielded (some time never) I'll have to do without
one.



Or a big plasma screen which doesn't care about the field from the
speakers????

David

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

So until I can find a voice matched centre speaker for my main left/right
that is magnetically shielded (some time never) I'll have to do without
one.



Or a big plasma screen which doesn't care about the field from the
speakers????

David

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...

I just wonder if this magazine is just designed so that the industry is
able
to flog expensive kit.


WHF isn't unique, but it's probably the worst.

To my mind the only magazine that ever did sensible reviews was Gramophone.
Then Geoffrey Horn packed in and the "usual suspects" from HFN&RR etc. were
drafted in. I stopped reading the audio equipment reviews around that time.

Roy.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...

I just wonder if this magazine is just designed so that the industry is
able
to flog expensive kit.


WHF isn't unique, but it's probably the worst.

To my mind the only magazine that ever did sensible reviews was Gramophone.
Then Geoffrey Horn packed in and the "usual suspects" from HFN&RR etc. were
drafted in. I stopped reading the audio equipment reviews around that time.

Roy.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Andy Evans wrote:

Trouble is they are still subjective measurements and therefore of no
value to anyone other than the person who made them

Put it this way - I'd MUCH rather any competent audiophile ranked ten
products in order of preference than gave them arbitrary stars. There's
bad and there's worse.


I would much rather reviwers subjected the kit to some relevant repeatable
tests and published the results. Perhaps then we could avoid the several
thousand pounds power amplifier with several percent distortion receiving a
rave reviw.

Ian

P.S. Isn't competent audiophile and oxymoron ;-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Andy Evans wrote:

Trouble is they are still subjective measurements and therefore of no
value to anyone other than the person who made them

Put it this way - I'd MUCH rather any competent audiophile ranked ten
products in order of preference than gave them arbitrary stars. There's
bad and there's worse.


I would much rather reviwers subjected the kit to some relevant repeatable
tests and published the results. Perhaps then we could avoid the several
thousand pounds power amplifier with several percent distortion receiving a
rave reviw.

Ian

P.S. Isn't competent audiophile and oxymoron ;-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:02:50 +0000, Alex Butcher
wrote:

This raises an interesting point; a while ago, I was planning on building
a modest home cinema/hi-fi rig and my plan was to treat it much the same
as I treat building computers; good quality central components
(motherboard, PSU, DAC/Amplifier) and Human IO devices (monitor, keyboard,
mouse, speakers) and spend what I can afford on the rest (CPU, memory,
video card, CD transports). The logic behind that is that I
don't want to spend large amounts of money on components that rapidly
become obsolete, but instead spend it on components that will be the last
to be upgraded and for which good quality/stability is necessary.

So you're assuming that you WILL upgrade, when prices drop? If not,
it's very strange logic ;-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:02:50 +0000, Alex Butcher
wrote:

This raises an interesting point; a while ago, I was planning on building
a modest home cinema/hi-fi rig and my plan was to treat it much the same
as I treat building computers; good quality central components
(motherboard, PSU, DAC/Amplifier) and Human IO devices (monitor, keyboard,
mouse, speakers) and spend what I can afford on the rest (CPU, memory,
video card, CD transports). The logic behind that is that I
don't want to spend large amounts of money on components that rapidly
become obsolete, but instead spend it on components that will be the last
to be upgraded and for which good quality/stability is necessary.

So you're assuming that you WILL upgrade, when prices drop? If not,
it's very strange logic ;-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Ian Bell" wrote in message
...
Andy Evans wrote:

Trouble is they are still subjective measurements and therefore of no
value to anyone other than the person who made them

Put it this way - I'd MUCH rather any competent audiophile ranked ten
products in order of preference than gave them arbitrary stars. There's
bad and there's worse.


I would much rather reviwers subjected the kit to some relevant repeatable
tests and published the results. Perhaps then we could avoid the several
thousand pounds power amplifier with several percent distortion receiving
a
rave reviw.

One simple but effective way I have found to test hi-fi is to have it
playing a recording, and then have a microphone positioned in an ideal
location recording the output.

With really high end stuff, the recording will be indistinguishable from the
original, but of course there is degredation directly related to the
speakers/amps, so perhaps a could test would be to record the recording, and
repeat until a blind test reveals the difference between the original and
the recorded, and simply note the number of recordings it took.

Btw - what thousand pound amplifiers have a several percent distortion?

Ian

P.S. Isn't competent audiophile and oxymoron ;-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

"Ian Bell" wrote in message
...
Andy Evans wrote:

Trouble is they are still subjective measurements and therefore of no
value to anyone other than the person who made them

Put it this way - I'd MUCH rather any competent audiophile ranked ten
products in order of preference than gave them arbitrary stars. There's
bad and there's worse.


I would much rather reviwers subjected the kit to some relevant repeatable
tests and published the results. Perhaps then we could avoid the several
thousand pounds power amplifier with several percent distortion receiving
a
rave reviw.

One simple but effective way I have found to test hi-fi is to have it
playing a recording, and then have a microphone positioned in an ideal
location recording the output.

With really high end stuff, the recording will be indistinguishable from the
original, but of course there is degredation directly related to the
speakers/amps, so perhaps a could test would be to record the recording, and
repeat until a blind test reveals the difference between the original and
the recorded, and simply note the number of recordings it took.

Btw - what thousand pound amplifiers have a several percent distortion?

Ian

P.S. Isn't competent audiophile and oxymoron ;-)

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:40:49 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:02:50 +0000, Alex Butcher
wrote:

This raises an interesting point; a while ago, I was planning on building
a modest home cinema/hi-fi rig and my plan was to treat it much the same
as I treat building computers; good quality central components
(motherboard, PSU, DAC/Amplifier) and Human IO devices (monitor, keyboard,
mouse, speakers) and spend what I can afford on the rest (CPU, memory,
video card, CD transports). The logic behind that is that I
don't want to spend large amounts of money on components that rapidly
become obsolete, but instead spend it on components that will be the last
to be upgraded and for which good quality/stability is necessary.

So you're assuming that you WILL upgrade, when prices drop?

Usually, yes.

And with respect to stuff like CD players; being mechanical, they're more
likely to break than stuff with no moving parts, IME.

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 http://www.assursys.com/

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:40:49 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:02:50 +0000, Alex Butcher
wrote:

This raises an interesting point; a while ago, I was planning on building
a modest home cinema/hi-fi rig and my plan was to treat it much the same
as I treat building computers; good quality central components
(motherboard, PSU, DAC/Amplifier) and Human IO devices (monitor, keyboard,
mouse, speakers) and spend what I can afford on the rest (CPU, memory,
video card, CD transports). The logic behind that is that I
don't want to spend large amounts of money on components that rapidly
become obsolete, but instead spend it on components that will be the last
to be upgraded and for which good quality/stability is necessary.

So you're assuming that you WILL upgrade, when prices drop?

Usually, yes.

And with respect to stuff like CD players; being mechanical, they're more
likely to break than stuff with no moving parts, IME.

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 http://www.assursys.com/

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

David Houpt wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:51:01 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Err, isn't it all down to personal taste anyway ?

--
Nick


I agree. So I think that it is very difficult to rank order such
players, as many reviewers do, based on their own personal listening
experience and, I suspect, the price of the gear in question. Its
interesting to see how, in Hi Fi World for example, kit that measures
comparatively poorly gets a good review full of flowery, subjective
mush.

Well I guess, if its measures well, they can just fill column space with
talk about how well the numbers were. if not, they can talk subjective
bollox about the "quality" of the sound.

IMVHO, you can either take

position 1: look at the numbers (assuming they are competently
measured), decide below or above what value each number becomes
irrelevent. For example, I don't think a well designed amp with .01%
distortion will sound any worse that another amp with .001% distortion
under similar conditions.

position 2: ignore the numbers, decide they have no meaning, and decide
based on whats in fashion at the time, for example there are amps with
1% distortion that may sound better than amps with .01% distortion.

or the third way...

Spend the money you would have spent on mags on LP/CD (your choice), and
buy what sounds good to you, and as you are not reading the mags
anymore, you won't start having the nagging doubt that you are missing
something "better".

And if you want HiFi as a hobby, instead of just a way to hear music,
start building your own, then if you don't like the sound, you have only
yourself to blame.

--
Nick

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

David Houpt wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:51:01 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Err, isn't it all down to personal taste anyway ?

--
Nick


I agree. So I think that it is very difficult to rank order such
players, as many reviewers do, based on their own personal listening
experience and, I suspect, the price of the gear in question. Its
interesting to see how, in Hi Fi World for example, kit that measures
comparatively poorly gets a good review full of flowery, subjective
mush.

Well I guess, if its measures well, they can just fill column space with
talk about how well the numbers were. if not, they can talk subjective
bollox about the "quality" of the sound.

IMVHO, you can either take

position 1: look at the numbers (assuming they are competently
measured), decide below or above what value each number becomes
irrelevent. For example, I don't think a well designed amp with .01%
distortion will sound any worse that another amp with .001% distortion
under similar conditions.

position 2: ignore the numbers, decide they have no meaning, and decide
based on whats in fashion at the time, for example there are amps with
1% distortion that may sound better than amps with .01% distortion.

or the third way...

Spend the money you would have spent on mags on LP/CD (your choice), and
buy what sounds good to you, and as you are not reading the mags
anymore, you won't start having the nagging doubt that you are missing
something "better".

And if you want HiFi as a hobby, instead of just a way to hear music,
start building your own, then if you don't like the sound, you have only
yourself to blame.

--
Nick

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Oliver Keating wrote:

Anyway my 2 cents is this:

Speakers should get 60% of the total budget.
Amp should get up to 40% of the total budget
CD player - £100 absolute maximum (even for a very high end system)

Two points:

Please point me at a £100 CD player that sounds better than my DAC.

Given that 60% + 40% = 100%, I can reliably inform you that your £100 CD
player budget will have to be conjured up from thin air.


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Oliver Keating wrote:

Anyway my 2 cents is this:

Speakers should get 60% of the total budget.
Amp should get up to 40% of the total budget
CD player - £100 absolute maximum (even for a very high end system)

Two points:

Please point me at a £100 CD player that sounds better than my DAC.

Given that 60% + 40% = 100%, I can reliably inform you that your £100 CD
player budget will have to be conjured up from thin air.


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

In article , Nick
Gorham wrote:


position 1: look at the numbers (assuming they are competently
measured), decide below or above what value each number becomes
irrelevent. For example, I don't think a well designed amp with .01%
distortion will sound any worse that another amp with .001% distortion
under similar conditions.

position 2: ignore the numbers, decide they have no meaning, and decide
based on whats in fashion at the time, for example there are amps with
1% distortion that may sound better than amps with .01% distortion.

or the third way...

Spend the money you would have spent on mags on LP/CD (your choice), and
buy what sounds good to you, and as you are not reading the mags
anymore, you won't start having the nagging doubt that you are missing
something "better".

Or: ;-

position 4: Obtain some reliably obtained measurements, combined with some
listening tests that confirm that the kit is basically OK. Then use the
measured values to estimate their impact upon your own requirements, based
upon your own experience, situation, and taste. :-) (Can view this as a
varient upon position 1 if you like.)

The magazines seem to have taken to avoiding measurements as they take time
and money to produce, as well as some level of real understanding by the
reviewer.

They have apparently also decided they are incapable of explaining how
readers can make intelligent use of them. It isn't a "bigger/lower the
better" thing in many cases. It is a matter of what values may be most
suitable for some readers, but not for others. The snag is that the
reviewers have to understand this, and be able to explain it clearly for
the benefit of newer readers.

I fear it is 'dumbing down'. The impression is that they have decided their
readers are too dim to understand, and they can't be bothered to even try
and explain. Easier to say, "I am an expert and X is better than Y, so
there."

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

In article , Nick
Gorham wrote:


position 1: look at the numbers (assuming they are competently
measured), decide below or above what value each number becomes
irrelevent. For example, I don't think a well designed amp with .01%
distortion will sound any worse that another amp with .001% distortion
under similar conditions.

position 2: ignore the numbers, decide they have no meaning, and decide
based on whats in fashion at the time, for example there are amps with
1% distortion that may sound better than amps with .01% distortion.

or the third way...

Spend the money you would have spent on mags on LP/CD (your choice), and
buy what sounds good to you, and as you are not reading the mags
anymore, you won't start having the nagging doubt that you are missing
something "better".

Or: ;-

position 4: Obtain some reliably obtained measurements, combined with some
listening tests that confirm that the kit is basically OK. Then use the
measured values to estimate their impact upon your own requirements, based
upon your own experience, situation, and taste. :-) (Can view this as a
varient upon position 1 if you like.)

The magazines seem to have taken to avoiding measurements as they take time
and money to produce, as well as some level of real understanding by the
reviewer.

They have apparently also decided they are incapable of explaining how
readers can make intelligent use of them. It isn't a "bigger/lower the
better" thing in many cases. It is a matter of what values may be most
suitable for some readers, but not for others. The snag is that the
reviewers have to understand this, and be able to explain it clearly for
the benefit of newer readers.

I fear it is 'dumbing down'. The impression is that they have decided their
readers are too dim to understand, and they can't be bothered to even try
and explain. Easier to say, "I am an expert and X is better than Y, so
there."

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"What HiFi" - can it be trusted?
 

Spend the money you would have spent on mags on LP/CD (your choice), or build
your own

Nick is right on the button. Buy the Maplins catalogue for starters. Then
Morgan Jones 'Valve amplifiers' 3rd ed. or similar DIY text and off you go.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.