Which country has the best hi fi industry in the world

[Macca]

I'm more a 'stumbling round blindly, hoping for the best' type than a 'relentless, unending search for perfection' type, but one interesting point arising from this thread is 'how do you judge which system is best, regardless of price?' You'd need to test 'blind', ie without knowing what you were listening to, or how much it cost, for it to be a fair test, and yet blind testing seems to be anathema to many on the subjectivist side of the fence.

Some do claim that the unnatural situation makes it harder to hear differences when you change a component or a cable/lead. The criticism seems mainly to involve the 'test' side of it rather than the fact that it is blind - fatigue sets in, stress from the fact that your being tested means you can't relax and so on.

Not relevant through if you are just comparing two systems. If you play someone two different systems, unless they sound identical they are going to express an overall preference for one of them. Doing the test blind won't change that but it will remove any unconscious bias re the equipment being used - brand loyalty, aesthetic appearance, price etc.

[IHP]

Back to the question, it is of course very difficult to provide a definitive answer but we do have a Mr. Glenn Croft and a Mr Alan Shaw. I'd also wish to throw Quad in the mix, now I know this brand is not British as such anymore but Huntingdon will repair or service any product they have made in what, 60 years ? This must be a rare thing if not unique. The word heritage comes to mind as something that might be taken into account in considering an answer. And bling, in the negative sense, we don't like bling !

My local butcher makes amazing burgers too ! ;-)

[Marco]

Doesn't exist Marco and isn't real world.

Course it does. My system is full of such 'burgers', and I 'eat' them everyday!

Marco.

[Joe]

Whilst I would be happy to participate in 'blind testing', I find it unnecessary in making choices of equipment. My ears tell me the differences in sound produced by items of equipment without my needing to be blinded to use my faculties.

They don't actually put out your eyes or blindfold you, you know.

[Joe]

Some do claim that the unnatural situation makes it harder to hear differences when you change a component or a cable/lead. The criticism seems mainly to involve the 'test' side of it rather than the fact that it is blind - fatigue sets in, stress from the fact that your being tested means you can't relax and so on.

Not relevant through if you are just comparing two systems. If you play someone two different systems, unless they sound identical they are going to express an overall preference for one of them. Doing the test blind won't change that but it will remove any unconscious bias re the equipment being used - brand loyalty, aesthetic appearance, price etc.

Indeed. However, I'm sceptical about the value of comparing whole systems anyway, as there are far too many variables involved. Should system A be entirely different from system B, or should the comparison be between otherwise identical systems with one component changed, and if so, which component?

We come back to my original question; how does one define 'best', and who gets to make the judgement? Surely from a subjectivist point of view, if a system is the best you personally have heard, then it is the best.

[Macca]

Indeed. However, I'm sceptical about the value of comparing whole systems anyway, as there are far too many variables involved. Should system A be entirely different from system B, or should the comparison be between otherwise identical systems with one component changed, and if so, which component?

We come back to my original question; how does one define 'best', and who gets to make the judgement? Surely from a subjectivist point of view, if a system is the best you personally have heard, then it is the best.

I agree that 'best' is going to vary between individuals. But for the 'bet your house' challenge you would need to establish a method of deciding. Say 10 people listen and then you have a secret ballot. System with most votes is declared 'best'.

[Marco]

They don't actually put out your eyes or blindfold you, you know.

Only if you don't pay the bar bill. I believe that electric probes are also used in certain cases.

Marco.

[Joe]

I agree that 'best' is going to vary between individuals. But for the 'bet your house' challenge you would need to establish a method of deciding. Say 10 people listen and then you have a secret ballot. System with most votes is declared 'best'.

Sounds fair. Plus, house keys on the table so there's no chance of the loser welshing on his bet.

[Marco]

Surely from a subjectivist point of view, if a system is the best you personally have heard, then it is the best.

Absolutely, so of course in that respect, "best" is *always* subjective.

At bake-offs and shows, however, it's easy to establish a consensus of what's considered as such by those who are present, and so your "best" can also often become other people's "best" too, which of course adds weight to the subjective nature of the 'bestness'.

This has happened umpteen times to me when, say, I've demo'd my whole system at Scalford, and been complimented on its sound both by other exhibitors and members of the general public attending the show, or at NEBO, where I've demo'd, say, my turntable and phono stage, and everyone in the room has been in raptures with it. Macca will remember this, as he was there.

That is why, in the context of the systems and equipment I've compared it to, some of which has been vastly more expensive, I *know* just how good my gear is in comparison, and in terms of that last bit, proves to both my ears and those of others who agree, it's capabilities against stuff that's more expensive, and thus in turn that more expensive DOES NOT automatically equate to better, and so you don't always 'get what you pay for', in terms of out-and-out sonic performance.

In that respect, Simon can argue differently until he's blue in the face, but the fact is I have the experience to back up my claims. All that needs to happen, for him to change his mind, is to hear what I've heard, in that respect, which I'm more than willing to help him with, anytime and anywhere he likes

Marco.

[Dynamics]

Absolutely, so of course in that respect, "best" is *always* subjective.

At bake-offs and shows, however, it's easy to establish a consensus of what's considered as such by those who are present, and so your "best" can also often become other people's "best" too, which of course adds weight to the subjective nature of the 'bestness'.

This has happened umpteen times to me when, say, I've demo'd my whole system at Scalford, and been complimented on its sound both by other exhibitors and members of the general public attending the show, or at NEBO, where I've demo'd, say, my turntable and phono stage, and everyone in the room has been in raptures with it. Macca will remember this, as he was there.

That is why, in the context of the systems and equipment I've compared it to, some of which has been vastly more expensive, I *know* just how good my gear is in comparison, and in terms of that last bit, proves to both my ears and those of others who agree, how good it is against stuff that's more expensive, and thus in turn that more expensive DOES NOT automatically equate to better, and so you don't always 'get what you pay for', in terms of out-and-out sonic performance.

In that respect, Simon can argue differently until he's blue in the face, but the fact is I have the experience to back up my claims. All that needs to happen, for him to change his mind, is to hear what I've heard, in that respect, which I'm more than willing to do, anytime and anywhere he wishes

Marco.

But I doubt you are Marco because are you, if comparing say some home made speakers, comparing them to speakers more expensive. It not just one type of item, but you do it for amps or CD players too, and also across budgets for these items and devices at different price brackets. So you might compare £1000 home made speakers with £5000 commercial speakers of a similar floor stand type.

You can ask the question is a speaker better without it being subjective and a personal preference. Because what you are doing is, if one person is saying this speaker is better than another commercial type, is to introduce more error, because the decisions about what's best are not based on absolutes. but are subjective.

What I'd do (if I had the time or inclination) is take an iPod dock and my pmc's driven with my system and I'd ask questions around dynamics and clarity, and ask it to be quantified. You'd score dynamics 1-10 and describe what each element is from 1-10 so the person can choose. You'd do the same with detail and other variables. Then you'd score it with lots of other people and a decent cohort. Then you'd do another test after that with one of the best reviewed and considered £1000 speakers against similar £3000 ones, then £1000 speakers v £4000 and £5000 etc. I'd then ask which you'd prefer. The tests would need to be properly blind so you don't know what you are hearing too. I'd relate preference to what they consider best on the rated variables and I'd see if their a relationship to the two across the cohort.

I'd expect there would be a better preference as the price goes up and I'd also expect those people to rate, on the scoring system I mentioned, the more expensive speakers as being better. Then you'd probably need to do it on other speakers to remove error. Quite a study.

And is the consensus the biggest one when the market for a commercial product is bigger by implication. They will be selling more atc speakers say then mr obscures brand x, in a commercial market where the firm advertise the atcs etc. They will be available in more dealers, have distribution channels etc etc.

Nobody really has the experience because it's impossible to do all of this, which you'd need to do before you really had a view. Human nature being as it is, it's very easy to convince yourself a cheaper system is better because ;

- law of dim returns makes it such that a £10k hi fi is not 10 times better than a £1k one, making someone think the £1k is just as good and relating the money aspect in ones judgements about what is best. My system is better because spending 10k more only gets a relatively marginal improvement. I've seen this in so many people who own hi fi it's unbelievable. I'd say good luck to the person who wants to spend 100k and get an extra 10 percent, if that's what they want to spend their money on and have the money.

- this leads us into these people being considered idiots. You said I'd be fleeced.

- ones preference for a hi fi at your price point. So listening to a more expensive system which is likely to have more scale, or clarity, which might be different from the norm and not to taste. I could say I don't like that sound because is has too much bass. But remember the original question of best is what is faithfully reproduced the better, so you have to say a system which has huge scale is better. Remember an objective hypothesis test of what is best. So no doubt you'd need a huge basement and huge speakers like the pmc owners system. No doubt this will cost.

- people don't really have experience as they buy what they are used to, and at that price point, and if you take a view that cheaper is better to the exclusion of all else, you won't by necessity ever buy more expensive hi fi, because you won't know what it's like. I believe really these people have never heard commercial offerings when making their decisions of what is best, or don't go in the search of them when buying cheaper products. Why would they? Of course not, it's not in their budget. But I've heard cheaper hi fi and owned cheaper hi fi, albeit commercial hi fi, and it's much lesser performing. I'd also go back to my burger argument about what is possible, issues around economics of market prices etc.

- bias due to 'my system pisses on others' . There is so much snobbery in hi fi it beggars belief for me. You probably have no idea if you went to a dealer and listened to a system two or three times the value of yours, whether it would or wouldn't think it could piss on yours. The reason. You don't know that shop system. For there will be one somewhere. Isn't it better to think my system is bloody good, but not the best, and it may or may not piss on other systems at the same price. Which leads to this point I've already stated ;

- the inability to actually put together a system that is empirically the best or the best for your preference. Let's say you set your system up and then change items, and get to a system you are really happy with. Most are in this boat of changing and then getting to a good system. They will tend to keep this for a bit but they may keep updating. But the point is, there is infinite amounts of hi fi and you'd never listen to one. Let me transpose you to a different country and 10 years back, with hi fi of a different make common to the country, you may or may not have a system better than that in the uk, if you could glass ball the future. So the point is hi fi is always a compromise based on experiences and what you come across, which is often down to luck, and you can't review and listen to everything because you can't go to every dealer.

This seems to me common sense, and it's why beyond a point and once a system is built, I don't understand a never ending desire to tweak this or that, unless something comes along and does something much better.