+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 230

Thread: 10 audiophile myths busted

  1. #61
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 76,547
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe View Post
    It's interesting to note that many previous 'flat-earthers' are now using Japanese DD turntables, valve amps, and big Tannoy speakers. Were they wrong before, and right now? Were their flat-earth systems more accurate, or less accurate than what they are now using? Or have they just switched from one 'flavour' of sound to another?
    An interesting question. The reason for that transition, as far as I'm concerned [although I was never a 'flat-earther in the true sense of the word], is simply due to a state of evolution, i.e. my system and preferences having evolved through time, as a result of learning how to achieve a better sound (based on my criteria for such), which is as Macca says, getting as close as possible to accurately reproducing the recording.

    In my opinion (and that of others whose ears I trust), the system I have now does that markedly better than the one I had 10 years ago. It's all about making genuine progress, and TBH, if your system of 10 years ago is better than the one you've got now, then you haven't made much progress!

    Marco.
    http://www.thestainedglasscompany.com

    "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do" -- Milan Kundera.

  2. #62
    Join Date: May 2009

    Location: Bristol

    Posts: 3,812

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frazeur1 View Post
    Joe, I have wondered about this too at times, mainly when I have gone back and looked at various reviewers systems and how they have changed focus over the course of time(some in hardly any time at all). Then I step back and think about my own journey and realize for myself, I can enjoy many different types of "flavours", maybe it is mood, maybe other things. I think the main thing is, other than the talk about accuracy and all that business, it is more about what each one of us enjoys out of our own setup, and in that, is there really a right or wrong? Maybe, but it is really up to each of us individually to make that call within our own system. I think too, all of this should be fun and not so painful as some seem to want to make it, myself included at times.
    I've been from SS to valves and back again. Each does its 'thing', and each has upsides and downsides. Given the vagaries of room shapes and sizes, and individuals' acuity (or otherwise) of hearing, and it's just plain daft to think that one size will ever fit all. And although I don't believe that systems should favour one musical genre over another, a system that suits the needs of someone who listens mainly to small-scale classical music may well not be suitable for a metal or reggae fan.

  3. #63
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 76,547
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherwood View Post
    You have misrepresented my post. What I said was that accuracy is obviously not an objective for everyone. I used hyperbole to demonstrate this in the extreme.
    Lol - no, I simply quoted the bit I wanted to expand upon.

    However, even within this "elite" forum, there are those who advocate and praise equipment that is clearly not accurate, and that they like this equipment precisely beacuse it is not accurate.
    In terms of the bit in bold, who says so, and why?

    Ultimately, it's all about enjoying what you've got, even if it isn't 'accurate', but I'd argue that the true audiophiles among us will always STRIVE (there's that word again) to achieve the type of accuracy Macca has outlined, which is faithfulness to source recording [count me in].

    Personally, I cannot understand the interest in speakers from the 60s and 70s that have an overly warm and obviously coloured sound and a limited high frequency response.
    Lol - you obviously haven't heard what really GOOD vintage speakers can do, when properly sorted!

    Martin, do my 1960s Tannoys sound "warm and coloured"? And while we're at it, define "coloured"?

    Marco.
    http://www.thestainedglasscompany.com

    "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do" -- Milan Kundera.

  4. #64
    Join Date: Jul 2009

    Location: Hampshire, UK

    Posts: 2,060
    I'm Buriedunderaloadofturntables.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clive197 View Post
    What is accuracy? Does anybody know? Is it what a piano sounds like in my room because I’ve never tried that, so how would I know that it’s accurate?
    I recently measured the accuracy of my system and it came out as 47.6, which I'm delighted with.

    I could explain how I did it but you lot wouldn't understand...
    Adam.

  5. #65
    Join Date: May 2016

    Location: Notts

    Posts: 1,244
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Clive197 View Post
    What is accuracy? Does anybody know? Is it what a piano sounds like in my room because Iíve never tried that, so how would I know that itís accurate?
    Exactly! It is also important to note that accuracy has many dimensions, not just tonal accuracy. Accuracy is also about dynamics and transient response and multiple other parameters. I have owned Rogers LS3/5a speakers for many years and these are widely accepted as being accurate reproducers of the human voice and many acoustic instruments. Of coure they are not at all accurate in terms of dynamics and lower frequency reproduction.

    I listen to live music regularly and I doubt very much if many "audiophiles" could live with a highly accurate hifi system in a domestic setting. Too many houses in the UK have very poor acoustic isolation to operate hifi with realistic dynamics even though systems with better dynamics can be operated at lower average volume levels.

    Geoff

  6. #66
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 19,860
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    Lol - no, I simply quoted the bit I wanted to expand upon.



    In terms of the bit in bold, who says so, and why?

    Ultimately, it's all about enjoying what you've got, even if it isn't 'accurate', but I'd argue that the true audiophiles among us will always STRIVE (there's that word again) to achieve the type of accuracy Macca has outlined, which is faithfulness to source recording [count me in].



    Lol - you obviously haven't heard what really GOOD vintage speakers can do, when properly sorted!

    Martin, do my 1960s Tannoys sound "warm and coloured"? And while we're at it, define "coloured"?

    Marco.
    No they don't, although I suspect they could do with different sources and/or amplification. And I could probably get my ultra-modern JM Lab speakers to sound like that too if I made the right/wrong upstream choices.

    Lets be clear with this. No-one cares whether someone else's system sounds accurate or it doesn't. It's their system to do their listening on and they can have it sounding any way they damn well please.

    On the other hand if I have a listen to someone's system and they say 'My system is very accurate in its reproduction' when it clearly isn't, then that is a subject for debate.

    How do you know if a system is accurate? Pretty easy. Play a wide variety of recordings (different music, different production values, analogue recordings from the '60s, and '70s, digital recordings from much later). Are the differences easy to spot or is it hard to differentiate between the character of an analogue recording from 1969 and a digital recording from 2010?

    Forget whether or not it sounds 'good' for the moment. A system can sound 'good' with everything you play on it, that has nothing to do with accuracy. If you can't easily differentiate between the character of the recordings the system is not accurate, it is not 'hi-fi' in the strictest sense. Even if it is the best damn sound you ever heard.
    Martin



    Current Lash Up:

    Technics SL1200P CD Player * NVA P90SA passive pre / Krell KSA50S Power amp * JM Lab Electra 926 loudspeakers *



    'The best I advice I ever received was to always remember that no-one else has any idea what they are doing either.'

  7. #67
    Join Date: Jan 2013

    Location: North East

    Posts: 2,379
    I'm Alan.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beobloke View Post
    I recently measured the accuracy of my system and it came out as 47.6, which I'm delighted with.

    I could explain how I did it but you lot wouldn't understand...
    Brilliant
    'ANSOM IN THE SUMMER..'ORIBBLE IN THE WINTER

    Cambridge Audio stream magic 6, Seagate nas drive, Sony X559ES CD Player, Michell Gyrodec SE, SME309, London pro., Denon DL103, Primare R32, Musical Fidelity A5, Sugden Headmaster headphone/pre-amp, Class D power amp, Shanling dac 50, Roksan Darius speakers, Kef Calinda speakers, Target R1's, Atacama Equinox.

  8. #68
    Join Date: Oct 2016

    Location: Bolton, England

    Posts: 1,073
    I'm Andrew.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherwood View Post
    However, even within this "elite" forum, there are those who advocate and praise equipment that is clearly not accurate, and that they like this equipment precisely because it is not accurate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    In terms of the bit in bold, who says so, and why?
    "Full range" or single driver loudspeakers are a prime example. The frequency response is seriously curtailed at both ends of the spectrum and sometimes, due to some eccentric cabinet design, there are weird effects going on in the midrange. They could hardly be described as accurate. That doesn't mean they can't be pleasant to listen to or have no merit whatsoever, just that they can't be considered accurate.

  9. #69
    Join Date: Oct 2016

    Location: Bolton, England

    Posts: 1,073
    I'm Andrew.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beobloke View Post
    I recently measured the accuracy of my system and it came out as 47.6, which I'm delighted with.

    I could explain how I did it but you lot wouldn't understand...

    Unfortunately, a certain reviewer is very fond of reducing his reviews to a single number such as that. What is he on?

  10. #70
    Join Date: May 2016

    Location: Notts

    Posts: 1,244
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    Lol - no, I simply quoted the bit I wanted to expand upon.



    In terms of the bit in bold, who says so, and why?

    Ultimately, it's all about enjoying what you've got, even if it isn't 'accurate', but I'd argue that the true audiophiles among us will always STRIVE (there's that word again) to achieve the type of accuracy Macca has outlined, which is faithfulness to source recording [count me in].



    Lol - you obviously haven't heard what really GOOD vintage speakers can do, when properly sorted!

    Martin, do my 1960s Tannoys sound "warm and coloured"? And while we're at it, define "coloured"?

    Marco.
    I am not sure why you would think I have not heard well set up vintage speakers. The original QUAD ESL was my first experience of good quality hifi (as part of a fiend's full QUAD system with Michell Transcriptor TT) and I bought my LS3/5a speakers because they offered some of the mid-range clarity of the QUADs at a lower price. However, both are flawed in terms of tonal accuracy. Both have limited bass extension and the LS3/5a has that upper bass hump. The Rogers are coloured in this respect, but many like them because of this colouration, not in spite of it. I would say the same is true of many speakers of that era. For example, I am very found of Wharfedale Lintons and MS Pageants but they are clearly not as tonally accurate as some other speakers from that era (e.g. Harbeths, Spendors etc). I would rate the Tannoys as accurate but they are and always were high end products. My point is that tonal accuracy (amongst other parameters) is often subjugated to the sonic preferences of the listener not because they cannot hear the "colouration" but because they like it!

    Geoff

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast



 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •