+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 223

Thread: 10 audiophile myths busted

  1. #61
    Join Date: Jul 2009

    Location: Hampshire, UK

    Posts: 3,662
    I'm Adam.

    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...
    Engineers: fixing problems you didn't know you had in ways you don't understand.

  2. #62
    Join Date: May 2016

    Location: Notts

    Posts: 2,741
    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 I’ve never tried that, so how would I know that it’s 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

  3. #63
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,779
    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.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  4. #64
    Join Date: Jan 2013

    Location: North East

    Posts: 12,011
    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
    'ANDSOME IN THE SUMMER..'ORIBBLE IN THE WINTER. Barney Milne

    Cambridge Audio CXN, Seagate nas drive, Michell Gyrodec SE, SME309, Benz M2 Ruby cantilever, Denon DL103, Primare R32, Densen D20, Densen D30, Cambridge Audio 840A V2 integrated, Pioneer SX-N30AE Network Stereo Receiver, Roksan Darius speakers, Technics speakers, Canon speakers, Bastanis Dragonfly Horns, REL Storm III sub, Target R1 speaker stands, Atacama Equinox.

  5. #65
    Join Date: May 2016

    Location: Notts

    Posts: 2,741
    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

  6. #66
    Join Date: Apr 2015

    Location: Central Virginia

    Posts: 1,736
    I'm Russell.

    Default

    Fantastic writeup Alex, you are very good with words. And I have learned so much about coffee!

    I think part of the reason Audio is so, “Judgmental”,
    Is the way it grew up. Way back when hi end was really taking off, I used to read about 3 or 4 magazines on the subject. Remember those Stereophile mags that were like little paperback books? I read them cover to cover. And all of the magazines were dedicated to the science! To finding the Truth! To reach for the holy grail of accuracy. They stood equipment up against each other every month! “Oh, my amp beat your amp last month”. And they had the ultimate list! If your gear isn’t on this list, then it can’t be good! And even rated it A, B, C, D. You certainly couldn’t stand to live with a class C piece could you? I was caught up in all that, you had to have a recording of acoustic instruments in a show you attended so you can know if your system sounds like the real thing! But I’m way past all that, now, I judge my stereo solely on its ability to evoke emotion. Is that accurate? Probably not, but it is spooky real at times.

    Personally I’ve never been one to trash anyone else’s system. When I hear, “This is the best cartridge I’ve heard!”, I think, “Damn I want one!”, and the next day someone else will say the same thing about another cartridge and I’ll want that one too! I have heard a few systems, and my very first impression is to think, “Wow! That is so different from my system?”, but 5 minutes later I am totally into it! I’ve only heard a few hi end systems that actually sounded bad. And even then, I held my tongue.

    Striving for accuracy is something for designers and manufacturers to do, and I’ll just enjoy the gear that sends me. The biggest variable is the human ear. The physical ear on the outside of your head has a lot to do what how things sound. And it is quite obvious that every ear is different, and the insides are just as different as the outside. I know a sound man who is going deaf, he cranks the treble up so high it’ll cut your head off, but it sounds great to him! And that doesn’t even take into account personal tastes. With all those things well known, it is as you say, the competitive nature of people to be the best! Own the best! And for that to happen, yours can’t be best.

    Russell

  7. #67
    Join Date: Mar 2011

    Location: Reading

    Posts: 110
    I'm George.

    Default

    Interesting topic. I wonder if part of it is the basic science used is quite easy to learn and then people can quote numbers to each other. So a few measurements and you are away. Therefore, if your hifi does not measure as having ultra-low distortion it must add distortion and is not as good as mine that has ultra-low distortion. The fact you have ultra- low distortion because of enormous feedback (which has destroyed the dynamics) is irrelevant because the distortion is very low. I can now Lord it over you as there is a measurement that proves it. But why is it done in audio? For cars the science is complicated and measurements describing a car involves lots of measurements and understanding.

    For audio, some believe the original Williamson measurements from Wireless World of the 50s apply and SQ=FR+Noise+ Distortion. It is easy. Good numbers = accurate hifi. Problem is that some of the better measuring audio sounds flat, undynamic and a little boring.

    We seem to be stuck with a few measurements that do not describe sound quality that well. Nearly all SS amps meet these simple requirements but SS amps do not sound the same. So some brave souls actually use the audio for its main purpose, playing music. Wow, that is brave. Run to the solace of the measurements quick and attack all others who do not do this. It is of interest to manufacturers for QA purposes but users? I doubt measurements actually help at all and I am 97.3 sure of that.

  8. #68
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 110,012
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherwood View Post
    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.
    Indeed, in that respect they're rather 'one-trick ponies': excellent at accurately reproducing speech (the human voice), but average to poor at everything else. You have to remember though, that LS3/5as were specifically designed for what they do well (as outlined), and for use in small BBC control vans, not full-range, in domestic settings.

    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.
    As do I (so I know how real instruments and voices are supposed to sound), and I strive with my system, as far as possible, to reproduce realistic dynamics with recorded music, although no hi-fi system can ever fully replicate that created live, by real instruments. Therefore, for as much as my system is able to reproduce such, I can live with it, as I enjoy that type of vibrant and 'lifelike' sound.

    Your last point above (about dynamics and lower listening levels) is good, and indeed one I brought up recently on another thread. It's the main reason why I can listen to music at very low levels, without feeling 'short changed'

    Marco.
    Main System

    Turntable: Heavily-modified Technics SL-1210MK5G [Mike New bearing/ETP platter/Paul Hynes SR7 PSU & reg mods]. Funk Firm APM Achromat/Nagaoka GL-601 Crystal Record Weight/Isonoe feet & boots/Ortofon RS-212D/Denon DL-103GL in Denon PCL-300 headshell with Funk Firm Houdini/Kondo SL-115 pure-silver cartridge leads.

    Paul Hynes MC head amp/SR5 PSU. Also modded Lentek head amp/Denon AU-310 SUT.

    Other Cartridges: Nippon Columbia (NOS 1987) Denon DL-103. USA-made Shure SC35C with NOS stylus. Goldring G820 with NOS stylus. Shure M55E with NOS stylus.

    CD Player: Audiocom-modified Sony X-777ES/DAS-R1 DAC.

    Tape Deck: Tandberg TCD 310, fully restored and recalibrated as new, by RDE, plus upgraded with heads from the TCD-420a. Also with matching TM4 Norway microphones.

    Preamps: Heavily-modified Croft Charisma-X. LDR Stereo Coffee. Power Amps: Tube Distinctions Copper Amp fitted with Tungsol KT-150s. Quad 306.

    Cables & Sundries: Mark Grant HDX1 interconnects and digital coaxial cable, plus Mark Grant 6mm UP-LCOFC Van Damme speaker cable. MCRU 'Ultimate' mains leads. Lehmann clone headphone amp with vintage Koss PRO-4AAA headphones.

    Tube Distinctions digital noise filter. VPI HW16.5 record cleaning machine.

    Speakers: Tannoy 15MGs in Lockwood cabinets with modified crossovers. 1967 Celestion Ditton 15.


    Protect your HUMAN RIGHTS and REFUSE ANY *MANDATORY* VACCINE FOR COVID-19!

    Also **SAY NO** to unjust 'vaccine passports' or certificates, which are totally incompatible with a FREE society!!!


  9. #69
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,779
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by George47 View Post
    . I wonder if part of it is the basic science used is quite easy to learn and then people can quote numbers to each other. So a few measurements and you are away. Therefore, if your hifi does not measure as having ultra-low distortion it must add distortion and is not as good as mine that has ultra-low distortion. The fact you have ultra- low distortion because of enormous feedback (which has destroyed the dynamics) is irrelevant because the distortion is very low. I can now Lord it over you as there is a measurement that proves it. But why is it done in audio? For cars the science is complicated and measurements describing a car involves lots of measurements and understanding.

    .
    I'd say this is completely wrong. The science in hi-fi is complicated, no less so than cars. Not really sure how you've got to that conclusion?
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  10. #70
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 110,012
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    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.
    I don't get what you mean... I thought you liked the Sony CDP/DAC and Techy (including my amps), so why could the Tannoys "do with different sources and amps"?

    Also, I'd don't think you'd ever get any pair of tall floor-standing speakers to sound like big dual-concentrics, no matter what was happening upstream.

    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.
    Absolutely, and as far I know, no-one was saying any different. However, if accuracy, as you described earlier, is your bag (count me in), then you're entitled to say so. In any case, it was Andrew who brought up the issue of accuracy, so blame him!

    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?
    I think that's a reasonable way of assessing things, which is pretty much what we did when you visited. For me, it's also about using your experience in listening to live (un-amplified) music, to determine how successfully a hi-fi system can faithfully reproduce the sound of real instruments and voices.

    In that respect, I'll generally only enjoy a system if it can make me suspend disbelief

    Marco.
    Main System

    Turntable: Heavily-modified Technics SL-1210MK5G [Mike New bearing/ETP platter/Paul Hynes SR7 PSU & reg mods]. Funk Firm APM Achromat/Nagaoka GL-601 Crystal Record Weight/Isonoe feet & boots/Ortofon RS-212D/Denon DL-103GL in Denon PCL-300 headshell with Funk Firm Houdini/Kondo SL-115 pure-silver cartridge leads.

    Paul Hynes MC head amp/SR5 PSU. Also modded Lentek head amp/Denon AU-310 SUT.

    Other Cartridges: Nippon Columbia (NOS 1987) Denon DL-103. USA-made Shure SC35C with NOS stylus. Goldring G820 with NOS stylus. Shure M55E with NOS stylus.

    CD Player: Audiocom-modified Sony X-777ES/DAS-R1 DAC.

    Tape Deck: Tandberg TCD 310, fully restored and recalibrated as new, by RDE, plus upgraded with heads from the TCD-420a. Also with matching TM4 Norway microphones.

    Preamps: Heavily-modified Croft Charisma-X. LDR Stereo Coffee. Power Amps: Tube Distinctions Copper Amp fitted with Tungsol KT-150s. Quad 306.

    Cables & Sundries: Mark Grant HDX1 interconnects and digital coaxial cable, plus Mark Grant 6mm UP-LCOFC Van Damme speaker cable. MCRU 'Ultimate' mains leads. Lehmann clone headphone amp with vintage Koss PRO-4AAA headphones.

    Tube Distinctions digital noise filter. VPI HW16.5 record cleaning machine.

    Speakers: Tannoy 15MGs in Lockwood cabinets with modified crossovers. 1967 Celestion Ditton 15.


    Protect your HUMAN RIGHTS and REFUSE ANY *MANDATORY* VACCINE FOR COVID-19!

    Also **SAY NO** to unjust 'vaccine passports' or certificates, which are totally incompatible with a FREE society!!!


+ 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
  •