Audiophiles - You're wasting your money!
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 05. 2024
- Spending too much money on hi-fi equipment? You're wasting your money if your equipment is better than your ears.
DAVID MELLOR'S MUSIC
David Mellor's music on Bandcamp - davidmellor.bandcamp.com/
David Mellor's music on Spotify - open.spotify.com/artist/6OkaD...
Available on all good streaming services
CREDITS
$1000 cable - chord.co.uk/product-category/...
$1000 HDMI cable - www.futureshop.co.uk/audioque...
Information on Turner amplifiers - www.muzines.co.uk/articles/tur...
Leak TL12 - S. Spicer, public domain
Quad 303 - Michael KR, CC BY-SA 4.0
Art - Vincent Van Gogh: Thatched Cottages, Leonardo da Vinci: Mona Lisa, Piet Mondrian: Composition, Jan van Eyck: Portrait of Giovanni(?) Arnolfini and his Wife
DAC - Chord Dave £10,000+ chordelectronics.co.uk/produc...
Crosley Cruiser Plus - www.crosleyradio.com/cruiser-...
Rega Planar 10 - www.rega.co.uk/products/plana...
Swine - Midjourney's best attempt
Gaussian distribution - Ainali CC BY-SA 3.0
Wilson Audio - www.wilsonaudio.com/
Quad ESL63 - Presumed to be company brochure - www.google.com/search?q=quad+...
Rolls-Royce Boat Tail ($28,000,000) - pelican-actor CC BY 2.0
Speakers in poster - California Audio Technology MBX ($500,000)
EQUIPMENT USED TO MAKE AUDIO MASTERCLASS VIDEOS
CAMERA - Sony Alpha A6600 amzn.to/3uj7Dtq
COMPUTER - Apple Mac Mini M2 Pro amzn.to/47tW6Wg
MICROPHONE - Sennheiser KH 416 amzn.to/3QWWvuO
ALTERNATIVE MICROPHONE - AKG C414 amzn.to/3SLqCad
BUDGET MICROPHONE CHOICE - Rode shotgun amzn.to/3G0ni36
MICROPHONE PREAMPLIFIER - Comica LinkFlex AD2 amzn.to/40SMHFT
TELEPROMPTER - Padcaster Parrot alternatives amzn.to/40A55TJ
TELEPROMPTER SOFTWARE - PromptSmart Pro promptsmart.com/
AUDIO INTERFACE - Behringer UMC202HD amzn.to/3ugj6db
HEADPHONES - Sony wired amzn.to/3sEjlht
SPEAKER CABLE - KabelDirekt amzn.to/3ucgQ6T
POWER AMPLIFIER - Fosi V3 amzn.to/3vRumNH
KEYLIGHT- Amaran 100d amzn.to/40A5Gor
FILL LIGHTS - Switti RGB amzn.to/3ufhOPu
SOFTBOX Phot-R alternatives amzn.to/3QGoTjJ
LIGHTING STANDS Phot-R alternatives amzn.to/3QWXOKe
MONITOR - Samsung UJ59 amzn.to/3MEoBsk
MONITOR ARM - Invision alternatives amzn.to/40SLqi5
MIC ARM - Neewer amzn.to/49Ob0sD
TRIPOD - Velbon alternatives amzn.to/46gu2oa
GREEN SCREEN - Elgato alternatives amzn.to/3SG2F3L
DESK - FlexiSpot E7 Pro amzn.to/3QVIWvS
VIDEO EDITING - Apple Final Cut Pro www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/
IMAGE EDITING - Adobe Photoshop amzn.to/3FZ7Ww0
AUDIO EDITING - Avid Pro Tools amzn.to/3QA5Wz7
NOTEBOOK - Leuchturm 1917 hardback amzn.to/47zonKX
PEN - Sakura Pigma archival pen Sakura Pigma archival pen amzn.to/47zz3cP
OSCILLOSCOPE - Hameg HM 203 alternatives amzn.to/47tWN1O
BEAUTY - Philips 3000 nose hair trimmer amzn.to/40BdLJo
Disclaimer: Videos on this channel may include affiliate links and may feature software that has been received free of charge with an NFR (not for resale) licence, equipment that has been loaned or donated by a manufacturer or distributer, or equipment that has been bought for less than full retail price.
![If you can't hear this then you're not an audiophile [See description for link to followup video]](/img/n.gif)
“Audiophiles don’t use their equipment to listen to your music - they use your music to listen to their equipment.”
- Alan Parsons
Brilliant!
Sometimes yes, when I am trying to improve it, but then I listen to the music. Two different things !
The logical continuation to that Parsons quote might be: "and if they can't hear the equipment, then it's a good system for listening to music."
Unfortunately Parson's "music" is electronic noise. Years after the recording even he doesn't know exactly how the playback "should" sound. A piano, an acoustic guitar, these we all have a good approximate idea of what they should sound like.
That’s a marvellous quote!
Having worked in a high-end car and home audio store in the late 80's to mid 90's, I can state with a high degree of confidence that wasting money is the point of being an audiophile.
I don't care what you did in the late 80s and 90s. I can say with a high degree of confidence that you are an imbecile.
😂😂😂😂😂
Facts
You're just trying to justify having worked in one of those slick showroom stores selling over-priced, high-status brands rather than working at an honest shop offering the best values at each price point. That's on you for choosing to work at a place like that and has nothing to do with true audiophiles who appreciate sound systems that are musically and emotionally engaging.
he was just talking about his customers, not what they offered or pushed on customers
"Audiophiles, you are wasting your money!"
Audiophiles: "Of course, what is your point?"
I like your approach. As a sound engineer and musician with an acoustically treated and very neutral mastering studio, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I have been in the world of audio and music since my teen years (I'm 68 now) and I've heard hundreds of combinations of equipment in people's homes and at audio shows in Montreal, Toronto, Chicago and L.A. It was VERY rare to hear good sound at the audio exhibitions. Yes, I too have known people who have spent a small fortune on home audio ($250,000 in one unbelievable instance) and yet only a small amount was spent on acoustic treatment for the room. If you want to get the most out of whatever equipment you own, you might want to consider investing in some proper room treatment. The most balanced and natural sound I can recall hearing was in rooms and studios that had been properly treated, regardless of the price of the equipment. So if you have a budget for a new audio system I suggest you include an appropriate amount for room treatment. Would you buy a Ferrari and expect peak performance on a dirt road? So why spend thousands of dollars on audio equipment and expect good sound in a compromised room? Makes no sense to me.
Spot on brother...
@@shahrukh2489 Audio SYSTEM is the sum total of 1) components, 2) component platforms, 3) cables, 4) power conditioning, 5) tweaks, and 6) room acoustics. In a high-end system, EVERYTHING matters.
You don't have to spend a small fortune on expensive acoustic treatments. Everyday items and placement of these items you can use to decorate your room can create an amazing sounding room. Whether your creating a lively sounding room with amazing reverb perfect for capturing a performance of an artist or a dead sounding room perfect for audio playback. I'm not going to go into detail on how to accomplish this here because their are plenty of videos and books out there. You don't have to spend a large or even a small fortune to have a great sounding audiophile or music studio sound system.
very good metaphor
@@chris55top this is a good comment too. when i was getting into treating my room, i deeply researched every possible implement. damn near everything seemed to be snake oil in the testings of many, many engineers. (even some products regularly used for the very construction of a well-treated room). what was recommended well to me was high-weight stuff, good sealants, and actual moving blankets. diffusers are great, too. but, for me on a budget, these moving blankets were cheap as hell and provided a night-to-day difference that was verifiable with my testing solutions. shelved and heavy, padded furniture worked well too. same with large-area rugs. i covered more area with greater results and for a fraction of the price. when i finally moved out, i experimented just clapping in the center of the room. it was wild to hear the echo and reverb in the room untreated.
I always say its cheaper and more enjoyable to search for new music to love than to look for new gear to love
You're not wrong.
I like that 🤟
More productive as well artists need support and income to keep arting , bills are not paid by themselves.
i was in the early stages of going down the audiophile rabbit hole.. then later decided to learn an instrument and bought a violin and took lessons.. between the two i think learning to make my own music was more satisfying to me
You made a good choice.
I agree absolutely I play the drums now no amp or speakers needed just good old analogue hearing as nature intended
Digital is good for tv and video games and e mails pictures etc
Biologically speaking we listen in analogue and linear not digital
Interesting comment.
I should learn to play my guitar instead of spending thousands of dollars.
I have been released from the rabbit hole.
Thank you
@@Flosseveryday Beware, guitar players can end victims just as much as audiophiles, especially electric guitars, amps, pedals etc etc.
why are you following this channel then ? :))
Thank you for the sensible video. Over 3 decades ago I bought a Hafler amplifier I still use today. Several years later I discovered the internet, and soon read a review on this amp from Audiophile Magazine, where they criticized it for being too accurate. Too accurate was apparently a bad thing. Of course this was the same magazine that touted a green felt tip pen could make a CD sound much better.
HA!! I remember that magazine article! I was astonished that anybody would actually believe it... if true why wouldn't CDs all come with green tinted rims? 😁
I also remember that--and thought it was crazy even back then. As an audio shop owner, I sold, assembled, and modified many Hafler amps and preamps. While using and trying many different brands, I'm back with a Hafler power amp.
Could you explain the pen?
@@johnwilcox231 The green tint via magic marker etc these people said to paint on the rim of the CD was supposed to diminish "laser scatter" seeing as how the lasers most people were familiar with were 620-630 nm wavelength which visibly is pure red, meaning that the red laser wouldn't easily pass through most anything transparent that was tinted green. Not sure of the logic behind the reasoning, since CDs don't use visible red lasers.
The lab of the parent company I worked for used a lot of red and infrared lasers in their engineering department and they had green tinted windows between the lab and the hallways and outside. This was a "just in case" thing that was done to keep genuine laser scatter out of the eyesight of passersby where it might flash in someone's face (still harmless in most instances since the actual power was simply Not that much). Now, on a CD player, the laser generally used was infrared thus invisible to human eyes anyway and quite low in power and highly directional as lasers are, and unlikely to actually cause any trouble with the pickup somehow receiving refracted scatter through the plastic material of the disk which was supposedly reflecting off the rim, that might find its way back to the pickup. It was all a bunch of nonsense, and I never wrote on the edges of any CD I had with any green Sharpy pens and never had any troubles with any of them. It's akin to the old wives tale of how a car battery will "ground out its charge" if it's left sitting on the ground or a concrete floor overnight... or how Clark's 500 buck patch cables made his system sound better. Second-hand logic from someone who was self-enabled, in a position of some authority who was actually little more than "one eye among the blind being King". 🙂
I can explain the pen. It was said to stop wave scattering from the laser mechanism when you were playing CD's. The pen often came with a "cutting lathe" that was supposed to cut the outer edge of the CD to "allow the pen and ink to soak in and stop that excessive wave scatter. Techmoan did a test of one he found. They were originally 500 quid (About 530 dollars US). Sufficive to say, it didn't work for crap.
This is the best audio commentary I’ve heard in many years and echoes exactly what I have been saying every time I’m asked to recommend a system setup.
Perfect audio sound is an endless pursuit based largely on $ and snobbery.
What you hear is only as good as your weakest element, the quality of the recording, and your overall hearing ability.
Does a $50K setup sound better than a $5K setup? The answer should always be not necessarily.
So the follow up question should be; are you happy with the sound output relative to the price paid? And that should always be yes.
The other day I saw someone driving a $500000 electric Porsche- I mean WTF who does that?! But I’m guessing they had bags of cash and felt terrific, saving the planet in a Porsche.
And that’s why audiophiles do what they do. For my 60yo ears, I’m still loving my old Rega p3, my old NAD amp, and my old Kef c30’s- none of which broke the bank.
Happy listening!
And if it all goes sideways someday, you can always move your bed and refrigerator into your mastering room. Voila!
Porsche doesn’t make a 500,000 electric. Top of the line Taycan is a bit over 100k. AFAIK.
Porsche doesn’t make a 500,000 electric. Top of the line Taycan is a bit over 100k. AFAIK.
Porsche doesn’t make a 500,000 electric. Top of the line Taycan is a bit over 100k. AFAIK.
Porsche doesn’t make a 500,000 electric. Top of the line Taycan is a bit over 100k. AFAIK.
As someone in their late fifties with tinnitus and much reduced HF response, I'm under no illusions about the fidelity (or lack of) that I'm hearing these days. But what I can tell is where a sound is coming from, so my joy now is in surround and immersive audio. I've swapped out the pleasure of ultimate fidelity for that of a spatially interesting soundstage. Sadly, this means lots more speakers and thus lots more cost, even with £80 ears. :D
I totally agree with this. I also have tinnitus - but I can still hear hifi / audiophile characteristics.
waw, that's like the worm hole inside the worm hole. ATMOS almost sucks for music and every informed producer knows that. I'v heard audiophiles describing HF frequency smearing artifacts and comb-filtering as extra top-end smoothness and spaciality. When they have convinced themselves, you could sell them a piece of copper for a thousand and they will think it's a bargain. OTOH they will despise acoustic panels as relatively inefficient and expensive because "it's just fabric".
It's an ego thing. When I want to enjoy new music, I buy new music not new speakers. If you have hearing problems I'd visit an audiologist and get a modern sonotone: the good ones are pretty amazing and a tad cheaper than a full atmos system.
I hate to break it to you partner but adding speakers is not the answer to better sound! 2 well made large speakers placed well in the room is all you need! And possibly a sub if the speakers cannot reproduce adequate bass tones!
@@silversurfer3636 I feel you're missing my point. With a 5.1 or Atmos mix I *personally* (and I can only speak for myself) gain the advantage of spatial separation of instruments that greatly helps with my hearing issues, which can often result in stereo versions becoming muddied. I can't speak for your own experience, but for me surround and spatial have brought back my ability to enjoy music again. And really... that's all that matters, isn't it?
Love your videos just common sense info, I have some age re lated hearing loss and some time ago I tried a home demo of the Qutest dac against my Arcam IRDac that I have been using for quite some time and I could not hear any difference what so ever so stayed with my Arcam and went with a Speaker change where I could here a definite difference.
I do think speakers are the main thing people should focus on as they have a wide range of difference in how they sound...
Glenn Fricker has entered the comments
@@dabanjo Who?
@@rabarebra Glenn Fricker
Agree 100%
@@dabanjo Before any purchase, make sure the music was recorded with a Gibson...
You're absolutely spot on as regards loss of hearing and the ability to tell the difference between good and better hi fi.
At 73 and with many years of experimenting with different speakers, amps, record decks etc., my hearing is now about 50% and I have great difficulty determining subtle improvement let alone more obvious sonic definitions. I can still enjoy my music listening experience and in some ways with more acceptance and appreciation than I ever did when continuously listening to the hi fi and not the music. Probably this is quite a widely shared experience.
I live in Italy. I once attended a demo of Magico speakers in the best listening room (maximally sound treated) of an audio store that sold VERY "high end" equipment (meaning VERY costly).
The Magico speakers cost $80,000. The DAC was the $110,000 dCS 4 box Viavaldi. The speakers were driven by top of the line D'Agostino monoblocs fronted by a top of the line D'Agostino preamp which together came to about $100,000.
I don't know what the power, speaker, interconnect cables were. Nor to I know what server was being used. But I am willing to bet that they were all very expensive. So my estimate is that this system probably cost about $350,000.
Alon Wolf, the owner of Magico, had accompanied his speakers and he was the one who set them up in the listening room ( who better to optimally place them?).
And... the sound coming from that system, to me, was AWFUL.
This could not be attributed to the quality of the soundtracks because for an hour, Wolf play from a minute to a minute and a half of one track after another and they all sounded bad... so bad, in fact, that had I not thought it too impolite, I would have left after 10 minutes.
There were approximately 30 of us seated in this room listening to this demo. I am pretty sure that I am not the only one who felt this way because at the end of the demo, Wolf asked for comments or questions and NOBODY said anything. There was just silence.
I felt embarrassed for Wolf, so I asked a question... whose answer I wasn't interested in... just to alleviate the tension.
Later I was happy to get back home and fire up my very modestly priced, but very pleasant, system.
I had already doubted that the cost of an audio system was a guarantee of great sound.
This experience cured me forever of even the tendency to wonder about it.
As far as I am concerned it was proof positive that there is NO intrinsic correlation between cost and the quality of sound.
I heard Magico speakers at their dealer in Singapore some years ago. They don't sound right to my ears and I can subliminally hear the intrinsic signature of the aluminium cabinets. I think this company spends an awful lot of money on tech solutions to mitigate the acoustical problems caused by using the wrong material! Since most musical instruments are made of wood it stands to reason that the speakers used to reproduce their sound should have cabinets made of wood!
Check out Genelec , Alu case, titan membrane, metall can sound good.
I routinely listen to 100k speakers in recording studios. The big difference to audiophiles is that we producers/engineers couldn’t care less what they cost. We put our favorite, moderately expensive, small speakers close to us in the perfect measured spots, and make our record. That same record we struggle over for months is cross-checked in our cars, a boombox, on various speakers, earphones, an actual phone; everything imaginable EXCEPT audiophile speakers. We know what we’re doing.
@@iankuah8606 That actually doesn’t make any sense. Instruments are made of wood so they can vibrate and contribute most of the actual sound. Actual wood, the worst possible material, is NEVER used for a speaker. The best speaker cabinets must not vibrate at all so are made of composite, synthetic materials. Some plastic formulations are excellent. Aluminum would be ok but very impractical. Concrete would be excellent.
@@artysanmobile Maybe u could check the Bösendorfer spekers... u know, the same compagny that make the world famous grand piano
I truly appreciate this video. I have perfect pitch, (determined by my music professor, by playing the same song in every key by ear, after admitting I couldn’t read a single note) can’t read a note to save my life, but can play multiple instruments, and produce music. I enjoy the audiophile community, from a distance, as I always secretly held the opinion that the quality of the hearing, not so much the range of high to low frequencies, is the better judge. But people in that community, give so little credit to this, I find myself getting bored, quickly. Thanks for the video.
possibly the most sensible video Ive watched this year - it will never catch on
In the audiophile world it can never end chasing the perfect sound, it's why there's a decent second hand market to buy equipment. One thing I've noticed in this hobby, 'everything' tends to make a difference but there is diminishing returns seeking the next step up. It's best to do what's in your budget and at some point simply enjoy the music and not just the system.
I am not an audiophile but i enjoy the whole ritual of putting a record on and looking at the sleeve art. Ive got an old amp from the 80s and a £300 turntable. Its enough for me.
Thats fair.
It’s enough for 90% of people.
It was enough for me to until my left channel stopped producing sound. : (
@@jerickzane I have a 9090DB that has issues...
I really like this approach because it respects variability - doesn't just TALK about subjectivity, but truly gives it the value it deserves. In my experience, the ABILITY to hear differences between levels of what we call audio quality are based on four things: DESIRE - the ambition to discover these differences, LEARNING - the experience of taking the time to listen, reading what others have said, PERCEPTION - the psychological changes that happen, some beyond and some within our control, and SCIENCE - the arts of acoustics, electronics, physics, etc. that truly affect what comes into our ears. It seems that many audiophiles forget that ALL THREE of these are involved. For instance, I recently attended the AXPONA audio show in Chicago. I heard some fantastic examples of audio, but I knew that being in the midst of that environment was affecting me in all 4 of those areas. i'm never entirely sure of what is changing my experience of audio, but it DOES affect it - including what I pay for my equipment. Why? I don't care. For those so-called audiophiles who focus entirely on the SCIENCE part, I notice there are very few double-blind listening tests. I'm not implying they lie, but I do think very many of the opinions are affected by the other 3 factors I listed and not fully considered because, well, those are subjective, and we can't have that amount of subjectivity now can we?
Amazingly true!
When I bought my current sitting room speakers, I listened to three sets by different manufacturers, then bought the ones that sounded best to MY ears. I still love how they sound.
Really good video. I've upgraded my rig over time and built a solid ~reference system. There has been a lot of learning along the way, and most importantly, that one's notion of reference will change with the components in your system. I agree with all your points, there is most certainly a point of diminishing return on any audio component. Maybe what matters most is that when you listen to music and relax, you can experience some magic and transcend for a while. DACs, turntables, streamers, amps and preamps, speakers and interconnects all do make a difference. Ultimately it was the speakers (802 D4) that revealed any weaknesses in my setup. Most of my gear is gently used, but current. Most importantly, I can experience some audio magic anytime I wish.
I agree with his notion of the speakers having the greatest input to his listening experience but is only ok with digital format, crap in crap out
Bloody hell, 802D4's are pretty serious speakers! I love them! Even though they might be a bit bright at times... I think B&W has lots of very good speakers in their history. The first gen 703's are very affordable now and sound great too....
@@frankcousins7655Implying that digital is crap? Really? See 'Nyquist' in a post above somewhere.,.. 😅
That was absolutely great advice! Thank you for the video, it makes it easier for me to pick what I need, not what I want.
Beautifully written commentary about the world of audio gear, but most importantly musical taste. Thank you for an ear-opening moment. :)
You are so absolutely correct. The end guidance for the consumer is prioritze your spend on your speakers. In that light, consider how easy they are to drive so you don't force more spend on the amplification.
Your down to earth talks make perfect sense. I've always believed that things are less "better or worse" and more just "different".
Excellent video, agree with everything you said and love your sense of humor. Can't wait to watch some of your other videos
So much agreement with all of your points. Speakers have compromises that make them the limiting factor in most cases. Of course, the other part of this equation is room treatment and placement, which you allude to in your reference to the conference room experience. Turntables similarly have compromises, primarily in the cartridges I would say. So I totally agree that high end DACs, amplifiers, and cables top out pretty quickly. So refrehsing to hear honesty!
Awesome points! My only criticism is the assumption that quality/engineering/fidelity increases linearly with price, but reality is there is ZERO correlation between price vs. performance. There is equipment at bargain basement prices that gives massively expensive equipment a serious run for its money. In many cases, there are examples where the bargain out-performs more expensive equipment in objective testing. I always start at the bottom and listen to the quality, and pick the best combo that sounds great to me. I've saved a fortune this way, and still have an awesome sounding system.
Regardless of what I own I always include an equalizer in my setup. I have never gotten a great sound without room/speaker eq being part of the process.
Really tremendous analysis on a topic that I have not considered but absolutely should have and will in the future. Thank you ... following now.
Great video. Another interesting thing is that where differences are to be found, many of them are qualitative and not quantitative - just a preference for how you like the presentation to sound. All audio equipment is essentially reconstructing the audio from a set of instructions (the recording), and the way different amps/speakers/tubes/power conditioners/cables/and combinations of these things just alters the presentation of the music. It's not always a matter of better or worse. In my journey of building my system, I've actually changed my preferences along the way a couple of times before settling on the presentation I am truly in awe of. That's what it's all about, for me.
Based on what you say, then, (a) that there are differences, (b) the effect can be so significant that you have found yourself "in awe", and (c) you prefer some of the presentations to others, what the heck was the point of this video? For my part, I can't figure it out.
You highlight and interesting point. Only 1% CAN hear the difference but everyone wants to PRETEND they are in that 1%.
His argument here is so poor. He generalized to the inability of most people to hear any kind of difference off of the single example of the ability to hear at the frequency extremes. Yet there are very audible differences between components in clarity, soundstaging, imaging, etc., etc. that have nothing to do with this single example. This is so basic.
@@a.s.2426 Absolutely correct. This video is suspect imo. And from a recording engineer
no less. An RE does not have to have any electronics education.
The publisher of Bound for Sound mag (no advertising, a criminal defense attorney, now deceased) wrote an article, Truth be Told concerning marketing techniques in audio.
cheers
@😳 spoken like someone that has fallen so far down the audiophile rabbit hole where one must convince themselves of the discomfort of where they are trapped in order to tolerate their mentally invested predicament .
This video made me smile. Maybe it’s our generation, but so much of what you’re saying resonates with my own experience and thoughts. I’ve had ns10s and quad amps too. Thanks for sharing
Love the concept. I really focused on a simple system suited to me. I honestly can not tel differences in streamers, so I got a blusound node for unlimited connectivity. For a DAC, I love R2R without brightness, so I got used to Border Patrol R2R DAC. Tube power suplly is fantastic. I love First Watt amps and readily available on premium second-hand market 30% off. Each amp has a flavor with few parts. I have seen more, but maturity is honestly not caring.
Thanks so much for your kind and wise help. I agree with you in general, but my experience says that when I connected the same equipment with two MIT cables with different prices and switched them online on playing music I could hear dramatic differences, so I paid more money without any doubts for more expensive one . In the same time I agree that tiny differences bringing with power cables and conditioners are doubtful comparing with treatment of room, for instance,which is quite cheap and easy to do.Thanks again!
I went through a phase where I bought high end boutique nonsense. THOUSANDS in credit debt. I was chasing hyped jewelry, not the sound. It was prestige gear. I knew a fellow that was addicted to high end jewelry like gambling or alcoholism. He just had to have that $50,000 audio note SET tube amp. It was well beyond his ability to afford. He ended up going bankrupt and selling everything off. His new system ended up as a more sensible few thousand dollars and real performance, not just products designed to be heavy and shiny. No more $5,000 silver cables and interconnects. I hope my post offends and triggers audio snobs and ANONYMOUS moderator wanna be's who think they can dictate comments here.
Don't conflate financial responsibility with the value of the gear. Audio Note gets their price regardless of your friend's ability to afford it. This whole premise of audiophiles wasting their money is assuming they can't afford it. Stick to discussing the merits of the gear and leave people's financial wherewithal to own it alone, eh?
@@particularlynothing Don't conflate your existence with authority. You are not an arbiter of commentary. You are a waste of space,
You are mostly paying for build quality , aesthetics, gimmick marketing and packaging. Not so much of sound. There’s 500 headphones that sound better than or match $2000 headphones. They only difference is the build May not hold up. You don’t just throw around any headphone, no matter how cheap the materials are .. I did some research at companies. Speakers are easier to distinguish now.
@@FierceAugLeo I have $600 headphoines that are better than my former $1600 headphones.
@@scottlowell493What headphones are those?
I listened to a Fleetwood Mac album at the flagship Yamaha store in central London last year - obviously it was all Yamaha gear from the amps to the speakers and turntable - I was honestly blown away, not by the frequency response, but the transparency and separation of sounds. Some of this would have been down to the large room and position of the speakers, but honestly, I've never heard music sound so good, let alone vinyl. I could pin-point every single instrument and vocal in a way I've never experienced before.
i've always really liked yamaha equipment. i think it is because they have a history as a musical instrument manufacturer.
Yes, Yamaha gear can sound very precise and transparent. But if you were to listen to a good SET amp and high-efficiency speakers along with commensurate cables and power conditioning, I think you'd be disappointed with the lack of musical and emotional engagement from the Yamaha system.
I had the same experience with Pioneer VSX 5000, multi deck CD player and Bose AM5 speakers at an audiophile store in Great Neck Long Island back in 1985. I walked in just to see what they had and the sales person took me into this rather large room where there were many different amps, speakers and other components like CD, Turn tables, Tape players etc. All of which were hooked into a Master Panel where he could switch between components. He then started playin Pink Floyd Learning to Fly switching and asked me to pick which one sounded best. When I did he than asked me to pick out which ones I was listening too. As I started choosing he kept say nope not that one until I said well which ones am I listening too? He pointed to a Pioneer VSX 5000 receiver a CD player and a pair of tiny little speakers on stands. I said no way was that sound coming out of those. He walked over and pulled the wires out of the back of the speakers and the sound stopped. I was so Blown Away I bought the whole setup. One of the factors I did not consider was the size and design of the room. That was a critical part of how the system sounded. When I got home and hooked it all up it was still amazing but lacked the tone quality it had in that show room. Obviously it was designed to give optimum sound quality for the positioning of the components in the room. I suspect there may have even been some bias as to sell specific components based on their opinion or commission they got on components. I still have those speakers but the amp blew up two years ago.
as a young engineer, yamaha was the only big company in the world that offerred and actually helped me
Don’t day this with. Chord, Naim and Linn people in the house 😂
Listening to you speak and the level of logic and common sense in truth in what you say and do it without hurting people's feelings is such a breath of fresh air thank you for sharing your highly highly valuable experience
For me, I’ve only ever owned KEF. My Father had the C40’s, Carlton I’s (rare speakers from the first generation), and the Reference 105.4’s, all of which still work.
For amplification he had a decent but basic stereo receiver from Denon (DRA-800H). All of these speakers sound so amazing at home. Now that I’ve grown older, he gave me the 105.4’s and I bought my first amp on my own (Yamaha A-S1100).
We live in a brand new modern appartement with a very large living room, high ceiling and all of it just bare flat walls. I put the 105.4’s in there, all setup and ready to go. The sound was NOTHING close to what it sounded like at home. Dry, empty and basically no low frequencies. It was then that I started to understand the concept of room treatment, and why it was much more important than any other chain in the process.
I went on to buy the KEF R11’s, now with proper room treatment and in the right place in the room, and oh boy the difference is insane. For me, both speaker pairs still sound amazing, with slightly different characteristics, but none that I prefer over the other. The R11’s are more detailed, and I don’t know what magic it is KEF used for the UniQ but they seem to be able to place sounds in 3D in the room, almost as if you can localize them. The References on the other hand are much more natural sounding for classical music (violin solo’s sound more realistic, for instance).
It’s all preference and room response that makes the most difference. I couldn’t think spending more money on any component in the chain would give me anything worth losing sleep over.
Amps definitely sound different. I tried the Onkyo RZ50 and it sounded much more like a recording of a piano than my cambridge audio cxa61 that had pianos sounding much closer to an actual piano than an approximation.
Great points made in this video. Re loudspeakers I am amazed that tech hasn’t really moved that far. I recently did a listening comparison between three sets of speakers I have in my home. Neat Elites, Kef 104/2s and my oldest pair Radford M180s. All sound really good. However what I was shocked with was how good the Radford sound. These are mid 1970s speakers! I can easily listen to any of the three and enjoy music immensely.
My Klipsch are 1978. I agree with you about tech hasn’t produced better speakers. The efficiency of my old speakers is better than most all the new stuff.
To the extent that they accurately reproduce the recordings, I wouldn't expect them to advance much. However, I can say that cheap speakers have drastically improved in my lifetime
I absolutely love this video! The way you compare audio equipment to human hearing is very clever. I've been a professional concert sound engineer for 30 years and have distantly watched the audiophile scene evolve over that time. I hope that newcomers consider your very clever teachings in deciding their future purchases.
I hope that newcomers listen with their own ears and decide for themselves.
@Rendon276 Exactly.
Out of curiosity, what did you find so compelling in this video? Having been an audiophile for 25 years I thought the video was quite awful.
I went to tradeschool for electronics in highschool and we got a lot of broken electronics donated so we could train to fix them, one of such thing was a broken audioligist suitcase for testing hearing, we fixed and it would beep at different frequencies and you would press a button if you heard the beep and at the end it would even print out a graph of your ears frequency response on ribbon-paper. Testing our hearing quickly became a daily competition where we would compete and see who could hear better... we where 15 students competing and we probably tested our hearing hundreds of times over several months. The interesting thing was that the "champ" of the class was the only girl in the class and she could 100% reliably hear up to 23-24khz! Her hearing was extremely good and she would beat everyone else ten out of ten times... I wonder how "expensive" ears she had.. wish i had her earing!
Pardon?
I could hear down to 13hz last time i checked im sensitive to high pitch noises... (Sorry cant remember the number ) I have $800/pair speakers in my car... I... Need to do whole home audio now and its overwhelmingly expensive, not bexause im trying to go so extreme, but because i need propper spacial audio everywhere and cant stand less than 20hz to 20khz, but prefer soeakers that go higher, silence is horrid. Btw im AuDHD and thats part of my hearing being different. Tldr its exhaustingly expensive
@@freedblowfish3705you could hear 13 hz at high levels but even at lower levels, you’ll hear quite a lot of the 2nd order harmonic. It’s shocking how much of that 2nd and 3rd harmonic is present in subwoofers and even more in smaller woofers in speakers.
This channel gets it right on so many levels, every video is a masterclass in nonchalance and subtleness of delivery, hats off
...but it is all about him!
Is this parody?
How does someone become an expert at giving compliments?
There are arrogant people with a glaring inadequacy of education on the topic at hand.
Then there are arrogant people who invested the time to become expert in some field, and are just fed up with bullshit. I find myself drawn to such people.
HiFi is a an ageless and endless quest. Your videos just add to my enjoyment. I'm 69 years old, and convinced that $$$-to-ears ratio is probably a curve similar to $$$-to-years. Heck, just figuring out a graphic would be loads of fun! My ears enjoy music a lot, and I try to find tech that stays out of the way when I'm listening. Thanks for a thought-provoking and entertaining channel. PS. Thanks for memories of Quad. I owned a 33-303 for a few years and only sold them because a friend said she would offer them a good home. I visit now and then ( the friend ...amd the Quad ) they are both doing fine.
first time coming across this channel. subscribed straight away! thank you and for your spot on input. if you have to attach the receipt of your hifi equipment during any conversation that means to me you clearly showing off and have no idea why you bought it in the first place. any blind test will catch him in a second. again, thank you for keeping us ground, "its what you play that matters not the equipment you use!"
I just love the hobby and am thrilled to see it having a resurgence. Listening to music, not necessarily seeking note for note reproduction, makes me happy. The aesthetics, gear combinations, history, all of it makes it rewarding experience FOR ME. When I have friends over and we sit and listen, they love the detail my modest system can produce because they are used to listening on AirPods or soundbars - and watching their faces brings me real joy. Buy and listen to what you want and what you can afford without judgement or jealousy.
Thanks for the points you laid down, I do not have perfect pitch and I do not even consider myself an audiophile. As of now, I go by what I can enjoy and make most use out of and of course, taking my budget into consideration.
I'm 58 when I was growing up most of the music I heard was on small radios and car stereos. My mother had a tube stereo with a radio and turntable with two speakers which cost back in the 60's maybe a few hundred dollars. I have never really heard anything better growing up it's just what my ears are used to. So to me a system that costs under 1,500 sounds fantastic and I can't hear any difference between a optical cable or a copper cable. So I'll waste my money on more cd's which sound better then anything I grew up hearing🎶
Totally agree. Also many pop songs are limited by the quality of the original recording.
So a more expensive "better" Hi Fi will simply reveal the limitations of the source & media carrier be it Vinyl or cd. 👍
Points well made and taken. As a lifelong musician and budget audiophile, I can state unequivocally that I CAN hear the difference between cables in a blind A/B comparison IF the rest of the system is capable of revealing it. I'll allow that most copper cables sound similar, and also assert that silver sounds brighter. The cables I use incorporate copper, aluminum and silver conductors and carefully-chosen dielectrics, and to my ear they image better AND sound better-balanced than others I've tried costing from five times less to nearly five times more. Your mileage (and hearing) may vary! :o)
I swapped out my recommended cables brand as I heard that my new system sounded dull through them. I inherited a set from an audiophile friend of a friend who passed away. They are so transparent and exactly what I was looking for. I can’t find the brand name in them .. they were bi amp cables which I split for normal connection. I don’t want cables which colour.
This is a very impressive video, well done sir.
Much of everything said here is quite accurate. For “hard core” audiophiles, you do get to a point of diminishing returns. The cost/improvement becomes so great that without it, you’ll never miss the difference.
Really? How would you know? I've heard plenty of systems. $100 up to $150k. Never heard a point of diminishing returns. Do you pay way more for less improvement? Yes. If you're listening, do you notice the difference? Well, yes. Otherwise, nobody would pay extra for it...
I did hear plenty of systems I liked, and plenty I didn't like. At all price points. The $85k Linn system I really didn't like. I could build something sub $1000 that would sound a lot better TO ME.
The $55k Fyne Audio / Accuphase combo sounded fantastic to me. MUCH better than my (much cheaper) stuff.
I think it's more about whether you can afford it, and whether you should.
I can also get a loan for a Ferrari. But should I? Would I notice the difference between my Golf or the Ferrari? Eh, yeah! (and yes, I tried).
can you spare 10000 dollars for a poor man?@@erwindewit4073or just buy me a pair of audiophile headphones, ive never tried any. best and most expensive headphones i ever tried was massdrop sennheiser hd6xx.
@@erwindewit4073 Paying more for less improvements is literally what diminishing returns mean, it doesn't mean that you hit a cap and can't improve anymore.
So it's very easy to know since this factor kicks in already at the bottom level. With the very cheapest set up you can listen to music, compared to having nothing but silence, and no further change will ever be as dramatic as that.
@@storkfletcher821 Haha. Fortunately, as you progress, you hear more subtleties, so the smaller improvement can still feel like a jump. Still, I bought a Sonos Connect Amp ZP120 (50 wpc) for 75 euros to use with Tannoy speakers I inherited. Couple of solid copper core UTP cables as speaker cables (cost 5 euros). Sounds great and really, it's hard to get better value.
I do think hard core is just an opinion. If you have lots of money, why not spend a lot more on audio if you love it. But yeah, I do agree. Everything that plays music over silence is the best value, as diminishing returns kick in.
But hey, it's like that with everything...
Cycling is a lot better value than driving, whatever car you buy. Doesn't mean cycling is necessarily the way to go 😂
@@erwindewit4073 Yes, I agree, there's nothing wrong with spending money on your hobby if you have it to spare and you enjoy what you are doing. My system is more expensive than what I imagined spending when I started out so I've done that and I'm happy with it. I do however feel quite content now and I'm just happy discovering new music. Hopefully that feeling lasts a long time since the joy of chasing new things as an audiophile comes at the cost of not enjoying what you have quite as much.
We all have our journeys in the hobby and in the end the main goal is to be happy. If we achieve that then we've gotten the most important value out of it.
I buy the central argument here - well communicated! The elephant in my listening room is neither elephant nor loudspeakers, but the fact that (for many of us) hi-fi has to fit around normal life. Thus, my speakers are not placed in the perfect position as described in numerous hi-fi articles. There are hard and soft furnishings in the room that, presumably, reflect or absorb sound differentially depending on frequency and possibly other factors. Plonking a chair in the exact 'sweet spot' for the best sound is likely to get on the wrong side of my dearly-beloved wife...
All of which mean that, for me, my hi-fi is almost certainly operating below the point at which my ears could tell a difference - but spending more money would give an increment in performance that is probably overshadowed by the terrible room acoustics and the other factors mentioned above. That extra 2% could be immediately lost if I move the waste paper bin by 6 inches, so to speak.
Exactly, I used to have Magnaplanar speakers, High end( delicate) turntable, met and married, had a baby moved house and the system didn’t suit a family ( children) now I am digital with nice speakers that fit in the room and the wife likes the look of. There is nothing stopping me looking though
@@frankcousins7655 I used to own Magnepans and, you are correct, they didn't meet the WTF (wife acceptance factor)
So you can hear no differences between equipment because of all the factors you mention? I really failed to understand the central argument of the video.
Should I assume a dedicated home theater room is just not feasible where you live?
It is a very satisfying video about the subjectivity and sensory ability of music. I congratulate you.
In my study, I have a Quad 34/306/FM4/Logitech Transporter stack matched to Sonus Faber Concertinos with a REL Tzero MKII sub. For classical music, string quartets etc. streamed as Hi-Rez FLAC I find this perfectly fine. NB the wall behind the sub/speakers has been partly covered with acoustic tiles.
My 306 is still going strong and is in use every day.
Thank you for this amazing video! You have not only just saved me from wasting a LOT of money, but you’ve also saved me a lot of time too. I have just unsubscribed from all the hifi CZcams channels that has been wasting my time after watching review after review of products, only to be more confused than I was before watching them.
Unfortunate. The arguments presented here were very weak and you should just go and listen to the systems and see for yourself.
I’ve only bought used equipment to date, and I’m still learning. I think my budget and my hearing has reached a balance I’m content to stay at for awhile. I’d have to be astonished by something within my budget’s reach to make any significant changes.
I totally agree with every concept you express. Few express it so well. Thank you.
Interesting. I didn't find the concepts compelling at all.
wow, luv your detailed and professional analyses
I can also hear the difference in sound depending on the actual color of the cables. And when it comes to turntables, to my ears, the sound quality changes depending on how expensive the table is, on which the turntable is located.
All of this is true, but only on the days when I’ve not taken my meds.
But you did take LSD?
@@erwindewit4073 I cannot confirm or deny taking LSD with any level of certainty. However, I actively participate in a contest called “lucky meds switching night” at the retirement home where I live.
As someone who has been involved in every stage of the process from experimenting with a lot of microphones through to producing music and mixing and mastering, as well as building speakers, I can say that everything sounds different, on the production side of things. It is the engineer’s job to use the Sonic qualities of the equipment used as part of the creative process. On playback, it’s not quite as straightforward and there’s a level of preference, and it’s hard to say what is better past a certain point, what I can say from my experience with mastering is that different speakers will bring out different qualities of a recording, and some recordings will play better on some speakers than others with their inherent qualities. However, I think there is a certain threshold where you want to be above, like, you don’t want to be listening to music in a room with a ton of reflections, that are uncontrolled, for example, although controlled reflections can be nice.
I do find that speakers with soft tweeters, rather than air motion or metal tweeters often playback older music better. I have noticed that some newer music plays back better on harder tweeters since it was produced on them. For example, Celldweller and the weeknd
I agree completely here. The biggest impact on the sound is the room. And really, it's taste, it's the music you play... I do like the metal tweeters on Harbeth speakers, as they almost sound like soft domes with more detail...
Great video and all great and sensible points. I have indeed wasted some money on hi-fi equipment. For the most part, I have really enjoyed doing it, though, and in most cases, it was more of an investment in learning the hobby and the happiness that it brings. I'm definitely not regretful about it at this point. There are few opportunities to audition equipment where I live, so there is always a bit of guesswork. I simply do my research, rely on reviewers that I've come to trust, do more research, cross reference all of this, and then roll the dice in the end, LOL. It has worked out in more cases than not. In some cases, there were unexpected twists with new gear that seemed negative, but in most, I took away a new appreciation or knowledge of some sort. Like I said, an investment. Some carry more value than others, but it's the game that we play with ourselves.
I consider myself a practical audiophile. I am more impressed with gear that gets me a good spectrum of sound to work with while still being reasonably priced. Having studied sound engineering both academically and as a personal hobby, I have learned that as long as I have some sort of ability to change EQ, I can usually make most speakers sound adequate or even superb. It also depends on application. For general use such as work, public, etc., I don't need my listening devices to be perfect since I am not even likely to be focusing on music over other things. So a simple pair of Sony ear buds or Bluetooth Edifier ear buds will work fine. For home, I run almost everything through my Sony 7.1 receiver with Klipsch speakers, be it music or movies. It's about as affordable as a sound system can get. Yet I can hear so many details to tracks that I sometimes don't even register on headphones. As for recording/musical projects, I typically use Sennheiser HD 280's that I have had for over a decade. While not exactly cheap, I don't ever feel the need to get anything more expensive than that. In short, sometimes I wish that more audiophiles understood that good audio comes from your ability to calibrate your equipment, rather than from how pricey your equipment is.
I have the Sennheiser HD 457's that are about 50 years old now and still beat the crap out of any other phones I have used! They too work best using a graphic equaliser.
The biggest problem today is few people have EVER heard live music. You cannot judge if you have never heard the real thing.
A few m0nths ago I was in the city and a brass band was playing live. While not my kind of music I was blown away. It did not sound like recorded music at all, it was so clean and open, not compressed, the detail was just amazing. The way music is recorded is the problem, not so much the equipment.
Hi Michael ... Absolutely.
Even those going to concerts these days are not hearing live music. With the advent of all the trickery ... autotune, quantization, compression, limiting, etc. ... in many cases it is impossible to play the music live without a significant loss of apparent talent. So, what you get is dancing and spectacle in front of pre-recorded music.
They used to make the disk match the live... now they make the live match the disk.
Good to see you posting here.
This. Started to go to classical (so non-amplified) concerts a few years back and realised the sound at home wasn't even remotely matching the sound in the concert hall (hint, it never can) - figured out my B&W 800 diamond range stuff was way too bright and I mistook it for "details". Closest to the concert hall I could get was KEF. Switched my speakers and never looked back.
...and to further agree with Michael, yes, a lot of stuff is compressed to oblivion, so you can hear it on your tiny phone speaker. Good recordings make a lot of difference. The "Hi res' audio is playing that game. it's not the 24bit/192kHz that makes it better, it's just totally different mastering. You can pull a nice 320kbit MP3 from that hires recording and it is still superior to the normal mastering. Good example of this is the original Buena Vista Social Club CD vs the hires mastering, completely different sound - again, nothing to do with the hi-res, all to do with the mastering engineer. Some should be fired really. ^^
Bullshit. Hifi dosent have to be ,and often isn’t anything at all to do with what live music sounds like.
It does depend what type of music you are listening to. For anything that has one or more dominant acoustic instruments (incl. non-distorted vocals) it absolutely is important to have real-life experience of their natural sound signatures. And it is a one-way street: In my experience, anything that sounds good for well recorded and mixed acoustic instruments and vocals will also work well for electronic music, rock & pop. But the opposite isn't alway true: anything that sounds "appealing" for electronic music, rock & pop may not sound very good at all for acoustic instrumentation and vocals.
This has got to be the most refreshing and enlightening video about Hi-Fi audio that I've heard in a long time; lots of great audio (even life) advice. I enjoyed every minute of it. Congratulations!!!
I was about the comment the same thing---excellent video!
Love your video. Especially the part about speakers at the Hi-fi show : Symphony orchestra vs piano... A single sound source is way easier to record/reproduce with a much appreciable degree of fidelity. There are so much accoustic phenomenons that are going on in a live orchestra situation. Nothing can reproduce that sound wich is in fact so many different sounds happening at different places simultaneously and produced by means that are completely alien to a speaker. Even a single instrument sound is in fact a myriad of sounds combined together... no speaker can reproduce that. A speaker will always sound like... a speaker. And by extent... a recording will always sounds like microphone(s)... And I must say that we should be amazed by what is and was technically achieved since the beginning of sound recording/reproducing even with cheap and not so hi-fi means... Hey! a vinyl is a plastic waffle... and it sings (damn well) when you stick a needle in it!
Brilliant!!
Fantastic and brutally honest reviews. I have always enjoyed music for many years and can personally confirm there comes a point where you are throwing away your money. All for something that doesn't exist. If you have a good hi-fi system and you're happy with it, enjoy it because it's what it's there for. That's why you bought it in the first place.
These days I use modestly priced cartridges on high end turntables. I have heard expensive cartridges in the past such as Linn Arkiv & Dynavector Karat & although they were good they sounded not much better than say a Blue Point No.2 to my ears.
My first hi fi speakers were Magnepan mg2a speakers. How they sounded was determined heavily by the amp. With a cheap receiver, they sounded dull and lifeless. With a decent amp with an adequate power supply, they came to life and sounded great -- in a room that could accommodate them.
Now I have Revel F206s. They're not as finicky about amplifiers, but I used a $600 AVR with them for a while, and upgrading to a better quality separate power amp in the $1k to $2k range still made a big difference. Surprisingly, one major area was imaging. I didn't expect that at all.
But I rarely listen to my system as a hi fi system. I'm way more likely to put on a youtube concert video that's 30 years old with less than ideal quality than I am to actually get up and pop on a CD rather than just using spotify. I can hear a difference between spotify and cds on some albums, but usually it's not worth the effort to me. I generally prefer live performances over studio albums, and love having access to so many concerts on youtube, even if some of the sound quality is awful. So dealing with the small imperfections of compressed music isn't a huge issue to me most of the time.
I had those speakers and loved them years ago when I was a vinyl junkee many years ago, nowadays I have chosen my speakers based on room constraints, particularly the need to work close to a wall. Thankfully I kept all the records and have recently bought my daughter a nice Rega planar. More emphasis has to be placed on the whole experience rather than just switching something on
I believe my brother has these (among so many more) paired with some crazy Teddy Pardo setup and they sound really great ...with some anal retentive imaging.
Ive gotten the same emotional responses with my system regardless of file quality and thats my endgame achieved.
A audiophile friend of mine used the phrase "Give a damn threshold" to describe a price threshold for audiophile equipment, it was defined as "if you can't hear the difference, don't buy the difference." Having spent my entire adult life in studio and broadcast engineering, I've always gravitated to the most accurate of references, those that were demonstrably and measurably more accurate.
As a side note, I had a radio show in the 80's called Hi Tech that presented subjects like "How to Understand Specs." I also played Half Speed Mastered disks, Direct to Disk and the first Digital Recordings on air in my area. I played examples from "Bach to Rock." I even bypassed the station processing to allow my listeners on one occasion, to hear the digital sample as accurately as the FM broadcast medium would allow. I was the Chief Engineer of the station at the time and I was very careful not to overmodulate.
You did not reference the importance of room acoustic treatment which is as the best speakers you can buy will not sound good in a poor acoustic environment. Any speakers in an untreated, small, square, concrete room will not present an accurate presentation of any recording.
Having spent a large part of my adult professional life setting up turntables for broadcast and audiophile applications IMO all turntable, cartridge, stylus and tonearm combinations playing a vinyl source, are at best a precision approximation of the recording. Once all the wear factors are considered such as stylus and vinyl wear, not to mention the dust and static accumulation over time, anyone who prefers the "sound of vinyl" to digital recording is not an audiophile, IMO. In that case like many other older technologies that "sound better" to some, I would submit that it's a sound quality that those listeners are accustomed to.
I have little doubt that some people have superior hearing and may hear differences that most cannot but should that make a difference to those that cannot? If an individual can't hear that a device is more accurate they are buying the sales hyperbole for what is usually a high price. When I was younger, I could hear 25 kHz and as a trained classical double bassist, I could determine pitch down to 25 Hz. It has rarely aversely effected my enjoyment of a good recorded performance. That being said, a truly great performance transcends whatever technology was used to capture it. I am nearly 70 and I no longer have the hearing range I had but I still have no trouble getting a decent mix and prefer to do multi-track live capture recordings. I do have a fairly extensive discography.
Excellent analysis. Thanks for sharing your experience and thoughts.
The trouble is that if you can't hear the difference in the showroom then you might hear the difference back home. A true AB test is only possible after purchase. Incremental changes (with the emphasis on 'mental) is how they get you. For a professional environment there is no such trap as product demonstrations can be ordered 'in place'. This is why I fear 'audiophiles' are generally private enthusiasts vulnerable to exploitation by salesmen who know vastly less than them but have the leverage of 'you have to try it in your own system'. No refunds.
Based on your vast professional experience, what speakers do you think offer value for money? Of course given hearing limittations and room accoustics, but are there certain designs you prefer (enclosed vs ported) generally? Thanks for your comment.
25khz, Wow that's great! I thought I was doing good with 19khz in my teens. Sine wave generator piezo tweeter. My dog could hear past 19k apparently. What if we are hearing harmonics of the fundamental though hmmm?
@@DANVIIL I prefer coaxial speakers for nearfield monitoring. The speakers I use are no longer made and there are still Tannoy and Fluid Audio neither of which I have current experience. I have had and used Tannoy's in the past. Kali makes some well reviewed and cost effective monitors. In whatever case I highly recommend the addition of Sonar Works SoundID software and room treatment.
Very nice channel and video. I agree with all your points. I might also add...speakers are not necessarily better than one another...they are merely different and provide a different listening experience. Chasing the next new thing gets expensive.
My new Focal Aria 936 provide a very different listening experience when compared to my 35 year old JBL 120ti. Not necessarily better, just different. When I pair the two together with a secondary amplifier, the sound is amazing. It was by accident, but provides a wonderful listening experience. Is it the best ever? Probably not. BUT, I enjoy it for a modest investment in my system.
My dad did some heating/ac work at both abbey road and Nick masons studio in the early 90’s. They both used cheap regular audio cabling from the local Tandy, and both used cheap standard interconnects.
The best hi end system is a live concert..
I am blessed with exceptionally good hearing - as measured by audiologists. And I’ve loved audio gear all my life since I was 18. I don’t feel I’ve ever wasted money; I’ve always taken an incremental approach and always by auditioning gear at a real hifi store. That said, I use $10 interconnect and just ordinary 12 AWG speaker cable. In my current system the vast majority of the cost is in the speakers. My experience has been that cost / quality is an exponential curve. A $1000 CD player (Emotiva in my case) gets you a lot more than a $250 player. A $4,000 player? Not so much more. Researching, then listening gets you the best package. My dealer lets me take my own gear to the store to try to match my home as closely as possible so when I was looking for speakers he let me use my own CD player and amp for the listening sessions. But it’s also not just about clinical reproduction. There are components that are technically good but musically dull, and in the end it’s about the music. So find something that excites you, that makes you want to stay up that extra hour and not go to bed. That’s where I’m at. There is a sweet spot of investment; perhaps if I was super super rich I might do marginally better. But I’ve put about $10,000 Canadian into my current system and I feel I’d need a better house to do any better.
Great video as always David. You were one of my lecturers at City of Westminster many years ago and back then I was in awe of your knowledge.
These days I run a small recording studio and have used much of what you taught me along the way, yet I'm still in awe of your knowledge!
As an aside, before I went to City of Westminster, I worked in a high end hi-fi shop and I tried many very expensive interconnectors against good quality cheaper ones. Blind tests with my colleagues revealed that not one of us could spot the difference. I questioned one of the manufacturers of said "high end leads" about how and why they they sounded better and the first response was a slight annoyance I'd asked, followed by bluster and snake oil. I didn't believe it then and I certainly don't believe it now! The wise among us would most certainly invest their money in the best speakers they can afford along with acoustic treatment of their listening environment.
Anyway thanks for everything. You've taught me so much. X
I cannot agree with you more, you are absolutely right. I recently got crazy into home hifi, have a big transistor amp, and then bought 3 new sets of vacuum pre & power amps, 4 different 1970-1980s high end speakers, changed different brand speaker cables, connectors, and interconnects, added super tweeters on all speakers and even changed out a couple of tweeters. I must say, I cannot really tell the difference except tube vs transistor amps. All others, sounded great to my ears. Biggest difference, at least to me, recording from the source (Tidal HiFi), speaker placement, amp power such as 30 watts RMS does not sound as good as 100 watts as I listen to fairly high volume. Thank you for the educational video, I am not going to waste more $.
I think the problem here is the idea that the effects are within certain measurable parameters. While I think you can differentiate between bad, highly distorted equipment through measurements, once you move past a baseline of distortion you are moving into the areas of how the equipment affects you which is a combination of a number of factors. My wife has significant hearing loss from childhood yet I bought her an expensive headphones because her hearing loss meant she was particular sensitive to distortion and a much better quality source meant a much better experience for her. My own hearing is varying but rather than saying well then I won’t be able to hear 20hz or 20khz anymore so why bother I prioritising equipment that works within the midband were a considerable element of the emotional in music is present. I would therefore maybe take your point on “full Range” systems I am still perfectly capable of telling a good system.
Well, there are the harmonics as well. You won't hear them, but they add to the sound. As a couple of physics people explained to me. My wife had 30% loss on the left and 70% on the right side (hearing that is). But she could still easily hear differences with speakers up to €3500. So can my 77 year old mom...
I tried my best to hear the difference between a 50 EUR and a 500 EUR interconnect. I couldn't. So what matters to me is that the cable is made well, won't break, has gold-plated RCA plugs, so I need not worry about oxidation and that is it. My dream was to own an Accuphase integrated amp. Finally, I was able to buy one and do I hear the difference between the Accuphase and my old Denon? Hell yes, absolutely. I'm 61 and can't hear anything above 8,5k on my right and up to about 6,5k on my left ear. Do I hear the silky smooth top-end of my Amp? No, but I hear the gorgeous soundstage and the wonderful mids and the defined, satisfying bass, of which all fill my room with great music and make me happy. I also tried Chord Qutest vs. Dave. Couldn't tell which was which, so I bought the Qutest. No reason to bust the bank. I bet some people can hear these little nuances, but I'm quite sure, most only buy extremely expensive equipment because they like the technical aspect of sound reproduction, which is OK as a hobby and if you can afford it. My system fits my ears and that is good enough for me. ... Thank's for your videos, I always enjoy them !
Sometimes more expensive equipment sounds worse. But that doesn’t mean that all good equipment sounds the same as every other piece of equipment. There are also those who think that cheap wines taste the same as good wines. Perhaps those who enjoy the cheap ones are better off. I would hardly recommend one of those to be a wine critic.
Funny to stumble on this video. Many years ago, in my audiophile days, I listened to, and compared, all high-end audio systems that were on the market. There was only one set that sounded as good as it gets, so I started saving money until I could afford the Quad ESL speakers and the Quad 303 amp you mentioned. The Quads are brilliant for music on instruments that I like most: solo piano/keyboard, string instruments, and wind instruments including voice. I consider them less optimal for large orchestras and complex soundscapes, but those are outside my main interest range anyhow. After that, I stopped thinking about hifi and focused on the best part: music listening. Sometimes, a performance that I like most is played on a less than optimal instrument, recorded on a stage with a suboptimal microphone setup, or recorded before the days of superior digital quality, but is far preferred over a perfectly recorded and mastered performance by someone who doesn't have a clue what the composer meant. Having the Quads at my home offer a great reference basis, but I enjoy my favorite music just as well on my earbuds in a train or on my car stereo system.
I just stumbled upon your cannel, good work! Nice to hear a voice of reason in this field. I couldn't help remembering listening to music on my first turntable fifty years ago, an antique, yellow portable plastic-thing with a 20 cm turntable, a cartridge that could be flipped over in order to play 78's or 45/33's and a speaker in the lid. Listening to Little Richard and Chuck Berry and The Stones on that, gave me the most WOW listening ever. All just to say, music is about content, not sound. :)
I have been enjoying your videos; they are enlightening. I have always wondered how some audiophiles can hear the difference between belt and direct drive tables. I have tried and still listening for that elusive difference. I have two belt drive tables...Rega P3 and a Project X1....they both sound good, if not the same...lol!
I agree with you. Electronics are so good that one cannot really tell a difference. But speakers - monitors ------- they do make a difference - a large one.
So much disagree!! I've owned 3 high-end power amps for the past 15 years, each in the $2500-4000 price range, and each 225-300 wpc. And yet each has its own distinct sound and feel for the music. To someone hearing my system for the first time, they probably would not pick up on the differences, but after living with them for awhile, I've developed preferences. I also match the amp to the speakers. Of the three, one feels slightly darker, and one is slightly brighter, so the best amp depends on the tonal balance of the speakers.
Simply ridiculous. The speakers need to be good enough to reveal differences in the rest of the system. I have 3 tube integrareds. All sound different from each other. And, I can change the sound of each by rolling tubes. Speakers absolutely matter. That's where the sound recipe containing all the other ingredients comes out of the oven. But everything before matters too.
" We are in the present now as you have noticed.". AUDIOPHILES QUOTE OF THE DAY.
Thats why DIY with passion and knowledge is the Best way to have your perfect Setup.❤
I found the difference between good & great equipment isn’t about the bass, mid & treble, it’s the hologram-like imaging & stability of the sound stage, even if the high end rolls off with age
I think you're onto something there. Whenever I bought a television, even before smart TVs, I would always look at color fidelity first over resolution.
There's nothing like being surprised by looking at a picture which is absolutely color correct as opposed to something which is very, very close to correct.
I have an Onkyo Receiver with TR speakers with gold plated could. I just bought a Bobtot that was open box for 105. And sure the 6000 dollar set up sounds better. But the Bobtot gives it good run for the money
I like the support superstructure and the isolation given by the slight overhand. However, the joist work lends itself to dampening if not positioned correctly....
@@JohnDoe-xv1se Only if the pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle, and the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.
@@sPi711 Indeed. That's been an issue for years in computer graphics. Great looking games written for colour CRT looking terrible on more 'accurate' IPS or AMOLED displays. A bit of low pass filtering - in the colour display sense - is what the games were written for. No wonder they look bad when all the natural dithering and antialiasing is stripped.
The biggest elephant in the room, is, the ROOM🤪
Or rather, roomtreatment.
Most of the time, a "lesser" system in a good room, will sound much better than a "better" system in a bad room.
I have heard loads of expencive systems, at shows (most expencive one was about 1 mill $, insane, I know).
But it did not sound any better than my own system (16500ish $, cinema/ musicroom).
Different, sure, and it most likely has a much higher potential in a better room. My point is:
The room, placment of equipment, listeningposition etc, is as important, if not more important, than the gear itself.
On a whim, I decided to try my old Marantz 1550 receiver with my Infinity RS III/B speakers. I normally use these with a 250wpc Yamaha P2250 power amp. Now, the 1550 is only 55wpc, but the sound these speakers put out with the Marantz 1550 is just... I couldn't believe it. I was absolutely gobsmacked. The only thing is that it's only good for low to moderate volume levels as you need at least 200wpc to really crank the Infinty's. For the small room I have them in, the Marantz does just fine. Probably the sweetest sounding combo I've ever owned.
Finally, a sane voice concerning the tube vs solid state debate! I have a SONY receiver, STR-DH130 from a decade ago. Got it on sale $150 (list $200). 90 watts RMS per channel, both driven, 20-20,000 Hz, with no more than .09% total harmonic distortion from 250 milliwatts up to rated output. This drives a pair of ADS L1290 speakers (from 1980s), 300 Watts max each. Music source, FM classical music station.
When I listen to a singer with an acoustic guitar, or a piano sonata, or a quartet, with cello, violin, maybe some chimes, in my living room at a concert level volume, you would absolutely swear all these musical instruments, including the human voice, were right here in my place. Especially if you close your eyes. Breathtakingly clear, concise, convincing reproduction.
All this for under $1000. (I got the speakers used from single owner, mint condition, $750). There is simply no reason to spend more, in terms of sound quality. There may be other reasons to spend more, that have nothing to do with the sound.
Love this video, matching the room with the right speakers and if possible (some) acoustic treatment (drapes, carpet and such) can lead to something that makes you forget that you're listing to a reproduction of sound. Personally I have a set up that I think matches the listening room and my taste and I have stopped looking around for better, think I reached the end of the 'ear resolution' so I enjoy the music and there is so much beauty to be found. Keep up the good work.
To be honest, being audiophile and spending money on buying pricey hifi gear are two different things, but they usually go together. As an audiophile, you can experiment sound reproduction using cheap / low-mid fi gear and listen and critic the sound quality. Soon you will yarn for a better sound, however. This usually cost more money to get a decent improvement. At certain stage, diminishing return will hit and only difference between gear A and B is probably how they look and made by different manufactures. IMO, luxury HIFI segments aren't really for audiophiles who are looking for the best sound, but look / feel the best too. And you sure pay for them.
Funny that even very expensive equipment often looks ugly, with some outstanding exceptions, of course.
Again, presumption as I read it. Is that your experience after living with high end audio for instance? Or people who have high end systems? I assumed that a nice cake from the supermarket was just as good as one from a bakery. Until I tried it...
Funny, 'diminishing returns and probably the only difference on how they look'.
Hint: try really high-end stuff. Experience it. You don't have to buy anything, but I wonder: is it really only about the looks?
Why would it be different than with cars, TV's or whatever? Pay more, get better stuff. Simple.
I have Sonos arc + two sonos one (for surround) in the living room.
I have a jbl 9.1 atmos soundbar in my mancave, with detachable back speakers. More than enough for me.
My focus now is a clean setup without cables all over the room. My wife is happy😅
Enjoyed the video. I have bought two pairs of Dali speakers simply because others on the internet had a good opion about Dali speakers in general. I am happy to report that they were right, and both the Dali 104 and Dali Zensor 5 are musical and enjoyable to listen to. The sound they make is different and each imperfect in their own way, but the important part for me is that the sound is lively and enjoyable, just like a live music concert. Not all speakers are like that, for example most of not all boombox and bluetooth speakers are not musical or detailed in any way, despite costing serious money in some cases.
Best audio upgrade...ear wax removal. I'm a headfi guy and could never understand why people thought beyerdynamic cans are considered bright. After this treatment, I could definitely hear the 8khz spike in my dt880...I now tune them with cotton wool😂...and speakers/headphones make the biggest difference
Your arrow-sharp and focused points hit logically appropriate . Well done . Guess many audiophiles will sit down scratching their heads ( pun intended ) .
I am with you on all counts for speakers. Thats the loop where electrical signals are converted to audio energy. Hence a "transducer" where maximum and quantum distortion occurs in the entire chain from the recording to playback . The big boys should really go and invest in a good speaker system . That may do justice .
It was pleasure listening to you. Thank you
I haven’t had the money and space to get my own serious Hifi yet, but I like this guy already. Makes sense. I will keep this in mind when I finally get mine.
Really enjoyable! And a welcome break from the endless bloviating of most audiophiles. We all want “the best,” because only the best people deserve the best sound. And we don’t trust our own ears. We want the reassurance of an expert to tell us that yes, what we have here is indeed the best… I’m 57, and when I see pictures of 70 year old men at audio shows swooning over a 2k dollar pair of interconnects, I can only laugh. But it does say a lot about human nature…
why would you laugh? Can you not afford them so you hate others can? If You can't hear a difference then don't buy them.
@@scottttd1510 Nice straw man.
Since everyone is different, it's foolish to assume that all 70 year olds have the same high frequency deficiencies. Especially if they've never been to a Led Zep concert! 🙂
Most audiophiles don't "bloviate". This guy does.
@@jsharp9735 that's great
I agree with you. Don't waste money on cables, DAC's, tube amps. Buy decent transitor amps, CD/bluray players, turntables, and fit a high class cartridge to the latter. At last you cannot spend enough money on speakers, the improvements in sound quality are massiv.
Well done video. I would have called myself an audiophile in my youth but now, being of a certain age with tinnitus, listening to lossless streamed music on average (Insignia) powered bookshelf speakers and a powered sub woofer sounds outstanding to me. The equipment is capable of reproducing better sound then I am able to hear. If you are old enough and have been to more than a few rock concerts, the same with likely apply to you as well.
Wow, that is a pity! If you can't hear the difference any more. Not that anyone SHOULD buy more expensive stuff, but even with tinnitis and some hearing loss, you should still easily be able to hear more I think...
Then again, isn't life more about being happy with what you have and if it's good enough, why look for better?
@@erwindewit4073, It's also just age related hearing loss. Inevitable. Ironically, As you get older and have more time to sit around and listen to music, and spend money on gear, you may not be able to appreciate it as much as you would have as a younger person.
@@scottoneill774 True, I can't hear what I once did. And indeed, more time, better stuff. Still, I think that, because we can afford better gear than when we were young, in the end, it might not make that much of a difference (besides cost of course). I'm quite sure my younger me would have loved my current system more, but I quite love it now too! Tinnitus or not..
Very good video! In my opinion, the loudspeakers make the most difference because they involve more variables. There are only so many variables in an amplifier, two with the same frequency response, output impedance, and distortion distribution are probably going to sound pretty much the same. The frequency response of the amplifier is what it is, you measure the transfer function and you have the frequency response. Everything in electronics is pretty straight forward, you can measure it and know what it is independent of other influences. With loudspeakers, this isn't as simple.
Different loudspeakers have different dispersion and that dispersion generally isn't constant independent of frequency. So the frequency response of a loudspeaker can vary dramatically depending on where you place the microphone. The variations in frequency response in different directions from the speaker interact with the room causing different speakers that might sound similar in one room to sound completely different in another room. Amplifiers, pre-amps, etc don't have this issue, they are going to sound the same in any room. There are countless other variables with loudspeakers that cannot be defined independent of other variables. Speaker placement, listening position etc, can change the impact of differences in loudspeakers so even the variables are... well, variable. Nothing is straight forward in loudspeakers and this is why I believe they make the largest contribution to differences in system performance.
Cables... I know this can be a hot topic but there is no legitimate science behind high dollar cables sounding better than any adequately sized inexpensive cable. I suspect I will get hate comments for this but I wonder how many will come from Engineers or Scientist that can back up their argument with peer reviewed measurement data.
I'm a fan of open baffle speakers, they have a very different sound than conventional box speakers. I'm also a fan of DIY, building my own speakers, been doing it for about 50 years. To me a well designed open baffle speaker using active crossovers will sound better than any conventional box speaker regardless of cost. You mentioned Wilson Audio, I've never been impressed with their stuff, I consider it audio jewelry, just Bose at a higher level. I'm sure there are plenty of others that like them however and that's ok, it's their money. Whatever audio or any other equipment someone spends their money on is ok as long as they get enjoyment out of it that equals or exceeds the cost. This even goes for those expensive cables, the placebo effect is a powerful thing so while the performance improvement might not be real, the enjoyment improvement still can be.
Sir , a great video with some brutal truths. Shall I say that as a man of a certain age , I’ve been there done that and got the T shirt. Oh, yes and I have acquired a pair of hearing aids along the way. I have now settled down to audio that sounds good to me and enables me to enjoy the music.
Bruh this dude is seriously hypnotizing (in a good way) and is it just me or does he sound a bit like Paul McCartney?
I was thinking the same, even looks more like him with a passing, peripheral eye view…
The real paul didnt die, he became an audiophile 😅
He IS Paul Mccartney.
Racist
Maybe it is one of his cousins.
Most cables, amps, speakers even the mics and mixing desks that record the original sound are different. The big question is what is better? It is entirely a personal choice, also how much you want to spend, and of course the status value too.
I'm 75 and got very interested in audio equipment in my teens. I worked at audio retailers later on and as a manufacturers rep for three well known manufacturers. I learned early on that so called audiophiles never really listened to MUSIC! They listed to five or ten second seconds of a record when auditioning the the object of their current fascination. It was very disheartening. Any system that fits your budget and produces a reasonably good (to you) facsimile of MUSIC you like to actually listen to in full and enjoy is a GOOD system.
I wonder if I do fit the definition of an audiophile, I may be the weirdest audiophile of them all.
I tend to make extremely deep dives into audio equipment when I need a new sound system. But once the search ends and the trigger is pulled, unless I RMA the unit, I just keep using what I bought until it kicks the bucket.
As a result when I need to, I dive very deep into the audio rabbit hole. But only sporadically like every 5 years or so.
I have the HiFiman HE400se for indoor usage and the Truthear Hola for outdoor usage. I feel no urge to upgrade.
On the other hand, I want to set up a home theater system which is something I'd be doing for the 1st time in my life. Which seems to be the biggest rabbit hole yet.
But what I find the strangest about this statement is that I never used any piece of audio equipment only for music. It's all very general purpose for me.
@@JoelHernandez-tz3vk Your statement about actually using your equipment for for "general purpose" is very much the same for me. The main pieces are a Carver MXR-130 receiver (130 watts/channel and that I like so much that last year I sent it to a company way out out in Oregon comprised of old Carver Techs and spent $700 having it totally rebuilt with new and upgraded electrolytic caps and other components) and Carver ALS-III speakers (downward facing 10" woofers only about 2in. above the floor in a ported cabinet tuned to 24 Hz ( and has awesome bass) and 48in. tall dipole radiating ribbon "tweeters" mounted above that actually handle everything above 250 HZ), all of which I have owned since 1997, so about 26 years "new"! Since they are in our living room where the TV is, I naturally turned the TV's internal speakers off and routed the line output of the TV into the Carver receiver thereby turning it into a "2.0" home theater. I would say that 90% of the time the system gets used is provide VERY good sound for watching general TV, and cable movies sound GREAT) and only here and there tossing in a CD or two if we want music, but mostly just turning the TV cable box to the Music Choice channel, selecting their "smooth jazz" channel and just letting it play an endless selection of rotating artists where I discover a lot of music I wouldn't have heard normally, and it is CD quality as well! So, that's a lot of words jut to tell you I use my system probably much like you do and totally "get it". I intend to keep this stuff 'till I leave earth! It does everything I need at a high level of quality. The only cost for 26 or so years was the money for the receiver rebuild and the electricity to run the system. I'll close by saying I have watched several of your You Tube videos Ind enjoy them a lot, and on this video in particular we think VERY much alike!-- Larry