Miscellaneous ramblings on hi-fi magazines

Marco

What you fail to realise is that some hi-fi systems don't have a lot of 'inherent colorations' in them at all. Some hi-fi systems produce music which sounds realistic, given the constraints of room acoustics. When this happens it is anything but bland, nor indistinct, nor boring.

You still haven't answered my question about what it is that constitutes 'emotion' in music, which isn't present on the master tape.

Your problem is that you are resolutely anti-science - it's the current zeitgeist so you are not alone: the new age mystics are with you on that - and you seem to mistrust technology, whilst taking advantage of it at the same time. Your reasoning often goes along the lines of 'science doesn't know everything, so it must know nothing'.

 

Re: Does the lack of a review imply a bad review?

HiFi+ for one have a policy of never publishing a bad review. They'll do the review and if it turns out bad they'll let the manufacturer have it but won't publish it.

I think that's an acceptable solution to keeping the advertisers happy whilst not being overtly in their pocket.

Would make fascinating reading if one could get hold of the HiFi+ bad review archive though :JPS:

Increasingly when you look at WHF and even HFC group tests every component gets 5 stars and yet they still pick a "winner"

Michael.

 

I have a couple where products got a 'subtle scathing'.

Nothing by ZG standards of vitriol !

Most notably -
SAT fix.
Audio Analogue Maestro amp

Re-Joyce's recent phono stage review was a group-review and certainly picked out favourites, the Lehmann didnt come off that brilliantly I recall.

I like the fact that + doesnt say 'one * out of ***** its crap dont buy it'.

I really wish they wouldnt wax at such length though. Thats my bug bear. I want real language. Real information about which hifi components would suit the item best - if its suitable for certain rooms more than others for example. They miss these simple basics in pursuit of linguistic complexities.

 

the sat fix got a battering but it was lauded in the subsequent follow up review of a tweaked errr correct production version.

if you read hi-fi magazines for anything other than entertainment then you need your head examining. if you find stereopile's objective basis more entertaining than hi-fi plush's subjective one then good for you.

cheers


julian

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Miscellaneous ramblings on hi-fi magazines

Now you're assuming "accurate" is a synonym for "analytical". I suspect this is a linguistic misunderstanding, these debates usually are, but I don't see "accurate" in the context of a hi-fi discussion as a synonym for either "clinical" or "analytical", it merely means having fidelity to the source material (i.e., to use your earlier system preference, instruments sound like real instruments, and voices like real voices. Systems that are like this are neither analytical nor clinical, they just make good music).

Hearing is a sense, and like all senses is subjective by its very nature. Take 10 hi-fi geeks to a concert, where they all hear the same piece of music. Every person will hear the music differently, will concentrate on different aspects of the performance, some will even be able to hear frequencies others can't. I'm sure 10 people hearing (say) the same sax solo will hear it in 10 subtly different ways. Those same 10 people may, as a result, have 10 different preferences for how they want their hi-fi to sound. All of them will wish, if they're interested in fidelity to the music rather than simply acquiring expensive boxes, to build a system that best reproduces their experience of music. That doesn't mean they'll all choose the same system, of course; the differences in the way those 10 people hear explain why all 10 can have very different systems, yet all 10 believe their systems to be accurate. My opinion as to whether their systems are accurate or not should make not a jot of difference to any of them.

The "jaw-dropping" improvements that I've experienced with my own and other's systems have always occurred when adding or changing something results in playback that helps me to forget I'm listening to boxes, and gets me closer to the experience of listening to the real thing. This is accuracy. It's the only guideline we have as to whether a change is an improvement or simply a difference.

-- Ian

 

If anyone wishes to hear how a Satfix should sound, then pm me and I'll arrange a demo, It's now rather good, however in stock form some what limp & tame, although you'll laugh at the mod the did to *cure* it Wm

 

Satan

Your post deserves an answer, so I'll reply with one condition: no more of your snide remarks and thinly disguised jibes. I've ignored your nonsense up until now, and will continue to do so if necessary.

The decision is yours.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Miscellaneous ramblings on hi-fi magazines

It appreciate it reads that way, Ian, although that is not how I had intended it to be interpreted. My intention was to express how, in my experience, a system that could be described as 'accurate sounding' also has the tendency to 'dissect' the music for inspection rather than presenting it in a way I find enjoyable. Fun and enjoyment are the raison d'etre for me having a hi-fi system, not some fruitless quest to obtain absolute accuracy.

Absolutely, although my personal preference is a system that embraces and delivers those concepts (to a degree), but also gets my foot tapping and my head bobbing at the same time. I listen to primarily beat-driven music, not classical, so 'groove' and rhythmic flow are essential; that's why I enjoy Naim gear so much, as it's particular colorations suit that type of music perfectly, and it's also why absolute neutrality or 'accuracy' isn't my panacea.

I'm sorry, Ian, but I've heard numerous systems over the years that have excellent fidelity, and that are 'accurate sounding' to the nth degree, but quite frankly, they're also mind-numbingly boring, and have no fun factor whatsoever. It is this 'fun factor' that, for me, separates a good domestic hi-fi system from a professional studio-monitoring device. However, I fully appreciate others who value a more analytical-style presentation above all else.

I couldn't agree more, and that's exactly what I've done: built a system that best reproduces my experience of music; but it has to sound fun at the same time, and in my opinion, that's where certain colorations inherent in the way the equipment presents the music (and also the influence of room acoustics) can enhance the listening experience at home. Therefore, for me, it's not ALL about absolute fidelity to the original sound.

Quite right, and I can't for the life of me understand how some people go all 'girly' when I challenge their conceptions about hi-fi, or whether their system is as 'accurate sounding' as anyone else's!!

Ian, you've inadvertently described the Mana effect, although with Mana, the fun factor comes free...

Marco.

 

If a system has "excellent fidelity" to the source recording it will only sound boring if the recording it's playing is boring to the listener. I think you're confusing sterile systems with accurate ones. There are plenty of the former, to be sure.

What is this "fun factor" of which you speak? What does it consist of? And why do you need to inject an additional fun factor if you are listening to music you enjoy, doesn't the music give enough of a fun factor?

-- Ian

 

Well, this has been discussed a lot of times. I was trying to find out a post I wrote some time ago, but I cannot seem to find it.

My opinion is that most hifi is BAD. The one that does it for you is the one that focus on what you like - transparence, transient attack, and so on.

But you have only to compare the real thing to a recording - the difference is enormous.

If I can find the post I'll post it here again.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Miscellaneous ramblings on hi-fi magazines

I just get as close to the front as possible and wave my arms around as much as possible!... also I get a beer in a plastic cup when a crap song comes on.

 

An ultimatum is not an answer

They are very thickly-disguised, actually.

Ian, forget it. Absolutely agree, but it isn't worth the effort. Mag-believer and admirer. Mysticism, too, of a mag style: check out groove and rhythmic flow.

 

Ian, what you're saying is absolutely correct. Where we differ is that you value absolute 'accuracy' in hi-fi systems above all else: whereas I prefer some subtle coloration, for example the sonic signature of Naim equipment, to make the listening experience more interesting.

As an aside, what's your system, and in what way do you consider it accurate?

Some good friends, a few bottles of 1988 St Emillion Grand Cru Classe, filet mignon, and a long listen to music on my hi-fi afterwards! :MILD:

Seriously though, the fun factor for me, Ian, is in the way the music is presented to me through how components in my hi-fi system handle music. I could listen to 10 of my favourite CDs in 5 different systems; the content of the music is the same, but how each system interprets it will be different.

If one accepts that all a hi-fi system does is create an illusion of an actual musical performance (how can it realistically do anything else?), then the illusion mine creates may not be the most accurate, but it sure as hell is fun to experience.

Marco.

 

AN ULTIMATUM IS BETTER THAN AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE

The reason I offered you an ultimatum is because before I entered into discussion with you, I wanted to ensure that it would be constructive and to the point, as I'm quite sure everyone is sick and tired of reading our insults to each other.

You've now demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you're purpose here is simply to be an irritant.

Carry on if you so wish, but this is the last time I will acknowledge you.

 

Good point, Wolfgang. I raised this issue earlier in the turntable thread. I think it could be the basis of a good discussion.

Marco.

 

Absolutely anybody who listens to music on any hardware whatsoever, from the lowliest to the most expensive, can say the same thing (provided they like their system, of course). This doesn't distinguish you, or your equipment, from anbody else at all. I could say exactly the same thing and still strive for accuracy. It's only in your head that "accurate" = "analytical, boring".

What's the inherent colouration Naim gear has that you like? Could you describe it?

-- Ian

(Since you asked, my setup is Orbe/Hadcock/Ortofon Rohmann/Sonneteer Byron CDP/ATC CA2/ATC Active 10s. It isn't accurate in the frequency response sense, since the speakers are hardly full range, but tonally it seems to me to be about right, neither lush and rich nor thin and forward, but everything in its proper place, and plenty of fun too, although all of the components seem relatively neutral to me. The fun must be in the music.)

 

Uuuugggghhhh..... Thanks for reminding me - we used a small studio when our student band was around; they ONLY had NS10s to monitor/master with, and they were bloody awful. I reckon my JPW Gold Monitors were better...

I dunno about the wine (anything >£3 and red will do me!), but 1988 was one class year! Great summer and ace memories... Out of curiosity Marco, what was 1991 like as a wine year? We had some ace wine testing on our fifth year end of exams holiday that year...

 

The formula remains unchanged

Just empty hi-fi magazine-style buzzwords and phrases, occasionally with some 'foodie' / 'high life' notes thrown in.

 

I'm afraid, Marco, I would have to agree with sideshowbob/The Devil. Though I don't have any great experience of expensive hi-fi systems so it is more of a theoretical agreement.

I mean, I usually buy CDs in my lunch hour so they often first get listened to on a pair of cheap active computer speakers. When I then listen to them on my (decent but budgety) hi-fi system, I never think how much more 'fun' or 'emotional' or 'tuneful' or 'whatever' it sounds. It just, well, *sounds* better. Though, of course, the effect of larger bandwith, less distortion, more clarity, wider dynamic range, deeper/tighter bass etc. may serve to increase the listener's emotional response to the music or to make the music more enjoyable to listen to (i.e. fun).

"I've heard numerous systems over the years that have excellent fidelity, and that are 'accurate sounding' to the nth degree, but quite frankly, they're also mind-numbingly boring, and have no fun factor whatsoever" Assuming they played music you liked and assuming they were, indeed, accurate, I find this confusing and I just can't see how this is possible. Maybe they could be more demanding/tiring to listen to but surely 'mind-numbingly boring' is exagerration?

I don't get how a less accurate system can magically reveal/add some hidden 'emotion' or 'fun' element (or, indeed, how a more accurate system can hide them). Though, of course, it's perfectly reasonable for you to say you prefer the sound of a less accurate system, it's just that you seem to be saying it in a very confusing way!