Reference kit

With so many manufacturers using the word to describe their kit, is there any kit out there that can truly be described as "reference" ?

Before anyone asks, to me the term means the standard by which all others are judged. In this case we would be referring to sound quality.

Or could it be that there are so many variables...individual tastes, room effects etc that make the term meaningless in the context of hifi?

I guess the term may imply that there is some objective basis for quantiying the quality of a piece of kit.

Any views?

 

Hi,

the downside is what do you use to measure good sound quality? Do you use objective or subjective criteria or both?

A reference can be anything. You can use a quality budget amp or something expensive.

In a lot of ways, it can be a bit meaningless. If you go on subjective means people can and will disagree on what is good, bad and average. Even on objective criteria, the measurements should may not tell the full story. Most measurements on amplifiers are done on steady state signals. Music is a amplitude & time varying signal, how does that vary the sound quality? You rarely see full measurements of equipment.

Another debate is that a lot of amps will sound the same within it's performance envelope. Some amps will perform different into more demanding loads but may perform similar into easier loads.

I would say my reference for sound quality is my Border Patrol amp. This is because I have used it for some time and have like the sound quality. If I have amps at home they will be judged against that within my system. In another system or environment, results may differ.

SCIDB

 

Good question. I think that the concept of an objective reference in hifi is largely invalid if the reference point is "how much I like it" or some other subjective criteria. A subjective reference, specific to the individual, would be perfectly valid and I suspect we all have one that we use to evaluate kit, even if not consciously. Of course, lots of people might hold the same opinion of their subjective reference and that might give the illusion of objectivity, but it is still illusory.

On the other hand, if you want the reference point to be distortion levels or something specific and measurable (and some folk do) then an objective reference point is perfectly feasible.

 

You can't define it.
IMO the only true reference is the live performance. Even then this is clouded, especially at an amplified gig, by the engineers, PA and environs...

So, you can't quantify it.

 

While taking account the above:

DPA 50S pre-amp
Merlin VSM Loudspeakers (to a lesser extent Quad ESL 57s)

Haven't found a reference amp or CD player yet ..........

 

The word reference as used by the manufacturers is meaningless IMO.

As a point for comparison it can be anything, within reason. Probably the best reference is a system you know well, perhaps your own, and judging whether the new one you are listening to is better or worse.

 

Another key point about what constitutes a reference is that each of us have different brains, and that means we each hear sounds differently. So we each have our own references. This alone probably explains why there is such a range of opinions and prejudices aired on internet forums. It also explains why some people think Birtwhistle composes music, where most others think it sounds like falling scaffolding .

 

I tend to a few "reference" CDs and LPs and tracks on my computer and I use these as a reference when I substitute HiFi components and strangely enough many of these are recordings of live performances.

 

I think publication of more objective measurements would help a great deal. For example, it can be fairly hard to get a frequency response graph for loudspeakers unless some independent site has measured and published it.

Of course there is no accounting for personal taste

 

Everyone has personal taste - frequency response graphs / measurements don't take account of them!

When I look at a speakers frg or whatever I get accurate measured data. This tells me what the speaker should sound like eg are there obvious things I should listen for when auditioning. Now - being open to suggestion (or should that be sure of my beliefs in what the data tells me ) I may be more inclined to hear these things. If I do it the other way round - listen and evaluate then confirm by looking at data I don't allow myself to be swayed by the pressure of rational thought!
I think that's a point to ponder....

 

We also all have different shape ears which can make quite a difference IMO, in the same way some horns can make music sound coloured.