I am not going to say the brand names of the equipment because there is always someone who will say I should have gone for something else.
Even though it is tempting to remortgage the house and spend tens of thousands of pounds on HIFI equipment I am not going to do so. My house is a modest size and my listening conditions do not merit have an amplifier which is more than about 50 watts per channel into my 8 ohm speakers.
I have visited some HIFI retailers to listen to equipment and quite frankly HIFI sets costing tens of thousands of pounds do not sound much better, if at all, to my ears than my existing kit . I also have friends who have invested tens of thousands of pounds in HIFI equipment which does not sound much better either.
My ears are as good as anyone's for my age. I am still able to go to the opera or a performance of Verdi's Requiem and hear all the main performers singing against the back drop of the orchestra going full blast along with the choir. I can still pick out the singer in the choir who is out of tune. There is nothing great in this as many other people can do this too.
The fact of the matter is that all of my existing kit is of HIFI quality and if I buy something newer or more expensive the sonic improvements are going to be marginal this can only stand to reason. If I want to I can fool myself into to believing that because I have paid three times the amount for new kit then it must perform substantially better. The real world does not work like that but the placebo effect does.
The new CD and DAC that I have bought does not sound much better than my existing kit. I was not expecting it to. My wife believes it sounds clearer and I believe I can hear an improvement but if I was to subject myself to a double blind test then I am not so certain I could hear the difference. Why is this? The ultra modern DAC which is being replaced is of very high quality as well. I was replacing the CD player because it has broken down. And, I now have a simpler arrangement.
I am confident that my new amplifier is better with CDs, LPs and streamed music and that I could tell the difference in a double blind test. The improvement in quality is however marginal.
Myth 1: Paying ten of thousands of dollars or pounds for "High End" HIFI equipment will see you getting substantial improvement over more humble equipment.
The law of diminishing returns kicks in at around $1,000. You could be paying over the odds for equipment costing tens of thousands which sounds no better or even worse than something cheaper. If you do not believe me read this.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-01-06/
The electronic chips in a DAC are all made in a factory and they are mass produced; the chips cost next to nothing to buy if you make a bulk purchase. One manufacture let the audio cat out of the bag by stating that 80% or more of the cost of the "High End" equipment that he and others were selling was cosmetic to make the products look better.
Myth 2 : HIFI magazines know what they are talking about.
The amplifier that I am about to buy has been described as not very musical by more than one HIFI magazine. What are they talking about? They are talking bunkum. HIFI equipment is meant to reproduce the sound of the original recording as accurately as possible. Every now and again a performer strikes a bad note: is the HIFI equipment supposed to correct an error?
Quite often the high notes sung by an opera singer sound very piercing. At times a steel stringed guitar can sound a little harsh especially when the high notes are played or when the finger nails or the plectrum do not connect correctly. I want to hear this as it is part of the performance and I do not want to hear the notes "warmed up".
Many writers claim that LPs sound much better than CDs and refuse to acknowledge the benefits of CD. A well mastered and produced LP can sound better than a poorly mastered CD from a technical point of view but not often.
An LP can sound nicer than a CD and some of my 1960s Beatles LPs sound nicer to my ears than the equivalent CD, but Why? There is sometimes pleasant and noticeable harmonic distortion on the LP especially for acoustic instruments. This takes me back to yesterday, but when I am in the mood for better sound quality without surface noise I choose CD every time.
Many HIFI writers are forgiving of the faults of the LP system and are prepared to put up with surface noise and clicking and ticking noises. However, any amplifier or CD player which made even the slightest noise would be traduced.
HIFI magazines never critically examine the exaggerated or even bogus claims made by equipment manufactures. I wonder why?
The magazines never test equipment against a standard so most of their listening tests are invalid.
The magazines never interpret measurements into a listening context. Thus they claim that 24/96 or 24/192 "HIRES" sound reproduction is better than CD quality. They assert that a "HIRES" player is better than CD player because it can reproduce frequencies higher than 20 kHz. This is nonsense as no one can hear above 20 kHz. Think about it.
The magazines also claim that "HIRES" sound reproduction is better than CD because of the "improved " dynamic range - up to 144 db or even a theoretical 192 db for 32 bit music files. Again this is misinterpreted as far as practicality and listening are concerned. Only an orchestra can achieve a dynamic range of 80 db and usually it plays at around a dynamic range of 40 db. Most pop music only ever achieves 20 db at the most. An LP can easily encompass the usual dynamic range of an orchestra and a CD its complete range.
You can damage your ears listening to an LP or a CD too loudly. A 24 bit "HIRES" music file could theoretically produce a sound of 144 db if its full dynamic range could be exploited by amplifiers and loudspeakers strong enough. A 144 db sound would make you deaf instantly and could possible kill you. HIFI magazines are reluctant to point out that "HIRES" is all about trying to persuade naive consumers that this form of redundant technology is both needed and useful.
HIFI magazines use lurid language to exaggerate differences between the sound of equipment when making comparisons. If the equipment is of HIFI quality than any difference should be marginal or else something is radically wrong.
Magazines love to jump on bandwagons like HIRES and I expect to next bandwagon to be Ultra HIFI they love to be in the know. The best bandwagon for them to jump on would be exposing bogus claims for equipment and insist that manufactures publish independent and peer reviewed double blind listening tests when they make claims.
HIFI reviewers claim that they have got better ears than the rest of us mortals - not so but they can be trained to hear faults but so can you.
I do like to read HIFI mags because of the readers' opinions and the review of new equipment even if it does make me laugh. Overall the magazines are very entertaining.
Myth 3: LP is better both technically and sound wise than a CD
Subjectively, LP can sound nicer than digital sourced music especially for pop music; even to my ears. For classical music a CD cannot be beaten. The dynamic range is wider, the sound stage is better because of the improve channel separation inherent in CD. Pitch is better controlled on a CD and there is minimal harmonic distortion. You can imagine something different if you like but a good CD and player beats even the best LP and turntable from a technical and listening point of view.
Do not get me wrong, I really like to listen to LPs and the quality differences can be marginal but consider the following however:
A CD has a dynamic range of 96 db compared to an LP at about 70 db. The CD can encompass the full dynamic range of an orchestra which is about 80 db but an LP cannot achieve this.
A well mastered CD has a linear response across the full frequency range of human hearing but an LP does not.
A CD has a better signal to noise ratio. A CD usually has minimal harmonic distortion which cannot be perceived by a listener. An LP can have perceivable harmonic distortion.
A CD has none of the snap, crackle and pop which is so annoying on an LP.
A CD does not have the pitch variation and wow and flutter which is intrinsic to both records and turntables.
You can repair a CD which is scratched by "ripping it" and allowing error correction software to correct the track to make it playable . Because of this, not one of my hundreds of CDs has ever had to be returned to the shop.
I have had to return new LPs to the shop many times because of excessive surface noise and many of my LPs have been so damaged by intensive use that they are now unplayable. CDs are much more durable.
Listeners who are new to LP should consider all of the above before investing hundreds or thousands of pounds or dollars in turntable and "phonostage" gear. Cheaper equipment can do the job almost as well when you consider the limitations of an LP itself. No HIFI equipment, no matter how costly, can correct some of the flaws listed above.
Myth 4 : Cables, little isolation feet etc.
Whilst installing my new HIFI equipment I swapped some cables around to see if I could hear the difference. I could not. As long as you are using reasonable quality and priced cables you will hear good quality music. I am afraid that my Maplins interconnects perform just as well as interconnection cables costing 10 times the price so more fool me for believing the salesman all those years ago.
The same applies to USB cables and HDMI cables; you do not need to spend hundreds or thousands of pounds to achieve good performance; just do not buy something which looks cheap and nasty.
How can an equipment rack really affect the performance of a CD player etc. unless it is about to fall apart?
I grant you that a record deck must be placed on a solid and level platform but whether a shelf is made of walnut, oak or ebony, will it make much difference? It just needs to be solid.
You have just paid 2000 pounds or dollars for a new deck, so do you really think that you need to buy new isolation feet? The manufactures would have thought of that one so their feet will be very good. Do they want the deck returned because you can hear a slight vibration?
You have just bought a 1,000 dollar amplifier do you think that the manufacturer will have omitted a mains hum filter. If you heard mains hum you would send the kit back would you not so why do you need to buy a mains conditioner?
The first thing I did when I bought my new amplifier was to turn on all the equipment that could be connected to it including a PC and then listen to the amplifier at 1/4 volume setting and listen for noise with my ear against the speakers. I could hear nothing and I could only hear some white noise creeping in at 3/4 volume. So is there a need for little devices that filter out radio frequency interference? I do not think so. I have not heard mains hum or the local TV transmitter coming across my kit for many a year.
The list of exaggerated or bogus claims for the performance of ancillary equipment is very long so buyer beware.
Myth 5 : HIFI forums and blogs are informative
Many lovely people contribute to forums and blogs and they are fun to read but do the contributors take into account confirmation bias and the placebo effect? Most of them don't. If you have paid 2000 dollars for a cable you will be very disappointed if it does not work. Are you sure you are not convincing yourself that the cable is really better than the Maplins one it is replacing?
The same principle applies to all HIFI equipment and even cosmetics, wine, food supplements, washing powder and HD televisions for that matter so buyer beware.
Read this: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/102-blake-withdrawls-from-pear-cable-challenge.html
With regard to your ears: no one has ever been proven to be able to hear ultrasonic sound so can we really hear the difference between CD and "HIRES" music? Please read this: http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/.
Myth 6: Science, testing and common sense are wrong
You can chose to believe that science and double blind tests are wrong if you want to and imagine that some equipment has properties that do not exist. You can believe in ghosts if you want to as well. But I do not have to believe in Tarot cards to predict that you could be seriously ripped off if you ignore the science and testing and fail to appreciate common sense.
So please think before you part with thousands and pounds or dollars especially if you do not have ready cash freely available .
This is common sense and I have no reason to doubt it:
http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
This also looks genuine:
http://www.fwhifi.co.uk/
Buyer beware.
