All that is wrong with "HiFi"

[Tonari]

What I hear when I listen to the majority of modern hifi components and systems is a bright, hard and fatiguing presentation, often bordering on severe stridency while being harmonically distorted and/or threadbare, and noticeably lacking in musically engaging qualities. What you end up with is an over-hyped sonic microscope that is overly detailed and brutally revealing of everything that is wrong with the recording.

I have been to quite a few hifi shows lately (Eindhoven, Paris and Brussels) and it is a fact that the vast majority of the systems are sounding more or less bright and not really musical. Some of them are even sounding spectacular but I wouldn't even bother to take them home even for a tiny fraction of their price because after 2-3 tracks there were already sounding fatiguing. I am aware that this flaws are partly coming from the subobtimal rooms and set-ups. But then from time to time I enter a room (say just for example the full total dac room in Paris show) and suddenly I feel like being home and having a rest. I think I am being caricatural but this is just to share my thoughts and feelings that echo somehow this statement above.
Nowadays it seems to me that you have to choose your side: analytical vs musical (YMMV especially if you have comfortable/unlimited budget). Same choice goes for manufacturers, and it looks like the analytical is winning the game. This is fine but problem is that analytical system (I had for example Devialet or Tidal in the past) requires a top notch set-up to not sound bright.

 

[Al M.]

Well, I thought for a moment you had a point. So, I Googled literally meaning and blown away meaning. The Oxford Dictionary definition, Informal uses literally the way I did. Blown away is defined as very impressed. Sorry I’m on solid ground here.

Indeed, Oxford definition of "literal":

lit·er·al·ly
/ˈlidərəlē,ˈlitrəlē/
adverb
in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
"the driver took it literally when asked to go straight across the traffic circle"

INFORMAL
used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.
"I was literally blown away by the response I got"

 

[andromedaaudio]

The only transducers that can blow you away are the FSD Horns from china

 

[Al M.]

I have been to quite a few hifi shows lately (Eindhoven, Paris and Brussels) and it is a fact that the vast majority of the systems are sounding more or less bright and not really musical. Some of them are even sounding spectacular but I wouldn't even bother to take them home even for a tiny fraction of their price because after 2-3 tracks there were already sounding fatiguing.

I don't find anything that doesn't sound natural to sound "spectacular".

After one day at T.H.E. Show 2024 in SoCal my ears were bleeding, even though I took great care to leave if it was too loud. Much of the sound was just hard, harsh, shrill and bright. There was some good sound, but it was in the minority.

 

[Al M.]

As explained above, my reference was dCS Vivaldi and I don't feel short-changed with my digital system at a fraction of the cost,

Having heard expensive dCS and MSB at length in diverse systems I have come to the conclusion that most DACs such as these are overpriced. You can get great sound for much less money.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Having heard expensive dCS and MSB at length in diverse systems I have come to the conclusion that most DACs such as these are overpriced. You can get great sound for much less money.

Same here .
I keep my ML 360S , untill a wadax

 

[Phantom-Audio]

We need to tread carefully when discussing DCS on this forum, as they might respond quite aggressively.

 

[Al M.]

The by a considerable margin best system that I have heard featured a DAC that cost just $2,700:

Jim's Powerful Sound

www.whatsbestforum.com

Of course, the generous size of the room played a big factor, as did the large speakers that could effortlessly fill it with sound.

 

[Charles S]

I can't agree that relatively inexpensive DAC's can perform nearly as well as a dCS or Wadax, using them as examples. However, in my system I wouldn't want one because I have produced a sound that I absolutely love. In the right ultra high end system, there would be no comparison of a MCD12000 to a Varese or other top line DAC's. Ditto for other 10K to 20K DAC's. I mean you have to put the system together in its entirety and when you put these ultra expensive DAC's with the appropriate gear in the right room, IMO they will very significantly outperform lesser DAC's.

Unless you have an absolutely enormous budget, the difference is IMO considerably lessened as you descend the high end mountain. I'm very happy because to my ears, my MCD12000 is the best sounding cd player I have heard in my system by a wide margin. And I love the ability to choose the SS or tube output as I choose. IMO, a statement like "the best DAC I have heard," is not relevant because the circumstances are not well defined. My question to a statement like that would be, "Under what set of circumstances?" Have you auditioned a Varese or Wadax in your system? There is very likely a very weak link in the chain that is greatly hindering the performance of the dCS or Wada. That's the reason that I like my system so much. There is no weak link. All my source gear and amplification is current McIntosh reference and all my power is topline AQ.

Again, I think that you would discover that under the appropriate set of circumstances, there would be by a huge margin, a difference between these DAC's and the 10-20K DAC, including mine.

Amps: McIntosh: MC3500MKII (2); MC1.25KW (2); MC2.1KW An
Preamp: C-12000 An
Sources: MCD12000 An; MVP881; MVP851; MR87; Marantz 510LV; Lenovo Yoga laptop
Speakers: Wilson Chronosonic XVX
Sub-Woofer: Wilson Thor’s Hammer; Wilson ActivXO Stereo Electronic Crossover
Cables Main System AQ: WEL Signature speaker cables; 24’ balanced IC; balanced 1-meter Dragon IC ; WEL Signature digital, Coffee digital coaxial cables; Diamond optical (2); Diamond USB; Dragon (5 HC, 3 source cords); Thunder & Monsoon power cords
Cables Subwoofer System AQ: Redwood speaker cable; Wolf balanced subwoofer IC; Wind balanced IC to ActivXO; Hurricane HC; Firebird HC; Firebird Source; Dragon HC, power cords
Power Conditioners: AQ Niagara 7000; Niagara 5000 (3); (4) dedicated 20-amp lines.
Isolation: Wilson Pedestals; Bassocontinuo McIntosh Ultra Feet; X-material plinth
Cabinet: Double Custom Woodwork & Design (CWD)
Acoustic Treatments: Room and Echo Tunes

 

[andromedaaudio]

Guys just buy a 100K four box dac if the reviewers say its better , pleaese dont question authority.
Just switch powercords and interlinks untill you love it

 

[Charles S]

Guys just buy a 100K four box dac if the reviewers say its better , pleaese dont question authority.
Just switch powercords and interlinks untill you love it

Actually a 217K five box and this doesn't include a transport. But it's the best. There's always a need for the very best.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Actually a 217K five box and this doesn't include a transport. But it's the best. There's always a need for the very best.

Dont worry there will a 6 box coming out soon.
Probably in cooperation with a cable manufacturer lol

 

[DasguteOhr]

Dont worry there will a 6 box coming out soon.
Probably in cooperation with a cable manufacturer lol

it's old hat 25 years ago there were 5 box digital wadia 7/9/10+ 2 psu ...
a part more is not noticeable at all
P.S
actually there are 6 parts the remote control weighs 4 kilograms

 

[Al M.]

I can't agree that relatively inexpensive DAC's can perform nearly as well as a dCS or Wadax, using them as examples. However, in my system I wouldn't want one because I have produced a sound that I absolutely love. In the right ultra high end system, there would be no comparison of a MCD12000 to a Varese or other top line DAC's. Ditto for other 10K to 20K DAC's. I mean you have to put the system together in its entirety and when you put these ultra expensive DAC's with the appropriate gear in the right room, IMO they will very significantly outperform lesser DAC's.

Unless you have an absolutely enormous budget, the difference is IMO considerably lessened as you descend the high end mountain. I'm very happy because to my ears, my MCD12000 is the best sounding cd player I have heard in my system by a wide margin. And I love the ability to choose the SS or tube output as I choose. IMO, a statement like "the best DAC I have heard," is not relevant because the circumstances are not well defined. My question to a statement like that would be, "Under what set of circumstances?" Have you auditioned a Varese or Wadax in your system? There is very likely a very weak link in the chain that is greatly hindering the performance of the dCS or Wada. That's the reason that I like my system so much. There is no weak link. All my source gear and amplification is current McIntosh reference and all my power is topline AQ.

Again, I think that you would discover that under the appropriate set of circumstances, there would be by a huge margin, a difference between these DAC's and the 10-20K DAC, including mine.

Amps: McIntosh: MC3500MKII (2); MC1.25KW (2); MC2.1KW An
Preamp: C-12000 An
Sources: MCD12000 An; MVP881; MVP851; MR87; Marantz 510LV; Lenovo Yoga laptop
Speakers: Wilson Chronosonic XVX
Sub-Woofer: Wilson Thor’s Hammer; Wilson ActivXO Stereo Electronic Crossover
Cables Main System AQ: WEL Signature speaker cables; 24’ balanced IC; balanced 1-meter Dragon IC ; WEL Signature digital, Coffee digital coaxial cables; Diamond optical (2); Diamond USB; Dragon (5 HC, 3 source cords); Thunder & Monsoon power cords
Cables Subwoofer System AQ: Redwood speaker cable; Wolf balanced subwoofer IC; Wind balanced IC to ActivXO; Hurricane HC; Firebird HC; Firebird Source; Dragon HC, power cords
Power Conditioners: AQ Niagara 7000; Niagara 5000 (3); (4) dedicated 20-amp lines.
Isolation: Wilson Pedestals; Bassocontinuo McIntosh Ultra Feet; X-material plinth
Cabinet: Double Custom Woodwork & Design (CWD)
Acoustic Treatments: Room and Echo Tunes

You make interesting points, but where is the evidence?

You say:
"In the right ultra high end system, there would be no comparison of a MCD12000 to a Varese or other top line DAC's."

Have you heard one of the super-expensive DACs in your system? Apparently you didn't.

"In the right ultra high end system, there would be no comparison of a MCD12000 to a Varese or other top line DAC's. Ditto for other 10K to 20K DAC's. I mean you have to put the system together in its entirety and when you put these ultra expensive DAC's with the appropriate gear in the right room, IMO they will very significantly outperform lesser DAC's."

Again, how do you know? By looking at the price tag?

 

[Argonaut]

Same here .
I keep my ML 360S , untill a wadax

Do you not recognise your own hypocrisy here ?

 

[Rensselaer]

The thread is about what is wrong with Hi Fi. It is the belief of some that digital is wrong with hi fi. I believe that digital is more resolving, more detailed than analogue, at the expense of being less musical. That is the direction that our hobby has gone, but was it driven by audiophiles or product manufacturers?

What the last few entries on this thread shows me is that the perception by some is that only by buying the newest and most expensive gear will one reach audio nirvana. Problem is, that has been the mantra year after year since the 80’s. Every time you think you have made your last purchase, a new and improved upgrade is revealed. It is Albert Camus’ “The Myth of Sisyphus” in real life. Every time the audiophile gets the bolder to the top of the hill, it rolls back down and he must push it up yet again.

 

[Al M.]

The thread is about what is wrong with Hi Fi. It is the belief of some that digital is wrong with hi fi. I believe that digital is more resolving, more detailed than analogue, at the expense of being less musical. That is the direction that our hobby has gone, but was it driven by audiophiles or product manufacturers.

What the last few entries on this thread shows me is that the perception by some is that only by buying the newest and most expensive gear will one reach audio nirvana. Problem is, that has been the mantra year after year since the 80’s. Every time you think you have made your last purchase, a new and improved upgrade is revealed. It is Albert Camus’ “The Myth of Sisyphus” in real life. Every time the audiophile gets the bolder to the top of the hill, it rolls back down and he must push it up yet again.

Yesterday evening I was listening on my digital to Eybler string quintets (modern instruments, or strings on the instruments) and Haydn string quartets (Quatuor Mosaiques, period instruments). I was completely glued to my stereo, it felt so natural, engaging, musical and live, just right. I could hardly stop listening, I had to force myself away at the end (you gotta sleep sometime). I have rarely experienced such a live feeling on this kind of music from vinyl in other systems.

My entire digital chain, including cables and power cords, is only around $ 11K; the DAC is $ 2,200 (for details, see my signature). You just have to know what you're doing, including properly tuning your entire system of course.

 

[MarcelNL]

The main issue I see is that somewhere a majority of both manufacturers and audiophiles seem to have gotten to a point where they are missing a reference to how music sounds.

The quest for 'detail, more detail' coupled to the misconception that 'newer is always better' seems to have gotten in the way of 'involvement, more emotion' and 'horses for courses'.... something like detail IMHO is a means to a goal, not a goal in itself.

A few days ago I heard a very nice turntable, linked to a great tube phono and triode power amp into some decent Tannoy speakers, it sounded HIFI/High-End....until the designer wanted to try the SUT at 1:15 rather than 1:30....all of a sudden it was magic, spooky....easily the best analog I heard to date. A different set using an EMT 927 setup (the 'travel kit'), a tube phono stage and a flea powered triode 'power amp' and some vintage multicell mid horn in a newly designed speaker set was most convincing and involving.

Both sets definitely will not come close to the prices seen on the sets that frequent shows like High End Munich (all north of 100K, boy now that is inflation) but for sure both sounded FAR better than anything I heard there.

 

[Al M.]

The main issue I see is that somewhere a majority of both manufacturers and audiophiles seem to have gotten to a point where they are missing a reference to how music sounds.

The quest for 'detail, more detail' coupled to the misconception that 'newer is always better' seems to have gotten in the way of 'involvement, more emotion' and 'horses for courses'.... something like detail IMHO is a means to a goal, not a goal in itself.

Yes, you need to know how music sounds. There is nothing wrong with detail per se, but it depends on how it's presented. As I wrote earlier in the thread:

The quality of presentation of detail of an instrument's tone, or that of groups of instruments, matters. My current speakers present as much detail as my previous monitors, if not more. Yet the detail draws less attention to itself than before. In that sense it more resembles the experience of detail in live music.

 

[wil]

The thread is about what is wrong with Hi Fi. It is the belief of some that digital is wrong with hi fi. I believe that digital is more resolving, more detailed than analogue, at the expense of being less musical.

No doubt you’ve heard bad digital setups that have formed your opinions? But I can tell you my current system with digital source sounds completely natural with none of the tired cliches mentioned above. And the music is “musical.”

I think it’s time to start looking elsewhere for why so much hi fi sounds bad.