Is High End Audio Gear Worth the Money?

[Amir]

There is a nuance you may not have considered. @PeterA's speakers are an older design intended for amps of a fairly high output impedance. If you put an amp with a very low output impedance on there (solid state amp) the crossover in the speaker may not work properly and the amp could sound quite colored on it as a result. No doubt part of the reason some solid state advocates wonder what the appeal of horns is all about.

By direct comparison on such a speaker, Peter's amps could come off quite a bit more neutral.

Let's be clear about one other thing: if the solid state amp is bright, that is no less a coloration. On speakers like Peter's they may exhibit a 'one note bass' phenomena too, since the speaker was designed before the 'Voltage drive' rules became commonplace. More about this.

This is very important, speaker/amplifier matching is the key to get least coloration.
With Perfect matching you can not easily detect the amplifier sound signature or speaker sound signature.

Amplifier speaker matching is one of my three basic audio rules.

 

[PeterA]

@bonzo75 , what do you find funny about Amir’s post?

 

[hopkins]

Amplifier speaker matching is one of my three basic audio rules.

What are the other two?

 

[andromedaaudio]

With Perfect matching you can not easily detect the amplifier sound signature or speaker sound signature.

Thats just the starting point
What kind of expert are you ?
Remember were on WBF not a audiobeginners forum

 

[bonzo75]

@bonzo75 , what do you find funny about Amir’s post?

It seemed he invented amplifier matching. I understand your need to support him when he says even the wrong things because he mentions David in high regard.

 

[Ron Resnick]

what do you mean by 'colored'?

I'm not sure. It's not a term I use. I guess it could mean a tonal anomaly or a tonal imbalance or a homogenization.

 

[PeterA]

It seemed he invented amplifier matching. I understand your need to support him when he says even the wrong things because he mentions David in high regard.

You missed the point. My question is not to support Amir. It was simply to understand what you found funny about his comment about amp speaker matching.

 

[hopkins]

This is getting silly. Everyone who is in this hobby wants to get lost in music, blah blah blah. What everyone experiences listening to music is the topic for a shrink rather than an audio forum, and it does not tell anything about the specificities of your system. I think I have mentioned this before. Our exchanges are pointless.

OCD HiFi Guy has a video where his wife walks in the room and starts crying listening to music.

I played Johnny Cash for my girlfriend and she started crying because it reminded her of a childhood friend who had just passed away.

PeterA talks about his fond memories of attending concerts with his parents as a child. Maybe that's a driver for his obsession with recreating what he considers to be "live" sound (and what could be perceived by some as an acoustic nightmare).

You can read about audiophiles having "strong emotional responses" to music on audio forums all the time, to a point where it gets tedious.

The reality, however, is that these say very little about the system. Music can trigger those personal, individual, responses whether you listen to a high end system or a bluetooth speaker.

 

[bonzo75]

You missed the point. My question is not to support Amir. It was simply to understand what you found funny about his comment about amp speaker matching.

You did on the neutral natural thing where he was incorrect even in stating David’s points

 

[bonzo75]

it could mean a tonal anomaly or a tonal imbalance or a homogenization.

These three things are not the same so nothing can mean all three

 

[treitz3]

Blah, blah, blah, blah....

Blah, blah, blah, blah....

Blah, blah, blah, blah....

What does ANY of this have to do with high end gear being worth the money? It's all conjecture, agenda or bias based....from what the readers are seeing. Is it (The High End) worth the money?

Let's please get back to quality posts versus quantity posts. The squabbling back and forth here is tiresome (ad nauseam) , to be honest.

Tom

 

[Amir]

It seemed he invented amplifier matching. I understand your need to support him when he says even the wrong things because he mentions David in high regard.

you even can not understand what I said.
Admin closed my topic Because of Your nonsense off-topic posts. Shame

 

[Amir]

What are the other two?

Three basic rules :

1- DPOLS (Speaker placement)
2- AC Power Quality
3- matching of Amplifier and Speaker

 

[Gregm]

Let's please get back to quality posts versus quantity posts.

OK, here is one consideration that says, any response to the topic will be mostly, or somewhat, subjective: high-end gear is usually very well finished, speakers often have exquisite polishing and extraordinary shapes, electronics have creative designed cases out of expensive materials, etc. These visual design aspects push up the price and attract buyers.
But they do not necessarily make said amplifier sound better; e.g. the XYZ signature -meta -evo -series 69 amplifier, with the brushed alu case milled from a solid block (+5-10k on RRP), could just as well have been cased in a simple, good quality, metal box (+1-1.5k of RRP) and produced the same sound.
Is the packaging worth it?

The squabbling back and forth here is tiresome (ad nauseam) , to be honest.
Tom

Agreed

 

[Al M.]

OK, here is one consideration that says, any response to the topic will be mostly, or somewhat, subjective: high-end gear is usually very well finished, speakers often have exquisite polishing and extraordinary shapes. These visual design aspects push up the price and attract buyers. But they do not necessarily positively impact the sonic performance; IOW, e.g. the XYZ signature meta evo series 69 amplifier, with the brushed alu case milled from a solid block (+5-10k on RR), could just as well have been cased in a simple, good quality, metal box (+1-1.5k of RRP).
Is it worth it?

How is the visual aspect essential to high end? I don't see it. I thought it was performance based, the rest is just glitter around it.

As for impact on sonic performance, gloss finish actually has a negative one. Acoustically it's a no-no because of the reflections. I have covered the (alas non-optional) gloss finish of my subwoofers with black rubber cloth for that reason. Left uncovered, at high playback levels it literally distorts the sound dispersed on it from the main speakers which the subs stand next to. The worst imaginable, in my view, is gloss finish on horn speakers.

 

[Gregm]

How is the visual aspect essential to high end? I don't see it. I thought it was performance based, the rest is just glitter around it.

Yes Al, what I am saying is that a big part of the price of high-end gear is the glitter you mention

 

[Al M.]

Yes Al, what I am saying is that a big part of the price of high-end gear is the glitter you mention

Unfortunately, yes.

 

[tima]

If there is no neutral, then against what standard is "colored" evaluated?

---

Here is the discussion:

Hello Peter,

Do you consider your Lamm ML2s to be neutral?

There is no neutral.

Tone color (timbre) comes from harmonics and overtones.

Tone colour is different from the coloured used to describe components, which means a constant homogenising attribute is being applied. If a system makes every recording to have the same soundstage, it is coloured.

Neutral is less homogenising and letting more differences and changes through

I know some people think that neutral is just clinically analytical grey tone

Ok. I think the word 'homogenizing' is a better choice as it is explicit vs 'colored'. Or perhaps having a particular 'signature' is akin to homogenizing. I prefer to stay away from 'neutral'. The less fungible the audiophile words, the better.

If there is no neutral, then against what standard is "colored" evaluated?

what do you mean by 'colored'?

I'm not sure. It's not a term I use. I guess it could mean a tonal anomaly or a tonal imbalance or a homogenization.

Ok. Your uncertainty makes my point. 'Colored' is not a good word because it is ambiguous.

Much of the froo-froo that happens in audio discussion here (and elsewhere) comes from people having different meanings for different terminologies and each party not realising that. Witness a 14 page thread on the word 'Resolution' or a 4 page thread on the word 'Transparency'. Ensuing discussions attempt to work out what audio words mean but typically end up with a bunch of different opinions and no conclusion for going forward.

(Sidebar: Inevitably a few who enjoy confusion and argument whine about vocabulary dictatorship. The aim at codification of meaning is in pursuit of reducing confusion and argument so that discussion can proceed without getting bogged down in word meaning. But we will never rid ourselves of the self-righteous who like to say such things as 'vocabulary dictatorship' but otherwise do nothing to move the discussion forward.)

When you say "I guess it could mean a tonal anomaly or a tonal imbalance or a homogenization." then my suggestion is to use "tonaly anomaly" or use "homogenization" when that is what you mean. Be explicit. If I had answered your question "If there is no neutral, then against what standard is "colored" evaluated?" then I would either embrace the ambiguity (compounding it) or launch into a discussion of word meanings. Since you acknowledge uncertainty about the meaning of 'colored' whatever answer I gave may not be satisfactory to you.

When I said "There is no neutral." in response to your question about Lamm amp coloration, I meant there is no sound or music without tonality -- taking 'color' as tone color. Yes, it may have been a provocative answer. I don't use the word 'colored' to mean 'homogenized'. I felt the interchange with bonzo cleared things up (a post you liked, but maybe not enough :-o ) .

Both 'neutral' and 'colored' are ambiguous.

The less fungible the audiophile words, the more explicit one is, the better. But we can still argue about other things.

 

[hopkins]

(Sidebar: Inevitably a few who enjoy confusion and argument whine about vocabulary dictatorship. The aim at codification of meaning is in pursuit of reducing confusion and argument so that discussion can proceed without getting bogged down in word meaning. But we will never rid ourselves of the self-righteous who like to say such things as 'vocabulary dictatorship' but otherwise do nothing to move the discussion forward.)

LOL. The confusion comes from the fact that some dismiss ANY attempt to qualify sound attributes (regardless of the vocabulary used). In that context, don't be surprised that vocabulary becomes meaningless and things can be seen as positives or negatives to suit the author.

 

[ssfas]

OCD HiFi Guy has a video where his wife walks in the room and starts crying listening to music.

I played Johnny Cash for my girlfriend and she started crying because it reminded her of a childhood friend who had just passed away.

PeterA talks about his fond memories of attending concerts with his parents as a child. Maybe that's a driver for his obsession with recreating what he considers to be "live" sound (and what could be perceived by some as an acoustic nightmare).

You can read about audiophiles having "strong emotional responses" to music on audio forums all the time, to a point where it gets tedious.

The reality, however, is that these say very little about the system. Music can trigger those personal, individual, responses whether you listen to a high end system or a bluetooth speaker.

If hifi is so great why do people still go to concerts? They seem more popular than ever. Home audio may be better or worse, but never even close to the real experience.

Going to listen to Igor Levit and Lucas Sternath play Prokofiev and Shostakovich tonight - it was sold out months ago.