Is High End Audio Gear Worth the Money?

[Atmasphere]

I've never had to explain to anyone hearing my system what to listen for. They usually comment on the spacious nature of the music and how its like the musicians are right there.

 

[Rexp]

I've never had to explain to anyone hearing my system what to listen for. They usually comment on the spacious nature of the music and how its like the musicians are right there.

Most Audiophiles haven't heard good imaging because most speakers are not capable of revealing it, assuming it's on the recording.

 

[Atmasphere]

Most Audiophiles haven't heard good imaging because most speakers are not capable of revealing it, assuming it's on the recording.

I really wonder what is meant by 'most' in the statement above! Using the same word I find 'most' speakers are easily capable of good imaging and 'most' audiophiles I've met know what that sounds like. But as a manufacturer my world is likely quite a bit different from yours, for example I like to use LPs and CDs I recorded as reference since I was there when the recording was made.

 

[DaveC]

Most Audiophiles haven't heard good imaging because most speakers are not capable of revealing it, assuming it's on the recording.

It's getting a lot better, I think more speaker mfg'ers are aware of the importance of a smooth polar response these days, but it's definitely true that many speakers do not have a smooth polar plot. This makes for reflections that don't match, and this impacts the spatial characteristics and timbre negatively. Despite these shortcomings you can still get good imaging, but you won't get a 3-D immersive soundstage that provides a "you are there" experience. Other issues include colored crossover components, poor xo design in general, poor quality connectors and wire within the speaker, cabinet diffraction and isolation from the floor. All of these are less ignored now than they used to be

The "you are there" presentation depends on the entire system performing at a high level and this includes cables and AC power, so those who don't "believe" these things make a difference will never get there and don't even understand what you're talking about.

This is the entire problem with Harmon's preference testing and it's why their conclusions are simply wrong in some ways. A 3-D immersive presentation is, by far, the primary driver of listener preference if it's actually presented to the listener. But in the case of Harmon's testing they never got there due to shortcomings of their systems and set up. They did get to the fact that a smooth polar is important and focus on that, but that is only a part of what contributes to a "you are there" soundstage experience. Achieving an immersive soundstage is also a preference because it means other aspects are also correct, realistic sounding timbre goes hand in hand with soundstage quality and requires at least decent room acoustics, for example.

 

[treitz3]

Most Audiophiles haven't heard good imaging because most speakers are not capable of revealing it, assuming it's on the recording.

I dunno man.....if one hasn't experienced good imaging (or a stellar, true 3-D image), then I wouldn't exactly call them an audiophile. Maybe an enthusiast?

Tom

 

[Rexp]

It's getting a lot better, I think more speaker mfg'ers are aware of the importance of a smooth polar response these days, but it's definitely true that many speakers do not have a smooth polar plot. This makes for reflections that don't match, and this impacts the spatial characteristics and timbre negatively. Despite these shortcomings you can still get good imaging, but you won't get a 3-D immersive soundstage that provides a "you are there" experience. Other issues include colored crossover components, poor xo design in general, poor quality connectors and wire within the speaker, cabinet diffraction and isolation from the floor. All of these are less ignored now than they used to be

The "you are there" presentation depends on the entire system performing at a high level and this includes cables and AC power, so those who don't "believe" these things make a difference will never get there and don't even understand what you're talking about.

This is the entire problem with Harmon's preference testing and it's why their conclusions are simply wrong in some ways. A 3-D immersive presentation is, by far, the primary driver of listener preference if it's actually presented to the listener. But in the case of Harmon's testing they never got there due to shortcomings of their systems and set up. They did get to the fact that a smooth polar is important and focus on that, but that is only a part of what contributes to a "you are there" soundstage experience. Achieving an immersive soundstage is also a preference because it means other aspects are also correct, realistic sounding timbre goes hand in hand with soundstage quality and requires at least decent room acoustics, for example.

Yes, when I say good imaging I mean 3D imaging. Listening nearfield helps minimise room effects, everyone should be able to achieve 3D imaging at home.

 

[JiminGa]

It's getting a lot better, I think more speaker mfg'ers are aware of the importance of a smooth polar response these days, but it's definitely true that many speakers do not have a smooth polar plot. This makes for reflections that don't match, and this impacts the spatial characteristics and timbre negatively. Despite these shortcomings you can still get good imaging, but you won't get a 3-D immersive soundstage that provides a "you are there" experience. Other issues include colored crossover components, poor xo design in general, poor quality connectors and wire within the speaker, cabinet diffraction and isolation from the floor. All of these are less ignored now than they used to be

The "you are there" presentation depends on the entire system performing at a high level and this includes cables and AC power, so those who don't "believe" these things make a difference will never get there and don't even understand what you're talking about.

This is the entire problem with Harmon's preference testing and it's why their conclusions are simply wrong in some ways. A 3-D immersive presentation is, by far, the primary driver of listener preference if it's actually presented to the listener. But in the case of Harmon's testing they never got there due to shortcomings of their systems and set up. They did get to the fact that a smooth polar is important and focus on that, but that is only a part of what contributes to a "you are there" soundstage experience. Achieving an immersive soundstage is also a preference because it means other aspects are also correct, realistic sounding timbre goes hand in hand with soundstage quality and requires at least decent room acoustics, for example.

Good points. BTW when does your new Kumihimo come out?

 

[microstrip]

(...) The "you are there" presentation depends on the entire system performing at a high level and this includes cables and AC power, so those who don't "believe" these things make a difference will never get there and don't even understand what you're talking about. (...)

Yes, surely.

This is the entire problem with Harmon's preference testing and it's why their conclusions are simply wrong in some ways.

IMO the Harman main "problem" is on the abusive marketing use of their sponsored research. If people read the complete publications on their research ( including the F. Toole book) they will understand it. This research has an objective that is not pleasing the high-end objectives as we see them on WBF - it is mainly pleasing an average preference with a predictable, easily attainable type of sound that most people can enjoy. But surely the fundamental aspects of this research transcends it and has strongly influenced modern speaker design, even in the high-end. BTW, we can learn a lot from serious reviews of those who effectively read the F. Toole book.

A 3-D immersive presentation is, by far, the primary driver of listener preference if it's actually presented to the listener. But in the case of Harmon's testing they never got there due to shortcomings of their systems and set up. They did get to the fact that a smooth polar is important and focus on that, but that is only a part of what contributes to a "you are there" soundstage experience. Achieving an immersive soundstage is also a preference because it means other aspects are also correct, realistic sounding timbre goes hand in hand with soundstage quality and requires at least decent room acoustics, for example.

Audiophiles have very different and fine tuned preferences. It is what makes this a very interesting hobby. Problems can show when some one or a group (designer, manufacturer or consumer) claims his particular type of audiophile preference is the ONE, and develops an usually abusive and elitist logic to support it. As you, I appreciate the "you are there" but accept that many others like other type of stereo sound.

 

[hopkins]

Yes, when I say good imaging I mean 3D imaging. Listening nearfield helps minimise room effects, everyone should be able to achieve 3D imaging at home.

Listening nearfield does not eliminate all room effects (especially in lower frequencies), and the results may also depend on the speakers (point source vs multi-way, for example).

I like to listen to my system in mid-field, around 2.5 meters away, where in spite of less than perfect room acoustics (and speakers) I enjoy the sense of "presence" of vocals and instruments, and have a nice soundstage. But I also enjoy sitting on my terrace with the windows open to my living room with the speakers 15 meters away. I also sometimes listen "nearfield" but generally exclusively to mono tracks on a single speaker, late at night when it is quiet and I want to listen at low volume. I find it more relaxing to listen in nearfield in mono than stereo. The sense of presence can still be excellent even though you don't get the depth and soundstage of stereo.

 

[thedudeabides]

I dunno man.....if one hasn't experienced good imaging (or a stellar, true 3-D image), then I wouldn't exactly call them an audiophile. Maybe an enthusiast?

Tom

With all due respect, that's a generalization and a hardware driven perspective. There are certainly alternative views.

 

[Gregm]

I've never had to explain to anyone hearing my system what to listen for. They usually comment on the spacious nature of the music and how its like the musicians are right there.

What speakers do you use in that system ?
BTW, visitors listening to my system usually make similar comments...

 

[Atmasphere]

What speakers do you use in that system ?
BTW, visitors listening to my system usually make similar comments...

I'm using Classic Audio Loudspeakers model T3.3, which are custom built to be flat to 20Hz. They are 98dB and 16 Ohms, with field coil powered woofers and midrange. The midrange employs a beryllium diaphragm with a Kapton surround which has its first breakup at about 35kHz. So the critical midrange is exceptionally smooth, fast and detailed.

 

[DaveC]

Yes, surely.



IMO the Harman main "problem" is on the abusive marketing use of their sponsored research. If people read the complete publications on their research ( including the F. Toole book) they will understand it. This research has an objective that is not pleasing the high-end objectives as we see them on WBF - it is mainly pleasing an average preference with a predictable, easily attainable type of sound that most people can enjoy. But surely the fundamental aspects of this research transcends it and has strongly influenced modern speaker design, even in the high-end. BTW, we can learn a lot from serious reviews of those who effectively read the F. Toole book.



Audiophiles have very different and fine tuned preferences. It is what makes this a very interesting hobby. Problems can show when some one or a group (designer, manufacturer or consumer) claims his particular type of audiophile preference is the ONE, and develops an usually abusive and elitist logic to support it. As you, I appreciate the "you are there" but accept that many others like other type of stereo sound.

I don't believe Harman's setup was ideal enough to maximize spatial presentation, without this most listeners simply don't know what's possible and are left to choose among many other factors to determine preference.

One example is the fact a bipole speaker, Martin Logan I think, was tested alongside conventional speakers in the same acoustic space, which may favor one type of speaker over another. The same electronics were used, which again may favor one speaker over another. I am guessing here, but I'd think that commodity level cables were used, which will prevent the best possible spatial presentation and homogenizes timbre. This is FAR from ideal and only the issues I know of, there may have been many more that compromise the system's performance or favor one speaker over another.

I have done a lot of my own preference testing and my conclusions are similar to your last paragraph with one exception. EVERYONE notices the 3-D immersive "you are there" presentation, this is ubiquitous and certainly surprised me. It was a surprise because otherwise preferences and what people notice about the sound was all over the place. Some honed in on highs, some bass, some dynamics. Some things one person noticed and commented on was simply not recognized by others. The most variable preference is for warmth. The most consistent preference was for a "you are there" presentation. The results did surprise me, I'm only conveying my results of doing my own preference testing, and not my own opinions on what people prefer. I certainly make no claims that one preference is right and another wrong, in fact I have offered multiple cables with different levels of warmth to fit different preferences, and while I no longer offer this for ICs, because they are so critical to achieving "you are there", I do offer different PCs and SCs with different levels of warmth to suit different systems and preferences.

While I have no firm views on audio preferences, and certainly won't say one is right or wrong, I have noticed over the years that with experience and time, preferences tend to converge on the actual definition of "High Fidelity". I base my own designs on objective criteria almost entirely because for my own preferences and those I see in my more experienced customers, objective improvement and subjective preference go hand-in-hand.

 

[DaveC]

Good points. BTW when does your new Kumihimo come out?

Thanks.... On Kumihimo, I'm trying to figure out how to introduce them without lead times getting too long, and they are already longer than I'd like. I'm thinking I may introduce them with a new webpage as planned, but not offer a way to order them without contacting me so we have an agreement on lead times and maybe require a refundable deposit. I don't think these can be a cable you can just order like any other of my products, the last thing I want is to make promises I can't deliver on. Long lead times and a wait list aren't what I envisioned but may have to be what I settle for right now.

 

[Rexp]

I don't believe Harman's setup was ideal enough to maximize spatial presentation, without this most listeners simply don't know what's possible and are left to choose among many other factors to determine preference.

One example is the fact a bipole speaker, Martin Logan I think, was tested alongside conventional speakers in the same acoustic space, which may favor one type of speaker over another. The same electronics were used, which again may favor one speaker over another. I am guessing here, but I'd think that commodity level cables were used, which will prevent the best possible spatial presentation and homogenizes timbre. This is FAR from ideal and only the issues I know of, there may have been many more that compromise the system's performance or favor one speaker over another.

I have done a lot of my own preference testing and my conclusions are similar to your last paragraph with one exception. EVERYONE notices the 3-D immersive "you are there" presentation, this is ubiquitous and certainly surprised me. It was a surprise because otherwise preferences and what people notice about the sound was all over the place. Some honed in on highs, some bass, some dynamics. Some things one person noticed and commented on was simply not recognized by others. The most variable preference is for warmth. The most consistent preference was for a "you are there" presentation. The results did surprise me, I'm only conveying my results of doing my own preference testing, and not my own opinions on what people prefer. I certainly make no claims that one preference is right and another wrong, in fact I have offered multiple cables with different levels of warmth to fit different preferences, and while I no longer offer this for ICs, because they are so critical to achieving "you are there", I do offer different PCs and SCs with different levels of warmth to suit different systems and preferences.

While I have no firm views on audio preferences, and certainly won't say one is right or wrong, I have noticed over the years that with experience and time, preferences tend to converge on the actual definition of "High Fidelity". I base my own designs on objective criteria almost entirely because for my own preferences and those I see in my more experienced customers, objective improvement and subjective preference go hand-in-hand.

Which speakers do you find offer the best combo of 3D imaging and effortless dynamics?

 

[microstrip]

I don't believe Harman's setup was ideal enough to maximize spatial presentation, without this most listeners simply don't know what's possible and are left to choose among many other factors to determine preference.

One example is the fact a bipole speaker, Martin Logan I think, was tested alongside conventional speakers in the same acoustic space, which may favor one type of speaker over another. The same electronics were used, which again may favor one speaker over another. I am guessing here, but I'd think that commodity level cables were used, which will prevent the best possible spatial presentation and homogenizes timbre. This is FAR from ideal and only the issues I know of, there may have been many more that compromise the system's performance or favor one speaker over another.

Those Harman tests were carried in mono - surely they could not have the best spatial presentation. They focused on tonal balance, coloration and overall timbre, which are the most critical aspects of perceived sound quality according to F. Toole. It is why they are criticized by some people.

I have done a lot of my own preference testing and my conclusions are similar to your last paragraph with one exception. EVERYONE notices the 3-D immersive "you are there" presentation, this is ubiquitous and certainly surprised me. It was a surprise because otherwise preferences and what people notice about the sound was all over the place. Some honed in on highs, some bass, some dynamics. Some things one person noticed and commented on was simply not recognized by others. The most variable preference is for warmth. The most consistent preference was for a "you are there" presentation. The results did surprise me, I'm only conveying my results of doing my own preference testing, and not my own opinions on what people prefer. I certainly make no claims that one preference is right and another wrong, in fact I have offered multiple cables with different levels of warmth to fit different preferences, and while I no longer offer this for ICs, because they are so critical to achieving "you are there", I do offer different PCs and SCs with different levels of warmth to suit different systems and preferences.

When we carry tests we always indirectly guide people. Even our systems introduce our biases in the equation.

While I have no firm views on audio preferences, and certainly won't say one is right or wrong, I have noticed over the years that with experience and time, preferences tend to converge on the actual definition of "High Fidelity". I base my own designs on objective criteria almost entirely because for my own preferences and those I see in my more experienced customers, objective improvement and subjective preference go hand-in-hand.

You are addressing "experienced" customers. They were not the target of the Toole and Olive tests. But now I am confused - what are the objective criteria of your cables?