Low-Fi, Mid-Fi, Hi-Fi, High End, and Ultra High End

1235

Comments

  • WLDock wrote: »
    He was floored at the wholesale cost of a sax that retails for $1500-$3500. As little as $50-$350!!!!! He now sells his own Signature horn line. We was sick at how much he paid for the horns he previously purchased.

    Yeah, retail markup can be astronomical. It is always illuminating to see the deep discounts 50%, 75%, or more, on discontinued items and you know the dealer is still making a nice profit even at those steep discounts.

    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,569
    edited November 2016
    WTS wrote: »
    I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or magical sounds that can't be scientifically documented.

    Your thoughts and memories can't be scientifically documented, yet they exist don't they? For example, it can't be scientifically proven what a thought, or a memory, is made of, or where thoughts and memories are stored in the brain. All scientists have are theories about what goes on in the thought and memory processes.

    Example: I thought about whether to cook breakfast this morning or go to IHOP. Now, ask me to scientifically prove to you what my thoughts were concerning breakfast this morning, or even whether I had such thoughts at all.

    If we knew exactly what thoughts and memories were made of and where they were stored in the brain, we would then be able to directly access a person's thoughts and memories, and criminal trials would be much, much easier (except in the case of delusional or insane persons who can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality).

    Just because you can't hear what someone else hears, it does not mean they are delusional, insane, gullible, or any other insult you want to throw at them. Just because someone has not proven something, to you, with some test you hold near and dear, does not mean the thing does not exist.

    Stereophonic sound is a psychoacoustic effect, it is an aural illusion. Different people have different degrees of sensitivity to perceiving that illusion. Most people have to be taught how to perceive it. I have no difficulty whatsoever in perceiving sound coming from above, behind, in front of, and to the sides of a properly set up pair of stereo loudspeakers. Someone else, not properly trained and experienced in stereophonic sound localization, will hear the sound as just coming from either of the two speakers.

    Right now, I am sitting in the stereo sweet spot typing on my laptop computer as I am listening to Kate Miner Moeble sing. Her voice is placed dead center between my speakers and two feet in front of the speaker plane and 4'-9" from the floor. However, if I put a microphone at that exact three dimensional spot, it would not record the sound of a woman singing directly into a microphone. It would record the sound of the two speakers on either side of it.

    I just think it's silly, hypocritical, and ignorant to insist that everything has to have scientific proof, and I say that as a scientist with over 30 years in my profession. Some things are plausible and reasonable and exist, yet not scientifically proven.

    With regard to stereophonic reproduction, there is nothing "magical" about it. It is simply a three dimensional illusion created in the mind by sending the ears time differentiated signals of a musical performance. Different people will perceive that illusion differently, or not at all. Most people's perceptions will change as they become more experienced in sound localization.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • Lo-Fi
    Mid-Fi
    Hi-Fi
    High End
    Ultra High End

    For me, these terms relate to performance and implementation of a piece of stereophonic reproduction equipment. As you go up the ladder, performance increases and fidelity to the real, actual live sound increases. Performance increases typically involve better materials and better manufacturing processes, and therefore more cost.

    Let's take SDAs for example. The basic circuit design is state of the art and ultra high end because no other loudspeaker, regardless of cost, produces the degree of stereophonic, three-dimensional, sonic holography that SDAs do. Indeed, other, conventional design loudspeakers can't image as well as SDAs because of the fundamental comb filtering effects produced by interaural crosstalk (wherein the right speaker interferes with what the left ear hears and vice-versa).

    However, the SDA circuit design can be physically implemented with lo-fi, mid-fi, hi-fi, high end, or ultra high end performance depending on the cabinet construction, drivers and tweeters, and crossover components.

    I could build a pair lo-fi pair of SDA loudspeakers using cheap cabinets, cheap "throw away" drivers and ear piercing tweeters, and cheap Radio Shack wire, inductors, resistors, and capacitors. I would still get the SDA effect, but due to the mechanical and electrical noise characteristics of the cabinet and electronic components, the stereophonic performance (sound stage), clarity and detail would be severely compromised.

    Next, I could build a mid-fi pair of SDA loudspeakers using well constructed cabinets of average quality materials, with average quality (not the worst performing, but not the best either) electronic components and wire, and average quality drivers and tweeters. I would get a better SDA effect, with a clearer and more detailed sound stage, with tighter and clearer bass due to less cabinet resonance and better transient performance with clearer midrange and highs.

    Next, I could build a hi-fi pair of SDA loudspeakers with well thought out cabinet design with significant antiresonance (monocoque design) features, drivers and tweeters with excellent transient response and clarity, and high quality wiring. This is the level my SDA SRS 1.2TLs were in stock form. With good amplification and proper setup in a proper room, they generated a wide and deep sound stage with excellent clarity and detail and stereophonic imaging.

    Next, I could, and did, extend the performance of my SDA SRS 1.2TL loudspeakers into high end territory with some well thought out implementations of the basic circuit design (under advisement from Polk's engineering department) and further improvements to the cabinet design. With my SDA SRS 1.2TL, the following high end improvements were made:

    1. Custom designed, large size, low resistance, printed circuit crossover board.
    2. High end, very high quality, very low noise resistors, capacitors, and inductors.
    3. Premium quality, low noise internal wiring and external jumpers.
    4. Extensive vibration abatement of the cabinet, drivers, tweeters, and passive radiators.
    5. Steel retaining rings and steel retaining brackets that tightly couple the drivers, tweeters, and passive radiators to the cabinet.
    6. Custom designed, large size, low noise, high current toroidal isolation transformer.
    7. High end cosmetic treatments of the cabinet exteriors with rare exotic wood and more acoustically transparent grille cloth.

    Are they really high end? I know so after listening to high end speakers in the $20K to $40K price range. A few audiophile friends, who have high end speakers in that price range know so too...after listening.

    Next, I could, and would like to, extend the performance of my SDA SRS 1.2TL loudspeakers in to ultra high end territory with state of the art tweeters, drivers, passive radiators, cabinet construction, crossover circuit boards, wire, and electronic components. This would involve a complete redesign of the loudspeaker, but the basic circuit design would remain the same. The implementation, and therefore the stereophonic performance, would be state of the art.

    How much would this implementation cost? A lot! Taking my 1.2TLs from hi-fi to high end cost $7,884.42 in parts cost alone. There was an additional 156.5 hours of labor involved. An electronic technician with my level of knowledge and skill can command around $30 per hour. A conservative estimate of my labor cost was 156.5 x $30 = $4,695. Therefore, my total real modification cost, parts and labor, was $12,579.42. This figure does not include the many hours of technical research involved and the many hours involved searching for and evaluating parts vendors. If I wanted to "hotrod" my 1.2TLs further toward ultra high end territory, I could easily spend over $3,000 per crossover using state of the art components and an external crossover enclosure. However, if I were going to go that far, I would just commission a one-off redesign...from Polk.:)

    Interestingly, most "high end" speakers don't have the quality of circuit boards, crossover components, and wiring that my 1.2TLs have. They do have better drivers and tweeters, and sometimes, but not always, better cabinet structures.

    The automotive analogy of what I did with my 1.2TLs would be "hotrodding", i.e. taking a great, but older, car design and bringing it up to date with higher performance contemporary materials and components. It is not uncommon for a hotrodded older car to outperform, or "smoke", whatever current versions of that brand are rolling off the assembly line in present.

    Currently, I have stereo systems ranging from lo-fi to high end, and I enjoy them all.
    My car and truck have lo-fi systems and I have no desire for better. I just want to hear my favorite music while I am driving with reasonable clarity. I'm not going to get any stereo imaging sitting in the drivers seat, so I'm not going to bother with 12 speakers and high end amps and head unit.

    My bedroom system is mid-fi and I have no desire for better in that application.

    My home theater is a combination of high end video and mid-fi to high end audio components and I have no desire for better in that application. In fact, I actually would like to down size my home theater, but frequent visitors have argued against that, so I gave in...for now.

    My two channel stereo is high end and I have no current desire for better in that application...but I live in the rabbit hole, so we'll see how long my current contentment holds out.




    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • ThortonThorton Posts: 1,243
    Nice write-up DK. It's amazing how much my musical hearing has changed within the past few years and can differentiate many of the things you're talking about. I also find it funny when I have friends or family over and they listen to my system and the only question is "Can they go louder?".
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________
    Source: Roon via ethernet to DAC interface
    DAC: Bricasti M1SE
    Pre/Pro: Marantz AV8805
    Tube Preamp Buffer: Tortuga TPB.V1
    Amp1: W4S MC-5, AMP2: W4S MMC-7
    Front: Salk SoundScape 8's, Center: Salk SoundScape C7
    Surround: Polk FXIA6, Surround Back: Polk RTIA9, Atmos: Polk 70-RT
    Subs: 2 - Rythmik F25's
    IC & Speaker Cables: Acoustic Zen, Wireworld, Signal Cable
    Power Cables: Acoustic Zen, Wireworld, PS Audio
    Room Treatments: GIK Acoustics
  • BlueFoxBlueFox Posts: 12,028
    edited November 2016
    Ray, ignoring cost, how difficult would it be to add SDA circuitry to an existing speaker. For example, my Magico S5s fall into the high-end category, but don't have the SDA effect my SDA-2 speakers did. Would the S5 crossover have to be redesigned to include the SDA circuitry, or would it be an add-on circuit. If add-on would it be possible to make an external box that would add SDA ability to existing speakers. If then that sounds like a market opportunity. :)
    Bud - Silicon Valley

    Lumin X1
    Sony XA-5400ES SACD
    Pass XP-22 pre, X600.5 amps
    Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers, SPOD spikes

    Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on preamp, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
    Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
    Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables

    Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
    Three 20 amp circuits.
  • WTSWTS Posts: 170
    WTS wrote: »
    I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or magical sounds that can't be scientifically documented.

    Your thoughts and memories can't be scientifically documented, yet they exist don't they?

    Do they? How do you know if my thoughts exist? How can I be sure that they exist? How can I be sure that you exist -- not in the Internet catfishing sense, but in an epistemological sense?

    (I recommend Charles Peirce for further reading.)

    Just because you can't hear what someone else hears, it does not mean they are delusional, insane, gullible, or any other insult you want to throw at them. Just because someone has not proven something, to you, with some test you hold near and dear, does not mean the thing does not exist.

    But that does not mean that you can, in fact, hear such things, nor that any differences that may exist are consequential. That's false logic.

    There was a fascinating experiment some years ago, having to do with hearing the sounds of orchestral instruments.

    If you record and play back the sounds produced by various orchestral instruments, most people can differentiate them. You can pitch- and level-match the sounds of a flute, a cello, a trombone, a bassoon, an oboe, etc. You can remove certain typical timbral characteristics of them, such as vibrato. Even so, most people can tell them apart in a double-blind test. Even someone who isn't well enough educated musically to tell apart the sounds of a bassoon and a clarinet can say that x is different from y.

    However, take those sounds, lop off the attack and the decay, and leave just the sustain in place, and guess what? People can't reliably tell them apart! Not even professional musicians of the instruments in question!

    Are the sounds different? Yes. They're produced by different instruments. But can people detect the difference? No. It appears that the most important sonic information that permits people to detect the differences in sound among instruments exists in the onset and the end of the tone.

    Fascinating!
    I just think it's silly, hypocritical, and ignorant to insist that everything has to have scientific proof, and I say that as a scientist with over 30 years in my profession. Some things are plausible and reasonable and exist, yet not scientifically proven.

    I guess you don't have much faith in your profession or your professional training. ;)

    Theoretically it is possible that science may not yet be equipped to describe something.

    Sound waves? Electrical impulses? These phenomena are well explained and well documented.

    The brain may still be in many ways a black box, but what goes in and comes out is readily measurable.
    With regard to stereophonic reproduction, there is nothing "magical" about it. It is simply a three dimensional illusion created in the mind by sending the ears time differentiated signals of a musical performance. Different people will perceive that illusion differently, or not at all. Most people's perceptions will change as they become more experienced in sound localization.

    That is true, but immaterial to the discussion of snake oil, which has to do with the power of suggestion, which brings us around full circle.
  • If you want to add a passive implementation of SDA to an existing speaker, it would require a redesign of the speaker and crossover because you need a second driver array for each speaker to do the interaural crosstalk cancellation. You could rig something using a second pair off speakers and an external digital signal processor, but it wouldn't be hi-fi or high end quality sound due to the driver/cabinet mismatches.

    When I visited Matthew Polk's home in 2008, he was using two pairs of LSi9s controlled with an SDA algorithm programmed into a Rane digital signal processor. It sounded good, but I didn't have the opportunity to do any critical listening due to the number of people there. He said he and a colleague spent a lot of time and effort getting the algorithm right. The resulting dual LSi9 cabinets on each side were about the same size as a pair of CRS+s. When I asked him why he didn't just get a pair of CRS+s, he said:

    1. He was keenly interested in finding out how well SDA could be adapted to a current
    model speaker.

    2. CRS+s in good condition are not that easy to come by.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • WTS wrote: »
    It appears that the most important sonic information that permits people to detect the differences in sound among instruments exists in the onset and the end of the tone.

    Fascinating!

    That is true, but immaterial to the discussion of snake oil, which has to do with the power of suggestion, which brings us around full circle.

    Think that's the point. If we all can come to a ballpark agreement on what the differences between low-Fi, Mid-Fi, Hi-Fi, High End, and Ultra High End we'll have a better understanding on how close someone is to achieving their (everyone's) idea of stereophonic reproduction (<thanks for that DK), if they choose to use those terms. The fact that we all are having this conversation gives us a better incite when a new member joins the forum; In the case that if the new member chooses to ask us for advice on gear to build a Mid-Fi rig we can all agree on which direction to point them in.

    nsdk4j9dei6l.png
    2ch rig:
    Speakers: LSi9s with VR3's Fortress mods
    Preamplifier: Parasound P5
    Amplifier: Vincent SP-331
    CDP: Denon 1520
    Cables: Wireworld Equinox 7 XLR ICs, Wireworld Ultraviolet 7 USB
    Benched: Parasound A23
  • Moose68BashMoose68Bash Posts: 3,597
    @WTS,

    You wrote:

    "Do they? How do you know if my thoughts exist? How can I be sure that they exist? How can I be sure that you exist -- not in the Internet catfishing sense, but in an epistemological sense?

    (I recommend Charles Peirce for further reading.)"

    Your questions seem much more akin to the thinking of Martin Heidegger, who asked, "Why is there something and not, rather, nothing?"

    Charles Sanders Peirce is, of course, known as the father of American Pragmatism. One of the most important principles by which I have led my life came from one iteration of Peirce's pragmatism. My paraphrase of it: "You don't understand the meaning of an idea until you fully understand its consequences." If only our political leaders would adhere to that one!

    Peirce's statement of this "Maxim of Pragmatism" took various forms. The one closest to my rendition is, "To ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one should consider what practical consequences might result from the truth of that conception—and the sum of these consequences constitute the entire meaning of the conception."

    But, you might also want to delve into René Descartes's philosophy. He is credited with positing, "cogito ergo sum" or "I think therefore I am," as an antidote to the question that you put, as "How can I be sure that you exist . . .?" As Descartes said, "I can't doubt my existence while I doubt . . . ."

    I'm confident that, as a scientist, you can make the logical leap from "cogito ergo sum" to, "If I know that I exist, and you punch me in the nose -- either literally or figuratively with words -- I can know that you exist existence."

    But, perhaps, you are a pure Empiricist!

    Family Room, PS Audio PW Transport, DirectStream DAC w/Bridge II; AQ Sky XLRs, McIntosh MC 220 Tube Pre; AQ Sky XLRs, CAT 600.2 Dualmono Amp, Morrow SP7 Speaker Cables, SDA SRS 1.2tls (RD0198s, Dreadnought, Black Hole 5, Acousta-Stuf, Dynamat Extreme, JBWeld. Vr3 Mods: "The Abbot" Monastery-Level Xovers, Custom Internal Wiring, Binding Post Plates, & SDA ICs).

    Exercise Room, Wadia 171 iPod Dock, PS Audio PerfectWave MkII DAC w/Bridge II, AQ Sky XLRs, Perreaux PMF3150 Amp, Dreadnought, Supra Rondo 4x2.5 Speaker Cables, SDA 1Cs (Vr3 Mods Xovers).

    Synology 713+ NAS on Gigabit LAN serving PW MkII DAC & DirectStream DAC.
  • sucks2bemesucks2beme Posts: 4,884
    I don't know how to define this stuff for the masses,
    I do know it's plain stupid there's still a reasonable priced
    Classe' pre still up in the flea market.
    "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson
  • WTSWTS Posts: 170
    This was an interesting program on the radio today as I drove to a rehearsal:

    http://freakonomics.com/podcast/expensive-wines-taste-better/
    Season 6, Episode 10
    When you take a sip of Cabernet, what are you tasting? The grape? The tannins? The oak barrel? Or the price?
    Believe it or not, the most dominant flavor may be the dollars. Thanks to the work of some intrepid and wine-obsessed economists (yes, there is an American Association of Wine Economists), we are starting to gain a new understanding of the relationship between wine, critics and consumers.
    One of these researchers is Robin Goldstein, whose paper detailing more than 6,000 blind tastings reaches the conclusion that “individuals who are unaware of the price do not derive more enjoyment from more expensive wine.”
    So why do we pay so much attention to critics and connoisseurs who tell us otherwise?
    Along the way, you’ll hear details about Goldstein’s research as well as the story of how his “restaurant” in Milan, Osteria L’Intrepido, won an Award of Excellence from Wine Spectator magazine. (And not how you’d think!)
    Also featured: Steve Levitt, who admits his palate is “underdeveloped,” describing a wine-tasting stunt he pulled on his elders at Harvard’s Society of Fellows.
    Also, you’ll hear from wine broker Brian DiMarco who pulled a stunt of his own on his very wine-savvy employees. DiMarco also walks us through the mechanics of the wine-purchase business, and describes how price is often a far-too-powerful signal to our taste buds.
    Plus, selective outrage — why we get so upset over some things, and then not over others.

    The parallels between wines and high-end hi-fi are clear.

    The difference, of course, is that much of hi-fi is scientifically measurable for objective results, to sort out the excellent from the good from the snake oil. Whether or not one likes the resultant sounds, at least their is an objective basis for making such judgments. One can measure the chemistry of wine, but it is ultimately a subjective decision as to whether or not you like the taste of it.

    But the similarities include the blind test tastings, the lack of correlation between price and enjoyment, etc.
  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 42,670
    Cough.....BS......cough
    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


    President of Club Polk

  • BlueBirdMusicBlueBirdMusic Registered User Posts: 659
    It must be the Super Moon!
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 22,951
    My experience, FWIW, is that any even nearly affordable bottle of a Grand Cru Bordeaux (e.g., Ch. Petrus, Ch. Margaux) is mediocre to not so good; easily bettered by "lesser" (and cheaper) wines. The good Grand Cru wines are -- out of sight, price-wise.
  • lightman1lightman1 Posts: 10,452
    Descarte walks into a bar one evening. Settles onto stool. Decides to have a nice glass of brandy. The barkeep asks "Would you like a beer?" He replies "I think not."
    Then suddenly vanishes into thin air......
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 31,430
    Wine and audio comparisons ? Now your talking my language, but I digress.....your so far off the mark WTS, it may take a submarine in the Mariana trench to find you.
    HT SYSTEM-
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Polk Sig. 20's
    Polk FX500 surrounds

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    Grant Fidelity tube dac
    B&k 1430
    Tad 803 speakers
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 22,951
    edited November 2016
    lightman1 wrote: »
    Descarte walks into a bar one evening. Settles onto stool. Decides to have a nice glass of brandy. The barkeep asks "Would you like a beer?" He replies "I think not."
    Then suddenly vanishes into thin air......

    One of my personal, favoritest jokes of all time.

    Right up there with the bumper sticker that deadpans:
    Heisenberg may or may not have slept here.

    I gots me some serious nerd cred.
  • gurot1gurot1 Posts: 505


    [/quote]

    Do they? How do you know if my thoughts exist? How can I be sure that they exist? How can I be sure that you exist -- not in the Internet catfishing sense, but in an epistemological sense?

    (I recommend Charles Peirce for further reading.)

    Just because you can't hear what someone else hears, it does not mean they are delusional, insane, gullible, or any other insult you want to throw at them. Just because someone has not proven something, to you, with some test you hold near and dear, does not mean the thing does not exist.

    But that does not mean that you can, in fact, hear such things, nor that any differences that may exist are consequential. That's false logic.


    I just think it's silly, hypocritical, and ignorant to insist that everything has to have scientific proof, and I say that as a scientist with over 30 years in my profession. Some things are plausible and reasonable and exist, yet not scientifically proven.

    [/quote]

    You guys are hurting my brain...which depending on who you ask may or may not exist :p
    lsim705,lsim706c,fx500,rti4
    rti6,csi5...no rears on system 2
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 22,951
    edited November 2016
    ...
    I just think it's silly, hypocritical, and ignorant to insist that everything has to have scientific proof, and I say that as a scientist with over 30 years in my profession. Some things are plausible and reasonable and exist, yet not scientifically proven...

    Well, heck, I either didn't know that, or I missed it! :blush:
    What's your discipline? (I know, I know, I kinda wear mine on my sleeve).

    In terms of hifi and the quantitative vs. the qualitative... well, I am pretty much a hifi subjectivist at this point in my life (I was much less so in the 1970s), but I still tend to think that then-HH Scott chief engineer Daniel von Recklingshausen had insight into that particular conundrum:
    "If it measures good and sounds bad, -- it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, -- you've measured the wrong thing."

    source: http://hhscott.com/vonrecklinghausen.htm


    Consider, e.g., the Thiele-Small parameters. They relate to a model of the physical reality of loudspeaker design; they're not fundamental. But -- they're still quite useful. :)

    That said, von Reckilgshausen was an engineer, not a scientist ;)

    scott_quality_10_small.JPG

    There are, generally speaking*, some pretty marked philosophical disconnects between scientists and engineers!

    * ... and remember, All generalizations are false, including this one.

    ;)


  • befuddlebefuddle Posts: 126
    edited November 2016
    I suppose its out of a sense of boredom that I decided to throw my unsolicited 2 cents into this discussion and say that I somewhat agree with Skip's definition on page 1.But still based on a cost factor definition by reason of-If a customer walked in to a audio shop and said they were in the market to buy a hi fi system,and the sales person responded by saying "at what level are you looking to purchase?" I think it would be with Skip's interpretation that they would best be able to comprehend the variable price points and then be able to determine what they want in a expected level of performance in relation to the purchase cost.[Although in using a cost reference, the manufactures suggested list price should be applied for the purpose of a comparative industry standard pricing categorization]
    Also as in the monetary game of life I think each category should include a sub category ie [lower/middle/high] to further define the varying model pricing within that classification]
    Again performance is not be solely based on the cost associated to its classification,as exampled by 2 product brands having a comparative cost level can leave 1 somewhat out performing the other as either based on the standards of the majority of consumers or ones own perception.Buts its a generality that the performance of the competing products within a said category usually doesn't extend beyond their cost in category classification.[By that I mean for an example-upper mid performance at a lower mid price point or a jump from one term to another- upper mid performance at a upper lower price] I'm sure rarities could be sited where a fledgling company has come along and have crossed over the cost to classification factor.But I would assume that its most commonly the norm that with further consumer recognition their price will either adjust to market norms or be bought out by a competing brand.
    So imo a generalized classification of ones system depends on the classifications of the sum of its parts.And by averaging the majority of its components at their categorized levels to approximate its definition.Although naturally to achieve the most accurate definition one would need to individually categorize their components especially if a high degree of variation of level classification exists
    I need a aspirin
    Post edited by befuddle on
  • maximillianmaximillian Posts: 2,082
    WTS wrote: »
    The parallels between wines and high-end hi-fi are clear.

    Uh.... no. Wine tasting is not really like an audio experience. You have way more variables in audio listening than wine tasting. For one thing that has not been talked about... the listening room is just as important as any element in the listening experience. Different rooms will sound differently with the same gear.

    So let me understand your argument... So are you saying that there pretty much is only two categories: good and crap? Are you saying that people shouldn't spend money on the LSiM speakers since the T series or the RTiA series should be good enough? And for that matter, other audio brands are pretty much the same in relatively large swings of product costs?
  • Moose68BashMoose68Bash Posts: 3,597
    mhardy6647 wrote: »

    One of my personal, favoritest jokes of all time.

    Right up there with the bumper sticker that deadpans:
    Heisenberg may or may not have slept here.

    I gots me some serious nerd cred.

    Amen to that, Dr. Hardy!

    But, one can't be certain, can one? ;)
    Family Room, PS Audio PW Transport, DirectStream DAC w/Bridge II; AQ Sky XLRs, McIntosh MC 220 Tube Pre; AQ Sky XLRs, CAT 600.2 Dualmono Amp, Morrow SP7 Speaker Cables, SDA SRS 1.2tls (RD0198s, Dreadnought, Black Hole 5, Acousta-Stuf, Dynamat Extreme, JBWeld. Vr3 Mods: "The Abbot" Monastery-Level Xovers, Custom Internal Wiring, Binding Post Plates, & SDA ICs).

    Exercise Room, Wadia 171 iPod Dock, PS Audio PerfectWave MkII DAC w/Bridge II, AQ Sky XLRs, Perreaux PMF3150 Amp, Dreadnought, Supra Rondo 4x2.5 Speaker Cables, SDA 1Cs (Vr3 Mods Xovers).

    Synology 713+ NAS on Gigabit LAN serving PW MkII DAC & DirectStream DAC.
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 31,430
    edited November 2016
    WTS wrote: »
    The parallels between wines and high-end hi-fi are clear.


    Oh boy....I'll have a caffe mocha vodka valium latte to go please. :)

    Eh....make that a double. lol
    HT SYSTEM-
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Polk Sig. 20's
    Polk FX500 surrounds

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    Grant Fidelity tube dac
    B&k 1430
    Tad 803 speakers
  • EndersShadowEndersShadow Posts: 16,817
    tonyb wrote: »
    Oh boy....I'll have a caffe mocha vodka valium latte to go please. :)

    Eh....make that a double. lol

    Do that and you'll lock yourself out of your house in your robe again......

    "....not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." William Bruce Cameron, Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking (1963)
  • lightman1lightman1 Posts: 10,452
    tonyb wrote: »
    WTS wrote: »
    The parallels between wines and high-end hi-fi are clear.


    Oh boy....I'll have a caffe mocha vodka valium latte to go please. :)

    Eh....make that a double. lol

    I'll join ya! Make it two, barkeep!
  • pongshipongshi Posts: 377
    edited November 2016
    What were we talking about again? As far as wine goes, I never cared much about the taste, since I cared much more about the effect :)

    Music is not so much about the journey, as it is the destination. It doesn't matter if you get there by flying first class or if you hitchhike. You just gotta get there. By the way, anyone got a bottle of Thunderbird?
    Living Room
    Parasound Model 2250v2 amplifier
    Parasound P5 preamp
    Turntable 1 - Technics SL-1210Mk2 turntable with Shure V-15 Type III cartridge
    Turntable 2 - Dual 1229 turntable, Dual AS-12 45 RPM stacker, Shure V-15 Type III cartridge
    Schiit Mani Phono Preamp for Turntable 2
    Oppo UDP-205 CD/SACD USB and FLAC duties
    Technics RS-1500US reel to reel
    Polk SDA SRS (2nd Gen) fully modded
  • mrbironmrbiron Posts: 5,124
    Only, and i mean ONLY, when the two Noo Hamsha guys start typing do i get a bloody nose....
    I need an Excedrin.
    Zu Audio Omen MK-1B's, Peachtree Decco65, Bryston BDA-2, Cheap TT, PS Audio UPC200, PS Audio AC3's, Zu Mission SC's, HTPC, One, Bottlehead Crack w/Speedball, Senn's MD HD600
  • EndersShadowEndersShadow Posts: 16,817
    edited November 2016
    mrbiron wrote: »
    Only, and i mean ONLY, when the two Noo Hamsha guys start typing do i get a bloody nose....
    I need an bunch of pints.

    Fixed it for you
    "....not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." William Bruce Cameron, Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking (1963)
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 22,951
    Hey, don't forget, I am an erstwhile [email protected]
  • gurot1gurot1 Posts: 505
    edited November 2016
    And evidently I have forgotten how to use the quote function correctly.

    In response to the topic at hand...I really don't have much input as I have not had the opportunity to really listen critically to music and be taught about what to listen for. All I know is that I have always hated it when people would blare their music at full volume and it would be distorting.
    For me lo-fi would ve those tinny little speakers ( especially computer speakers). Mi fi would be better stuff like the polks. Hi end and ultra hifi, I can't say I know enough to make any suggestions on these as I havent had much experience to listen to these. I have heard them vicariously through you guys and gals. :)
    lsim705,lsim706c,fx500,rti4
    rti6,csi5...no rears on system 2
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!