It seems non-audiophiles never tire of proving that everything sounds the same.
. . . and I thought it was me going quietly mad, I like the 'old style' of music reproduction . . . and yet when I voice that opinion I get shouted down. I like the old ways, the Goon show, Family Favourites, Sunday Night at the London Palladium, Horlicks and Quad Valve Amplifiers.
CJSF
I think this is partly an age thing. Those brought up on a diet of Vinyl, Tube amps and warmer sounding speakers, find the modern fashion for a bright, forward, analytical sound (seen as excitement), as one step too far.
Those brought up on MP3 lossy, loudness mastered, new improved sound, find the "sound of old", dull and wooly.
Now I exaggerate to make a point, and there is of course a happy medium.
It is also interesting to note, that a lot of the musicians on here would go the Sugden/Spendor route, rather than the Cyrus/ATC one...another generalization, I know.
I think it's also a case of bright/forward/analytical gear sounding superficially more detailed and impressive in well-damped demo rooms and thus more likely to sell...and also less likely to be satisfying in the long run so the customer has to return to "upgrade".
And the fact that there are probably people who are more into the hifi than the music.
I think it's also a case of bright/forward/analytical gear sounding superficially more detailed and impressive in well-damped demo rooms and thus more likely to sell...and also less likely to be satisfying in the long run so the customer has to return to "upgrade".
A good point. There is also an argument that such gear is better reviewed (and therefore sells more), for the same reasons.
I suppose the corollary of this is that if people did more to treat their rooms they might have a better experience with their kit, but that may not be realistic.
I suppose the corollary of this is that if people did more to treat their rooms they might have a better experience with their kit, but that may not be realistic.
....or at least be aware of the possible effect of their room, and choose equipment accordingly.
I suppose the corollary of this is that if people did more to treat their rooms they might have a better experience with their kit, but that may not be realistic.
....or at least be aware of the possible effect of their room, and choose equipment accordingly.
Of course. My main point (FWIW) was in the first para. I'm even aware of a manufacturer saying they will make a product brighter than they would naturally like to in order to get a better review where review rooms have been heavily acoustically treated.
Of course. My main point (FWIW) was in the first para. I'm even aware of a manufacturer saying they will make a product brighter than they would naturally like to in order to get a better review where review rooms have been heavily acoustically treated.
Due to the increase in sales that a good review can have, I can see the temptation of doing this.....but it is certainly not a good thing; the tail wagging the dog and all that.
Of course. My main point (FWIW) was in the first para. I'm even aware of a manufacturer saying they will make a product brighter than they would naturally like to in order to get a better review where review rooms have been heavily acoustically treated.
Due to the increase in sales that a good review can have, I can see the temptation of doing this.....but it is certainly not a good thing; the tail wagging the dog and all that.
I agree entirely. It is hard to blame the manufacturer tho, especially in the current climate, as sales are everything. It is difficult to see a way to break the cycle tho.
I agree entirely. It is hard to blame the manufacturer tho, especially in the current climate, as sales are everything. It is difficult to see a way to break the cycle tho.
Perhaps a warning "sticky" on this forum might help educate the potential consumer?
And maybe a glossary/translation of review terms:
"not the best match for a system which is already on the bright side" = "this thing will make your head hurt"
Of course. My main point (FWIW) was in the first para. I'm even aware of a manufacturer saying they will make a product brighter than they would naturally like to in order to get a better review where review rooms have been heavily acoustically treated.
I find that depressing BenLaw, ads to my recent feeling that we are being ripped off, taken to the cleaners?
The old hifi values seem to have been lost to modern ways . . . There seems to be almost an ignorance, with no one caring . . . ?
I have been having a hifi weekend after a few weeks off, other things needing my attention. The laps was interspersed with minor changes to the system being made without proper follow up. Resulting in the system, especially the TT requiring those little insignificant tweaks that make all the difference to a sensitive ear.
This has lead me to consider my old style analogue hifi as almost 'organic', requiring constant TLC, as one does with a musical instrument. Has the 'new way' lost or discouraged this need for involvement and understanding with the instrument?
CJSF
I think that's probably looking at it a little too deeply for most people. I don't really want to spend time mucking around with the stereo; once it's setup, I want to play it every day and that's the only involvement I want on an ongoing basis. I definitely don't want (or have the time) to be tweaking this or that. Right now, I've a fit and forget arrangement and that's how I'll keep it, irrespective of whatever changes come in the future.
Was this the Yamaha A-S500? (After the A-S700 received criticism from WHF for being too smooth/soft.)
I remember talk of it (the A-S500) being especially tweaked/voiced against other amps for the UK market.
I don't really agree with this concept of the 'old way' and the 'new way'. There has always been those people who care about sound and those who don't and there has always been a range of equipment to cater for different tastes.
I don't think the school of constant adjustment is a necessary part of running a satisfying hi-fi system either, and it certainly shouldn't be seen as some 'old way' that is somehow right. There is nothing wrong with this approach if you enjoy it, but one of the advantages of modern technology for many people is that you can set a system up carefully in the first place and then enjoy it for a long time to come without having to get dragged into any maintenance. For many people it isn't a 'need' at all. Quite often I'm very tired when I get to sit down and listen to my music and, most of the time, that really is all I want to do. I spend all day at work listening intently to pianos - discussing the differences between makes and models between customers, working with technicians and voicers to prepare each instrument to give its best - and I don't want to feel that I 'need' to do this to get the best out of my listening at home.
I think that's probably looking at it a little too deeply for most people. I don't really want to spend time mucking around with the stereo. Once it's setup, I want to play it every day and that's the only involvement I want on an ongoing basis. I definitely don't want (or have the time) to be tweaking the system. Right now, I've a fit and forget system and that's how I'll keep it, irrespective of whatever changes come in the future.
My point exactly . . . ?
"The old hifi values seem to have been lost to modern ways . . . "
I thought a hobby was something to get involved in, getting the most from it . . . Each to his own?
Personal, I try to get the maximum, its cost me a packet, so I want value for money . . . value and pleasure.
By the way TRS, the adjustment I refer to take little time in themselves . . . knowing where and how to adjust is part of the art, ' lost to modern ways'? Its the listening that takes the time, thats the pleasure bit is it not?
CJSF
"It seems non-audiophiles never stop pointing out that audiophiles can't prove that everything doesn't sound the same"
I can't get my head round that it doesn't seem unreasonable, that reasonable thinking non-audiophiles wouldn't be more unreasonable, about components that don't sound the same. 
Hi Cno, 
too many double negatives for me . I think I could read that for the rest of my life and still not understand it!
Maybe it's cause I am from the south
All I know, is that there are more threads on here complaining about systems sounding over bright and forward, than the other way round...and the solution is often found in the more niche brands, who are inclined to use more "old fashioned" tried and tested solutions.
. . . and I thought it was me going quietly mad, I like the 'old style' of music reproduction . . . and yet when I voice that opinion I get shouted down. I like the old ways, the Goon show, Family Favourites, Sunday Night at the London Palladium, Horlicks and Quad Valve Amplifiers.
Bring back Magi Thatcher, Rout Master buses, fish and Chips wrapped in newspaper, the Nine O'clock news and David Dimbleby . . . "he's fallen in the water"
CJSF
Rega P5/PB700 (upgraded main bearing, white drive belt), Sumiko Celebration Pearwood Signature cartridge, Carver MCt, Croft Integrated Valve hybrid amp, PMC LB1's on Foundation Designer Stands, Rega Apollo CDp. Cables: speaker, Linn K20, Interconnect, Foundation Audio Special.