Live data from Hacker News

Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

matrixhifi.com

1–10 of 95 posts

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#3
post #2

Their version of "low end" is amusing to me. But this is hardly surprising. Hifi suffers from a taxic interaction of diminishing returns and snake oil, and I say that as someone who has spent more than a few dollars myself.

After spending a few bucks myself, I second this. The only thing i'd add is, invest in a good pair of speakers, that's where you'd get the best ROI.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#4
post #3
post #2

Their version of "low end" is amusing to me. But this is hardly surprising. Hifi suffers from a taxic interaction of diminishing returns and snake oil, and I say that as someone who has spent more than a few dollars myself.

After spending a few bucks myself, I second this. The only thing i'd add is, invest in a good pair of speakers, that's where you'd get the best ROI.

Or alternatively, invest in a good pair of headphones--also good ROI.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#5
If you perform an objective analysis of sound reproduction, it quickly becomes apparent that once you reach a certain price/performance threshold in speakers, the most critical element -- the element that has the greatest influence on the overall sound quality -- is room acoustics.

But it's so much easier to sell expensive cardboard boxes containing obscure brand electronics; there is so much more markup in homeopathic rolls of copper wire, than there is in convincing someone to ruin their marriage over living room decor. Plus, it's just not a sexy investment, and requires expertise to be done properly.

It has become the industry's inconvenient truth.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#6
post #2

Their version of "low end" is amusing to me. But this is hardly surprising. Hifi suffers from a taxic interaction of diminishing returns and snake oil, and I say that as someone who has spent more than a few dollars myself.

    > "low end"
No commentary here, but I was interested what it cost, so:

Behringer A500: $200

Sony DVP-NS355: ~$50

ATC SCM 12: $1,500-$2,500

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#7
post #4
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After spending a few bucks myself, I second this. The only thing i'd add is, invest in a good pair of speakers, that's where you'd get the best ROI.

Or alternatively, invest in a good pair of headphones--also good ROI.

Much cheaper in absolute terms as well. You can get very good headphones in the $100-200 range (even some under $100), while speaker systems in that range tend to be mediocre.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#8
post #3
post #2

Their version of "low end" is amusing to me. But this is hardly surprising. Hifi suffers from a taxic interaction of diminishing returns and snake oil, and I say that as someone who has spent more than a few dollars myself.

After spending a few bucks myself, I second this. The only thing i'd add is, invest in a good pair of speakers, that's where you'd get the best ROI.

I'm amazed at the quality of older speakers when it comes to value for money. I'm using a pair of Chadwick executive 12 cabinets in my living room and they're simply the best sounding speakers I've owned and they cost next to nothing. The only expense so far is cleaning and light refurb to remove rot.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#10
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After spending a few bucks myself, I second this. The only thing i'd add is, invest in a good pair of speakers, that's where you'd get the best ROI.

I'm amazed at the quality of older speakers when it comes to value for money. I'm using a pair of Chadwick executive 12 cabinets in my living room and they're simply the best sounding speakers I've owned and they cost next to nothing. The only expense so far is cleaning and light refurb to remove rot.

    > Chadwick executive 12 
That term has no Google footprint
Post reply on HN