Live data from Hacker News

Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

matrixhifi.com

21–30 of 95 posts

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#21

From my poor knowledge of music production, in that world "high end" equipment means "as close to truth as possible", not necessarily "pleasant to the ear". I wonder if the expensive set of equipment here measure objectively better than the cheap set. That said, I do believe that the speaker and acoustics of the room determine the objective measures much more than the signal chain...

The answer is whatever you want it to be. Often there is no such thing as truth, because the artist's intent never existed in the physical world. (Though there is the recording studio's mixing room where the artist listened to and signed off on the final master.)

My personal aim is to reproduce the artist's intent faithfully AND to satisfy our own preferences, without losing sight of where the former ends and the latter begins.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about testing these systems with headphones then?

Headphones are great for minimizing issues of room acoustics, but they are not eliminated. Many people swear by various headphone amps and DACs, but the magnitude of difference these components could possibly impart are still pitiful compared to the improvements made possible by controlling the noise floor of the room you're listening in. This is why in any situation with ambient noise (e.g. planes, trains and open p…

Active noise cancelling headphones are hardly an audiophile's first pick. Almost all NC headphones introduce audible white noise. They are also ineffective at blocking voices in the background.

Earplugs are significantly cheaper and more effective at blocking noise.

That said, Bose does make the best NC headphones.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#23
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, but if you are 10 people listening, that's suddenly $10 000 (actually more, as you'd probably need a little more expensive amp to drive 10 good headphones. Nowhere near 10x though).

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#24
post #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 homeopath…

I have been looking at the idea of doing lots of small speakers with microphones on them attached to a fat lump of computer hardware, that you stick all over and they bleep each other and build an acoustic model of the space they are in, then adjust for it properly.

Would basically be a self-modifying ambisonics system. It looks doable, though possibly a bit expensive.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#25
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.

[deleted]

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#26
post #18

From my poor knowledge of music production, in that world "high end" equipment means "as close to truth as possible", not necessarily "pleasant to the ear". I wonder if the expensive set of equipment here measure objectively better than the cheap set. That said, I do believe that the speaker and acoustics of the room determine the objective measures much more than the signal chain...

> From my poor knowledge of music production, in that > world "high end" equipment means "as close to truth > as possible", Yes, and no... Because it seems to mean "as close to truth as possible, as judged by human ears". The deviation from perfect reproduction of sound is something that could be measured and quantified relatively easy, and even mediocre equipment (probably with exception to the speakers) nowadays is…

> even mediocre equipment (probably with exception to the speakers) nowadays is able to reach astonishing linearity.

While we have much better cheap amps now than we used to, there's still quite a bit more of noise in the bottom end. You make it sound like $10 of electronics would give great sound (assuming eg: flac audio source, dac and "digital"[1] amplifier). It's not quite that simple. Feeding the whole thing from a battery power source is simple, cheap and can work to reduce the most common/obvious source of noise -- the AC mains (but is only practical for head-phone use).

As for measuring distortion -- it's a little bit like with lossy image codecs: it doesn't really matter what the numbers say, what matters is how we perceive it. In audio-mastering/studio production lossy-ness matters (because if you loose n% of the signal on every iteration, and you do 100s of iterations through the pipeline, the noise crowds out the signal). In testing, it helps guide the development and production (quality assurance).

But in the end, that's just a guide. The trick, is to not buy into the placebo -- while at the same time recognizing a basic fact: the human brain is great at patterns, and filtering out noise. Listen to a badly tuned radio long enough, and you no longer hear the noise. Until someone walks in and adjust it to be on station again.

Listening to really crappy sound (eg: at least two generations old embedded audio from laptops -- not sure about latest generation(s)) -- there'd be a ridiculous amount of noise. Couple it with cheap head-phones with eg, little or no bass -- and listen to music like that for a couple of months -- and you'll be able to convince yourself that that's just fine. Just like if you smeared a thin layer of vaseline on your computer screen and left it on there for months, you'd probably stop actively noticing it was there -- but if you wiped half you would instantly see the difference.

Then compare it to any low-end "hi-fi" set-up, and you'd be surprised how much clearer, and better most things sound. If not, stick with what you like.

It makes absolutely no sense to buy a more expensive setup than what you can tell the difference between. And even if you can buying the best at any price doesn't make sense.

And if you want to sit in a room and really listen to music/soundscapes -- be that classical music, pink floyd, jazz or anything else -- the room is just as important as the gear, as other's have mentioned.

Oh, and if you want to get the most out of your setup - calibration is always good. One reason I prefer stereo is that it is comparatively simple. I'm sure that in theory one could develop a "CalMan"[2] for audio -- given that pretty much every source now is digital, one could probably set up a test track that allowed one to correct for many distortions (created by the system, the speakers, the room...) in real-time.

But I must confess, while I would love to calibrate my monitor to get more correct color -- I'm highly sceptical of the idea of programming my DAC to get "more natural" sound. But that's probably the audioplacebo talking, not the rational mind.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class-D_amplifier

[2] http://calman.spectracal.com/store/p71/CalMAN_RGB_with_Spect...

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#27
post #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 homeopath…

I have been looking at the idea of doing lots of small speakers with microphones on them attached to a fat lump of computer hardware, that you stick all over and they bleep each other and build an acoustic model of the space they are in, then adjust for it properly. Would basically be a self-modifying ambisonics system. It looks doable, though possibly a bit expensive.

I believe there are some products in this space. It might be made simpler by integrating dac/dsp and amplifier in the speakers (and the just stream lossless digital audio for playback) -- rather than try and adapt to traditional speakers. It might be the kind of thing that the radical commoditization and continued price drop in hw will make feasible.

Cinemas (and concert venues) do calibrate their sound, here's a sample link that touches on what's involved:

http://education.lenardaudio.com/en/17_cinema_7.html

I'm not sure a combined mic/speaker system makes much sense -- it would appear easier to just model what's important: how the sound sounds where the listener is -- which is typically anywhere other than on top of the speaker.

Model a human head w/ears, but mics in each -- and hook that up to a system that plays/records/compares audio. While dynamically adapting (noise-cancelling when there's construction next door, the garbage truck rolls by?) -- I'm not sure that makes much sense. We're used to acoustics changing a bit -- but having a half-decent base-line would probably be great.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#28
post #26
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From my poor knowledge of music production, in that > world "high end" equipment means "as close to truth > as possible", Yes, and no... Because it seems to mean "as close to truth as possible, as judged by human ears". The deviation from perfect reproduction of sound is something that could be measured and quantified relatively easy, and even mediocre equipment (probably with exception to the speakers) nowadays is…

> even mediocre equipment (probably with exception to the speakers) nowadays is able to reach astonishing linearity. While we have much better cheap amps now than we used to, there's still quite a bit more of noise in the bottom end. You make it sound like $10 of electronics would give great sound (assuming eg: flac audio source, dac and "digital"[1] amplifier). It's not quite that simple. Feeding the whole thing fro…

It's a bit like VHS vs Blu-Ray IMO. I used to watch movies on tape and never be concerned about poor image quality. But now I'm used to high definition, going back and watching VHS is almost intolerable at first. You get used to what you have.

As for monitor color, try installing f.lux : https://justgetflux.com - it varies your color by time of day, so effectively your display is never the 'correct' color. But you won't notice it after a little use.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#29
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.

Agreed, I'd much rather see a $200 vs a $500 system (vs a $1000 system, vs a $10000 system...).

I'm not sure why anyone would invest something on the order of magnitude of the "expensive" system, and not get full-height electrostatic speakers or something (Not that I think it would be worth it then either...).

It would have been interesting to see what the result where if they'd simply given the testers blindfolds, and had two whole (or preferably three) set-ups -- where all the components where "matched" (eg: $100 system: integrated "boom box"/ speaker with integrated amp & ipod, $1000 system: speakers ~ $500/pair, amp $300, dac $200 etc).

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#30
post #26
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From my poor knowledge of music production, in that > world "high end" equipment means "as close to truth > as possible", Yes, and no... Because it seems to mean "as close to truth as possible, as judged by human ears". The deviation from perfect reproduction of sound is something that could be measured and quantified relatively easy, and even mediocre equipment (probably with exception to the speakers) nowadays is…

> even mediocre equipment (probably with exception to the speakers) nowadays is able to reach astonishing linearity. While we have much better cheap amps now than we used to, there's still quite a bit more of noise in the bottom end. You make it sound like $10 of electronics would give great sound (assuming eg: flac audio source, dac and "digital"[1] amplifier). It's not quite that simple. Feeding the whole thing fro…

> You make it sound like $10 of electronics would give great sound

No, that's not what I wanted to convey. But if you get yourself $100/€100 90s HiFi Amps on eBay, you are pretty much there, in my opinion for domestic HiFi use. You might want to blow out the dust, replace the scratchy volume knob, and bypass the rusty input-selector switches, though...

If you talk studios, of course some other factors are getting important such as the proper input connectors (most HiFi has Cinch/RCA, studios will have XLR at +4dBU levels), being able to put into a 19" rack and operate for long times at an elevated temperature, having a stepped, instead of a continuous, gain selector to have repeatability when setting up multi-amp systems..., but that's not really related to the audio quality, noise or distortion. You'll pay for all these features, and for additional build quality.

> loose n% of the signal on every iteration, and you do 100s of iterations

If you do 100s of iterations, you are doing something wrong! People do run 100s of iteratios for fiddling with parameters, but they'll NOT always re-record and play back every time. Just imagine the additional noise, not from the converters, but from the outboard gear mainly, adding up! Especially as people tend to like using outboard gear for the imperfect reproduction and coloring that analog provides.

But also for studio use, there's the crappy end (say, €5000 2ch "32-bit, 192kHz, Mastering AD/DA with rubidium clock".

Post reply on HN