Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

matrixhifi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 95 posts

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#31

Post by rodgerd »

peteretep wrote: post #6
rodgerd wrote: 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

> Behringer A500: $200

Interesting, because locally I can only find the A500 for much more than that.

Paying huge amounts for a CD player is unutterable wankery in this day and age.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#32

Post by mafro »

sardon wrote: post #9

I wonder how much good spanish wine these guys have had before the test

It was probably a selection of both cheap and expensive stuff.

Joking aside though, your comment adds nothing here. Take the article on merit, and add something constructive here if you have it.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#33

Post by lotsofmangos »

e12e wrote: post #27
lotsofmangos wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sam…

Putting them in the speakers just limits the amount of extra things you you have to install, the idea is that in initial setup each speaker goes through a test pattern while the other speakers stay silent, and this gives you position of all the speakers and the acoustic properties of the space they are in.

Though if you also have some extra microphones, then you can do dynamic adjustments on top and even account for people moving through the space so that they do not block sound or even so a stereo recording follows them around.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#34

Post by davidgerard »

"However, some people challenges the use of an external ABX box (usually by people unused to conduct DBT's) arguing that the use of a commuter like the ABX might modify or flatten the response of the systems, masking the differences they so easily claim to hear at home or at an audio store (or even at some shows). This challenge does not hold water, as we can see from the measurements conducted to the ABX we use ..."

Yeah, people pushing blatant magical woo will, eventually, descend to questioning logic and coherent thought itself.

I'll link again to Alan Parsons (recording engineer and recording artist whose records audiophiles are quite fond of): http://www.cepro.com/article/beatles_pink_floyd_engineer_ala... Fix the room first.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#35

Post by lucd »

I use an Emotiva UMC-200 (HC preprocessor, fine for stereo too),a Crown XLS 1500 amplifier (intended for professional use) and Quad 22L loudspeakers..

The most noticeable upgrade was the automated room correction included in the preprocessor. It more or less removes the room acoustics from the equation, as well as the speakers coloration.

IMHO correct speakers, powerful amplifiers (professional audio power amplifier may be considered) and good room correction makes a great combination.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#36

Post by caramel »

What these sort of tests always ignore is that placebo effect really works. I refer to a recent study by the University of Manchester in which people who believed that they had better hearing aids objectively scored better on hearing tests. If you spend time and money on a nice high-end system, the love that you put into your setup will be returned to you as better hearing experience.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#37

Post by golergka »

It always buffles me that people who test HiFi audio don't test studio audio equipment, and vice versa. These two categories of hardware try to achieve practically the same result, but just because they target different people (although in a very similar demographic), they are reviewed by different journalists for different magazines and seldom compared to each other.

Why?

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#38

Post by ghshephard »

People buy $10,000 handbags without any more functional purpose. Why not luxury electronics? Seriously, if it looks beautiful, and the main purpose is for people to feel good about it, and feel good about other people seeing it - is there any real difference between a luxury handbag (luxury watch) and a luxury HiFi system?

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#39

Post by mark_integerdsv »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #24
sjwright wrote: 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.

Bang & Olufsen's Beolab speakers do pretty much what you are describing.

They have a test tone and each one has a little micro dick (only way I can really describe it) that pokes out during the test tone playback to pick up reflections.

More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/19/technology/how-it-works-a-...

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#40

Post by rikkus »

golergka wrote: post #37

It always buffles me that people who test HiFi audio don't test studio audio equipment, and vice versa. These two categories of hardware try to achieve practically the same result, but just because they target different people (although in a very similar demographic), they are reviewed by different journalists for different magazines and seldom compared to each other. Why?

Recently, thanks to comments on Hacker News, I've learned to think about where money is being made.

In this situation, there are companies competing for business in the studio market, where equipment needs to be functional (easy to move, install, plug stuff into, etc.), not alter the audio signal in a way which is undesirable and - generally - be worth the money in terms of real benefit.

The home market is entirely different. Across the price range, (most) customers care about looks, how it alters the sound of the music / films they care about to match their personal preference and - less often - be worth the money in terms of audio quality and practicality. There's also trendiness, which is much more of a factor in this market.

A 'classic' example (sorry to use that phrase, especially for such a recent phenomenon) is Beats Audio headphones. They are attractive for the home market because people like how they look (including that they're trendy), they make music sound 'good' (I haven't heard them, but I've been told they enhance the bass but otherwise are lacklustre), and are (based on the other factors) not worth the money in terms of audio quality or practicality.

Just because the equipment is made from the same basic components (in fact, much may be made from the same components) doesn't mean that there aren't two separate markets here. They can't be treated as one because the customers are entirely different. Or maybe they can and you should start a company selling to both!

Post reply on HN