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

41–50 of 95 posts

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#41

Post by huuu »

rikkus wrote: post #40
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 d…

I needed a new headphone so I read a lot of reviews. It's amazing how much reviews are about the looks while sound quality is the main concern.

I bought an Audio Technica ATH-M40x. These are monitor headphones for studio work. That's why they sound great but cost less than audiophile headphones.

So I must agree with you and our parent.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#42

Post by spyder »

caramel wrote: post #36

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.

What placebo? It's a bind test.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#43

Post by danieltillett »

lucd wrote: post #35

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…

Great list. How did you come to choose these components?

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#44

Post by golergka »

huuu wrote: post #41
rikkus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

I needed a new headphone so I read a lot of reviews. It's amazing how much reviews are about the looks while sound quality is the main concern. I bought an Audio Technica ATH-M40x. These are monitor headphones for studio work. That's why they sound great but cost less than audiophile headphones. So I must agree with you and our parent.

> It's amazing how much reviews are about the looks while sound quality is the main concern.

Why do you think it's the main concern? I don't think so.

I, personally, am a DJ and music producer, and I, personally, care about sound quality. I also think that after some time invested in listening to stuff on a variety of sound systems I can distinguish between good and bad sound.

But this is just me. I'm not a typical headphone buyer. My wife doesn't hear any real difference between iPhone default headphones and my AKGs, and even when she does, she doesn't really care.

However, aesthetics are important to people. Hell, they are important to me too! I love my pair of AKGs which sound pretty good and are amazingly cost-effecient, however, THEY ARE UGLY. And Beats are not. And if I wasn't that into sound quality, I would certainly buy Beats.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#45

Post by golergka »

rikkus wrote: post #40
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 d…

Your distinction works with Beats example (which are a great product for it's audience, by the way). But it doesn't really explain the HiFi speakers niche: Beats are not marketed at audiophiles, they are marketed at the market that doesn't care about flac files or good cables, as HiFi buyers do.

Don't people who buy HiFi speakers and amps want to recreate the "original" sound? Why then they don't just buy the same stuff that the audio engineer had when he did the track?

Also, about equipment being functional — I don't see how the requirement of easy installation and movement is more relevant for studio monitor speakers than HiFi speakers. Both are plugged in and put in their place once for a long time (unlike a mobile sound system) and are expected to be moved only when the whole room (studio or your living room) will move.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#46

Post by kokey »

PebblesHD wrote: post #8
nvk wrote: 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.

Good speakers up to 20 years old are often still good. It even seems like old capacitors in the crossovers doesn't really have much of an impact. Amplifiers have gotten more convenient, being lighter, cheaper, with better remote control and standby features, while the sound is still good. That has had the effect of making active speakers increasingly attractive.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#47

Post by JonnieCache »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #33
e12e wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Soundsystem techs commonly use a tool called SMART to calibrate a system to the room. It basically does impulse response measurement by blasting pink noise through a feedback loop and putting in various phase adjustments until the room has been cancelled out.

It's a very delicate technique though. When you're talking about phase-aligning soundwaves you're sensitive to sub-millimetre alignment of your transducers.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#48

Post by mr-mr »

I must confess, i am an audio tragic and worked out some time ago that for speakers , pro audio was the way to go. ATC and PMC are excellent examples of market leaders in this area and I have listened to systems from 2k to 500k in value, with nothing but disappointment filling me when I have been in the presence of the (100k+) mega dollar setups.

After speakers the biggest gain to be had as correctly stated easily in this thread is in room treatments and that's why I have a dedicated room that's heavily treated.

Each to their own.

I spose I could drive a 20k car as well but I prefer my 200k car because its just better all round, just like my 30k studio monitors :)

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#49

Post by wodenokoto »

corv wrote: post #22
sjwright wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is that the sum of added and reduced noise is smaller in the noise cancellation than in non-noise cancellation, unless you are in an optimized environment.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#50

Post by anentropic »

sjwright wrote: post #17
twerquie wrote: post #11

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…

you're not going to hear the 'room acoustics' on headphones surely. you may hear some ambient noise from the room if it's not sound-proofed, but that's not the same thing at all
Post reply on HN