Live data from Hacker News

Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

matrixhifi.com

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#71
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've come to realize there is a good amount of inherent subjectivity with respect to speakers - spatial dispersion isn't something that can be easily quantified, and as you say is going to vary significantly based on the room. So it kind of makes sense that listening tests are the only way to compare.

But for amplifiers, it seems that THD, frequency response, and phase response would capture everything you need to know to fully characterize the component. What else is there?

It's also odd to me that reviewers will sum up their conclusions as a piece of gear being "bright" or "bassy" - isn't that just an EQ setting? It seems that frequency response isn't really an important part of device characteristics since it can always be compensated for (within the physical limits of the driver), while the non-adjustable parts of response are (like, do speakers even give THD specs?). I would think a better methodology would be to use a reference microphone to calibrate the entire amplitude response to flat (or the reviewer's preference), and subjectivize from there.

Then again, a large part of the industry seems to be based around convincing people to spend 10x and try out several pieces of gear (pre-qualifying the price to themselves on their favorite), so I don't expect straight objectivity will ever be a high priority.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#72
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you mean passive? Active speakers are full kits like KRK Rokits, passive speakers are the "old" speakers you're talking about.

I do mean active. I'm saying old, passive, speakers are very good, but active speakers are becoming more attractive for other reasons.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#73
post #61
post #14

This justifies my setup: $2000 speakers (noticeable upgrade from previous $500 speakers), $100 receiver amp from eBay, noname cables and accessories.

This is basically my set up too. My advice to anyone looking to get started is to just buy the most expensive speakers you can afford (used market is good for this), pickup an older amp for peanuts on eBay that can power said speakers, and some bargain bin cables from RadioShack.

I'm actually in the market for a new pair of speakers, and the only objective advice I've seen is spending more gets you better speakers. While it must be true in some sense, price as an indicator of quality seems like a terrible idea because it's so easily gamed through marketing.

The landscape of local competition seems quite limited (Best Buy seems to dominate everything with B&W and ML), so it feels there's no way of knowing if they're actually worth those prices, or if it's just Best Buy's standard sucker pricing. Going up into that price range I also know there is a whole host of speaker manufacturers that are of course impossible to find locally (not that intense listening room tests are super enjoyable for long periods of time either). And going up in price also makes the price of "screwing up" that much larger.

So I've given up on that idea and figure I'll simply start with a Fry's special and see if I find them objectionable in any way. I'm not looking to make this a hobby, and higher end just seems so damn intractable otherwise.

I've already got the speaker cables from RadioShack (not much time left to obtain them)! Let's hope your exact advice canonizes and I can sell them for Monster cable prices in several years...

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#74
post #60

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?

I started my career as a recording studio engineer, and was in fact a regular reviewer of professional audio equipment for a national magazine for years, so I fit one of the two groups you mention. The short answer, honestly, is that the two groups have little in common. The community of people in pro audio are usually very pragmatic people with comprehensive experience and context with audio (i.e. they are musicians…

> They are obsessive about concepts, like hand winding of copper, or ground isolation, or Class A or tube amplification, and so on.

If anyone reading this wants a vivid example, check out reviews of amps all built around OEM amp modules (eg ICEPower). The modules have connections for 120VAC, audio in, and speaker out - a complete amplifier without a case. But the peacocking the integrators go through with LEDs, connectors, case styles, is amazing. And the seriousness with which the reviewers go about their listening tests (all testing the same amplifier in different cases) is ridiculous. It coming up on Poe's law from the other direction.

In some sense, I'm happy to see that a cottage industry can survive. But not like this.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#75
post #61
post #14

This justifies my setup: $2000 speakers (noticeable upgrade from previous $500 speakers), $100 receiver amp from eBay, noname cables and accessories.

This is basically my set up too. My advice to anyone looking to get started is to just buy the most expensive speakers you can afford (used market is good for this), pickup an older amp for peanuts on eBay that can power said speakers, and some bargain bin cables from RadioShack.

> some bargain bin cables from RadioShack

Those cables tend to be really shitty. Especially cheap RCA cables are prone to intermittent contacts, after having been plugged/unplugged a few times.

Get decent cables from a reputable source, such as...

http://www.thomann.de/gb/cordial_cfu_15_cc.htm (€10, maybe $12 or so..)

...which are worth the money, compared to the overpriced junk normally sold in consumer outlets :-(.

[I do PA sound for a local non-profit part of the time, and bad cables are a constant annoyance, not because of sound quality, but for stability, good contact, flexibility...]

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#76
post #57

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?

The difference is, nobody is arguing that their luxury handbag can carry more stuff and than acheap handbag. On the other hand audiophiles will swear that they are systems sounds better than others.

That flies in the face of every A/B test I've ever seen - and I'm not an audiophile - presumably they know 100x more than I do about audio quality. Nobody buys $900 stereo cables because they think they'll perform better than $45 monster cables. They buy those cables for the presentation, the craftsmanship, and the brand.

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#77
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 recently bought the equipment to do a similar adaptive-audio job for my living room music / home-theater setup. I have the usual multi-decade collection of once-fashionable home stereo equipment, some in use, some collecting dust in the basement. I decided I needed a bit more bass to enjoy more thoroughly the gunshots and explosions of gameplay and epic action films.

I listened to a stereophile friend eager to give advice, and convinced myself to add a self-powered subwoofer to the existing setup. Adding one shook the house but (to my ear) muddied the sound of music when no explosions were taking place. I could blame the equipment, or more properly myself, and replace some or all of the former. But I thought there must be some way to modulate all this unruly gear so that it produced a provably balanced and pleasant sound.

I will skip over some intermediate steps where I tried to learn the science and engineering of acoustics, using a neutral reference microphone and several fine pieces of audio software available to all of us interwebbily. I learned that I was overdriving the subwoofer, which made sense, but I couldn’t seem to go from spectrum graphs and suchlike to an actual balanced sound system. My final setup worked out quite satisfactorily and is an affordable alternative to building the computer-driven speaker cluster for room modeling.

> 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.

When I played in a band, we had to work with the club’s sound engineer or bring our own to get a balanced sound setup before the audience showed up. The more recent gigs showcased an interesting technology, a system that generated pink noise through the actual sound system, from the original sound sources before the mixing board, all the way through power amplifiers to the speakers at front of house. The engineer put a reference microphone in a strategic position, turned on the pink noise generator, and twiddled equalizer knobs to get a roughly even spectrograph (plus unavoidable “sound-guy magic” to de-equalize somewhat for specific gig purposes like dancing or seated listening) for the whole room, using the actual speakers and sound-reinforcement equipment we would be using.

This seemed to me to be the thing I needed in my home theater setup. It would let me balance and compensate for the (now) ten speaker cabinets in the living room (including the powered subwoofer), their real-life positions, the walls and floor coverings, the furniture, and even the cat. I think I could also do it with some combo of REW (Room Equalization Wizard) software, reference mike, and pink noise streamed through the amplifier. But while I was trying to get that approach figured out, I found a cheap piece of audio hardware with all that functionality built-in – no need to dedicate a computer to EQing the sound.

This is the Behringer DEQ-2496, a configurable digital equalization gizmo. It has a room equalization function built in, which is a home version of the room-equalization setup we saw in the clubs, and as a bonus it basically automates the sound engineer’s fingers on the equalizer sliders. I am not sure if it’s the latest model supporting this function, as I got mine used, but it was well below $200 and probably the best money I’ve spent on pretending to be an audiophile.

You set up the room for your listening preference (for me, this involves rolling the softest armchair into the center of the room the best to enjoy all those gunshots and explosions), put the reference mike about where your head will be, activate the automated room EQ process on the DEQ-2496, and sit down in your regular seating position to read for a while. It sends pink noise through the power amplifier and speakers and starts modifying an equalization curve to produce a “flat” room signal across all audible frequencies.

After about 15-20 minutes the EQ settings stop changing and the Behringer has generated the EQ setup for acoustically-neutral room sound. You can save the setup and create others (e.g., for group seating), or modify it manually to match your preferences (bigger bass for film audio, slight high-frequency boost for classical music listening, etc.), and save the modified versions as well. All my digital sound sources pass through it (game consoles, video, and music) in digital format and are equalized before they hit the amplifier and speakers – just as it worked in the clubs.

There are usable reference materials on the web to make up for the DEQ-2496’s obtuse user interface and execrable user manual. It’s not quite the super-flexible software-driven system I might have gravitated toward, but it does what I needed without tying up a computer.

What I like most is that it deals with the real world sound of my setup and room – if I change my setup or furnishings (as has happened a couple of times), I just re-run the balancing process and use the new settings as the baseline for my preferred room EQ. If my subwoofer, say, is turned too high the Behringer sets up a balancing cut in the affected frequencies. If the carpet soaks up some high-frequency signals, they’re boosted to compensate.

If my audiophile buddy gushes about the spectacularly flat frequency response of some new bookshelf system, I relax knowing that even my second-hand and slightly dinged-up speakers have been magically upgraded to subjectively flat (or not, as I wish) frequency responses – in the real world of my living room, not just in the lab or the store. It even has a full panel display of das blinkenlites should I need confirmation things are working properly. Very satisfying!

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#78
post #63
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Er, $1000 for ten people - although this isn't still a small amount it is close to an average mid-range home audio setup. The $10K you mention would be for 100 people, and then you would be looking at audio equipment for small performances and clubs, which can easily cost that much or more. So, interestingly, the 100 x N formula for cost of audio equipment for N people to listen to, seems to hold. I am curious about…

Hah, lol. Yes ofc. But really, what you need for 10 people is ~1000$ worth of stereo equipment, not 10 sets of head phones... Maybe when we get dac's operated into our ears...

http://www.wyldeside.com/rpgs/cp2020/cw-cyberaudio.html

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#79

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 recently bought the equipment to do a similar adaptive-audio job for my living room music / home-theater setup. I have the usual multi-decade collection of once-fashionable home stereo equipment, some in use, some collecting dust in the basement. I decided I needed a bit more bass to enjoy more thoroughly the gunshots and explosions of gameplay and epic action films. I listened to a stereophile friend eager to give…

EQ itself adds distortion. You may end up with flat characteristic, but poor sound quality.

Amplifier designers are avoiding capacitors in signal path to minimize harmonic distortion. Now imagine you would put such a beast as EQ in the path...

Re: Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment

#80

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 recently bought the equipment to do a similar adaptive-audio job for my living room music / home-theater setup. I have the usual multi-decade collection of once-fashionable home stereo equipment, some in use, some collecting dust in the basement. I decided I needed a bit more bass to enjoy more thoroughly the gunshots and explosions of gameplay and epic action films. I listened to a stereophile friend eager to give…

"When I played in a band, we had to work with the club’s sound engineer or bring our own to get a balanced sound setup before the audience showed up. The more recent gigs showcased an interesting technology, a system that generated pink noise through the actual sound system, from the original sound sources before the mixing board, all the way through power amplifiers to the speakers at front of house. The engineer put a reference microphone in a strategic position, turned on the pink noise generator, and twiddled equalizer knobs to get a roughly even spectrograph (plus unavoidable “sound-guy magic” to de-equalize somewhat for specific gig purposes like dancing or seated listening) for the whole room, using the actual speakers and sound-reinforcement equipment we would be using."

For stage shows, having a proper computer driven sound system with a large array of small transducers would let you do stuff like having the audio follow the position of the instruments and voice accurately, as well as doing some really silly things, like rotating 3d soundfields. It takes some reasonably serious hardware and knowhow though. A good starting point is here - http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/mustech/3d_audio/ambis2.htm

edit - that Behringer thing sounds really cool though, makes me wonder how hard it would be to code something like that in pure data or similar. https://puredata.info/

Post reply on HN