[AdamP88]

What a load of BS.

 

[OverlordXenu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick20 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes it does. You need money to get a good setup. You need money to get good quality music. I could go on-and-on, but I won't.

Only people who want to be elitists and show off their equipment think cost is proportional to how good something sounds.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Only people who want to be elitists and show off their equipment think cost is proportional to how good something sounds.

I'm not sure how to go into how many ways your argument is wrong.

First, he's not saying cost is proportional to quality. He's saying that to get the best-grade sound, you have to go to some pretty expensive equipment. The best $600 speakers in the world won't compare to most $20,000 pairs. Most well-mastered albums are more expensive than noise war CDs. Sometimes you just have to spend Money.

Second, there is a definite positive correlation between cost and money. It may be exponential, but it's there. Take a stats class - saying two variables are related doesn't mean EVERY SINGLE DATA POINT fits that relationship. There is some very good cheap equipment and there is some poor expensive equipment, but in general the more money you spend the better product you get. The relationship is there, period.

 

[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure how to go into how many ways your argument is wrong. First, he's not saying cost is proportional to quality. He's saying that to get the best-grade sound, you have to go to some pretty expensive equipment. The best $600 speakers in the world won't compare to most $20,000 pairs. Most well-mastered albums are more expensive than noise war CDs. Sometimes you just have to spend Money. Second, there is a definite positive correlation between cost and money. It may be exponential, but it's there. Take a stats class - saying two variables are related doesn't mean EVERY SINGLE DATA POINT fits that relationship. There is some very good cheap equipment and there is some poor expensive equipment, but in general the more money you spend the better product you get. The relationship is there, period.

You'd be surprised how similiar "high end" units are to many "mid range" units when it comes to schematics and component quality.

Even with speakers, many "high end" ones perform no better than "mid range" ones.

A lot of current products are really just a meshing of reference designs.

 

[Arainach]

And how many high-end speaker setups have you demoed? Looking at circuit designs means nothing until you listen to how they sound. The Grado SR-60 through SR-225 look identical even under close evaluation, and I will vouch 100% for their differences in SQ.

 

[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif And how many high-end speaker setups have you demoed? Looking at circuit designs means nothing until you listen to how they sound. The Grado SR-60 through SR-225 look identical even under close evaluation, and I will vouch 100% for their differences in SQ.

You ask many people, including Grado lovers, and they will tell you that SR-60 through SR-225 sound almost Identical. After trying them all, I feel the same.

This was actually just brought up in the headphone forum recently actually.

 

[vcoheda]

i'm not so sure i would go with or recommend a straight 50/50 division between gear and other related components, but i think the article does try to impress upon people the idea that things like power, proper stabilization, and quality cables are important, do to a reasonable degree affect the quality of the sound, and therefore should not be neglected - relegated to purely secondary or even tertiary status - when building a system. and to this extent, i agree.

 

[tyrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even with speakers, many "high end" ones perform no better than "mid range" ones.

That is quite a generalization. What is someone supposed to take away from reading that. I'm demoing a pair of monitors that retail for aroudn $4200. They clearly sound better than speakers I've heard that cost less. Is there a speaker out there that costs say $500 to $1000 that I would believe sound as good or better, I have no idea. I know that I haven't heard them yet. I owned and auditioned a fair number of speakers. Most of the ones that cost more, sound better then the ones that cost less. This is all to my ears, of course but I believe there is a correlation to cost and performance. It's not the be all and end all but it certainly, in my experience, has some correlation. There are always exceptions.

 

[chesebert]

ppl should just ignore the trolls (I find 'ignore list' especially useful)

 

[colonelkernel8]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif ppl should just ignore the trolls (I find 'ignore list' especially useful)

No one is trolling here. The ignore list only proves your ignorance.

 

[colonelkernel8]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrion /img/forum/go_quote.gif That is quite a generalization. What is someone supposed to take away from reading that. I'm demoing a pair of monitors that retail for aroudn $4200. They clearly sound better than speakers I've heard that cost less. Is there a speaker out there that costs say $500 to $1000 that I would believe sound as good or better, I have no idea. I know that I haven't heard them yet. I owned and auditioned a fair number of speakers. Most of the ones that cost more, sound better then the ones that cost less. This is all to my ears, of course but I believe there is a correlation to cost and performance. It's not the be all and end all but it certainly, in my experience, has some correlation. There are always exceptions.

Of course; its not even a generalization. He said many, not most or all. There are indeed a lot of mid-range speakers that sound better than high end ones, and there are also high-end speakers that sound better than other high-end ones. Its all about the design and the build of the speaker, and there certainly is the opportunity for low-cost "mid-fi" speakers to sound better than there high-end counterparts, especially because typically, the only thing that dictates "fidelity" (or the "fi" in high and mid-fi) is the price, not the quality.

 

[tyrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by colonelkernel8 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course; its not even a generalization. He said many, not most or all. There are indeed a lot of mid-range speakers that sound better than high end ones, and there are also high-end speakers that sound better than other high-end ones. Its all about the design and the build of the speaker, and there certainly is the opportunity for low-cost "mid-fi" speakers to sound better than there high-end counterparts, especially because typically, the only thing that dictates "fidelity" (or the "fi" in high and mid-fi) is the price, not the quality.

I think when you make the statement that LawnGnome made, he is generalizing. It adds nothing to the position he has taken in this regard. I've heard most of the System Audio line, a few different pairs of Amphions, the entire Omega Hemp line plus numerous others at the Stereophile Show, as examples and imo as you go up the line and price, sq improves. That's not to say that a lesser priced speaker from one company can't sound better than a higher priced speaker from another. However, in my experience, the bottom level Amphion doesn't sound better (to me) than the mid level System Audio speaker. In my experience, the higher the cost, the better the sq from the speaker. I will agree that as you move up the ladder, the amount of increase in sq diminishes based upon dollar spent to some extent. There will always be exceptions as I stated earlier. To a certain extent we always make generalizations when making statements about subjects like this. When they are made by someone who has experience the generalizations tend to have greater meaning to those reading them.

Addressing the first post, I believe that what that HiFi mag said is nuts.

I don't know that there is a lot of trolling. Nor do I feel it needs to be pointed out when it occurs. If you feel someone is a troll, ignore them, don't call more attention to it. Why is this so difficult. By making the statement you are inviting them to respond.

 

[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrion /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think when you make the statement that LawnGnome made, he is generalizing. It adds nothing to the position he has taken in this regard. I've heard most of the System Audio line, a few different pairs of Amphions, the entire Omega Hemp line plus numerous others at the Stereophile Show, as examples and imo as you go up the line and price, sq improves. That's not to say that a lesser priced speaker from one company can't sound better than a higher priced speaker from another. However, in my experience, the bottom level Amphion doesn't sound better (to me) than the mid level System Audio speaker. In my experience, the higher the cost, the better the sq from the speaker. I will agree that as you move up the ladder, the amount of increase in sq diminishes based upon dollar spent to some extent. There will always be exceptions as I stated earlier. To a certain extent we always make generalizations when making statements about subjects like this. When they are made by someone who has experience the generalizations tend to have greater meaning to those reading them. Addressing the first post, I believe that what that HiFi mag said is nuts. I don't know that there is a lot of trolling. Nor do I feel it needs to be pointed out when it occurs. If you feel someone is a troll, ignore them, don't call more attention to it. Why is this so difficult. By making the statement you are inviting them to respond.

Well within the same line, there is normally a correlation between price/performance that is pretty clear. Once you start looking at many different brands, that line becomes much less defined.

Just look at it like this, take several pair from many brands that cost 2000$, you will quickly find some sound quite a large amount better. Even though the cost the same. You will even find some of them perform on par with some speakers that cost half as much, and some perform on par with speakers that cost twice as much.


The reason for this, is because when it comes to selling audio, it isn't sound quality that sells most. It is marketing. The article goes to show that very well.

 

[infinitesymphony]

I think that the equilateral triangle concept is funny, because it feeds into many audiophiles' desire for perfect symmetry or balance. Notice the symmetrical arrangements of many listening setups, down to identical speaker placement, power amplifier placement, rack placement, subwoofer placement (.2, of course!), etc.

I hope that the author's point was that those elements shouldn't be ignored, because a system can definitely sound better if care is paid when examining room acoustics, power, cables, and isolation. But as others have said, price and performance are not necessarily related, especially in the higher price ranges.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Just look at it like this, take several pair from many brands that cost 2000$, you will quickly find some sound quite a large amount better. Even though the cost the same. You will even find some of them perform on par with some speakers that cost half as much, and some perform on par with speakers that cost twice as much.

That's because there's much more to cost than Audio Quality. There's Build Quality, Research Costs (something which people often neglect when claiming audio products are overpriced), and Supply/Demand.