Is good sound quality only a privilege of the wealthy?

[4est]

In reality, there is a lot of great gear to be had for peanuts if you know what to look for and someone to help you fix it. A lot of the vintage gear is as good as what is produced now and it is cheap. Often other audiophiles will not touch it because it is out of warranty or that they are hung up on balanced connections or some other thing. The truth is that there is very little new in hi fi (except for digital stuff) in the last 30 years. Largely it is a rehashing of what was, coupled with some more modern production techniques that allow items that may have been too expensive in the past.

 

For instance, Quad ESL 63 loudspeakers can be had used for under 2K (or a pair that needs work for well under 1K). They are darn near identical to the new ones, and one of the most revealing speakers of all time- period. Sure, they has some issues- you need the right amp to get the highs out of them and they lack the punch on the lows of a box speaker. What you do get is a crossoverless point source with an uncanny ability to portray the event. They "speak" to you as an old timer might say.

 

The point is, that with some research and forethought one can have a truly sublime system for under 2k, maybe even under 1k.

 

Take Barry's MMG suggestion. I enjoyed the crap out of a system in the 80's based on something similar: Magnepan MG 1, Dynaco Stereo 70, Dynaco PAS3 and an AR table with a Mission arm and Grado cartridge. Sure, I have come a long way since then, but still there was magic to be had with that rig. Something very similar could still be assembled for less than 2K. $1200 or so for speakers and amp, and one could sub a used computer and DAC for the analog gear.

 

Under 1k- a used pair of Tannoy v8 (or similar) for under $300 shipped, an old tube Fischer receiver ($200) and you are off to the races. Seriously good gear, readily available for cheap. My guess is this rig would beat the pants off of say, the Decco gear at half the money because it is used and older with different connections.

 

[realhifi]

"The Percentage

Elioise, I think the principle is correct. I'd say, however, is 90%

is closer, if you make a good pick with your cheap gear."

 

So if I look at a decent tube integrated amplifier from a US manufacturer that sells for $4,000 I can get something that sounds 90% as good for $400? I'll take one!

 

Speakers, let's say a pair at $2,200 and I can pay 10% of that and get 90% of the performance? $220 for a pair that is 90% of the performance of the pair at $2,200? Really?

 

I disagree. I also disagree with Eloise. I do not know any formula that fits how a hifi can sound. I have heard systems that cost $50,000 sound good but not stunning and systems at 10% that sound great but NOT close to the ok sounding $50,000 system. For sure it is a slippery slope when it gets to be crazy costing but I have not yet found a magic bullet in hif for well over 40yrs now. Yes, things can sound good at certain price points but once you have heard a VERY good (unfortunately the starting price of admission in my opinion is around $10,000) system that has been well chosen and set up by someone with good ears you immediately know that what you are hearing is special indeed and quiet frankly can not be had for $1,000 or $2,000.

 

This is not a knock against systems that DO cost 1 to 2K it's simply addressing the original posters question. Whether someone thinks you have to wealthy to spend $10,000 on a hifi is another debate totally but the plain fact remains that as you go up the ladder (to a certain point for sure) your gains can be easily and very quickly appreciated!

 

I have listened to many systems that were more than the sum of their parts and could happily listen for days on end BUT, at the end of the day, if you spend more (wisely) then you get more. Can it be subtle? Sometimes. But I would say that nine times out of ten it holds very true.

 

You get what you pay for.

 

This has nothing to do with enjoying music by the way. Some people can listen to a tranistor radio and be blissed out and some want more. Way more. One is not better or more right than the other, it's just a simple horses for courses. It's YOUR result that matters. No one else can judge what kind of system you think is enough or how much is "enough" to spend on musical enjoyment. It's why there is so many different price points. I would hope that the person that can (and does) spend $10,000 up on a system doesn't think that their way is the best way and that you HAVE to spend that to achieve musical satisfaction. BUT, I would also hope that the person that feels you need to spend no more than say $500 or $1,000 on a system can also find their way to understand why the person that is spending much more on their system is doing it and not knock that approach either.

 

As they say.....happy listening!

 

[James1776]

This, again, is close to what I am running for vinyl

 

1. Project RPM.1.3 ($500)

 

http://www.project-audio.com/inhalt/bilder/tn/rpm13.jpg

 

2. Graham phono preamp ($410)

 

http://www.musicdirect.com/shared/images/products/large/agrahamp2se.jpg

 

3. Ortofon 2M Blue ($199)

 

4. Grant Fidelity tube buffer ($190)

 

5. Emotiva UP1 monoblock (2 needed) ($299 each)

 

6. CIaudio VPC3 passive preamp - ($299)

 

7. Magneplanar MMG's ($600)

 

8. Monster cables at perhaps ($200)

 

Total cost...$2700

 

Is there a way to post a image on this site??

 

[satkinsn]

realhifi wrote:

 

"I would hope that the person that can (and does) spend $10,000 up on a system doesn't think that their way is the best way and that you HAVE to spend that to achieve musical satisfaction. BUT, I would also hope that the person that feels you need to spend no more than say $500 or $1,000 on a system can also find their way to understand why the person that is spending much more on their system is doing it and not knock that approach either."

 

Well, in absolute terms you're right. It's not up to me to tell you how to spend your money, or to chastise you for spending it your way, and not the way I would.

 

BUT for some of us there is a sense - call it an opinion - that there is something deeply flawed in the idea that good sound starts in the $10,000 range. Maybe you're right, but if you are then there is a lot of bad faith and voodoo in the price ranges below that.

 

(I know - you mention that people can enjoy the music for much less. But implicit in your comment is the idea that you have to overlook some pretty big sonic compromises.)

 

And as for me specifically, I have a nagging disappointment about computer audio. It started out (along with T amps and a few other mid-2000 things) as a possible 'magic bullet,' a way to not spend a fortune to get good sound, a way that ordinary (and especially young) people could get into it. However, it seems like the old audiophile mindset/marketing is kicking in: increasingly expensive boutique products and a compulsion to believe more expensive is usually better.

 

Aside: none of this is directed at Chris. It's more a whine about the direction the field seems to be taking.

 

s.

 

[goldsdad]

"However, it seems like the old audiophile mindset/marketing is kicking in: increasingly expensive boutique products and a compulsion to believe more expensive is usually better."

 

$500 USB cable is a perfect example, IMO. Especially for hooking up a hard-drive.

No offence intended to anyone.

 

 

 

[Glennboy]

I have loved music all my life (i think) but the thought of spending 10 grand on a system frightens me, mainly because i am a mere carpenter and i get what i think i can afford.

I guess if i had the cash i would probably end up telling myself i needed some thousand pound a metre speaker cable cos it's just the way us music lovers seem to be.

Most people cannot understand why i would spend several hundreds of pounds on speakers when you can get one box that does it all for £100.

Most people really dont care what the music sounds like itunes 128kbps anyone?

I think reasonable sound though is readily available on a tight budget, my second system used ibook g3 £100 itunes lossless files fubar i/o usb dac £100 marantz pm6002 amp £280 Wharfedale diamonds £180. pretty good sound for a modest price i think.

 

I have been impressed with what computer audio has offered me and i now have the best sounding system i have owned, i always want the best value and computer audiophile has been a great reference so thankyou!

here's to enjoying the music whatever system you may be able to afford.

 

 

[Turboglo]

wgscott: Good on you for going solar! And if it helps, I would definitely covet your solar panels were I to walk by your house.

 

[wgscott]

http://tinyurl.com/wgsolar

 

[wappinghigh]

What a fantastic thread! My approach is simple. Keep learning from sites like this. Read, think about it, then read some more. Then listen. Then sit back and buy demo's or second hand. In my part of the world this means try to source individual gear under the 1,000K tax threshold. Often great gear can be snapped up this way. And let's face it, a lot of it has hardly been used. The other thing is to pay for the quality part of the electronics. Not necessarily the next big "thing" that the industry wants to direct you too...

 

1.4 HDMI and 3D blu ray is a classic example of this! Suddenly there are some great sounding 1.3HDMI receivers (or even those without HDMI) going for complete bargains !

 

But at the end of the day, if this hobby keeps my ageing dementing brain from deteriorating any further, stops me from shouting at my teenage daughters, and keeps me in contact with all you fantastic people from around the world....then that alone is worth thousands of dollars!

 

[Insight in Sound]

I have been a seeker of accurate reproduction for 50 years, quite successfully... and I would say that your perspective is one of the better considered and well put overviews that I've heard or read. Perhaps in the near future I will produce my commentary on this same subject. At this time my reply is intended to support and reinforce your positioning, which you've shared so well.

 

[Paul R]

This would seem to be supported by observing how the price of really good computer hardware has dropped so drastically in the last 10 to 15 years, I think.

 

 

[darascal]

"...forever locking them out of good quality sound?"

 

Do I detect a note of pity there? There are so many people in this country (and the world) who love their music & get great satisfaction listening to their car radios, their iPod nanos w/ stock earbuds or the compact system they picked up at Target.

 

"They" (the unwashed non-audiophile masses ;>) perhaps have not heard what "we" would consider "good sound quality", and maybe some might not even care for it if they did. Some might prefer the highly-colored sound they heard at Best Buy, the booming bass of a car outfitted with massive sub-woofers, or that one really cool Bose system.

 

My point is, rich or poor, most people just want the joy that comes from connecting with music. It's about how it moves ya. Hell, two of my own peak musical experiences happened on VERY low-end systems - one on a car radio, another on an old Sony CRT TV, the night Bruce Springsteen played David Letterman's final show on NBC. He just ROCKED THE HOUSE, the energy was incredible, the crowd went wild & I could not sit still! Not for a moment did I think about sound quality. I could feel the heart and energy of the performance loud and clear.

 

Anyway ... to response to the *actual* question, a recent ecstatic musical experience of mine involved the Rolling Stones and:

 

-iPod Classic ($260)

-Sharp DKAP8P i-Elegance iPod dock ($113)

 

It was when I stopped evaluating its sound quality that the music hooked in. It rocked me. It was damn surprising that this cheap little box could be that involving. Obviously not a general-purpose system, but very nice for a portable one.

 

rascal

 

[Bluebeard]

There are two factors to consider here:

 

If by wealthy you mean, those who have sufficient disposable income to be able to dedicate it to music, then the answer is that good music quality has always been the privilege of the wealthy.

 

This has been the case since at least the late middle ages – the quality (and size) of a church/cathedral choir or orchestra was directly related to the wealth of the diocese, later when secular courts became the power, ditto for the noble court. (Yes, there were exceptions – Haydn at Esterhazy for example.) This has also gone hand in glove with the development of an audience skilled enough to identify the quality of the performer. Again this capacity is a factor of having wealth sufficient to dedicate time to this pastime.

 

The music may be the same, but there would be a significant difference in late 18th century in the quality and skill of someone performing a Mozart aria in say Vienna at the State Opera House and the same aria at say the York Municipal Theatre.

 

By the time you get to mechanical reproduction in the late 19th Century, the basic tenet remains the same - better performances are a by-product of better reproduction through higher quality, and thus more expensive, equipment. The correlation of disposable income to “good sound quality” has been a constant for an awful long time...

 

The second issue is what do you mean by “good sound quality”. I'd recommend reading Greg Milner's Perfecting Sound Forever, which examines and discusses recorded sound and reproduction from its beginnings in the early 20th Century. Time and again he raises instances in the past where listeners find it impossible to differentiate between recording and reality – and where demos of live artists and their recordings were used to demonstrate the fidelity of the reproduction. His introduction discusses this in the context of an demonstration of an Edison phonograph in 1915.

 

You and I could listen to the same 78 and hear nothing but a distorted, monophonic, range constricted and undynamic sound – the facts remains that in its heyday it was the non-pareil of reproduction and considered the next best thing to reality.

 

Closer to our time compare the cassette to a digital recording and what was good enough for our parents, well...It would seem then that one generation's good sound quality is the next's unlistenable...In all these technologies there have been their own hierachies, someone who owned a Nakamichi Dragon would consider a Yamaha KX360 unlistenable, whilst the Yamaha owner would consider the Realistic to be beneath contempt...

 

I have no doubt that after the 1915 demo Milner discusses, there were earnest discussions amongst a small group of persons as to the merits of the Edison over the Victrola and whether the shellac record was an advance over the wax cylinder...

 

Just two issues to remember when discussing such a nebulous topic.

 

Regards,

 

Giles

 

 

[bernardl]

Besides the obvious truth that only 10% of the world population are in a position to potentially develop an interest of sound quality, I believe that these 10% are further split in 2 categories.

 

- the people who need/want a car,

- those who don't.

 

Assuming that the people who need/want a car spend an average 5.000 to 10.000 US$ a year buying/maintaining/ensuring their car, this leaves to the second category (to which I have been belonging for 20 years) an enormous degree of freedom to spend whatever money they want on hifi, equipment everything else being equal.

 

Ever wondered why Hong Kong is the hifi scene that it is? Look no further.

 

Cheers,

Bernard

 

 

[firedog]

There are many accurate comments in this thread, even among points of view that don't agree.

 

I agree that audiophillia is basically for the well off, and even the subset of the well off that give a priority to audio. I have many friends with much greater income than me (some millionaires), who would be horrified to know the cost of my system, and it's only at the lower end of what I consider to be hi-end. But it's a matter of priorities - they spend money on expensive cars and fashionable clothes, and I don't. To each his/her own.

 

For perspective: my minimum of good sound would probably be something around $1500-2000: Laptop, usb/spdif link and/or USB DAC (some variation), amp, bookshelf speakers, and accessories. If I was really pressed for cash and starting from scratch, I'd get everything but the PC used, and could easily do that for under $1000 (including PC).

 

But what's good sound? In my bedroom I have a Squeezebox Boom, which for those unfamiliar, is basically a modern version of a boom box, with some "wireless" features added. For casual listening it is more than adequate, and has been voiced to give a "balanced" sound. I find it quite pleasant to listen to when I want music for background. It cost about $300, which is about 2% of the retail value of my main system.

 

I'd even go so far to say that the SB Boom sounds better (at least in some parameters) than the entry level "quality" stereo system (Pioneer TT, Kenwood Amp, and AdventII speakers) I saved and crimped for in the 70's. That system probably had a retail value of about $450 in 1974 dollars (in today's dollars many times that).

 

Most people I know are well off, and don't truly aspire to sound any better than what the Boom makes. Some of them own stereo systems of decent quality that they never listen to; or they place the system (b/c decorating is a priority)in such a way that it's potential isn't heard. For reasons of "prestige" or "taste" they wouldn't put the plastic SB Boom in their living room, and they claim they care about good sound, but essentially they listen to music only as background music. Some of them sometimes fire up their "nice" system for this purpose, but others never actually use the good system, and "in real life" only listen to their iPod in an iPod dock or while in the car. So their audio aspirations in practice are on the level of the SB Boom.

 

All of this is a round about way of saying that I agree that good sound is basically only for the well off (not necessarily wealthy), but I'm not sure it matters. Except for the truly economically hard pressed, it's possible to get there one way or the other, and the rest of the population doesn't care.

 

[bottlerocket]

People need and deserve to spend money frivolously on fancy gadgets and equipment. It is often a luxury yes, and so what? I really don't think the purchasers believe they have to get the $20K alternative; they just want it. It reminds me of selling personal computers many years back. I had a sales manager who insisted that I qualify all customers by getting a firm understanding of their needs. Most of the time if I asked them too many questions on what they intended to use a $3K 128K Macintosh for, I found was essentially talking them out of the purshase. I found it much more effective to discuss what they WANTED, not what they NEEDED. I am sure today's audio salesmen and women know the difference too.

 

That all being said, I love to see discussion of the so-called "giant killer" systems and components like the aforementioned Maggie MMGs. If you are just going to cover your needs, it makes sense to get the best you can in your budget and often the best you can get is not any more expensive than the other budget options.

 

[tomE]

I think we live in an era where more sound quality is available for less money than ever before. You just have to know where to look. Those that care about music and sound quality probably already have an idea where to look. The overwhelming majority don't listen to music per se they have it going in the background while they do something else. As someone has already said "they don't care." It has always been this way I suppose.

I don't frequent the audio salons as much as I did when I was younger but I happened into one I wasn't familiar with recently while perusing the speaker market. The sales person played some music through a small Wadia system that had their iPod dock and matching amplifier powering small PSB speakers. The whole thing was around $2k and really impressed me. It certainly wouldn't be appropriate for a large room but it was really musical setup. Where my system will play lots louder (about $12k) and has way more bass capability I walked away thinking I could live with that system if I had to give up my analog gear.

 

[Paul R]

 

And I do not really know how to answer the question you pose. I think I tend to agree with you. Heck, I listen to my iPhone on the stock ear buds - because I can take a phone call on em.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

[bikemig]

I've really enjoyed this thread. I suspect I have a heck of a lot less invested in my music system than many here. I don't have a long history with a good quality music system. I used to own what I thought was a reasonable stereo system that I gave away during a recent move since I knew I wanted to make the computer the center of a new music system and my brother needed my old system. Frankly I've been pleasantly surprised by how little you need to pay for a good sounding system. Like Firedog, I think the SB boom is a heck of a system for a bedroom. I plan on buying a good quality stereo system to use with my home theater in the near future but I know I won't spend more than $2k for the AV receiver and speakers. It will be better than what I am currently using (Audioengine A-5 speakers) but it won't even be close to 5 to 7 times better (even though it will cost 5 to 7 times more). The point is you can set up a pretty reasonable system using the A-5 speakers (there are other good quality powered monitors at that price point) and using the computer as a source.

By the way, I'm intrigued by the fact that this has been one of the most active threads on this site lately. I'm not quite sure what that means but I've been interested in the points of views expressed here. As I've been doing research on an AV receiver and speaker, I've spent some time on other audio websites. They often trash a number of ideas that are taken for granted here (particularly the importance of external, expensive dacs). I take those ideas with a grain of salt but it is always good to think about opposing views.

 

[Paul R]

It is of course, true, that the greater the wealth one has at their disposal, the more choices one has in most endeavors.

 

But it is also true that technology improves and becomes lass expensive over time. This should mean that the top quality sound of 20 years ago should be available in almost any equipment today, and for a relative cost of peanuts. I am not sure that is so. Why not?

 

The hottest systems of today easily outclass the very hottest systems of 20 years ago, using easily available and cheap technology.

 

In other words, a very hot audio system should be as available to anyone as is a really nice television, or a cell phone/pocket computer, or a computer. But is it?

 

-Paul

 

 

[satkinsn]

When I started following computer audio, it appeared to be following the 'computer' model - more and more for less and less.

 

I now think it's reverting to the 'audio' model - slightly more for more.

 

This isn't universally true, and I'm hoping that what's going on is similar to what happened in computers, where the price point was $1000 for a long time, while each generation of machine was more and more competent, and then the price barrier was breached.

 

s.

 

[Tipper]

Yer man above wrote:

 

“This isn't universally true, and I'm hoping that what's going on is similar to what happened in computers, where the price point was $1000 for a long time, while each generation of machine was more and more competent, and then the price barrier was breached.”

 

Somehow I doubt it. The audiophiles will eventually push the price of any computer audio products upwards and then moan about how the audio industry is dying.

For the industry to flourish we need to take the audiophile out of audio.

 

 

[soundsolutions11]

For the industry to flourish we need to take the audiophile out of audio

 

I disagree with this comment. What needs to happen is that the audio industry needs to open the market up to more people which can join the hobby eventually.

 

There could be a new development that could come to fruition in the near future which could help this happen. Apple has introduced Airplay, which many consumer audio companies are building products for. Well it stands to reason IMO that if they are aiming to stream to the home sound system, then Apple will have a vested interest in making sure the audio sounds much better than MP3 does, as MP3 will not cut it on the home sound system at any price. The flaws of MP3 will be pronounced when streamed to a much better system than just through the Ipod that most only use. Once these new prospective audiophiles get a sense of how much better and how much more convenient digital audio is, it very well can open up the market to new customers that get on the journey to better sound. In other words good SQ needs a bigger market, turn them on to our hobby!

 

[bikemig]

This new stereo receiver from Onkyo could be the heart of a $1k system, http://onkyousa.com/model.cfm?m=TX-8050&class=Receiver&p=i. The retail is $400. It has multiple digital inputs and is network capable via ethernet. It is also 4 ohm stable so couple this with the Magneplanar MMG for a total price of $1k.

 

I guess I disagree with soundsolutions' remarks about MP3 files. I know that this is heresy on this site but I like the sound of high bit rate MP3 files. Perhaps my ears are not very good (that's very possible) or perhaps my system is simply not revealing enough (also very possible) but I think that MP3 files can sound very good. The vast majority of my music files are ripped into Apple lossless (I still buy CDs!) but I also listen to MP3 files. I use 320 kbps files on my laptop for space reasons. I also download MP3s from Amazon. I can't really hear a difference between these files and the applelossless files.

 

[satkinsn]

How do you like the AE amplifier and the P4s? I'm a fiend for the A2 powered speakers.

 

Also, I'm anxious to hear both the Onkyo and the companion cd player.

 

s.