M
Merefield
Guest
My 17 yr old (!) hifi i bought in my student days has finally given up and i'm in the enviable position of buying a new hifi with a budget which far exceeds that when i did my B.Eng.
So now i'm naturally reading the vast coverage of equipment in magazines and on the net.
But now I'm personally sick of reading all the rubbish in the popular hi-fi press with their flowery, subjective language and almost total lack of scientific precision.
For systems that produce electrical outputs which lend themselves very well to technical analysis i am shocked at how little effort is taken to properly test equipment. Its quite shocking how bad hifi reviews generally are. They read more like fluffy wine tasting reports! What the heck are "Timing" and "Detail"?? ROFL!!
Now i would hazard a guess that the industry likes this because where formats rarely change (How old is the CD??) and since the technology is fairly mature, it suits the manufacturers to leave an element of doubt in your mind that you might actually benefit from upgrading regularly. Whereas i suspect a very good amp made 5-10 years ago is probably still up there with the very best.
It clearly makes some sense to buy a more expensive amp to get better power transistors that can cope with bigger loads and more current, and a more expensive speaker set with higher quality materials.
But PLEASE - how much better can a good CD player be. Can a 1000 quid player REALLY sound better than a 300 pound one??? Where's the scientific proof?
So i'm keen to buy a 3 piece, vanilla stereo, CD, amp and speaker combination, but how much should i spend beyond which i get little benefit?
Discuss....
So now i'm naturally reading the vast coverage of equipment in magazines and on the net.
But now I'm personally sick of reading all the rubbish in the popular hi-fi press with their flowery, subjective language and almost total lack of scientific precision.
For systems that produce electrical outputs which lend themselves very well to technical analysis i am shocked at how little effort is taken to properly test equipment. Its quite shocking how bad hifi reviews generally are. They read more like fluffy wine tasting reports! What the heck are "Timing" and "Detail"?? ROFL!!
Now i would hazard a guess that the industry likes this because where formats rarely change (How old is the CD??) and since the technology is fairly mature, it suits the manufacturers to leave an element of doubt in your mind that you might actually benefit from upgrading regularly. Whereas i suspect a very good amp made 5-10 years ago is probably still up there with the very best.
It clearly makes some sense to buy a more expensive amp to get better power transistors that can cope with bigger loads and more current, and a more expensive speaker set with higher quality materials.
But PLEASE - how much better can a good CD player be. Can a 1000 quid player REALLY sound better than a 300 pound one??? Where's the scientific proof?
So i'm keen to buy a 3 piece, vanilla stereo, CD, amp and speaker combination, but how much should i spend beyond which i get little benefit?
Discuss....