Comments on: Is the 'I can't hear the difference' myth killing the speaker business?

Don't be so sure you "can't hear the difference" between the cheap stuff and high end speakers.

[RG-T3]

The author makes an interesting comparison to fine wine.

It's been found that experienced wine tasters do very poorly in blind taste tests when asked to determine which samples are fine wines, and which are lesser or a cheap wines. In given a blind choice, they prefer the cheaper wine in a substantial percentage of cases. When the wines are identified, however, their opinions are often revised to prefer the renowned wines or, secondly, those near the top of the price scale--and they discovered new qualities and nuances they embarrassingly missed before.

I would be very interested to see a similar test with speakers.

Specifically, a test conducted with a large number of experienced, professional audiophiles in which they had to blindly judge the quality of speakers with prices ranging from mid-range to high. I would be astonished if a majority judged the costlier speakers as the best.

Why doesn't some manufacturer do this comparison? Of course there is something for a manufacturer to gain and something to lose, depending on how it shakes out. If it's been done with a good representative sample of audiophiles (100-plus in number, all with 10+ years in some relevant aspect of the music industry, etc.), I'd like to know about it.

As with wine, I would wager that the power of suggestion is very strong in judging the quality of audio speakers. Especially if you mentally decide that you want the higher priced speakers; you will begin to hear deficiencies in the lower priced speakers in order to justify your decision.

Above, I'm strictly speaking about mid-range and high-priced varieties of speakers, though it wouldn't surprise me if a few experienced audiophiles preferred very cheap speakers to high-priced varieties in blind tests.

[Martiat]

I agree with last RG-T3' post. I think some of these comparisons have been made by some magazine. But if it where to happen with the suggested audience, they shoul be made using a coorect system upstream. I have spent hours listening to different components. Of course the speakers seem to account for the main differences, and they obviously sound very different. But if the rest of the system (well recorded CDs - or vinyls-, CD player, cables and amps are not of high-end quality, then the advantages of good speakers (presence, intelligibility of the lyrics, stereo image, depth and fine details) will not reveal and it will become difficult to tell which speaker is best.

[suedihfed]

I used to be concerned with the finer points of audio and spent thousands of dollars on high end stereo components over the years...but that was when I wasn't married and had a lot of idle time on my hands. Now, I stll have my Klipsch speakers and Nakamichi & Marantz components but not that often. Music is a background to my life, not a vitally important part of it anymore. I cannot remember the last time I actually sat and concentrated on what I was listening to. I would love the time to do that but it just isn't possible with my schedule. I listen to cd's mosly in the car on the way to or from work now and I find myself content with the six speaker stereo in my 2003 Buick.

[make_or_break]

I know people in both camps. Hell, I've been in both camps.

I've ALWAYS been able to hear the difference, though with age and "abuse" of my eardrums, it's getting harder to discern certain aura characteristics that I could easily pick out a decade or two ago. I think it should be more to the point on it's whether or not people CARE anymore, or even if they ever did.

I've built up some really great-sounding systems (home, mobile, computer) in my time, but nowadays I find myself settling for whatever I have at hand more often than not. Perhaps it's age and the diminishing of my hearing over time, but frankly getting the Absolute Sound isn't all that important to me anymore. I gave up my dedicated listening room a few years ago--the real estate was needed for other things like storage, a gaming area and a home office--and haven't looked back (much). Being a one-time audiophile (or even pretending to be) was in hindsight bloody expensive, even when one was able to be strategic in mapping out an upgrade path that put less pain into the 'plastic'. When reality hit when I realized that there was NO WAY I'd be able to justify (to myself and, equally important, to my wife) building a system around the Halcro dm-58, it was the dawning of my new era that it really didn't matter anymore that I pursue the best sound possible. Certainly it's kept the charge card bills more manageable.

Nowadays, I use my little Paradigm bookshelfs run through a simple Dared tube setup that I picked up dirt cheap a few years ago before they started to recognize their profit potential and remapped their pricing structure. My Thiel/McIntosh setup sits idle most of the time; it really needs a room the size of my old listening space to truly stretch out and sing, even when my critical ears are kept in check. And my old Martin-Logans really are unused these days (my wife hates the way they look, so I can't even use them for home theater anymore, not that their directionality wasn't a pain to deal with). Everything else once intended for the joys of audio listening is either in dead storage or went the way of eBay or yard sale.

As for home theater...when I finally set one up properly I'll let you know, but don't hold your breath. Currently it's just a hodgepodge of old...no, [i]ancient[/i]...bookshelf a/d/s and KEF speakers run through a purchase-of-convenience Denon multichannel receiver. Yes, if I were to revert back to my old ways and listen critically, I'd likely cringe. But nowadays, it's [i]good enough[/i], and I find that's all that matters.

[Martiat]

I like the last two comments from Make_or_Break and Suedihifed. They are a perfect summary of all these many comments. High end audio is audible, but only really matters if music is a vital part of life and if you have time to listen, and only do that, which I do one or two hours a day. I do not watch TV except for the news and some good high-def movies. It is a choice of what brings me more pleasure. Otherwise, I agree that it is not of utmost importance.

[swiftos]

One thing often overlooked is that most of us listen to music in crappy environments. Watching Bourne Ultimatum tonight. On fair but big speakers (just stereo).

The DVD /VCR player is only about $150 AUD. Sound distorts often. Plus dishwasher and fridge noises (ain't open plan a silly idea too).

Plus people chatting, grandson whinging while going to sleep.

At times can hear dialogue, but not always. Then it also gives good bass, but is poor for speech (the TV's tinny speakers do speech better).

Nothing to enourage much spending on expensive speakers at all.

[agitater]

The article is spot-on. What can a generation raised on overly loud, compressed-to-death MP3s actually hear? For ten years or more, consumers have been driven toward limited expectations which are making many of us (Boomers, Gen-X, Gen-Y) deaf to quality. So why buy and listen to unalterably lo-fi so-called computer speakers or PR-hyped earphones which are neither mechanically nor electrically capable of reproducing the nuances, recording ambience and full vocal and instrumental detail available even from such technically limited crap as 256Kbps MP3s? It seems to follow that appreciation of somewhat more expensive high fidelity solutions offered by high quality speakers playing high quality, relatively uncompressed music (full bit rate CD rips, or heaven forbid real CDs) is almost impossible for many people. Also, you can't appreciate the quality differences between speakers if you don't actually get off your butt and walk into decent audio/video shop. You can't do everything online! Those tracks you downloaded and burned to CD using iTunes do not constitute anything close to the same quality as a commercial CD. Duh!

The traditional brick & mortar record/CD music store is dying, replaced by downloadable lo-fi crap (with an extra charge, no less, to get the original CD delivered by mail). But browsing (and listening) online is not the same as browsing and listening in a good store. Good speakers and good relatively uncompressed music on CD are more expensive than typical computer speakers and commercial CDs. So many people applaud the lower price of downloadable music tracks. But just consider for a moment that the tracks are cheaper to buy because they're lower quality! That means, relative to the ridiculously high cost of store-bought CDs, typical lo-fi MP3 downloads from iTunes are just as outrageously priced. I will buy CDs and listen to them on good speakers and the best headphones I can afford too. When I rip the music myself, I'll do so at 396Kbps variable bitrate. Don't settle for anything else. Quality and, most important, the enjoyment of music as it was meant to be heard, is worth a lot. Of course the extra effort and somewhat more restricted listening conditions involve more time and effort. But that's the way to appreciate and understand good music.

I regularly use an iPod jacked into my car stereo Aux input in order to listen to audiobooks and podcasts throughout my work day. It's great! But the shocking difference between music purchased online and music I rip myself directly from commercial CDs means that I will probably never have as much good music on my iPod as I'd like mainly because of the extra time needed to do top quality RIPs. So what! We're not in a race to see who can pack their portable music players with the largest amount of lo-fi crap.

[PaulM]

The stereo manufacturers have themselves to blame. I invested in a reasonable system, and got heartily sick of trying to optimise it. The menus are too complicated, the terms meaningless, and the automated speaker optimisation/balance routine failed every time. I never managed to make it sound consistently as good as the guy in the shop and now it sits in one mode and is 'good enough". I would not bother investing in better speakers or better amp in future.

[alaskagram]

The introduction of the class T amp. has impacted audio in as much of a negative way as the orignal introduction of transistors.At the time tubes were a mature tech. much like now with traditonal transistor (unless your a guitar player) designs.Class T amps. have incrediably high(10 per cent) distortion.Which is why they find themselves built into players.There are pro units which use heavy doses of DSP to control distortion, not something found in a $200.00 1 "kilowatt" DVD surround sound all in one player.This has led to an abundance of small, crummy,cheap, sattelite speakers.I think people have been overwhelmed and don't want to hear a difference because of too many choices.I also worked in a"stereo" store in the early 80's and people found they could clearly hear the differences between $499.00 systems and $1,000.00 systems, maybe they didn't care (probably the main point) but they could hear it.How ever, have you noticed that you can not easly put togather a componet surround system for under $2000.00.A cheap seperate surround decoder is $800.00,home thearte has destroyed the "seperates" market if you want to chose your own componets you almost have to be a millionare or go the computer sound card route which is what I plan to do.P.S. are all ad/da converters the same?The manufactures sure want you to, even in the pro world it seems to be a taboo item.

[thepak]

I bought my M&K satellite/sub system almost 30 years ago.
I bought my surround sound, mini polk audio speakers/Harmon Kardon about 2 years ago.
I just recently fixed my M&K system (broken tweeters and sub speaker ).
I luv that sound !
People buy cars with different colors etc.
People buy food with different flavours.
People buy perfumes with different odors.
We buy lingerie and clothes for the feeling of touch as well.
The senses are, i think, a personal experience.
And it is nice to be able to share those experiences with others !

[guywayne]

It is nice to be able to spend the time and money setting up a high-end system and space to use it. It's also nice to be able to dedicate time to listening. But nowadays most people can't spend the time or the money necessary to achieve a quality listening experiance. The recording industry also limits the need for quality by releasing so much music that is digitally created and so over-sampled that the musician's lack of skill and imagination really don't matter anyway. I mean, really, do I really need $10,000 worth of audio equipment to discern the merits of "Rump Shaker" or "Oops I Did It Again"?

[1patb]

I can tell the difference. I usually drive people crazy groaning at sour notes, or finding good speakers I can afford. I tolerate mp3, but, not in my house . A talented live musician is the closes thing to heaven.

[riffkind]

Check out this ludicrous article by the editors of Macworld: An audiophile test of protected music files versus DRM-free files... http://www.macworld.com/article/61026/2007/11/jan08playlistside.html?t=102

...conducted on an iPod with really good headphones no less.

[Martiat]

I think the reason why it was not possible to tell the difference in the post by riffkind is, in my opinion, the cheap D/A converter sitting in the iPod. I had the same experience with my apple TV. When I conncet directly it to my amplifier, the sound is not great, regardless of the format (compressed or AAC compressed). But when I bypass the converter by using a digital optical cord and connect it to my hi-fi D/A converter, then the difference is striking.