Does traditional HiFi stereo still exist?
Discussion
Looking at the tiny number of HiFi related posts and the demise of all but very few HiFi retailers does this market still exist? I know the high end stuff is still there but what happened to the low to middle market?
As a kid i couldn't wait to get my first real HiFi system and parents of most school mates had seperates that they were often willing to pass on to get us interested.
Maybe it's because the younger generation live in their cars these days or maybe it's the appalling quality of modern recordings?
Years back all the major retailers sold seperates, admittedly a lot were crap but at least it was a visible market.
As a kid i couldn't wait to get my first real HiFi system and parents of most school mates had seperates that they were often willing to pass on to get us interested.
Maybe it's because the younger generation live in their cars these days or maybe it's the appalling quality of modern recordings?
Years back all the major retailers sold seperates, admittedly a lot were crap but at least it was a visible market.
Hmmm, looking at the hi-fi mags and at the lieks of Sevenoaks/Richer Sounds I'd say it's pretty much business as usual with the likes of Kef, Wharfedale, Mission, B & W still turning out £100-150 budget speakers, Pro-Ject selling £150 entry level turntables, electronics from the usual suspects such as Marantz, Cambridge et al - little different then from when I was a student in 1984 and bought a Dual CS 505-2, Yamaha A-320 and Mission 70-IIs (not all in one go - piecemeal upgading from a Philips rack system...).
When we were kids(14-18) we would sit down together and listen to music as a social thing. We would drink, smoke weed, take acid, and wonder at the quality of the reproduction. This was with £150-250 components at the houses of the few lucky b*stards that could afford it. This left a life long love of hi-fi and ambition to seek the ultimately impossible 'perfect' sound.
Do kids still do this?
Do kids still do this?
Definitely still exists in my house. Got myself a Marantz KI-Signature/Mission set up about 15 years ago, and it's still doing sterling service to this day. Which in a way might actually be the problem - a lot of people by a separates system to last them a good 20 years, and when you've bought it, there isn;t much need to go back to the hi-fi shop.
Just my 2c anyway.
Just my 2c anyway.
Hi-Fi defintely exist here, I got another one two weeks ago, and a cassette deck this week, and some speakers as well.
It is quite telling that the general public voted a £16.49 Tesco all-in-one as the 'Best' Hi-fi, as that what it means for them.
There a still a few Hi-Fi boutique stores, but nearly all of them have to sell the dreaded AV gear, as that is what the man in the street wants - Blue fray this, flat screen that, loads of DVDs, and all thier music stored in tinny little files in the iPod.
Bring back tape cassettes I say.
Koenig
It is quite telling that the general public voted a £16.49 Tesco all-in-one as the 'Best' Hi-fi, as that what it means for them.
There a still a few Hi-Fi boutique stores, but nearly all of them have to sell the dreaded AV gear, as that is what the man in the street wants - Blue fray this, flat screen that, loads of DVDs, and all thier music stored in tinny little files in the iPod.
Bring back tape cassettes I say.
Koenig
Plotloss said:
koenig999 said:
There a still a few Hi-Fi boutique stores, but nearly all of them have to sell the dreaded AV gear
They're not mutually exclusive.Just because a dealer does AV as well as Stereo doesn't mean that their stereo offering is worth any less.
I've still got a full 2+0 separates system and can't see myself ever replacing it with surround sound.
I'd rather watch films through a two channel system than listen to music through a multi-channel one. IMHO, music and subwoofers just don't mix - even the best of systems seem to leave a either a hole in the sound-stage or a muddy sounding region where the sub meets the mid-range. Also, if you actually use the extra speakers of a surround system, the interference creates odd flat spots in the room.
I'm sure a very high end surround sound system with only the two front speakers active can do reasonable Hifi, but only at a far greater price than a traditional separates system because the amount of extra electronics in the amp will inevitably require significantly better EMI scr. They tend to just not be balanced right for music anyway - I've never yet heard a surround sound amp which doesn't sound too bright.
I'd rather watch films through a two channel system than listen to music through a multi-channel one. IMHO, music and subwoofers just don't mix - even the best of systems seem to leave a either a hole in the sound-stage or a muddy sounding region where the sub meets the mid-range. Also, if you actually use the extra speakers of a surround system, the interference creates odd flat spots in the room.
I'm sure a very high end surround sound system with only the two front speakers active can do reasonable Hifi, but only at a far greater price than a traditional separates system because the amount of extra electronics in the amp will inevitably require significantly better EMI scr. They tend to just not be balanced right for music anyway - I've never yet heard a surround sound amp which doesn't sound too bright.
Edited by kambites on Friday 19th June 08:53
kambites said:
I've still got a full 2+0 separates system and can't see myself ever replacing it with surround sound.
I'd rather watch films through a two channel system than listen to music through a multi-channel one. IMHO, music and subwoofers just don't mix - even the best of systems seem to leave a either a hole in the sound-stage or a muddy sounding region where the sub meets the mid-range. Also, if you actually use the extra speakers of a surround system, the interference creates odd flat spots in the room.
Rather depends on the woofers.I'd rather watch films through a two channel system than listen to music through a multi-channel one. IMHO, music and subwoofers just don't mix - even the best of systems seem to leave a either a hole in the sound-stage or a muddy sounding region where the sub meets the mid-range. Also, if you actually use the extra speakers of a surround system, the interference creates odd flat spots in the room.
If a 2 channel system has been engineered with woofers in mind then the sound it produces can be far far far superior to that which full range speakers can produce as it gives a flexibility in placement.
If you're talking big fat woofers with enormous drivers and loads of inertia that take massive power to start and an age to stop then I'd agree.
Perhaps I've never heard a good woofer then. But I've listened to music on lots of surround systems costing many thousands of pounds, and none of them sounded better than my 500 quid separates system.
Personally I don't understand why, if you're going to properly integrate small (low mass) woofers into the sound-stage anyway, you wouldn't just put two of them, one in each speaker.
Personally I don't understand why, if you're going to properly integrate small (low mass) woofers into the sound-stage anyway, you wouldn't just put two of them, one in each speaker.
Edited by kambites on Friday 19th June 09:00
Plotloss said:
Woofers arent the preserve of multichannel setups.
There are two channel systems that follow a 2+2 (Two tweeters/mids and two woofers) scheme.
All 2 channel systems are a 2+2 or a 2+2+2 setup aren't they? Mine is currently set up with separate amp channels for mid+high and woofer, and a crossover splitting mid and high into different cones in the speakers. There are two channel systems that follow a 2+2 (Two tweeters/mids and two woofers) scheme.
Plotloss said:
No because with a full range speaker all the drivers are in the same physical speaker.
With a 2+2 they are physically seperate boxes.
Oh I see. I wouldn't have thought that makes the slightest bit of difference. Most speakers have separate enclosures for bass and mid-range cones anyway don't they? With a 2+2 they are physically seperate boxes.
So can you get Dolby 5.2 and 7.2 surround systems which are designed to be a hybrid of music and film systems? Or even 5.2.1, with stereo woofers and another sub-woofer for film use?
Edited by kambites on Friday 19th June 09:11
It normally makes a difference due to the room interactions. There are a few speakers that can handle the low end like a subwoofer but they are normally huge and expensive. A 2.2 set up with a digital crossover normally produces far more coherent results for less cash. If you look at how Lyngdorf or indeed the new Harman Kardon HK990 handle the bass in realtion to the mid/treble it is seemless. A new way to skin a cat.
Nick
Nick
You're confusing two channel and multichannel.
What a 2+2 system allows you to do is seperate the bass, which is difficult to manage due to the fact its omnidirectional and directional mids and highs. There are some significant acoustic restrictions in having all the drivers in a single speaker.
In a multichannel setup you can have as many subs as you need to create the required sound pressure or to compliment the inate room modes. In screening rooms we recommend a minimum of two for a seven channel system, ideally four but in a very large room eight or more would be possible.
What a 2+2 system allows you to do is seperate the bass, which is difficult to manage due to the fact its omnidirectional and directional mids and highs. There are some significant acoustic restrictions in having all the drivers in a single speaker.
In a multichannel setup you can have as many subs as you need to create the required sound pressure or to compliment the inate room modes. In screening rooms we recommend a minimum of two for a seven channel system, ideally four but in a very large room eight or more would be possible.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff