
Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment - ZeljkoS
http://matrixhifi.com/contenedor_ppec_eng.htm
======
davidgerard
"However, some people challenges the use of an external ABX box (usually by
people unused to conduct DBT's) arguing that the use of a commuter like the
ABX might modify or flatten the response of the systems, masking the
differences they so easily claim to hear at home or at an audio store (or even
at some shows). This challenge does not hold water, as we can see from the
measurements conducted to the ABX we use ..."

Yeah, people pushing blatant magical woo will, eventually, descend to
questioning logic and coherent thought itself.

I'll link again to Alan Parsons (recording engineer and recording artist whose
records audiophiles are quite fond of):
[http://www.cepro.com/article/beatles_pink_floyd_engineer_ala...](http://www.cepro.com/article/beatles_pink_floyd_engineer_alan_parsons_rips_audiophiles/)
_Fix the room first._

------
marze
It would be interesting to see this group do a similar test on speakers. They
have a nicely designed experimental setup.

A speaker test should show a clear cost/performance relationship.

------
mr-mr
I must confess, i am an audio tragic and worked out some time ago that for
speakers , pro audio was the way to go. ATC and PMC are excellent examples of
market leaders in this area and I have listened to systems from 2k to 500k in
value, with nothing but disappointment filling me when I have been in the
presence of the (100k+) mega dollar setups.

After speakers the biggest gain to be had as correctly stated easily in this
thread is in room treatments and that's why I have a dedicated room that's
heavily treated.

Each to their own.

I spose I could drive a 20k car as well but I prefer my 200k car because its
just better all round, just like my 30k studio monitors :)

------
fredsted
I used the Behringer A500 for a while because of this test. Good amplifier
while it's working, but I've had some problems with signal disappearing. Now
I'm using a NAD amp from the 80's that works just as good.

------
sardon
I wonder how much good spanish wine these guys have had before the test

~~~
mafro
It was probably a selection of both cheap and expensive stuff.

Joking aside though, your comment adds nothing here. Take the article on
merit, and add something constructive here if you have it.

------
caramel
What these sort of tests always ignore is that placebo effect really works. I
refer to a recent study by the University of Manchester in which people who
_believed_ that they had better hearing aids objectively scored better on
hearing tests. If you spend time and money on a nice high-end system, the love
that you put into your setup will be returned to you as better hearing
experience.

~~~
spyder
What placebo? It's a bind test.

~~~
radialbrain
I think that was his point. The test doesn't consider any placebo effects,
whereas placebo effects may have an actual effect in real life.

------
ghshephard
People buy $10,000 handbags without any more functional purpose. Why not
luxury electronics? Seriously, if it looks beautiful, and the main purpose is
for people to feel good about it, and feel good about other people seeing it -
is there any real difference between a luxury handbag (luxury watch) and a
luxury HiFi system?

~~~
M4v3R
The difference is, nobody is arguing that their luxury handbag can carry more
stuff and than acheap handbag. On the other hand audiophiles will swear that
they are systems sounds better than others.

~~~
ghshephard
That flies in the face of every A/B test I've ever seen - and I'm not an
audiophile - presumably they know 100x more than I do about audio quality.
Nobody buys $900 stereo cables because they think they'll perform better than
$45 monster cables. They buy those cables for the presentation, the
craftsmanship, and the brand.

------
okakosolikos
Behringer: 300W YBA: 70W ATC sensitivity: 85db

A rather unfair competition.

~~~
sjwright
How is it unfair? The cheap products performed as well as the expensive
products.

~~~
okakosolikos
the ATC's need at least 150Watts to perform right. So it doesn't matter if an
amp is in the "high end" category if it doesn't have the watts to actually
move the speakers.

~~~
sjwright
If what you said was true, this supposed lack of power would have shown up as
a harmonic distortion artifact in the listening test. The fact that both
systems were indistinguishable proves that neither system was suffering in any
particular way.

Of course what you have said is nonsense, and shows a misunderstanding of the
relationship between an amplifier and speaker. The watt rating of an amplifier
simply indicates the operational range where it can perform with near-zero
harmonic distortion.

The ATCs are moderately efficient 8 ohm speakers. They barely need 15 watts
let alone 150 watts of power to "perform right" at tolerable listening levels.
Both amps are capable of delivering ample power with plenty of reserve for
transients.

------
lucd
I use an Emotiva UMC-200 (HC preprocessor, fine for stereo too),a Crown XLS
1500 amplifier (intended for professional use) and Quad 22L loudspeakers..

The most noticeable upgrade was the automated room correction included in the
preprocessor. It more or less removes the room acoustics from the equation, as
well as the speakers coloration.

IMHO correct speakers, powerful amplifiers (professional audio power amplifier
may be considered) and good room correction makes a great combination.

~~~
danieltillett
Great list. How did you come to choose these components?

~~~
lucd
Heard several loudspeakers in a local hifi shop and chose the Quad. For the HC
preprocessor there wasn't much choice available at Emotiva price point. For
the amplifier I was leaning toward a Yamaha from the P-S series
([http://www.yamahaproaudio.com/global/en/products/poweramps/p...](http://www.yamahaproaudio.com/global/en/products/poweramps/ps_series/)),
Crown happened to be more easily available. This one and the Crown have
regulated fans. The Yamaha has less distortion and a security cover to lock
volume knobs settings..

~~~
danieltillett
Thanks for taking the time to answer.

------
golergka
It always buffles me that people who test HiFi audio don't test studio audio
equipment, and vice versa. These two categories of hardware try to achieve
practically the same result, but just because they target different people
(although in a very similar demographic), they are reviewed by different
journalists for different magazines and seldom compared to each other.

Why?

~~~
rikkus
Recently, thanks to comments on Hacker News, I've learned to think about where
money is being made.

In this situation, there are companies competing for business in the studio
market, where equipment needs to be functional (easy to move, install, plug
stuff into, etc.), not alter the audio signal in a way which is undesirable
and - generally - be worth the money in terms of real benefit.

The home market is entirely different. Across the price range, (most)
customers care about looks, how it alters the sound of the music / films they
care about to match their personal preference and - less often - be worth the
money in terms of audio quality and practicality. There's also trendiness,
which is much more of a factor in this market.

A 'classic' example (sorry to use that phrase, especially for such a recent
phenomenon) is Beats Audio headphones. They are attractive for the home market
because people like how they look (including that they're trendy), they make
music sound 'good' (I haven't heard them, but I've been told they enhance the
bass but otherwise are lacklustre), and are (based on the other factors) not
worth the money in terms of audio quality or practicality.

Just because the equipment is made from the same basic components (in fact,
much may be made from the same components) doesn't mean that there aren't two
separate markets here. They can't be treated as one because the customers are
entirely different. Or maybe they can and you should start a company selling
to both!

~~~
golergka
Your distinction works with Beats example (which are a great product for it's
audience, by the way). But it doesn't really explain the HiFi speakers niche:
Beats are not marketed at audiophiles, they are marketed at the market that
doesn't care about flac files or good cables, as HiFi buyers do.

Don't people who buy HiFi speakers and amps want to recreate the "original"
sound? Why then they don't just buy the same stuff that the audio engineer had
when he did the track?

Also, about equipment being functional — I don't see how the requirement of
easy installation and movement is more relevant for studio monitor speakers
than HiFi speakers. Both are plugged in and put in their place once for a long
time (unlike a mobile sound system) and are expected to be moved only when the
whole room (studio or your living room) will move.

~~~
wodenokoto
No they don't. Why, I never really understood.

I used to read a lot of studio audio magazines and reviewers would often say
"these speakers are great studio speakers, but I would never use them at home"

Part of the explanation, I suppose, is that an album is supposed to sound as
good as possible on $5 speakers and $5000, so the studio sound might not be
the "optimal" sound

~~~
rikkus
I haven't paid much attention to the way studios work recently, but people
used to record using flat response headphones (which make music sound, well,
flat - great for hearing everything but not pleasant for music) and mix using
Yamaha NS10 speakers, which were considered to be a good simulation of the
average (slightly rubbish) kit that listeners might have.

If people say 'these are great studio speakers but I would never use them at
home', perhaps they're using speakers designed to have a flat response.

------
chubot
This justifies my setup: $2000 speakers (noticeable upgrade from previous $500
speakers), $100 receiver amp from eBay, noname cables and accessories.

~~~
biftek
This is basically my set up too.

My advice to anyone looking to get started is to just buy the most expensive
speakers you can afford (used market is good for this), pickup an older amp
for peanuts on eBay that can power said speakers, and some bargain bin cables
from RadioShack.

~~~
mindslight
I'm actually in the market for a new pair of speakers, and the _only_
objective advice I've seen is spending more gets you better speakers. While it
must be true in some sense, price as an indicator of quality seems like a
terrible idea because it's so easily gamed through marketing.

The landscape of local competition seems quite limited (Best Buy seems to
dominate everything with B&W and ML), so it feels there's no way of knowing if
they're actually worth those prices, or if it's just Best Buy's standard
sucker pricing. Going up into that price range I also know there is a whole
host of speaker manufacturers that are of course impossible to find locally
(not that intense listening room tests are super enjoyable for long periods of
time either). And going up in price also makes the price of "screwing up" that
much larger.

So I've given up on that idea and figure I'll simply start with a Fry's
special and see if I find them objectionable in any way. I'm not looking to
make this a hobby, and higher end just seems so damn intractable otherwise.

I've already got the speaker cables from RadioShack (not much time left to
obtain them)! Let's hope your exact advice canonizes and I can sell them for
Monster cable prices in several years...

~~~
chubot
How will you be using your speakers and what's your price range?

If you really don't know where to start, I could probably suggest something.

I've gotten great recommendations from Don Lindich. I tipped him $20 via
PayPal some years back because of all his great advice.

He is/was a newpaper columnist and has some Internet presence. He is honest,
and focused on value for money, and has personally tried and reviewed
thousands of products.

[http://www.soundadviceblog.com](http://www.soundadviceblog.com)

Better speakers do cost more -- there is fundamental physics there, which is
NOT the case for amplifiers or cables. But still, you will find easily 5x
variation in price for roughly equal "quality". So even though you should
spend most of your money on speakers, it's NOT the case that simply spending
more gets you better quality.

~~~
mindslight
Price range is undecided. The original plan was something simple off
craigslist, but then I found myself looking at new stuff and thinking the
$2k/pr B&W at Best Buy sounded pretty damn good, and wanting to hear more of
the gamut between.

Use is music (electronic, rock, classical), mainly casual while doing other
stuff. Some possible interest in home theatre down the line, but not
immediately and not looking to make tradeoffs for it either (eg I want non-
satellite full-response speakers, as I'm not a big fan of the dual-humped
"subwoofer sound", at least outside of a car).

What specific fundamental physics are you talking about?

How do people generally shop for these things if they aren't available to
listen to locally?

~~~
chubot
Yeah, it's definitely tough to try out speakers.

I try to be a little aware of speakers in friend's houses and stores to see
what things sound like, but I don't purposely audition them. Although very few
of my friends have decent speakers.

It sounds like you know a bit about what you want. My use case is also music.
I used to have a surround setup, and it just wasn't worth it. And I agree with
you on the subwoofer thing -- I had one and addition to the physical
downsides, it felt unbalanced.

In my case I realized I like the imaging of Bose speakers, but they are
cheaply made and seem a bit scammy and overpriced. Bose isn't worthless --
they do sound DIFFERENT, on purpose -- but they are flawed. There is real
engineering there.

I asked Don Lindich about small speakers with good imaging that are not Bose,
and he recommended Mirage Omnisats. It basically gives you a spacious sound
like Bose, but they are higher quality in other respects, and I think cheaper.

I used to have Mirage Omnisats with a sub. Now I have Ohm Walsh 1000's:

[http://ohmspeaker.com/speakers/mains/walsh-
tall/](http://ohmspeaker.com/speakers/mains/walsh-tall/)

Admittedly this was a blind Internet buy, but they have a long (90 day) return
policy, and I trusted Don's recommendation.

They sound fantastic, and people who have come to my apartment love them, and
start spontaneously dancing when they hear them. Relatively speaking, they're
not super expensive, but most people haven't heard speakers this good in a
living room.

I also appreciate a small company that has been around for decades doing the
SAME thing -- really refining it. They believe in what they're doing. You
can't derive a speaker design from first principles, so you need to have a
long history, with lots of trial and error.

Perhaps this doesn't really answer your question, but that's how I got to a
set I'm very happy with.

As for the physical aspects, good speakers require fickle and custom
manufacturing techniques. And, all things being equal, bigger speakers sound
better, and bigger usually means more expensive.

Amplifiers and cables are mostly made of commodity parts as far as I can tell.
There is also just more of a potential variance in quality of design with
speakers, so I think they require more expertise to design than amplifiers.
Bad speakers are really bad, but it's hard to buy an amp that's unlistenable.

So I guess if like me you are short on friends who like quality audio, I would
visit stores, ask like-minded people on the Internet, and then make liberal
use of return policies. There is also just a bunch of trial and error, and
there's a reason why audiophiles tend to own many pairs of speakers that they
don't need :)

~~~
mindslight
I appreciate the pointer. Reading their website, they sound great. But a sales
process where you're half committing without hearing many different competing
products is so foreign to me. I'm the kind of person that wants to experience
the many different "flavors" of something before I can make a decision.
Clearly they would not like it if I were to buy a pair with the intent of
definitely returning them before 60 days - hence why they try and work with
you to make the sale. If I had to work with that system, I guess the way to do
it would be to concurrently order from a few different manufacturers so that I
could at least keep the pair I preferred, but that still seems abusive. Maybe
I just need to do more Internet research, and then get over it?

Thanks for the advice!

------
smilekzs
From my poor knowledge of music production, in that world "high end" equipment
means "as close to truth as possible", not necessarily "pleasant to the ear".
I wonder if the expensive set of equipment here measure objectively better
than the cheap set. That said, I do believe that the speaker and acoustics of
the room determine the objective measures much more than the signal chain...

~~~
cnvogel

        > From my poor knowledge of music production, in that
        > world "high end" equipment means "as close to truth
        > as possible",
    

Yes, and no... Because it seems to mean "as close to truth as possible, as
judged by human ears".

The deviation from perfect reproduction of sound is something that could be
measured and quantified relatively easy, and even mediocre equipment (probably
with exception to the speakers) nowadays is able to reach astonishing
linearity.

But then people will discuss endlessly about that they feel things sound more
"sterile" or "non three dimensional enough" compared to a system that cannot
be distinguished by any quantifiable parameter, hence judging them by the
tricks that their mind plays on them.

~~~
e12e
> even mediocre equipment (probably with exception to the speakers) nowadays
> is able to reach astonishing linearity.

While we have much better cheap amps now than we used to, there's still quite
a bit more of noise in the bottom end. You make it sound like $10 of
electronics would give great sound (assuming eg: flac audio source, dac and
"digital"[1] amplifier). It's not quite that simple. Feeding the whole thing
from a battery power source is simple, cheap and can work to reduce the most
common/obvious source of noise -- the AC mains (but is only practical for
head-phone use).

As for measuring distortion -- it's a little bit like with lossy image codecs:
it doesn't really matter what the numbers say, what matters is how we perceive
it. In audio-mastering/studio production lossy-ness matters (because if you
loose n% of the signal on every iteration, and you do 100s of iterations
through the pipeline, the noise crowds out the signal). In testing, it helps
guide the development and production (quality assurance).

But in the end, that's just a guide. The trick, is to not buy into the placebo
-- while at the same time recognizing a basic fact: the human brain is great
at patterns, and filtering out noise. Listen to a badly tuned radio long
enough, and you no longer hear the noise. Until someone walks in and adjust it
to be on station again.

Listening to really crappy sound (eg: at least two generations old embedded
audio from laptops -- not sure about latest generation(s)) -- there'd be a
ridiculous amount of noise. Couple it with cheap head-phones with eg, little
or no bass -- and listen to music like that for a couple of months -- and
you'll be able to convince yourself that that's just fine. Just like if you
smeared a thin layer of vaseline on your computer screen and left it on there
for months, you'd probably stop actively noticing it was there -- but if you
wiped half you would instantly see the difference.

Then compare it to any low-end "hi-fi" set-up, and you'd be surprised how much
clearer, and better most things sound. If not, stick with what you like.

It makes absolutely no sense to buy a more expensive setup than what you can
tell the difference between. And even if you _can_ buying the best at any
price doesn't make sense.

And if you want to sit in a room and really _listen_ to music/soundscapes --
be that classical music, pink floyd, jazz or anything else -- the room is just
as important as the gear, as other's have mentioned.

Oh, and if you want to get the most out of your setup - calibration is always
good. One reason I prefer stereo is that it is comparatively simple. I'm sure
that in _theory_ one could develop a "CalMan"[2] for audio -- given that
pretty much every source now is digital, one could probably set up a test
track that allowed one to correct for many distortions (created by the system,
the speakers, the room...) in real-time.

But I must confess, while I would love to calibrate my monitor to get more
correct color -- I'm highly sceptical of the idea of programming my DAC to get
"more natural" sound. But that's probably the audioplacebo talking, not the
rational mind.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class-
D_amplifier](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class-D_amplifier)

[2]
[http://calman.spectracal.com/store/p71/CalMAN_RGB_with_Spect...](http://calman.spectracal.com/store/p71/CalMAN_RGB_with_SpectraCal_C3.html)

~~~
cnvogel
> You make it sound like $10 of electronics would give great sound

No, that's not what I wanted to convey. But if you get yourself $100/€100 90s
HiFi Amps on eBay, you are pretty much there, in my opinion for domestic HiFi
use. You might want to blow out the dust, replace the scratchy volume knob,
and bypass the rusty input-selector switches, though...

If you talk studios, of course some other factors are getting important such
as the proper input connectors (most HiFi has Cinch/RCA, studios will have XLR
at +4dBU levels), being able to put into a 19" rack and operate for long times
at an elevated temperature, having a stepped, instead of a continuous, gain
selector to have repeatability when setting up multi-amp systems..., but
that's not really related to the audio quality, noise or distortion. You'll
pay for all these features, and for additional build quality.

> loose n% of the signal on every iteration, and you do 100s of iterations

If you do 100s of iterations, you are doing something wrong! People _do_ run
100s of iteratios for fiddling with parameters, but they'll _NOT_ always re-
record and play back every time. Just imagine the additional noise, not from
the converters, but from the outboard gear mainly, adding up! Especially as
people tend to like using outboard gear for the imperfect reproduction and
coloring that analog provides.

But also for studio use, there's the crappy end (say, <€50 soundcards/audio
interfaces) which will have easily noticeable hiss and spurs from badly
shielded DC/DC converters you can easily see in any spectrum analyzer
software. As soon as you are above $1000/€800 or so for a name-brand 8-ch
in/out converter, I claim that you will not be able to measure any difference
to a >€5000 2ch "32-bit, 192kHz, Mastering AD/DA with rubidium clock".

------
sjwright
If you perform an objective analysis of sound reproduction, it quickly becomes
apparent that once you reach a certain price/performance threshold in
speakers, the most critical element -- the element that has the greatest
influence on the overall sound quality -- is room acoustics.

But it's so much easier to sell expensive cardboard boxes containing obscure
brand electronics; there is so much more markup in homeopathic rolls of copper
wire, than there is in convincing someone to ruin their marriage over living
room decor. Plus, it's just not a sexy investment, and requires expertise to
be done properly.

It has become the industry's inconvenient truth.

~~~
lotsofmangos
I have been looking at the idea of doing lots of small speakers with
microphones on them attached to a fat lump of computer hardware, that you
stick all over and they bleep each other and build an acoustic model of the
space they are in, then adjust for it properly.

Would basically be a self-modifying ambisonics system. It looks doable, though
possibly a bit expensive.

~~~
wintry757
I recently bought the equipment to do a similar adaptive-audio job for my
living room music / home-theater setup. I have the usual multi-decade
collection of once-fashionable home stereo equipment, some in use, some
collecting dust in the basement. I decided I needed a bit more bass to enjoy
more thoroughly the gunshots and explosions of gameplay and epic action films.

I listened to a stereophile friend eager to give advice, and convinced myself
to add a self-powered subwoofer to the existing setup. Adding one shook the
house but (to my ear) muddied the sound of music when no explosions were
taking place. I could blame the equipment, or more properly myself, and
replace some or all of the former. But I thought there must be some way to
modulate all this unruly gear so that it produced a provably balanced and
pleasant sound.

I will skip over some intermediate steps where I tried to learn the science
and engineering of acoustics, using a neutral reference microphone and several
fine pieces of audio software available to all of us interwebbily. I learned
that I was overdriving the subwoofer, which made sense, but I couldn’t seem to
go from spectrum graphs and suchlike to an actual balanced sound system. My
final setup worked out quite satisfactorily and is an affordable alternative
to building the computer-driven speaker cluster for room modeling.

> I have been looking at the idea of doing lots of small speakers with
> microphones on them attached to a fat lump of computer hardware, that you
> stick all over and they bleep each other and build an acoustic model of the
> space they are in, then adjust for it properly.

When I played in a band, we had to work with the club’s sound engineer or
bring our own to get a balanced sound setup before the audience showed up. The
more recent gigs showcased an interesting technology, a system that generated
pink noise through the actual sound system, from the original sound sources
before the mixing board, all the way through power amplifiers to the speakers
at front of house. The engineer put a reference microphone in a strategic
position, turned on the pink noise generator, and twiddled equalizer knobs to
get a roughly even spectrograph (plus unavoidable “sound-guy magic” to de-
equalize somewhat for specific gig purposes like dancing or seated listening)
for the whole room, using the actual speakers and sound-reinforcement
equipment we would be using.

This seemed to me to be the thing I needed in my home theater setup. It would
let me balance and compensate for the (now) ten speaker cabinets in the living
room (including the powered subwoofer), their real-life positions, the walls
and floor coverings, the furniture, and even the cat. I think I could also do
it with some combo of REW (Room Equalization Wizard) software, reference mike,
and pink noise streamed through the amplifier. But while I was trying to get
that approach figured out, I found a cheap piece of audio hardware with all
that functionality built-in – no need to dedicate a computer to EQing the
sound.

This is the Behringer DEQ-2496, a configurable digital equalization gizmo. It
has a room equalization function built in, which is a home version of the
room-equalization setup we saw in the clubs, and as a bonus it basically
automates the sound engineer’s fingers on the equalizer sliders. I am not sure
if it’s the latest model supporting this function, as I got mine used, but it
was well below $200 and probably the best money I’ve spent on pretending to be
an audiophile.

You set up the room for your listening preference (for me, this involves
rolling the softest armchair into the center of the room the best to enjoy all
those gunshots and explosions), put the reference mike about where your head
will be, activate the automated room EQ process on the DEQ-2496, and sit down
in your regular seating position to read for a while. It sends pink noise
through the power amplifier and speakers and starts modifying an equalization
curve to produce a “flat” room signal across all audible frequencies.

After about 15-20 minutes the EQ settings stop changing and the Behringer has
generated the EQ setup for acoustically-neutral room sound. You can save the
setup and create others (e.g., for group seating), or modify it manually to
match your preferences (bigger bass for film audio, slight high-frequency
boost for classical music listening, etc.), and save the modified versions as
well. All my digital sound sources pass through it (game consoles, video, and
music) in digital format and are equalized before they hit the amplifier and
speakers – just as it worked in the clubs.

There are usable reference materials on the web to make up for the DEQ-2496’s
obtuse user interface and execrable user manual. It’s not quite the super-
flexible software-driven system I might have gravitated toward, but it does
what I needed without tying up a computer.

What I like most is that it deals with the real world sound of my setup and
room – if I change my setup or furnishings (as has happened a couple of
times), I just re-run the balancing process and use the new settings as the
baseline for my preferred room EQ. If my subwoofer, say, is turned too high
the Behringer sets up a balancing cut in the affected frequencies. If the
carpet soaks up some high-frequency signals, they’re boosted to compensate.

If my audiophile buddy gushes about the spectacularly flat frequency response
of some new bookshelf system, I relax knowing that even my second-hand and
slightly dinged-up speakers have been magically upgraded to subjectively flat
(or not, as I wish) frequency responses – in the real world of my living room,
not just in the lab or the store. It even has a full panel display of das
blinkenlites should I need confirmation things are working properly. Very
satisfying!

~~~
vilda
EQ itself adds distortion. You may end up with flat characteristic, but poor
sound quality.

Amplifier designers are avoiding capacitors in signal path to minimize
harmonic distortion. Now imagine you would put such a beast as EQ in the
path...

~~~
sjwright
> EQ itself adds distortion.

Modern digital EQ algorithms don't add any distortion worth talking about. But
even in the worst case, it's still an infinitely small amount compared to the
wild distortions that your room imposes on the sound.

If EQ can compensate for even a modest chunk of the room's influence, the net
result is a huge drop in overall distortion.

------
rodgerd
Their version of "low end" is amusing to me. But this is hardly surprising.
Hifi suffers from a taxic interaction of diminishing returns and snake oil,
and I say that as someone who has spent more than a few dollars myself.

~~~
nvk
After spending a few bucks myself, I second this. The only thing i'd add is,
invest in a good pair of speakers, that's where you'd get the best ROI.

~~~
PebblesHD
I'm amazed at the quality of older speakers when it comes to value for money.
I'm using a pair of Chadwick executive 12 cabinets in my living room and
they're simply the best sounding speakers I've owned and they cost next to
nothing. The only expense so far is cleaning and light refurb to remove rot.

~~~
peteretep

        > Chadwick executive 12 
    

That term has no Google footprint

~~~
DanBC
Raudio chadwick speakers returns some relevant results.

[http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/40792-austr...](http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/40792-australian-
made-speakers-how-good/page-4)

> The Executive Monitor from Chadwick Audio Furnishings(NSW) was the top model
> in the Chadwick range and used a modified Etone245(300mm) unit in a rear
> vented transmission line enclosure with the Audax 160mm mid/range,25mm dome
> and an aluminium cone super tweeter. I have no idea how it compared to the
> imports,in the early 80,s,but many Australian designed speakers outshone the
> competition in performance and value at the top end of the
> market;unfortunately there was a cheap product area that supplied bulk
> stores and these inferior items still surface from time to time.A bit like
> the white van stuff .

~~~
PebblesHD
That sounds quite familiar. I got them from my parents many years ago, and
they got them new in an audio store in Sydney. I have the original brochure
and manual somewhere, I'll see if I can dig them out.

