[jjj-But then you wouldn't buy a £4000 amp and use a £200 Cd player] I would. , especially if I already owned the CD player, and I might feel a bit dubious about the benefits of a 1000 pound CD player.
Well that's an idiotic attitude. Go listen to it and if it sound better then buy. If it doen't don't. Not a difficult concept really.
Generally, the factors that have the greatest effect on any recording and its playback are; the acoustics of the auditorium where the recording was made; the skill of the sound engineer in placement of mics and later mixing of tracks if required; the loudspeakers used during playback, and the acoustics of the listening room.
And the amp, cabling and player make no real difference then? I've heard the difference and it can be significant.
Plus it's blindingly obvious [you'd think] that if it was a duff recording then a good hifi won't improve it. Oh BTW, Speakers are part of the hifi in case you missed that class.
These are the critical factors that have to be got right for good results. Everything else is basically secondary and even irrelevant, within reason of course. The amplifier has to have sufficient power to drive the speakers. The copper interconnects have to be of a sufficient gauge to pass the current with negligible resistance. The CD player needs to be at least of basic quality. (A bottom of the range portable CD player designed for listening to music whilst jogging would probably compromise quality.)
CD players vary enormously in sound quality. As does every component. That's like saying all lenses on SLRs are good enough/the same. Which is an obviously dumb thing to say.
The issue here is, if you believe that $500 interconnects, $5,000 CD players and/or $10,000 exotic amplifiers improve the sound quality to a clearly identifiable and audible extent, can you demonstrate it with a double blind test?
If you can, then goodonya. You've got remarkable hearing .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138586\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've listened to expensive gear and have been quite taken aback at the
difference in sound even between very pricey gear. And good hi-fi makes a huge difference. Unless you have crap hearing, as then it's a waste of money. And as I said before, more expensive is not always better. Besides
better sound quality is as nebulous as better picture quality in one sense and then there's the law of diminising returns you get with any very high end stuff, which is what you are talking about here.
You may need to spend an extra 30K to get your track car to go a fraction of a second faster than the already silly speed it goes even, though it only cost say 10K to get it tweaked up up to the current fast speed, but to some people it's money worth spending. Most people would laugh at a £2k camera let alone the £6k- £20K+ camera people are talking about here. It doesn't mean there is no point in spending that money. If you can tell the difference, if you can afford it and think the difference [in speed, efficiency, quality...] is worth spending on, then spend it. And ignore those carping ignoramuses who cannot tell the difference. My guess is you cannot tell the difference with good hifi and you seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about those who can. If so get over it. It's not as if it affects you in any way.
If all hifi sounds the same to a purchaser, he/she can buy cheap goods, but if your hearing isn't damaged and you really do appreciate the difference, spend whatever you like/can afford.
Same for a DB, if you cannot appreciate or need what a DB can do, don't buy one. If a 1DsIII doesn't do the job for you don't buy one of them. Anyway the cameras are ultimately only as good as the photographer.
How's the pocorn jing q?
