Best answer by Kumar
View original
Should I replace my hifi separates with a Sonos system?
My system comprises an all British set of separates, including a pre-amp and mono blocs. It still sounds great after twenty years, but things change and technology marches on. Whereas I used to listen to CD's, I now stream my music via AirPlay. A Cambridge Audio DAC is the interface between the hifi and Apple TV. I'm considering selling the whole system and replacing it with Sonos kit, principally for music but also to integrate and upgrade my TV sound. My question is, should I expect the Sonos units to be truly comparable to the high end hifi I've known for years?
This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.
Page 2 / 4
I have tried it. It's surprisingly close, using my separates system, that was why I bought this ATC speakers in the first place. But, I figured that bring able to faithfully reproduce trumpets or drum kits in my house that were recorded somewhere else is pretty pointless. I concluded that Hi fi is pretty pointless, and largely a waste of money. So long as you enjoy what you hear, it doesn't matter if it's true or not. If I want to listen to real instruments, I'll pay to watch someone do it or play it myself.
There will be a day/night difference even given recording equipment limitations.
But I haven't been able to obtain from anyone I have asked as to where this difference will be objectively visible. If not in a freq response graph, then where, in any other instrument measured one. After all, if the ears can hear it, any instrument invented by now should do better?
I guess this isn't getting any nearer to the OP thread subject, so I shall make this my last digression.
Peter, that's exactly the point. Good gear can make a very good copy of an instrument, providing we can mitigate room interactions (which is why it's more than just measuring frequency response). Try this, record said trumpet player in a given room, then record the speaker playing that recording in the same room.
Fortunately our brains are pretty good at compensating (self-deception?) and we can enjoy music despite it actually sounding artificial.
Peter, that is exactly it and is what I have now realised as well.
Using the numbers just for the argument - I see something like a well set up Sonos system approximating 65% of the real thing. While the most expensive rig available, will go to maybe 70%, perhaps 75%. The gap between the two is still much smaller than the distance from the real thing, and the brain can compensate for both gaps just as easily - IF allowed to do so. Or it can focus on picking out the gap between the 65 and the 75.
The brain/mind is an excellent slave but a lousy master.
That said, there has been little movement forward from the 70/75% bar towards the real thing in the last few decades. While video quality has improved dramatically in the same time, although the 4K may be a plateau, and 3D, imo, sucks. Where/when will the big leap to the real thing for audio come from, is the question I have no answer to.
Interesting question. I would think that if the trumpet was recorded with a close mic in an acoustically-inert environment (so no room effects were recorded), and then played back through a single speaker in any room, and compared to the trumpet played from the same location as the speaker, that someone in the next room would not be able to tell the difference. That's a fairly artificial setup, and would be harder to do for multiple instruments. Also, some instruments are not point sources like a trumpet (e.g. piano).
Most recorded music has some sort of reverb recorded or applied afterwards. When this is played back in a normal reverberent room, the results cannot be the same. We hear a mixture of the two reverb fields (recorded and playback room).
The other interesting thought experiment is to record instruments including their reverberation environment and play back in an inert room (i.e. anechoic chamber). Would we be fooled into thinking we're in the original recording environment? I don't think so because there would be no reflected sound off the walls like there would be in the original environment.
Fortunately our brains are pretty good at compensating (self-deception?) and we can enjoy music despite it actually sounding artificial.
Cheers, Peter.
Most recorded music has some sort of reverb recorded or applied afterwards. When this is played back in a normal reverberent room, the results cannot be the same. We hear a mixture of the two reverb fields (recorded and playback room).
The other interesting thought experiment is to record instruments including their reverberation environment and play back in an inert room (i.e. anechoic chamber). Would we be fooled into thinking we're in the original recording environment? I don't think so because there would be no reflected sound off the walls like there would be in the original environment.
Fortunately our brains are pretty good at compensating (self-deception?) and we can enjoy music despite it actually sounding artificial.
Cheers, Peter.
Would said trumpet player - or better still, with a back up of guitar and drums - playing live in a largish living room, be completely replicable by any audio system out there, played in the same room? I have my doubts. And if so replicable, is there any objective way of demonstrating this or the gaps where it falls short? Time delay and phasing ought to also be measurable by instruments if they aren't to be just more of audiophile jargon.
A live trumpet player is pretty loud and a big dynamic range. The only way you can replicate it is to play the recording in the same venue. Trying to recreate the ambience of the original venue in your living room is nigh impossible, since your room has its own peculiar signature. That, I think is why hi fi "fails". That's why it's a bit more than just frequency response, time delay and phasing are probably just as important.
I am not so sure that louder = realistic is all that it is about. Going by what you say, if one was to sit with a good dB meter in a concert hall or a jazz club, and use that reading to set the same sound levels at home in the listening position, the listening experience should be replicated. Particularly where a jazz club is concerned, obtaining the same sound levels will not be a huge challenge for home audio kit with enough power. But there is no kit I have heard that comes even close to the real thing. What then is the gap coming from?
And my question remains: if a frequency response graph is a worthless gauge of speaker sound quality in a room, what is a good one? All I know for sure is that a human and his/her subjective opinion is just that, subjective and therefore far from good enough.
The devialet probably has less distortion, that's what you're paying for. It's evident when comparing for example a B&W 602 S2 with the ATCs. The louder (more realistic) you play, the bigger the gap.
You're right (in only my opinion of course) on one point, that is power is louder, and nothing comes close to the real thing, which is why I gave up chasing that ghost. However, trying to make a simple FR graph correlate to what you hear in your room on a Tuesday evening is an impossible and pointless task, and pointless. The only measurements worth making are a frequency response map of your room. SPL meter, test tones, a tape measure and a pen; or a bit of hardware and software to measure it for you. Frequency response graphs are as relevant as £5k / metre cables.
And don't get me wrong, the Devialet may be more real than the 5, beyond just louder, while still remaining a watered down version of real.
What I am trying to understand is how would even this "more real" be visible in a frequency response graph.
What I am trying to understand is how would even this "more real" be visible in a frequency response graph.
So how do you think this more real thing would show up in a frequency response graph? Or in any other instrument that is not subject to pyschoacoustics in the way that nature designed the human brain to be susceptible to?
Voltage/Current = power delivery = higher sound levels. Not higher fidelity, unless by fidelity you mean the ability to go as loud as an orchestra. But then I have heard of no kit that can come even close to equalling the palpable experience of an orchestra, heard live. Or even a small jazz combo, live in an intimately small club. All home audio is a pale copy of that.
Voltage/Current = power delivery = higher sound levels. Not higher fidelity, unless by fidelity you mean the ability to go as loud as an orchestra. But then I have heard of no kit that can come even close to equalling the palpable experience of an orchestra, heard live. Or even a small jazz combo, live in an intimately small club. All home audio is a pale copy of that.
Mostly agree, but you can't deny the benefit of voltage and current. The opposing firing bass driver is simple physics that conventional manufacturers have been trying to mitigate with £££s for decades. A phantom goes as loud as you'd need, with considerable slam. Just like real life then, the real question is why bother. I didn't, but the play 5 is definitely less real, good a it is.
I have given up listening to new kit that is aimed at creating dissatisfaction with what one has at present but I wonder what these differences could be, and in what way they will show up on a frequency response graph of enough granularity.
One possibility is that something like the Devialet goes a lot louder, but I doubt that is all there is to it. If that was so, at identical levels, it would sound the same, and I doubt that to be the case. The other possibility is that it adds its own coloration to the sound, and in doing so has frequency responses that depart from the source signal. In which case, is it less hifi than Sonos/others that have a flatter response? I suspect the latter to be the case, but can't be sure. Of course, the different sound may be a preference for some, no denying that either. And the differentiated looks and the brand associated bragging rights.
As to active systems, they have a lot of new digital and signal processing tech in them that allows for matching/exceeding the best that passive systems can deliver, but at lower price points and in smaller boxes, that are also less in number. Not much has changed where passive systems are concerned in the last couple of decades. There is a reason why there are almost no passive tech based pro studio monitors.
A week in... OK I have decided that unless I need (I don't) a single speaker in say my bathroom, then I am done with play 1 purchases. The 5 continues to massively impress. Midrange is exceptional, bass nice and taught and a good thump. I'm guessing this is the benefit of an active system, I'm beginning to understand what some of the fuss is about. However, I heard a devialet phantom during the week, and it's on another planet if you're an audiophool. Seriously though, it's mighty impressive but relatively the same value delta over a passive system. Can it really be down to just that..?
In other news, I ventured into the what hi fi forums after about a year away, and the vitriol and intellectual arrogance was so depressing. Don't bother unless you have a wicked sense of humour....
In other news, I ventured into the what hi fi forums after about a year away, and the vitriol and intellectual arrogance was so depressing. Don't bother unless you have a wicked sense of humour....
The Sub may well shake those glasses without causing the floor to move! Worth a try.
I'll try one for sure. I'm amazed if it doesn't put some vibration into the floor. The JL Audio box that I was using would actually shake the glasses in our dining room cabinet on some tracks when it was cranked up. The floor just added a lot of resonant coloration that unfortunately didn't cancel out the node at my listening position.
I agree about the Sub. It does two other things, suspended floors notwithstanding. One, it adds presence much more effectively than the loudness toggle in the Eq to low level music listening. And two, it cleans up the midrange for sure in a play 1 pair, which is where I use one.
Also, given that nothing kept on the Sub shows any vibration at all, I doubt that a suspended floor has adverse consequences, but try before buying.
Also, given that nothing kept on the Sub shows any vibration at all, I doubt that a suspended floor has adverse consequences, but try before buying.
I think you'll enjoy the addition of a sub. I wasn't sure that it was a worthwhile purchase before hand, but once I had one, then I needed to buy another to fill out the sound in one of the other rooms. 🙂
So after a couple of days thought I'd share my thoughts. Getting two 5s and setting up as a stereo pair was the right thing, I need a bit of ambience that it brings, plus the added volume is welcome but they go loud. Very loud though it all gets a bit compressed but I'm comparing them to several ££s worth of studio monitor floorstanders and a 500w active sub so hardly fair. In reality, for everyday use, they are fine, very punchy refined sound that's very engaging, mostly because of the sweet detailed midrange that's really good. The 5 are a significant improvement over the 1 which we use in the kitchen and one in a converted lift space second living room. I'm going to add another to that room as it's quite large and I like the stereo paired effect. I'll think about a sub at a later date, maybe though a bit pointless in a room with a great big floppy suspended floor.
I don't think I will do the stereo pair because I realised after I started going to see live classical music that was unamplified that stereo is not real. You don't hear a live unamplified orchestra (or whatever) split down the middle with defined left and right channels LOL it's just a wall of sound with a forward placement.)
Welcome to the real world!
On the quoted, I have a well placed play 1 speaker pair, in stereo mode, on my desktop flanking the computer and - here is the critical bit - where recordings permit, I hear the exact thing you mention one ought to hear - a wall of sound behind the computer, with some instruments or voices forwardly placed, and nothing seeming to come from either the left or the right speaker. But if the recording does not permit this - and this applies to many from the initial days of stereo - I still get the defined right and left channel effects that end up sounding gimmicky after a while, and lead to the mono version being preferred. In good modern recordings things in stereo are better recorded for the most part, leading to this excellent stereo imaging if one is sitting close to the sweet spot. Or so I find for the genre I prefer, jazz. But the constraint of sitting in the sweet spot to get this effect, remains. There has been some progress that has expanded the size of this spot, but not a lot and it still remains a small part of the listening space.
For general listening other than at the desktop, I too can no longer be bothered to sit in just that sweet spot and now have multiple grouped but independent speakers in zones because that allows me to solve the problem of music otherwise being too loud close to the speakers to be well heard far away from them, in the same space. Obviously this becomes less of a problem in a smaller space, but in a larger space, even with well recorded stereo, the problem of either channel obviously present and dominating depending on which speaker one is closer to, remains.
And of course, once the obsession with perfect sound disappears, enjoyment of music reappears!
Let me give you my story.
I have been using Sonos for 5 years now. But like you, I had big 2 channel stereo setups. Sonos was the connect. But I was getting sick of seeing these speakers in the room, having to lay out the room based around the need for best placement of the speakers.
The sound from them was great. But I didn't want to play the game anymore. Seriously, X distance from rear wall, X distance from side walls (but those two can't be the same amount!) X distance from each other and that also has to be the X from you! Oh and then don't have your listening chair against the back wall!
F*#$ that S@*%. I'm done.
BUT - I still wanted great sound. I looked at the play 5 2nd gen. It sounded good in the store and also looked great. This was the first time I was looking for aesthetics as well as great sound. So I bought the white Play 5 2nd gen.
After a few hours listening (following Trueplay setup) I put my 2 channel system online for sale. That's how good the Play 5 2nd gen is. In some areas it was better than my setup. I know it's only one speaker but the array design does spread the sound nicely in the room.
I don't think I will do the stereo pair because I realised after I started going to see live classical music that was unamplified that stereo is not real. You don't hear a live unamplified orchestra (or whatever) split down the middle with defined left and right channels LOL it's just a wall of sound with a forward placement. The play 5 on its own in array mode doesn't put out monaural sound so it's still big open and wide.
I am one happy camper. I'm not doing the big setup anymore. I've since bought 2 play 1s, one for the kitchen and one for the bedroom. Music all over the house is a wonderful price to pay for ditching the separates in one room.
As a slight bonus - the power consumption of the play 5 is so low it's really quite amazing. With mine at 3/4 volume (about 85db) it draws an avg of 15 watts. My old Rotel stereo amp drew 45 watts just on with no music playing.
At the end of the day it's about the music. I spent so much money and time trying to prefect the 2 channel setup that I forgot to listen to the music. Audiophiles end up listening to the speakers, not the music. Now it's all about the music for me. 🙂
I have been using Sonos for 5 years now. But like you, I had big 2 channel stereo setups. Sonos was the connect. But I was getting sick of seeing these speakers in the room, having to lay out the room based around the need for best placement of the speakers.
The sound from them was great. But I didn't want to play the game anymore. Seriously, X distance from rear wall, X distance from side walls (but those two can't be the same amount!) X distance from each other and that also has to be the X from you! Oh and then don't have your listening chair against the back wall!
F*#$ that S@*%. I'm done.
BUT - I still wanted great sound. I looked at the play 5 2nd gen. It sounded good in the store and also looked great. This was the first time I was looking for aesthetics as well as great sound. So I bought the white Play 5 2nd gen.
After a few hours listening (following Trueplay setup) I put my 2 channel system online for sale. That's how good the Play 5 2nd gen is. In some areas it was better than my setup. I know it's only one speaker but the array design does spread the sound nicely in the room.
I don't think I will do the stereo pair because I realised after I started going to see live classical music that was unamplified that stereo is not real. You don't hear a live unamplified orchestra (or whatever) split down the middle with defined left and right channels LOL it's just a wall of sound with a forward placement. The play 5 on its own in array mode doesn't put out monaural sound so it's still big open and wide.
I am one happy camper. I'm not doing the big setup anymore. I've since bought 2 play 1s, one for the kitchen and one for the bedroom. Music all over the house is a wonderful price to pay for ditching the separates in one room.
As a slight bonus - the power consumption of the play 5 is so low it's really quite amazing. With mine at 3/4 volume (about 85db) it draws an avg of 15 watts. My old Rotel stereo amp drew 45 watts just on with no music playing.
At the end of the day it's about the music. I spent so much money and time trying to prefect the 2 channel setup that I forgot to listen to the music. Audiophiles end up listening to the speakers, not the music. Now it's all about the music for me. 🙂
Thanks Steve and everyone who has been good enough to respond to my question. I've been amazed at the response quite honestly, and I really don't think I need any more recommendation to go the Sonos route. Just need to get my act together and get the separates on Ebay!
I've only just been able to set everything up, and to answer the OP, yes, and twice yes. Sell your separates, unless you actually like gadgets, the play 5 is that good. I don't regret doing it .
That's certainly my experience these days!
Page 2 / 4
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.