Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions From a 1909, how much better SQ to 2809. To 3808.

Alan, are you out there?

If Alan has not already written on this, I would like to see if he or others would try to quantify this.
(I have just re-read Alan's Secrets of Amps. article. Which does not focus on this aspect.)

How does one notice or experience increased sound quality with each small, incremental increase in an AVR's power and it's components upgrades? Many of us with modest 90-100 wpc AVR's who are or might consider upgrading for new features, would also like to know what kind of SQ increase we might expect jumping up a model or two.

I was going to ask about AVR's in general, but to give better info for comparison purposes, I am speaking specifically of three Denon models: (A)1909, 90w {I have} (B)2809, 115w & (C)3808, 130w. [Just for reference, the speakers in use will be M80's, VP150, (4) QS8's, (1) Paradigm Servo 15 and (2) KLH 10" subs (in a large 31'x23' room).]

I do watch mostly (BD) movies, but for purposes of describing nuanced SQ changes between these three amps, If you just want to speak to M80's in stereo, that would answer my question as well. (My music listening would probably be in 7 channel stereo.)

We all know the macro story that at the limits of a 1909, it will start to distort just a few dB's below the 2809. The 3808, would go a few dB louder before distorting.

I have read plenty on the upper dB macro discussion and it has been discussed at length, which I hope to avoid here.

I am looking for the nuanced differences in SQ as you go up from the 1909, to a 2809, then to a 3808. Of course the power supply and and amp sections get larger as well as other upgraded components going up the model line. While knowing the hows and whys would be interesting, what I really want to know is the noticeable affect at normal listening levels.

We already decided to leave out 'loud' (95dB+) listening levels. Please speak to perceived and/or measured SQ differences using as the base the (A) 90w 1909, then up to (B)115w 2809 then (C) 3808 130w. I am not sure what SPL level is best to describe this nuanced difference, but for commonality of comparison, I'll just say throw out a 75dB SPL measured or calculated for the common listening distance of 12'. To me, any anechoic lab spec at shorter than a normal listening distance (12'), would not translate for me. So please translate any SPL dB speak.

Actually Db SPL is only a reference point at which you describe or measure SQ differences between the AVRs.

Please forgive the very specific parameters (and this novelette, though Mark would be proud. ) . My experience is that a lot of back and forth is avoided when as many variables are taken into account in the original question. I am certainly no audiophile... that's why I humbly ask help of those who are much more savvy than I.

I'm hardly an audiophile Dave, at least in my opinion. If I understand what your asking, I really don't think your going to notice any difference in sound quality between these receivers, especially at a modest 75dB listening level if everything is apples to apples. You would hear differences if you turn on special DSP modes or tone controls or Audyssey, however, if speaker setup, calibration, etc., is the same, I doubt there would be any audible difference.

Dave, you wouldn't notice "increased sound quality" with the incremental increases that you describe, because it wouldn't exist. At the specific average listening level that you propose of 75dB(which is in fact a good level for average use without causing hearing damage)and at a listening distance of 12'(in-room sound levels fall at a rate far less than 6dB per doubling of listening distance), I calculate that the M80s will be using about a tenth of a watt. Brief split second peaks(say 20dB) on the most dynamic program material with the widest dynamic range would use about 100 times that, i.e., 10 watts. This is easily within the limits for audibly flawless amplification of any of the typical HT receivers with ratings anywhere in the 100 watt area. Adding incremental increases in maximum power output which amount to about about 1dB or less at each step can provide no benefit if the available max is already more than sufficient. Unused headroom is simply that: unused.

Hello Dave,
There is very little chance that there is any nuance difference between the three Denon AVR’s you are questioning. You can measure the quality of an amplifier, but “sound quality” is subjective.
You may measure the quality of the amp and its circuitry, and then listen for any improvement in sound quality the hardware MAY provide.
Sans any consideration to greater functionality, these three AVR’s, I would guess, are identical in terms of overall sound. (Of course any amp will distort if overdriven)
One might be able to calculate approximately what an amplifier may sound like from its measurements, but measurements can be deceiving when you try to match them to sound quality.

The difference in volume between these AVR’s is slight at best, less than 3dB between the 1909 and the 3808. Further, SPL has no relevance to sound quality, and is mainly used to describe speaker sensitivity in this context.

Enjoy the music

Davekro,

I would agree with all the responses here--that you'd be unlikely to hear any audible differences at modest to fairly loud peaks--say, around 95 dB SPL at your listening seat. It is only when you get into much louder peaks (say 105 dB, which subjectively would sound "twice as loud" as peaks at 95 dB) that differences might be audible.

It would also depend on how critical a listener you are. Many of us of a certain age put up with ghastly distortions from phono cartridges playing highly modulated grooves towards the inner part of vinyl discs, yet it didn't ruin the musical enjoyment (admittedly, my knuckles would turn white if I were listening to a work for orchestra and chorus that had its biggest crescendo in the inner grooves. I'd be thinking, will my
Shure V15 Type V in a custom SME tonearm track these without audibly distorting?)

Plus the power handling of the loudspeaker itself would come into play. On very loud peaks, smaller speakers may start getting edgy sounding as the distortion approaches audibility. (Axiom speakers generally have excellent power handling) but lots of speakers don't like, or can't handle, peak levels very well, including all planar flat-panel designs--electrostatic and planar-magnetic.

I'd also point out that through a particular line of AV receivers, the power supply may NOT change as you step up the model range until the very top of the line. I don't know the exact engineering details of Denon's power supplies, and I won't speculate. In many cases, stepping up to a more elaborate model simply gets you more features, inputs and outputs, and greater versatility, but the basic power supply and internal amplifier modules remain the same.

Regards,

Alan

Dave, I think you short circuited the issue by injecting the 75db level. The above are clearly more informed on the technical side. But as the article you cite explains, the issue comes up when you want to go over 75 (come on guys, that is looooowwwww) into the realm of more realistic volumes to reproduce the original source. If a piano hits 109 live, then I think my room should be at least 100 on a jazz CD to even get close to the feel of watching Ray Brown live with a stand up bass struming away as some kid jammed on the piano. (Didn't appreciate that performance it at the time, as I was there to see Irving Mayfield, a popular Trumpet player. Didn't know a legend was on the bass and would pass away soon after. :( )

Anyway, I think this is at the heart of much of the clash between fact and feel you get on the watts issue. If John K likes to listen at 80db, he is not likely to exceed the headroom in his AVR, and would see no benefit in getting a 300 watt amp. But, as Alan's article explains, when I want to listen at 102db 12 feet from the speaker, I need to multiply the power many times over.

As clipping occurs, the sound quality question comes into play. My Denon 3300 starts clipping at under 78.6 watts (THD .016%) while clearly noticeable THD (1%) arrives at 135.3 watts. [My speakers are 4-ohm so those number are actually 95 to first clip, and 174 to 1% THD]. Thus, when I ask the AVR to reproduce the sound of Ray Brown's stand up bass at the 103db, it can't do it without cutting the frequencies off and clipping to some extent, thus not sounding as "good" as the Axiom 1400 that has the power to get to the live level of 109db without clipping (i.e., degrading the sound quality) at all. [JohnK, does that make sense?]

So, in my "more informed than last year" opinion, I would say the 3000 series, at 130+ watts will give you a few extra dbs over the 1900's 90+, but may clip much higher than the 1900, and thus "technically" sound better - not considering the impact of bigger capacitors, and different power supplies, which I don't understand at this point. Plus Audyessy if that applies here.

But at 75db, stick with the 1900, you won't use the extra headroom. But, if you want to "get there" - that momentary suspension of disbelief that makes your brain think for a second you are hearing the performance in your room - then you need to get louder and cleaner. I have only experienced that feeling of a live performance in the room on a few rare occasions - and never in my home. But I am striving to get that in my home. The system I first got there with (my FIRST!) was Krell Amps, driving Wilson Watt speakers, via B&K sources. That system sold for over $100,000. I'm not there yet. But getting better every year, and am convinced it don't take $100K to get there.

A very helpful and informative discussion so far. Charles, I wanted to avoid the comparison of modest power (90-130w) to huge power separates, A1400, et al, because that is not a path I want to, or can afford to go down.

Many of us want to understand as best we can what choices to make that will give us the biggest bang for the buck in the $500-$1200 AVR range. And to TRY to understand if/how and additional $300 (2809) or $600 (3808) will give us better SQ at 95dB and lower, along with the extra features. I fully understand what is required when you expect clean power well above 100dB. That is a discussion for a different level of audio experience.

I picked 75dB rather arbitrarily. When I finally got around to buying a Radio Shack SPL meter, I learned what 75dB, 85dB, and 95dB sounded like at 12' in my HT. To try to quantify my perception a bit, 75dB felt like a nice comfortable listening level, 85dB felt like about how I like to watch an action BD at, while 95dB sounded very LOUD. 95dB was a level I would not want to listen to for more than a few minutes for a movie. Now, throw back a few beers, pop in ZZ Top Live From Texas Blu-Ray, and 95dB is gonna work! If I turn it up past that, I will be fine with limiting my listening to whatever SPL is produced this side of distortion (prior to serious clipping) for the rare times I do this. The WAF is big for HT. She does not like it as loud as I do. She likes rock and roll louder. But she does not drink, so she may nix much above 100dB!

(I am saving the debut of my new ZZ Top BD until my new Axioms arrive MONDAY ! !! Woo Hoo!

I will definitely keep the SPL meter out on a tripod for SPL monitoring for a while while trying out the new speakers, and how the 1909 works for me with them. If I had not already jumped on the 1909 in Dec, at this point I probably would have gotten a 2809 0r 3808. At THIS point already having the 1909, I am trying to discern if spending $1,100 for a 3808 and selling the 1909, is worth it. I like some of the 3808 features, but don't 'need' them. If there is a SQ increase, that would tip me toward buying a 3808.

It appears from the discussion so far, that I would stick with the 1909 with no real difference in SQ at 95dB or lower, compared to the 2809 and 3808.

I guess my NEXT question is if my ZZ Top + beer test leaves me wishing I had a bit more head room for 1-2dB SPL at my max listening (pre distortion) level, that may tilt me to the 3808 still. I am doing my best to TRY to not succumb to a false idea of actually what more SQ I'd get (or need) from going to a 3808. So there it is. My quandary spelled out.

Dave, I picked up ZZ Top Live From Texas last week...you better get some cheap sunglasses, you're in for a treat!

You know you want Audyssey MultEQ XT.

Randy,
I still do not know what this actually does over regular MultEQ. Can you please 'splain it to me? (you are correct in assuming I may just need an 'excuse or two go there'. )

I'll get them glasses Adrian! So what were your deciding factors to go with the 2809? If I knew what I knew now, pre-outs would have bumped to the 2809 at least.

Dave? Tease....... Tease........ Tease........

I bet those outfits are really hot onstage.

Nah.... nothin' but COOOOOOOL!

When you compare the 2809 with the 3808, I didn't see enough difference between them to justify the diff in $$. My 2809 can easily play to earsplitting levels and has virtually the same features as the 3808 but perhaps the one thing I couldn't refuse (at the time) was a local dealer had the 2809 PLUS the Denon BD1800 for $1100 CN (about $850ish US). Budget was definitely a factor in my decision, and I'm sure I don't really need more power than the 2809(115 wts) but it has the preouts just in case.

Budgets are a fact of life, and if any of us was lighting our candles with $100 bills, we should be on a different site. Given that you have to basically eat the 1900, I would not even consider getting a 2 or 3000 series and would not worry about it for years to come. Right now, IMO, is a bad time to buy. Too many companies are just getting around to room correction, HDMI switching and HD audio. Enjoy the new speakers for a few years and get something more beefed up later.

I believe with the MultEQ XT you get upto 8 measurements and better filters. From their website...

"MultEQ XT, using the receiver interface, takes up to 8 measurements around the listening area and uses high resolution equalization filters for satellites and subwoofers. This is the most powerful built-in version of MultEQ for receivers."


"MultEQ takes up to 6 room position measurements, and uses mid-level resolution filters for satellites and subwoofers.
"

When we saw them at Shoreline (Mountain View) a few year ago, they had on these full length coats covered with bling (looked like jewels). Either these coats added A LOT OF BULK, or these boys are big fellers! Great show complete with twirling guitar.

I now recall the extra two measurements. Does this makes any noticeable difference?

High res. filters... What does a filter do? How does a High res. filter do it better? I know the 3808 (maybe the 2809 too) had a better mic.

Charles, very good points about waiting for another generation or cycle. I was figuring I could sell the 1909 for about a $80-$100 loss (paid $485), so not too bad of a rental/ audition fee. Though the "ooooooh, GUI, ooooh, pre-outs, oooooh the rest of it..." has is pull, if I find the loud listening level limit of the 1909 passes my occasional ZZ Top, Queen, etc. (plus beer) rock outs, the 1909 should do me well for a while. Maybe when the economy turns around and my business picks up, be ready for some upgrades. Like maybe change from this little old (2008) 73" Mitsub. DLP to a big screen (projector).
I'm afraid it just never ends! <gasp>

Now THAT'S cool right there, man. I don't care who ya are!
I'm sure Larry The Cable Guy would concur.

I did find that using 8 instead of 6 positions gave better results (for movies, I still only use it sporadically with music).

Just a few thoughts on the Denon line:

The pre-outs on the 3808/2809 (over the 1909) are really only important if you want to spend even more money on an outboard amp, thereby destroying any "bang for buck" ratios.

I bought the 3808 at the time when the 2809 was C$800, mostly because I wanted the 3808 rather than I thought it would sound better. I know there was a lot of talk on AVS about how the 3808 had individual DAC chips per channel instead of the 2809s multi-DAC single chip, but I doubt that would really make any audible difference. Computer chips are wonderful things these days.

The GUI is cool, but not really any easier to navigate than a basic OSD. Nice to have if you've got the cash, not really a value item.

The big difference between the 3808 and 2809 is upgradability. You can download new features on the 3808, as long as any new features are soft/firmware based and within the physical capabilities of the machine. If you figure there is more physical innovation coming down the pipe in the next couple of years, you'd be better off buying a lower cost Rx now (ie your 1909) and getting all the new stuff in a few years. The beauty of this is the "old" Rx gets demoted to another room and you have an excuse to buy more Axioms.

After all that said, however, I still don't regret buying the 3808.

2809 is upgradeable too.

Dave, to clarify or re-emphasize the point, I noted that you had rather casually talked about a "few dB" difference between each of those models. That's why I specifically pointed out that the difference was 1dB or less. It's fairly widely known that doubling power results in only a 3dB increase in sound level. The numbers for 1dB and 2dB are respectively, 1.26 and 1.59 times the power. So, to get just a 1dB sound level increase over 90 watts input requires 90x1.26=113.4 watts and for 2dB more 90x1.59=143.1 watts.

90 watts, and your 1909 would be slightly conservatively rated, as is common with HT receivers, would provide for a 104-105dB level at your 12' distance. Increasing that number by 1-2dB would hardly be a significant increase. Enjoy the great sound(when you play great material)through your 1909 and M80s.

Good to know. Makes the 2809 that much of a better AVR.
I was under the impression it wasn't. I remember reading a lot at the time (Christmas) and although it has an RS232 port it wasn't intended for user upgrades, or even firmware updates (although there was some talk about "un-official" bug fixes from the Denon guy over at AVS). There was also nothing in the manual about it, which, admittedly, is hardly proof of anything.

Doormat,
It is really helpful to get sincere feedback from 3808 (and 2809) owners. I had never really known if GUI was a true advantage or just a prettier OSD, so good to know it is not really a value add. I do like the idea of upgradability, but given I have to 'upgrade' to get that ability, that is moot at this point in time. Since three new Denon models will be announced in a little over a week at and below the retiring 3808's level, not a bad time to 'love the one your with' for a a little time longer.

Well, I already have the Sony STR-V333ES 5.1 I just upgraded from. I thought I'd set up 5.1 in the bedroom, but my wife prefers to keep it simple on that TV. :o( Well, maybe when she really becomes familiar with the Harmony 670 I got for that TV a month ago, she'll feel better about 5.1 in that room. :o) She actually would let me do it, but since I am spending a bundle in the living room, I'll wait a while. Having all the speakers and the AVR, I was ready to go, just because I could. She does not quite get that. ;o)

Researching the two, I also was told that the 2809's serial port wasnot upgradeable by users other than the 'unofficicial' fixes that the Denon guy put out when he had time. I do not think that compares to the 3808's ethernet firmware and feature upgradability. Adrian, do I understand incorrectly?

That's my take on the 2809, not really meant to be upgraded except if taken in for repair/upgrade much like the old 38XX and up series had to do.

I'll be in Brampton later on and I'll ask the owner of the audio store where I bought it from, about upgrading the 2809, I believe you have to bring it in to have any upgrade assuming there is one available(sometimes companies just issue an updated model and not bother). I checked Denon's website and they don't list the 2809 on their update list, so there isn't a "simple" update like some of the other Denons. When I bought my 2809 I got it in a packaged deal with the BD1800 and I remember the owner of the audio store telling me "there's an update coming up on your Denon"...I had assumed it was the AVR but he must have meant the Blu Ray player. I'll ask my local audio guy about it.

OK...I called one of our local Denon dealers, and he basically said this: that the 2809 is NOT upgradeable UNLESS you bring it in, and he believes(not 100%) that they upgrade it using the RS-232C jack on the lower left, back of unit, but said that one would need to contact Denon technical to confirm any of that.

John, I'm lost again. Alan's article says that to reach 106 without distortion with M80s you would need more than the 90 undistorted watts available. Moreover, while the amp will produce more than 90, it will start to distort the signal much lower (e.g, my 3300 list at 110wpc, but begins to distort at 74.) Assuming a similar situation here, won't he have significant distortion long before he gets to 104? A test of the 1909 says that at 50w into 4 ohms you have THD above .3%. 1909 Bench Test As the author notes, "THD+N vs. Frequency is shown below for 8 ohms and 4 ohms. The 20 volt at 4 ohms graph line suggests that this receiver may not do very well with 4 ohm speakers (because distortion stays relatively high all along the graph line)." By the time you reach 90, the amp has to be clipping hard, and you have not reached 105 for the damned peak yet.

I'm just missing something here, and I can't figure out what it is. Your rational for 90 being plenty makes sense, but Alan's article makes the need for 200 compelling, if we are talking about that volume range of 100-106db for un-clipped peaks. (not sustained - kids don't try that at home.) And the test bench implies you won't get 90 clean out of the amp with M80s. I need to take a night class on amps to i can get this stuff under control.

Did I just hear the sound of a can opener and wrigling wroms?

Not fish'n season yet, keep the worms in the can for a few more weeks.

OK, I'm with you Charles. I am sooooo confused. Bringing THD into the conversation seems like an important factor not really addressed on this (threads) discussion.

The question was specific to SQ improvement with one Denon receiver verses other Deonon receivers. This string immediately derailed to the never ending wpc debate, which has little to nothing to do with SQ.

You most likely would not notice any difference between all the models you are considering, provided that they are all set up identically.

I would concentrate on each model’s functions and compare them. One may have features that appeal to you more than others.

For example, if one has independent crossover adjustments, and one has a basic global adjustment, the one with independent may very well improve overall SQ as you will be able to tailor each channel how you prefer.

Compare the features and forget about WPC. If you find that you need more power, stop looking to receivers to supply that and look at external amplification. You will have to spend a lot of money on a receiver to get you in the 200 WPC range, which is where you will start to notice a difference.

Yes, Charles; it appears that you do have several misconceptions with respect to amplification, particularly as to audibility of distortion and what clipping is. There are no "undistorted watts", the question is how many aren't audibly distorted. In listening to music, tests have shown that distortion has to be more than about 1% to have audible effect. For example, in FAQs Yamaha applies a "less than 2%" standard. Arguments we've seen on other boards anguishing over whether a .05% THD rated receiver sounds better than one rated at .09% lack any sense of reality.

Clipping is distinct from distortion, although at actual clipping distortion would be quite high, at least several percent(without defining "several" too closely, since it can vary). It therefore occurs well after the onset of audible distortion and is evidenced on an oscilloscope by the flattening of the top of the sine wave. Magazines which use the term clipping at 1% or even lower, when apparently they actually mean distortion at an inaudible level, are a source of confusion if correct audio terminology is to be employed.

The calculations done for Dave were simple and quick. The anechoic sensitivity of the M80s(room contribution is accounted for differently here)is given by Axiom as 91dB, while the NRC, apparently measuring a different range or other factor, gives 89.5dB. Using 90dB at one meter the typical in-room results for home listening rooms would decline at about 3dB per doubling of distance, taking into account both direct sound and room contribution. This has been researched and Dr.Toole discusses this in his book. Therefore at the 12' distance Dave specified there would be about a 5dB drop from the one meter measure, to about 85dB for 1 watt. Hence the supplied numbers of about a tenth of a watt for the specified 75dB level and 100 times higher to allow for a 20dB peak on the most dynamic of material,(such as some of the classical recordings which I have)to about 10 watts. Also the follow-up number of 104-105dB for a peak using about 90 watts is similarly calculated. These levels are of course those for long-term home listening at home with a view to avoid permanent hearing loss, not those occurring at the recording site.

The linked lab tests on the 1909 confirm its excellence, including the 4ohm measurements. The comments of the reviewer on this point aren't explained and appear to be somewhat nonsensical in that they directly contradict the measured results. If the 140 watt number at 4ohms(certainly not actually "clipping")is used instead of 90 watts, an extra 2dB could be added to the calculation, i.e., now 106-107dB.

... and the worm wranglers arrive right on que. Howdy boys.

What was that you were saying about fishing season Adrian?

Dave, it took me a while to sort through all this stuff. There is a lot of fud out there.

There are some very good articles in Axioms library. One in particular covers an experiment where Axiom tested peoples sensitivity to distortion at lower frequencies. The conclusion is quite interesting.

After a pm from Dave, to be clear, I was not trying to imply that either John or Mike were being in any way misleading etc, just that the topic can be confusing and complicated.

Features MultEQ XT versus MultEQ in AVR's
Filter resolution (satellites) 16x (2x for MultEQ)
Filter resolution (subwoofer) 128x
Number of Measurement Positions 8 (6 for MultEQ)
Adaptive Low Frequency Correction Yes
Crossover, Polarity, Delays, Levels Yes

In brief...yep.

That made sense, thanks for taking the time to lay it out. If distortion below 1% (or more) is fine, then it would certainly seem the 1900 would do fine. My post was aimed directly at SQ as the review implied it may not be the best choice due to the amount of THD at just 50 watts - thus really bad at 90. I was just very surprised when i read that review as it gives (me anyway) the impression that the 1900 may not be a great combination with M80s.
Then again, i like my 3300, and was very surprised to read that it starts "clipping" (their words not mine, HT Mag, Nov. '99) at 75 watts and .016 THD. I did not think that was audible, but certainly implies you don't get all the 110 they advertise without noticable distortion. Of course, I don't reach 1% THD into 4 ohms (on my PSBs) until 174 watts. That would explain why I like the 3300!

Anyway, the worms are back in their pen and the 1900 seems to be a safe bet for the low levels we are talking about.

Wee gots ourselves some fancy worm wranglin' he-ah...

"Whawt we have he-ah, is a fayl-yah to ka-mu-ni-kate"

"Yuuu shore do got a purdy mouth".

This is not going anywhere good....

Well, it got to page 5, that's not bad.

You been working on DIY asbestosis remediation today Mark?

What happed to the days of just enjoying the music?

Too many people are caught up with all the numbers that the magazines and manufactures keep throwing out at us. How many people realize that, sensitively notwithstanding, a loudspeakers driver(s) uses about 5% of the power it receives to produce sound, the rest is wasted heating up the voice coil and magnet structure. Why is this important? It’s not; it’s just another specification that is essentially useless to the consumer.

So guys, put down those meters, grab a beer (preferably Heineken) slide in a CD or DVD, and if it sounds good to you, just enjoy it.

Life’s very good with music!

If it was that easy we could all just go down to best buy, grab a box, and plug it in and forget about it. Not much need for a forum on audio stuff, if the answer is "it all sounds great, just plug and forget about it." Somewhere between a $100K system and a box from Walmart there is a maximum return on your investment. I don't know if it is a Denon 1900 or Krell separates, but I enjoy the discussion.

Actually Zimm, it can be that easy, and for most of the world, it is.

Yeh, sure, easy if you don't have OCD. It's a burden I live with. Thank God I was cured of Tourette's.

Yeah, not much of a hobby if there is no improvement to be gained and no decisions to be made. Hell, I improved my system just be getting advice on better speaker placement and doing some work with the graphs. I picked my AVR based on those damned magazines, and have been very happy. But if the "one-size fits all, its all the same" approach works for you, all the better for you.

For the rest of us, we'll keep tweaking and trying to find values and improved sonics.

Zimm

My point is that for every person like you and I, audio buffs, there are ten or more people who simply don’t have the same interest in the high quality sound you and I do. Younger people today seem to care more about the social status the hardware carries. Case in point, Apple has sold in excess of 170 million iPods, and while the iPod is definitely Hi-Fi, I personally don’t consider this product of convenience high end as it pertains to sound quality. I always feel there is a loss of dynamics /transients even when playing WAV files.
The majority of people who buy an iPod, and I assume other players as well, claim storage as there first concern, then looks/convenience and thirdly, sound quality. (Sound & Vision Magazine)

Now Zimm, take something for those nerves of yours!!

hob⋅by

1. an activity or interest pursued for pleasure or relaxation and not as a main occupation.

Right, so enjoy the chase! Now, where are my pills?