What audio brands are you not attracted to? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : What audio brands are you not attracted to?



elapsed
12-06-2008, 06:42 PM
Or brands that you consider to be over-rated? Here I'll start.. B&W, McIntosh, NAD, Klipsch :D

cheers,
elapsed

02audionoob
12-06-2008, 06:48 PM
Any specific differences between perception and reality on these brands?

elapsed
12-06-2008, 06:52 PM
Sure, for instance in McIntosh's case I can't work out what the fuss is all about. Absolutely gorgeous gear, but I find myself bored out of my mind listening to McIntosh speakers and separates

cheers,
elapsed

Feanor
12-06-2008, 07:49 PM
Or brands that you consider to be over-rated? Here I'll start.. B&W, McIntosh, NAD, Klipsch :D

cheers,
elapsed

I agree on all these brands.

There are hundreds of boutique brands of tube equipment (in particular) in which I'd have zero interest. And for some reason I can't see my self going for Manley, Cary, or Conrad Johnson. The CJ case is marginal, though; mainly I don't like the looks, (sorry Mr Peabody).

On the speaker side, Audio Note comes to mind, (sorry RGA). Another weird brand I wouldn't consider is Coincident (http://www.coincidentspeaker.com/speakers.htm), (although they're Canadian). I wouldn't look at Axiom, (also Canadian :o; apologies, my countryfolk). Once again there are main minor brands I wouldn't give any thought to, e.g. Eminent (http://www.eminent-tech.com/main.html) or VMPS (http://www.vmpsaudio.com/) though they do user ribbon drivers.

Mr Peabody
12-06-2008, 09:44 PM
We have a dealer carrying NAD now and some of my recent experience has changed my mind where they are concerned. I used to not like them either but the recent gear I've heard has been good. I agree that it isn't going to appeal to everyone. They seem to have gone to a very dark sound. I have to admit that's probably why they interested me. I love gear that has that dark black velvet curtain behind the music. Some brands call themselves "more liquid" which I can only interpret from hearing said lines is that "liquid" tends to give the feeling of chilly and almost a glare in comparison.

Klipsch and Bose would be some where at the top of my list of repulsive. A couple major brands I don't like are newer Audio Research and Classe'. I'm also not fond of the Primare CD player sound. And let's not forget Vandersteen, they'd be just under the other two speaker brands. I respect Rotel as a good product for the money but don't care for their sound. B&W I am in the middle with, I don't dislike them as the other speakers I've mentioned but they aren't my choice or type of sound either. I try to keep an open mind with B&W because most of the time I've heard them was with ARC, Classe' or Rotel. I can't help thinking maybe they sound better with other electronics I prefer.

I have to admit the look of my amp is a bit odd but I have become a die hard fan of the CJ sound.

elapsed
12-06-2008, 09:59 PM
Klipsch and Bose would be some where at the top of my list of repulsive. A couple major brands I don't like are newer Audio Research and Classe'.
I'll have to agree, Klipsh makes my ears bleed. So does Cerwin Vega. As for Classe, I've heard a B&W 800-Series with Classe system plenty of times, always found the system underwealming (though I'm sure many would counter that sentiment)

Off-topic, but the same goes for me with Runco, possibly the most over-rated and over-priced HDTV's ever built (though I have nothing but positive things to say on their projector line)

cheers,
elapsed

audio amateur
12-07-2008, 05:17 AM
Nice thread!
Someone mentionned Cerwin-Vega. Nasty! LOL
That would probably be on the top of my list.
Klipsch, JBL, Infinity... I have to say there aren't many that I utterly dislike. I can't think of that many at the moment

02audionoob
12-07-2008, 07:27 AM
Cerwin Vega, JBL and Infinity seem to be mostly known for what is more or less mass-market equipment. They don't seem overrated to me...just economical. Now B&W...that one I'd like to hear more about. Are we talking all of their stuff or just certain levels of it?

Ajani
12-07-2008, 08:59 AM
OK, I'll play this game (though I should point out that brand bashing has a tendency to get nasty!!!)...

Cerwin Vega, JBL, Infinity & Klipsch all sound fine for the money... Plus you should keep in mind that most people only hear these brands in best buy and with some ultra cheapo receiver... not on a good quality 2 channel rig...

Anyway, I've generally found the following brands to be boring (not bad, just not interesting enough to make me want to spend money on them):

Dynaudio
Arcam
Totem
NAD
PSB


B&W sounds nice to me, but gives me serious listening fatigue after about half an hour...

And the only truly, absolutely, 100% AWFUL sounding setup I've ever heard was:

Magnepan MG12 with a McIntosh Integrated Amp & CD Player... I honestly, have to just believe that the system was not setup correctly or I wasn't anywhere near the sweet spot... It just sounded BAD... not bass deficient or with rolled off treble or anything like that... just muddy, strange and undefined...

elapsed
12-07-2008, 09:11 AM
And the only truly, absolutely, 100% AWFUL sounding setup I've ever heard was:

Magnepan MG12 with a McIntosh Integrated Amp & CD Player... I honestly, have to just believe that the system was not setup correctly or I wasn't anywhere near the sweet spot... It just sounded BAD... not bass deficient or with rolled off treble or anything like that... just muddy, strange and undefined...
Ajani, please please give Maggies another chance, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were given the wrong room and not setup correctly, they have every ability to shine ;)

cheers,
elapsed

Ajani
12-07-2008, 09:37 AM
Ajani, please please give Maggies another chance, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were given the wrong room and not setup correctly, they have every ability to shine ;)

cheers,
elapsed

Hopefully, one day I'll get to try out some Maggie 1.6s.... I find it strange that I had such a bad experience with the MG12s, considering how impressed I was some Final Sound 400i electrostats I heard... I always thought that Maggies and Stats should have a fairly similar sound...

Brick Top
12-07-2008, 10:01 AM
Well I should only comment on brands I have had experience with...but I was in retail A/V at one time.

For speakers I would have to say Klipsch, Polk, Paridigm, Bose & Jamo.

Receivers, systems & separates....Pioneer, Kenwood, Classe, Bose.

Did I mention Bose?

Cheers,
BT

02audionoob
12-07-2008, 10:03 AM
How about some positives? Any comment on underrated equipment...especially speakers?

elapsed
12-07-2008, 10:11 AM
How about some positives? Any comment on underrated equipment...especially speakers?
Tough question.. I'd say Totem loudspeakers are very underrated, but always put a huge smile on my face. The Totem Arro is no exception, surprisingly good bass and an astonishly big sound from such a small column.

cheers,
elapsed

Doc Sage
12-07-2008, 11:00 AM
I am of the opinion that reproduction equipments are to be totally transparent and should let all the music be experience without adding or substrating from it. That said, any equipment that leaves it's stamp on the music is to be avoided.

Speakers are usually the most offending. JBL and the West Coast Sound proponents were always too bright. Most of these hyper efficient speakers are not respectful of the music, it's about making noise not music. They are hard on my ears after a short listening. You can add Klipsch to this group.

With the New England sound, many speakers brands became much more enjoyable. Today we have Boston Speakers to thank for this and many Canadian are from the same thinking. Paradign, Energy, Axion are all wonderful speakers that are doing great sound waves at a lower price point. Totem is reaching up to a higher level, they get my nod.

The Japanese electronic trade done great stuff at the lower budget end, who can fault a $300.- receiver that turn most of us to the joy of music. But in our quest to higher fidelity most have been by-past. A few I still look at for what they offer, Denon, Onkyo and Luxman comes to mind. NAD was responsable of showing what was missing at a certain price point but I do not know how well they are doing these days.

Mckintosh is the fore father of all that is audiophile. With their attention to the various parts that makes up an amplifier, they showed us what can be done with repoduction music. I think of them as the Rolls Royce of our fetishes. They got all my respect but I turn to Ferrari for my thrills these days. Sorry.

Someone above said that B&W and the likes left him unimpress. Why? Is it because colouration is not added to the music? Is it because he was not able to hear the intrinsic sound of these speakers? As I listen to David + David this morning, it the quality of David's voice, the sound of the electic guitars and the impact of the drum that I listen to, not the distortion added by my equipment. When I look at Picasso, I like to see the true colour shades used by the artist and not what I see through my rose colour glasses.

Doc Sage

Ajani
12-07-2008, 11:22 AM
I am of the opinion that reproduction equipments are to be totally transparent and should let all the music be experience without adding or substrating from it. That said, any equipment that leaves it's stamp on the music is to be avoided.

Speakers are usually the most offending. JBL and the West Coast Sound proponents were always too bright. Most of these hyper efficient speakers are not respectful of the music, it's about making noise not music. They are hard on my ears after a short listening. You can add Klipsch to this group.

With the New England sound, many speakers brands became much more enjoyable. Today we have Boston Speakers to thank for this and many Canadian are from the same thinking. Paradign, Energy, Axion are all wonderful speakers that are doing great sound waves at a lower price point. Totem is reaching up to a higher level, they get my nod.

The Japanese electronic trade done great stuff at the lower budget end, who can fault a $300.- receiver that turn most of us to the joy of music. But in our quest to higher fidelity most have been by-past. A few I still look at for what they offer, Denon, Onkyo and Luxman comes to mind. NAD was responsable of showing what was missing at a certain price point but I do not know how well they are doing these days.

Mckintosh is the fore father of all that is audiophile. With their attention to the various parts that makes up an amplifier, they showed us what can be done with repoduction music. I think of them as the Rolls Royce of our fetishes. They got all my respect but I turn to Ferrari for my thrills these days. Sorry.

Someone above said that B&W and the likes left him unimpress. Why? Is it because colouration is not added to the music? Is it because he was not able to hear the intrinsic sound of these speakers? As I listen to David + David this morning, it the quality of David's voice, the sound of the electic guitars and the impact of the drum that I listen to, not the distortion added by my equipment. When I look at Picasso, I like to see the true colour shades used by the artist and not what I see through my rose colour glasses.

Doc Sage

This extract from Benchmark (in a letter that comes standard with the DAC1) best expresses how I fee about neutrality and coloration:


If you plan to use effects to achieve specific coloration with your music, that's just fine. As an artist with his palate, choose processing equipment, microphones, preamplifiers, instruments and recording locations that have the particular sounds that you wish to incorporate into your audio canvass. The two places where coloration is unwise, is with A-to-D and D-to-A converters. Without the cleanest recording and playback, you will never able to accurately judge and control how the final product sounds to the end user. You need total accuracy.

For me, source needs to be as clean as possible... but if you want to tailor amplification (pre or power) & speakers to get a specific sound, that's OK... Why should the producer/band be the only artists in your HiFi? If you want to be one as well, then have fun with it!!!

Auricauricle
12-07-2008, 02:52 PM
Seems to me that the thrust of many of these denuciations comes from a deeper dicontent with hype and ubiquity. In a sense, you have to sympathize with manufacturers who find themselves at war with one another to become the premier brand. In turn, they produces innumerable units and models, filling every foresseable niche. Add to this the attendant "buzz" extolling the manufacturers' wares, and it gets pretty wearisome.

While for lay people, all of this is failrly innocuous, we "audiophiles" become increasingly leery. This is especially true in regard to products appealing to the mainstream: that if a manufacturers going to spend a bunch of money in developing new models and marketing them, they better damn well deliver; otherwise, they're hacks. On the other hand, brands that are sold by their reputations, there is little need to be so aggressive (or innovative?). Knowing their products of the past to be sound, there is little expectation for those standards to improve. For the mainstream, this works out fine; for audiophiles in the know, the proof will always be in the pudding.

As examples, I will point to Klipsch and Cary. Klipsch is a fairly respectable company, producing speakers that were well considered. Unfortunately, the pressures of demand and the attendant hype drove the quality of many of their products down. For the masses whose ears were not as sensitive as their discerning cousins, this did not matter much. Now the manufacturer of the well received Klipschorn, LaScala and Heresey produces many other speakers that sound much like their contemporaries.

Cary is a brand that is widely seen as a manufacturer of excellent equipment, but--and this is an intuitive hunch based on what I have seen in ads and models I've noted for sale--not very innovative. Part of this, I reckon, rests upon the medium--how many variations of the tube amp can one come up with? So, while Cary's standards of workmanship have remained pretty high, many interested customers have snapped their products up. On the other hand, Cary's products have not shown much innovation, so, among audiophiles, they don't move with as much vigor as they might if their products were au courant.

In sum, manufacturers face the dilemma of caving to mass consumer expectation and standards anticipated by the audiophile market. Both have valid and influential arguments to make, and companies who are canny enough to listen will survive. Whether or not they measure up is a different ball o' wax altogether.

Ajani
12-07-2008, 03:20 PM
Seems to me that the thrust of many of these denuciations comes from a deeper dicontent with hype and ubiquity. In a sense, you have to sympathize with manufacturers who find themselves at war with one another to become the premier brand. In turn, they produces innumerable units and models, filling every foresseable niche. Add to this the attendant "buzz" extolling the manufacturers' wares, and it gets pretty wearisome.

While for lay people, all of this is failrly innocuous, we "audiophiles" become increasingly leery. This is especially true in regard to products appealing to the mainstream: that if a manufacturers going to spend a bunch of money in developing new models and marketing them, they better damn well deliver; otherwise, they're hacks. On the other hand, brands that are sold by their reputations, there is little need to be so aggressive (or innovative?). Knowing their products of the past to be sound, there is little expectation for those standards to improve. For the mainstream, this works out fine; for audiophiles in the know, the proof will always be in the pudding.

As examples, I will point to Klipsch and Cary. Klipsch is a fairly respectable company, producing speakers that were well considered. Unfortunately, the pressures of demand and the attendant hype drove the quality of many of their products down. For the masses whose ears were not as sensitive as their discerning cousins, this did not matter much. Now the manufacturer of the well received Klipschorn, LaScala and Heresey produces many other speakers that sound much like their contemporaries.

Cary is a brand that is widely seen as a manufacturer of excellent equipment, but--and this is an intuitive hunch based on what I have seen in ads and models I've noted for sale--not very innovative. Part of this, I reckon, rests upon the medium--how many variations of the tube amp can one come up with? So, while Cary's standards of workmanship have remained pretty high, many interested customers have snapped their products up. On the other hand, Cary's products have not shown much innovation, so, among audiophiles, they don't move with as much vigor as they might if their products were au courant.

In sum, manufacturers face the dilemma of caving to mass consumer expectation and standards anticipated by the audiophile market. Both have valid and influential arguments to make, and companies who are canny enough to listen will survive. Whether or not they measure up is a different ball o' wax altogether.

Frankly, I'm happy that non-audiophiles have an influence on the audio market.... otherwise all we'd have to choose from would be speakers the size of barnyard doors with matching aesthetic appeal, vinyl and tubes.... No portable music, CDs, music servers, efficient Class D amplification...

Mr Peabody
12-07-2008, 04:31 PM
Maggies actually sound quite different from electrostats.

Klipsch actually sounds better on cheap receivers. I had a pair hooked to a Krell integrated amp and when I turned up the volume the sound was horrible, the speakers distorted to the point the music was pretty much unrecognizeable.

Auricauricle
12-07-2008, 05:09 PM
AJ: I'm not sure if I buy you're argument. If I follow you, CD's, portable music etc. was driven by the "non-audiophile market". I'll think about this statement but will state immediately that these markets were driven by the availablility of transistors, which made it possible to "do more with less". Add to that research done in psychoaccoustics, the need for creating huge watt-hungry amps and speakers "the size of barnyard doors" was no longer dictated. You still make an interesting point, and I will ponder it some more....

Your position is an intriguing one as well, Mr. P. I am not sure if I agree with it altogether, though. Years ago I had a pair of Heresies that I drove with a Yamaha M2 amp and C2a preamp. It was a very good sound, but fatiguing in the end, when I traded them in for tube gear. At the same time that I bought the Heresies, various friends bought other models of Klipsch speakers, including LaScalas, Cornwalls, Belles and Horns, each of which was driven by respectable amps etc. They sounded very impressive, albeit fatiguing. In retrospect, I am stuck with the burning question: Am I just smitten by the tubes, or were the speakers actually as fatiguing as I thought they were? In future, I will probably return to the tubes. When that happens, you'll know, and hopefully some of this mystery'll be cleared up....

blackraven
12-07-2008, 05:51 PM
Mr.P, I have to disagree on your definition of liquid sound. Liquid to me means a smooth sound, without glare or harshness.

Brands that I dont care for include Paradigm (i think they are way over rated and too bright), Klipsch, JBL, CV, Pioneer, Sony, and I think that Rotel and Martin Logan speakers are just ok although I do like ML subs.

I do like NAD, Mac's, NHT, ARC, B&W, CJ, Van Alstine, Marantz, PSB, Music Hall to name a few.

Ajani
12-07-2008, 06:28 PM
AJ: I'm not sure if I buy you're argument. If I follow you, CD's, portable music etc. was driven by the "non-audiophile market". I'll think about this statement but will state immediately that these markets were driven by the availablility of transistors, which made it possible to "do more with less". Add to that research done in psychoaccoustics, the need for creating huge watt-hungry amps and speakers "the size of barnyard doors" was no longer dictated. You still make an interesting point, and I will ponder it some more....

I don't think that the non-audiophile market is the reason a lot of the research was launched... I believe the research was often launched with the intention of advancing overall sound quality... however, I believe the reason these products managed to get a foothold in the market and eventually dominate is because of non-audiophiles...

Left up to many 'audiophiles', CDs would never have survived since the original CDs sounded really bad compared to vinyl... But I believe that acceptance by the mass market of CDs is what forced many audiophile brands to take the medium seriously and advance it to the point where it is today... Class D amps have been around for decades, but the desire for smaller, more efficient, lifestyle systems by the mass market has led to new interest by audiophile brands in Class D tech...

I believe Music Servers were a mass market invention based on MP3s and iPods, but now so many major audiophile brands are taking serious interest in pushing the limits of that technology... Brands like Linn are now producing more music server products than CD players...

So basically I think that many of the popular technologies would have been stillborn if not for their acceptance by non-audiophiles (who embraced the tech for reasons other than sound quality - such as convenience, portability and durability - things that were never priorities for audiophiles)...

Ajani
12-07-2008, 07:01 PM
Tough question.. I'd say Totem loudspeakers are very underrated, but always put a huge smile on my face. The Totem Arro is no exception, surprisingly good bass and an astonishly big sound from such a small column.

cheers,
elapsed

I don't think Totem speakers are underrated... they've received excellent reviews worldwide...

Unfortunately for me, though I've heard Totems many times, they were always driven by Arcam gear... I'd love to hear a Naim/Totem combo though, since it's supposed to have good synergy...

A question often asked about Totem though is:

Is the bass really impressive or just impressive considering the size and lack of drivers on the speakers?

Auricauricle
12-07-2008, 07:12 PM
I think you're essentially you're right with this POV, AJ: that it was mass marketing strategy that drove the medium when CD's appeared. Nevertheless, I aver that many companies like Deutsche Grammophone, Telarc, Philips, Loiseau Lyre, Archiv and others were prepared for the technology and produced products that fully exploited its capability. This, of course, was not always the case, and many companies caught in the spell succumbed to catering to the desire to acquire discs, no matter haw bad the source. Do you remember the first pressings of Aqualung or Some of the early Virgin releases of Tangerine Dream (Stratosfear, e.g.)? They sounded pretty poor. In spite of these occasional missteps, I think most execs at the helms of the companies at the time knew the CD for its potential and, while "audiophile" taste certainly had its say, were poised and ready to deliver when the time came.

Mr Peabody
12-07-2008, 07:49 PM
As we post our biases I think it's important to keep in mind that many of the brands listed have been through many transitions and we can't say they were always good nor can we count them out when they are struggling. A few mentioned would be Pioneer, NAD & Marantz. I had a negative view of NAD because my first encounter was during the period where some of their gear had a thin and not so appealing sound. As I stated recent auditions have changed my mind. For a lot of years, the 80's and 90's Pioneer were entry level at best in my eyes. They built up a rep in the 70's and from what I hear are now trying to put out some respectable gear. Although they may have gone too long as a Wal-mart, Best Buy cheap brand to bounce back, only time will tell. Marantz, my have they traveled, starting out as true high end in which some pieces as old as they are now bringing several time their original price, true legendary pieces; then at one point hitting bottom and nearly lost, to now where they have progressively been making a come back, the parent company sold and the story still moves on. I was careful when putting ARC on my list to say "recent" because I've heard some of their gear that I have liked, same with Classe'.

All of this to say, I guess, we must keep an open mind, don't stereotype a brand based on it's name, and generally a line will have some pieces to stand out amongst the rest of it's family. With that being said, even that is a generalization, there will always be some brands I suppose that will stay on the bottom feeding but time goes on and we are watching.

One other thing, some one asked for it, so throughout this thread it is, we all have a different taste, hence not many here have the same gear, except for those pesky Emotiva fanboys :) And even they mix it with different gear. So no sense in anyone getting their feathers ruffled.

emesbee
12-07-2008, 10:47 PM
I wouldn't buy Bose. from what I've seen of their systems, they just seem to be seriously overpriced for what you get. I'm not a fan of the subwoofer/satelite speaker style of system in any case, so perhaps that biases me.

I'm also not keen on Bang and Olufsen, for similar reasons. I don't know how they rate sonically, but from what I've seen they just appear to be expensive exercises in design aesthetics.

kexodusc
12-08-2008, 05:19 AM
Not many brands I have a hate on for, or that I don't think offer something...problem is I hear different than a lot of people so some brands just aren't my cup of tea.

I can say that I despise most amps and speakers that would be categorized as "warm". To me this is just distortion-induced fakery that doesn't sound anything like live music, no matter how pleasant it might be. There are a few exceptions and being on the slight warm side of neutral is tolerable for me, but I find warm gear mostly dull and not real.

There are few brands I can think of off that "can do no wrong" in my eyes. Arcam might be one, but they try to stay in a certain performance and price range and don't have any "if you won the Powerball lottery, what gear would you buy" stuff. Limited range of products, but I always find them impressive, if not the absolute best in a price range.

Paradigm, Axiom, PSB, etc...I like their speakers below $1000. Above that and I find there's only a few worthwhile models, and they are never on my short list of recommendations. These guys are better entry level options IMO.

I've never heard a Bryston I didn't like either (and I know a lot of people hate Bryston - but not me).

Parasound is one brand I've never been impressed with. Dunno why...just not for me I guess. B&W is hard for me to categorize, some models I like, some I absolutely hate. They're hit or miss.

Meh, I find the older I get, the less brand loyal I am. I could care less. There's dozens of brands I'd be happy to own.

Feanor
12-08-2008, 05:26 AM
[quote=Ajani] ...
Left up to many 'audiophiles', CDs would never have survived since the original CDs sounded really bad compared to vinyl... But I believe that acceptance by the mass market of CDs is what forced many audiophile brands to take the medium seriously and advance it to the point where it is today... Class D amps have been around for decades, but the desire for smaller, more efficient, lifestyle systems by the mass market has led to new interest by audiophile brands in Class D tech...

I believe Music Servers were a mass market invention based on MP3s and iPods, but now so many major audiophile brands are taking serious interest in pushing the limits of that technology... Brands like Linn are now producing more music server products than CD players
... quote]

Perhaps you're right, Ajani, but it's a sad commentary just the same.

I was an audiophile when CDs hit the scene, and I bought a CDP when the prices came down to $500 -- a lot more then than now. The sound of my first CDP, a Yamaha CD2 as I recall was a little sharp but, hey, no clicks & pops and I escaped the pain-in-the-butt rituals of handling LPs. In a real sense laziness is a big driver for me, I'll admit: I hate handling CDs, never mind LPs. The great virtue of servers or computer-source music is convenience, but in this case the sound is as good or better than a CDP.

As for Class D, (switching), amps they're here and many are great. Believe that it isn't the non-audiophiles that are buying Spectral, Bel Canto, NuForces, PS Audio, etc..

For me it is really sad that audiophiles still adhere to vinyl. Now that we have indubitably superior media such as SACD, not only better sound but multi-channel to boot, there is no technical -- or rational -- reason for vinyl. Yet the mindless stubborness of vinylphiles might be consigning that medium to the trash bin.

audio amateur
12-08-2008, 05:39 AM
Didn't know Feanor was a Vinyl hater:eek:
I think TT's are cool:)

Ajani
12-08-2008, 07:02 AM
As we post our biases I think it's important to keep in mind that many of the brands listed have been through many transitions and we can't say they were always good nor can we count them out when they are struggling. A few mentioned would be Pioneer, NAD & Marantz. I had a negative view of NAD because my first encounter was during the period where some of their gear had a thin and not so appealing sound. As I stated recent auditions have changed my mind. For a lot of years, the 80's and 90's Pioneer were entry level at best in my eyes. They built up a rep in the 70's and from what I hear are now trying to put out some respectable gear. Although they may have gone too long as a Wal-mart, Best Buy cheap brand to bounce back, only time will tell. Marantz, my have they traveled, starting out as true high end in which some pieces as old as they are now bringing several time their original price, true legendary pieces; then at one point hitting bottom and nearly lost, to now where they have progressively been making a come back, the parent company sold and the story still moves on. I was careful when putting ARC on my list to say "recent" because I've heard some of their gear that I have liked, same with Classe'.

All of this to say, I guess, we must keep an open mind, don't stereotype a brand based on it's name, and generally a line will have some pieces to stand out amongst the rest of it's family. With that being said, even that is a generalization, there will always be some brands I suppose that will stay on the bottom feeding but time goes on and we are watching.

One other thing, some one asked for it, so throughout this thread it is, we all have a different taste, hence not many here have the same gear, except for those pesky Emotiva fanboys :) And even they mix it with different gear. So no sense in anyone getting their feathers ruffled.

Very good points... Too often we forget that having heard a brand 10 years ago is not a proper way to judge their current offerings... Even brands that have products with extra long life-cycles, often make changes to the products that improve/change the sound from the initial production models....

Also, nothing in audio works in isolation... so even though hearing Brand X Speakers with with brand C amp & CD might have been a totally disappointing experience, you might be blown away if you heard the same Speakers with brand G amp & CD...

Finally, at the end of the day it's really all just opinion anyway... I can rave all I want about the Monitor Audio Gold Series but that won't convince Mr. Peabody to ditch the Dynaudios (nor should it)... Buy what you like and enjoy it...

Hell, if you love the sound of Bose Cubes, then don't let some audiophile convince you that they are rubbish... Instead, do a comparison with several more respected brands and then decide for yourself.

elapsed
12-08-2008, 07:02 AM
For me it is really sad that audiophiles still adhere to vinyl. Now that we have indubitably superior media such as SACD, not only better sound but multi-channel to boot, there is no technical -- or rational -- reason for vinyl. Yet the mindless stubborness of vinylphiles might be consigning that medium to the trash bin.
Wow that's quite the post, Feanor..

I purchased my first turntable last year, and I enjoy her just as much as my CD player for reasons you may not relate to. 1) huge selection of used vinyl that I can't find on CD and also at a very reasonable price, 2) I enjoy entire album's instead of frequently flipping through CD or MP3 tracks, 3) there's a certain amount of love that goes into spinning vinyl that can't be replicated with any other medium, 4) as a hobbiest/audiophile, turntables offer a really fun and easy way to tweak my system, and last but not least, 5) my turntable is outstanding; well mastered albums still offers more music and soul than my Naim CD player which is bloody amazing in its own right

Notice nowhere did I mention multi-channel audio, detail or resolution. When I go to a live concert, these are not elements I'm listening for. It's not about technical superiority, it's about a love of music

cheers,
elapsed

E-Stat
12-08-2008, 07:06 AM
...there is no technical -- or rational -- reason for vinyl. Yet the mindless stubborness of vinylphiles might be consigning that medium to the trash bin.
No *rational* reason? So, who will fund the replacement of my 600 odd albums with the CD or SACD equivalents? I am loathe to spend another $8k to replace all of them largely for convenience. Nor am I really motivated to spend hundreds of hours of effort to rip, separate, and process all the tracks digitally (although I have done so in small amounts).

I seriously doubt that vinyl-o-philes are responsible for the relative lackluster support of the hi-rez mediums. I think a far more likely cause is due to the availability of inexpensive "singles" usually packaged in the opposite fidelity medium - low bit rate MP3s found on iTunes, etc.

Contact me and I'll provide the address for mailing the $8,000 check. Then I'll buy that EMM Labs CD-SA immediately. :)

rw

s dog
12-08-2008, 07:21 AM
Or brands that you consider to be over-rated? Here I'll start.. B&W, McIntosh, NAD, Klipsch :D

cheers,
elapsed Anything i can't pay for in cash.

elapsed
12-08-2008, 07:27 AM
Anything i can't pay for in cash.
So I take it you won't be auditioning Sonus Faber Stradivari Homage loudspeakers anytime soon (incidentally these would be my first purchase upon winning the lottery)

But your post isn't clear as you could very well have $40,000 in cash hiding in a matress. So for all I know you may still consider these beauties

cheers,
elapsed

Rich-n-Texas
12-08-2008, 07:49 AM
...For me it is really sad that audiophiles still adhere to vinyl. Now that we have indubitably superior media such as SACD, not only better sound but multi-channel to boot, there is no technical -- or rational -- reason for vinyl. Yet the mindless stubborness of vinylphiles might be consigning that medium to the trash bin.
SACD is dead! Dead dead dead!

The problem I have with SACD is the extremely limited amount of the kind of music I enjoy (it's mostly classical and Orchestral with some pop thrown in), however (that said - having said that :rolleyes: ), the few SACD titles I do have are miles above regular old CD's from an SQ perspective.

The problem I have with vinyl is that my old Pioneer TT would be expensive to replace, so that along with the care and maintenance needed to keep the records clean steers me away.

All this IMO.

Ajani
12-08-2008, 07:54 AM
I seriously doubt that vinyl-o-philes are responsible for the relative lackluster support of the hi-rez mediums. I think a far more likely cause is due to the availability of inexpensive "singles" usually packaged in the opposite fidelity medium - low bit rate MP3s found on iTunes, etc.

If all the Vinyl lovers were to suddenly switch their support to SACD, then that medium would still be a niche market product...

Non-Audiophiles determine what sells well, as Audiophiles are only a small fraction of the market for music...

Neither SACD nor DVD-A offered non-audiophiles anything that they really cared about... Those formats offered no new convenience or durability... they had higher quality but were also more expensive, which was not appealing since CDs were already overpriced....

MP3s and AAC took over the market because they offered non-audiophiles what they wanted: convenience (iTunes playlists etc..), portability (iPods & other MP3 players), lower prices (able to buy tracks individually for a $1 OR steal them for $0 if you so desired).

The goods new for Audiophiles is that MP3 was just the start of it all... and is low quality due to space limitations and internet speeds... but now that we see more audiophile brands taking an interest in music servers & downloads, we are also seeing high resolution download sites popping up to cater to that Audiophile market...

Give it time and you'll be able to download Stereo or MC recordings in higher resolution than SACD...

E-Stat
12-08-2008, 03:34 PM
I confess that I'm not a big McIntosh fan for their over the top "look at me" cosmetics. Like a triple white Cadillac with the gold package and chrome wheels. I find the use of big blue meters on preamps and turntables to be gratuitous and gimmicky. Does everyone know it takes six separate screening processes for every faceplate? Actually, business carried me to Binghamton, NY last week and I was graciously given a very nice tour of their facility. The gear's quality is beyond reproach and their customer service is second to none. How many audio companies are still operating after sixty years? It is their appearance that turns me off.

I prefer the no-nonsense look of truly professional quality instruments. The kind I've seen used in Air Force missile control consoles. Enroute air traffic control centers. Used with exotic electron microscopy gear. It is for that reason I have gravitated towards Audio Research and VTL stuff. They have a "right stuff" sort of appearance and have always focused on performance. Ed Harris vs. Fabio.

To each his own.

rw

Feanor
12-08-2008, 04:25 PM
Wow that's quite the post, Feanor..

I purchased my first turntable last year, and I enjoy her just as much as my CD player for reasons you may not relate to. 1) huge selection of used vinyl that I can't find on CD and also at a very reasonable price, 2) I enjoy entire album's instead of frequently flipping through CD or MP3 tracks, 3) there's a certain amount of love that goes into spinning vinyl that can't be replicated with any other medium, 4) as a hobbiest/audiophile, turntables offer a really fun and easy way to tweak my system, and last but not least, 5) my turntable is outstanding; well mastered albums still offers more music and soul than my Naim CD player which is bloody amazing in its own right

Notice nowhere did I mention multi-channel audio, detail or resolution. When I go to a live concert, these are not elements I'm listening for. It's not about technical superiority, it's about a love of music

cheers,
elapsed

:Yawn: Your first paragraph is an excellent summary of the reasons people mention for liking vinyl. I wasn't persuaded of them 25 years ago and I'm not today. I still have vinyl play back capability, (albeit not great quality), but I basically never use it.

As for multi-channel, I mention it for the very reason that it can, and on great recordings does, produce something close to the live experience than is possible with stereo. Don't believe this? Perhaps because you haven't just haven't heard good recordings on a properly set up system: you should seek that experience.

E-Stat
12-08-2008, 04:33 PM
MP3s and AAC took over the market because ...
I agree completely with your summary.


Give it time and you'll be able to download Stereo or MC recordings in higher resolution than SACD...
My understanding is that virtually all recordings today are captured at higher resolutions than Redbook CD, either SACD or 24/192 PCM. My brother just got fiber delivered to his house in Dallas. He gets 40 MB / sec download speed capability! Such bandwidth would make getting your favorite hi-rez album a quick task.

rw

Feanor
12-08-2008, 04:39 PM
No *rational* reason? So, who will fund the replacement of my 600 odd albums with the CD or SACD equivalents? I am loathe to spend another $8k to replace all of them largely for convenience. Nor am I really motivated to spend hundreds of hours of effort to rip, separate, and process all the tracks digitally (although I have done so in small amounts). ...

'Stat, having a sizable vinyl collection is the best possible -- indeed the only good -- reason for maintaining a vinyl set up. (That's why I still have mine, though some day I'd like to get around to ripping them all to computer files.) Let me clarify that I meant "rational" in context of a basis for insisting on the continued superiority of vinyl as a medium.


..
I seriously doubt that vinyl-o-philes are responsible for the relative lackluster support of the hi-rez mediums. I think a far more likely cause is due to the availability of inexpensive "singles" usually packaged in the opposite fidelity medium - low bit rate MP3s found on iTunes, etc.
...
But this is exactly what I do belief. To reiterate, that continued adherence to vinyl by audiophiles has hindered and perhaps killed acceptance of SACD. On the contrary, I consider MP3 downloads to be irrelevant to the SACD situation.

E-Stat
12-08-2008, 04:56 PM
Let me clarify that I meant "rational" in context of a basis for insisting on the continued superiority of vinyl as a medium.
I kinda gathered what you meant. Sorry for picking on you. I'm just not a vinyl elitist. Speaking of which, have you seen this (http://www.vimeo.com/1546186) video as posted today on AA? How about two million records?


But this is exactly what I do believe
I guess we'll agree to disagree here. Kids are waaay too impatient to wait fifty times longer to download a hi-rez SACD cut at ~150 MB vs. 3 MB for a 128 kb MP3. All kidding aside, do you realize the impact this would have on the IT infrastructures of universities across both our countries? They already have to deal with students doing streaming audio and video feeds and all the music downloading that goes on in the low-rez world. The bandwidth for online distribution is just not here yet. Give it a few years, maybe ten for universally available wicked-fast bandwidth.

rw

elapsed
12-08-2008, 05:07 PM
As for multi-channel, I mention it for the very reason that it can, and on great recordings does, produce something close to the live experience than is possible with stereo. Don't believe this? Perhaps because you haven't just haven't heard good recordings on a properly set up system: you should seek that experience.
I've got no motivation to listen to a multi-channel system, my own system at home was designed as 2-channel and I'm fully content with what I have, regardless of advances in technology. Originally when I was designing the system I was leaning towards a surround home theater, however for the money I had saved towards investing in a full 5.1 system with pre-pro and poweramp I was able to build a far more capable 2.0 system, not to mention I couldn't be bothered to wire my entire living room for surround.

My system is used 90% for music, 10% for home theater. The vast majority of music that I listen to has been released only on vinyl and CD. But to each their own, I'm sure you enjoy your system equally as much ;)

cheers,
elapsed

Feanor
12-08-2008, 05:56 PM
....
I guess we'll agree to disagree here. Kids are waaay too impatient to wait fifty times longer to download a hi-rez SACD cut at ~150 MB vs. 3 MB for a 128 kb MP3. All kidding aside, do you realize the impact this would have on the IT infrastructures of universities across both our countries? They already have to deal with students doing streaming audio and video feeds and all the music downloading that goes on in the low-rez world. The bandwidth for online distribution is just not here yet. Give it a few years, maybe ten for universally available wicked-fast bandwidth.

rw

I agree with what you're saying about kids & downloads, in fact it's indisputable. I'm talking about those old, grey-haired audiophiles who continue to buy LPs instead of buying SACDs -- I'm talking about the silver discs.

As for me, I'd be fine with hi-rez downloads, say PCM 24/96. Yes, downloads would take a while, but I'm patient and there are download managers that can handle interruption, etc.

Mr Peabody
12-08-2008, 08:09 PM
I don't think price was a factor with SACD, somebody is buying these $40.00 on average high quality vinyl pressings. Enough that more and more keep coming out. Vinyl has made such a bounce that certain new releases are coming out on vinyl. I know the Guns & Roses album has and I know the new Metallica album is available on 180g but I'm not sure if it came out with a cheaper version.

E-Stat
12-09-2008, 12:16 PM
I'm talking about those old, grey-haired audiophiles who continue to buy LPs instead of buying SACDs -- I'm talking about the silver discs.
Switching every one of *us* over would hardly put a dent in the overall market.

rw

Feanor
12-09-2008, 12:53 PM
Switching every one of *us* over would hardly put a dent in the overall market.

rw

:mad2: 'Stat, don't play dumb. :devil: You know perfectly well I'm not talking about the overall market.

I'm talking about audiophile niche markets. I'm saying the SACD audiophile niche market competes with the LP audiophile niche market. I'm saying I wish the latter would go away in favor of the former.
:19:

Ajani
12-09-2008, 01:07 PM
:mad2: 'Stat, don't play dumb. :devil: You know perfectly well I'm not talking about the overall market.

I'm talking about audiophile niche markets. I'm saying the SACD audiophile niche market competes with the LP audiophile niche market. I'm saying I wish the latter would go away in favor of the former.
:19:

Oh Crap... I really am dumb, because all this time I couldn't understand why you kept thinking LP had some significant effect on the sale of SACDs...

You're talking about Niche market, not overall sales :mad2:

That makes sense now... LP lovers are the niche market that SACD would want to take over...

E-Stat
12-09-2008, 01:24 PM
'Stat, don't play dumb...I'm talking about audiophile niche markets. I'm saying the SACD audiophile niche market competes with the LP audiophile niche market.
Dumb? I consider myself pragmatic. Competes in what way? I think we're talking across each other. The overall failure of the hi-rez market and large scale commitment by Sony are governed by the overall market.


' I'm saying I wish the latter would go away in favor of the former.
And if that were to happen (which I believe is highly unlikely given the inertia), what do expect would change or occur?

rw

Ajani
12-09-2008, 01:58 PM
And if that were to happen (which I believe is highly unlikely given the inertia), what do expect would change or occur?


That is a good question...

My guess is that the SACD Niche Market would be a larger niche market... resulting in... well...ummm...urrrr... nothing really... You might be able to pick up a few more titles on SACD than you do now, but the effect would likely be very small...

Auricauricle
12-09-2008, 02:39 PM
I kinda thought that Fean Bean was referring to overall sales, too, AJ...!

As my thoughts and sentiments go, I keep a TT on hand for many of the reasons mentioned by 'Sticky: Many LP's won't make it to CD and the nostalgic rub is well-nigh irresistable. Furthermore, many of these older recordings are truly classic. The joy of having one of these in your hands, as well as the smell, feel....Nearly brings a tear to yer eyes....Y'know? I mean....(blurble)....(sniff)....WELL??

elapsed
12-09-2008, 03:12 PM
The RIAA reports that in 2007 vinyl shipments increased by 36.6%, and revenue on vinyl sales increased by 46.2%. SACD shipments, on the other hand, declined by 30.5%, with revenue declining by 34.2%.

Vinyl is experiencing huge market growth. In fact, Amazon now carries over 250,000 vinyl titles. In contrast, there are less than 6 thousand SACD titles on the market, mostly classical.

Face it, SACD is dead. Vinyl will long outlive CD and other physical mediums.

cheers,
elapsed

Mr Peabody
12-09-2008, 03:45 PM
I wonder why more mainstream titles weren't offered on SACD.

I had a pretty large vinyl collection when SACD hit. I had already stood at the crossroad and decided to keep the vinyl and gladly after hearing a Rega P2 that showed me how well vinyl can sound. My reason for not supporting SACD were:
1. I was not hot on collecting yet another format. ( Said as he sees his Blu-ray movies slowly stacking up ) Which must show if a format had something to really offer I'd probably eventually come aboard.
2. When I heard SACD as it hit the market it did not sound better than CD. A $3k Krell CD player could mop the floor with a $7.5k Marantz SACD player with each using their respective formats. This stuck in my mind for a long time. Even though some of these dealers now say that SACD does offer more fidelity it's too late and I still have yet to hear that demo. I would like to hear just so I would know.
3. Even if I was convinced, or had been convinced, SACD didn't offer anything I would listen to. And that, is a significant reason. If 2 & 3 were solved, then one would probably fall as well.

Feanor
12-09-2008, 03:52 PM
The RIAA reports that in 2007 vinyl shipments increased by 36.6%, and revenue on vinyl sales increased by 46.2%. SACD shipments, on the other hand, declined by 30.5%, with revenue declining by 34.2%.

Vinyl is experiencing huge market growth. In fact, Amazon now carries over 250,000 vinyl titles. In contrast, there are less than 6 thousand SACD titles on the market, mostly classical.

Face it, SACD is dead. Vinyl will long outlive CD and other physical mediums.

cheers,
elapsed

It is without rational explanation. :nonod:

elapsed
12-09-2008, 06:37 PM
When I heard SACD as it hit the market it did not sound better than CD. A $3k Krell CD player could mop the floor with a $7.5k Marantz SACD player with each using their respective formats. This stuck in my mind for a long time. Even though some of these dealers now say that SACD does offer more fidelity it's too late and I still have yet to hear that demo. I would like to hear just so I would know.
Interestingly enough, I recently did a face-off between my Naim CD5x and Oppo 983 over analogue, with the Beatles Love CD in my Naim, and the Beatles Love DVD-Audio in my Oppo. The Oppo sounded weak, tinny, lacked soul and presence, and I could not hear any added detail in the higher resolution format. The Naim absolutely trounced the Oppo for playback.

There's no question in mind that a solid CD player can hold its own against these new higher resolution formats, and I suspect I would have to spend a lot of money to purchase any SACD player that could hold its own against the Naim CD Player (for what?). Meanwhile, my turntable sounds as good as the Naim, at a fraction of the cost.

cheers,
elapsed

Doc Sage
12-09-2008, 06:51 PM
What audio brands are you not attracted to?

But first!!!! Nice to read about SACD vs. Vinyl but may I ask...what will be next for "us audiophiles"?

CD's, MP3's and the IPOD were all created to satisfies the general puplic with little effort given to the quality of the reproduction. I remember how bad CD's sounded back in the mid 80"s, I owned one of the first Sony player and was crying thinking of what a fool I was to sell all my LP's.

Mind you, today I find the reproduction quite good but it took some time for the recording technicians to correct their recording methods, for the electronic companies to find and correct their design faux pas, etc...

But...if I was to use my computer as a music storage devise, if I was to upgrade my sound card and have the proper connection to my audiophile grade amplifier, how will the artists creations be transfered to my computer in all its fidelity? Do we have the mean to do so today? Where will I find this? What program do I need?

Back to the topic. I do not care for most micro systems although Denon done a pretty good system that included some Mission speakers.

Doc Sage

elapsed
12-09-2008, 07:01 PM
But...if I was to use my computer as a music storage devise, if I was to upgrade my sound card and have the proper connection to my audiophile grade amplifier, how will the artists creations be transfered to my computer in all its fidelity? Do we have the mean to do so today? Where will I find this? What program do I need?
One word for you: FLAC :)

Nine Inch Nails recently released their latest album on their website, available for download in MP3, FLAC and M4A lossless, and 24-bit 96 kHz wave. This is higher than CD quality, and the download was absolutely free. I stream the FLAC lossess audio through my SqueezeBox from my laptop. If you were to combine a SqueezeBox with an outboard DAC, all the while streaming FLAC, you'd end up with an outstanding system that will rival many of the best CD players on the market.

Anyways, I can only hope that Nine Inch Nails sets an industry trend. For now, all of the CD's I've ripped to my hard drive are lossless FLAC. I presently use the SqueezeBox mostly for background music or streaming Internet radio via analogue, but it's an outstanding player for the money.

cheers,
elapsed

Ajani
12-09-2008, 07:30 PM
One word for you: FLAC :)

Nine Inch Nails recently released their latest album on their website, available for download in MP3, FLAC and M4A lossless, and 24-bit 96 kHz wave. This is higher than CD quality, and the download was absolutely free. I stream the FLAC lossess audio through my SqueezeBox from my laptop. If you were to combine a SqueezeBox with an outboard DAC, all the while streaming FLAC, you'd end up with an outstanding system that will rival many of the best CD players on the market.

Anyways, I can only hope that Nine Inch Nails sets an industry trend. For now, all of the CD's I've ripped to my hard drive are lossless FLAC. I presently use the SqueezeBox mostly for background music or streaming Internet radio via analogue, but it's an outstanding player for the money.

cheers,
elapsed

That's what I'm talking about!!! :ciappa:

Lossless + Squeezebox + Good DAC = High Quality Digital Source...

And I think Nine Inch Nails is just the beginning... A lot of Artists are intrigued by the online market... it gives them the opportunity to bypass the greedy and often idiotic record labels...

In time I think downloads will revolutionize the music industry in a very positive way...

Feanor
12-09-2008, 07:32 PM
...

There's no question in mind that a solid CD player can hold its own against these new higher resolution formats, and I suspect I would have to spend a lot of money to purchase any SACD player that could hold its own against the Naim CD Player (for what?)
...

It might surprise you to learn that I agree that SACD is not significantly superior to really good CD recordings -- and given the level of equipment I've been able to listen to at length. Obviously a Naim to Oppo comparison is an invidious one and hardly a basis for dismissing SACD. On the other hand there are folks, like emaidel, who strongly insist that SACD is indeed superior.

However I say that the greatest advantage of SACD is multi-channel, and I say this even though I listen mainly to stereo myself on account of the issues of cost and difficulty of set up.

elapsed
12-09-2008, 07:41 PM
It might surprise you to learn that I agree that SACD is not significantly superior to really good CD recordings -- and given the level of equipment I've been able to listen to at length. Obviously a Naim to Oppo comparison is an invidious one and hardly a basis for dismissing SACD. On the other hand there are folks who strongly insist that SACD is indeed superior.
Well if I need to spend $3,500 or more on an SACD player to outperform the Oppo in a showdown against my CD Player, I could certainly argue that this money would be far better spent on purchasing more music. For $3,500 I could purchase a full classical collection of over 200 CD's. Regardless, the vast majority of the consumer market would not spend more than $350 on a player, and for this money I can think of a number of audio solutions that will outperform an Oppo SACD player, not the least of which being a SqueezeBox, a stand-alone CD player such as a Marantz CD5001, or many turntables both new or used.

cheers,
elapsed

Feanor
12-09-2008, 07:51 PM
...

But...if I was to use my computer as a music storage devise, if I was to upgrade my sound card and have the proper connection to my audiophile grade amplifier, how will the artists creations be transfered to my computer in all its fidelity? Do we have the mean to do so today? Where will I find this? What program do I need?
...

Doc Sage

There are many options. In my case play lossless FLAC or ALAC file using the Foobar2000 program on an WinXP computer with an internal M-Audio Revolution 7.1 sound card; the sound card feeds my external DAC via S/PDIF coax. Squeezebox is good option especially if you don't want your computer near you music system, and especially with quality external DAC. A good computer based system will equal or exceed virtually any CD player.

I recommend dBpoweramp (http://www.dbpoweramp.com/) as an excellent program for ripping CDs to FLAC or virtually any other format including MP3.

RGA
12-09-2008, 07:51 PM
Underrated and overrated merely lies in your perception of the gear. If a movie is overhyped it often can't live up to the hype for most people and they may tend to view it "harder" than they otherwise would have going in "cold."

Looks are of course subjective but many audiophiles can ignore the ugly ducklings if the sound is right.

And we tend to feel something is overrated if we personally don't like the sound of the product. I don't like the sound of Bose - Bose is the biggest speaker seller in the world and has huge hype - my conclusion is that Bose is overrated as a seller though not in the review press. Some things that get good reviews I would disagree with either from a monetary price performance ratio perspective or because to me it's just not very good. I lean a little more to what the reviewers actually buy or what reviewers would consider a very close runner up - rather than reviewers I know who give good reviews to speakers that they themselves would not care to own. And ultimately that is the key - the review is a negative review unless the reviewer would actually BUY the speaker himself. Of course if he already owns a great product and another comes along but he can't afford it or it would not be practical to buy it that is something else. But plenty of well reviewed stuff is out there and if the reviewer had no stereo had the money and the space would NOT buy it then to me that is what is telling. Unfortunately, review readers do not get that information and so they are stuck in the astrology writing that can be affixed to any product.

I personally find the Magnepan 20.1 to be overrated in the sense that it's a very large loudspeaker, is noted for working best with big power (read expensive amplification) the speaker is $14k and I'm left a little shocked at how anyone could walk away thinking they're great loudspeakers. (Guess who won't send me a product for evaluation?). But many people do in fact think they sound great - I think they may have been seduced by the looks, design, and price, over the actual substance but the point is it boils down to preferences and perceptions.

Unfortunately, for some reason if you don't like something people will attack you.

Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate. So if you say something, anything, bad about ONE speaker in an entire companies' line-up you get some fan of it blasting you. Say something bad about a different speaker and a new bunch of people get on your case.

Not surprising most of the review industry is positive about everything. This similar thread was on another forum and people hated the looks of Shanling - I find them a bit tacky looking but in some ways kind of neat looking - I would not put it on my list of worst offenders for looks or sound relative to price by any means. And I doubt I would rule anything out on looks alone.

I reviewed what I consider to be a sexy looking AND excellent sounding amplifier called the Rita from Grant Fidelity - one of my girlfriends felt it looked like an ugly microwave oven. hmmm. http://grantfidelity.com/site/

Feanor
12-10-2008, 04:06 AM
Well if I need to spend $3,500 or more on an SACD player to outperform the Oppo in a showdown against my CD Player, I could certainly argue that this money would be far better spent on purchasing more music. For $3,500 I could purchase a full classical collection of over 200 CD's. Regardless, the vast majority of the consumer market would not spend more than $350 on a player, and for this money I can think of a number of audio solutions that will outperform an Oppo SACD player, not the least of which being a SqueezeBox, a stand-alone CD player such as a Marantz CD5001, or many turntables both new or used.

cheers,
elapsed

The larger majority of music purchases I make are still CD and this won't change because most of what I want isn't on SACD despite that I'm a classical listener. Furthermore my main system is stereo and I listen 90% to music ripped to computer so I'll concede that SACD doesn't look very relevant to me either.

Nevertheless I will preferentially buy SACD where a suitable recording is available in the optimistic hope that someday I will be able upgrade my HT to an audiophile level. Right now the only machine with which I can listen to m/c SACD is ... an Oppo 980H ... for which the best that may be said is that it complements the rest of my current HT setup.

I adhere to the two points I've already mentioned:

Multi-channel provides a listening experience that can be closer to the live, concert hall experience that stereo possibly can, (though recordings that actually deliver this are the exception). SACD as a medium can deliver this, but so could DVD-A, and no doubt Blu-Ray has the potential.
I believe the continued relative popularity of vinyl is a hinderance to audiophile acceptance of SACD or other, high resolution, multi-channel media that are -- by any rational test -- superior to it.

elapsed
12-10-2008, 06:58 AM
I believe the continued relative popularity of vinyl is a hinderance to audiophile acceptance of SACD or other, high resolution, multi-channel media that are -- by any rational test -- superior to it.
Suppose for a moment that the majority of audiophiles accepted SACD, we still don't reflect more than a small percentage of the overall market. And even so, every week when I visit my local retailers I am seeing less and less CD's on the shelf, so I think we can both agree that physical media is a dying medium overall. The market has spoken, but I can assure you we will still have a plethora of high resolution, multi-channel options available in the future, however they will be available for Internet download. As disk storage becomes cheaper and cheaper, we'll no longer be stuck to storage limitations on media such as CD or SACD, and I suspect we're likely to see even higher resolution options available than we've ever thought possible.

And even though I'm not giving up my turntable, like other audiophiles we are all leaning towards streaming lossless audio, and I strongly suspect that as artists begin to release high-resolution downloads at a price premium, they will also offer 180-gram vinyl as a limited option, specifically geared towards audiophiles and to hardcore fans/collectors (in fact this is already happening). Could you agree that this gives us the best of both worlds, and in fact we both win?

cheers,
elapsed

Worf101
12-10-2008, 07:03 AM
A special thanks to all who've commented on the whole SACD and music-puter side of this thread, you've all taught me a great deal and I thank you.

Da Worfster

Brick Top
12-10-2008, 01:38 PM
Multi-channel provides a listening experience that can be closer to the live, concert hall experience that stereo possibly can, (though recordings that actually deliver this are the exception). SACD as a medium can deliver this, but so could DVD-A, and no doubt Blu-Ray has the potential.

If mastered properly...then yes...it can bring you closer to a live recording. But some are goofy. How many conceerts have you been too where the horn player is blasting away behind you?



I believe the continued relative popularity of vinyl is a hinderance to audiophile acceptance of SACD or other, high resolution, multi-channel media that are -- by any rational test -- superior to it.

This is just a silly statement. I buy and listen to SACD, DVD-A, CD and vinyl. They all have there good points..and bad points. But to say hi-rez digital is superior to vinyl is just plain inaccurate.

This statement is based on my experience with my ears. And my ears, and how they percieve the sound is what matters.

Cheers,
BT

RGA
12-10-2008, 04:45 PM
I never understand the attacks on vinyl - some of the rigs I have heard havce no audible noise clicks pops or anything - a bigger breathey three dimensional presentation and I have heard no CD player or SACD machine that sounds as good as the better turntables. Interestingly some of the companies who are touted as making the best digital replay and who ALSO make some of the best turntables all seem to agree that their lower priced turntables beat their more expensive digital replay.

That said vinyl suffers more disc to disc deviation and lower priced turntables are not as "perfect" as vinylphiles seem to indicate. UHF magazine noted that it took about a $2500 investment in vinyl replay (not including carts and arms) to really get into what vinyl is capable of. I don't quite agree on the number but I can see why people who go to a store and listen to a Rega, Pro-Ject, MMF, Clearaudio might not be convinced by the vinyl crowd that CD and SACD are bested.

Bottom line is that there is no point in trying to convince people of turntable superiority or SACD or CD. You do the best to hear examples of what are considered to be the best of each and then decide. The mistake is to compare one at $450 another at $3,500 and another at $10k.

Turnatables geta LOT better as you go up the price scales - SACD and CD improve but to a much lesser degree so much lesser that DBT debates are rampant.

Then what speaker and amplifier phono stage was being used - cart, arm. Turntables are a big pain and some would rather not admit that as being a reason not to go vinyl so instead try to knock down the sound.

Most people I read on forums who blast vinyl have not heard the best turntables or even what I would consider decent $4-5k turntables. They base their entire jugement on their dad's beat up Dual or a Rega P2.

I have a NAD 533(Rega P2) and I can understand why digital guys are not wholly convinced or much convinced at all. The P2 with work can be brought up past some cd players IMO but it's not to a degree that all would share that opinion.

SACD in every instance I have heard it has been a major let down - the surround ambiance is artificial to me. The surround tracks for me are ludicrous - butthe proponants in the home theater sector love it - but heck they like the dance and rock settings too - and good - so do I - they're fun. Not believable but fun counts!

3db
12-10-2008, 07:18 PM
It is without rational explanation. :nonod:

Because vinyl offers an experience, not a convience. People also like the sound better. Most of today's CDs ae over compressed and offer less dynamic range than that of vinyl. Its not the fault of the medium. Its the fault of the loudness war.

Mr Peabody
12-10-2008, 07:44 PM
Alright, RGA watch knocking the P2. It may not be the LP-12 but it is significantly better than the typical or even best mass market brand. The P2 is what convinced me to keep my vinyl. Boy put a pen in someone's hand they really become a snob :)

How'd we get from good ole gear bashing to format wars anyway?

elapsed
12-10-2008, 08:08 PM
How'd we get from good ole gear bashing to format wars anyway?
Okay Peabody, back to the original thread.. possibly the most overrated turntable of all time? The Linn LP12. But I still want one. With an Ekos SE, a Dynavector 20XL cart, a Naim Armageddon PSU and a Naim Superline phono stage. See that's the problem here, we're already around $15,000 on a bloody turntable and you could keep upgrading further if you wished to by upgrading the cart and adding a PSU to the Superline

I'm almost certain one could do far better for a lot less money, but I'm still drawn to the damn thing. Problem is I'd never be happy with an entry-level Magik LP12, I'd just keep upgrading. I suspect I'm going to stick with my Planar 3, I honestly couldn't ask for more for the money

cheers,
elapsed

elapsed
12-10-2008, 08:30 PM
And one more thing.. most overrated guitarist of all time? Clapton. Yeah I said it. :)

cheers,
elapsed

Mr Peabody
12-10-2008, 08:52 PM
Naim must make things sound odd, Clapton rules!!, most over rated guitarist is Jimmy Page

02audionoob
12-10-2008, 08:56 PM
I guess since my turntable didn't cost $4k it must not sound as good as I thought. I'm putting it on eBay this weekend.
:rolleyes:


Clapton? What about Page?

emesbee
12-10-2008, 09:03 PM
RGA, clicks and pops will always be there on vinyl, even when played on expensive equipment. They are not artifacts of the equipment, they are due to scratches, imperfections or dirt, dust, etc on the surface of the vinyl. Sure, better quality vinyl is less susceptible to surface noise, and it can be reduced by careful handling and cleaning, but it can never be eliminated.

When one is comparing the quality of sound reproduction from a CD vs turntable setup, I believe that the comparison should be done at the same price point. ie: If one is looking at a lower priced CD setup, then the comparison should be done against a similarly priced turntable setup. Likewise at the high end.

Perhaps vinyl does outperform CD at the high end, but for lower priced systems I would expect CD to be the better performer. It is ridiculous to try and compare a low priced CD player with a high priced turntable. Those sort of comparisons just aren't fair.

emesbee
12-10-2008, 09:07 PM
And one more thing.. most overrated guitarist of all time? Clapton. Yeah I said it. :)

cheers,
elapsed

Not on your life. I'd give the overrated label to Joe Satriani. Clapton is a terrific live performer, but the playing of Satriani is just completely lacking in soul. All he does is play fast. Totally boring after a few minutes.

RGA
12-10-2008, 09:25 PM
Mr. P

Hey I've been happy with my NAD 533/Rega P2 for years now - I was not knocking it but I can see why people who listen to these decks would still not be convinced by turntable superiority over digital replay. And most stores and even most supposed high end stores either do not carry vinyl rigs or if they do tend to carry entry level lines like Pro-Ject and Rega. I simply don't think the entry models from these guys will convince a lot of guys to trade their cd collection in. I prefer it to a lot of CD players at double and triple the money mind you but it doesn't really lay a beating on good cd replay.

I heard Audio Note's TT3 (not the current one the one based on the Voyd Reference - they hired the head guy from Voyd) with a suped up cartridge and arm and to me was easily better than any top Sony, Wadia, Linn, Krell, Levinson, Audio Note SACD or CD combination I've heard.

But like another poster said - pops and clicks are not completely gone (also not gone with most tube gear) and if one is not willing to put up with some level of noise floor then they probably won't go vinyl at all. But that TT3 turntable rig is miles and miles ahead of the likes of what most of the vinyl bashers have heard.

That was my main point - if you want to convince the CD and SACD crowd that vinyl can be better it may be "fun" to argue that a $500 Rega will beat $10k CD and SACD players but a lot of folks like me don't buy it - I have such a turntable and it doesn't. The Voyd/TT3 does and does it resoundingly - and that is the kind of turntable that may convince some of those CD gurus. But if you say the $500 one does it and it really doesn't then they may not believe you the next time - or they will be less willing to spend the time to bother to try. So they will continue to believe that CD reigns supreme because after all the P2 didn't beat so nothing possibly could.

emesbee
12-10-2008, 10:20 PM
A lot of this argument about which is better is very subjective. In the end it all comes down to individual perceptions. Some people will argue that vinyl has greater presence, depth, etc than CD. Well, under the right circumstances that may be true. For me, however, the issue of surface noise is a huge drawback of vinyl. It doesn't matter how good it sounds otherwise, if I suddenly hear a load POP in the middle of a piece of music that I am trying to enjoy. What's more, on a good system, I will hear that POP in high fidelity, with all its presence and depth! No doubt others will have different opinions, but surface noise is the killer for me.

audio amateur
12-11-2008, 01:48 AM
How many conceerts have you been too where the horn player is blasting away behind you?
Cheers,
BT
I'm with you on this one. It's the issue I've always had with multichannel audio.. If the main stage is in front of you, why would you want music blasting from side & rear:confused5:

Feanor
12-11-2008, 02:34 AM
...

This is just a silly statement. I buy and listen to SACD, DVD-A, CD and vinyl. They all have there good points..and bad points. But to say hi-rez digital is superior to vinyl is just plain inaccurate.

This statement is based on my experience with my ears. And my ears, and how they percieve the sound is what matters.

Cheers,
BT

I don't doubt that vinylphiles prefer the sound of vinyl. Like all preferences it is legitimate and unassailable. There are differences in the reproduction chain as between LPs and CDs, etc. They begin in the studio at the mastering stage where the vinyl and digital masters are tweak by the engineer for the medium. In the case of LPs the process continues with the mechanical creation of final pressing on vinyl and ends under the listener's control with his choice of TT, tonearm, cartridge, and phono preamp. What emerges is what the vinyl lover perfers. Good.

Now I suggest an experiment. In general terms the experiment would consist of (1) ripping the LP to digital, 16bit/44.1kHz (or in your case, Brick Top, to 24/96 since you listen to DVD-A); (2) burn the resulting file(s) to a CD-R (or DVD-R); (3) compare the result to the direct LP play. (Of course high quality digital components should be used at every stage.)

This experiement was actually performed a few years ago by an AR member, (rb122 as I recall), who did (and likely still does) prefer vinyl. What he found was that while there was perhaps some minute degredation of sound having through the analog => digital => analog process, the CD-Rs he burned actually retained 100% of the character of the vinyl sound that he so much preferred.

There is no inherent technical superiority of the vinyl medium, nor conversely inferiority of delivery digitally via CD, SACD, DVD-A, Blu-Ray, nor computer file at 16/44.1 or better. Retain your preference for LPs but admit that the vinyl reproduction process as whole is a euphonic filter.

Feanor
12-11-2008, 02:44 AM
If mastered properly...then yes...it can bring you closer to a live recording. But some are goofy. How many conceerts have you been too where the horn player is blasting away behind you?
...
Cheers,
BT
I'm with you on this one. It's the issue I've always had with multichannel audio.. If the main stage is in front of you, why would you want music blasting from side & rear:confused5:

In that case, AA, you haven't heard any good M/C recordings.

In good recordings you don't hear, "the music blasting from side & rear". (This is an ignorant or supercilious remark.) What you hear is the ambience of the concert venue.

audio amateur
12-11-2008, 03:15 AM
:D

In that case, AA, you haven't heard any good M/C recordings.

In good recordings you don't hear, "the music blasting from side & rear". (This is an ignorant or supercilious remark.) What you hear is the ambience of the concert venue.
No I haven't indeed, in fact i've never once heard a single multi-channel recording. It's only an observation I had and to be honest I figured it would have to do with 'ambiance'.

Feanor
12-11-2008, 03:31 AM
:D

No I haven't indeed, in fact i've never once heard a single multi-channel recording. It's only an observation I had and to be honest I figured it would have to do with 'ambiance'.

Sorry, AA, sometimes I'm tactless.

But you'll admit, perhaps, that without having heard any (good) M/C recordings ...

audio amateur
12-11-2008, 04:38 AM
Believe me you're the wiser among us and you've got plenty of tact so please don't apologize.
Sorry, AA, sometimes I'm tactless.

But you'll admit, perhaps, that without having heard any (good) M/C recordings ...
I've yet to hear one but I will do so as soon as I have the opportunity.

Ajani
12-11-2008, 07:51 AM
CD/SACD/Vinyl is not a productive debate.... All 3 formats are slowly moving towards either extinction or just being niche products for the collectors...

I believe Vinyl will outlast both CD & SACD, for several reasons:

1) Because it is much more fun for a collector..
2) Unlike the other two, it is analog. CD & SACD can be more easily replaced by another digital method (music servers) without starting an analog vs digital debate...

I used to like Vinyl up till I was a teenager (early nineties), because I liked the look of the big albums (oh and DJs still used vinyl)... That love for vinyl ended swiftly when a brand new LP of mine, slipped from it's sleeve and turned into little plastic pieces on the ground... I never bought another LP since...

Feanor
12-11-2008, 09:19 AM
CD/SACD/Vinyl is not a productive debate.... All 3 formats are slowly moving towards either extinction or just being niche products for the collectors...

I believe Vinyl will outlast both CD & SACD, for several reasons:

1) Because it is much more fun for a collector..
2) Unlike the other two, it is analog. CD & SACD can be more easily replaced by another digital method (music servers) without starting an analog vs digital debate...

I used to like Vinyl up till I was a teenager (early nineties), because I liked the look of the big albums (oh and DJs still used vinyl)... That love for vinyl ended swiftly when a brand new LP of mine, slipped from it's sleeve and turned into little plastic pieces on the ground... I never bought another LP since...

Good points there, Ajani. And I dare say LP will out last the others for exactly those reasons. I personally would be happy with m/c hi-rez downloads when that becomes a real option.

What finally killed vinyl for me was when I smashed an expensive stylus the first day I had it install. In fact I've had no quarrel with CD sound since I got my Technics SL-P970 back in 1991; the Yamaha CD2 I'd had pervious since '84-'85 was a bit nasty
...
http://ca.geocities.com/w_d_bailey/Technics_SL-P970.jpg

Ajani
12-11-2008, 10:11 AM
Good points there, Ajani. And I dare say LP will out last the others for exactly those reasons. I personally would be happy with m/c hi-rez downloads when that becomes a real option.

What finally killed vinyl for me was when I smashed an expensive stylus the first day I had it install. In fact I've had no quarrel with CD sound since I got my Technics SL-P970 back in 1991; the Yamaha CD2 I'd had pervious since '84-'85 was a bit nasty
...
http://ca.geocities.com/w_d_bailey/Technics_SL-P970.jpg

ohhhh... Technics... my first love.... I had an all Technics setup at the end of the nineties... Actually, I gave it to my parents when I moved out way way way back in 2004 :D

Technics may not have been an 'audiophile' brand, but I sure had some great times with that setup...

frenchmon
12-11-2008, 03:51 PM
I never understand the attacks on vinyl - some of the rigs I have heard havce no audible noise clicks pops or anything - a bigger breathey three dimensional presentation and I have heard no CD player or SACD machine that sounds as good as the better turntables. Interestingly some of the companies who are touted as making the best digital replay and who ALSO make some of the best turntables all seem to agree that their lower priced turntables beat their more expensive digital replay.

That said vinyl suffers more disc to disc deviation and lower priced turntables are not as "perfect" as vinylphiles seem to indicate. UHF magazine noted that it took about a $2500 investment in vinyl replay (not including carts and arms) to really get into what vinyl is capable of. I don't quite agree on the number but I can see why people who go to a store and listen to a Rega, Pro-Ject, MMF, Clearaudio might not be convinced by the vinyl crowd that CD and SACD are bested.

Bottom line is that there is no point in trying to convince people of turntable superiority or SACD or CD. You do the best to hear examples of what are considered to be the best of each and then decide. The mistake is to compare one at $450 another at $3,500 and another at $10k.

Turnatables geta LOT better as you go up the price scales - SACD and CD improve but to a much lesser degree so much lesser that DBT debates are rampant.

Then what speaker and amplifier phono stage was being used - cart, arm. Turntables are a big pain and some would rather not admit that as being a reason not to go vinyl so instead try to knock down the sound.

Most people I read on forums who blast vinyl have not heard the best turntables or even what I would consider decent $4-5k turntables. They base their entire jugement on their dad's beat up Dual or a Rega P2.

I have a NAD 533(Rega P2) and I can understand why digital guys are not wholly convinced or much convinced at all. The P2 with work can be brought up past some cd players IMO but it's not to a degree that all would share that opinion.

SACD in every instance I have heard it has been a major let down - the surround ambiance is artificial to me. The surround tracks for me are ludicrous - butthe proponants in the home theater sector love it - but heck they like the dance and rock settings too - and good - so do I - they're fun. Not believable but fun counts!

Sorry to hear that. I love SACD. Why? Heres why. I have a remastered SACD of Sonny Clarks 1950's "Cool Struttin"...Sonny Clark on piano, Paul Chambers on bass, Phili Joe Jones on drums, Jackie Maclean on alto sax, and Art Farmer on trumpet. The album and CD does not even come close to the sound and clarity of the SACD. I can get better sound from some of the old Jazz recordings of the 50's and 60's on SACD rather than CD. Even some of the original albums I had of old jazz sound much better on SACD.

frenchmon

frenchmon
12-11-2008, 03:56 PM
And one more thing.. most overrated guitarist of all time? Clapton. Yeah I said it. :)

cheers,
elapsed

While he is not the best guitarist, he is no slouch! You must be smoking something. I love his Robert Johnson stuff.

frenchmon

02audionoob
12-11-2008, 04:26 PM
Speaking of smashing a stylus...How durable is a sylus? Suppose you drop it on the deck surface, rather than vinyl? Maybe that surface is aluminum, wood, hammertone, piano black. If the stylus bounces a time or two on those surfaces would it harm the stylus?

E-Stat
12-11-2008, 05:04 PM
Speaking of smashing a stylus...How durable is a sylus? ... If the stylus bounces a time or two on those surfaces would it harm the stylus?
Bounces? Good question. I have, however, hosed the stylus on a $500 moving coil cartridge before in two seconds flat. I inadvertently bent the boron cantilever beyond repair. During my move to AR two years ago, somehow the cantilever on a Dynavector DV20 similarly got bent. This while I had the plastic guard on it.

Really good arms and cartridges are delicate in a way that electronics are not.

rw

Luvin Da Blues
12-11-2008, 05:14 PM
...........I love his Robert Johnson stuff.

frenchmon

Mr. RJ probably had the most influence of anybody on EC's style(s). Love his "Money & Cigarettes" and "Me & Mr.Johnson" albums, especially on LP.

There's a greenie for ya.

bobsticks
12-11-2008, 05:36 PM
Mr. RJ probably had the most influence of anybody on EC's style(s). Love his "Money & Cigarettes" and "Me & Mr.Johnson" albums, especially on LP.

There's a greenie for ya.

Whattup LDB, good to see you around.

Luvin Da Blues
12-11-2008, 05:51 PM
Whattup LDB, good to see you around.


Just took me awhile to find a proctologist(sp?) to remove my head from up my a$$. I've been around a bit just incognito that's all.

Lately I've been sorting thru my digital collection on my computer (5K+ songs) and cherry pickin' all the great SQ tunes and setting PB levels, tags etc. I don't like the way my Media Player handles this. So my friend this, as you can imagine, takes a bit of time.

I have my TV set up as my second monitor so I do most of my surfin' where the stereo rig is set up (living rm) and I only have a wireless mouse (so no typy from there), got to get me a wireless keyboard soon.

Thanks for askin' and yourself, how's da life? Noticed you haven't been posting with your regular vigor lately.

ciao,

LDB

bobsticks
12-11-2008, 05:58 PM
Underrated and overrated merely lies in your perception of the gear. If a movie is overhyped it often can't live up to the hype for most people and they may tend to view it "harder" than they otherwise would have going in "cold."

I tend to agree with this and a few other things included in RGA's post...though I suspect I come to it from a completely different angle. I am, after all, not much of an audiophile.

First, my experience leads me to lean more toward system matching and total-system thinking including the room. Rarely do I focus on one piece of equipment in a vacuum, or to say more accurately, rarely do I judge a piece of equipment from an experience at a dealership. The real meat and potatoes isn't revealed until I get it home to see how it measures in a controlled environment.

Also it needs to be said that for this hobbyist stark sterility is not the order of the day. I'll take my tunes on the warm side, thank you very much. Now that doesn't mean I'm lobbying for ridiculous bass-humps or unnecessarily over-emphasized mids but I really don't care to live in an anechoic chamber or hear my huge collection of poorly recorded music sound as poorly recorded as it really is.

At the end of the day I just like music.

Of course that doesn't mean that there isn't some unconscionably overpriced equipment out there. I found the Verity Parsifal to be the least exciting speaker I'd ever heard regardless of price. And the Nautilus isn't much of a deal when the big Dane can be had for six K less...

...but to each his own which is, after all, part of the hobby.

bobsticks
12-11-2008, 06:20 PM
Thanks for askin' and yourself, how's da life? Noticed you haven't been posting with your regular vigor lately.

ciao,

LDB

Life's good buddy, just busy. The seasonal weather changes always bring about a busy time and the coming onset of a Democratic Administration and the resulting policy shifts seem to require a rather endless series of meetings, planning sessions, strategizing, etc.

I've a vacation planned for January (one of four during 2009) and I'm looking forward to reacquainting myself with the irg and the tunes...may take a road trip to see an AR friend or two.

bobsticks
12-11-2008, 06:23 PM
If you were to combine a SqueezeBox with an outboard DAC, all the while streaming FLAC, you'd end up with an outstanding system that will rival many of the best CD players on the market.

I plan on exploring this in 2009...much to the chagrin of the cats that manufacture the 3k CDPs that I find unattractive and unnecessary.

See how I did that.

02audionoob
12-11-2008, 06:28 PM
Bounces? Good question. I have, however, hosed the stylus on a $500 moving coil cartridge before in two seconds flat. I inadvertently bent the boron cantilever beyond repair. During my move to AR two years ago, somehow the cantilever on a Dynavector DV20 similarly got bent. This while I had the plastic guard on it.

Really good arms and cartridges are delicate in a way that electronics are not.

rw


I've been known to have a glass of wine or two while spinning my vinyl. I'd hate to miss the mark when placing or returning the arm if it could do harm.

Mr Peabody
12-11-2008, 06:47 PM
If you have an album that has not been abused the noise is not an issue on LP. I do get a bit of surface noise between tracks but I've been told the noise is less on other brands of cartridges.

As I stated on another thread where this analog vs digital came up, the accurate comparison is simply impossible. There are too many variables in gear and set up of peoples systems. Not to mention sound variations between brands of CD players, and turntables, in one show down vinyl could win, in another with different components digital might win. All this shows is a certain CD player when hooked to a certain chain of components in someone's opinion sounds better in that room and in another situation the turntable could win.

I didn't say the P2 could take on a $10k CD player, but it is certainly a better than average turntable. Most people don't own $10k CD players, in fact, the majority of the people on this board have digital playback under $1k. The P2 would sound better than that. You're arguing actually with hard drive users. A few members have recently been convinced by purchases they have made but a while back most thought spending money on a better CD player was foolish, so the fact that discussion of digital vs vinyl still goes on here is rather amusing.

3db
12-11-2008, 07:15 PM
Let me get this straight. You are arguing that being a clutz is a good reason not getting into vinyl? HMMMM.. Off all the arguements thats the worst I've ever heard.

Vinyl will live on for eternity. When done properly, it sounds good, smells good and just plain looks good.

Mr Peabody
12-11-2008, 07:17 PM
Let me state that I use both turntable and CD, I am not a hard line on which is better because truth be if I had to give one up I couldn't choose. I like both. For convenience the CD player definitely wins. For Classical the CD wins. Those who have a problem with vinyl noise have a point, in Classical, silence is supposed to be silence.

Frenchmon, I don't know about SACD but it has been my experience that older albums, especially, pre 70's, tend to sound better on vinyl. I don't know what happens in the transfer, maybe it has something to do with the older recording equipment. I know this young guy who likes Dean Martin, I thought I'd be nice and offer to play one the guys CD's on my system. It was very bad and I was sorry I asked. Picked up some Dean on vinyl at a thrift store and not bad at all. There have been many other older CD vs. vinyl titles I've been able to hear and I'm voting vinyl on this one. I don't see how SACD transfer process could be better in this respect than what they do with CD. Mono recordings are so bad on CD I don't see why they bother with the transfer.

I've also read a lot of bad press about these upsampling CD players, reviewers tend to like the 44.1k to remain that way opposed to upsampling it. I'm sure if a recording was 24/96 to begin with it should transfer to a SACD better. With that being said, I bet as in video, there's upsampling and then there's upsampling.

elapsed
12-11-2008, 09:38 PM
Bounces? Good question. I have, however, hosed the stylus on a $500 moving coil cartridge before in two seconds flat. I inadvertently bent the boron cantilever beyond repair. During my move to AR two years ago, somehow the cantilever on a Dynavector DV20 similarly got bent. This while I had the plastic guard on it.

Really good arms and cartridges are delicate in a way that electronics are not.
I had a similar accident with my Dynavector 10x5 early this year, not a pleasant experience.. The 20XL will likely be my next cart, what rig do you presently own?

cheers,
elapsed

E-Stat
12-12-2008, 06:15 AM
I had a similar accident with my Dynavector 10x5 early this year, not a pleasant experience.. The 20XL will likely be my next cart, what rig do you presently own?
The original event happened over ten years ago, but the experience is still vivid in my mind! I have a VPI Scout on a HW-2 Isolation Base with a Souther TQ-1 arm. I chose the mid output VPI flavor of the DV20 to mate with an Audio Research SP-9 MKIII. There are a couple of pics in my gallery.

rw

frenchmon
12-12-2008, 10:01 PM
Let me state that I use both turntable and CD, I am not a hard line on which is better because truth be if I had to give one up I couldn't choose. I like both. For convenience the CD player definitely wins. For Classical the CD wins. Those who have a problem with vinyl noise have a point, in Classical, silence is supposed to be silence.

Frenchmon, I don't know about SACD but it has been my experience that older albums, especially, pre 70's, tend to sound better on vinyl. I don't know what happens in the transfer, maybe it has something to do with the older recording equipment. I know this young guy who likes Dean Martin, I thought I'd be nice and offer to play one the guys CD's on my system. It was very bad and I was sorry I asked. Picked up some Dean on vinyl at a thrift store and not bad at all. There have been many other older CD vs. vinyl titles I've been able to hear and I'm voting vinyl on this one. I don't see how SACD transfer process could be better in this respect than what they do with CD. Mono recordings are so bad on CD I don't see why they bother with the transfer.

I've also read a lot of bad press about these upsampling CD players, reviewers tend to like the 44.1k to remain that way opposed to upsampling it. I'm sure if a recording was 24/96 to begin with it should transfer to a SACD better. With that being said, I bet as in video, there's upsampling and then there's upsampling.

Mr Peabody...the original recording of the Sonny Clark album was recorded in mono in 1958. But the copy I have is not even a SACD, its a DAD remastered from the original mono recordings upsampled in 24/96 stereo. It sounds so much better than the original mono recording on vinyl

frenchmon

Mr Peabody
12-12-2008, 10:25 PM
It would seem if the original was mono the recording must have gone through some kind of processing to get it stereo. I also wonder if they took liberty with applying some equalization to make it seem to sound better. I'd like to hear those. Many times a remastered recording can sound some how artificial. I can't explain what I mean by that. It's like the music takes on the feel of a movie sound track rather than music if that makes sense.

I've got a Doris Day vinyl I kept because it sounds very good for a mono recording, and actually I like her voice. I also have a CD of her that came in a movie collection. I will have to listen to those tomorrow and see which way they go. Sometimes these comparisons may not be real accurate because the recordings could have come from different masters. It's interesting any way. In the past though I preferred the vinyl on the older recordings.

I'll have to be carefull talking about Dean Martin & Doris Day, I'll blow my rep here :) To put things in perspective I will be going to see Disturbed Tuesday.

Ajani
12-13-2008, 03:51 AM
Let me get this straight. You are arguing that being a clutz is a good reason not getting into vinyl? HMMMM.. Off all the arguements thats the worst I've ever heard.

Vinyl will live on for eternity. When done properly, it sounds good, smells good and just plain looks good.

Smells Good? That's the worst argument I've heard for supporting Vinyl! :ciappa:

audio amateur
12-13-2008, 05:21 AM
Smells Good? That's the worst argument I've heard for supporting Vinyl! :ciappa:
I kinda like it t be honest:smilewinkgrin:

Ajani
12-13-2008, 06:06 AM
I kinda like it t be honest:smilewinkgrin:

Didn't you just get an SVI Award for Audio Excellence? I think that says all that needs to be said about your opinion.... :prrr:

audio amateur
12-13-2008, 06:18 AM
Didn't you just get an SVI Award for Audio Excellence? I think that says all that needs to be said about your opinion.... :prrr:
And what did I say about you being a little :out: ? lol

Ajani
12-13-2008, 06:45 AM
And what did I say about you being a little :out: ? lol

Going into a homicidal rage because there are too many audio choices, doesn't mean that I'm crazy...

Who on this site hasn't gone on at least one murderous rampage over audio?

3db
12-13-2008, 10:32 AM
Smells Good? That's the worst argument I've heard for supporting Vinyl! :ciappa:

*LMAO*

Oh yeah man.. the smell..*L* Just adds to the expeirence that is vinyl

3db
12-13-2008, 10:39 AM
Seriously though..like I've said before, listening to vinyl is an experience because it involves turntable tweeking, cleaning albums before each play, readable covers..etc.

I'm also of the mindset that recordings done to CD or vinyl are superior over the other. I'vve owned individual albums in both formats and it very much depends on the recording engineer. Meatloaf's "Bat Out Of Hell" sucks big time on vinyl but Pink Flloy'd "The Wall" to me sounds better on vinyl. It really is recording specific. The other thing that is ruining it for CDs is this insipid loudness war which is running rampid thru out the industry. This loudness war has rendered too many a recordings with less dynamic range than vinyl. That's disgusting in my eyes

Mr Peabody
12-13-2008, 01:07 PM
Ajani, isn't into aroma therapy?

elapsed
12-13-2008, 01:19 PM
You smell that? Do you smell that? SACD, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of SACD in the morning. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end.

- elapsed

Ajani
12-13-2008, 03:24 PM
Ajani, isn't into aroma therapy?

:lol:

Aroma therapy is fine... but I can't say it influences my HiFi decisions.... But if a product was truly stink smelling, then that might influence things...

winston
12-14-2008, 11:21 AM
HI ALL.

for a moment i thought you all would be talking a little moor about other brands like (poineer,infinity,polk,energy,acurus,sony, just to name a few)
on page one few guys did make mention.of these lower end brands- and just as i started to anticipate....BAAM ? ps.. i still love to read y'all posts.
this one is for (ajani),great job on your headphone setup, also your review on them. i myself will be tweaking my ATH-AD700 as soon as i make a decision on equiptment's and price ?

Ajani
12-14-2008, 05:19 PM
this one is for (ajani),great job on your headphone setup, also your review on them. i myself will be tweaking my ATH-AD700 as soon as i make a decision on equiptment's and price ?

Thanks..... I'm enjoying the setup more and more each day, as the AKGs break in... They're supposed to need around 300 hours... and I've probably gone 70 hours so far..... I can't wait to hear what they sound like at 300...

What are you using as source and amp for the AD700 now? Are you a member of Headfi? That's probably the best site for getting ideas about headphone setups...

winston
12-14-2008, 08:36 PM
Thanks..... I'm enjoying the setup more and more each day, as the AKGs break in... They're supposed to need around 300 hours... and I've probably gone 70 hours so far..... I can't wait to hear what they sound like at 300...

What are you using as source and amp for the AD700 now? Are you a member of Headfi? That's probably the best site for getting ideas about headphone setups...

hey man your welcome.
at this time i an not a headfi member, and my source is my ipod and my old (yamaha cdp.) which i used to break in AD700 i leave it in the repeat mode for 7 days and they did came out clean:14: for the price "oooh man" that said i am thinking about a budget upgrade <> 2-3 times the price of the AD700? (my HT/audio setup) is not convenient when i am listening to my cans, i will check out headfi..."hope i don't sound off the chart" but i am thinking of something that would work with my cans from a source?. and also my system when i need to.
thanks for directions.:23: i'll be back

emesbee
12-14-2008, 09:00 PM
Smells Good? That's the worst argument I've heard for supporting Vinyl! :ciappa:

Its as good a reason as any. (I like the smell of vinyl in the morning.)

audio amateur
12-15-2008, 03:19 AM
True.. CD's don't even smell of anything..

RGA
12-15-2008, 06:31 AM
I tend to agree with this and a few other things included in RGA's post...though I suspect I come to it from a completely different angle. I am, after all, not much of an audiophile.

First, my experience leads me to lean more toward system matching and total-system thinking including the room. Rarely do I focus on one piece of equipment in a vacuum, or to say more accurately, rarely do I judge a piece of equipment from an experience at a dealership. The real meat and potatoes isn't revealed until I get it home to see how it measures in a controlled environment.

Also it needs to be said that for this hobbyist stark sterility is not the order of the day. I'll take my tunes on the warm side, thank you very much. Now that doesn't mean I'm lobbying for ridiculous bass-humps or unnecessarily over-emphasized mids but I really don't care to live in an anechoic chamber or hear my huge collection of poorly recorded music sound as poorly recorded as it really is.

At the end of the day I just like music.

Of course that doesn't mean that there isn't some unconscionably overpriced equipment out there. I found the Verity Parsifal to be the least exciting speaker I'd ever heard regardless of price. And the Nautilus isn't much of a deal when the big Dane can be had for six K less...

...but to each his own which is, after all, part of the hobby.

I believe in the "system approach" where a company controls the entire audio chain from cart to speakers. Mixing and matching can create a great system but logically it will more than likely end up with mismatched hodgepodge of stuff that does not fit together well. If the speaker designer makes the matching amp to "sympathize" or play to the strengths of the specific speaker and the transformer in the CD player is mated to the preamp section etc then it's likely to be better. At least my experience bears this out and why, as a reviewer, I far prefer to review "systems" whenever possible than sticking in an amplifier "variable" into my system - it may stink in my system but be great in yours. I personally find the reviews of this sort more of an advertising campaign.

As for the room - it is important but it is the job of the stereo to operate in a WIDE range of rooms. Better systems in my opinion should sound better in any room provided you follow the speaker guidelines. In my case the speaker needs a corner and no bigger than 25X25 - And some adjustments to the toe in and exact distance from the corner but provided that is followed I am comfortable that pretty much the same sound will result in rooms whether they are hardwood or carpeted have 8 foot or 15 foot ceilings. Of course not exactly the same but same enough to tell you enough.

Last note on SACD - there is always the chance that a recording will simply be done a lot better on SACD than it was recorded on CD or LP - in which case the SACD player would be worth buying - the recording is a big critical aspect here. Unfortunately the 50s and 60s music on LP from the likes of Ray Charles, Ella etc sound IMO far better on LP than SACD or CD. In fact the Ray Charles stuff supposedly won best recorded multi channel SACD or some such thing and the $1.00 LP in the used bin without even a washing in the VPI sounded better to me. The Eagles - same deal, Wes Montgomery same deal. CD format I find preferable as well when used with a top flight DAC.

Speaking of Montgomery and guitar - he's not too shabby either.

Ajani
12-15-2008, 11:31 AM
I believe in the "system approach" where a company controls the entire audio chain from cart to speakers. Mixing and matching can create a great system but logically it will more than likely end up with mismatched hodgepodge of stuff that does not fit together well. If the speaker designer makes the matching amp to "sympathize" or play to the strengths of the specific speaker and the transformer in the CD player is mated to the preamp section etc then it's likely to be better. At least my experience bears this out and why, as a reviewer, I far prefer to review "systems" whenever possible than sticking in an amplifier "variable" into my system - it may stink in my system but be great in yours. I personally find the reviews of this sort more of an advertising campaign.

I think the system approach is the best way to buy a HiFi setup... Rather than playing mix & match and hoping for the best, I generally suggest listening to an entire system at dealers and then trying to recreate that system in your own home...

I also like the concept of manufacturers producing the full line of equipment... another option is to find out what speakers/equipment, manufacturers test their products with...

All that said, I lucked out on my current setup as I had to buy based on reviews and mix & match, rather than auditioning a whole system...

Doc Sage
12-15-2008, 05:53 PM
[QUOTE=Ajani]

I also like the concept of manufacturers producing the full line of equipment... another option is to find out what speakers/equipment, manufacturers test their products with...

[QUOTE]

To my recollection, very few manufacturing companies have ever been good at building a complete high end system (Linn comes to mind). The hardware companies that are good at amps, tuners, turntables and CD players are not very good at speakers building and visa versa. It is great that our local retailers of high end system are mush better at matching these components.

But it remove all the fun of finding just the right amp for my present speaker system? And very few us are capable to lay down the cash for a complete system in one purchase?

Doc Sage

Mr Peabody
12-15-2008, 06:50 PM
I agree with matching components, in my experience you usually get better synergy that way. I also, agree, I can't think of one good equipment manufacturer that does both good speakers and other components in the chain. I haven't heard Linn speakers enough to judge them but they must be successful, they have been putting them out for quite a while, them and Audio Note may be the exception. I haven't heard AN but again they stick with putting them out. I have heard Krell speakers and personally find them over priced and a Dynaudio for half the price can run circles around one. Although, if not for the price Ajani may like the Krell speakers, they have a very powerful high frequency response.

02audionoob
12-15-2008, 07:52 PM
Limiting yourself to matching components seems unduly restrictive, assuming you don't have a big stack of money sitting around...maybe even if you do. I think of it like furnishing a house. I can't afford to hire a designer to do the entire house in one shot. I buy things that fit my tastes and my current furnishings. It's an evolutionary thing.

Mr Peabody
12-15-2008, 08:19 PM
Just because your goal is to have components of one brand don't mean you have to buy them all at once, matching gear can be a goal and just go about it one piece at a time.

Also, to be sure you are doing the right thing, in home auditions when possible can really help.

Whether they admit it or not most high end manufacturers have a certain sound of their own. Whether be created on purpose or just there due to topology. When components play together with the same sonic signature the result in most instance is very good.

elapsed
12-15-2008, 09:31 PM
Actually matching components brings amazing synergy to a system. I've made the mistake in the past of matching the wrong amp with the wrong cd player, it absolutely killed the music

I found that with system synergy I stop worrying about the system, and can just enjoy the music! Plus the upgrade path for me was pretty straight forward in moving from an integrated to separates, so I was able to build my system one piece at a time as I saved money

That's one thing I like about both Naim and Linn, is that you can stop worrying about components and just enjoy the system or upgrade as you wish.

cheers,
elapsed

Ajani
12-16-2008, 05:17 AM
Just because your goal is to have components of one brand don't mean you have to buy them all at once, matching gear can be a goal and just go about it one piece at a time.

Yep... that's what I'm saying... you don't need to buy the entire system at once, but if you hear a really great setup at your dealer, you can start with just one piece and buy the rest of the setup in time...


Whether they admit it or not most high end manufacturers have a certain sound of their own. Whether be created on purpose or just there due to topology. When components play together with the same sonic signature the result in most instance is very good.

That sounds like something I would say... I've never bought into this HiFi nonsense where all manufacturers claim that their products are truer to the live performance than everyone else's... Some brands aim for PRAT, others for detail, some for warmth and easy listening, some for tonally neutrality, others for dynamic impact... some aim for a bit of all, but are generally masters of none...

I find manufacturers generally have a house sound... and so you don't need to buy the most expensive products in their line, to get a good dose of the manufacturer's sound....

hermanv
12-16-2008, 11:15 PM
Or brands that you consider to be over-rated? Here I'll start.. B&W, McIntosh, NAD, Klipsch :D

cheers,
elapsed
I was in general agreement about the McIntosh until I heard their insanely priced monoblocks driving their very expensive if not insanely priced Mac speakers. I was impressed while expecting not to be.

A quick note on Maggies: Famous for being placement and room acoustics sensitive as well as needing a very low source impedance amp with excellent damping.

elapsed
12-16-2008, 11:25 PM
I was in general agreement about the McIntosh until I heard their insanely priced monoblocks driving their very expensive if not insanely priced Mac speakers. I was impressed while expecting not to be.
I recently auditioned an $85,000 system consisting of McIntosh MC-500 pre, MC-1201 monoblocks, XRT1K loudspeakers, and fronted by a fully loaded Linn LP12 (Lingo/Keel/Ekos/Akiva, my dream $20,000 turntable). Neutral and boring were the only words that come to mind. I'd love to give this gorgeous system a better chance, but I suspect the room was letting her down. The little Naim integrated in the next room for $1,800 was giving this entire McIntosh system a run for its money

I'm certain it often comes down to a poor auditioning room.. has anyone else had this experience?

cheers,
elapsed

hermanv
12-16-2008, 11:26 PM
I'm certain it often comes down to a poor auditioning room.. has anyone else had this experience?

cheers,
elapsed

Absolutely!

RGA
12-19-2008, 06:02 PM
The system matched approach limits shoppers because as Mr. P noted there are few companies who make the whole chain and even fewer of those few that make "world class" components in each area. The saying "jack of all trades but a master at none" will no doubt creep into the minds of consumers. Audio Note is not really different because in fact they bought the platforms of many other "masters". The speakers are in fact revamped original Snells - Snell and LL Beranek in 1940 were where the speakers originated and essentially put Snell on the map - He died in 1982 and since then the mighty Snell brand has slowly steadily fallen apart with newer worse sounding designs. And this goes to many other components they make - they hired the top designers of other companies like Sonic Frontiers, Voyd, Systemdeck and co-work with other companies like SEAS, Bosendorfer, and Rega. So they are not jack of all trades as an individual but share the work in a sense under one umbrella. Still it is one person behnd the helm that decides which turntable maker to buy out, which designer to hire, which capacitor sounds better in which part of which amp, which transformer will match sonically with the speaker, which wires to use, and the resulting sound. Very few makers do that. They make a speaker and you don;t have any idea what the belief system of the designer is - except that the speaker needs a min of 50 watts and a max of 200 watts. Therefore, all amplifiers must sound the same and react the same to the loudspeaker. Not So IMO

The other suggestion (and obviously more practical) was made by Ajani is to listen to a complete system the dealer has pieced together - the dealer spends all day with the stuff and likely has pieced together the "best matches" - at least the best matches of the gear he carries. You may not always agree but I find I agree with the dealer at Soundhounds in most cases. He has say 8 big SS and 6 Tube amp makers to mix and match with a B&W or Paradigm or Magnepan they usually get the best sound from the speakers that you can probably get. But you need a dealer that carries a wide array of gear, has listened to virtually everything and who you KNOW has a similar ear to you and while cares about earning profit does actually care that you as a customer enjoy your stereo. I've come across 1 dealer in 20 years that I trust to do those things and actually cares about music reproduction - most of the rest are used car salesman selling Chevy one week and stereos the next.

hermanv
12-20-2008, 01:38 PM
RGA: I largely agree.

Obviously the speaker designer companies profit motive and the dealers profit motive will color their choices. It's not necessarily a deception, they may actually hear what they want to hear.

In either case, IMHO this is the reason that the dedicated individual or enthusiast who takes the time to agonize over every detail will get the better results. This applies to both he designer and the dealer. It is one reason that old established companies do better, they have paid off the loans or the building for the business and can afford to put some principles first and profit second.

IBSTORMIN
12-28-2008, 08:02 AM
Cerwin Vega, JBL, Infinity & Klipsch all sound fine for the money... Plus you should keep in mind that most people only hear these brands in best buy and with some ultra cheapo receiver... not on a good quality 2 channel rig...


To add to this, it seems what is in the Best Buy stores is a knock-offf of the higher end equipment.....the same tweeter that is in their best with multiple mid-range drivers is now put into a 2-way configuration and it is WAY too bright. The Infinity speakers I have are a good example of this, the Prelude PFR has 4-5.25 midrange with one silk tweeter and sounds really good, smoother than their Overture 3's of the same line in the 90's which in comparison sounds too bright. Their bookshelfs are way too bright and boomy with a back port. The Infinity 2000's replacement of this is the Prelude MTS and is class "A" rated but you put that CMMD tweeter in anything with lesser mid/bass and it is TOO bright and irritating. Infinity, after loosing alot of market, realized this and changed to the MMD driver in their lower end speakers, which is not as bright. Klipsch is the same way, BB speakers are just TOO bright but I haven't heard their high end stuff. JBL is also too bright with their Titanium tweeter in their lesser speakers.The only thing I like in Cerwin Vega is their 15" sub I have, it's not a lot of power but it is musical and clean. I just don't like Polk. Infinity designs a line of drivers and a couple years later when Infinity changes drivers, Polk picks up what Infinity was using. Infinity's 90's silk dome is what I lat saw that Polk is using now, but Polk doesn't do it as well as Infinity. Polk always sounds distorted to me, not smooth and clean. And of course, Bose is a four letter word.
As you can tell, I like Infinity and climbed to the top of their 90's line and am happy with it but.......I wonder what others would sound like it my system....Prelude MTS, Martin Logan, Maggies???

hermanv
12-28-2008, 02:18 PM
The big block stores are focused on impulse buyers. As a result speakers they sell will have a lot of flash/bang. Which is to say an exaggerated treble, bass or both. Most serious buyers will spend far more time listening.

A serious buyer will also wonder why people might spend several grand for a speaker pair when all five surround speakers and the sub woofer retail for under $900 at the big box store.

I worked in telephony and know that many studies were done to ascertain the minimum sound quality level people would tolerate when cell phones were first being developed. People are conditioned to accept poor quality sound, listen to any PA system. (ps: I personally suspect that poor sound is why people who can drive fine talking to a passenger can not drive fine while using a cell phone. Subconsciously a lot of brain horsepower is being diverted to making those awful noises from the phone into recognizable speech.)

It takes exposure over hours or even days for your ears to learn what they have been missing. Listening for an extended period of time to a truly good system, will open your ears.

E-Stat
12-30-2008, 06:16 PM
I recently auditioned an $85,000 system consisting of McIntosh MC-500 pre, MC-1201 monoblocks, XRT1K loudspeakers, and fronted by a fully loaded Linn LP12 (Lingo/Keel/Ekos/Akiva, my dream $20,000 turntable). Neutral and boring were the only words that come to mind....I'm certain it often comes down to a poor auditioning room.. has anyone else had this experience?
On both counts. Business took me to none other than Binghamton, NY last month and I was given a most gracious tour of the McIntosh facility culminating with an audition to their best gear in a dedicated music/HT room. They used the massive XRT2K speakers sourced by MDA1000/MCD1000 through the C1000 (SS) preamp and a pair of the MCW2K amplifiers. My host played a number of pieces of music. The sound was quite dynamic and the bass was quite extended, but not overblown. But it lacked the kind of focus and dimensionality I've heard with other systems despite the purpose built room. Speakers have never been their strength. Can you say "comb filtering" with all the side-by-side drivers? Perhaps their electronics would be better showcased using other speakers. A reviewer friend currently has the 2300/2301 combo and says they are quite nice driving Scaenas with an EMM Labs or Clearaudio Reference front end and Nordost Odin cabling.

rw

hermanv
12-30-2008, 09:34 PM
Probably my favorite reviewer is Andrew Cordesman. His tastes seem to match mine and he rarely uses hyperbole. Also he can actually afford most equipment he reviews, so he is not dependent on the generosity of any manufacturer.

He thought quite highly of a pair of Mac speakers (the XR2K's I think). I too have heard them perform very well. Like a fine sports car their strengths are subtle, they are mellow and invite very long sessions. The were driven by an all Mac set-up with mono blocks and the Mac surround sound processor.

Good equipment is more interactive with the listening room and set-up than lesser gear, a single session can easily give the wrong impression either better or worse than the "average" set-up.

I for one can't afford the stuff and I do find their front panels too over the top in a glitzy way.

RGA
12-31-2008, 05:13 AM
I have not heard of that reviewer but I would like to let you know that the price reviewers pay - depending on the review outfit would be about dealer cost - which varies depending on the company. But that is true across the board with every company so a reviewer may get a $10k piece of equipment for $3k but that would be in line with all companies so there isn't any real difference to the reviewer - in the sense that they would be less objective because while they can get a $14k Magnepan for less than half the price - they could also get the Quad 2905 retailing for $14k at less than half the price - the reviewer will still choose what he would have chosen if he had $14k.

Where the moral issue comes into play, at least for me, is that because a reviewer like myself can get something discounted heavily we may not be as objective as we would otherwise be when looking at what the average consumer would pay. A Quad 2905 at dealer or reviewer cost looks a lot better at $5k than $14k.

We get the price no doubt because once it is opened and used it is no longer a new item which makes it a bit of an albatross for the manufacturer. Reducing the price and not having to have it shipped back is a large reason for the lowered price as well. On small inexpensive items, though I am only guessing as I have not been a reviewer very long they may give it to reviewers for free since shipping may cost more than the profit they would have made on the unit.

All things that honest people reviewers contemplate. I review for an online publication with fellow reviewers who have purchased $190,000 loudspeakers - money is not a concern at all for them and they likely choose to review the cost no object - if you have to ask the price you can't afford it types. Their job in a sense is easy.

Reviewing the $3-5k amps that I have reviewed recently makes me feel a sense of pressure that this is a price range where audiophiles may make their second or third jump from the levels of Arcam or Audio Refinement etc. These consumers are not "rich" in most cases but work damn hard and want something with a great deal of satisfaction for the buck. I'm an audio reviewer on a teacher salary so I think about these things. Could I see myself buying the unit out of my own money and would I be happy long term given the retail price. If the answer is yes then I will review it. If the answer is no then I would tell the editor to send the stuff to another reviewer.

hermanv
12-31-2008, 11:25 AM
Companies have been known to leave review equipment with a reviewer for a couple of years, in this example the price paid is zero.

The reviewer I spoke of is Anthony Cordsman not Andrew as I printed. Anthony used to write for Audio and lately writes for TAS. He is an international affairs consultant who used to work for the state department and an avid audio hobbyist.

Mr Peabody
12-31-2008, 06:12 PM
RGA, unless your magazine was under pressure to always write good reviews why would you pass on equipment you can't see yourself buying, just write what you honestly think. Doing things the way you describe you become one of these guys whose reviews are always positive and you don't know whether to trust them or not. Unless, you were able to try the same gear, and in that case, who needs reviews.

Ajani
01-01-2009, 04:59 AM
RGA, unless your magazine was under pressure to always write good reviews why would you pass on equipment you can't see yourself buying, just write what you honestly think. Doing things the way you describe you become one of these guys whose reviews are always positive and you don't know whether to trust them or not. Unless, you were able to try the same gear, and in that case, who needs reviews.

To add to this point: Passing on gear you aren't interested in is pretty much how mags like Stereophile operate (reviewers generally only review their specific interests).... Hence a reviewer who loves inefficient speakers and monster power amps will never be caught dead reviewing a flea watt amp or horns....

While the advantage is that reviewers only review the type of gear they have experience with, the disadvantage is that just about all reviews are positive and you'd never know from a review that maybe only that 1 reviewer in the magazine liked the particular product (or type of product)...

What I'd love to see is a kind of good cop/bad cop approach to reviewing.... having both the Tube/Horn expert and the monster amp/inefficient speakers reviewers give opinions on the same tube or monster amp would be interesting... Let the expert write the main review and the other reviewer do a small commentary (or long if they please)... I know some mags/websites have 2 reviewers write up a product, but I think they use 2 who are interested in that kind of product, rather than 1 expert and 1 non-fan....

Mr Peabody
01-01-2009, 05:50 AM
To review equipment would be a dream come true. I personally would love to hear whatever I could get my hands on. I would try not to stereotype topologies. I have yet to hear a decent horn speaker but I would sure review some I haven't heard in hopes of finding a good one. I have found tube gear can vary as much in presentation as tube gear. I believe variety would also keep the job more interesting.

arrow 68
01-01-2009, 08:42 AM
Anything i can't pay for in cash.

:thumbsup:

RGA
01-01-2009, 05:59 PM
Mr. P and Ajani

I see what you guys are saying because I made the same points - but looking at it from the manufacturer's end you can surely see the problems with the negative review.

There is little motivation for a manufacturer to send gear to someone who writes a lot of bad reviews. And since the competition largely is positive they will simply send gear to those publications. Furthering the problem for me is that because I believe in the system approach it would be very difficult for me, at least at present, to evaluate a Bryston amplifier in my home when I know that my speakers are not at all designed for such an amplifier. I could tell you the resulting sound but it would put Bryston in an unfavorable light when in fact it is a mismatch of technologies.

What I see is that if a maker sends gear to a publication they request certain reviewers who they feel will be more favorable to the design. Magnepan won't send speakers to John Marks of Stereophile because he does not like them at all. They will send it to the panel fan. B&W is not likely to send me a loudspeaker - while others at Dagogo prefer them they will get the product. We're people too and I would rather enjoy my nights listening to stuff that I like not stuff that I don't like. I don't get paid so I prefer to choose things I like listening to.

If B&W really wants me to review the 705 I would and it would largely be a negative review. If you're B&W you're going to request Jack or one of the other guys that likes the sound of B&W. As a reviewer I really have no say in the matter. Except on forums which is sometimes why they're more valuable in a sense.

Also consider that a lot of people like Magnepan - if you think it's the best value going does reading John Marks' view help? I suppose in a way it's good to get a dissenting view but you as the auditioner should still be doing that and having a strong enough ego to say you know what the speaker doesn't do it for me no matter the reviews.

And the more negative reviews you write - well friends may come and go but enemies accumulate. I see no reason to give a negative review to something I know going in I would not like. I will try to come at the stuff i do like from the other angle and compare to other gear I like a lot less. Grant Fidelity's Rita is $5k and pretty much does whatever any SS amp can do for less money, sounds better than virtually all of them, is better built is nice to look at and has bags and bags of ultimate power and drive capability. That is fun to review and positive. The downside was lugging the bloody 100pound beast up elevators and stairs and in and out of a car. I really need to get paid for these reviews.

Mr Peabody
01-01-2009, 07:01 PM
I can see your point to some extent, why would Vandersteen send me one of their speakers knowing I don't like their sound when the speaker could be better served by a Vandy fan reviewer. And, you sort of have a nitch going, for lack of a better word, maybe approach is better, with the high sensitivity speaker low power amp thing. Let me say though, my 1.1x sounded very good as the front end for my Krell amp. I'm using it now in my second system as the front end for some Adcom and it still sounds good. I'd like to hear one of their more expensive DAC's to see how it sounds. The 1.1x sounded excellent with my CJ gear as well it's just not as good as this T+A player I found.

I'll have to look at some of the Grand Fidelity. What tubes do they use? I can't afford $5k but I'm always interested in a brute force tube amp. Typically, quality tube sound with lots of power costs big dollar. That's what led me to my decision to monoblock two MV60's. They were very reasonable used. They are very good sounding amps I think it's just hard to sell two channel amps any more and being tubed with a power rating of 50 wpc just don't have a long line of buyers.

elapsed
01-01-2009, 07:20 PM
More and more reason not to trust reviews... as well all know, audio is highly subjective. How can I know that my tastes are in line with the reviewer? And even more so when all reviews are positive for the most part. Are there any Jeremy Clarkson (BBC Top Gear) type characters in audio to give an honest opinion across the full audio spectrum? I guess audio is a much more touchy subject than cars, no one wants to hear that somebody dislikes what they have invested substantial money into

On a similar topic, have any of you read The Vinyl Anachronist series? It's interesting to read how the Technics SL1200 fanboys rip into the author for his opinion on belt-driven vs direct-drive turntables, and also how his taste has developed over the past decade

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl.html

Also, gotta love some of his quotes.. "At 45, I'm still dancing, tapping my feet and even playing the occasional air drums on my lap when listening. I meet so many audiophiles who listen to records motionless and silent, with a grim look on their faces. **** that. Try listening to Patricia Barber or Eva Cassidy or any other audiophile favorite while having passionate sex on the floor between your speakers. Your stereo will never sound better. Just make sure you apologize to your partner when you have to get up and flip the record over. You know - just like in the old days. "

cheers,
elapsed

VintageTurntable
03-22-2010, 12:17 PM
Harman/Kardon,Nad,Nikko,Technics,Realistic (Radioshack)

JoeE SP9
03-22-2010, 02:18 PM
Believe it or not Mac gear has never interested me.The big blue meters don't do it for me.

audio amateur
03-22-2010, 02:35 PM
Cerwin Vega

E-Stat
03-22-2010, 02:38 PM
Believe it or not Mac gear has never interested me.The big blue meters don't do it for me.
Same with me. On the one hand, I have toured their impressive facility in Binghamton and find a dedicated group of audio enthusiasts. Unfortunately, their passion lies more with the elaborate eight step process for making gee whiz back lit glass panels than sonic results. Meters on a turntable? Meters on a preamp? Meters all by themselves for a car? Backlit tubes? The cosmetics remind me of pimped out Cadillacs with the gold package and chrome everything else. My first exposure to them was a system with a C-28 preamp, 2105 amp and Bozak speakers (along with the MPI-4 Maximum Performance Indicator. The light show was spectacular. The sound, however, was utterly boring, flat and devoid of detail.

A reviewer friend tells me the current C-2300 preamp and the 2301 amps are actually very nice. Unfortunately, I can't get past the cheesy cosmetics.

rw

E-Stat
03-22-2010, 02:42 PM
Cerwin Vega
I went to my first audio show in '74 where CV was showcasing their biggest horn system. They were playing the Lalo Shifrin theme from Mission Impossible at ear bleeding levels where your pants legs were flapping in the wind. Loud, yes. Refined, articulate, musical, realistic? None of the above. Like most all sound reinforcement systems I've ever heard.

rw

audio amateur
03-22-2010, 02:48 PM
I went to my first audio show in '74 where CV was showcasing their biggest horn system. They were playing the Lalo Shifrin theme from Mission Impossible at ear bleeding levels where your pants legs were flapping in the wind. Loud, yes. Refined, articulate, musical, realistic? None of the above. Like most all sound reinforcement systems I've ever heard.

rw
I can't recall having ever heard Cerwin Vega. It's the philosophy and looks that completely put me off.

E-Stat
03-22-2010, 03:03 PM
I can't recall having ever heard Cerwin Vega. It's the philosophy and looks that completely put me off.
They are very much like Klipsch. It's all about high SPLs. Having said that, even Gene Czerwinski acknowledges that static cable tests are irrelevant. Look here. (http://www.audiodesignline.com/howto/201807390) Guys like Roger Russel have no clue whatsoever with their "It all sounds the same provided the resistance is low enough" mantra.

rw

audio amateur
03-22-2010, 03:34 PM
They are very much like Klipsch. It's all about high SPLs. Having said that, even Gene Czerwinski acknowledges that static cable tests are irrelevant. Look here. (http://www.audiodesignline.com/howto/201807390) Guys like Roger Russel have no clue whatsoever with their "It all sounds the same provided the resistance is low enough" mantra.

rw
Why are you mentioning cables?
I'm personally not a proponent of expensive cables because I don't believe the difference between cables (in a 'normal' system) are great enough to justify the expense, especially when other components of the system make a far greater sonic difference, including speakers and room acoustics. If one wishes to extract every last ounce of music out of his expensive system, then why not...
I feel however, that most wild claims concerning cables are just that, wild claims. No 'night and day' difference.
I did hear however a 'night and day' difference a couple years back, when a salesman swapped speaker stands as I was auditioning a speaker. That was an eye opener.

Back to the speakers. I feel Klipsch is in a different league than CW, but I could be wrong.

E-Stat
03-22-2010, 04:25 PM
Why are you mentioning cables?
Because the founder of a company based upon "louder is better" was surprised that conventional thinking about cables is flawed.


I feel however, that most wild claims concerning cables are just that, wild claims. No 'night and day' difference.
As a point of reference, what interconnects, speaker cables and power cable do you prefer?

rw

JoeE SP9
03-22-2010, 05:54 PM
They are very much like Klipsch. It's all about high SPLs. Having said that, even Gene Czerwinski acknowledges that static cable tests are irrelevant. Look here. (http://www.audiodesignline.com/howto/201807390)Guys like Roger Russel have no clue whatsoever with their "It all sounds the same provided the resistance is low enough" mantra.

rw

I looked "here". Very interesting. Unfortunately the real diehards won't bother to read "heresy".

Mr Peabody
03-22-2010, 06:23 PM
E-stat I tried to give a greenie for the link. The skeptics ask for an article, one finally shows up and it still don't do any good.

I wouldn't stereotype all sound reinforcement gear. Electro Voice has some excellent speaker components. I consider horns just another approach. Some will enjoy, some will not. Some are horrible and some are grand.

What keeps an amateur an amateur is never inspiring to do better. That would require and open mind and motivation.

E-Stat
03-22-2010, 07:11 PM
I wouldn't stereotype all sound reinforcement gear.
I mention what I've heard.

rw

JoeE SP9
03-23-2010, 09:03 AM
I mention what I've heard.

rw

What I've heard usually ranges from mediocre to poor. Most of it is closer to the poor end. Rarely if ever do I hear something "good" in sound reinforcement gear.

Would someone please kill (or at least cut their hands off) whoever is responsible for putting "piezo" tweeters in most pa speakers.

E-Stat
03-23-2010, 09:16 AM
Would someone please kill (or at least cut their hands off) whoever is responsible for putting "piezo" tweeters in most pa speakers.
Unfortunately for listeners, they are both inexpensive and bulletproof, two priorities for sound reinforcement systems. Fortunately, they do not appear to be used in the newer batch of theatre based systems.

rw

manlystanley
03-23-2010, 10:02 AM
I can't recall having ever heard Cerwin Vega. It's the philosophy and looks that completely put me off.

I had a pair of Cerwin Vega LS-8's for about 11/2 years. They were the first 'non-boom' box speakers that I ever had. I was amazed by them. But, then I figured out there was much better equipment and moved on.

Best Regards,
Stan

squeegy200
03-23-2010, 10:06 AM
[QUOTE=IBSTORMIN]..... And of course, Bose is a four letter word.
............[QUOTE]


Jumping into this conversation late. But I think most here would appreciate never owning this brand in their personal systems.

I sold many pairs of Bose speaker systems when I worked for Pacific Stereo back in my college days. I never could comprehend why they were held in such esteem but I sold them anyways because I needed the paycheck. The demand remained high--even when compared next other systems in A/B tests. A large percentage of consumers still preferred the Bose to other available speaker systems. I had to conclude from my experience with retail--that the consumer public associates volume with quality. Sound quality is subjective but "louder is better" is quantifiable.

I had a recent experience to validate my theory. I found a pair of the old "legendary" Bose 901 Series IIs at a friend's garage sale. She was unable to sell them and was about to toss them in the garbage. I told her to wait on these. I took them and purchased a re-ring kit from a local speaker builder store for $59.95. I refurbished the pair and hooked them up to my system. I was immediately reminded of the atrocious sound presence that I remembered from my days at Pacific Stereo. Back then they sold for near $1000.

I posted them on eBay and had a flurry of bids eventually selling for near $600 + $75 for shipping. Not a bad return for an aging speaker system over 20 years of age.

audio amateur
03-23-2010, 10:15 AM
Making 600 bucks out of a piece of could be junk. Nice job!

Someone just posted about Tangant Audio. That's another brand I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

audio amateur
03-23-2010, 10:44 AM
As a point of reference, what interconnects, speaker cables and power cable do you prefer?

rw
This is the point of my argument, I don't have a 'preference'. The only comparison I have done was between two pairs of interconnects on a modest system, and I wasn't able to dicern any differences. I then proceeded to send back the cable and get a refund as I wasn't able to justify paying that much for aesthetic purposes:)

In my setup I use 11 gauge 'flat' stranded copper speaker cables. The interconnects I'm running at the moment are generic whites and reds (don't laugh), which I'm hoping to replace with DIY solid core coppers within the next month. The power cords are all stock, and I don't really have the means of messing with different options unfortunately.

manlystanley
03-23-2010, 10:53 AM
I posted them on eBay and had a flurry of bids eventually selling for near $600 + $75 for shipping. Not a bad return for an aging speaker system over 20 years of age.

Amazing... I have a pair of Bose 201's below my kitchen cabinets.they are only used to push out sound and basically nothing else. Yet, people come in my house and are impressed that I have such high quality speakers......

Best Regards,
Stan

Mr Peabody
03-23-2010, 04:42 PM
JoeE, are you referring to sound reinforcement at concerts or in your own controlled envirement? At concerts I'd agree whole hardily but keep in mind the effect of amp, set up and venue. We used to play with the Electro Voice in the store hooked to regular home gear and most products were really good. I remember they had a separate horn and compression driver that played down to 800 Hz and just sounded awesome doing it. In a full cabinet speaker though you do have to deal with the draw backs of horns in general, dispersion limits, low frequency extension etc. They also have their own benefits as well too. I've got some folded horn designs that will play low but who has the room for a sub the size of a double door frig :) As you can tell I hold those days in fond memory. Nothing like being able to have a job in the hobby you love. To show the extent of insanity in experimentation, our car installer began using E-V woofers in auto sub boxes. Believe it or not, the craze blew up in our area. They built a monster truck where the dump bed was one huge speaker box full of drivers. We had it at a car stereo contest and on a parking lot you could literally feel the ground vibrate with the rhythm.

IBSTORMIN
03-26-2010, 06:00 PM
Amazing... I have a pair of Bose 201's below my kitchen cabinets.they are only used to push out sound and basically nothing else. Yet, people come in my house and are impressed that I have such high quality speakers......

Best Regards,
Stan
Markerting is the reason. Bose has alot of people convinced they have the best. Alot of people see the name and know you spent alot of money. Those that have heard, compared and can hear the difference, know you spent too much for the sound quality you have. Just my 2 cents.

TheHills44060
03-26-2010, 06:30 PM
Emotiva (please guys stop with this **** already) , Klipsch (post 1990 stuff), Bose, Paradigm, Axiom, SVS, Swans (post 1999 stuff) any French-made gear, Bryston...that's all i can think of now.

Although i do have to say the 1980 Bose 501 III's i had were pretty kick ass drunk speakers. They looked attractive sober and after a case of beer they played any type of music i could throw at them and yes they did direct/reflect music everywhere. I put them in the corners of the room and turned up the volume.

audio amateur
03-27-2010, 09:52 AM
Emotiva (please guys stop with this **** already) , Klipsch (post 1990 stuff), Bose, Paradigm, Axiom, SVS, Swans (post 1999 stuff) any French-made gear, Bryston...that's all i can think of now.

Although i do have to say the 1980 Bose 501 III's i had were pretty kick ass drunk speakers. They looked attractive sober and after a case of beer they played any type of music i could throw at them and yes they did direct/reflect music everywhere. I put them in the corners of the room and turned up the volume.
Hey Shodulik, I'm curious to know what you don't like about these brands (aside Klispch and Bose which I understand), and especially the French gear?

Mr Peabody
03-27-2010, 11:09 AM
I'm curious as well. Emotiva's sound may not appeal to every one, nor does any line, but they do offer a great value and can give some one on a budget a feel for higher end gear. Bryston? An excellent brand.

Of course, the thread says "attracted" which if taken literally has nothing to do with sound. I'm not a good judge of what looks cool. Although I did see some Shanling gear that was really innovative looking that I thought cool. My friend's Esoteric transport I was impressed with, again, no judge of looks but what impressed me it looked like it was chizzled into a solid block of aluminum.

pixelthis
03-29-2010, 12:27 AM
Emotiva (please guys stop with this **** already) , Klipsch (post 1990 stuff), Bose, Paradigm, Axiom, SVS, Swans (post 1999 stuff) any French-made gear, Bryston...that's all i can think of now.

Although i do have to say the 1980 Bose 501 III's i had were pretty kick ass drunk speakers. They looked attractive sober and after a case of beer they played any type of music i could throw at them and yes they did direct/reflect music everywhere. I put them in the corners of the room and turned up the volume.

I really don't think you have listened to any Emotiva.
I hadnt, just went on the basis of its nature.
Another audio company making cheap stuff from China.
Well, you might want to try them, I did and got a pleasant surprize.
A 125wpc amp for 250$, not much risk.
As for Bose, I had 501SERIES 4'S, and they were pretty decent, thats back when Bose was a audio instead of a marketing company.
Triangles are Frenchie, and good, BTW.:1:

E-Stat
03-29-2010, 05:03 AM
The interconnects I'm running at the moment are generic whites and reds (don't laugh)...
That's how everyone starts out. You might be surprised one day when you get a chance to hear what top line cables can do in a superlative system.

rw

TheHills44060
03-29-2010, 06:15 AM
...
Of course, the thread says "attracted" which if taken literally has nothing to do with sound.
Yes Peabody that's the way i read the thread as well. I was not commenting on the sound, strictly appearance. As far as Emotiva gear goes it looks completely tacky to me. It's like they are trying so desperately hard to "look" higher end with that styling.

Bryston gear is just ugly to me. I don't like their logo, faceplates or amp handles.

Bose is well, Bose.

I cant's stand the look of cylindrical SVS subs. I know they make box subs too but they are generally known for their cylindrical models.

The cheap looking plastic baffles on the front of most Paradigm speakers is such a put-off for me.

I am biased against anything french so i had to throw them in the mix even though i like some JMLab and Triangle designs, lol.

audio amateur
03-29-2010, 07:06 AM
That's how everyone starts out. You might be surprised one day when you get a chance to hear what top line cables can do in a superlative system.

rw
You'd be surprise, but they're doing the job at the moment. I actually started out with a pair of Radioshacks that are better than these generics but I put them in my parent's system.

audio amateur
03-29-2010, 07:12 AM
Yes Peabody that's the way i read the thread as well. I was not commenting on the sound, strictly appearance. As far as Emotiva gear goes it looks completely tacky to me. It's like they are trying so desperately hard to "look" higher end with that styling.

Bryston gear is just ugly to me. I don't like their logo, faceplates or amp handles.

Bose is well, Bose.

I cant's stand the look of cylindrical SVS subs. I know they make box subs too but they are generally known for their cylindrical models.

The cheap looking plastic baffles on the front of most Paradigm speakers is such a put-off for me.

I am biased against anything french so i had to throw them in the mix even though i like some JMLab and Triangle designs, lol.
Funny, I didn't like the looks of cylinder subs for a long time. Recently though I've taken a liking, probably because I've learnt that they can easily outperform box subs which has put the looks a little out of the picture.

I'm guessing you've had a bad experience with something French, or in France perhaps?

E-Stat
03-29-2010, 01:31 PM
You'd be surprise, but they're doing the job at the moment.
No doubt. I've done SBTs with generic cable vs. my mid-priced stuff in the main system. I use double runs of 14 gauge zip with the Advents. The differences are not huge, but noticeable. I would never start building a superlative system with cables, but I would always end there.

As for cylindrical subs, I find the "depth charge" approach used by Scaenas looks pretty cool and sounds excellent.

rw

JoeE SP9
03-29-2010, 01:53 PM
JoeE, are you referring to sound reinforcement at concerts or in your own controlled envirement? At concerts I'd agree whole hardily but keep in mind the effect of amp, set up and venue. We used to play with the Electro Voice in the store hooked to regular home gear and most products were really good. I remember they had a separate horn and compression driver that played down to 800 Hz and just sounded awesome doing it. In a full cabinet speaker though you do have to deal with the draw backs of horns in general, dispersion limits, low frequency extension etc. They also have their own benefits as well too. I've got some folded horn designs that will play low but who has the room for a sub the size of a double door frig :) As you can tell I hold those days in fond memory. Nothing like being able to have a job in the hobby you love. To show the extent of insanity in experimentation, our car installer began using E-V woofers in auto sub boxes. Believe it or not, the craze blew up in our area. They built a monster truck where the dump bed was one huge speaker box full of drivers. We had it at a car stereo contest and on a parking lot you could literally feel the ground vibrate with the rhythm.

Mr. P, I live in the inner city. There are 10 wannabe DJ's on every block, mine included. They almost always have piezo tweeters in their PA speakers. In the summer at any of the two or three block parties my block has, two or three set their DJ systems up on their front porches and entertain the block. Mine is an exceptionally long block with 86 row houses on it. I can walk from one end of the block to the other and it's like going to three different clubs. Unfortunately all three clubs have "cut your ears off and run away" highs on their speakers.
As far as concerts go, I think most mixer guys need lessons in what music sounds like.

AA:
As for cylindrical subs, come over and check out my two 7' 4" tall 12" dia. TL PVC sewer pipe subs. They are equalized flat to 18Hz. They are loud, deep, cheap and clean. I can shake my front door and everything else just like the rolling distortion boxes that pass by.

I may paint them to look like Barber Poles!

Mr Peabody
03-29-2010, 07:05 PM
Barber poles....... now that would be an interesting look.

Not many people outside the audio world know about SVS or HSU. So when they see my SVS U13 they are amazed. I love it's performance. My wife says it looks like I have a hot water heater in there.

audio amateur
03-30-2010, 08:09 AM
I love it's performance. My wife says it looks like I have a hot water heater in there.
You should show her what it's capable of :smilewinkgrin: (If you haven't already)

audio amateur
03-30-2010, 08:20 AM
AA:
As for cylindrical subs, come over and check out my two 7' 4" tall 12" dia. TL PVC sewer pipe subs.
An official invite, you're gonna regret this :ihih:

I've read a bit of their white paper in the past, cool stuff. Did you use sonotube? I'd love to see a picture of your gear someday. This summer I'm hoping to work on a cylinder sub to replace my pathetic 8" Jamo. Should be fun:)