Comparing Commerical with Residential Audio [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Comparing Commerical with Residential Audio



drmorgan
06-16-2009, 08:45 AM
I'm referencing this here for a look outside the consumer audio (for a bit of objectivity) partly because info in the residential is 'colored' by some of the interests selling gimmicks (profit centers) to us for home use that appeal to feelings or even superstitions about sound reproduction I keep reading in the threads. Not meant as a flame here.. just a lead to why some stuff just does not really work (beyond the psychological impact from our wish for more than or other than reality can offer us), yet we 'feel' that it has after we've invested dearly in it.

I think that you will find this brief article useful...

Residential vs. Commercial: Basic Audio Differences
Here are a couple audio differences between commercial and residential installs.

http://www.cepro.com/article/residential_vs_commercial_basic_audio_differences? utm_source=CEPWeekly&utm_medium=email

June 16 2009
By Fred Harding
Filed in: News, Fundamentals, Audio Sources, Commercial, Installation

"........
Differences in Pro/Consumer Gear

Let's start with the typical connection between a source and the amplifier.

Consumer equipment uses RCA connections, which are referred to as unbalanced. Essentially, this type of connection has a signal and a ground.

Pro gear uses a balanced style of connection, which has three connections:
A plus
A minus
A ground
The connectors can be an XLR style, a 0.25-inch TRS style or even a removable style of terminal strip.

The balanced connection and its signal have much better noise-rejecting characteristics than the unbalanced style. The signal cancels any noise that might be induced on the line.

A balanced signal also has the ability to go greater distances without noise and is transmitted at a higher level. If you compare the two signals, you'll find that consumer unbalanced signals are rated at -10 dB, and pro balanced signals are rated at +4 dB. That 14 dB difference is quite large. A 10 dB difference appears to be about twice as loud from loudest to quietest.

These factors need to be considered when deploying consumer products like preamps with professional-rated products like amplifiers. The pro amp is looking for a hotter signal than the consumer device is delivering. So, even though the pro amplifier has oodles of power, the system will sound very underpowered.

More via the link...

Food for thought...

Feanor
06-16-2009, 10:02 AM
"Balanced" internal design as well as connections are becoming more popular in high-end consumer audio too.

The opposite of Balanced is Single-ended. In terms of connections:

Single-ended consists of two wire consisting of
One "hot", i.e. signal-delivering wire, and
One ground or maybe more accurately "drain" or return wire that completes the circut from the source. It is usually connect to the chassis of the source and target components.
By contast, balanced typically has three wires:

One + wire, that is, 0º phase active signal,
One - wire, that is, 180º phase version of the same active signal, and
One ground wire, which in this case is a true ground which might be connected to the source and target components' chasis, but which isn't required to complete the electrical circuit.
But note that just because an XLR connector is used, the signal sent isn't necessarily balanced; the + will be the only active signal wire, and the - and ground will be jumped at the source component so they are both drains.

Apart from connections, components can be either single-end or fully-balance internally. An internally balanced component can be thought of as four channel where both the left and right channels are each served by separate plus + and a - phase channels.

When true, fully balanced source drives a true, fully balanced target, the gain will inherently be 6dB higher than a single-ended connector from the same source. The benefits of a balanced connection all pertain only when the source and target are both balanced for both connections and internal operation.

I think in general the following is true, given source & target both provide single-ended and balanced connections. Correct me if I'm wrong!!

When the source outputs only single-end -- no advantage to a balanced connection,
Source outputs balanced but target actually only accepts single-ended (regardless of the connector) -- no advantage to a balanced connection.
Source outputs balanced and the target accepts balanced signal but converts it to single-end for internal operation -- the cable noise rejection benefits pertains but the increased gain does not.
Source outputs and target receives balanced, and target is fully balanced internally -- +6dB gain as well as cable noise rejection benefit applies.

drmorgan
06-16-2009, 11:05 AM
I like your method of presenting the issues and thanks for the loss comparison ... I'd guess again that you are spot on with that part of the results, since I can't 'hear' the difference.

I've guessed the reason they're happy with the 'extra' common (just as for two phase power) may be a means to protect the Amplifier. Just a WAG guess...

mlsstl
06-16-2009, 11:31 AM
I think one needs to draw a clear distinction between a typical professional audio situation such as a recording studio or concert venue and a home environment.

In the professional environment, there are typically a number of long wire runs at very low voltages (microphones) or line level. There is also usually far more equipment powered up and running in a commercial setting. The potential for noise pickup in a 75' microphone cable with dozens of preamps, amps, processors, equalizers, recorders and so on nearby is at a whole different level than a 3' wire run from a home CD player to a preamp or amp.

So, the first question for the home user would be whether his cables are picking up noise that is interfering with the music. Even if "yes" the problem may be easily solved with a better shielded unbalanced cable.

The next question - if you have a setup you absolutely love, but does not have balanced connections - do you discombobulate yourself by starting a search for new equipment in order to fix something that doesn't seem to be causing a problem?

I've run both ways at home, and once you adjust for the volume gain in a balanced setting, I've never been able to tell the difference. As such, I don't worry about the issue.

Hyfi
06-16-2009, 11:45 AM
My VAC Pre which is getting close to 20 years old has Balanced outputs as does my 15 year old Stratus Amp (inputs).

Are you using Best Buy equipment as your Residential comparisons? High End gear has had these connections for as long as I have been buying gear.

What you hear between the two is still another question.

drmorgan
06-16-2009, 12:27 PM
My VAC Pre which is getting close to 20 years old has Balanced outputs as does my 15 year old Stratus Amp (inputs).

Are you using Best Buy equipment as your Residential comparisons? High End gear has had these connections for as long as I have been buying gear.

What you hear between the two is still another question.


No, never thought of shopping BB for other than blank media such as DVD's or CD's.

Also, my ultimate system was purchased over the years before most of the originators were acquired by off shore mass makers (Bozak, Marantz, McIntosh and the others were still here and directing policy after good engineering), using the still familiar quality names. I did briefly leave that gear for the fancy stuff and even went back to tubes, briefly.

What caught my interest about the CE article was the curious representation in other threads here that wire for speaker runs or even the power cable to the amps could make a 'sound' difference that can be heard (I presumed everyone supplies normal high content copper wire to start with).

I'm thinking that I've been stupid all these years? That Rudy Bozak was or McIntosh and Gow or even Russell? Gads.. in today's $ I've got a very expensive system on zip cord or old Monster and I'm missing content! Well, our hearing does decline, but have I been cheated and as I own an outfit that makes voice and data communication gear and distributes ours and others .. those posts suggest we've been wrong! I understand the need for good stuff from the devices to the preamp and from it to the amps or biamp .. box, but speaker wire... wall power to the components?

So when I came upon this article I posted it to see what's up...perhaps I've been wrong for decades?

Rudy Gireyev
06-16-2009, 07:45 PM
So when I came upon this article I posted it to see what's up...perhaps I've been wrong for decades?
Seems like there's really only one way to know for sure. Try it with your system and see.
I would certainly be interested in what you find out.

Rudy

Hyfi
06-17-2009, 06:43 AM
Seems like there's really only one way to know for sure. Try it with your system and see.
I would certainly be interested in what you find out.

Rudy

Yeah, I would surely be interested in how my Synergistic speaker cables perform in his system over zip cord.

drmorgan
06-17-2009, 08:45 AM
Seems like there's really only one way to know for sure. Try it with your system and see.
I would certainly be interested in what you find out.

Rudy

My system has been audited by many over the years (decades) and recently but beyond an issue with cabling to the preamp from a turntable (the A/B box was the issue), no aberrant noise noted and given the age and rarity of the set up, would have been.

Then too, gven my age, I can't attest to the best of hearing potential anyway.

Some said we can't actually hear more than 16k, so possibly the noises that some sort of less expensive cabling will introduce is not in our range?

Maybe the 'force' has been with the Monster or now the Radio Shack stuff?

At two locations, this stuff was professionally installed by sound engineers. Must have been an oversight or the cabling was not a 'value added profit center' back then? Marketing are always developing new concepts to aid our quests.

JoeE SP9
06-17-2009, 12:40 PM
A true balanced input is differential. There is no reference to ground.
Differential amplifiers amplify the difference between the plus and minus signals. Any noise that is common to the two is ignored. Hence the term differential.
Any differential amplifier will have a spec known as CMRR. Common Mode Rejection Ratio. This is a measurement of how well it rejects hum and any unwanted noise that is common to both signals. The so called ground on balanced connections is a shield designed to keep noise and hum from the signal carrying wires.
Interestingly most op-amps have differential inputs.

Most "sound engineers" claim wire is wire. The best of them such as Steve Hoffman, Bernie Grundman and Bob Ludwig do not subscribe to this thought. They all use higher quality cabling and wires in their studios. They all say they can hear a difference in wires and cables. Then again they don't use JBL or Yamaha "monitors". They use audiophile type speakers as does Abbey Road Studios which uses B&W Nautilus speakers.

E-Stat
06-18-2009, 04:20 PM
What caught my interest about the CE article was the curious representation in other threads here that wire for speaker runs or even the power cable to the amps could make a 'sound' difference that can be heard (I presumed everyone supplies normal high content copper wire to start with)...I'm thinking that I've been stupid all these years? That Rudy Bozak was or McIntosh and Gow or even Russell?
First of all, exotic cable technologies or the primary villain that aftermarket power cords addresses didn't exist in Rudy or Frank's lifetime. Who knows. As for Roger, he is simply deaf and incorrectly assumes that tests on various gauges of zip cord must necessarily be the only answer.

The compelling reasons for aftermarket cabling differ depending upon the application. While "pure" copper is a great conductor, silver is better still. More importantly, cables supplied by vendors like Nordost and JPS Labs (among others) deliver considerably possess a decidedly lower dielectric constant (DC). Guys like Russell tend to focus on simplistic measures like resistance and FR. Time smearing is a more elusive characteristic to quantify.

As for power cords, we now live in a world surrounded by electronic grunge, either radiated by cell phones, wireless routers, cordless phones, etc. or a myriad of devices using digital power supplies that readily spew their noise into your AC line. I've had many discussions with non-experiential theorists over this topic that usually make this argument:

After miles and miles of cabling from the power station, how can the last three feet make a difference?

Such analysis completely misses the point due to an incomplete set of assumptions. After miles and miles of plumbing from the water source, how can the last six inches (via a water filter) make a difference? The answer is fundamentally the same. The villains with audio gear live in your house. The first three feet of a power cable can certainly make a difference by shielding the power supplies from the noise. Subtle, but there.

rw

drmorgan
06-19-2009, 06:07 AM
First of all, exotic cable technologies or the primary villain that aftermarket power cords addresses didn't exist in Rudy or Frank's lifetime. Who knows. As for Roger, he is simply deaf and incorrectly assumes that tests on various gauges of zip cord must necessarily be the only answer.

The compelling reasons for aftermarket cabling differ depending upon the application. While "pure" copper is a great conductor, silver is better still. More importantly, cables supplied by vendors like Nordost and JPS Labs (among others) deliver considerably possess a decidedly lower dielectric constant (DC). Guys like Russell tend to focus on simplistic measures like resistance and FR. Time smearing is a more elusive characteristic to quantify.

As for power cords, we now live in a world surrounded by electronic grunge, either radiated by cell phones, wireless routers, cordless phones, etc. or a myriad of devices using digital power supplies that readily spew their noise into your AC line. I've had many discussions with non-experiential theorists over this topic that usually make this argument:

After miles and miles of cabling from the power station, how can the last three feet make a difference?

Such analysis completely misses the point due to an incomplete set of assumptions. After miles and miles of plumbing from the water source, how can the last six inches (via a water filter) make a difference? The answer is fundamentally the same. The villains with audio gear live in your house. The first three feet of a power cable can certainly make a difference by shielding the power supplies from the noise. Subtle, but there.

rw


Manufacturers determine the parameters, copper content, methods of what they use in their devices and what is supplied to plug them into the wall. They verify this the same way you may by measuring. You can verify supply voltage at the outlet with a voltage read usually on the same meter as Ohms.

Here is another opinion on cabling:

http://www.audioholics.com/education...able-resonance

Bozak, Harmon, Klipsch, JBL, Marantz, McIntosh, and others invested an incredible amount of time and engineering to construct the means to measure subtle in both the sounds reproduced and the electronics that reproduced them.

Unshielded cabling reveals itself audibly, and that may happen (for me it was cheap cable from the turntable to an A/B box and some years later a poor ground).

Most of the errors or omissions are noted in proximity to other components made without appropriate methods and materials. We can't compensate for such errors and omissions with speaker cable or power cable.

What happens in your living room has to do with what gear you purchased and your psychology. Even if you can convince your friends that you hear it, they too are responding to your influence.

The final and objective judge for me were several generations of German Shepherd dogs (from different blood lines), who used to locate in front of Concert Grands and sleep against them. I know, they did not do as good as some speakers with the highs I can't hear, but the dogs would leave the room if the music source was distorted. That usually happened from cheap CD's or records I'd bought. The equipment was very similar over many decades in five different settings. The dogs validated the science. They also developed a taste for Jazz and Classical.

E-Stat
06-19-2009, 06:22 AM
Bozak, Harmon, Klipsch, JBL, Marantz, McIntosh, and others invested an incredible amount of time and engineering to construct the means to measure subtle in both the sounds reproduced and the electronics that reproduced them...

The final and objective judge for me were several generations of German Shepherd dogs (from different blood lines), who used to locate in front of Concert Grands and sleep against them.
No offense, but audio has marched forward quite a bit over the last half century. :)

rw

JoeE SP9
06-19-2009, 09:44 AM
drmorgan: I suggest you put the AC coming out of your wall through an oscilloscope. It is quite easy to see the hash and noise that can be and is superimposed on the AC signal coming into your house. While monitoring the AC turn some of the devices in your home on and off and observe the noise hash and spikes that are generated by something as simple as a toaster or as complex as a microwave oven. Air conditioners and refrigerators are some of the worst offenders.
There is more in an AC signal than voltage.

BTW:
The most vocal of the wires are wires bunch left this site and went to Audioholics. They are still pushing their mantra that all wires sound the same and a receiver sounds as good as top of the line Mark Levinson gear. If you agree with them so be it. Most people here don't.

drmorgan
06-20-2009, 09:56 AM
drmorgan: I suggest you put the AC coming out of your wall through an oscilloscope. It is quite easy to see the hash and noise that can be and is superimposed on the AC signal coming into your house. While monitoring the AC turn some of the devices in your home on and off and observe the noise hash and spikes that are generated by something as simple as a toaster or as complex as a microwave oven. Air conditioners and refrigerators are some of the worst offenders.
There is more in an AC signal than voltage.

BTW:
The most vocal of the wires are wires bunch left this site and went to Audioholics. They are still pushing their mantra that all wires sound the same and a receiver sounds as good as top of the line Mark Levinson gear. If you agree with them so be it. Most people here don't.

Yes, scopes remain a primary tool to verify components, circuit design and/or compliance. With software, an Ethernet or USB cable, some probes one may use a PC to obtain or verify data at home.

McIntosh used them effectively at Clinics for decades to validate continued parameters of their prior sales and shops use them to determine continued compliance of components.

I see from old photos Bozak and Russell were using them to align and specify components and validate outcomes too. Perhaps that’s a revealed the decay of tube circuits?

I had not thought scopes would be used to suggest people buy power cords.

I don't see the relevance given that amplifiers are designed to rectify, resolve and produce DC current just as a $300 P.C. will. We know too that the early computing systems left tubes behind as well.

I remain unconvinced that intake power cords will defeat the objectives of sound reproduction or cure anything relevant unless they’re going to put voltage regulation into the cords. I do agree that good surge and spike protection is a sound investment, but that too will be unlikely to be ‘heard.’

I will accept that some quality issues might impact speaker runs and I think hum or noise will be noticed just as phasing. I keep the power cords away from the speaker runs.

I do not accept the concept that those artifacts you can see on a scope measuring or showing power intake will be a reason for distorted output in a system given the 50/60 or 100/140vac intake parameters they’re designed for (brand, model dependent). Seems to me a faulty design of the device itself comes into play if it can’t resolve typical power company power.

Given our electric clocks resolve A/C so well it is very hard to wrap my mind around your introduction of a scope to back up your theory.

I’ve asked myself: Could you get from a manufacturer a power cord so abnormal or complex that it can jump circuits in even an off the shelf radio and I can’t see it happening unless they’re also using the power cord as an antenna for FM.

I don’t know much about Mark Levinson beyond hearing the name, but I know that resolving intake power issues or providing DC power output is not rocket science. Whatever makes you satisfied is fine, but giving sound advice must be ...you know, sound advice.

JoeE SP9
06-20-2009, 08:25 PM
drmorgan:
I don't want to sound disrespectful, but have you been living in a cave for the last 25 years?
For someone who appears to have little or no knowledge of any audio equipment designed and made in the last 25 years you have an awful lot to say. How can you be so absolute with your pronouncements when they are based on out of date knowledge. Amplifier design, parts used and construction methods are not what they used to be.
If you wish to believe the epitome of amplifier and circuit design was the 70's that's your choice. However, that causes your knowledge base to be sadly out of date.
There have been quite a few advances in design and implementation of both solid state and tube gear. Threshold Stasis solid state amps and Berning OTL tube amps are but two examples.
If you are not aware of and refuse to learn about advances in the art you have no credibility when it comes to critiquing modern gear. That lack of credibility extends to your comments about wires and cables.

An amplifier "basically" modulates the AC coming from the wall socket. The power supply section rectifies and regulates that voltage. The rest of the amp turns that DC voltage back into AC so speakers can be driven. Any noise, hash or distortion on the AC line can effect the DC voltages amps produce and use. If you doubt this put a scope probe on the DC rails in one of your amps. Turn your air conditioner or washing machine on and of and observe the scope trace.
Amplifiers that have fully regulated power supplies are less susceptible to AC noise and hash. The downside is fully regulated power supplies on power amps are expensive. Curiously even these amps benefit from better AC power cords. If you are curious about modern gear you could investigate products made by Krell, Bryston, Classe, Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Pass Labs or Mark Levinson for example.
Although I may not be as old as you I have been around for a while. I bought my first piece of gear in 1968. I however have tried to stay up to date.

If you choose not to increase your knowledge of "modern" gear perhaps you should keep opinions based on out of date knowledge to yourself.

BTW: If your comment about "electric" clocks refers to clocks that have an AC motor, it's the AC frequency that determines how accurate the clock is. The rotational speed of AC synchronous motors (clock motors) is directly related to the line frequency. Voltage does not effect their rotational speed. If you mean a "quartz" crystal clock, the internal quartz oscillator is the timing reference for the clock. Wall voltage and/or frequency is not relevant.

E-Stat
06-22-2009, 09:23 AM
I remain unconvinced that intake power cords will defeat the objectives of sound reproduction or cure anything relevant unless they’re going to put voltage regulation into the cords. I do agree that good surge and spike protection is a sound investment, but that too will be unlikely to be ‘heard.’
Suggestion: test your speculation like many of us have done. I did not initially "believe" that cords could make an audible difference. That was until many years ago I heard some at length in my own system. :)

rw

drmorgan
06-22-2009, 09:29 PM
drmorgan:
I don't want to sound disrespectful, but have you been living in a cave for the last 25 years?
For someone who appears to have little or no knowledge of any audio equipment designed and made in the last 25 years you have an awful lot to say. How can you be so absolute with your pronouncements when they are based on out of date knowledge. Amplifier design, parts used and construction methods are not what they used to be.
If you wish to believe the epitome of amplifier and circuit design was the 70's that's your choice. However, that causes your knowledge base to be sadly out of date.
There have been quite a few advances in design and implementation of both solid state and tube gear. Threshold Stasis solid state amps and Berning OTL tube amps are but two examples.
If you are not aware of and refuse to learn about advances in the art you have no credibility when it comes to critiquing modern gear. That lack of credibility extends to your comments about wires and cables.

An amplifier "basically" modulates the AC coming from the wall socket. The power supply section rectifies and regulates that voltage. The rest of the amp turns that DC voltage back into AC so speakers can be driven. Any noise, hash or distortion on the AC line can effect the DC voltages amps produce and use. If you doubt this put a scope probe on the DC rails in one of your amps. Turn your air conditioner or washing machine on and of and observe the scope trace.
Amplifiers that have fully regulated power supplies are less susceptible to AC noise and hash. The downside is fully regulated power supplies on power amps are expensive. Curiously even these amps benefit from better AC power cords. If you are curious about modern gear you could investigate products made by Krell, Bryston, Classe, Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Pass Labs or Mark Levinson for example.
Although I may not be as old as you I have been around for a while. I bought my first piece of gear in 1968. I however have tried to stay up to date.

If you choose not to increase your knowledge of "modern" gear perhaps you should keep opinions based on out of date knowledge to yourself.

BTW: If your comment about "electric" clocks refers to clocks that have an AC motor, it's the AC frequency that determines how accurate the clock is. The rotational speed of AC synchronous motors (clock motors) is directly related to the line frequency. Voltage does not effect their rotational speed. If you mean a "quartz" crystal clock, the internal quartz oscillator is the timing reference for the clock. Wall voltage and/or frequency is not relevant.

Lets see if I have this right. When you bought these new and improved components and got all this noise (some only in a dogs hearing range) you did not ask the makers to cure this ‘stuff?’ You bought new and improved cabling and even special AC power cables, power filters, power conditioners and this made sense to you? That’s great headway in music audio reproduction systems? In 1984 a desktop workstation for CAD with a 19” tube monitor that weighed 110 lbs. had a price of $50k. They improved it greatly and now I’ve a 24” monitor, two DVD drives it fast as instant, plays music, makes it, has a 1t drive with a 1t over the air back up that serves several in real time, plus Bluetooth, airport and costs less than 20% of the old slow workhorse. Something ought to register here along similar lines. Audio is less R&D and factory intensive.

Yes, I’ve been around a bit and even run an outfit that makes and distributes far more complex devices that also handle voice and data. Been at it for only 30 years so I remain to be convinced ….by my ears or that of my friends and family. Oh and I audit routinely and have since I built my first kits (Harmon-Kardon Citation II and III) way back when you may have stopped dropping records from a player onto each other.

My auditing included dealers and in home for over two decades before I doled out 12k for the first system to cover two outdoor areas, a library and the great room. Continued auditing (including hauling in gear to listen in the same area) from 1975-1995 resulted in investing a further 15k. Only about 5k of the initial investment was passed on to others. Meanwhile my kids began to build and they too seemed to think that quality counted.

Last Sunday I traveled 80 miles to listen to Klipsch LaScallas and they were awesome. Klipsch as you know still build the high end stuff like they did 40 years ago (except they adopted the particle board that Bozak introduced to replace the plywood). Yes, I’ve friends in the recording business and some take it on the road as popular groups. No one seems pleased with the workaround the makers (by the way most of this gear is just from a hand full of outfits, sold under many cherished old names or supplied to be customized. It started with Superscope the supplier for the likes of Circuit City and such who snatched up Marantz when he fell on hard times in a recession. They cheaped out his turntable and other gear and that name is tarnished.

I see these improvements as less shipping costs, more profits for building what I call end around designs. When I mentioned your claims to the real engineers who are associated with me they directed me to a few articles or thought you were kidding or naïve. I posted some URL’s on another thread.

The names for these ‘new’ designs are many, but the facts are very simple. They were going to come from far, far away and this meant many hands and transfers and ships, planes or whatever support for marketing and the US office and so on. Margins must be greater with the acquisitions and many hands, and thus we have high prices for these items which sound not quite as good as they should unless you protect them from the stuff they create doing it on the cheap.

So, dealers needed new and improved and it comes with many little things like the checkout at the drug store. The high profit stuff that folks shouldn’t need.

What is new… Blue Ray is new, having our music on hard drives and playing from a computer is new. The woods and finishes are new and the prices for tubes from outfits (such as Genesis, Seattle), who build like they used to do at McIntosh), are WOW.

Most of the ‘stuff’ that I see under the cocers looks too much like others in a different case, knobs and comes with a different manual.

So to me the new and improved are not till a dog will nap against the speakers. Until I can close my eyes and feel as if transported into the recording session at the venue it was made in.

Since I’m an old fart who was lucky enough to be able to hear, share some great music in and out of home.. let your ears and friends help in your selection and buy only stuff that is made to last and last. How we hear is unchanged. The stereo delivery systems were solved by JBL, Klipsch, Bozak, McIntosh, Marantz and others long ago. A host of others provided turntables, tuners and CD players. New firms have come along to offer replacements (I gather none of the above are but names these days). I had some stuff from Ampzilla, Nakamichi, Luxman, B&W, Linn, Jensen, the ‘new’ McIntosh, B&O*, Bose, (very clever the prior two), that made the dumpster. One outfit really had something new was ADS, (Digital time delay), but their gear was only to last 20 years! Now they’re gone. As I maintain, nothing new under the sun, but the names. *the turntable worked

To conclude, I visited the site to learn what’s new and improved or to be of objective assistance. Three or four posters seem in control of the message for a large part and for reasons I don’t fathom list all their stuff with each post. I won’t return to rock your boats but am not one to sit and drool in the corner just because I’m in my seventies. For the others, seek what sounds like you are present, don’t be gullible. If outfits like Klipsch and JBL can make speakers like they did and their old amps let us hear like we were at the venue, then seek out who makes reliable hardware to match some great speakers. Well made stuff lasts with good ventilation and vacuuming once in a while.

BTW: The clock mentioned runs on cycles and if your power needed a fix you would be keeping bad time between changes of your transformer from your utility. Good stuff resolves artifacts before it sends it off to drive your speakers that move the air.

RGA
06-23-2009, 12:48 AM
I have to say I almost completely agree with DrMorgan. Perhaps not so much in the names you list but on the principle of which you speak. New and improved is a lie (well mostly but I'll get to that in a moment) in 2 channel audio and examples of this can be seen in the audiophile community but so too in the recording studio.

The pro studio selects items for equipment that has no down time - not necessarily choosing the best sounding gear - so it's important to make the distinction - arguably the best classical recording studio - Chesky Records uses tube amplifiers - chosen for sound quality and certainly not the lowest noise floors or less down time (after all a tube may blow mid session and require time to replace! Perhaps why the albums cost a bit more than average - but the payoff is better.

As for speakers - all of my favorites are 30 year old designs or much older - some of them - as DrMorgan notes like the Klipshhorn is STILL being produced today and still selling pretty well thank you very much - it's about 50 years old. Quad electrostats 57 is still considered to be on one of the best and their replacements are essentially bigger versions. My speaker was designed in 1940 by one of the world's foremost acoustics engineers and currently serves as an opera house designer.

What has improved - the parts. Not the design. My speakers sounds better than the 1980's variants simply because they use better woofers, matched with sophisticated computers to far higher tolerances, better caps, wiring and cabinet materials. But you could improve most 30 year old speakers simply by using better parts.

The new and improved designs use lower quality parts less cabinet and lots and lots of white papers and technobabble, heavy advertising and anyone with quasi good hearing listens to this stuff and it's completely destroyed by a 50 year old Tannoy!

And a good vinyl rig STILL sounds better than the best CD or SACD machines IME so while the technical superiority may be there as a storage medium the new and improved in terms of music reproduction isn't. And a good tube amp - no contest.

JoeE SP9
06-23-2009, 10:35 AM
drmorgan:
If by cycles you mean line frequency, you have rephrased what I said. AC synchronous clock motors rotate at a speed that is directly related to the line frequency, A noisy or slightly distorted AC sine wave wouldn't have any effect on it.

We don't list our stuff with each post, it's called a signature. It's there so others get a better idea what our opinions are based on.

Just what "new and improved" designs are cheaply made?

From your posts it would seem you have no knowledge of manufacturers such as Krell, Mark Levinson, Pass Lab's, Spectral, Audio Research, Conrad Johnson and others. Please note all the manufacturers I mentioned make their products right here in the USA. There are also many makes that are designed here and made overseas. Take a look at Adcom, Emotiva and NAD. None of their products are cheaply made or flimsy.
You obviously haven't looked at anything beyond your "vintage" gear.
You say "I visited the site to learn what’s new and improved or to be of objective assistance."

How can you do either when you insist that your vintage gear has not been bettered and have no knowledge of new gear?

If you had any familiarity with newer gear, I for one would be more inclined to listen to your arguments. However, as long as you are working from an outdated knowledge base your opinions are just as outdated. Just for the record, horn speakers of any type (LaScala's included) give me a headache.

drmorgan
06-25-2009, 10:45 AM
drmorgan:
If by cycles you mean line frequency, you have rephrased what I said. AC synchronous clock motors rotate at a speed that is directly related to the line frequency, A noisy or slightly distorted AC sine wave wouldn't have any effect on it.

We don't list our stuff with each post, it's called a signature. It's there so others get a better idea what our opinions are based on.

Just what "new and improved" designs are cheaply made?

From your posts it would seem you have no knowledge of manufacturers such as Krell, Mark Levinson, Pass Lab's, Spectral, Audio Research, Conrad Johnson and others. Please note all the manufacturers I mentioned make their products right here in the USA. There are also many makes that are designed here and made overseas. Take a look at Adcom, Emotiva and NAD. None of their products are cheaply made or flimsy.
You obviously haven't looked at anything beyond your "vintage" gear.
You say "I visited the site to learn what’s new and improved or to be of objective assistance."

How can you do either when you insist that your vintage gear has not been bettered and have no knowledge of new gear?

If you had any familiarity with newer gear, I for one would be more inclined to listen to your arguments. However, as long as you are working from an outdated knowledge base your opinions are just as outdated. Just for the record, horn speakers of any type (LaScala's included) give me a headache.

Mine are but opinions, don’t take it personally. I’m not anything but an experienced user of quality audio gear and I will not post brand comments or complaints about gear I've not owned.

If it crapped out in our family or a friend does not mind my mention of their gear or experiences that's all I feel appropriate commenting upon in a public place.

Of the brands you listed I have not heard Pass Lab's, Spectral or Conrad Johnson gear. I would be happy to opine as to a specific brand and model if I audited it outside of public post and assurance my answer won’t be posted publicly. I can speak of what I’ve owned and/or been provided to audit by an authorized dealer. To do more invites litigation and being in a similar field who gets some of the components in the same places, would be a poor idea.

I shall soon post a comment about power quality and some interesting direct experience relative to testing with recording equipment, the impact on components and other far more sensitive electronic gear.

U.S. ‘manufacturing’ have outsourced forever. Just in time assembly for decades. Some firms do ‘make’ complete models here. It is becoming more rare for consumer gear … usually with assemblies from relatively common imported parts and sub assemblies. Many quality levels are available with and without quality assurance. When you read that electronic gear needs to break in you should ask questions. Same with ‘new’ electronic ‘smell.’

Off shore is not necessarily a bad thing, but the prices I see are quite unlike other similar products that use this procurement process by a huge factor. Some highly and rightly praised innovation happened in Japan, Europe and Canada. I suspect that China will do so in more and more products as well.

Yes, I’ve seen the inside of many brands that share components, circuit boards, sub assemblies that are supplied by contractors not known for quality in other markets. After one such viewing I Googled the maker and quickly realized much we see are more unique faces and the like. I'm not even certain that the Klipsch people make the drivers in Arkansas, but they say they do assemble some.

I don't mind purchase of gear made off shore as I have and do own much that was made thus and some of the advances in everything come from other than the USA, along with innovation.

Indeed it is we who remain backward about measurements and our 120v primary power, for example.

The fact I have no opinion about one of your listed items or anyone else’s should have little impact here. I'm not 'in' the market to buy and this site has a review section for that purpose. No, I’ve not been in the cave. I’ve purchased and my family members and friends have routinely since my system firmed up … sort of. I would buy something if it was going to make a difference. I might have bought the Klipsch pair or a set like them. They met the criteria.. was like being there!

I'm surely not up to paying for errors and omissions that create a need for extraordinary cabling. Since the old gear did not need it and I can not hear it with what I have (including a much cheaper computer or more), that produce data, voice recognition and audio in other products, plus my own sound systems (4), seems someone goofed or is crafty enough to invent a glitch that will generate a special need. Good engineering design should have caught this in the lab, if they had decent gear to validate their process. Someone in their Q.A. would say: “hey Bob, this stuff makes its own noise… look at this scope! Hear it.. hey, someone find the cat.. ran off when I turned this on!” So marketing says, that’s not a bug, it is a valued added feature and off it goes to the dealer.

At most a surge and spike unit and shielded interconnecting cabling from components have proven value. Gold and silver and oxygen free seems hype beyond the pale, IMHO

Properly made is before each of us when we use a computer to read or post here.
.

E-Stat
06-25-2009, 06:03 PM
,.. I will not post brand comments or complaints about gear I've not owned.
You already have.

"Alas the '70's to '80's were, from my experience when the best of the best had been invented and introduced. Since then it more about spin than sound reproduction. Tubes were left behind for a reason (the wear, unlike solid state)."

Tube gear has not been left behind. Even for McIntosh. You have no idea how much better the following amps are vs. 70s Mac stuff.

Audio Research REF 610T (http://www.arcdb.ws/REF610T/REF610T.html)

VTL Siegfried (http://www.vtl.com/pages/Amplifiers/Siegfried/)

McIntosh MC 2301 (http://mcintoshlabs.com/products/1112.asp)

Having heard various Bozaks and 70s vintage McIntosh gear (including their current top of the line system having toured their factory in Binghamton), yours is most certainly a satisfyingly musical system. Unlike most SS amps of that vintage from companies like Crown and BGW, their sound was smooth and not edgy. The Bozaks have a fine balance, if not restricted bandwidth. Their sins are largely of omission. Having said that, there is a substantially higher level of resolution available today. The best speakers are more coherent, phase linear and have lower distortion. There are many reasons why there are zero companies today who use 3" cone tweeters (at least in statement products). They lack extension, dispersion and have much higher distortion. There is a reason why there are zero companies who use side-by-side arrays of tweeters and midranges. Are you familiar with the effect known as "comb filtering"? Image specificity suffers.

Engineering has progressed greatly since those classics were developed. Just like virtually every other technology. I've heard a most spectacular review system of a reviewer friend who uses those VTL amps driving Scaena line array speakers. Along with EMM Labs digital front end and Nordost Odin cabling. There is no comparison for those who have experienced both.

rw

JoeE SP9
06-25-2009, 06:59 PM
drmorgan:
What makes you think you are the only experienced audiophile on this site?

drmorgan
06-25-2009, 08:33 PM
You already have.

"Alas the '70's to '80's were, from my experience when the best of the best had been invented and introduced. Since then it more about spin than sound reproduction. Tubes were left behind for a reason (the wear, unlike solid state)."

Tube gear has not been left behind. Even for McIntosh. You have no idea how much better the following amps are vs. 70s Mac stuff.

Audio Research REF 610T (http://www.arcdb.ws/REF610T/REF610T.html)

VTL Siegfried (http://www.vtl.com/pages/Amplifiers/Siegfried/)

McIntosh MC 2301 (http://mcintoshlabs.com/products/1112.asp)

Having heard various Bozaks and 70s vintage McIntosh gear (including their current top of the line system having toured their factory in Binghamton), yours is most certainly a satisfyingly musical system. Unlike most SS amps of that vintage from companies like Crown and BGW, their sound was smooth and not edgy. The Bozaks have a fine balance, if not restricted bandwidth. Their sins are largely of omission. Having said that, there is a substantially higher level of resolution available today. The best speakers are more coherent, phase linear and have lower distortion. There are many reasons why there are zero companies today who use 3" cone tweeters (at least in statement products). They lack extension, dispersion and have much higher distortion. There is a reason why there are zero companies who use side-by-side arrays of tweeters and midranges. Are you familiar with the effect known as "comb filtering"? Image specificity suffers.

Engineering has progressed greatly since those classics were developed. Just like virtually every other technology. I've heard a most spectacular review system of a reviewer friend who uses those VTL amps driving Scaena line array speakers. Along with EMM Labs digital front end and Nordost Odin cabling. There is no comparison for those who have experienced both.

rw

I greatly appreciate your up to date support for the new technology and the links take one to very attractive examples. Do you have a ball park cost for the compatible Preamps, Amps and Speakers for this approach?

I posted some photos yesterday of the last space and equipment I continue to use and were compared in those home audits (last 2002, purchase 2005).

Yes, I mentioned gear from makers who built something that failed in our family. Most I opened up were poorly engineered as to natural convection and lacked an active means to carry off heat. Too much in known brands were not the best components, boards or other internal methods of manufacturer those same brands had once been observed to use.

Comb filtering seems to be what ADS (Willimington, MA ), were creating in their so called sound space synthesizer units. Amazing products and missed. Anyone follow them up?

I'm positive that things have progressed but also think that’s possible to do without introduction of noise or acceptance of noise from normal home wiring. Have these firms been adding value or not? The living room system I settled upon came in at about 15k with the last mid '90's additions.

With inflation this should become 25k now.

Aren't you suggesting that to get modest improvement we must invest about five times this sum for the same space? From reading the specs briefly it appears that the utility may reap double the yearly cost to run this new and improved too.

The suggestions may in fact improve sound quality, however as we see in computer technology, improvement comes with lower costs to consumers. I don't see this potential coming from this approach. As important will be how long this gear will last if used daily? I did mention some names that produced gear as, ‘new and improved’ that died sooner than expected and that I concluded from my experience due to poor design for heat dissipation.

Thank you....

drmorgan
06-25-2009, 08:34 PM
drmorgan:
What makes you think you are the only experienced audiophile on this site?

Thanks for the question.

JoeE SP9
06-26-2009, 02:55 PM
Thanks for the question.

"You don't" Say what? See quote from you below.

To conclude, I visited the site to learn what’s new and improved or to be of objective assistance.


Most of us came hear to learn or just share the fun. Assistance to who?

E-Stat
06-27-2009, 07:36 AM
I greatly appreciate your up to date support for the new technology and the links take one to very attractive examples. Do you have a ball park cost for the compatible Preamps, Amps and Speakers for this approach?
There are a couple of ways to answer your question. From a strict duplication of performance aspect, most every good integrated amplifier or receiver today is more linear that a C28. There wasn’t much to write home about first generation solid state. Practical and cool running to be sure, but not driven then by superior performance. That was the era of chasing the elusive THD rabbit down the hole totally ignoring musicality. A $350 NAD integrated will match or exceed its performance. It is not, however, built tier one quality standards nor does it possess all sorts of features like providing input specific trimmer pots, remote amplifier speaker switching and go the expense of having a five layer backlit glass front panel. (Aside: as a Macophile, you really need to tour their plant sometime. They are most accommodating and will show you all their many manufacturing areas. Today, they use a computer controlled Flow Jet device to cut out the raw glass faceplates. Spraying water at the speed of sound makes for very smooth holes. :) They will play their demo system using their best components for you. It’s worth the effort. Ask for Tony Frontera. ) If, on the other hand, you want to know what it would cost to replicate your current McIntosh gear, the answer is about $16,000. That would include a C-46 and a pair of MC 500 power amps. Or that would require two MC402s if you use the MC2300s in stereo. Lastly, if what you seek is truly the best, the budget will go up considerably. I’ll provide examples of both tube and solid state models. For tubes, my favorite is the Conrad-Johnson ART III. Here is an exotic dual mono zero feedback design using massively cascoded triode stages and pure Teflon coupling capacitors.

http://www.audiohalloffame.com/go/albums/userpics/Conrad-Johnson-ART2-Preamp.jpg


For amplification, I would choose a pair of VTL Siegfrieds. These are 800 watt tube amps using the finest components with massive power supplies that sum 1,600 joules! Why so much? There is a difficult to describe characteristic I’ve heard with the best amps in my experience. They possess a sense of authority and effortless delivery of violent dynamics. Play the opening movement of Carl Orff’s Carmina Burana and the crack of dynamic power will startle the crap out of you and raise the hairs on your arm . Just like that piece did the last time I heard it live while sitting in row “C”. For a point of reference, I would estimate your amps possess about 100 joules. Edit: I found a manual online which had a schematic. It uses four 39,000 uF caps running at 40 volts which results in 125 joules. Back to the Siegfried, all twenty four outputs are computed monitored for optimum bias and if any fault is detected, that device is shut down and the user notified. These tube devices are not like your Father’s Buick . The result is incredible clarity and an uncanny ability to create a deep and wide soundstage. You commented that older gear didn’t benefit from aftermarket power cords, so why should newer stuff if it is better. It is for the very reason that they are of such high resolution that they can show you the difference. The system I heard using Siegfrieds used Nordost Odin and Valhalla cabling.

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/siegfrieds.jpg

Over the past couple of decades, the solid state world has learned that simpler, lower feedback designs sound more musical than complex multi-gain stage designs using copious amounts of negative feedback. The old way of doing things was always the easy way to get good specs on paper. The problem was they never sounded as good. While I have not auditioned the Ayre KX-R, it is one of the most innovative designs. Like the ART III, it is a dual mono zero feedback design. What is unique about the KX-R, it how the volume control works. With virtually every other preamp, the signal is amplified to its fixed gain level and attenuated by the pot. Most of it is thrown away creating more noise in the process. With the KX-R, the knob controls varying the stage’s gain as necessary. Since noise is proportional to gain, it is also variable and is reduced with this approach. Very clever.

KX-R (http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2008/011008ayre/)

I confess that I have been a long term fan of Nelson Pass’ amplifier designs since his innovative Threshold 800A back in 1975. The culmination of his efforts is the current Pass Labs XA amplifier line. Actually, there are two flavors: one runs in single ended class A to full output while the other is a highly biased AB design that stays class A for the first ten percent of output or so, but with far more output power. Nelson uses a simple two stage design (not four or five) requiring close matching of exceptional output devices. His amps have always been designed to drive the difficult reactive loads of electrostats (which is why I have a Stasis myself) so he uses large numbers of output devices. My '81 Stasis uses 32 outputs for 100 watts / channel. The 600 watt X.600.5 uses forty-eight. As a point of reference, the MC2300 has 24. So what? Such obviates the need for protection circuitry which affects the sound quality. They are hand built to tier 1 quality and last for decades. My 28 year old Stasis has only required replacement of the electrolytics.

http://passlabs.com/images/x.5%20images/X600.5_lg.jpg

Mind, you these are simply two sets of choices among a large number of possible answers. Unlike days of yore when there were only a couple of good manufacturers, there are dozens today. I could easily have chosen equivalent quality and performance units from Audio Research, BAT, Krell, Mark Levinson, Burmester, Edge, MBL, Spectral among others. These preamps run about $20k and the amps about $40k.

There is an even greater range of world class speakers. One reason is that there tend to be enthusiasts grouped roughly into three camps: horns, direct radiators and planars. Horns offer the greatest efficiency and thus dynamic range. They can usually be driven by flea powered amps which can be of exceptional quality. Altec and Klipsch were the pioneers of this type although IMHO, I find their products to be highly colored. The Klipsch horns have the stereotypical "cupped hands around the mouth" coloration along with general midrange honkiness. Today, however, there are many modern designs which are far more neutral. One such company is Avant-Garde. Here is their trio:

Trios (http://www.avantgarde-acoustic.de/download/g2_files/g2_triopair.jpg)

Your speaker falls into the second category. Here there have been many advances in driver design, crossover design and componentry and cabinet design and structure. While there are exceptional examples from a dozen key manufacturers, here is one with which I have some experience. Look at the Sentinel here (http://www.avalonacoustics.com/). A friend of mine has one of their lesser models. These massive giants can produce incredibly precise images and are truly full range speakers.

I'm a fan of the third camp. I first heard Magneplanars back in '74 and was taken by the clarity and imaging that a large dipolar can produce. Soon after, I heard the Dayton-Wright electrostat. That did it for me. I find that it is the transducers that make the biggest difference in sound quality. You'll find those at both ends: the microphone and the speaker. The very best microphones used today by companies like Neumann and Shoeps are condenser designs. That is simply another word for electrostatic. They have a single element that reproduces the entire range. While there are hybrid designs from companies like Sanders Sound and Martin-Logan, I prefer the full range type. They are essentially giant condenser microphones offering the same advantages. While most speakers use a range of different size and sometimes different type drivers with differing radiation patterns, the full range electrostat uses a single driver for the entire range. Instead of a chorus of different voices singing the same song, there is one. Consequently, there is an unmatched coherency and inherent purity due to its low mass. The air around an electrostat has more mass than the driver itself. In the Bozak time, you could have chosen Quad 57s or KLH 9s. The primary limitations of electostats are limited output and bass. Many folks used double or even triple pairs of those classic stats. While they didn't have the output of the Concert Grand, they were more transparent. My choice is Sound Lab. Unlike the earlier models, my U-1s measure virtually flat to 25 hz in the room. This required extensive experimentation with placement and a forest of bass traps. They still, however, have limited output. My 300 watt amps can only drive them to 90 db peaks - which is fine for me. At the high end, there is a flavor designed for commercial use where multiples can be employed to address this. At the last three Rocky Mountain Audio Festivals in Denver, Ray Kimber demonstrated his multi-channel miking recordings using a massive array of Sound Lab Majestics. He used a triple array of 22 degree models (mine is a single 90 degree) for the front and for the back.Naturally, he used an exceptional EMM Labs digital front end, Pass Labs amplification and (duh) Kimber cabling.

http://gallery.audioreview.com/data/audio//500/kimber_stats.jpg

These highlighted speakers range in price from about $100,000 to $150,000 for a stereo pair.



I posted some photos yesterday of the last space and equipment I continue to use and were compared in those home audits (last 2002, purchase 2005).
That's a gorgeous, spacious room with such an open feeling with all the glass.


Too much in known brands were not the best components, boards or other internal methods of manufacturer those same brands had once been observed to use.
You would not find that to be the case with any of the products that Joe or I refer to.


Comb filtering seems to be what ADS (Willimington, MA ), were creating in their so called sound space synthesizer units. Amazing products and missed. Anyone follow them up?
I confess that I do not find any of the devices that generate artificial "surround effects" to be effective. I am, however, quite familiar with that company's earlier products having sold and owned them back in the 70s. Their three way designs were not of the type that generates comb filtering. Here's a pic of the LV-1020s:

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/lv1020.jpg

I will suggest that my vintage system has the same challenge. I use a double pair of Advents which involves stacking the second pair inverted atop the first. There is some comb filtering with the two tweeters. There is a way to minimize the effects and still get the many benefits of using multiple drivers by employing a line array. One spectacular system I've heard uses Scaena speakers which employ this concept. Scaena (http://www.scaena.com/scaena_homepage.htm) When you use enough drivers arrayed closely together, the effects are minimized.


I'm positive that things have progressed but also think that’s possible to do without introduction of noise or acceptance of noise from normal home wiring.
My direct experience with a wide range of systems, including multi-hundred thousand dollar ones suggests otherwise. The highest resolution systems can render fine differences not heard in lesser systems. We're not talking night and day, but meaningful to me. If all you do is play rock music at earbleeding levels, you would never hear the difference. It is most evident at the soft end of the dynamic scale.


Aren't you suggesting that to get modest improvement we must invest about five times this sum for the same space?
Diminishing returns is at play here as with many other technologies. There is a premium to access what can be done.


As important will be how long this gear will last if used daily? I did mention some names that produced gear as, ‘new and improved’ that died sooner than expected and that I concluded from my experience due to poor design for heat dissipation.
I share you concern for quality and reliability and have owned tier 1 quality gear since the early 80s. Like your Mac gear, my Threshold, Audio Research and VTL electronics can be maintained as long as I wish. Each has been exceptionally reliable outside of periodic tube replacement.

I have hungered for experiencing the ultimate audio experience since I was in high school. I had the fortuitout luck of meeting three audio reviewers while I worked in audio in college and had an incredible access to hearing stuff that otherwise I would not have. I continue to marvel at what is possible. On the other hand, I am satisfied by far less. This week I was out of town and had my trusty companion of iPhone with uncompressed music along with Shure E3 earbuds (throw the Apple earbuds away!). This portable system has incredible clarity and portability. After gong for a run this morning, I'll be out on the lawn tractor listening to music on it. While I have more invested in my main audio system than the Acura TL, actually I spend more time listening to the vintage system in the garage. I must have music around me all the time - and sometimes its really nice to hear an exceptional system. :)

rw

RGA
06-27-2009, 10:22 PM
You know E-Stat that was one terrific post. I have been reading your posts for a long time on several forums and you are without doubt one of the folks I most enjoy reading - even if I'm on the other side fo the debate from time to time.

Feanor
06-28-2009, 03:44 AM
You know E-Stat that was one terrific post. I have been reading your posts for a long time on several forums and you are without doubt one of the folks I most enjoy reading - even if I'm on the other side fo the debate from time to time.

A great read from E-Stat. My thanks for his work to compile this fascinating information and insight.

E-Stat
06-28-2009, 07:28 AM
A great read from E-Stat. My thanks for his work to compile this fascinating information and insight.
You're welcome guys even if it wasn't aimed at you. It was intended as a Rip Van Winkle primer to the state of the twenty first century high end. I marvel at the dual benefits of todays audio market vs. what it was when I got started in the 70s: truly good sounding gear can be purchased for far less AND the state of the art continues to march forward. If I could have had an iPod sound system when I was a kid, boy!

RGA - I thoroughly enjoy participating in informed debates where hearing different perspectives can be illuminating. Most of the time, it simply reflects differences in personal taste and priorities. There is no right or wrong. Vive la difference! What I find monotonous and boring is hearing speculative, yet insistent dial tone responses from those who don't know what they don't know.

rw

JoeE SP9
06-28-2009, 09:02 AM
Loved your post E-Stat.:thumbsup: It would seem that you have been hiding some of your literary skills. Maybe you missed your true calling. Then again that was informative, instructional and entertaining. Maybe you should teach. :smile5:

drmorgan
06-28-2009, 11:57 PM
You're welcome guys even if it wasn't aimed at you. It was intended as a Rip Van Winkle primer to the state of the twenty first century high end. I marvel at the dual benefits of todays audio market vs. what it was when I got started in the 70s: truly good sounding gear can be purchased for far less AND the state of the art continues to march forward. If I could have had an iPod sound system when I was a kid, boy!

RGA - I thoroughly enjoy participating in informed debates where hearing different perspectives can be illuminating. Most of the time, it simply reflects differences in personal taste and priorities. There is no right or wrong. Vive la difference! What I find monotonous and boring is hearing speculative, yet insistent dial tone responses from those who don't know what they don't know.

rw

Thanks once more for your time and attention as too the references within your post. I’d heard some items along the way. Not in homes as yet. I know few who can justify the costs of those concepts. The guys who can afford six figure systems are in paper shuffling.

Given the many new ways we can enjoy good music, unavailable in ‘the stone age' it is both diminishing returns and for me monster reliability factors.

Strange about the Apple Ear Buds, but makes a great secondary market!

Minor mention: I’ve been using is the C34v with a 7082 tuner. I substituted the C28 as the newest Mc amp for the office momentarily took up smoking when barely beyond toddler-hood. The 34 has a suitable amp to drive the office speakers.

Never considered myself a Mc fan. I had a fairly mixed bunch when the sound engineers in Atlanta and in Northern California did some work and they had no Macs on the repair shelf. When I got clipping I called Rudy and he said to get a 2300 and it worked. I'd had the old tuner since the late 60's so getting a C22, then 26, 28, 32 were logical as I was passing on to the boys. A dealer recently quoted me 20k to replace the C34V and the 2300’s with speaker and amp control. A system would come in over 40k. I make and distribute stuff with similar components and did not see the value from my look under the hoods. I nearly had a stroke when I took the inventory of the 7082. I expected reductions not increases.

I was told pricing is due to profit allocation to remain competitive or gain market in the hot, hot home theatre end.

One of my friends acquired a set up based on the demo at the 2007 CES. After it was in home for a few weeks he got his old gear back from his son claiming the new sound 'tired' him unlike what he compared to old loafers.

There are many claims and few objective ways to compare beyond the old reliable test record and CD plus music we like. The drivers still have to convey the experience we love. We'll frustrate the most perfect engineering for what we ‘feel’ moves us. For me it was pretending I'm conducting a great symphony or being in a comfortable jazz club. If I can have this subjective feeling and also reliable gear I'm warm and fuzzy like some think was Bozak's sound. A couple drivers set ups have 'hi-def' but put me somewhere overhead the orchestra or on one side or the other. On Jazz it was far too sharp, like I find most CD to LP.

E-Stat
06-29-2009, 06:40 AM
Not in homes as yet. I know few who can justify the costs of those concepts.
Sure they are. The market is larger than you might think.


...it is both diminishing returns and for me monster reliability factors.
I respectfully disagree. While I was highlighting the edge of the art, one can get great sounding gear for far less than back in the 70s. A $1000 pair of monitor speakers will throw a far clearer and better defined image than the Concert Grands. "Monster reliability factors"? What do you mean by that?


Strange about the Apple Ear Buds, but makes a great secondary market!
I don't find the search for better fidelity strange at all. You get what you pay for with four dollar earbuds. Actually, the "secondary market" was created by professional musicians using IEMs (in ear monitors). Have you noticed the absence of floor level angled up performer-facing monitors on stages? They're all using IEMs. Quite a number of companies including Shure, Westone, Entymotic, AKG, Ultimate Ear, Sennheiser (even Bose and Klipsch) make such products. The best units run about $500. OTOH, you can get great sound for considerably less. My E3s ran about $150 on E-Bay. Shure was upgrading the line recently and blew them out for $80 so I bought a second pair.


When I got clipping I called Rudy and he said to get a 2300 and it worked.
Back in '71, that was about the only game in town. John Curl used eighty-nine of those in designing the "Wall of Sound" for The Grateful Dead back in '73. Today, you can buy any number of Class H pro amp with that kind of power for $500. Speaking of John Curl, his current 400 watt JC-1 monoblocks can be had for about $9000 a pair. They are in a different sonic league altogether than the 2300s.



There are many claims and few objective ways to compare beyond the old reliable test record and CD plus music we like.
I've always used the sound of live unamplified music as my guide. I get a regular dose from wifey playing the baby grand in the living room.



A couple drivers set ups have 'hi-def' but put me somewhere overhead the orchestra or on one side or the other. On Jazz it was far too sharp, like I find most CD to LP.
As a point of reference, what were these setups?

rw

drmorgan
07-25-2009, 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmorgan
Not in homes as yet. I know few who can justify the costs of those concepts.
Sure they are. The market is larger than you might think.

I don’t know what region you’re in, but we had over ten outfits within a hours drive ten years ago. One today serves the 800k population. If you were interested in the 5/1 or home theatre systems four of those former outfits now have those items as too Best Buy. (That’s where I learned that what’s under the lids are similar in quality and components for the most part, a method (ignore the claims and consider how improbable it is to require all those special cables for some and not all, when one factory puts it out for 10 brands and most of these have similar or same energy consumption and specs. we can actually hear.)

One remaining independent has twice downsized and they’re on thin ice and selling downscale now. The decline commenced with conversion to those selling auto and TV related. The market today is directed to sound delivery concepts that duplicate (effectively) a type of sound great for action movies and yet so distorted as to cause a physical response. Think pressure or at least becoming tired. For all I know, this game is masking distortion. (keep in mind that I don’t hear so well from 14k up). Clearly I can see the result with dogs. They really are sensitive to distortion and I solved some issues with turntable noises and FM modulation thanks to them.

I tried to pull up the audio figures and they lump a lot together, but what was 14b is now 7b. Looking at a couple of 10k filings suggests failure and consolidations will continue. I see Klipsch cut the components free.

I found the new stuff (we tried a 5-1 in the family room for almost a year) not quite as good as high quality multi-media speakers attached to my computer to be less tiring. These concepts never are able to recreate a concert experience, but they’re great for an action movie!

You can go two-three hours south and find ten dealers who still offer audiophile quality. Ten for 6 million is fine, but here too they have the same symptoms mentioned, below.

I ran into one fellow who did away with 5-1 and inserted an old Bozak 302a with a nice result for his theatre. A pair of restored bi-amp’d Grands sit across the way for real music!
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmorgan
...it is both diminishing returns and for me monster reliability factors.
I respectfully disagree. While I was highlighting the edge of the art, one can get great sounding gear for far less than back in the 70s. A $1000 pair of monitor speakers will throw a far clearer and better defined image than the Concert Grands. "Monster reliability factors"? What do you mean by that?

The concert experience has always been fresh in mind (usually without a delay of a week between actual visits to listen to live), and while it is often true that this or that audit has presented a part of the music clearly, in sort of a picture window, the overall feeling and experience were not what I’ve ‘felt’ at a concert. You mentioned piano and this has been a good example in my A/B audits. The piano comes through at the expense of the rest of the orchestra. This was true for others, so several ears said no. The tests were A/B enabled and that’s about as valid as it gets. Because the machines were in a library off the LR I could do blind tests as well and no one preferred the new and improved. Years ago when I first got the Bozaks I was comparing some Paragon’s and others. I’d later be able to fool the Paragon owners into a blind test with lowly 302a’s I had just built from kits and we’d screened off the speakers so they could not tell. We’re easy to fool unless in side by side tests. http://www.thevintageknob.org/AJW/PARAGON/PARAGON.html

By the way, the Paragon’s were not only awesome sounding, but stunning in design. Sadly unlike Rudy’s creations they would require somewhat frequent maintenance over the years, like most of the McIntosh and Klipsch speakers.

Reliability: Being in a related business made me a ‘go to guy’ for glitched products or related issues. Visiting the outlets in our area for over thirty-three years it was obvious that problems with name hi end brands had become so bad that shelves were full and most places had units stacked outside the service area. (new sales dollars have declined in part due to the internet and computers, in addition to i-pods with good ear buds and the 5-1 stuff). The industry is still in decline as I write this.
I’ve benefited from the we can’t fix, have to ship game. I purchased one component because the owner could not wait for it, at a drastic discount. They charge $75-$100 to just say (1-3 weeks later), that they must send it off for repair in 90% of cases. One dealer went under while I awaited a return of a name brand component. It was actually fixed and returned only to lose it as I became an unsecured creditor while GE Capital or CIT Financial carted all the goods away. The maker is not liable after shipped.
Speaking with service managers quietly indicated they’re overwhelmed and spend more time getting the return authorizations and then tracking shipments than they used to spend making repairs as before. In my own case I had cause to find out why two Mc Amps had taken up smoking. It was going to take three weeks to have it evaluated because of their backlog unless I wished to ship to their service facility. One was developing a film (behind the glass of the meter area). I’d bumped a switch and needed to replace that as it was so cheaply made it lacked a physical stop of any consequence, I opened the unit to discover they’d used weather stripping to block light and it was decaying and out-gassing like a cheap car vinyl dashboard. I discovered lower quality throughout compared to versions just five years earlier. In the smoker, the Inside lamp holders were made from materials that had lost flexibility and broke as you pull them to change bulbs. Service managers who have been at this a while complain about quality. Engineering is hit and miss and some of those many thousand amplifiers contained the same internal complement of parts as a sibling firms single thousand dollar offerings. With some stages ‘out’ engineered (making them lighter to ship from China), and truly miserable heat dissipation, I don’t see how some of these outfits retain a following.

I find that posters here who have hunted down quality gear from what I see as the golden age (70-90), are more than satisfied and don’t have to deal with special anything and have fully satisfying sound reproduction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmorgan
Strange about the Apple Ear Buds, but makes a great secondary market!
I don't find the search for better fidelity strange at all. You get what you pay for with four dollar earbuds. Actually, the "secondary market" was created by professional musicians using IEMs (in ear monitors). Have you noticed the absence of floor level angled up performer-facing monitors on stages? They're all using IEMs. Quite a number of companies including Shure, Westone, Entymotic, AKG, Ultimate Ear, Sennheiser (even Bose and Klipsch) make such products. The best units run about $500. OTOH, you can get great sound for considerably less. My E3s ran about $150 on E-Bay. Shure was upgrading the line recently and blew them out for $80 so I bought a second pair.

My ‘Strange’ comment refered to the fact Apple normally provide a highest level of user hardware, but obviously the ear buds have been noted (as too speakers in portables till recently) as crap. Jobs was ill and did not review?

Quote:
Originally Posted by drmorgan
When I got clipping I called Rudy and he said to get a 2300 and it worked.
Back in '71, that was about the only game in town. John Curl used eighty-nine of those in designing the "Wall of Sound" for The Grateful Dead back in '73. Today, you can buy any number of Class H pro amp with that kind of power for $500. Speaking of John Curl, his current 400 watt JC-1 monoblocks can be had for about $9000 a pair. They are in a different sonic league altogether than the 2300s.

Beyond source material I think hardware should be neutral. How much room madam will permit and of what style tells us if we can share the living room or be relegated to a den or basement. I’ve tucked source gear away from the living room to avoid a host of issues. That came in handy doing the blind tests and the A/B listening experience for others.

I’ve used sound pressure instruments and test records to validate and verify balance, phase, etc. I’ve tried the new and improved using the same starting points from one to seven days. The results failed to convince me to change any component for a long time. I eventually bought a new preamp… to be able to tweak more with some source material and ironic, to more or less mimic some of the characteristics with new concepts. This validated for me the sins of coloration which this gear should lack (if I can introduce the variation by in effect distortion, then the gear is not up to snuff in spite of other opinions).

Quote:
Originally Posted by drmorgan
There are many claims and few objective ways to compare beyond the old reliable test record and CD plus music we like.
I've always used the sound of live unamplified music as my guide. I get a regular dose from wifey playing the baby grand in the living room.

The common trap that you can fall into when auditing is to allow the ability of the new gear to seemingly deliver while in fact is actually lost some and enabled the easy which makes it seem superior. That’s why we need blind testing and side by side references. If you think that Bozaks were lesser, then you may have audited the early models, some connections were loose or caps were blown. From 1973-1976 they did not need more. Yes, some of the exotics I audited did as well and the costs were beyond crazy and one set looks like stacked engines off the enterprise, only in poor taste and color. We already went through the ‘plastic’ stage when the kids were young, so they’d never ‘fit.’ The objective was to have the music, not show folks you bought some huge silly looking speakers. If you also need special cables and cords it means that they lack proper engineering. You’re hearing artifacts that are due to harmonics and feedback they are generating we used to call IMD and out of the tonal ranges. In their quest to outdo each other in the response game they’ve introduced inaudible energy that creates side effects. Your cables are probably needed only because of unintended consequences or a lack of proper shielding and grounding somewhere in their circuits. Most probably their attempts to reinvent or over range frequency responses… or just their having such poor shielding as to introduce some normal A/C noise and leave it up to the consumer to kill the error with real or placebo fixes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drmorgan
A couple drivers set ups have 'hi-def' but put me somewhere overhead the orchestra or on one side or the other. On Jazz it was far too sharp, like I find most CD to LP.
As a point of reference, what were these setups?

Just because you eventually adopt some compatible and reliable hardware models does not make you a fan. With four areas to deliver sound into I’ve deployed Harmon-Kardon, Phase-Linear, Kenwood, Marantz, Ampzilla, Sherwood, SAE, Carver and Crown (matching amps and preamps).

Mc’s tuners pull in fine and resolve multi-path better than some and Mc had the last dealer standing! Most of the brands were traded in, handed off and a few died or clipped as size of space with our moves allowed more power. Some claims of distortion free power were oft tested and failed. My most recently purchased Mc gear met a dumpster or Craigs list. IMO the new designs lower shipping expense and improve the bottom lines. That is not to say that China can’t produce good gear. I’m not so sure about Mexico though. Many outfits blow the money on things like glass cutters, regional shows and ads. Given some of the glowing reviews and the amount of expense they incur to create a room (small at that) in the regional shows I have to conclude they’re little GM’s or ‘artists’ these days. Dealers are happy to sell what needs special cable and cords. They’re also happy to make piano profit margins as the 5/1 market is very competitive and they willingly became co-conspirators.

These so called breakthroughs are safe for marketing to revel in because many don’t realize over time how little what they say matters.
http://phineasgage.wordpress.com/2007/10/13/audiophiles-and-the-limitations-of-human-hearing/

But we can feel and see stuff, so the only objective means to compare is side by side and with the same source components, a sound level meter and material that others know and like. Once in your favorite seat and with the A/B option something like a test has meaning (a dog not deaf helps too and our wives can usually hear better).

I think it is fair to say that most of us buy and then rationalize. For me it was the people at the other end of the transaction. I trusted an accredited engineer and maker of loudspeakers and a local sound engineer mostly because their work had stood the test of time. I’ve been at many installations and had products that were not troublesome. Additionally friends in music, music reproduction and a couple of dealers helped to permit a bit more objectivity. I always had a love for the Harmon-Kardon because I built their kits first. For me to compare this outfit today with what was won’t work because I’ve run into too much crap from the firm over the years. Getting old provides a bit of wisdom with a lot cynicism.

Dealers are rarely able to do justice to the gear in their showrooms as more have downsized and their ‘play’ these days is toward the opposite of stereo. Yes the two channel market is shrinking.

The Wire issue is humorously and factually dealt with below: http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/
Or: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/calling-bull****/james-randi-offers-1-million-if-audiophiles-can-prove-7250-speaker-cables-are-better-305549.php

Regional shows produce (for consumers), awesome reviews (some of the best ad copy I’ve ever read), when aided by professional tweaking and small room expertise it seems valid. Still even the ones that look like the Enterprise engines stacked and in vivid color were poorly presented two of three times! This based on blogs, and visitor comments, not the magazine reviews, which are ‘breathless’ and apparently paid for by the word. From my standpoint the ‘new and improved’ methods are renamed errors and omissions from the ‘70’s. Some of these concepts color the sound in ways that make it seem we hear more, but ultimately they fail to pass objective tests and in my case A/B same room reviews.

I think components should not detract or add (other than the EQ) coloration. For me the artist and composers are important. Bozak’s came in boxes that don’t make a statement. I roared over the flying black sea snail I saw recently. One very expensive pair mimic 17th. Century curio cabinets, another street clocks or bases for metronomes. Glowing lights can be found in Vegas. I don’t watch lights as I listen. Apparently this is a means to hypnotize the buyer or calm the owner?

The setups I’ve audited side by side were within the $8-48k price range (I already said I won’t name what I did not own). Six sounded very interesting in showrooms or I’d not have spent time (semi-retired in ’02). Two systems were demos made available and not heard first in the dealership. One early set had interesting hand made amp and preamps. Klipsch acquired but set them adrift this year.

After over six decades of near weekly concerts of classical, jazz or pop I expect to be made ‘comfortable’ with the delivery more so in home than when in a fixed seat. I’d summarize many as concentrated, the worst two channel sound typical of a 5-1 system. Such reproduction is very affective for a 1-2 hour stint. The real test is how they deliver while reading, listening or just broadcasting in home after many hours on a rainy day. Side by side encouraged me to tweak the EQ or add the computerized reverb that an ADS 10 System (called ‘Sound Space”) introduced. That duplicates the sound I found not ‘inviting.’ To me that implied that these systems are valid for some vocal artists, individual instruments (piano too) and they were fair for choir and some organ depending on driver ability (here the Grands or for small rooms, Symphony’s can’t be equaled for accuracy). In that I rarely listen to vocal other than FM my interest was never inspired. More importantly, in less than 16 listening hours I was tired of most. I don’t know how to quantify or qualify a tired feeling, but as you mentioned Apple OEM Ear Buds Vs nearly anything aftermarket seems spot on. From my view the new ideas are but a means to shape our opinions as they did when they ushered in solid state or brought tubes back. http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mods/commentary/cultofmac/2006/05/70901

A neighbor bought a set that has an amp that needs 200 watts to provide 18 outbound to its efficient speakers and needs special cables and power conditioning. Already had to send off for needed repairs twice and no dealers in the area yet (they’re still optimistic). The acclaim from the reviewers is second coming quality. One claims to have purchased after writing a glowing review. He got Black Piano Lacquer! I recently auditioned something from Canada with an Italian name, but they were for a small room and lacked the ability to fire those cannons (what category is stuttering in now?) on the 1812 recording. The old Grands even out did them on the damn bells.. On Wellington’s Victory nothing I audited could compare (LP).

It was much like a Bose ‘Premium’ car system I’d not noticed before delivery. In the old days I’d just have the Becker pulled and put in Panasonic or Sony till trade time. Can’t do that now as.. the junk is integrated with CD and phone. I was reading a 10K filing for Harmon Industries the other day and noted how much they’re on the hook to the old Chrysler and presumed that’s how Bose got into my S.L.. Pay to play, just like getting great reviews maybe? Now Harmon is in Benz. Cars do not make for good systems and only by distortion can you produce noise.

One Service Mgr. directed me to a site that rates the ‘white hats’ and the ‘black hats’ presently in high end audio: http://www.biline.ca/critic2.htm

At some point the quest ends, if for no other reason than our hearing declines. I consider all the posts here to be serious and not in league with a specific maker. Because I don’t agree does not mean I’m right and they’re wrong. It means that’s my take. I presume they also have read a host of articles on Wikipedia and elsewhere, perhaps what Roger Russell had to say. I’m comfortable with both the sound and reliability. When I see a knock off of a Sony TTS3000-PAU Arm with the same compensation device selling for the price of a Prius I am reminded of what the finance boys did with their packaging and extolling of those CDI’s, CDO’s and CDS’s.

No amplifier is worth $9k, ever. Surely even less when they’ve made it vulnerable to common power glitches or introduced aftifacts that need quelling. Here is an excellent article (peer reviewed) on the topic:
http://www.biline.ca/critic4.htm

I’ll continue to endure the near antiques. In our region some claim that certain mushrooms or Mendocino Gold with some brownies or a Merlot … and Bose sounds does it for them. Mr. George Hull has some advice on this and he too was out of Binghamptom, N.Y.. http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

JoeE SP9
07-26-2009, 08:46 AM
audit: Yes, it does have its roots in the Latin auditus "to hear" but---------


au⋅dit

 <embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf" id="speaker" quality="high" loop="false" menu="false" salign="t" flashvars="soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionar y%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FA08%2FA0804400.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.c om%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=47b9562e&u=audio" wmode="transparent" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;" align="texttop" height="15" width="17"> [aw-dit] http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://forums.audioreview.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA (http://forums.audioreview.com/)–noun<table class="luna-Ent" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: block; width: 455px;"><tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><tr style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><td class="dnindex" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(123, 123, 123); line-height: 1.25em; font-weight: bold; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;" width="35">1.</td><td style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;">an official examination and verification of accounts and records, esp. of financial accounts.</td></tr></tbody></table><table class="luna-Ent" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: block; width: 455px;"><tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><tr style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><td class="dnindex" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(123, 123, 123); line-height: 1.25em; font-weight: bold; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;" width="35">2.</td><td style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;">a report or statement reflecting an audit; a final statement of account.</td></tr></tbody></table><table class="luna-Ent" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: block; width: 455px;"><tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><tr style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><td class="dnindex" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(123, 123, 123); line-height: 1.25em; font-weight: bold; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;" width="35">3.</td><td style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;">the inspection or examination of a building or other facility to evaluate or improve its appropriateness, safety, efficiency, or the like: An energy audit can suggest ways to reduce home fuel bills.</td></tr></tbody></table><table class="luna-Ent" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: block; width: 455px;"><tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><tr style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><td class="dnindex" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(123, 123, 123); line-height: 1.25em; font-weight: bold; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;" width="35">4.</td><td style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;">Archaic. a judicial hearing.</td></tr></tbody></table><table class="luna-Ent" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: block; width: 455px;"><tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><tr style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><td class="dnindex" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(123, 123, 123); line-height: 1.25em; font-weight: bold; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;" width="35">5.</td><td style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;">Obsolete. an audience.</td></tr></tbody></table>
–verb (used with object)<table class="luna-Ent" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: block; width: 455px;"><tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><tr style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><td class="dnindex" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(123, 123, 123); line-height: 1.25em; font-weight: bold; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;" width="35">6.</td><td style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;">to make an audit of; examine (accounts, records, etc.) for purposes of verification: The accountants audited the company's books at the end of the fiscal year.</td></tr></tbody></table><table class="luna-Ent" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: block; width: 455px;"><tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><tr style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><td class="dnindex" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(123, 123, 123); line-height: 1.25em; font-weight: bold; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;" width="35">7.</td><td style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;">to attend (classes, lectures, etc.) as an auditor.</td></tr></tbody></table><table class="luna-Ent" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: block; width: 455px;"><tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><tr style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><td class="dnindex" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(123, 123, 123); line-height: 1.25em; font-weight: bold; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;" width="35">8.</td><td style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;">to make an audit of (a building or other facility) to evaluate or improve its safety, efficiency, or the like.</td></tr></tbody></table>
–verb (used without object)<table class="luna-Ent" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: block; width: 455px;"><tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><tr style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><td class="dnindex" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(123, 123, 123); line-height: 1.25em; font-weight: bold; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;" width="35">9.</td><td style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;">to examine and verify an account or accounts by reference to vouchers.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Origin:
1400–50; late ME audite < L audītus the sense or act of hearing, equiv. to audī(re) to hear + -tus suffix of v. actionhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png

Related forms:
au⋅dit⋅a⋅ble, adjective








<table style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><tr style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;"><td style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;">au·dit<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf" id="speaker" quality="high" loop="false" menu="false" salign="t" flashvars="soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionar y%2Faudio%2Fahd4%2FA%2FA0517900.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.c om%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=47b9562e&u=audio" wmode="transparent" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;" align="texttop" height="15" width="17"> (ô'dĭt) http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://forums.audioreview.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n.
An examination of records or financial accounts to check their accuracy.
An adjustment or correction of accounts.
An examined and verified account.v. au·dit·ed, au·dit·ing, au·dits

v. tr.

To examine, verify, or correct the financial accounts of:Independent accountants audit the company annually. The IRS audits questionable income tax returns.
To attend (a course) without requesting or receiving academic credit.v. intr.
To examine financial accounts.

[Middle English (influenced by <tt style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;">auditor</tt>, auditor), from Latin <tt style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;">audītus</tt>,a hearing, from past participle of <tt style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;">audīre</tt>, to hear; see <tt style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.25em;">au-</tt> in Indo-European roots.]
au'dit·a·ble adj.</td></tr></tbody></table>


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source (http://forums.audioreview.com/cite.html?qh=audit&ia=ahd4)

audit

The examination by an outside party of the accounts of an individual or corporation (http://forums.audioreview.com/browse/corporation).



The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy,

E-Stat
07-26-2009, 09:02 AM
I don’t know what region you’re in, but we had over ten outfits within a hours drive ten years ago. One today serves the 800k population.
I'm looking at it from the other end - the number of successful manufacturers who continue to produce product. This they do not do strictly out of altruism. There are dozens of audio manufacturers who produce very high performance gear.


I found the new stuff (we tried a 5-1 in the family room for almost a year) not quite as good as high quality multi-media speakers attached to my computer to be less tiring. These concepts never are able to recreate a concert experience, but they’re great for an action movie!
Don't blame the multichannel format for your choosing less than stellar gear. I've heard an exceptional MC system using Magneplanar speakers, Nola subwoofers, Conrad-Johnson, Edge and EMM Labs electronics. A "computer system" this was not. :)


The piano comes through at the expense of the rest of the orchestra. This was true for others, so several ears said no. The tests were A/B enabled and that’s about as valid as it gets. Because the machines were in a library off the LR I could do blind tests as well and no one preferred the new and improved.
I'm not following you here. What speakers are you referring to that you preferred to the Grands?


Years ago when I first got the Bozaks I was comparing some Paragon’s and others.
Like forty years ago, right?


...they would require somewhat frequent maintenance over the years, like most of the McIntosh and Klipsch speakers.
What "frequent maintenance" did these speakers require? I have thirty year old Advents that have required the refoaming of the woofers ($40 for four) and replacement of the electrolytics in the crossovers ($20). I had Acoustats for twenty five years and needed only to replace some wire that had oxidized and periodically heat-treated the panels with a hair dryer.


it was obvious that problems with name hi end brands had become so bad that shelves were full and most places had units stacked outside the service area.
Which names? We're not talking about the same companies.


I find that posters here who have hunted down quality gear from what I see as the golden age (70-90), are more than satisfied and don’t have to deal with special anything and have fully satisfying sound reproduction.
Many of my components are from the 90s, but the companies who produced them still make gear using the highest quality componentry.


My ‘Strange’ comment refered to the fact Apple normally provide a highest level of user hardware, but obviously the ear buds have been noted (as too speakers in portables till recently) as crap. Jobs was ill and did not review?
The commercial success of those units has required "affordable" pricing. Only those who really want exceptional results purchase exceptional earbuds.


I’ve tried the new and improved using the same starting points from one to seven days. The results failed to convince me to change any component for a long time. I eventually bought a new preamp… to be able to tweak more with some source material and ironic, to more or less mimic some of the characteristics with new concepts. This validated for me the sins of coloration which this gear should lack (if I can introduce the variation by in effect distortion, then the gear is not up to snuff in spite of other opinions).
Again, to what are you comparing? You can find any number of poor choices. I certainly don't suggest it is your fault, but you are simply not aware of dozens of audio companies who produce significantly better performing gear. It is out there.


The common trap that you can fall into when auditing is to allow the ability of the new gear to seemingly deliver while in fact is actually lost some and enabled the easy which makes it seem superior.
Perhaps you might rephrase that sentence because it doesn't make sense.


If you also need special cables and cords it means that they lack proper engineering.
You continue to not understand that which lies outside your frame of reference with this speculation.


You’re hearing artifacts that are due to harmonics and feedback they are generating we used to call IMD and out of the tonal ranges. In their quest to outdo each other in the response game they’ve introduced inaudible energy that creates side effects.
That's the problem with speculation. You have it bass ackwards. Power supply noise manifests itself as added distortion and brightness. The best systems in my experience lack the typical edge and sorts of artifacts to which you refer. Most people find them to sound "dull" because they do not possess that quality.


Your cables are probably needed only because of unintended consequences or a lack of proper shielding and grounding somewhere in their circuits.
Our modern RFI borne environment is a different animal than your world of fifty years ago.


Just because you eventually adopt some compatible and reliable hardware models does not make you a fan. With four areas to deliver sound into I’ve deployed Harmon-Kardon, Phase-Linear, Kenwood, Marantz, Ampzilla, Sherwood, SAE, Carver and Crown (matching amps and preamps).
Thanks. With the exception of Ampzilla which is an obsolete product that went out of production thirty years ago, none of the other brands represent the level of performance to which I refer. Why on earth do you consider Sherwood, Kenwood or Crown as high end? I've owned Kenwood and Crown before, but am able to view them objectively.


My most recently purchased Mc gear met a dumpster or Craigs list. IMO the new designs lower shipping expense and improve the bottom lines.
Since I've never been a Mac fan, I'll take your word for it. I've never been impressed by the light show.



Once in your favorite seat and with the A/B option something like a test has meaning (a dog not deaf helps too and our wives can usually hear better).
We certainly agree there. Just don't compare your stuff to mid-fi junk and call that the state-of-the art!


I always had a love for the Harmon-Kardon because I built their kits first. For me to compare this outfit today with what was won’t work because I’ve run into too much crap from the firm over the years.
H-K kits? That must have been from the Eisenhower administration. They certainly weren't making kits when I bought a Citation 11 preamp in '74. :)


The Wire issue is humorously and factually dealt with below:
The "fact" is that you and others attempt to extrapolate the results of completely unspecified tests to the entire universe of all products. First of all, Monster cable today is NOT high performance like Nordost, Kimber, Harmonic Technology, MIT, and a host of others. It is the mid-fi stuff found in Best Buy. What was the system compared? Using what as program material? Parlor tricks are worthless to convey useful information. They do identify, however, those who lack the ability to apply critical thinking.


The setups I’ve audited side by side were within the $8-48k price range (I already said I won’t name what I did not own).
I suspect those components fall into the same category as Kenwood and Crown. There's no shortage of mediocre gear available.



Here is an excellent article (peer reviewed) on the topic:
Peer reviewed? That's rich. Peter Aczel is an unethical dork who got caught promoting his own speakers and went out of business. Only recently has he revived his magazine and "found religion" by changing his entire outlook on audio gear. Tom Noussaine? Right! You really need to do some background research first.

Reading your commentary reminds me of the movie "Blast From the Past". You really should rent it sometime. I think you'll relate. :)

rw

Feanor
07-26-2009, 12:35 PM
audit: Yes, it does have its roots in the Latin auditus "to hear" but---------


...





Joe, very learned, but in fact I have seen the "audit" used as a verb many times meaning to listen to audio equipment, especially, but not exclusively meaning to listen critically for the purpose of evaluation. Dictionary definitions not withstanding it is a perfectly valid usage of the word.

JoeE SP9
07-26-2009, 06:53 PM
Seeing drmorgan using it this way is the first time I've heard it used to mean listening to music. I suppose it's just another instance of misuse of the language. :frown2:
It's not quite as bad as "I couldn't care less" being bastardized to "I could care less" which means exactly the opposite.:out:
Every time I see it used "incorrectly" I have visions of an accountant.
It's just another instance of the "dumbing" down of America!:cryin:
What does an accountant do when he's constipated?
Takes a pencil and works it out.:rolleyes5:

Feanor
07-27-2009, 02:10 AM
Seeing drmorgan using it this way is the first time I've heard it used to mean listening to music. I suppose it's just another instance of misuse of the language. :frown2:
It's not quite as bad as "I couldn't care less" being bastardized to "I could care less" which means exactly the opposite.:out:
Every time I see it used "incorrectly" I have visions of an accountant.
It's just another instance of the "dumbing" down of America!:cryin:
What does an accountant do when he's constipated?
Takes a pencil and works it out.:rolleyes5:

The topic of misuse of language is an interesting one. Yes, in the context of "I went to the concert hall to audit the music", use of the word is bit bizarre and unnecessary. However it is perfectly consistent with the essential meaning of the word. Creative writers do that sort of thing all time -- not that saying the Doc is a creative writer.

drmorgan
07-27-2009, 11:02 PM
Seeing drmorgan using it this way is the first time I've heard it used to mean listening to music. I suppose it's just another instance of misuse of the language. :frown2:
It's not quite as bad as "I couldn't care less" being bastardized to "I could care less" which means exactly the opposite.:out:
Every time I see it used "incorrectly" I have visions of an accountant.
It's just another instance of the "dumbing" down of America!:cryin:
What does an accountant do when he's constipated?
Takes a pencil and works it out.:rolleyes5:

Damn shame, your word search was Internet… In my printed A.H.D., ‘auditor, a, one who listens and, b, one who audits.. Try Webster’s International (also hard cover): audit, hearing, sound, auditory… (yes both also have the accountant stuff, but I was describing a methodical process where one takes the dealers, makers or vendors, pre-amplifier, amplifier and speakers and sets them up side by side, to make an objective comparison to an existing system.

As I stated, I visited the site to learn and contribute. All this ‘stuff’ about noise was strange and some of the brands listed were known, but I had not noticed ‘special needs.’ When the ‘noise’ stuff was added, I posted info used and some links. As my firm makes and distribute sensitive audio and visual, most computer related, for security applications I could not fathom why??? I would surmise because some brands or models within them took a short cut. You can do many things in electronics that will be hell for consumers. I suppose it is let the buyer deal with it (from checking I see that a new vendor crops up to solve those issues). If you are willing to pay for what they left out or engineered around. … the free market permits it so long as they don’t generate noise to certain other devices by regulations established by the FCC.

Yes, we must use shielded cable on the output of our devices for data and audio, video to avoid sending interference to other devices. I can conjecture about why you need for just audio speakers as we do not, but clearly I’d be wasting my time and you’d rather spend it trying to find a reason to reject reality. I have the feeling that you’re someone I’ve fired at some point. If true, I’m sure it was just to offer you a new, better opportunity.

drmorgan
07-27-2009, 11:04 PM
I'm looking at it from the other end - the number of successful manufacturers who continue to produce product. This they do not do strictly out of altruism. There are dozens of audio manufacturers who produce very high performance gear.


Don't blame the multichannel format for your choosing less than stellar gear. I've heard an exceptional MC system using Magneplanar speakers, Nola subwoofers, Conrad-Johnson, Edge and EMM Labs electronics. A "computer system" this was not. :)


I'm not following you here. What speakers are you referring to that you preferred to the Grands?


Like forty years ago, right?


What "frequent maintenance" did these speakers require? I have thirty year old Advents that have required the refoaming of the woofers ($40 for four) and replacement of the electrolytics in the crossovers ($20). I had Acoustats for twenty five years and needed only to replace some wire that had oxidized and periodically heat-treated the panels with a hair dryer.


Which names? We're not talking about the same companies.


Many of my components are from the 90s, but the companies who produced them still make gear using the highest quality componentry.


The commercial success of those units has required "affordable" pricing. Only those who really want exceptional results purchase exceptional earbuds.


Again, to what are you comparing? You can find any number of poor choices. I certainly don't suggest it is your fault, but you are simply not aware of dozens of audio companies who produce significantly better performing gear. It is out there.


Perhaps you might rephrase that sentence because it doesn't make sense.


You continue to not understand that which lies outside your frame of reference with this speculation.


That's the problem with speculation. You have it bass ackwards. Power supply noise manifests itself as added distortion and brightness. The best systems in my experience lack the typical edge and sorts of artifacts to which you refer. Most people find them to sound "dull" because they do not possess that quality.


Our modern RFI borne environment is a different animal than your world of fifty years ago.


Thanks. With the exception of Ampzilla which is an obsolete product that went out of production thirty years ago, none of the other brands represent the level of performance to which I refer. Why on earth do you consider Sherwood, Kenwood or Crown as high end? I've owned Kenwood and Crown before, but am able to view them objectively.


Since I've never been a Mac fan, I'll take your word for it. I've never been impressed by the light show.



We certainly agree there. Just don't compare your stuff to mid-fi junk and call that the state-of-the art!


H-K kits? That must have been from the Eisenhower administration. They certainly weren't making kits when I bought a Citation 11 preamp in '74. :)


The "fact" is that you and others attempt to extrapolate the results of completely unspecified tests to the entire universe of all products. First of all, Monster cable today is NOT high performance like Nordost, Kimber, Harmonic Technology, MIT, and a host of others. It is the mid-fi stuff found in Best Buy. What was the system compared? Using what as program material? Parlor tricks are worthless to convey useful information. They do identify, however, those who lack the ability to apply critical thinking.


I suspect those components fall into the same category as Kenwood and Crown. There's no shortage of mediocre gear available.



Peer reviewed? That's rich. Peter Aczel is an unethical dork who got caught promoting his own speakers and went out of business. Only recently has he revived his magazine and "found religion" by changing his entire outlook on audio gear. Tom Noussaine? Right! You really need to do some background research first.

Reading your commentary reminds me of the movie "Blast From the Past". You really should rent it sometime. I think you'll relate. :)

rw

FYI:
Sound system on isolated breaker of double rating anticipated.
All devices in the sound system well grounded. Check….
Optional quality surge and spike unit rated for load, Check…
Speaker Runs to 1974 Bozak Concert Grand B410 Classic: Twisted, insulated #12 (2 pair-35’ – 2 pair-65’) to monitor speakers or ADS Soundspace, #14, 2 pair 75’ 2 pair 50’, 50’ to Concerto V; To Bards: 2 pair #14 75’; 2-#16, 55’ (all unshielded)
2-Turntables to Preamp: Standard supplied with device, plus chassis grounds
1- Reel to Reel w/ standard 2 in and 2 out to Preamp
2-Right channel to N106b bi-amp 2 Left channel to N 106b from 2300’s
1- FM Tuner
1- C34VPreamp to … systems..
2- Sony CD/DVD Players, Changer (with remotes)
Samsung 47” HDTV with remote

Potential Interference producers:
Hughes HD Platinum TV Sat Receiver with wireless
4 Wireless networks
1-Belken, 3-Apple, 5.15-5.25GHz, Apple, 3.4 GHz w-150’ Extended range Antenna.
3 Wireless Telephone types (900MHz/3.4GHz &. ?)
Sony, Panasonic, Siemens
4 TV’s (Sony, with both types of remotes)
Alarm system, Moose 11 wired, 2 fire wired, 2 Wireless
2 Always on Desktop Computers with Airport and Bluetooth
2 Laptops with Airport and Bluetooth
1 Oregon Scientific Weather Station and 3 wireless remote feature report stations.
Microwave Radarrange II
Solar System heat sensors (unknown MHz)
Garage and Gate controls, 310MHz-419MHz)
Old Western Electric, 4 line pushbutton phone system, 100 pair cable to four locations.
Solar system wireless monitor and controller

NO INTERFERENCE OF ANY KIND FROM OR TO SOUND SYSTEM
Audits were made from 1996-2004 in A/B set-ups. After this I’ve listened at dealer showrooms and by associates at CES and a Colorado show.

While claims have been made about this or that ‘improvement’ from a certain type of system the fact was that few could demonstrate this and those times that they came close, they failed on the full range of music. The Planers and units with horns were ‘different’ but to my ear the least natural, plus lacked the bottom end. From my subjective take, the sound was sort of like taking out or sacrificing the whole to get a part. It simply was not a concert like experience as I’ve know them to be.

That’s not to say that you won’t find satisfaction in what you hear and with the gear you have acquired. Hell, people don’t return Benz’s to get new sound systems and often drive for years with Bose. Personal preferences count for a great deal in audiophile satisfaction and few of us take the time and trouble to do legitimate A/B tests (audits) for enough time to enjoy or tire.

Thanks for your reply. I’m downsizing and was hoping to learn about alternatives here, but from what I’ve read the new and improved might be a can of worms and I’ve still got some functional gear and small Bozak system that sounded very good to us in modest space from ‘60’s and after, without a penny or any downtime. All those brands you disparage were actually pretty good when I bought them in the 60-70’s. I never settled with the McIntosh gear till the 70-90 period. Say what you may, but the sound meter shows delivery of even sounds I can’t hear.

My guess is that you have come to enjoy and endure distortion as you’ve aged and that’s Great for the consumer economy.

Thing is, I get a lot of satisfaction when visitors say… that’s like being there. .. Some bring a favorite record and the fact that near antiques still serve to entertain has a great deal of satisfaction. Had one ‘audit’ mine three years ago who set off to find Grands, did and has restored them. What the man wrote in the 2005 article < http://www.stereophile.com/historical/1005bozak/index.html
➢ seemed right except for his need to get more from the tweeters. He may have not had the old X tweeters*, probably was not biamplified or should have tried the old, yet clean 2300’s ☺

*He indicated that the year of them were not available and newer tweeters were in most of them after 1970.

JoeE SP9
07-28-2009, 07:34 AM
Thirty nine year old tweeters hardly qualify as modern or SOTA. There have been substantial advances in tweeter design and construction. Could it be that you have grown accustomed to that old dull rolled off sound?

E-Stat
07-28-2009, 08:52 AM
NO INTERFERENCE OF ANY KIND FROM OR TO SOUND SYSTEM
Audits were made from 1996-2004 in A/B set-ups.
We're not talking about the same thing. The audible artifacts do not sound like radio breakthru - instead you get a false brightness that masks detail. You made audits - we can them auditions. Of exactly what to what? What interconnects do you use?


Thanks for your reply. I’m downsizing and was hoping to learn about alternatives here, but from what I’ve read the new and improved might be a can of worms and I’ve still got some functional gear....
Only if you perceive greater fidelity to be a "can of worms". OTOH, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.


All those brands you disparage were actually pretty good when I bought them in the 60-70’s.
Pardon my brutal honesty. Anyone claiming that Sherwood represents current state of the art obviously has never heard state of the art. 70s Crown gear, while well built, was horribly edgy sounding by today's standards. The IC-150 preamp was notoriously bad sounding. Audio has progressed considerably since then. A Honda Accord sedan will out accelerate, out brake and out corner - by a long shot - Aston Martins, Jaguars, and Corvettes of the 50s. The same can be said for audio technology as well. Most folks consider that to be good news.


Say what you may, but the sound meter shows delivery of even sounds I can’t hear.
That must be the problem.


My guess is that you have come to enjoy and endure distortion as you’ve aged.
To what distortion do you refer, Dr.?


Had one ‘audit’ mine three years ago who set off to find Grands, did and has restored them.
Yeah Peter thought they were fine within their limitations. Did you look at the FR curve? That blue curve that disappears beyond 10 kHz?


*He indicated that the year of them were not available and newer tweeters were in most of them after 1970.
No 3" cone tweeter is ever going to approach the resolution of current dome designs, much less ribbon or electrostatic devices. Speaking of which, did you ever hear the resolution champs of the late 50s/ early 60s? Those would be Quad 57s and KLH 9s. Surely you recognize those names, right?

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-30-2009, 10:01 PM
The pro studio selects items for equipment that has no down time - not necessarily choosing the best sounding gear - so it's important to make the distinction - arguably the best classical recording studio - Chesky Records uses tube amplifiers - chosen for sound quality and certainly not the lowest noise floors or less down time (after all a tube may blow mid session and require time to replace! Perhaps why the albums cost a bit more than average - but the payoff is better.

RGA, I think you are a bit behind the times in terms of studio technology. Nowadays, it's not just reliability, it's reliability, sound quality, and flexibility, and not necessary in that order. Gone are the days when reliability alone ruled in the decision process of choosing a piece of equipment. If it does not sound excellent along being reliable and flexible, that piece of equipment is usually rejected. Tube amplifiers do not equal sound quality, it does equal a certain "unique" sound very much different than solid state amps. Personally



And a good vinyl rig STILL sounds better than the best CD or SACD machines IME so while the technical superiority may be there as a storage medium the new and improved in terms of music reproduction isn't. And a good tube amp - no contest.

I know this is just your opinion, but I have some digital gear in my studio that no vinyl rig can touch in terms of sound quality. You might want to look up the DXD format. I record and mix exclusively in that format regardless of what format it ends up on. Vinyl just does not sound as good as it does.

drmorgan
07-30-2009, 11:14 PM
Thirty nine year old tweeters hardly qualify as modern or SOTA. There have been substantial advances in tweeter design and construction. Could it be that you have grown accustomed to that old dull rolled off sound?

Darn hard to remain stuck in this groove, but facts are facts. Three different kinds of drivers were put into the CG that I know of and various combinations might be expected if more than one owner had them.

When I'd be in stores and listen to their systems I'd not be impressed and they'd ask what I had and I'd tell them.. many were curious and so one thing lead to another and sometimes some guests would ask to hear them and so on. Factually the most recent 'audit' was by a banker and he was so blown away he got a set which he's restored. This to me is not unique.

It must be hard to fathom that way back in the dark ages some engineer with a little furniture shop and speaker cauldron or whatever he mixed the wool, ?? and ? in could shape some speakers and design a baffle for them .. three times (for each kind of driver) and then over his five decades deliver what does seem real to those who listen, more or less like that article. I've owned them since 1975 and they were first driven by the old Crown DC300 and then by a single 2300, but when I finally got around to putting in the biamp stuff they seemed to take on a different character, or it was the room... but in spite of what you say, the facts are that people hear them and love them and some go try to find them. Maybe they're just exactly what that lil ole man wanted them to be.. he worked his magic for theatres, discos, auditoriums, sound studios and more than a few churches and concert halls across the land for five decades. Bogen is said to have wanted his electronics. NEAR his speakers, but the brew secret was never known and they never managed to get it right. The 2300 is a clean amp but they sounded fine to me when the DC300 was on them. I don't know what Rudy demo'd them with before I bought them but it was a dealer who had them all in the Buckhead section of Atlanta. There is a good discussion of speaker design over at AudioKarma just now and some of the pros are describing the process. Personally we use mylar speakers in our gear and only expect decent voice such as a phone device. We have no expertise in speaker design. Bozak experimented for decades and apparently he had the money to do it right or you would not see a reviewer (not the first rave) say what he did. Some of the systems I reviewed almost had it for me. They'd usually fail with the bass. I already said I can't reliably hear over 14k and I've tested the grands with the sound pressure to 20k and the meter won't lie. I don't know if they have Y or Z tweeters, but I know they do just fine. 4 12 drivers move lots of air and people in front of them feel it as if they're conducting. If a cannon is fired you think damage should have happened. They kept spiders away for two decades. That alone was worth something in that venue. I certainly had nothing to prove to the dealer or anyone. Sound is or is not and you like it or you don't. What's the big deal that a dedicated engineer got lucky back in the 1970's? Lots of we old duffers remember when Richard Feynman explained the Shuttle Disaster with a glass of ice water and some 'o' rings. Audio is not the magic when you have the experience and dedication to find the sweet spot.

E-Stat
08-01-2009, 11:00 AM
Darn hard to remain stuck in this groove, but facts are facts. To which *facts* do you refer? That no speaker designer on the planet today uses such crude tweeters? That they have horrible polar response? That they lack the extension of current techology? That putting two midranges side-by-side causes comb filtering? Those facts are well known. As time goes by, we continue to learn and benefit from access to new technology. Good ideas persist. Like Peter Walker's innovative 1957 full range electrostatic speaker design. An updated version remains in production today and many other companies have produced their own versions using slightly different approaches. On the other hand, it is easy to see why NO ONE produces a speaker configured like the Grand today.


I don't know what Rudy demo'd them with before I bought them but it was a dealer who had them all in the Buckhead section of Atlanta.
That would have been "The Old Counselor" Lee Kramer and High Fidelity SSS on Pharr Rd. I lived in Atlanta during the 70s and 80s and knew him well. He was quite a character. :)

rw

JoeE SP9
08-01-2009, 03:53 PM
No one, least of all I would dispute that 4 12" woofers move a lot of air. They should. It's the midrange and treble where the true deficiencies of comb filter prone horizontally positioned mid-ranges and rolled of cone tweeters are most evident.

drmorgan
08-01-2009, 07:58 PM
We're not talking about the same thing. The audible artifacts do not sound like radio breakthru - instead you get a false brightness that masks detail. You made audits - we can them auditions. Of exactly what to what? What interconnects do you use?


Only if you perceive greater fidelity to be a "can of worms". OTOH, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

1. A matter of opinion. Some things we know, such as the new CD is more faithful than LP's at last...
2. Somethings old are still valued and work as well as those costing thousands more... ex:
The Sony TTS3000 and PUA Arm, which has recently been duplicated for 8k.

3. When a dealer, friend or venue play the gear or source material, they've provided an audition.

If I control the music, the volume, the switching that's an audit.


Pardon my brutal honesty. Anyone claiming that Sherwood represents current state of the art obviously has never heard state of the art. 70s Crown gear, while well built, was horribly edgy sounding by today's standards. The IC-150 preamp was notoriously bad sounding. Audio has progressed considerably since then. A Honda Accord sedan will out accelerate, out brake and out corner - by a long shot - Aston Martins, Jaguars, and Corvettes of the 50s. The same can be said for audio technology as well. Most folks consider that to be good news.

Nothing I said implied that Sherwood represented any such (they made a tuner and it worked till we moved to a bad multi-path challenged area). Never owned a Crown Pre-Amp, but had a Crown DC300 amp till it clipped. Even though Bozak were newly offering amps, Rudy said get a 2300. He was an honest man and aware.

You'd alleged or implied that I'd become a Mc addict and directed me to visit as I'd be newly impressed and you were somehow impressed by a glass cutting and the new amps. I always found glass a dumb beyond windows for analog tuners, as too their cheap chrome process (and the internal quality I saw as downhill for a couple decades during which you found them with better designs). Next you don't like the 'light' show. All manufacturers try to create a 'look' that sets them apart from the rest. I would have preferred they used better methods and material and given their difficulty keeping paint from bubbles due to heat over time and poor process, IMHO they should have stuck to 'half glass.'

I find that much under the hoods of these brands similar but for pricing. We know from the claims that since the 1970's only the claims and pricing have gone up, not the sound deliver. We know that LP was replaced with CD's but we rationalize CD's sound ...not as good as.. Recently, Computers have been delivering both better sound and versatility than our very expensive alternatives. There are a handful of internet based stations that deliver on the promise of better fidelity.

Yes, I enjoy the sounds from my old gear and I have not heard the supposed improvement from these new concepts, some requiring special shielding, re-coning, hair dryers or magic power cables.

That must be the problem.

Funny.

To what distortion do you refer, Dr.?

I'm not technical enough to describe or recall beyond the obvious.. low end weakness. Some were clearly off center; became tiring over time (I mentioned earlier, done side by side with the A/B box diverting the music from the turntable).

I'm not an engineer, so other than pointing the Sound pressure thing at 10' from the drivers I can't inform you other than each started off fair and balanced for the audit. Changing from one to the other were made at the same level initially. After the test record/s, sweeps and tones and the favorites it was live with it as if our own for a day to a week, depending at which time I'd audited.

Distortion to me was a lack of the smooth transitions, as too a position shift (from I guess an inability of some brands or models to handle all the material, so it seems to favor a section of the orchestra over another in recordings which were not recorded such. I recall one Horowitz in Russia which was a CD that the planer type could not image properly. I gathered at that time that this was due to how the maker had set up their transfer or crossover points, or the quality of the various drivers and how smooth transitions are. All but one could deliver quality tones from 40 to over 16k. My recollection was that piano at times produce tones not audible on any of those sets, but that's very rare. Over 16k is rare as well. People are easily fooled of firms like Bose and KLH would not still be selling stuff.

The audition has limited value and only when you can A/B a set up, have more than one person (hopefully with better hearing) and time side by side can we know what's better. Once we buy it we will tend to defend our or our friends opinions against all evidence to the contrary.

Yeah Peter thought they were fine within their limitations. Did you look at the FR curve? That blue curve that disappears beyond 10 kHz?

Don't know Peter

No 3" cone tweeter is ever going to approach the resolution of current dome designs, much less ribbon or electrostatic devices. Speaking of which, did you ever hear the resolution champs of the late 50s/ early 60s? Those would be Quad 57s and KLH 9s. Surely you recognize those names, right?

Yes, they lacked a bottom end and you would not want a dog near them.

rw

Apparently I've submitted this wrong, so please look up into the regions for answers...

drmorgan
08-01-2009, 08:40 PM
To which *facts* do you refer? That no speaker designer on the planet today uses such crude tweeters? That they have horrible polar response? That they lack the extension of current techology? That putting two midranges side-by-side causes comb filtering? Those facts are well known. As time goes by, we continue to learn and benefit from access to new technology. Good ideas persist. Like Peter Walker's innovative 1957 full range electrostatic speaker design. An updated version remains in production today and many other companies have produced their own versions using slightly different approaches. On the other hand, it is easy to see why NO ONE produces a speaker configured like the Grand today.

That would have been "The Old Counselor" Lee Kramer and High Fidelity SSS on Pharr Rd. I lived in Atlanta during the 70s and 80s and knew him well. He was quite a character. :)


rw


Yes, Lee Kramer's place. But were it not for meeting Bozak nothing would have transpired. I was across the way at a MB store getting something fixed and wandered into SSS (funny logo for him to pick) and Lee was sort of waiting like a car dealers front men to welcome me to his store. I did buy something, but he promised an Audition with Rudy, so either I came back or maybe I'd left with a set of Bards and the Crown. It's been a while and not exactly a primary for me. I was doing consulting in the area office at the Airport Center. Lived down in Merriwether County. In the '60's doing consulting for GA Life and Foundation Life. In the '70's back opening a plant for fabrication in Buford and we were teaching a bit.

Lee was more than honest with me and I felt well served by his dealership. My contacts with Rudy had happened in N.Y. State and Cleveland years earlier. He'd done the Severance Hall and other venues and for some family in Troy N.Y. and N.Y.C.

I think Kramer had about the smallest showroom I've ever been in, but he did have good brands at that time and good relations with his vendors. Got me what I needed and delivered over 45 miles South for free. We returned to CA by '76 having given up on Buford production. They only work 3 days a week on average due to gone fishin stuff.

Actually if what you contended mattered then the systems would not have failed in delivery of sound as the old do. It is not what these guys conjecture or describe and allege that counts. It is what people hear and how they feel about it.

You surely enjoy what you have and people continue to enjoy the Bozak sound.

I do note that the engineers I know who have looked at the issues from cabling to AC power and the claims.... think that people are most likely working around patents to come up with rationalizations. Also drivers and amplifiers these days are way, way, way overpriced vs what's in them. Takes a lot of great writing to make up for this, but as we know people are trained to do this and there is a market for them. Indeed the whole economy is presently suffering from spin and hype and people tend to acquire stuff that really does not enhance, but they 'feel' that it will. Heaven help those who used the home piggy bank or plastic to buy it.

When I look at why people are not making speakers today like those it has to do with several cost and quality issues, not science. I don't think Rudy ever had a serious look at cutting costs or his margins. My recollection was that Marantz, Lansing and others went broke trying to build quality without Rudy's luck of location and low overhead. He was apparently satisfied to just make a bit every year. Even going to the trouble to make his speakers of aluminum in very good castings, with high quality copper windings and that spun mix of material for the drivers that actually outlast owners says something*. Even the damping rubber used lasted. Makers today seem to think life of product is 5-10 yrs. What you see as advances I see as a waste of money trying to give us what we actually don't hear, but we can 'feel' we have. It's like when I used to trade in my cars thinking that this or that should be better. They had a few improvements, but back in Atlanta that '76 SL was 16,4 and 2k off.. back in CA in '79 it was 30k and list. The last 113k and I got to drive an old one recently and other than the brakes..and Bose! Frequent, very costly service... it is rabbit quick though.. oh well..

*I have four bards that were outdoors and blasted with water for dozens of years and opened them up and tested them. Remarkable, still just like then but for the black Krylon coating on the speakers. We found they're anodized aluminum as too the enclosure. That's 34 years of misery and still play well.

I'm happy that you enjoy your music. Gads, we'd all be crazier without it.

E-Stat
08-02-2009, 05:15 AM
Some things we know, such as the new CD is more faithful than LP's at last...
No, we don't know that. Each format has its advantages. The Redbook format still has bandwidth issues at the top and noise floor issues at the bottom.


Somethings old are still valued and work as well as those costing thousands more... ex:
The Sony TTS3000 and PUA Arm, which has recently been duplicated for 8k.
I certainly don't disagree that many old components, including all yours provide exceptional value. The vintage system in my garage gives me great pleasure. It's just when one says that there is none better where reality leaves the room. The Sony isn't in the same ballpark as a Clearaudio Reference or several other current tables.


Nothing I said implied that Sherwood represented any such
Ok. Earlier you said "A couple drivers set ups have 'hi-def' but put me somewhere overhead the orchestra or on one side or the other."

I then asked you about these setups. That was your answer. So the components you listed have nothing to do with the "high def" setups that put you somewhere overhead the orchestra? If not, what were they?


I'd become a Mc addict and directed me to visit as I'd be newly impressed and you were somehow impressed by a glass cutting and the new amps
Well, I thought the tour was neat and I've never owned any Mac gear. You've had your 2300s now for - what thirty years?


I find that much under the hoods of these brands similar but for pricing. We know from the claims that since the 1970's only the claims and pricing have gone up, not the sound deliver.
Which brands? The mid-fi ones you mentioned earlier? Sound delivery has improved considerably with the best components available today. With which I suspect you have zero exposure. You continue to avoid talking about "these setups" that you have "audited".


...low end weakness. Some were clearly off center; became tiring over time
And that's why you speculate that I purchased aftermarket power cords? Keep speculating! Or, choice "B", listen to my answers instead.


...that piano at times produce tones not audible on any of those sets, but that's very rare. Over 16k is rare as well.
You keep referring to "these sets". What are they?


Don't know Peter
Peter Breuninger is the guy who wrote the "historical" back page review in Stereophile of the Bozak you referenced earlier. He did damn if with faint praise in his conclusion "It may be the best non-horn vintage speaker you can own. " The qualifiers speak for themselves.


...and you would not want a dog near them.
I don't want animals around any of my gear. If you're referring to their ability to reproduce the top octave, then fine. If you, however, choose to cut off the top octave for your pet, so be it. :)

rw

E-Stat
08-02-2009, 05:38 AM
...and wandered into SSS (funny logo for him to pick)
It stood for "sight and sound systems".


Actually if what you contended mattered then the systems would not have failed in delivery of sound as the old do. It is not what these guys conjecture or describe and allege that counts. It is what people hear and how they feel about it.
Performance is relative and like cars, has NOT stood still for the past thirty years. Since you like Mercedes, let's talk about them for a moment. In 1970, the fastest sedan was the 300SEL 6.3. It's huge motor put out 250 hp and would accelerate from 0-60 in 6.5 seconds and could go 130 mph. I cannot find any lateral cornering figures, but a 4000 lb vehicle riding on skinny 205 tires would likely score in the 0.75 range. Like a truck today. My Acura TL has the same power with an engine half the size and will go 0-60 in 5.9 seconds and top out at 152 mph. It corners at 0.90 G. This having a ULEV rating and far more creature comforts. And it's a mid range product in today's market. The best is considerably faster. Same story. Good is good and remains so. Better remains better!


I do note that the engineers I know who have looked at the issues from cabling to AC power and the claims.... think that people are most likely working around patents to come up with rationalizations

Which world class audio components have they designed? Or are they speculating like you having ZERO exposure?


When I look at why people are not making speakers today like those it has to do with several cost and quality issues, not science.
You are deluding yourself. You can buy cone tweeters like the Bozak uses today for three bucks. No one uses the side-by-side arrangement of drivers not because of cost reasons, but because it degrades the image. Contrary to your assumption to the contrary, speaker design has marched considerably forward. Only a fool would deliberately make those choices today, regardless of cost. And they don't! Look here (http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/663.html) for some examples of current speaker technology and those pesky cables. THIS is what can be done today. BTW, those speakers run about $70k.


I'm happy that you enjoy your music. Gads, we'd all be crazier without it.
Amen!

rw

JoeE SP9
08-02-2009, 07:56 AM
drmorgan:
I'm personally very glad you are happy with the sound of your system. I'm sure that 25 years ago it was "Fi" of the highest quality. However, that does not qualify you to comment on current hi-end gear.
Please stop trying to come off as some kind of authority. Your knowledge base for recent and current hi-end gear is non-existent. Therefore, your opinions about it have little validity.
You have stated more than once that the science and engineering of gear especially speakers has not advanced. If you truly believe that, www.audiokarma.org (http://www.audiokarma.org) is a site that will welcome your beliefs.
Most of the members there actively search out the "vintage" gear you say has never been bettered. There are many posters there that love speakers like your "vintage" Bozaks. Of course there are an equal number who love Cerwin Vega's. Your knowledge of vintage speakers and gear would be quite helpful to others as enamored with products from earlier eras.