-
It is the "itch" of being an audiophile which annoys me at times - the need to try something else. It is this "itch" which has led the industry to fleece the tweaker at every juncture.
I found myself heading in one direction ... to try to reproduce not what pleased me but what I thought an audiophile should be searcing for - the reproduction of a live concert. I lost sight of enjoying the music and instead began to listen for things I thought should be there.
I have since changed my direction and have once again started to listen to music. I too like the Krells but also sometimes my mood takes me to listening to my valve set-up which gives me an equally joyful listen. I can now allow my mood to dictate how I listen and not what I think I should be listening to.
As a sidenote; last month for a laugh I wrote a letter to 'Hi-Fi Choice' magazine telling them that the reason there are not many lady audiophiles is because their earings set up micro-vibrations which interfered with the true path of soundwaves as they converged on the ear :) --- it would surprise me NOT if it was published! Perhaps a brick on the head would cure their 'chatter clatter'?
Slippers Off
-
btw, slippers on,
how do you like those luxmans?
and how does your setup look like? I'm very curious how all those gears look together, and how those townshend speakers look in real life...
Keep them spinning,
Bert.
-
Yeah, me too
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
... Actually, I like my system so much the way it is, I'm almost afraid to change anything. I think many may be looking for that "just right" system. Hopefully, some day they will find it.
My system is very well balanced in my own opinion. Now my emphasis is on collecting music. In my case that's experiencing more of the classical repertoire, including contemporary composers. This pursuit has the potential to burn burn plenty of cash without also buying equipment.
I have put the emphasis on components that will yield the most improvements overall, even a little more expense. Obviously speakers are critical, then amps and preamps, then sources. I caution people with entry to mid-range systems against pissing away a lot of money on interconnects, cables, and power cords and power conditions: though they might be cheaper than other components but they are typically poor value just the same.
Still, I'm tempted to get new DAC :biggrin5:
-
Feanor you have a bassackwards approach to mine. Speakers are last because that's the END result. Source is the most important. Your speakers can do absolutely nothing if they aren't delivered a good signal to begin with. I wish I could put my Krell on the front end of your system, it would change your perspective as well as your view of SACD.
This is something you can easily observe, put an entry level set of speakers on your system and listen, then, listen to the same material with the regular speakers back in place but an entry CDP on front.
Not many on this board put money into a source equal their system and it's a shame because it might just be the cure they seek.
-
The old debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
Feanor you have a bassackwards approach to mine. Speakers are last because that's the END result. Source is the most important. Your speakers can do absolutely nothing if they aren't delivered a good signal to begin with. I wish I could put my Krell on the front end of your system, it would change your perspective as well as your view of SACD.
This is something you can easily observe, put an entry level set of speakers on your system and listen, then, listen to the same material with the regular speakers back in place but an entry CDP on front.
Not many on this board put money into a source equal their system and it's a shame because it might just be the cure they seek.
Surely this is an old debate, Mr.P, and I'm not sure we're destined to agree. The debate is between the schools ...
- "The sound can never sound better than the source" school
- "Improve the weakest link in the chain" school.
I completely agree, of course, that improvements can be made by upgrading any component. I have found the least improvement changing cables of various sorts, followed by changes to digital sources -- that's just my own experience. Changes to speakers, amplifiers, and preamps including tubes, all have more obvious impact.
Honestly though, I have never had a really great digital component in my system, if I could it might change my mind. I'll admit I have had a really bad digital source which was an early Toshiba DVD player -- the CD sound was horrible.
Analog sources are another matter: cartridges are very critical, (although I think it' insane to spend thousands on an item that is so easily damaged and wears out after a couple of thousand hours).
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Surely this is an old debate, Mr.P, and I'm not sure we're destined to agree.
Everything matters in a system but I am first and foremost a speaker (actually transducer) guy so I share your view. My main system is built around the stats. Then I picked amplifiers that work well with them. On the other hand, I am amazed at how good my vintage double New Advents sound when given a very clean front end and amplification (mostly hand-me-down stuff). Those two systems represent completely different perspectives on speaker to system investment (64% vs. 10%, respectively) yet the net result in both cases is quite good.
Go figure.
rw
-
I don't think there can be an absolute answer to the Amp vs speaker upgrade debate. I think it is probably on a almost case by case basis.
The reason I say that is I look at my old pair of Bose 201 Series II speakers which were admittedly adequate when I had used them with a variety of amps such as a Panasonic HE-70, Pioneer VSX 815 and 516. I am not saying these are top of the line units but the 815 was hghly rated by S&V so I would not consider it a slouch as receiver's go. However, recently I went ahead and hooked the 201's up to my Gladding vintage amp which is 30 years old and only about 25 wpc. The result is the 201's sound nicer than they ever have before. Would you say that the Gladding reciever was an "upgrade" from the prior newer-more powerful wpc units? I don't think so, it just is a case where the one receiver just mates well to the speakers. I am sure others can site other examples similar to this one.
IMO it is not where you start amp or speaker but where you finish-i.e. did you find the best receiver/speaker marriage that produces the best sound?
-
I've never heard of Gladding. If it was up with Luxman or Mac it would be considered an upgrade from Pioneer. Of course, most things are though :)
-
Mr P.
If you are interested in some photos of the Gladding unit, I posted some over on one of my thread's over in the vintage forum. It is a quad unit from 73-74 from what I was able to find out very simialr to the some of the Lafayette from the same period. Someone actually sent me an ad over at Quadrophonic
http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/foru...ed=1#post69538
from a catalog from that time period. It's bloodlines are unknown since it was made in Japan for Gladding which was only the distributor some people on different threads have speculated that it was possibly made for Gladding by Pioneer or Standard but I have not seen anything to back that up. In it's day it ran about $500 with the CD-4 demodular which would have made the unit fairly expensive for that time period but I am not sure it would be in the class of a Lux or Mac.
Still it is an interesting piece and I am still trying to figure out how I am going to use it. I have an old Sony RTR player that I am trying to find some tapes for and I am thinking of hooking the Gladding up to that along with my next vintage speaker find (although I guess at this point since the 201's are about 20 years old they now qualify as vintage) I will be picking up a Sears Silvertone console from 1961 or 1962 during an x-mas visit and plan on using it as kind of a entertainment center for my vintage stuff.
Not sure if owning equipment like the Gladding, RTR speakers or even 20 year old 201's qualifies me as an audiophile or a cheap guy who likes old gear .......... :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Surely this is an old debate, Mr.P, and I'm not sure we're destined to agree. The debate is between the schools ...
- "The sound can never sound better than the source" school
- "Improve the weakest link in the chain" school.
I completely agree, of course, that improvements can be made by upgrading any component. I have found the least improvement changing cables of various sorts, followed by changes to digital sources -- that's just my own experience. Changes to speakers, amplifiers, and preamps including tubes, all have more obvious impact.
Honestly though, I have never had a really great digital component in my system, if I could it might change my mind. I'll admit I have had a really bad digital source which was an early Toshiba DVD player -- the CD sound was horrible.
Analog sources are another matter: cartridges are very critical, (although I think it' insane to spend thousands on an item that is so easily damaged and wears out after a couple of thousand hours).
I'm going with speakers first. I've performed the experiment Mr P mentioned and in all cases, the system with the better speakers and lesser digital front end outperformed the opposite. Digital front ends do make a difference but not as much as speakers.
Obviously, the best system employs the best sounding of all categories.
-
Kid, I'm thinking about getting my daughter some good amplified speakers and using the computer for her music. This would free up some space. If this ever comes about I have a vintage Sansui integrated AU-9500 I'll give you first dibbs on. This was their top of the line in early 70's and is outstanding by today's measures. I was pretty impressed by the detail and fidelity of this amp. I think it would give you quite a reference point.
Musicoverall, what CD source did you use in those experiments? I've never had your outcome. I suspect either the source wasn't of quality to make the systems really opposite or something was lost from one end to the other. If there are subtleties on a disc not brought out by a entry level player you'll never hear them in your high end speakers no matter what you do. If a high end player send those subtleties on you will most likely hear them in a entry level speaker, although maybe not well or accurate as possible.
-
Quote:
Kid, I'm thinking about getting my daughter some good amplified speakers and using the computer for her music. This would free up some space. If this ever comes about I have a vintage Sansui integrated AU-9500 I'll give you first dibbs on. This was their top of the line in early 70's and is outstanding by today's measures. I was pretty impressed by the detail and fidelity of this amp. I think it would give you quite a reference point.
Mr.P
That is a very generous offer. I have heard a lot of positive opininos of the early Sansui units.
How much $ would you be looking for? I am getting ready to start paying college and might need to start putting money into a Sansui fund........ :)
Happy Holidays!!
-
Why don't you PM an offer to me. If you are interested the rest of that system is a Yamaha 5 disc carousel and a pair of Dynaudio Audience 40's. The 40's are Dyn's but I'd sell them reasonable as well. I also have a pair of little AR's, I forgot the model but they are 5 1/4 2-way bookshelf, not even close to the 40's but would easy to drive with vintage gear. The AU-9500 I believe is rated at 90 wpc, I haven't looked at the specs since I got it. It drives the Dyn's great but the 9500 would play much louder with a more efficient speaker. In my opinion the 9500 with the 40's has very good sound quality and some one would have to spend some big dollar to top it. What impressed me is I have yet to hear a vintage piece have the bass detail of the 9500. I'd say it comes close to an Arcam integrated, maybe not quite as fast, the mids and highs are just as good.
The 9500 has bass, treble & a midrange tone controls. It also offers selectable turnover frequencies for each. It also offers a separate high pass and low pass filter switches. Shaping the sound to your liking wouldn't be difficult. I don't use the filters and keep it pretty much flat. The amp is in great shape. What I like about it is the build, the knobs have a firm click. I really hate to part with a piece like this once I've found it but I don't have the room for all my stuff and I think you'd get a lot of enjoyment out of it. The only draw back to this or most vintage gear is they didn't think about high quality speaker wire so we just have those spring loaded inputs.
-
If I were in the market, I'd audition some Zu Druids with an integrated tube amp using my current front ends and see what I'd think. I think I'd be out around 5k for both new . . that much I know. Silverline SR 17's, maybe, on the used market but with solid state power as these are not especially efficient.
-
Just to weigh in here,
I think an audiophile is one who takes the time to identify where improvements can be made and take measures to get the most from his/hers current system regardless of the price/value. These tweeks can be free such as speaker placement, proper cartridge alignment, etc. or can cost up to thousands of $ like esoteric cables, power conditioning, etc.
An audiophile, IMHO, also seeks out the best source material available to allow the system to perform at its full potential. We all have heard very modest systems out perform higher price systems and alot of this can be attributed to having a balanced system and proper setup.
So, to me an audiophile is someone who cares about music reproduction and spends some effort ($?) to seek/achieve a SQ level which satisfies or exceeds his/hers expectations.
__________________
-
Luvin DB, good post, I tried to leave a positive chicklet but I must have given you one before without spreading enough other BS, I mean chicklets, around.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
Kid, I'm thinking about getting my daughter some good amplified speakers and using the computer for her music. This would free up some space. If this ever comes about I have a vintage Sansui integrated AU-9500 I'll give you first dibbs on. This was their top of the line in early 70's and is outstanding by today's measures. I was pretty impressed by the detail and fidelity of this amp. I think it would give you quite a reference point.
Musicoverall, what CD source did you use in those experiments? I've never had your outcome. I suspect either the source wasn't of quality to make the systems really opposite or something was lost from one end to the other. If there are subtleties on a disc not brought out by a entry level player you'll never hear them in your high end speakers no matter what you do. If a high end player send those subtleties on you will most likely hear them in a entry level speaker, although maybe not well or accurate as possible.
I've used several. The main problem with music reproduction in the home is not the CD player. There are differences but they are dwarfed by the shortcomings of speakers and room acoustics. I could just as easily say that in your experiments, your speakers must not have been up to the task. :) The audiophile dictum of "source first" makes theoretical sense but it also holds as a tenet that the various sources must vary greatly. They don't, IME.
The best way to show off the massive problems with speakers is to listen through a good set of headphones like Sennheiser 650's or better. Funny how they can not only make good recordings sound awesome but they can make lousy recordings sound good. So they are both supremely neutral and forgiving. And it is not subtle.
-
We will have to agree to disagree i guess, your statement that sources don't vary much is just not accurate. The source can dramatically change the sound of an entire system. And, that statement is the crux of our difference.
The experiment or demonstration I was talking about you should have entry level speakers, that's part of the point. The first time I heard a Mac tube amp it was in a service shop and hooked to a cheap pair of Kenwood speakers they used in there just for testing. The superiority of the Mac still came through those cheap speakers in spades, I was amazed by the gear. If I had for instance some Dyn's on the Mac it would be a large improvement but sticking a Kenwood receiver on the Dyn's ain't going to make it sound close to the quality it did with the Mac.
Again, I think you suffer from not having a good source. I only have HD-600's but I use them to evaluate subtleties between cables as well as listening and I wouldn't call them exactly forgiving on a bad recording. My Audio Note is more forgiving but my Krell cd player just left a bad recording bare and sounded like the crap it was. You'd think that Krell with it's dynamics and power would be a good system for R&R but not so on a bad recording, brutally honest, and I soon learned the recordings of the 80's were pretty bad. This may also depend on whether you used your headphones through the receiver or CD headphone out or used a head amp. I usually go from my source into a Musical Fidelity X-can amp.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
We will have to agree to disagree i guess, your statement that sources don't vary much is just not accurate. The source can dramatically change the sound of an entire system. And, that statement is the crux of our difference.
The experiment or demonstration I was talking about you should have entry level speakers, that's part of the point. The first time I heard a Mac tube amp it was in a service shop and hooked to a cheap pair of Kenwood speakers they used in there just for testing. The superiority of the Mac still came through those cheap speakers in spades, I was amazed by the gear. If I had for instance some Dyn's on the Mac it would be a large improvement but sticking a Kenwood receiver on the Dyn's ain't going to make it sound close to the quality it did with the Mac.
Again, I think you suffer from not having a good source. I only have HD-600's but I use them to evaluate subtleties between cables as well as listening and I wouldn't call them exactly forgiving on a bad recording. My Audio Note is more forgiving but my Krell cd player just left a bad recording bare and sounded like the crap it was. You'd think that Krell with it's dynamics and power would be a good system for R&R but not so on a bad recording, brutally honest, and I soon learned the recordings of the 80's were pretty bad. This may also depend on whether you used your headphones through the receiver or CD headphone out or used a head amp. I usually go from my source into a Musical Fidelity X-can amp.
Yep, agree to disagree. I've heard and used CDP's that run the gamut (pun intended) of price ranges and they simply don't have the same level of significance on a systems sound as speakers do, IME. In other words, your comment that I suffer from a poor source is as true as the notion that you have never heard topflight speakers. :) Best to just say that our experiences differ.
-
Also, let's not get "change" a system confused with "IMPROVE" quality of system. When talking quality of a system I stand firm to all I have said.
When talking merely changing a sound I can agree with that speaker change can have a more dramatic impact. If I were to go from Dynaudio to Vandersteens for instance, I can't think of any addition that would make such a dramatic change in presentation.
On the other hand, as I stated, if a source doesn't retrieve a detail nothing you will add down stream will allow you to hear that lost information. So for sound quality the source is your crown jewel.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
Also, let's not get "change" a system confused with "IMPROVE" quality of system. When talking quality of a system I stand firm to all I have said.
When talking merely changing a sound I can agree with that speaker change can have a more dramatic impact. If I were to go from Dynaudio to Vandersteens for instance, I can't think of any addition that would make such a dramatic change in presentation.
On the other hand, as I stated, if a source doesn't retrieve a detail nothing you will add down stream will allow you to hear that lost information. So for sound quality the source is your crown jewel.
I wouldn't dream of trying to change your mind. :) On the other hand, I'm sure the possibility exists that in some setups, the source could be more of an improvement - I just haven't experienced such a phenomenon. The flip of your last comment is "No CDP regardless of quality will force through information that the speakers won't reproduce properly".
And of course no one, including myself, has or ever will hear all the configurations. Our experiences differ based on what we have heard. My best advice is to start with the speakers with the ultimate goal being to have a synergistic system in terms of sound. Scrimp on the front end only as long as you must, but do scrimp there first. That's never failed me yet.
-
But surely, those seeking to hear the best from their equipment, (at the speakers), must be happy that they are getting the best out of the source! Whether it be digital or analogue?
I doubt an Audiophile would be happy with MP3 coming through a set of "Overkill Encore" speakers at 50,000 GBPs. Such a set of speakers would be a waste on anything less than full digital reproduction, or better?
Doesn't even matter about the expense, say a set of Mission 731i bookshelves....
When I listen to vinyl I trust I have done everything mechanically possible to ensure that the needle, (front end), is working perfectly; when I go to digital (CD or SACD), then I have to trust the electronics of my equipment. It is "At This Stage That I Involve The SPEAKERS". (To reproduce what I already know or believe to be the best rendition of the music!
Slippers heating in front of the fire
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slippers On
But surely, those seeking to hear the best from their equipment, (at the speakers), must be happy that they are getting the best out of the source! Whether it be digital or analogue?
I doubt an Audiophile would be happy with MP3 coming through a set of "Overkill Encore" speakers at 50,000 GBPs. Such a set of speakers would be a waste on anything less than full digital reproduction, or better?
Doesn't even matter about the expense, say a set of Mission 731i bookshelves....
When I listen to vinyl I trust I have done everything mechanically possible to ensure that the needle, (front end), is working perfectly; when I go to digital (CD or SACD), then I have to trust the electronics of my equipment. It is "At This Stage That I Involve The SPEAKERS". (To reproduce what I already know or believe to be the best rendition of the music!
Slippers heating in front of the fire
With vinyl, all bets are off. I'd wager that the turntable/arm/cartridge is at least as important as the speakers. When I said "source" above, I meant the CD player - possibly SACD as well but I don't have enough experience with them to say unequivocally. A speaker will make or break your sound many times faster and more often than the best (or worst) CD player - IME, of course! Your mileage may vary. Mine never has.
-
The source of one's system can go even beyond either the turntable/cartridge, or CD player. Often the recording itself can make all the difference. A shrill, overly-bright CD (or LP) will likely sound awful no matter what it's played on, just as a dull, lifeless CD or LP will sound dull and lifeless regardless of the system it too is played on.
Way, way back in 1959, a record was produced that all but revolutionized recorded sound: Persuasive Percussion, on the Command label. With an artsy-fartsy cover, and a double-jacket design, "Persuasive Perucssion" was not only the best sounding record that had ever been recorded then, but was designed to be used as a test record too. The liner notes inside the jacket carefully detailed what to listen for, both good and bad, and ultimately the record became a milestone in the business (it was even pirated, which resulted in a massive lawsusit).
Playing "Persuasive Percussion" on my portable "hi-fi" back then all but blew my mind: it really did sound that good. I still have a copy of it today, and it still sounds very, very good.
Today, I'm a huge fan of the Telarc label because of its generally consistently fine recorded sound, coupled with some outstanding interpretations of classical music. Every once in a while Telarc releases a genuine dud, but for the most part, the label remains my preferred source for listening.
I have some Phillips and EMI European recordings of great classics with truly outstanding performances, but with sound that tends to be a bit thin, and shrill. No matter what I do, those recordings will always sound that way. Too bad conductors like Simon Rattle (who's an absolute master with Beethoven material) and Valery Gergiev (a Russian conductor who always looks furiously angry, but who can whip an orchestra and chorus into a frenzy like no other) don't have contracts to record on Telarc. Now, that would be a combination no one could beat!
-
Emaidel, you should pick up some Classical off the Reference label, excellent stuff. I also have a couple discs performed by The Ancient Music Society that are very good, I can't remember the actual recording company. Mapleshade is supposed to be good. I haven't tried them because I have never heard of any of their artists. Then you have some Sheffield Labs.
The characteristics of a system will come through no matter what speakers you use. Krell will still have the same control, dynamics and bass authority whether the speakers are expensive Dynaudio or a $200.00 pair of Polk. The presentation of the Dyn's in this case will be much better of course and it would be worth the extra expense. The Dyn's would not be worth the expense, and in some instances a waste, if the electronics wasn't up to task. Building a system from speakers back just don't make any sense. Especially, if you are upgrading existing components one by one. Your system will have an immediate IMPROVEMENT when upgrading the source where upgrading speakers first could actually degrade the sound on certain systems if the electronics aren't up to the task of driving the speakers.
|