Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
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...