Comparing Commerical with Residential Audio

[drmorgan]

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/residen...m_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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[E-Stat]

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]

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.

[RGA]

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]

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]

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]

,.. 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

VTL Siegfried

McIntosh MC 2301

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]

drmorgan:
What makes you think you are the only experienced audiophile on this site?

[drmorgan]

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

VTL Siegfried

McIntosh MC 2301

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....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

[RGA]

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]

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]

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]

Loved your post E-Stat. 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.

[drmorgan]

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]

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]

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/200...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/a...ter-cable-and/
Or: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/calling-b...ter-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/co.../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