First impressions at California audio Show

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have never heard the JBL Everest nor seen any measurements so I'll reserve judgement. After listening to the JBL K2 9800, I find it hard to believe that JBL would build a flagship thats effectively unlistenable.

They did, and trust me on that one.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I heard the JBL Everests. They can put out more volume than the human ear can take, and the bass will shake the room. You need a HUGE room for these speakers. Driven by thousand watt ss amps, the sound was hard, and unlistenable to me. The smaller JBL speakers sounded smoother.

Tube fan, I told you that you spoke to soon. We do agree on something!

One person said "They lack finesse, sibilants are emphasised, the high notes can be too sharp, the tempo is too fast and the images are much larger than life.But they can give you the sonic equivalent of a roller-coaster ride - the thrills and spills and sonic booms that only a pair of big, loud and fast speakers can create."

This about sums it up perfectly.

The Teresonic speaker, one driver, a Lowther DX4 unit, has, of course, no crossover and is extremely efficient. The sound on several of my vinyl records was extremely close to what I hear from my main system, but they would not turn up the volume, so they probably would sound even better played at realistic levels (to me, this means something close to the level you would hear live).

They wouldn't turn up the sound because those speakers don't do loud that well - it cannot hold its composure. They also have issues when the mix is complex, dynamic, and touches on the frequency extreme's

When they played High Altitude Drums through it, it sounded good on the horn prelude at the beginning. But when the horns ALL came in along with the percussion, this speaker turned a very good but complex mix into a sonic mush that had zero definition. It is much like using you kitchen's drain to empty a large lake. It is very difficult to design a single driver that covers 10 octaves without giving up the ghost somewhere.

[tube fan]

Tube fan, I told you that you spoke to soon. We do agree on something!



This about sums it up perfectly.



They wouldn't turn up the sound because those speakers don't do loud that well - it cannot hold its composure. They also have issues when the mix is complex, dynamic, and touches on the frequency extreme's

When they played High Altitude Drums through it, it sounded good on the horn prelude at the beginning. But when the horns ALL came in along with the percussion, this speaker turned a very good but complex mix into a sonic mush that had zero definition. It is much like using you kitchen's drain to empty a large lake. It is very difficult to design a single driver that covers 10 octaves without giving up the ghost somewhere.

I was afraid of exactly this. Almost all rooms seemed to play their systems at lower than live levels. Only in the Audio Note room, and only with one of the salesmen, did I hear realistic, live levels. Turning up the volume can stress a system, and the Audio Notes were totally effortless in producing live volume levels. Despite playing their speakers at live volume (something I have found that women usually hate), of the 4 women who I asked what was their favorite room, 3 stated "the Audio Note room". Once, when I was in their room, a woman turned to her husband and said: "honey, you HAVE to buy those speakers". I suspect that, despite the high volume levels, the tonal saturation won them over. Of course, critics call that euphonic coloration. I know if my wife was there, she would have also told me that I "had" to buy the AN speakers. BTW, some say that the $7,500 AN AN-E HE speaker is BETTER that the $15,000 one at the show.

[Brian K]

They wouldn't turn up the sound because those speakers don't do loud that well - it cannot hold its composure. They also have issues when the mix is complex, dynamic, and touches on the frequency extreme's

When they played High Altitude Drums through it, it sounded good on the horn prelude at the beginning. But when the horns ALL came in along with the percussion, this speaker turned a very good but complex mix into a sonic mush that had zero definition. It is much like using you kitchen's drain to empty a large lake. It is very difficult to design a single driver that covers 10 octaves without giving up the ghost somewhere.

Although I think they make a nice piece of sculpture, the Teresonic speaker didn't really do it for me sonically. I had never heard a Lowther driver before and was very eager to hear what some people rave about. There's definitely a nice sound to them but it had a slight coloration and dullness to the sound. It reminded me a bit of the Bose stereo my old Infiniti came with that used a single full range paper cone. Being that there's no crossover you do get a nice uniform sound across the frequency spectrum but it lacked the depth and detail of other speakers. I didn't get to hear any complex passages on it but it did seem like giving it too much volume or a very dynamic range would push it outside of its comfort zone.

[theaudiohobby]

They did, and trust me on that one.

That's a pity

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That's a pity

Dang, I got the evil eye!!! LOLOL

[E-Stat]

... but they play extremely loud."

That has always been JBL's credo.

rw

[blackraven]

Frenchie, I've heard the $6000pr base price, $8000pr well equipped, Salk HTR-3's and they are a very well balanced speaker with a 10" woofer, midrange and ribbon tweeter. Big open transparent sound with lots of air and strong tight bass. They have a slightly warm sound but I heard them on Van Alstine tube and hybrid gear. The sound is smooth, detailed and they move a lot of air. You can feel the deep bass hit you in the chest.

http://www.salksound.com/ht3%20-%20home.htm

http://www.salksound.com/ht3%20-%20images.htm

They would be my first choice for a speaker upgrade. I briefly heard the Song Towers with out the ribbon tweeter upgrade and they sounded just ok but Fank VA had some crappy music on so it was hard to get a handle on how good they actually are. I was over at Franks house waiting while he upgraded my op amps in my DAC which took him all of 5min. So I didnt; have much time with the Song Towers.

As far as comparisons to Dynaudio's, I think the Salks have them beat although I am a fan of the dyn's. The Salks have a larger sound stage and great transparency and depth which is hard to find in a speaker. Unfortunately the electronics used for listening to each was different so its not a fair comaprison.

[tube fan]

I did not like the Everests at all. Just horrible IMO. Nothing like live music. Tonal purity and tonal saturation at around 0! They can play loud.

[poppachubby]

Great write up Adam, thanks for sharing.

[Mr Peabody]

Any one know what happen with Wadia after they went out of business some years ago? Is what we are seeing today the same company or did some one buy them?

Adam you could have weighed in with your opinion on the Everest.

[JohnMichael]

Adam the bookshelf speakers are from Sonus Faber an Italian brand. I am not sure of the model.


Here is a link.

http://www.sonusfaber.com/eng/collec..._auditorm.html

[atomicAdam]

Adam the bookshelf speakers are from Sonus Faber an Italian brand. I am not sure of the model.


Here is a link.

http://www.sonusfaber.com/eng/collec..._auditorm.html

I think you got it - the Cermona line.

[PeruvianSkies]

Any one know what happen with Wadia after they went out of business some years ago? Is what we are seeing today the same company or did some one buy them?

Adam you could have weighed in with your opinion on the Everest.

I am not sure of what all happened, about 3 years ago though I nearly got a Wadia reference CD player, but lost the bid on eBay in the last few seconds....I am still bummed about that one. A few days later though I got the Parasound universal player instead though and have been satisfied, but still want a dedicated CD player of Wadia-like caliber.

[tube fan]

In the latest issue of "The Absolute Sound" (September) Jonathan Valin reviews the tape system I raved about at the show: "The Tape Project Open-Reel Tapes". So far, they only have 20 copies of master tapes for sale and they are not cheap. $500 per tape. Valin admits that the best of the tapes are better than any other source he has heard. (he uses a phono system that costs upwards of $100,000). He suggests that some are taping their vinyl records to capture analogue sound without ticks and pops. That i will have to look into.

[atomicAdam]

In the latest issue of "The Absolute Sound" (September) Jonathan Valin reviews the tape system I raved about at the show: "The Tape Project Open-Reel Tapes". So far, they only have 20 copies of master tapes for sale and they are not cheap. $500 per tape. Valin admits that the best of the tapes are better than any other source he has heard. (he uses a phono system that costs upwards of $100,000). He suggests that some are taping their vinyl records to capture analogue sound without ticks and pops. That i will have to look into.

I thought I heard you get each tape for $500 or all for $700, something something. Anyways - lets be real, for those price points you can pretty much higher a band to play in your livingroom for the night.

[Feanor]

In the latest issue of "The Absolute Sound" (September) Jonathan Valin reviews the tape system I raved about at the show: "The Tape Project Open-Reel Tapes". So far, they only have 20 copies of master tapes for sale and they are not cheap. $500 per tape. Valin admits that the best of the tapes are better than any other source he has heard. (he uses a phono system that costs upwards of $100,000). He suggests that some are taping their vinyl records to capture analogue sound without ticks and pops. That i will have to look into.

Without disputing the virtues of tape, if the objective is to converting vinyl in such a way as to capture the analog sound, capture them to CD. As I've heard, the "analog" quality is preserved quite well taking this approach; (I haven't tried it myself but vinyl-loving members around here have reported so in the past). Also, some people suggest the recording to lossless computer file works well too.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

In the latest issue of "The Absolute Sound" (September) Jonathan Valin reviews the tape system I raved about at the show: "The Tape Project Open-Reel Tapes". So far, they only have 20 copies of master tapes for sale and they are not cheap. $500 per tape. Valin admits that the best of the tapes are better than any other source he has heard. (he uses a phono system that costs upwards of $100,000). He suggests that some are taping their vinyl records to capture analogue sound without ticks and pops. That i will have to look into.

I have about 35 open reel tapes I have kept from previous recording sessions that I did. They are excellent recordings captured on an excellent deck. However, in transferring those tapes to disc via the DXD format, I could not tell which were the tapes, and which were the disc during an improptu blind test. I ended up trancoding the DXD files to PCM 24-192khz, so the comparison was definately worth doing.

I would suggest that these guys get out more, and hear more formats. DXD is a far better capture format, and can pretty much losslessly be transferred to SACD or PCM at 24/192khz.

[RGA]

I said I would not comment in this thread and I won't. Here is Jack Robert's of Dagogo's show report

Part 1 page 1 Legacy Audio, Magico V2s

http://dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=778

Part 1 page 2 covering JBL Project Everest loudspeakers, The Lotus Group’s room, Teresonic/Musical Surroundings, Evolution Acoustics, Audio Note UK (I don't need to comment ) Looks like at least a foot from the corners - uggh. Might be getting 60% of what they're about. Mario must have been having fits. Oops I commented so I'll stop. http://dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?b...ageOfArticle=1

[tube fan]

I have about 35 open reel tapes I have kept from previous recording sessions that I did. They are excellent recordings captured on an excellent deck. However, in transferring those tapes to disc via the DXD format, I could not tell which were the tapes, and which were the disc during an improptu blind test. I ended up trancoding the DXD files to PCM 24-192khz, so the comparison was definately worth doing.

I would suggest that these guys get out more, and hear more formats. DXD is a far better capture format, and can pretty much losslessly be transferred to SACD or PCM at 24/192khz.

I've heard all the formats, and NO digital format comes close to analogue. First, sound is analogue. Thus, you have to convert the analogue signal to digital, and then, because we listen only to analogue sounds, the digital information has to go through yet another distorting process: a digital to analogue conversion. Sound is flattened, tonal saturation is lost, and micro dynamics are reduced.

One of the rooms was playing the Bill Evans "Waltz for Debby" recording in ever higher CD formats. Yes, the sound got more realistic, but, fortunately, I had a vinyl record of the recording, and after playing the vinyl, EVERYONE, including the salesmen, admitted that the vinyl DESTROYED the best CDs. Yes, especially in micro dynamics (like the small details of Paul Motian's cymbal strokes, and Scott LaFaro's subtle bass playing).
Yes, in producing three dimensional sound. Yes, in tonal saturation.

BTW, in the latest Stereophile, it's highly informative to look at John Atkinson's measurements of the Audio ResearchVSi60 integrated tube amp (he dismisses the amp as having less than outstand measurements) compared to his own full review of the Acapella High Violoncello II speaker ($80,000) . He found the Acapella less than realistic driven by the Classe CTM-600 ss monoblocks and the ss Simaudio Moon Evolution W-7. The BAT VK-55SE tube was much better, but, the very same tube Audio Research unit which he said measured just OK, the VSi60 (priced at just $4,000), drove the Acapella to an outstandingly realistic level of performance. He said that only the Audio Research tube unit got the balance between the high and low treble regions correct, and that the AR unit fleshed out the low frequencies!

CD sound, even the very highest resolution, falls short of vinyl, as vinyl falls short of master tapes (or direct copies of master tapes). Ditto for ss and tube amplification, and mm and mc cartridges.

[Mr Peabody]

That ARC integrated has been around some time, why is he reviewing it now? i know you are an ARC fan but I didn't like the sound of the VXI-60. The Classe amps no better.

[RGA]

Tube fan

This is a bit O.T. but related to a point I have made for years. There are two kinds of uses that a stereo system has and a recording engineer looks at a system and wants a "hyper" reality of the event in a sense that he wants to hear every aspect compartmentalized and pulled apart so that each part can be scrutinized. It's not a relaxing experience.

Looking strictly at the end user (which is the only one of relavence) then arguments over vinyl and CD or master tapes don't matter. Master Tapes may sound better but can I buy Lady Gaga on master tape? Probably not. So you have to have other mediums. CD and Vinyl have more program music on those formats than anything else. There is a TON of vinyl out there that is not available on CD - if it is about music you need a turntable to get those recordings. This is also true of CD - there is a LOT of music on CD that you can't get on vinyl. Then there are the strange albums on both. Sarah McLachlan has her new album on both but on the LP the album is short 3 songs. Jewel has an album where the vinyl version has 2-3 extra songs.

Then there are the vinyls out there from other countries that have a different mix - I believe Phil Collins has an album or two like that where the British cut is different from the American ones.

The best sound I have heard has come from vinyl - best doesn't mean accurate - it means best. It means that the sound of the instrument sounds better and "sounds" more like the real thing than the CD versions of the same albums, even the remastered versions of the CD. Even on relative dumpy stuff like Madonna. But, even if people should disagree with that - there is still thousands and thousands of albums on vinyl that isn't on any other format. A turntable is at the very least a necessary evil - if it is about the music and not the gear.

Tubes and SS - Audiophiles tend to leave SS for tubes and don't go back. I grew up on SS and CD not vinyl and tubes. I find vinyl to be a royal pain in the arse - and tubes are not a lot better.

Consider the work involved. A turntable has a lot of moving bits and you have to learn a bit about it. There are VTA tonearms, you have to set it up properly, you have to change the stylus, most of the higher end tables make you take the platter off to change the belts for 45rpm - PAIN IN THE BUTT.

Tubes are a pain - they blow and that is after a slow steady degrading process. They can blow and if they do they can take boards with them. They're arguably more fire prone. Add to that the whole thing about bias adjusting. Sure it's not hard but to the average non electrician folks out there when you tell them to buy a voltmeter they run scared. Granted I am fortunate that the company that makes my amps don't need biasing but they're not the norm.

Having said all that to get me, Mr Bryston, to buy an 8 watt tube amp with no remote and a 1 year warranty (and doesn't even look sexy like a Shanling) over an 160 watt power amp with matching preamp and 20 year warranty with no fussy issues like tube replacements, and is also from my homeland, has to have something brought to the table that so profoundly outclasses the amp with all the many and deep tertiary advantages. The synic will say it is Euphony. That's fine - Euphony means "pleasing" and as an end user I would like my stereo to sound "pleasing" - my other choice is "not" to sound "pleasing" and if you want something that doesn't sound "pleasing" then be my guest. Other analogies fail as well. SS is like meal without any spices or things to add flavour. Tubes alter the ingredients. I suppose so - a Tube may be like a marinated cooked filet mignon prepared by Gordon Ramsey to perfection. A SS amp may be a raw hunk of beef. I dunno a lot but I know which one is worth paying for and which is worth actually eating. Altering the meat makes it better and here it comes "more pleasing" or "euphonic." Granted you run the risk with some tube amps to push too much or to "over marinate" or to use too much salt which can ruin the food. So it's important to have a good chef at the helm.

CD versus LP - buy both. CD is great and so are some of the recordings I heard done by the Pudget sound recording guys where there resolution rates are some of the highest out there - they did a great job with Usher loudspeakers. The other aspect to consider is the specific CD versus LP of the same artists. Sometimes the CD version just sounds better and more often of what I have bought the LP version sounds better. This is arguably the recording process more than the format. LP can't save a bad recording and those early CDs were so darn awful that CD got a poorer reputation than was probably fair. It also didn't help that those early machines were terrible.

I saw a TEAC reel to reel machine in a used shop today going for $55 and it looked to be in great condition - I almost went for it but I don't know which brands are considered the A-list machines. TEAC has been into high end gear and also made some truly disastrous junk over the years.

[tube fan]

You can't go wrong for $55. Yes, tubes are a pain. Yes, tts and cartridges are a pain. But then, I grind my coffee beans and use a french press to make my coffee. I work out 1 to 2 1/2 hours a day. If you are lazy, stick to ss and cds. My ears simply won't let me settle for inferior, but convenient, musical sources. They keep saying CDs are getting better. Ditto for ss. I don't want to settle for "better", when the alternative is clearly superior. IMO, keep a backup analogue system for the times when something goes wrong with your main system. Right now I am looking at low power amps and high efficiency speakers as a potential new backup to my main system. I still get a big kick out of the fact that JA had to go to a "cheap" tube integrated to get great sound out of an $80,000 speaker!

[theaudiohobby]

Another hijacked thread coming your way

[Brian K]

I hate to contribute to the pirating of a thread but ....

I'll briefly say that if you compare CD sound quality vs vinyl sound it's a pretty easy choice in favor of the vinyl. Fortunately, we're not stuck in the 80's and there are alot of alternative digital recording mediums being used now. Some of the super high res (172khz PCM, 24bit 192khz) digital stuff sounds absolutely fantastic and you don't have to have a reel to reel tape machine with master tapes. The problem is finding your favorite music in a high res format you can playback. There's no clearcut choice for what format to use like there was when 'redbook' CD came out. Fortunately, I use my computer as my main source at home and can playback virutally anything. The super high res recordings I've been able to get my hands one really do stand apart from their redbook counterparts and I believe beat out vinyl recordings in sound quality.

Unfortunately, new formats in audio really have a hard time finding consensus and not many producers and product developers want to waste money on a 'fad'. Hopefully in another 5-10years redbook will be history and will be replaced by a single super high res digital format. When that happens it is going to be alot harder to see a clear winner in the vinyl vs digital argument. Until then, I'm stuck listening to a few choice cuts over and over