-
Quote:
Originally Posted by snodog
Well sad to say I don't know how long I can stand this problem with my receiver not producing sound on one of the main speakers so I am going to delay any hope of getting something high end like separate components (I think we defined that) and will just go with a midrange AV theater receiver like originally thought. I don't like the idea of only two channel systems and prefer the 6 channel surround. I will probably get the Onkyo 705 on account of being very current with technology. 7.1 dolby true hd and dts with 1.3 hdmi inputs and such. I wonder if they will be coming out with hd audio cds sometime, maybe they would catch on better now with the hd video flooding the market better than the super audios ever really had the chance to.
sacd will probably be the HD cd, if it surrives.
And if you're thinking about Onkyo, then you might want to consider Integra, their lexus brand. They are basically onkyo with a few improvements.
Even tho I dont consider any reciever really "high end" my integra sounds really nice,
with 192k dacs (i think) and great HT performance as well.
And Mr p, as for shrinking woofers, this comes from the advent of the sub.
"woofers" in speakers now only go down to around 50hz or so, a seperate sub is supposed to take up the slack.
The original idea was that bass coming out of the speaker muddied the midrange somehow, with a seperate sub you get better midrange, THAT is the theory anyway.
And a friends father has an old pair of electrovoice, they sound pretty good, but I think they are about as old as I am!!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
sacd will probably be the HD cd, if it surrives.
And if you're thinking about Onkyo, then you might want to consider Integra, their lexus brand. They are basically onkyo with a few improvements.
Even tho I dont consider any reciever really "high end" my integra sounds really nice,
with 192k dacs (i think) and great HT performance as well.
And Mr p, as for shrinking woofers, this comes from the advent of the sub.
"woofers" in speakers now only go down to around 50hz or so, a seperate sub is supposed to take up the slack.
The original idea was that bass coming out of the speaker muddied the midrange somehow, with a seperate sub you get better midrange, THAT is the theory anyway.
And a friends father has an old pair of electrovoice, they sound pretty good, but I think they are about as old as I am!!
Woofers with the proper enclosure should be able to reach 30 Hertz without much difficulty. They need not be large example , AR3a. Sub woofers are amplified base speakers. When another piece of equipment is added to an audio system it increases noise and other unwanted hormonics.
The ideal speaker system would be one speaker able to produce the entire spectrum
without crossovers, mid and high end speakers. So far that is not possible.
Example the fewer controls a pre-amp has the cleaner the sound. Very high end pre-amps usually limit the number of controls.
EV was unable to make the transition from large speakers to smaller speakers with the introduction of stereo. The big horn , bass reflex's and infinite baffle speakers produced clean bass down to 30 hertz and less. But it took two and few people had the space for two large speakers.
Speakers such as KLH and AR was able to produce excellent excellent base without the size. But the problem was these speakers required amphliers with clean big watts.
Many receivers was unable to do this.
With the decline of jazz , classical and the change from artist using orchestras such as Sinatra etc, there was no longer a need for clean non amplified bass.
Music had changed and so had audio equipment. Those who had the means could still afford the big systems , but those systems are now out of the reach of most listeners.
Excellent audio has been replaced today with video , ie, surround sound where audio is no longer as important as video , example plasma , LCD , HD , etc.
The baby grand pianos , the large grandfather clocks , the big audio systems etc, are reserved for those who have the means.
We can wait around and hope but the days of the big audio systems producing detailed
sound of a large symphony orchestra has passed .
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by snodog
I believe you misunderstood what I was trying to say Melvin, a sound system so realistic it can bring things to life...? Meaning Willie Nelson smokes weed, no implications of you doing so. Could be you were caught up in being sure you informed us of your prestigious car club memberships as well. Image isn't all that impressive when someone has the means and resources to do so. It is pretty simple, If I was a millionaire I would have a better sound system and house and car and blah blah.
Cars have generally been used in comparison with audio. Car hobbyist have much in common with audio hobbyist. The difference as posted earlier is that there are car clubs ,
there are no audio clubs.
As in most consumer items the high end whether clothing , audio , cars , housing , etc, is no longer available to the average worker. Not so 20 years ago. I used cars as an example because everyone generally owns a car and can understand the costs differences between a S series Mercedes and a Toyota. Is there any difference in the ownership of a Conrad Johnson or Audio Research amplifier with a Marantz Reciever ?
Most but not all buy high end items for image. What's the point of having the means if no one knows it ? Why would a women pay $10,000 for a Hermes purse ? or a man $15.000
for a Patek Philippe watch if not for image ? Is owning a Mark Levinson $8,000 mono
power amp any different. Stereo $16,000.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
sacd will probably be the HD cd, if it surrives.
It already is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
...as for shrinking woofers, this comes from the advent of the sub.
I think it has more to do with WAF and the rise of HT. Even large Revel models that do first octave bass employ an array of small woofers and have a narrow cabinet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
The original idea was that bass coming out of the speaker muddied the midrange somehow, with a seperate sub you get better midrange, THAT is the theory anyway.
Interesting. Never heard that theory advanced.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
Most but not all buy high end items for image. What's the point of having the means if no one knows it ? Why would a women pay $10,000 for a Hermes purse ? or a man $15.000
for a Patek Philippe watch if not for image ? Is owning a Mark Levinson $8,000 mono
power amp any different. Stereo $16,000.
maybe because it's their hobby to collect expensive watches?
btw, fact is that if you bought a 8k ML monoblock, and an exotic system overall, most of the people won't even notice, they'd rather be impressed by the most expensive Bose system.
Why? because bose is a name everyone knows, and it's expensive.
you don't really have to buy expensive audio gear just for your image...
right now, I'm testing/auditioning various interconnects, prices vary between €200 and €400 for 0.5 metres, do you think anyone else would notice the cables? no. And if they'd noticed, they wouldn't care.
Keep them spinning,
Bert.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
Is owning a Mark Levinson $8,000 mono
power amp any different..
I think so for a reason you previously mentioned. How many folks really understand the investment represented by kilobuck amplifiers? Two percent of the population? One? Prestige items require recognition for them to "work". Other than three audio reviewer friends, no one who has ever seen my MB-450s has any idea what they are much less what they cost. Which is fine by me. ;)
I think watches are a bit different, although extreme cases like Patek Philipe don't apply to my theory. I appreciate fine machinery. I had an Omega Flightmaster back in the 70s when it was a state-of-the-art timepiece Today, I have a Speedmaster because I enjoy owning a precision instrument (and acknowledge that my $40 Casio Atomic is more accurate!)
rw
-
Aw, Melvin, I can't accept the only reason people buy high end electronics is for the image. I certainly didn't and I don't think I'm a minority. My reason was pure performance and enjoyment. My gear is more than what some one with my income would normally have.
A large orchestra presentation should easily be met with a pair of Martin Logan's or perhaps Maggies driven by capable electronics. I think some box speakers are up to the task but maybe not to the extent of the ML's.
The Infinite Baffle speakers I've heard may play down to 30 Hz but the bass is similar to good but not great headphones, it's like the bass is there but lacking form. I personally prefer a box for woofer, there is more detail and physical information.
I understand your fondness for vintage speakers but there are very capable speakers today. Let's face it there are much better cone materials today than paper. A 15" woofer or larger may be fun but not generally very accurate. I don't know the specs on the old EV stuff but the Pro rarely went below 50 Hz and front horn loaded stopped at 60Hz. I have yet to hear Klipsch's famous Horn or Cornwalls but the several models I have heard were very offensive to my ears. The horns they use are too small to do a good job at disspersion, the distortion was ridiculous for a speaker of that cost and the sound stage is very poor. I just can't accept one looking for good quality audio should give up because there is home theater gear on the market, it's not the only thing available. As good as the Altec or AR 9's etc. were, there are speakers today that are much more superior in sound quality and probably cheaper in comparison.
Please don't take this wrong, just asking as a reference, when was the last time you wondered into a specialty store carrying high end gear?
Not meaning to get off on another tangent but tube gear has improved as well over the years. Many of the old stereotypes no longer apply to quality tube gear. You can find tube amps with very good bass detail and extended highs, Unfortunately, tube power is expensive and even more so for good tube power. I mean you can get 30 to 40 watt integrated amps cheap but large amps to drive less sensitive speakers cost.
-
Bassite, you should put Siltech on your cable audition list. I've been impressed with the MXT New Yorker series. Couldn't afford to try anything above that. Siltech is able to give me the great bass response of Transparent while providing a much more lush mid and high end. Lush doesn't mean lack of any detail either.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
Bassite, you should put Siltech on your cable audition list. I've been impressed with the MXT New Yorker series. Couldn't afford to try anything above that. Siltech is able to give me the great bass response of Transparent while providing a much more lush mid and high end. Lush doesn't mean lack of any detail either.
as a matter of fact,
I am already :)
I now have the Siltech MXT new york here (just like you have in your system)
I'll make a thread about the cables I tried soon...
Right now the list cosists of :
Siltech MXT New York
Kimber Kable Hero
Audioquest Red dragon
Nordost Blue Heaven
Crystal Cable Piccolo
and, a brand my dealer liked alot himself, but unfortunately I can't find much about it, maybe you guys happen to know more: Sonic Link Black Earth (which, btw, my dealer sells me for half the price...)
Right now I'm comparing the siltech and the Sonic Link, I like the siltech alot, but the Sonic Link comes really close too, and I feel it has (slightly) better detail...
Keep them spinning,
Bert.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
I think so for a reason you previously mentioned. How many folks really understand the investment represented by kilobuck amplifiers? Two percent of the population? One? Prestige items require recognition for them to "work". Other than three audio reviewer friends, no one who has ever seen my MB-450s has any idea what they are much less what they cost. Which is fine by me. ;)
I think watches are a bit different, although extreme cases like Patek Philipe don't apply to my theory. I appreciate fine machinery. I had an Omega Flightmaster back in the 70s when it was a state-of-the-art timepiece Today, I have a Speedmaster because I enjoy owning a precision instrument (and acknowledge that my $40 Casio Atomic is more accurate!)
rw
When one buys an Aston Martin DBS one is not buying it for the masses to appreciate
but to be appreciated by their peers. You are correct a quartz watch is more accurate than a mechanical one. Than why would someone pay $30,000 for a Patek Philippe or Audemars Piguet , that keeps no better time or not as good time as a Casio costing less than $200.00 ?
Prestige items need not be recognized by the masses , but by the few that the owner is interested in impressing. A pair of British made Richard Green shoes or a Turnbull and Astor shirt is not in most cases recognized by the masses are they ? Than why would a man spent a $1000.00 for the shoes and $ 400,00 for the shirt ?
Is audio any different ? Most Americans have never heard of Mark Levinson , but to those who own them and those who are aware of them it has the same effect as owning aN Aston Martin DBS.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
When one buys an Aston Martin DBS one is not buying it for the masses to appreciate
but to be appreciated by their peers. You are correct a quartz watch is more accurate than a mechanical one. Than why would someone pay $30,000 for a Patek Philippe or Audemars Piguet , that keeps no better time or not as good time as a Casio costing less than $200.00 ?
Prestige items need not be recognized by the masses , but by the few that the owner is interested in impressing. A pair of British made Richard Green shoes or a Turnbull and Astor shirt is not in most cases recognized by the masses are they ? Than why would a man spent a $1000.00 for the shoes and $ 400,00 for the shirt ?
Is audio any different ? Most Americans have never heard of Mark Levinson , but to those who own them and those who are aware of them it has the same effect as owning aN Aston Martin DBS.
what about when you buy the aston martin because YOU like it?
I wouldn't buy exotic audio gear if I didn't like it, no matter how much it'd impress other people.
Keep them spinning,
Bert.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by basite
maybe because it's their hobby to collect expensive watches?
btw, fact is that if you bought a 8k ML monoblock, and an exotic system overall, most of the people won't even notice, they'd rather be impressed by the most expensive Bose system.
Why? because bose is a name everyone knows, and it's expensive.
you don't really have to buy expensive audio gear just for your image...
right now, I'm testing/auditioning various interconnects, prices vary between €200 and €400 for 0.5 metres, do you think anyone else would notice the cables? no. And if they'd noticed, they wouldn't care.
Keep them spinning,
Bert.
You are correct most people are more aware of Bose. Bose are not expensive. People buy expensive audio equipment for many reasons impressing their friends may be only one of them. But it is generally one of them.
The Merdedes-Benz SLR McLaren has an AMC-built V8 engine which produces 617 hp.
Do you think that anyone would notice ? yes those that are interested in exotic cars.
The same would apply to your various interconnects.
Most people are more aware of a Lexus sedan than a RollsRoyce sedan. On that point I agree with you. But than a RollsRoyce is not for everyone. Is audio any different ? A Mark Levinson is not for everyone. A bose is.
-
You have access to a good selection of cables. The first I've heard of Sonic Link. It's amazing how many brands are out there now.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
St.Louis has lost most it's audio high end stores. At one time there was a dozen high end audio stores in the St. Louis metro area. The ones you listed are all new, Most enterning the St.Louis market after 1980.
Best Sound's owner once was a salesman at High Fi West , Les Marcus.
Gordon Sound Co's owner was a Bozak rep. Located on Hampton. He was the one who help set up the live vs recorded sound at Powell Symphony Hall.
Hi-fi- fo Fum is a recent arrival to St.Louis from Milwaukee. Aeolian Piano Co. was the oldest audio high end store in St. Louis. Aeolian featured Bozak ,and Stephens speakers. and was also a Fisher Radio distributor.
High Fi West was a McIntosh distributor owned by Harvey Bender. Times have changed , not only in St.Louis but through-out the country.
St.Louis Audio located on Lindbergh and Clayton road was the last really high end audio shop in St.Louis they closed several years ago. They sold Audio Research , Mc.Intosh ,
Levinson and was the last St.Louis store to sell Bozak speakers.
-
So what is the best High-End store in St.Louis these days. I will be home to visit family in the summer and was hoping to get to a good high end store. Where shall I go?
frenchmon
-
Melvin, why anyone would pay 30,000 for a f$cking watch is nothing more than supidity in my opinion. One could have a very nice functional watch as well as helping other people out financially with that amount. For instance Melvin, next time before you purchase a watch for an amount like that, why not share the experience with a fellow AV forum member in Minnesota and send him the 'high end' gift of music?? Only meant as funny Melvin.
On another note, I was wondering about amp and preamps. If you want 7.1 channel surround do you need to find a newer model that has 7.1 or hdmi that or does the device (bluray or hd player) do the work decoding?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
You have access to a good selection of cables. The first I've heard of Sonic Link. It's amazing how many brands are out there now.
yeah, the first I heard about it too...
it's pretty good though, and dare I say it, I find the bass better as the siltechs, but the siltech is still burning in, so it might still get better...
Sonic Link uses more exotic materials too, there's some Rhodium in the cable :cornut:
Keep them spinning,
Bert.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
Aw, Melvin, I can't accept the only reason people buy high end electronics is for the image. I certainly didn't and I don't think I'm a minority. My reason was pure performance and enjoyment. My gear is more than what some one with my income would normally have.
A large orchestra presentation should easily be met with a pair of Martin Logan's or perhaps Maggies driven by capable electronics. I think some box speakers are up to the task but maybe not to the extent of the ML's.
The Infinite Baffle speakers I've heard may play down to 30 Hz but the bass is similar to good but not great headphones, it's like the bass is there but lacking form. I personally prefer a box for woofer, there is more detail and physical information.
I understand your fondness for vintage speakers but there are very capable speakers today. Let's face it there are much better cone materials today than paper. A 15" woofer or larger may be fun but not generally very accurate. I don't know the specs on the old EV stuff but the Pro rarely went below 50 Hz and front horn loaded stopped at 60Hz. I have yet to hear Klipsch's famous Horn or Cornwalls but the several models I have heard were very offensive to my ears. The horns they use are too small to do a good job at disspersion, the distortion was ridiculous for a speaker of that cost and the sound stage is very poor. I just can't accept one looking for good quality audio should give up because there is home theater gear on the market, it's not the only thing available. As good as the Altec or AR 9's etc. were, there are speakers today that are much more superior in sound quality and probably cheaper in comparison.
Please don't take this wrong, just asking as a reference, when was the last time you wondered into a specialty store carrying high end gear?
Not meaning to get off on another tangent but tube gear has improved as well over the years. Many of the old stereotypes no longer apply to quality tube gear. You can find tube amps with very good bass detail and extended highs, Unfortunately, tube power is expensive and even more so for good tube power. I mean you can get 30 to 40 watt integrated amps cheap but large amps to drive less sensitive speakers cost.
I never said all people I used the word general. As for as today's audio equipment I agree there has been many advances in audio technology. But than there are physics , that has not changed.
The new Steinway Lyngdorf speaker system is an example of how far audio technology has come.
How would they compare with the large Tannoy , Bozak's , JBL's , Electro-Voice systems of the past ? An A-B test would be interesting.. At over $100,000 what do you think.
From the reviews I have read the Steinway's are simply outstanding and so is the price.
I have visited an audio shops recently , I was not impressed , as I have seen a reduction in quality in many of the high end audio gear due to price especially speakers.
To produce a speaker system comparable to a Bozak Concert Grand using new technology today would cost the consumer over $15,000 per speaker. One of the reasons Bozak no longer exist.
Remember the Bozak Concert Grands , EV Patricians , JBL Hartsfield's , Jensen Imperials , Tannoy Autograph professional , were the standards of an era. Klipsch was not a part of that group as the Klipsch enclosure was an excellent horn , but the speaker system inside was third rate. As a result many audiophiles used the Klipsch enclosure but substituted the speaker system with either JBL or KV speakers.
On this subject we can agree to disagree. I respect your vast knowledge of present day audio. I only wish you had listened to the systems listed. It was a blast.
Much like watching Fred Astaire dance with Ginger Rogers.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
I have visited an audio shops recently , I was not impressed , as I have seen a reduction in quality in many of the high end audio gear due to price especially speakers.
To produce a speaker system comparable to a Bozak Concert Grand using new technology today would cost the consumer over $15,000 per speaker. One of the reasons Bozak no longer exist.
you visited the wrong shops.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
When one buys an Aston Martin DBS one is not buying it for the masses to appreciate
but to be appreciated by their peers.
I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I firmly believe more folks would recognize a "fancy ferren' " car far more readily than a black box. The other difference is that cars are visible to hundreds, if not thousands of people every day just driving around. Someone has to visit me and walk upstairs in order to see my $30k speakers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
You are correct a quartz watch is more accurate than a mechanical one. Than why would someone pay $30,000 for a Patek Philippe or Audemars Piguet , that keeps no better time or not as good time as a Casio costing less than $200.00 ?
A $30 atomic watch will ALWAYS be more accurate than any mechanical or quartz watch because it relies on the *ultimate* watch out in Bolder for its performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
A pair of British made Richard Green shoes or a Turnbull and Astor shirt is not in most cases recognized by the masses are they ? Than why would a man spent a $1000.00 for the shoes and $ 400,00 for the shirt ?
Unlike cars, I don't disagree with these examples.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
IRemember the Bozak Concert Grands , EV Patricians , JBL Hartsfield's , Jensen Imperials , Tannoy Autograph professional , were the standards of an era.
An era that has long since passed. While they represented the pinnacle of performance then, they simply do not measure up (literally or figuratively) to today's best.
Bozak Concert Grands
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
I don't know who we are but I never knew an audiophile who bragged about doing drugs , nor did I know one who did drugs.
Audiophiles are simply audio hobbyist , unlike car hobbist there are no national audio clubs ,such as the Porsche club of North America. The largest sports car club in America. Yes they sit around and discuss Porsche motor cars , so do other car club members.
In the St. Louis area audiophiles would meet at one of the audio stores and sit around and discuss audio. They loved their stereo systems as car hobbyist loved their cars.
The major difference was that one had to own a Porsche are one could not join the club.
Audio hobbyist was much more liberal, anyone could come in and discuss their stereo systems , regardless of the systems cost. Not so with auto clubs, a Porsche owner has no interest in anyone that owns anything less than a high performance sports car. Japanese cars and American cars need not apply. That includes Corvettes.
BMW , Mercedes , Ferrari , Jaguar owners might attend but none of the unwashed.
Marantz or any Japanese audo equipment., would be considered the unwashed. But here we can agree to disgree , we are all equal regardless of our audio systems cost.
When I was a member of the Mercedes car club we would remark that if a Mercedes cost
$ 60,000 , you paid $40,000 for the car and $20,000 for the star. Image is everything.
Hi Melvin. I saw that you own many classic Marantz pre amps and amps. Vintage tube gear. How do you like it, and how does the sound compare to todays sound of Marantz reference amps and pre amps of today.
frenchmon
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
Woofers with the proper enclosure should be able to reach 30 Hertz without much difficulty. They need not be large example , AR3a. Sub woofers are amplified base speakers. When another piece of equipment is added to an audio system it increases noise and other unwanted hormonics.
The ideal speaker system would be one speaker able to produce the entire spectrum
without crossovers, mid and high end speakers. So far that is not possible.
Example the fewer controls a pre-amp has the cleaner the sound. Very high end pre-amps usually limit the number of controls.
EV was unable to make the transition from large speakers to smaller speakers with the introduction of stereo. The big horn , bass reflex's and infinite baffle speakers produced clean bass down to 30 hertz and less. But it took two and few people had the space for two large speakers.
Speakers such as KLH and AR was able to produce excellent excellent base without the size. But the problem was these speakers required amphliers with clean big watts.
Many receivers was unable to do this.
With the decline of jazz , classical and the change from artist using orchestras such as Sinatra etc, there was no longer a need for clean non amplified bass.
Music had changed and so had audio equipment. Those who had the means could still afford the big systems , but those systems are now out of the reach of most listeners.
Excellent audio has been replaced today with video , ie, surround sound where audio is no longer as important as video , example plasma , LCD , HD , etc.
The baby grand pianos , the large grandfather clocks , the big audio systems etc, are reserved for those who have the means.
We can wait around and hope but the days of the big audio systems producing detailed
sound of a large symphony orchestra has passed .
And what about the big dance halls of the 40's and 50's that could hold big bands such as Sinatra's and Chick Web's Band? Waht about Glen Millers Band? Now that good old music is reserved for those who enjoy it on CD. But its sound through some of the mid fi gear just does not sound the same. I love my Kinda Blue by Miles, but to me its not fitted or engineered for todays gear.
frenchmon
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
An era that has long since passed. While they represented the pinnacle of performance then, they simply do not measure up (literally or figuratively) to today's best.
Bozak Concert Grands
rw
You are correct, A steinway Lyngdorf is by far one of the finest speaker systems produced . it only cost slightly over $ 150,000 !
It would be interesting to A-B that speaker agianst a pair of tri-amp Concert Grands.
Or maybe a pair of Tannoy Churchill's.
We must remember that speakers work with physics , a large pipe organ can produce clear bass that the finest speaker system can only dream of.
Electronics or different. Digital which produces square waves has a very difficult time converting to analog . We listen in analog. A steinway piano's note is analog.
That effects detail not dynamics , the one advantage digital sound has over analog is dynamics.
Again you are correct about a different era passed . But I would respond with the music of Gershwin , Kern , Rogers and Hart , Astaire , Kelly , Sinatra , Day , Miles , Miller , Ella, Tracy , Olivier ,Davis , Bergman etc., etc, An era long past , but what do we have to compare with them today ?
Willie Nelson ? , The Beatles ? , Elvis ?, Michael Jackson ?
Times have changed.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
An era that has long since passed. While they represented the pinnacle of performance then, they simply do not measure up (literally or figuratively) to today's best.
Bozak Concert Grands
rw
And I would have to agree
frenchmon
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
You are correct, A steinway Lyngdorf is by far one of the finest speaker systems produced . it only cost slightly over $ 150,000 !
It would be interesting to A-B that speaker agianst a pair of tri-amp Concert Grands.
Or maybe a pair of Tannoy Churchill's.
you would come to the conclusion that the lyngdorfs would still beat the concert grands in every possible way.
and you think in extremes too much.
there are speakers today that don't cost 150k too, and they would still be better than the concert grands, no matter how much you take of them.
Keep them spinning,
Bert.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
You are correct, A steinway Lyngdorf is by far one of the finest speaker systems produced . it only cost slightly over $ 150,000 !
It would be interesting to A-B that speaker agianst a pair of tri-amp Concert Grands.
Or maybe a pair of Tannoy Churchill's.
We must remember that speakers work with physics , a large pipe organ can produce clear bass that the finest speaker system can only dream of.
Electronics or different. Digital which produces square waves has a very difficult time converting to analog . We listen in analog. A steinway piano's note is analog.
That effects detail not dynamics , the one advantage digital sound has over analog is dynamics.
Again you are correct about a different era passed . But I would respond with the music of Gershwin , Kern , Rogers and Hart , Astaire , Kelly , Sinatra , Day , Miles , Miller , Ella, Tracy , Olivier ,Davis , Bergman etc., etc, An era long past , but what do we have to compare with them today ?
Willie Nelson ? , The Beatles ? , Elvis ?, Michael Jackson ?
Times have changed.
And as much as I love the music you listed from that gone era...its my favorite music, it just does not sound right coming from a two channel system of to-day. It was recorded with inferior technology. Now Put on some Diana Krall or Eliane Elias then you have a different story.
frenchmon
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchmon
Hi Melvin. I saw that you own many classic Marantz pre amps and amps. Vintage tube gear. How do you like it, and how does the sound compare to todays sound of Marantz reference amps and pre amps of today.
frenchmon
The tube pre-amps and power amps today are far superior to those made pre 1970's. Speakers are a little different. We must remember that the ears are the easiest thing to fool.
Humans hearing is very poor , our eyesight is far better. That is why to judge an audio system there must be a A-B comparison. The fun of being a hobbyist is to debate.
In the old days the debate was which is better a Ford or Chevy ? Marantz or McIntosh ?
Miles or Dizzy ?, Sarah or Ella ?. Astaire or Kelly ?
I answered the first part of your question as for as Marantz reference amps and pre-amps I have never heard them.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
The tube pre-amps and power amps today are far superior to those made pre 1970's. Speakers are a little different. We must remember that the ears are the easiest thing to fool.
Humans hearing is very poor , our eyesight is far better. That is why to judge an audio system there must be a A-B comparison. The fun of being a hobbyist is to debate.
In the old days the debate was which is better a Ford or Chevy ? Marantz or McIntosh ?
Miles or Dizzy ?, Sarah or Ella ?. Astaire or Kelly ?
I answered the first part of your question as for as Marantz reference amps and pre-amps I have never heard them.
Hmmmm Now lets see....Chevy, Marantz...I'm bias, Give me Miles by a small margin, I love Ella, to me there is no better female singer, Fed Astaire hands down.
frenchmon
-
Anyhow, people what about the question about the preamps and amps, does it need to have 7.1 with hdmi or does the dvd/cd player do the work? If that is the case I could buy an older amp correct?
-
Frenchmon, without a doubt the best high end shop in StL is Music For Pleasure. Unfortunately, no matter who you are in hi fi, if you want to stay in business you have to embrace the home theater market.
It would be interesting to hear the Steinway's. I have heard the $100k Dynaudio Evidence strapped to a pair of Krell 650 monoblocks and I can't say if they could reproduce the entrie pipe organ range because I have not heard one live but this system definitely hit lower bass regions beyond hearing and more into feeling. It was a strange sensation the bass frequencies felt on my insides. The speakers did concert level bass but better quality. A speaker needs to be in the right size room. I heard a pair of these later in a different room and I'm glad I had the first demo to remember because the second would have left me wondering why the price tag.
-
Snodog, even though the Blu-ray will decode 7.1 and send it via multichannel analog you will still need a preamp that has 7.1 analog inputs. HDMI is supposed to pass all the HD formats and technically in may be able to but according to the Dolby website no disc will allow this to happen and it's iffy whether they will. The movie soundtrack has to be encoded to allow the digital bitstream to pass by the internal DAC and let the receiver/preamp decode it. To avoid any pitfalls and be assured of best set up I'd recommend just going with the 7.1 analog. Blu-ray and HD-DVD discs still have the core Dolby Digital or DTS audio encoding so there really isn't any reason why you couldn't use an existing digital input except the sound quality would be inferior to the analog due to analog being uncompressed or at least less compressed.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
Frenchmon, without a doubt the best high end shop in StL is Music For Pleasure. Unfortunately, no matter who you are in hi fi, if you want to stay in business you have to embrace the home theater market.
It would be interesting to hear the Steinway's. I have heard the $100k Dynaudio Evidence strapped to a pair of Krell 650 monoblocks and I can't say if they could reproduce the entrie pipe organ range because I have not heard one live but this system definitely hit lower bass regions beyond hearing and more into feeling. It was a strange sensation the bass frequencies felt on my insides. The speakers did concert level bass but better quality. A speaker needs to be in the right size room. I heard a pair of these later in a different room and I'm glad I had the first demo to remember because the second would have left me wondering why the price tag.
Thanks Mr. P.
Those Steinway's looked wonderful. I'm sure they sound like all that, but I betcha a lots of the cost has a lot to do with the beauty of the speaker rather than the sound. I bet you could get just as great a sound out of speakers costing a lots less and just not as eye apealing.
frenchmon
-
I bet if we sat Melvin in front of a couple Martin Logan's like The Summits or Prodigy and drove them with some Conrad Johnson Premier separates and maybe a Audio Note digital playback, drop in Basie Live at the Sands 1966 or his favorite concerto, he'd have a smile on his face. This would be a pricey system but it would give him confidence that quality sound still exists and at least as good as yesteryear. Although my bet would be this system is better.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
I bet if we sat Melvin in front of a couple Martin Logan's..
Or other superb speakers from:
Apogee
Sonus Faber
Nola
Kharma
Avalon
Wilson
Magnepan
Quad
Innersound
Legacy Audio
Focal
Dali
Revel
Thiel
Bower & Wilkins
MBL
Rockport
King
and dozens of others far too many to list. There are so many good products on the market today!
rw
-
I picked ML's because of the huge sound stage. Some of those you mentioned might be good speakers but would fail to give you the feeling of being in front of the orchestra the way ML, Maggies or Apogees would. Don't you think?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Or other superb speakers from:
Apogee
Sonus Faber
Nola
Kharma
Avalon
Wilson
Magnepan
Quad
Innersound
Legacy Audio
Focal
Dali
Revel
Thiel
Bower & Wilkins
MBL
Rockport
King
and dozens of others far too many to list. There are so many good products on the market today!
rw
Quad and Thiel I have heard , I would lean more toward the Quad's. The speakers you listed leans more toward mid base and mid range. I will also add that sub woofers do a poor job of reproducing clean base.
One think to remember is that musical taste has changed. Most singers today are untrained , few sing with orchestras. Few singers today would dare sing standards , as they would be compared to earlier singers. I shutter when listening to singers today , most have poor breathing , very little range and phasing is completely lost.
I remember listening to Linda Ronstadt's trying to sing standards , Nelson Riddle did all he could using featured instruments and mass strings to cover up her vocal limitations.
Natalie Cole just did not have the range or ability to sing with Nat King Cole some of the standards he did earlier.
Since most of today's recording artist avoid standards , knowing that if compared to pre-1970 popular singers , Cole Sinatra , Como , Day . Wilson , etc, They would come off sounding terrible. An example when a concert pianist plays Chopin he is compared because those listening has heard Chopin played by others. Most of today's popular singers would make a fool of themselves trying to sing Cole Porters " Night and Day" or
Rogers and Hart's " My funny valentine " .
I hope you get my point.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
I picked ML's because of the huge sound stage. Some of those you mentioned might be good speakers but would fail to give you the feeling of being in front of the orchestra the way ML, Maggies or Apogees would. Don't you think?
Not necessarily. While I am clearly a dipole fan, I have never been so totally blown away as I have been hearing HP's Nola Grand Reference based systems since 2003. Ever hear something so incredible you just laugh out loud? That's the experience. I was really referring to Melvin's seeming lament as to what is available today. While each of us may well choose something different, there is so much really good stuff out there today.
Naturally, I would prefer hearing an array of Sound Lab Prostats. For my tastes, there is nothing like the timbral accuracy and utter coherency of full range stats. For the past two years, Ray Kimber has brought six pair or 922s (nine foot tall - 22 degree radiation angle) to RMAF in a four channel system. I would love to hear such an array!
http://gallery.audioasylum.com/cgi/g...f=IMG_1099.JPG
rw
-
What are standards Melvin? You really don't think anyone today is as good as singers or just not trained properly? How about Norah Jones? Wow you are a critical listener indeed.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
The speakers you listed leans more toward mid base and mid range.
That is simply not the case for many of those. Wilson Alexandrias or Nola Grand References lacking bass or top end? Surely you jest!
Quote:
Originally Posted by melvin walker
Since most of today's recording artist avoid standards...
Who said anything about Linda Ronstadt or current pop singers? I'm thinking large scale symphonic on labels like Classic, RR, Telarc, etc. No, I really don't get your point.
rw
-
If I might hijack a moment, is it better to bias tubes warm or right after turn on? I'm talking about existing tubes, no changes, just to be sure they are still in the zone.
|