• 12-27-2007, 09:05 AM
    frenchmon
    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
  • 12-27-2007, 09:16 AM
    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
  • 12-27-2007, 09:39 AM
    melvin walker
    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.
  • 12-27-2007, 09:43 AM
    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

    And I would have to agree

    frenchmon
  • 12-27-2007, 09:48 AM
    basite
    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.
  • 12-27-2007, 09:51 AM
    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.

    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
  • 12-27-2007, 09:51 AM
    melvin walker
    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.
  • 12-27-2007, 09:58 AM
    frenchmon
    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
  • 12-27-2007, 10:01 AM
    snodog
    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?
  • 12-27-2007, 10:06 AM
    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.
  • 12-27-2007, 10:22 AM
    Mr Peabody
    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.
  • 12-27-2007, 10:33 AM
    frenchmon
    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
  • 12-27-2007, 11:15 AM
    Mr Peabody
    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.
  • 12-27-2007, 03:07 PM
    E-Stat
    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
  • 12-27-2007, 03:33 PM
    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?
  • 12-27-2007, 03:59 PM
    melvin walker
    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.
  • 12-27-2007, 04:28 PM
    E-Stat
    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
  • 12-27-2007, 04:34 PM
    snodog
    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.
  • 12-27-2007, 04:35 PM
    E-Stat
    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
  • 12-27-2007, 05:02 PM
    Mr Peabody
    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.
  • 12-27-2007, 05:14 PM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    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.

    Definitely warm and fully stabilized. For serious listening or rebiasing, I wait about two hours. Even Nelson Pass waits thirty minutes for his SS amps.

    rw
  • 12-27-2007, 05:22 PM
    Mr Peabody
    This is one of those things newbies are shaking their heads at and saying another audiophile myth. You can definitely hear a tube system open up as it warms though. I'll let mine sit for a few minutes but go ahead and play music, I can tell when it starts to open up and it's fun to go back to the first couple tracks again to hear the difference. I really haven't heard any difference in solid state once broke in.
  • 12-27-2007, 05:40 PM
    melvin walker
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by E-Stat
    That is simply not the case for many of those. Wilson Alexandrias or Nola Grand References lacking bass or top end? Surely you jest!


    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

    There are several ways one can test one's audio equipment. A vocal , small jazz trio ,
    and an orchestra. The labels you referred to are they records or CO's ?
    Records generally have more definition than CD's. The European record labels generally do a much better job of pressing LP's.

    Linda Ronstadt recorded an LP with Nelson Riddle one of America's finest arrangers.
    Mr. Riddle did his finest work with Frank Sinatra and Nat King Cole. He also had several hit recording himself.
    The singer front and center with an orchestra accompaning him. Most of today's singers would have a problem with that. You should be able to hear Sinatra's voice tremble.

    A jazz trio playing a ballad , where you can hear the strings of the bass fiddle and the mellow tones of the grand piano in addition to the brush of the drums.
    Ie, Oscar Peterson Trio.

    Classical recordings of Beethoven's 9th Symphony , Rachmanoff Piano Concertos are
    Tchaikovsky symphonies. All done on an LP Pressed in Europe.
    We are not just looking for dynamics but also definition. There are no sounds more wonderful than the cords of a Steinway concert Grand.

    That is what audio equipment is all about. As close to being there as possible. One should first visit a concert hall , such as Powell Symphony Hall in St.Louis , Avery Fisher Hall in D.C. or Carnegie Hall in New York or any great symphony hall in America.
    One needs a reference to really know what outstanding sound is.
  • 12-27-2007, 05:56 PM
    bobsticks
    http://www.safehaven.com/article-1458.htm

    Here's an interesting article on cpi calculation manipulation which covers what we all already know to be true--that it ain't easy out there. Given a finite amount of money for the individual, and that finite amount being pulled toward new priorities and escalating taxes, it's easy to agree that true "hi-fi" is certainly not for everybody. But was it ever?

    I would however seek to contradict the posit that there is no affordable quality gear out there. My first recollections of serious audio reproduction were on my grandfather's Marantz and Bozak setup...a magical and wonderous warmth. Having experienced that and some modern gear I think it's clear that today's transducers and digital and certainly analog machinations tend to be much more accurate, even the "mid-priced ones".

    I think it's more reasonable to lament the very real fact that in today's fast-paced, immediate gratification world fewer and fewer folks take the time to properly calibrate a system and work toward synergy within a room. How many times have you looked at the Audiogon gallery and seen a set of 30k rear-ported speaks shoved up against a wall in a room more befitting an spread in Architectural Digest than Stereophile? Happens in the showrooms too.

    Combine that with the recording industry's purposeful corruption of the very sources that we use and it's no surprise that in a lot of situations things sound bad. But, still, it's out there, you just have look at other avenues (like E-Stat suggested the Telarcs of the world).

    As an aside, I've owned both an Audemars Piguet and a Breitling and they were both some of the poorest designed, worst implemented excuses for a "timepiece" ever. But, that's just me. I'm also of a mind that if I ever spent 50k---for that matter 5k---on equipment just to impress my peers that I'd have to haul myself outside and kick my own ass.
  • 12-27-2007, 05:59 PM
    snodog
    Hey PEABODY,
    If I did decide to wait a while and go with the Outlaw 7075 and 970 combo would that work out for audio and video? The dvi can be remedied via a dvi to hdmi cable which I used on my old mits tv when I had it. Is that not the best one to get for theatre and music? What do you think? I am probably not going to spend over $1000 so I want to make sure I take my time and get the right piece. Or do you think the Onkyo 705 for around $700 would be better suited for a multipurpose piece?